URBAN & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REPORT · URBAN & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REPORT JOB NO 14-SES ... resolve the existing parking and access issues, respond to the coastal frontage and

C

HASEC

ROW

N | UPDATED AUG

UST 2016

URBAN & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REPORT

JOB NO 14-SES

PROJECT SOUTH ESPLANADE MULTI-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

ADDRESS 7 & 8 SOUTH ESPLANADE GLENELG

REVISION E

Alex

Alex

Alex

PAGE | 2

CH

ASECRO

WN

| UPDATED AUGUST 2016

CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND

The Site

Owners

Current Condition

Site Potential

Influences

2.0 URBAN DESIGN

Plan Overview

Plan Principles

General Design Structure

Immediate Context

Accessibility / Connections

Open Space / Landscape

Car Parking

Heritage / Adaptability

Identity

View Corridors / Vistas

3.0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

Design Principles

Built Form Height / Density

Accommodation Diversity / Amenity

Architectural Expression / Materials

Sustainability

PAGE | 3

CH

ASECRO

WN


1.0 BACKGROUND THE S ITE The site is located at 7 & 8 South Esplanade Glenelg. South Esplanade, Glenelg is acknowledged as one of Adelaide’s premier coastal addresses. Originally consisting of Adelaide’s grandest beach mansions, it has changed over the years to predominately consist of high-density apartment living and short-term accommodation, particularly the section from Jetty Road to Pier Street. Jetty Road is a significant Adelaide urban activity centre falling on the Glenelg Tram transit corridor. The Glenelg light rail line has been highlighted in the 30-year plan for greater Adelaide as a transit oriented development (TOD) opportunity zone with Jetty Road Glenelg a TOD activity centre.

7 & 8 South Esplanade is within 200 metres of the Mosley Square tram station. The site’s sea frontage, proximity to tram and bus infrastructure and other urban assets underscores its significant urban value. Very limited opportunities exist in this precinct for further site amalgamations and urban intensification.

PAGE | 4

CH

ASECRO

WN


The northern portion of the site contains a fine example of a Victorian semi detached dwelling originally built for Sir Thomas Elder in 1875. It is currently known as Seafield Tower and is used for short-term accommodation by Australian National Institute (ANI) members.

Historic photo Seafield Tower

Over the years significant and inappropriate modifications and additions have been made to the historic building including walling-in the ornate and expansive front balcony and side entry portico. Around the 1970’s a two-storey brick flat building was constructed along side Seafield Tower to expand accommodation for ANI members. Its presents as a blank two-storey wall to the South Esplanade significantly diminishing the presence of Seafield Tower. 8 South Esplanade (now closed for trading) contains La Mancha short-term holiday accommodation. The three-storey building containing 15 units is built on the boundary of 7 South Esplanade and the promenade.

PAGE | 5

CH

ASECRO

WN


The s i te f rom South Esplanade The amalgamated site area is in the order of 2650m2, with duel street frontage to South Esplanade of approximately 48 metres and rear access from St Johns Row. All vehicle access to the properties is off St Johns Row with South Esplanade a pedestrian only street. There is an undersupply of car parking servicing the sites and the current car park layout and egress does not comply with AS 2890 Parking Facilities.

Aer ia l v iew of the s i te

PAGE | 6

CH

ASECRO

WN


OWNERS The owners of 7 South Esplanade, Glenelg (Lots 106 &107), Australian National Institute (ANI) engaged Chasecrown to investigate the potential for the site’s upgrade and potential development. Aside from the intrinsic value of the site due to its proximity to a complete array of urban assets, the prospect of a site amalgamation with 8 South Esplanade added further potential for a significant residential development. ANI was established after three government railway systems amalgamated in 1975. These were Commonwealth Railways, South Australian Railways and Tasmanian Government Railways. Each of these railway systems having a Railway Institute to cater for the social and recreational needs of their employees. In 1996 a year prior to the wind-up of the Australian National the members Australian National Institute arranged to purchase various properties used by the Institute and owned by Australian National in South Australia in order to continue providing services to its members after the demise of Australian National. As part of this property settlement these two parcels of land at Glenelg that had been used by railway institute members for holiday accommodation since the 1950’s were acquired in order to continue this major service to the membership. ANI has recognised the need to improve this property in order to cater for the changing expectations of the membership in current times. This is coupled with the need to release financial resources to fund other regional community projects centred around Pt. Augusta. 8 South Esplanade has been acquired to form part of the site amalgamation. CURRENT CONDIT ION The combined sites contain 3 buildings, state heritage listed Seafield tower, a two story 1970’s brick flat roofed brick building and a 3 story short accommodation building built on the South Esplanade boundary. All three buildings currently provided short-term accommodation to ANI members and the general public. 7 South Esp lanade - Seaf ie ld Tower A state heritage listed Victorian stone building constructed in 1875 for Sir Thomas Elder as a beach house. It currently contains 10 one bed and 1 two bed short-term accommodation units for ANI members. It is in a degraded state of repair with multiple inappropriate additions and interventions.

Seafield Tower from South Esplanade

7 South Esp lanade - 1970’s Br ick Bu i ld ing A modest two storey flat building probably construction in the 1970’s containing 4 one bed and 2 two bed short-term accommodation units for ANI members. It is in a poor state of repair with subgrade interiors. This building seriously degrades the South Esplanade promenade.

PAGE | 7

CH

ASECRO

WN


1970’s building from South Esplanade

8 South Esp lanade - La Mancha Hol iday accommodat ion A modified three-storey building built on the South Esplanade boundary incorporating 5 one bed and 10 two bed short-term accommodation units. The original building has been extensively modified and is in fair condition.

La Mancha building from South Esplanade

8 South Esp lanade - Car Park ing There are a combined total of 22 spaces provided for all three buildings. Egress from the La Mancha car park is in a dangerous reversing motion onto St Johns Row.

Dangerous reverse egress from La Mancha car park

PAGE | 8

CH

ASECRO

WN


SITE POTENTIAL

After speaking to numerous real estate professionals, there was a general consensus that there exists a high demand for residential accommodation, particularly in this stretch of the South Esplanade. Excellent accessibility to views, beach, public spaces, Jetty road services and facilities and the South Esplanade pedestrian environment are seen as key benefits. The proposal will comprise the amalgamation of two sites 7 and 8 South Esplanade, Glenelg creating an effective site area of some 1860m2. The site also has a duel street frontage that adds significant value both in terms of access and building form. This precinct contains numerous existing buildings, constructed in various periods that vary from 5 to 14 storeys in height. 7 & 8 South Esplanade Glenelg South falls in the Residential High Density zone, Urban Glenelg Policy Area 15, Precinct Map 5 twelve storey.

Existing South Esplanade buildings 10 storeys and over in the immediate vicinity (precinct 4)

Taking all these aspects into account we believe a premium innovative and sustainable mid-rise residential apartment building, 12 storeys in height containing 63 apartments is well suited to the site in urban design and planning terms. Coupled with the restoration and upgrade of Seafield Tower the project will have an estimated project end value in the order of $50m. In summary the broader benefits of the proposal include:

1. Release financial resources from ANI property assets to contribute to community facilities in Port Augusta whilst retaining refurbished and new accommodation on the site for ANI members. 2. The appropriate restoration and repair of state heritage listed Seafield Tower. 3. Design of the proposed building to reinforce the importance of the South Esplanade Boulevard and Seafield Tower and reinforce the identity of the unique beach location. 4. Construction of a sustainable residential building, providing a diverse range of accommodation types responding to current and future demographic trends and the locational costal environment and climate. 6. Make full use and take advantage of the abundant infrastructure the precinct offers. 7. Provide adequate resident and visitor parking for the proposal that will address current parking and egress deficiencies on St Johns Row. 8. Create jobs and significant economic activity for the state.

PAGE | 9

CH

ASECRO

WN


INFLUENCES The SA State Government’s 30 year plan for Adelaide talks on a platform of long term prosperity and sustainability based on significantly increasing housing densities close to public transport networks enabling the creation of well connected and safe residential precincts allowing residents to work, shop and access services closer to where they live. Utilisation of existing infrastructure and reducing the reliance on motor vehicles is key to this goal. Transit oriented developments represent the critical land use arrangements to achieve a more compact efficient and liveable region.

Source: The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide The Glenelg tramline has been long identified as an existing transit corridor that is ideal for major residential infill transit oriented development. Centring urban consolidation on transit stations will be paramount in achieving the following potential benefits:

• Affordability • Dampen demand for cars • Create more vibrant neighbourhoods • Relive pressure on urban growth boundary • Walkable neighbourhoods • Housing close to jobs transport and services • People living in the best places near parklands waterways and vibrant centres

PAGE | 10

CH

ASECRO

WN


2.0 URBAN DESIGN PLAN OVERVIEW To create a diversity of contemporary residential accommodation that incorporates sustainable design initiatives, and responds to the sites significant coastal location and historically important neighbour Seafield Tower. On assessment of the current urban condition and taking into account heritage, landscape and traffic the proposal contemplates a new building and connective spaces that more strongly reinforce the relationship with Seafield Tower, resolve the existing parking and access issues, respond to the coastal frontage and Jimmy Melrose park, create and attractive interface with St Johns Row and “democratise” the space between Seafield Tower and the proposed building supporting pedestrian linkages and connections between South Esplanade, St Johns Row and the site. PLAN PRINCIPLES

1. Reinforce the importance of the South Esplanade as Adelaide’s premier coastal address. 2. Open up views into Seafield Tower from the South Esplanade. 3. Realign the proposed building to reinforce setback patterns along South Esplanade. 4. Create a respectful yet dynamic interface between Seafield Tower and the proposed building 5. Significantly improve car parking and access / egress conditions onto St Johns Row. 6. Create an attractive interface with St Johns Row and provide view through to the beach. 7. Capitalise on the sites northern aspect over Seafield Tower. 8. Create a pleasant pedestrian linkage between St Johns Row and South Esplanade. 9. Increase the front and side setback from the southern boundary opening up the northern aspect to

the outdoor areas of the neighbouring apartment building. 10. Create a building and landscape interface that interacts with the public spaces (Jimmy Melrose park

and sitting area) on South Esplanade. 11. Linking the height of the proposed building to existing neighbouring tall buildings.

PAGE | 11

CH

ASECRO

WN


GENERAL DESIGN STRUCTURE The master plan in essence looks to protect and enhance heritage while creating and reinforcing identity within the context of amalgamating valuable urban sites to create responsible residential density. The proposed building seeks predominately to strengthen the South Esplanade Boulevard as a premium residential address by inserting a landmark residential building that reflects 21st century lifestyles, attitudes to environment and urban responsibility.

• IMMEDIATE CONTEXT – INTERFACE BETWEEN SEAFIELD TOWER AND THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

The master plan creates a pedestrian link between South Esplanade and St Johns Row that incorporates significant space between the proposed building and Seafield Tower. This space importantly allows views into Seafield Tower and gives residents a pleasant link between St Johns Row and the beach. The owners of Seafield Tower are committed to providing the resources to upgrade and restore the State Heritage Building appropriately, providing a substantial heritage asset to the State.

• ACCESSIBILITY / CONNECTIONS Pedestrian access between South Esplanade and St Johns Row. This important link provides:

- Pleasant and safe access for the owners to and from the beach (South Esplanade) and St Johns Row.

- Pleasant and safe access for the surrounding residents (predominately those from St Johns Row) to and from the beach

Direct access to and from the visitor car parks into both the proposed building and Seafield Tower.

-Vehicle access Create an underground car park to service residents of the proposed building. Create a visitors parking area to service both the proposed building and Seafield tower. Ensure access and egress to and from the site complies with AS 2890. -The site has access to both tram and bus infrastructure within 200m. -South Esplanade is on the cycling link – bicycle-parking provisions will be provided on South Esplanade. -South Esplanade is extensively used by walkers and runners for fitness and leisure.

• OPEN SPACE / LANDSCAPE

The site has excellent accessibility to multiple open spaces including, Jimmy Melrose Park, Glenelg Beach, Colley and Wigley reserves. In terms of the proposal itself the creation of a landscaped pedestrian link and urban space between the buildings is the key to opening up views into Seafield Tower.

• CAR PARKING

The car parking strategy provides both basement and at grade parking. The parking has been arranged to allow easy access to and from the site. Visitor parking is well connected to the building entrances and avoids conflict with the pedestrian link Car parking meets the Holdfast Bay development plan requirements. (See Appendix 1)

• HERITAGE / ADAPTIBILITY

Seafield Tower has multiple inappropriate interventions and is in need of repair and restorative works. The aim of the owners is to faithfully restore and repair the building creating six apartments, 3 on each of the levels. A Heritage Architect will be engaged to assist with details regarding the restorative and repair works.

• IDENTITY

Create a unique and contextual relationship with its coastal location by emphasising movement (water) in the proposed building and exterior areas. It is hoped this sense of movement will connect the building to its beach location reinforcing sense of place and identity. Sculpture and water features will be commissioned to enhance the relationship between the site and the location.

PAGE | 12

CH

ASECRO

WN


• VIEW CORRIDORS / VISTAS The aims of the proposal are to: -Increase views into and around Seafield Tower from the South Esplanade. -Create a mutually beneficial relationship between Seafield Tower and the proposed building through provision of the view corridor. -Create a visual connection to the beach from St Johns Row through the site.

PAGE | 13

CH

ASECRO

WN


3.0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DESIGN PRINCIPLES To create a diversity of contemporary residential accommodation that incorporates sustainable design initiatives, responding to its significant coastal location and adjacency to historic Seafield tower. 3 key design considerations include:

• Podium design – creating a scale relationship to Seafield Tower. • Southern neighbour (apartment building) setbacks and height. • Overall building height relationship to other tall buildings in the immediate precinct.

The building has two main components - the podium and the tower. The podium height is set to provide a height relationship with Seafield Tower. The solid to void ratio, detail and colour are designed to create a dialogue between the two. The tower is predominately glass promoting transparency with extensive balconies providing outdoor areas and shading. The form is contemporary with cues relating to its coastal location. Fluidity and movement through changing floor plates and external detailing are a response to the buildings coastal location. The east facade of the building has a considerable set back from the St Johns Row and its lower scale neighbours and incorporates extensive green walls and roof and balcony gardens to soften the buildings appearance. The scale of the built form abutting St John Row is proportionate with its neighbours. The accommodation reflects contemporary residential needs with a variety of designs in one, two and three bedroom formats and large outdoor balcony spaces reflecting our climate and lifestyle. The ground floor contains the semi public spaces allowing good visual permeability and surveillance to South Esplanade.

PAGE | 14

CH

ASECRO

WN


BUILT FORM HEIGHT / DENSITY

This immediate precinct from Mosley Square to Pier street consists predominately of high-density apartment buildings ranging in height up to 14 storeys. The amalgamated site falls with The City of holdfast Bay’s residential high density zone, policy area 15 Urban Glenelg, Precinct Map 5, twelve storey. This precinct contains existing buildings that are 10 and 12 storeys in height. Thus the buildings proposed 12-storey height is in keeping with the other tall buildings in the precinct with a maximum height of 43m. ACCOMODATION DIVERSITY / AMENITY A range of accommodation types will be provided including 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms apartments reflecting contemporary lifestyles. Car and bicycle parking will be provided for each dwelling meeting Holdfast Bay development plan requirements. The apartments will be serviced by range of communal areas including outdoor garden, pool, and gym and sitting areas. Apartment and balcony sizes exceed those set by the NSW SEPP 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development) and Holdfast Bay development plan requirements. (See Appendix 1) The proposed building will contain:

• 63 Apartments o 15 one bedroom o 36 two bedroom o 12 three bedroom

• Communal outdoor garden • Indoor swimming pool • Gymnasium • Storage • Entrance and sitting areas • Basement and on-ground car parks

ARCHITECTURAL EXPRESSION / MATERIALS The podium is scaled to relate directly to Seafield tower. The concrete finishes relate to rendered masonry and a variety of natural colourings found in the bluestone walls of Seafield Tower will weave through the podium. The stepped capital and inverted arched supports are a play on the details in Seafield Tower. The tower containing most of the apartments is primarily glass to both reduce the mass of the building through transparency whilst maximising views with large protruding balcony elements providing the duel benefit of shade and useable outdoor areas. The balcony balustrade is profiled and varied to reflect the movement in the overall building form. The tower incorporates varying floor plates through the buildings height occasioning further movement through the structure. SUSTAINABIL ITY The schematic design incorporates a series of sustainable design features and initiatives. It is intended that through the detailed design and construction process the building will be evaluated through Green Star environmental performance standards.

PAGE | 15

CH

ASECRO

WN


Green Star evaluates building design across the following categories:

• Management • Indoor Environment Quality • Energy • Transport • Water • Materials • Land Use & Ecology • Emissions • Innovation

Sustainability is underpinned by the core belief that density as opposed to sprawl is the best way to address population growth. Tall residential buildings represent a sustainable model for future development whereby public transport is encouraged land is conserved and energy and water uses are reduced. The Glenelg tramline has been long identified as an existing transit corridor that is ideal for major residential infill, transit oriented development. Centring urban consolidation on transit stations is paramount in achieving, affordability, dampen the demand for cars, create more vibrant neighbourhoods and relive pressure on the urban growth boundary.

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG SA

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN INTENT REPORT

August 2016

BRINGING BUILDINGS TO LIFE

Ecologically Sustainable Design Intent Report Mechanical, Electrical, Vertical Transportation, Hydraulic and Fire Protection Services

55152/0/0 I August 2016 87980

REPORT ISSUE REGISTER

REVISION DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION

01 10.03.2016 Preliminary Issue

02 15.08.2016 Final Issue


CONTENTS PAGE

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Ecologically Sustainable Design ......................................................................... 2

Management ............................................................................................................ 2

Commissioning and tuning ...................................................................................... 2

Building Information ................................................................................................. 2

Commitment to Performance ................................................................................... 2

Metering and Monitoring .......................................................................................... 2

Construction Environmental Management ............................................................. 2

Indoor Environment Quality ................................................................................... 3

Indoor Air Quality...................................................................................................... 3

Acoustic Comfort ...................................................................................................... 3

Lighting Comfort ....................................................................................................... 3

Visual Comfort .......................................................................................................... 3

Energy ...................................................................................................................... 4

NatHERS compliance ............................................................................................... 4

Transport ................................................................................................................. 4

Sustainable Transport .............................................................................................. 4

Water ........................................................................................................................ 4

Potable Water ............................................................................................................ 4

Materials .................................................................................................................. 4

Responsible Building Materials ............................................................................... 4

Land Use and Ecology ........................................................................................... 5

Ecological Value ....................................................................................................... 5

Emissions ................................................................................................................ 5

Stormwater ................................................................................................................ 5

Light Pollution ........................................................................................................... 5

Refrigerant Impacts .................................................................................................. 5

Building Services .................................................................................................... 5

Mechanical Services ................................................................................................. 5

Electrical Services .................................................................................................... 5

Vertical Transportation Services ............................................................................. 6

Hydraulic Services .................................................................................................... 6

Fire Protection Services ........................................................................................... 6


55152/0/0 1 August 2016 87980

Introduction The following report outlines the proposed Ecologically Sustainable Design (ESD) design initiatives for consideration for the above development. The proposed building and all associated services will be designed to achieve high outcomes in relation to Ecological Sustainable Development. These will incorporate emphasis on the reduction of energy through passive and active design initiatives, reduction of potable water use, high indoor environment quality, low VOC materials and finishes, access to natural light and provision of natural ventilation opportunities.


55152/0/0 2 August 2016 87980

Ecologically Sustainable Design The following Ecologically Sustainable Design (ESD) Initiatives are proposed for incorporation into the building design for the development.

Management

Commissioning and tuning Initiatives include:-

Review of the building systems for commissionability, controllability, maintainability, operability and safety during design and prior to construction.

Implementation of a building commissioning plan to ensure compliance with the design specification and “fit for purpose” operation.

Building Information Initiatives include:-

Provision of comprehensive electronic Operations and Maintenance manuals and a Building Log Book to ensure all relevant information is available to the facilities management team post-construction.

Provision of Building User Information guides for each of the major building systems, with access via a web portal for end users.

Commitment to Performance Initiatives include:-

Commitment to End of Life waste performance, including extending the life of the finishes to all common areas to at least 10 years (barring minor wear and tear).

Metering and Monitoring Initiatives include:-

Metering of major energy usages (electricity and natural gas) within the building.

Metering of major water usages within the building.

Construction Environmental Management Initiatives include:-

Provision of site specific operational waste management systems, including separation of waste streams, a dedicated waste storage area, and access to the waste storage area.

Provision of space in apartment kitchens for source separation of waste streams.


55152/0/0 3 August 2016 87980

Indoor Environment Quality

Indoor Air Quality Initiatives include:-

Provision of ventilation systems that minimise ingress of outdoor air pollutants into the building, are easy and safe to maintain and clean, and clean prior to occupation of the building.

Provision of mechanical ventilation to common area air conditioning systems at a rate 50% greater than the minimum standard to the ground floor only.

Provision of exhaust systems to exhaust pollutants directly to the outside and minimise contaminants to building occupants and users.

Provision of natural crossflow ventilation to serve apartment corridors in lieu of air conditioning systems.

Acoustic Comfort Initiatives include:-

Acoustic assessment of the building to ensure maintenance of indoor noise levels that are no more than 5dB(A) above “satisfactory” levels in AS/NZS 2107:2000.

Acoustic assessment of the building to ensure maintenance of reverberation times that do not exceed the maximum levels in AS/NZS 2107:2000.

Acoustic assessment of the building to ensure partitions between apartments, common areas, lobbies and the like achieve a weighted sound reduction index of at least 45.

Lighting Comfort Initiatives include:-

Provision of high efficiency LED fittings to ensure minimum lighting comfort.

Provision of general fixed lighting with the apartments that provide good maintained illuminance values for each room and glare reduction in accordance with AS1680.1:2006.

Provision of lighting design to improve uniformity of lighting for visual interest in apartments, including at least one wall-washing or wall-mounted light fitting within each apartment living space, kitchen and bedroom.

Provision of localised lighting control via local light switches and power outlets for task lights/lamps.

Provision of a high level of day light penetration into common area spaces throughout to improve the well-being of the occupants.

Visual Comfort Initiatives include:-

Allowance within the design and construction for provision of blinds or shading devices within apartment living areas and bedrooms.

Provision of facade design that encourages high levels of day light penetration and views to outside while mitigating solar heat gain and glare in summer through the use of external shading.


55152/0/0 4 August 2016 87980

Energy

NatHERS compliance Initiatives include:-

Compliance with NatHERS rating requirements including minimum apartment 5 star rating and average 6 star rating collectively.

Provision of on-site energy generation systems (such as solar photovoltaics) that reduce the total peak electricity demand by at least 15%.

Provision of energy efficient glazing to serve apartments and common areas.

Transport

Sustainable Transport Initiatives include:-

Provision of parking spaces dedicated to small cars, hybrid cars and other fuel efficient vehicles to encourage the use of fuel efficient transport alternatives and contribute to minimising greenhouse gas emissions.

Provision of bicycle storage facilities to encourage and promote the use of bicycles by occupants and visitors.

Water

Potable Water Initiatives include:-

Provision of water efficient sanitary and tap ware fixtures and fittings in accordance with Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS).

Implementation of rainwater harvesting and storage system for landscape irrigation.

Recycling of fire protection services pumps flow test water back into the fire water storage tanks to minimise water wastage.

Materials

Responsible Building Materials Initiatives include:-

Provision of dedicated recycling waste storage area for the segregation of waste products to maximise recycling opportunities and minimise waste sent to landfill.

Selection of timber materials sourced from certified environmentally responsible managed forests.

Selection of paints, sealants and finishes with low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content to minimise off-gassing and associated potential adverse health effects.

Selection of composite engineered wood products with low formaldehyde content, again to minimise off-gassing and associated potential adverse health effects.


55152/0/0 5 August 2016 87980

Land Use and Ecology

Ecological Value Initiatives include:-

Provision of landscaping incorporating vegetation to improve the ecological value (by area) of the site (compared to existing) by a minimum of 20%.

Emissions

Stormwater Initiatives include:-

Reducing peak stormwater flows and contamination of the waterways through the introduction of pollutant traps and flow management practices.

Light Pollution Initiatives include:-

Reducing light pollution by limiting the use of light sources which are directed towards the sky and spill into adjacent areas surrounding the site.

Refrigerant Impacts Initiatives include:-

The use of refrigerants with zero ODP to minimise impact on the ozone layer through accidental leakage

Building Services The following Mechanical, Electrical, Vertical Transportation, Hydraulic and Fire Protection Services initiatives are proposed for incorporation into the building design for the development.

Mechanical Services Initiatives include:-

High efficiency inverter type reverse cycle air conditioning systems to serve each apartment.

100% outside air energy recovery type packaged air conditioning to serve the pool and gymnasium.

Carbon monoxide monitoring to control the basement carpark ventilation system.

Electrical Services Initiatives include:-

Provision of a high efficiency LED lighting throughout all areas targeting 5W/m² in open plan and common areas.

Provision of lighting control switches to apartments to enable isolation of lights and air conditioning upon departure.


55152/0/0 6 August 2016 87980

Building lighting control system to provide motion detection and daylighting controls to luminaires within common area corridors and amenities. Lighting circuits to be zoned to suit functional spaces and incorporate time scheduling.

External lighting systems controlled by time clock and photocell and incorporating high efficiency luminaires (>65 lumens/watt).

Provision of submetering to Landlord common areas and substantive base building loads for energy management and control.

Provision of photovoltaic (PV) panels to supply energy for common area usage.

Vertical Transportation Services Initiatives include:-

Permanent magnetic synchronous motors with solid state variable speed drives to minimise energy consumption.

Regenerative drives to recover energy during braking and return it to the building’s power grid for use elsewhere.

Timer systems on lift car lights and fans to shut them off when the lifts are idle.

LED lighting in the lift cars to minimise energy consumption.

Hydraulic Services Initiatives include:-

Provision of water efficient sanitary and tap ware fixtures and fittings in accordance with Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS).

Provision of 4.5/3 litre dual flush water efficient WC suites

Natural gas fired domestic hot water plant to serve apartments and common areas.

Natural gas fired solar boosted hot water plant to serve the pool (by pool contractor).

Forced circulation domestic hot water flow and return pipe work loop to prevent long draw off times at fixtures and subsequent water and energy wastage.

Thermal insulation of all main domestic hot water flow and return pipe work.

Water sub-metering to all units and to base building plant and equipment for water and energy consumption management and control.

Fire Protection Services Initiatives include:-

Recycling of fire protection services fire pumps flow test water back into the fire water storage tanks to minimise water wastage. This will equal to a portable water saving of approximately 5000 litres every 3 years.

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES DESIGN REPORT

MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL,

VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION, HYDRAULIC AND FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

April 2016


8 South Esplanade, Glenelg, SA Services Design Report Mechanical, Electrical, Vertical Transportation, Hydraulic and Fire Protection Services

REPORT ISSUE REGISTER


01 07.04.16 Draft Issue

55152/0/0 I April 2016 88315


CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 2

Mechanical Services ............................................................................................... 2

Electrical Services .................................................................................................. 2

Vertical Transportation Services ........................................................................... 3

Hydraulic Services .................................................................................................. 3

Fire Protection Services ......................................................................................... 4

55152/0/0 I April 2016 88315


Introduction The following report outlines the proposed infrastructure and plant arrangement for the Mechanical, Electrical, Vertical Transportation, Hydraulic and Fire Protections Services for the above development.

55152/0/0 1 April 2016 88315


Infrastructure The following infrastructure and plant arrangement has been proposed for the Mechanical, Electrical, Vertical Transportation, Hydraulic and Fire Protection Services for the above development. Mechanical Services • Air conditioning incorporating air cooled, reverse cycle, inverter ducted type air conditioning systems

to serve each apartment. Condensing units located in the carpark, Level 6 and/or roof level. • Air conditioning incorporating air cooled, reverse cycle, split ducted type air conditioning units to serve

common area. Condensing units located in the carpark area. • Toilet exhaust system serving each apartment comprising concealed exhaust fan and associated

ductwork exhausting through the external wall of each apartment. • Domestic type range hood including booster fan and ductwork to the kitchen in each apartment and

discharging through the external wall of each apartment. • General exhaust system serving ground level waste room and garbage chute. • Stair pressurisation and relief systems incorporating roof mounted fans and associated air

distribution. • Ventilation system serving ground floor loading dock and carpark levels comprising exhaust fans and

associated air distribution ductwork, grilles and external louvres. • Ventilation system serving the fire pump room comprising exhaust fan and natural ventilation make-

up air, associated air distribution ductwork, grilles and external louvres. Electrical Services • The new building will include a new low voltage supply from the SA Power Networks which includes

an on-site pad mounted transformer. The SA Power Networks pad mounted transformer will be located within a dedicated transformer enclosure located on ground floor.

• A site main switchboard will be located within a dedicated main switch room. The site main

switchboard will incorporate fire and life safety services, retailer metering for landlord and retail tenancies, supplies to landlord distribution boards and apartment load centres.

• Landlord distribution boards will be provided to serve the common area power and lighting

throughout. • A dedicated communications room will be located on the ground floor. This room will incorporate the

NBN Fibre Distribution Hub for termination of telecommunications lead-in services and the building security head end equipment.

• Communications/Security/MATV Riser Cupboards are located on each floor of the building to house

NBN termination units, security control equipment, MATV distribution equipment and rising cabling services.

• Telephone, internet and communication services will be provided to each apartment via the NBN Co

Network Termination Device (NTD) unit. Each apartment NTD will be connected to the NBN Co fibre network via the respective floor Communications/Security/MATV Riser Cupboard.

55152/0/0 2 April 2016 88315


Vertical Transportation Services • Two gearless machine-room-less traction passenger lifts will be provided serving lower basement,

basement, ground floor and levels 1 to 11 with entrance on single side only at all levels. • Lift cars are sized to meet minimum disability access requirements, stretcher facilities and to

accommodate furniture removals. Hydraulic Services • Sewer drainage from the building will be provided via a 150mm diameter connection to the South

Australian Water Corporation owned sewer main in St Johns Row. • Domestic cold water will be delivered to the building via connection of 2 off 50mm diameter South

Australian Water Corporation water meters to the authority owned water main in St Johns Row.

• Natural gas will be delivered to the building via an Australian Pipeline Authority (APA) Group owned gas meter connected to the authority owned high pressure main in St Johns Row.

• Sewer drainage from the building will be via the fully vented modified system of plumbing drainage and shall be unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (uPVC) in material.

• Domestic cold water will reticulate under mains pressure to a 10,000 litre storage tank and pressure pump set located in a dedicated tank and pump room at ground floor. From this tank and pump set water will be pressurised throughout the building serving each apartment.

• Natural gas will be reticulated to each apartment to provide gas supply to cooktops and balcony barbeque connections. Natural gas usage within apartments will be unmetered with costs recovered equally to all apartment owners through strata fees.

• A natural gas fired instantaneous type domestic hot water plant will be located in a dedicated hot water service room at ground floor. The hot water plant will be modular in design such that burners can be removed and replaced without affecting the entire system.

• A forced circulation domestic hot water flow and return pipe work system will reticulate hot water

throughout the building. The flow and return pipe circuit will prevent long draw off times at fixtures thus reducing water and energy wastage.

• Both domestic cold and hot water usage will be metered within each apartment. Water meters will be read wirelessly without the need to enter each apartment. Domestic hot water usage will be used to apportion gas usage costs.

• Apartments shall be fitted with high quality commercial grade sanitaryware and tapware in accordance with Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) guidelines.

• A natural gas fired, solar boosted pool heating system will provide pool water heating for the indoor swimming pool located at ground floor. Solar heat boosting provided via solar panels installed at roof level will reduce operating costs by decreasing the gas demand of the pool heating system. The swimming pool heating shall be designed by a specialist swimming pool designer.

• Sewer drainage from the lower carpark level garbage rooms will be provided via a sewer ejector pump station and rising main.

• Stormwater drainage from the carpark levels will be provided via a stormwater ejector pump station and rising main.

• Stormwater downpipe shall extend from roof level to ground floor level for connection and discharge off site as part of Civil Engineering works.

55152/0/0 3 April 2016 88315


Fire Protection Services • A 100mm diameter fire service connection to the 100mm diameter South Australian Water

Corporation town main within St Johns Row will supply make-up water to the Fire Protection Services water storage tanks.

• 2 off 25,000 litres effective capacity water storage tanks (50,000 litres total capacity) and 2 off diesel

driven fire pumps serving the combined fire sprinkler and fire hydrant system will be provided. • A South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service (SAMFS) suction and booster assembly will be located

on the St Johns Row frontage of the site. The equipment will be contained in a separate enclosure, directly accessible from St Johns Row.

• A Fire Indicator Panel and Master Evacuation Control Panel (MECP) shall be located within the

ground floor lobby. • Combined fire sprinkler and fire hydrant system riser infrastructure will comprise riser mains in each

fire stair. The risers will be interconnected at upper and lower levels to create a ring main.

• Fire hydrants will be provided at each level within each fire egress stair.

• Fire sprinkler system control valves will be located at each level, within the eastern fire egress stair.

55152/0/0 4 April 2016 88315

Chasecrown

8 Esplanade South, Glenelg

Waste Management Plan

July 2016

ABN 59 127 176 569 PO Box 1159, Glenelg South SA 5045 Ph: +61 8 8294 5571 rawtec.com.au

http://www.rawtec.com.au/

- IMPORTANT NOTES-

This document has been prepared by Rawtec Pty Ltd (Rawtec) for a specific purpose and client (as named in this

document) and is intended to be used solely for that purpose by that client.

The information contained within this document is based upon sources, experimentation and methodology which

at the time of preparing this document were believed to be reasonably reliable and the accuracy of this information

subsequent to this date may not necessarily be valid. This information is not to be relied upon or extrapolated

beyond its intended purpose by the client or a third party unless it is confirmed in writing by Rawtec that it is

permissible and appropriate to do so.

Unless expressly provided in this document, no part of this document may be reproduced or copied in any form or

by any means without the prior written consent of Rawtec or the client.

The information in this document may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of

this document (or parts thereof), or do not have permission from Rawtec or the client for access to it, please

immediately notify Rawtec or the client and destroy the document (or parts thereof).

This document, parts thereof or the information contained therein must not be used in a misleading, deceptive,

defamatory or inaccurate manner or in any way that may otherwise be prejudicial to Rawtec, including without

limitation, in order to imply that Rawtec has endorsed a particular product or service.

Document verification

Date Version Title Prepared by Approved by

10/03/2016 Draft Chasecrown - 8 Esplanade South Glenelg WMP

Kat Heinrich, Jarvis Webb & Mark Rawson Mark Rawson

22/07/2016 Final Chasecrown - 8 Esplanade South Glenelg WMP Jarvis Webb & Mark Rawson Mark Rawson

Chasecrown: 8 South Esplanade Development – Waste Management Plan

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 What this WMP contains ......................................................................................................... 3

1.3 WMP Status ............................................................................................................................ 4

1.4 Important Note......................................................................................................................... 4

Description of the Development ...................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Land Uses & Occupancy Data ................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Site Requirements ................................................................................................................... 5

Design Approach & Assumptions.................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Overarching Approach ............................................................................................................ 6

3.2 Estimating Waste & Recycling Services, Volumes and Sizing Storage Areas ....................... 6

Waste and Recycling Services, Volumes, Estimated Collection Frequency, and Storage Areas .. 7

4.1 Waste and Recycling Services................................................................................................ 7

4.2 Estimated Volumes ................................................................................................................. 7

4.3 Waste Storage Areas .............................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Hard Waste Storage Area ....................................................................................................... 8

Waste Management System ........................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Regular services ..................................................................................................................... 9

Collection Requirements and Vehicle Movements ....................................................................... 10

6.1 Estimated number of waste vehicle movements per week. .................................................. 10

Supporting Documentation & Design Details ................................................................................ 11

Appendix 1: Indicative Size of Waste Rooms ....................................................................................... 12

Chasecrown: 8 South Esplanade Development – Waste Management Plan

List of Tables Table 1-1: Development details .............................................................................................................. 3

Table 1-2: WMP overview ....................................................................................................................... 3

Table 2-1: Land use and occupancy overview........................................................................................ 5

Table 2-2: Site requirements summary ................................................................................................... 5

Table 4-1: Preliminary estimates of waste & recycling volumes (litres/week) across all land uses with

proposed services and collection frequency ........................................................................................... 7

Table 5-1: Proposed waste management system. ................................................................................. 9

Table 6-1: Likely dimensions and turning radius of waste collection vehicles that would be required to

access to the development ................................................................................................................... 10

Chasecrown: 8 South Esplanade Development – Waste Management Plan 3

Introduction 1.1 Purpose

This document provides a waste management plan (WMP), for the proposed development

identified in Table 1-1 below. This WMP will be included with building plans for the

development lodged with the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) to obtain

Development Approval. The WMP outlines the proposed waste management system (WMS)

for the development at high-level, which demonstrate that successful management of waste

can be achieved at the site.

Table 1-1: Development details

Site Location 8 South Esplanade, Glenelg, SA

Development Project 8 South Esplanade Development

Client 8 South Esplanade Pty Ltd

Project Manager & Project Architect Chasecrown

Traffic Engineer GTA

1.2 What this WMP contains This WMP contains the information summarised in the Table 1-2 below.

Table 1-2: WMP overview

Section 2 – Description of Development

Provides details of the development relevant to the WMP

preparation

Section 3 – Design Approach & Assumptions

Sets out the design approach and assumptions that have

been used in preparing this WMP.

Section 4 – Waste Services, Volumes and Estimated Collection Frequency

Indicates the waste and recycling collection services

proposed for the development, and provides estimates of

the waste and recycling volumes likely to be generated at

the site which will require collection and disposal.

Section 5 – Waste Management System

Provides an overview of the proposed WMS for the

development, including the main elements and important

design requirements, and how these systems should

operate. The WMS outlines how waste will be stored,

transferred and collected at the site.


Section 6 – Collection Requirements

This section includes relevant information on collection

requirements, including provision for access and

manoeuvrability for waste collection vehicles.

Section 7 – Supporting Documentation & Design Details

This section outlines the required supporting

documentation & design details that need to be confirmed

in addition to the WMS outlined in this WMP.

Appendix 1 – Indicative Size of Waste Room(s)

This appendix provides an indicative drawing of the

minimum size for the proposed waste rooms, which shows

one potential bin configuration example.

1.3 WMP Status 1.1.1 Currently proposed WMS & WMP This WMP has been developed for the planning stage of this development. It provides a

preliminary design for the WMS for this site and is intended to demonstrate that successful

management of waste can be achieved at the site. To support this WMP, the Client will need

to provide the additional documentation or details on their plans as listed in Section 7.

1.1.2 Further development of WMS & finalisation of WMP The suggested arrangements in this WMP are preliminary and reflect one possible

configuration for the WMS at this site. These arrangements could evolve and be refined

before detailed design/construction takes place. This may affect the WMP for the site, which

should be updated accordingly.

1.4 Important Note This WMP has been developed in conjunction with the Client and Project Architects, who

have indicated the intended site uses of the development, occupancy data, and

requirements for how waste should be managed. If future proposed uses and waste

management arrangements for the development are altered, the WMP may need to be

reconsidered.


Description of the Development 2.1 Land Uses & Occupancy Data

Chasecrown has provided Rawtec with a preliminary description of the development, and

plans showing the proposed layout of the site, buildings, and land uses, which can be found

in Table 2-1 below.

Table 2-1: Land use and occupancy overview

Land Use Land Use Type Occupancy Data

Residential Residential Apartments 124 bedrooms

2.2 Site Requirements The following waste management & operational requirements (Table 2-2 below), were

indicated for the site by the Client. These arrangements have been considered when

developing the design of the proposed WMS, and the information contained in the WMP.

Table 2-2: Site requirements summary

Waste Management Requirement Description

Waste disposal points

Residents would have access to a combined waste and co-mingled recycling chute disposal point on each level.

This chute would dispose of waste and recyclables into a general waste and a recycling bin in a Chute Area within the Refuse room, via a diverter.

Residents would also have access to a food waste drop off area in the Basement Carpark Refuse Room.

Building services Building services/management would regularly manage waste

across the site, such as organising waste collections, presenting bins, maintenance etc.

Collection service types

Collection service types are to align with the services recommended/required within the applicable local council or state government guidelines and policies

Collection would be undertaken via Commercial Collection

services.

Collection point

All Waste Collection would occur from the Waste Aggregation Room (Refuse Room), which is located in the Basement Carpark.

Waste collection contractors would park their collection vehicle in the on-street loading zone and collect and return waste and recycling bin directly from the development’s waste aggregation

room.


Design Approach & Assumptions 3.1 Overarching Approach

The proposed WMS for this development has been prepared with the following policy,

design, and/or operational requirements for waste management in mind.

The South Australian Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy 2010

(W2REPP) (Government of South Australia, 2011)

o This policy requires that waste is subject to resource recovery processes,

which can include source separation, before disposal to landfill.

South Australian Better Practice Guide – Waste Management in Residential or Mixed

Use Developments (Zero Waste SA, 2014)

o Identifies need (among others) for areas to store waste and recyclable

materials (three streams), appropriate to the size and type of development,

screened from public, which minimises disturbance to surrounding residents

and provides for service vehicle access.

City of Holdfast Bay Waste Management Policy

o Specifies that services should incorporate an environmentally and

economically responsible and sustainable waste collection service, with an

aim is to reduce the amount of waste deposited in land fill and encourage

greater recycling.

3.2 Estimating Waste & Recycling Services, Volumes and Sizing Storage Areas

This WMP includes an estimate of waste & recycling volumes likely to be generated by the

development, which can be found in Section 4 below.

The estimation of waste and recycling volumes is based on:

The proposed land use data;

Client, regulatory, and/or Council expected services for different land uses in the

development; and

Waste generation metrics found in:

o The South Australian Better Practice Guide – Waste Management in

Residential or Mixed Use Developments (Zero Waste SA, 2014).

o Waste and recycling metrics developed by Rawtec, which are based on

previous audits of similar buildings, industry knowledge, and experience.


Waste and Recycling Services, Volumes, Estimated Collection Frequency, and Storage Areas

4.1 Waste and Recycling Services In order to achieve effective waste and recycling management at the site, it is recommended

that the following waste and recycling services be collected from the development:

General waste – Regular collection

Comingled recycling – Regular collection

Food waste – Regular collection

Hard waste & E-waste - (via on-call commercial collection or external drop-off by

residents)

These recommended services include the waste and recycling services that were indicated

as preferred by the Client, as well as additional services that are required/desired in the

policy, design guidelines, and/or operational requirements found in Section 3 above.

4.2 Estimated Volumes Table 4-1 below identifies preliminary estimates for the total waste and recycling stream

volumes generated by each land uses. This table also includes the nominated bin sizes for

each waste stream, proposed collection frequency, proposed waste collection service

provider.

Table 4-1: Preliminary estimates of waste & recycling volumes (litres/week) across all land uses with proposed services and collection frequency

Waste stream

Generation (total

litres/week)

Proposed waste and recycling services

Service type

Bin size (litres)

Collection frequency

Av. number of bins emptied

per service

General waste 3,700 Commercial scheduled 1100 2 x week 2 + chute

bin

Comingled recycling 3,100 Commercial scheduled 1100 2 x week 2 + chute

bin

Food waste 1,200 Commercial scheduled 240 2 x week 3 + spare

Hard waste & e-waste 1,000 Commercial

on-call NA On-call NA

Total (Litres Per Week) 9,000 - - - 7

*Note: Totals have been rounded to better reflect estimation of the volumes and may not

equate


4.3 Waste Storage Areas An indicative drawing of the development’s waste rooms containing the required number of

bins, which includes one example of bin configuration, can be found in Appendix 1.

4.1 Hard Waste Storage Area A 10m2 area has been provided in the Waste Aggregation Room, which would be the

temporary storage location for residents’ hard waste before collection.

This area and subsequent collection by a commercial contractor (or potential future Council

collection arrangement) would be on a regular or on-call basis, and would managed by

building services/management to ensure collection occurs at appropriate times and that the

area remans in a clean and organised state at all times.


Waste Management System 5.1 Regular services

Table 5-1 below give an overview of the main elements of the proposed WMS for the

development, which is based on the estimated waste and recycling volumes generated and

the required/desired services found in Table 4-1.

Table 5-1: Proposed waste management system.

System description Equipment Area Notes

Step 1: In-dwelling

waste system

Resident disposes of waste and recycling into

small bins within dwelling.

For example: A 60-80L general

waste bin (with bin bag);

A 60-80L litre comingled recycling bin; and

A 20 litre organics recycling bin (with a compostable bag).

Allow space for bins within dwelling (e.g. in

Kitchen).

Bins should be appropriately signed and coloured.

Step 2: Resident

waste disposal

Resident to deposit bagged food waste,

bagged general waste and loose recyclables

into waste and recycling chute rooms on each level via corridors and place their waste down the general waste or comingled recycling.

2-stream single chute system for disposal of general waste and co-mingled recyclables.

Resident drop-off area within the Refuse Room for the disposal of food waste into the organics bins.

Resident waste disposal room on

each floor adjacent lift– min 2 x 3 m with washable surfaces. Refer Appendix 1

below. Alternative option is to house access to

chutes in a recessed cupboard.

Ensure that transfer pathway (from dwelling to chutes) is clear of obstructions and

steps, at least 1.25 m wide, has a slope no more than 1:10 and does not pass

through living areas of any dwelling. Ensure resident does not have to travel

further than 30 meters from resident front door to

disposal point.

Step 3: Waste aggregation &

interim storage

Waste and recyclables placed into chutes are deposited into bins in

room on a level below. These bins are changed

over when full or as required by building

services/management. Spare and full bins

located within the same room.

Bins for collection for deposited waste and recycling including: 1100L for general

waste; 1100L for co-

mingled recycling; and

240L for food waste recycling.

Central Waste Aggregation Room (Services & Refuse

Room), Proposed location within the Upper Level Carpark

Detailed design of the chute system and the waste room will need to be developed in

accordance to the manufacture’s design

requirements of the chosen chute system.

Step 4: Waste collection

Waste contractor to park rear-lift collection vehicle

in suitable on-street loading zone and collect

bins from Waste Aggregation Room

(Refuse Room) via pull in/out service.

None

Suitable on-street area for waste

contractor to park collection vehicle and

load bins (allow 2 min. meters behind

vehicle)

Ensure that the transfer pathway (between Waste

Aggregation Room and the loading zone) is clear from obstructions and does not

exceed 50m.


Collection Requirements and Vehicle Movements

The collection vehicles expected for waste collection at this development would generally be:

Rear-lift trucks – for collection of routine waste & recycling streams; and

Pan-tech or flat-bed trucks – for collection of at-call waste and recycling streams.

Examples of the likely truck dimensions are provided in the Table 6-1 below to assist the

Traffic Engineer/Consultant in ensuring that the On-Street Loading Zone in the carpark can

accommodate the waste and recycling collection vehicles, and that vehicles can enter and

exit the area safely.

In addition to the truck length, the parking area will need to accommodate at least 2m

behind collection vehicles for waste bin loading. Please note that the Better Practice

Guide specifies that waste collection vehicles should enter and exit the property in a forward

gear. Collection vehicle dimensions and operating requirements vary between waste

collection contractors and the client would be required to ensure that the collection vehicle

used by the waste collection contractor selected to service the development, would be able

to be accommodated for, before collection can begin.

Table 6-1: Likely dimensions and turning radius of waste collection vehicles that would be required to access to the development

Likely dimensions and turning circles of waste collection trucks

Rear-lift truck

(to collect bins up to 1100L)*

Pan-tech/flat-bed

(to collect hard waste/E-waste)*

Dimensions 4.5m (h) x 2.5m (w) x 8.8m (l) 4.5m (h) x 2.5m (w) x 8.8m (l)

Vehicle height in operation Up to 4.5m Up to 4.5m

Vehicle turning radius 10m 10m

*Note: All vehicle dimensions are based on Australian MRV standard specifications - AS

2890.2-2002

6.1 Estimated number of waste vehicle movements per week. We have estimated that there would be approximately 6 commercial waste and recycling collection per week at the site. This is based on the estimated waste and recycling volumes

and service frequency described in Section 4 above, and if collection for the individual

commercial land uses were to be scheduled for collection by the same vehicle.

The estimated vehicle movements do not include an on-call of infrequent services such as

hard waste/E-waste collection etc.


Supporting Documentation & Design Details This report should be read and assessed in conjunction with:

The Architectural Plans – Confirming the size and layout of the waste and recycling chute rooms/recessed cupboard, waste aggregation room and disposal and collection circulation pathways; and

A Traffic Impact Assessment/Report – Confirming parking, loading/unloading, and

manoeuvring for waste and recycling collection vehicles utilising the On-Street Loading Zone


Appendix 1: Indicative Size of Waste Rooms The figure below is an indicative drawing of the development’s waste room/areas along with

examples of bin configurations and the estimated minimum calculated areas required.

LEGENDGEN = General WasteREC = Comingled RecyclingORG = Organics

Note: These bin sizes are for illustration purpose only and are based on the standard MASTEC Australia bin sizes (http://www.mastec.com.au). Bin sizes and shapes may differ depending on manufacturer, collection contractor or local waste authority. Please allow extra room (e.g. >10%) for differences in bin sizes, bin access, opening and closing and manoeuvring etc.

ACCESS A

CC

ES

S

Hard Waste Storage Area

11 sq m

AC

CE

SS

REC

1100L

REC

1100L

GEN

1100L

GW

24

0 O

RG

240L

GEN

1100L

Refuse Room

5.0m

1.8

m

1.8m

GW

24

0 O

RG

240L

GW

24

0 O

RG

240L

6.3m 4.8

m

10.7m

5.5

m

2.6m

Roller Door

Approx. Chute Area

SPAREGEN 1100L

SPAREREC 1100L

GR

Security D

oor

GW

24

0 O

RG

240L

Re

side

nt D

rop

-off

Are

a for Fo

od

Waste

2.7

m

5.3m

2.9

m3.1m

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

ACOUSTIC SERVICES REPORT

April 2016


ABN 43 909 272 047

Building EngineeringServices TechnologiesConsulting Engineers

A. 144 Gawler PlaceAdelaide SA 5000

GPO Box 818Adelaide SA 5000

T. (08) 8232 4442F. (08) 8232 4244

E. [email protected]. bestec.com.au

IVD:SRE 55152/7/1 7 April 2016 CHASECROWN 109A Archer Street, NORTH ADELAIDE SA 5006 Attention: Mr A Besz Dear Sir 8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES As requested, we enclose a copy of our preliminary report on the Acoustic Services for the above project. We trust that the report provides sufficient information for your immediate purpose and we would be most pleased to further discuss any aspect upon your request. Yours faithfully BESTEC PTY LTD IVAILO DIMITROV ASSOCIATE / PRINCIPAL ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Encl

88321 - Acoustic Report

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES REPORT ISSUE REGISTER


01 07.04.16 Initial Issue

55152/7/1 III April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES

CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1

Acoustic Analysis ................................................................................................. 2

References ............................................................................................................ 2

Existing Development .......................................................................................... 2

Proposed Development and Conditions ............................................................. 2

Design Criteria ...................................................................................................... 2 Environmental Noise ............................................................................................ 2

Continuous Noise .................................................................................................... 2 Intermittent Noise .................................................................................................... 3

Building Acoustics ............................................................................................... 3

Background Noise ................................................................................................... 4 Sound Insulation...................................................................................................... 4

Assessment and Recommendations .................................................................. 5 General .................................................................................................................. 5

Acoustic Sealants .................................................................................................... 5 Cavity Infill ................................................................................................................ 5 Ceiling Overlay......................................................................................................... 5

Noise Intrusion ..................................................................................................... 6 Sound Insulation .................................................................................................. 7

Hydraulics ................................................................................................................ 7 Room Acoustics ................................................................................................... 8 Environmental Noise ............................................................................................ 8

Continuous Noise .................................................................................................... 8

55152/7/1 I April 2016 8832188321 - Acoustic Report


Introduction BESTEC Pty Ltd was engaged to provide acoustic engineering services during the design and construction stages of the residential development on 8 South Esplanade, Glenelg. This document presents the proposed acoustic design criteria, the results of our noise intrusion assessment and preliminary recommendations for acoustic treatment to achieve the selected design criteria.

Executive Summary In summary:-

• The preliminary architectural drawings of the proposed development were reviewed.

• Appropriate acoustic design criteria were nominated.

• Preliminary acoustic design recommendations to achieve the selected criteria were provided, including:-

- Appropriate constructions of the building façade and glazing were nominated in order to provide sufficient attenuation to external noise from traffic and noise associated with use of the public space along The Esplanade.

- Appropriate constructions of the dividing walls and floors between the apartments were nominated to ensure compliance with the requirements of National Construction Code Series 2015, Building Code of Australia for sound insulation (Section F5).

• Generic recommendations for acoustic treatment of mechanical services were provided.

• The noise impact to the nearest residential developments associated with rubbish collection and car park access and egress has been assessed.

55152/7/1 1 April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES Acoustic Analysis References The following documents have been referenced within the preparation of this report:

[1] Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan, consolidated 26 November 2015.

[2] SA Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007.

[3] World Health Organisation (1999) “Guidelines for Community Noise”.

[4] AS/NZS 2107:2000 “Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors”.

[5] National Construction Code Series 2015, Building Code of Australia, Class 2 to Class 9 Buildings.

[6] AS ISO 140.4-2006 “Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements. Part 4: Field measurements of airborne sound insulation between rooms”.

[7] Preliminary architectural plans, provided by CHASECROWN dated 10 March 2016.

Existing Development The site is located in a zone designated Residential High Density (RHD) in the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan [1] with the following boundaries:-

• North and South - residential developments.

• East - St. John’s Row separating the site from residential developments.

• Western - The Esplanade and public domain.

Proposed Development and Conditions It is proposed a new residential development to be constructed on the site, with the following components:

• Two levels of underground carpark.

• Ground floor comprising lobby, reception, communal facilities (pool, sitting room, gymnasium and spa) and engineering services plant area.

• Level 1 to 11 - apartments.

Design Criteria Environmental Noise Continuous Noise

This criterion will be relevant to noise emitted from the proposed development resulting from operation of engineering services, operational noise from the commercial component, car park etc.

The Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan [1] does not have specific criteria for environmental noise and therefore, the continuous noise emissions from the proposed development will be assessed against the criteria set EPA Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 [2].

The Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 [2] sets out the maximum allowable continuous noise in terms of A-weighted Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (LAeq) based on the time of day and zoning / use of land in which the noise source and receiver are located. With reference to the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan [1], we note that the proposed development is located within Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. Table 1 shows the indicative noise factors based on time of day and land-use as stipulated in Table 2 of the EPP 2007 [2].

Land Use Category Day Time (7:00 to 22:00) Night Time (22:00 to 7:00)

Residential 52 45

Table 1: Indicative noise factors based on time of day and land use

55152/7/1 2 April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES In addition, the EPP 2007 [2] states that the predicted continuous noise due to the proposed development (for application for development authorisation) should not exceed the indicative noise level, minus 5dBA. Based on the indicative noise factors for “Residential” land use, minus 5dBA for planning purposes, the applicable day and night time noise criteria would be as follows:

• Day-time (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.): 47dBA

• Night-time (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.): 40dBA

Note that if noise emitted by the proposed development contains any tones, modulation, impulsive or low frequency characteristics, the continuous noise level of the noise source must be adjusted as follows:-

Noise containing 1 characteristic - 5dBA penalty added to source continuous noise level;

Noise containing 2 characteristics - 8dBA penalty added to source continuous noise level;

Noise containing 3 or 4 characteristics - 10dBA penalty added to source continuous noise level.

Intermittent Noise

This criterion will be relevant to noise emitted from the proposed development resulting from short term noise events - rubbish collection, car door slams, etc.

The criteria provided in the above sections relate to continuous noise sources, and do not cater for intermittent noise events, such as slamming of car doors, car horns sounding, etc. We recommend the use of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines [3], which recommends a maximum A-weighted noise level LAmax, of 45dBAin a bedroom, which is equivalent to approximately 55dBA to 60dBA at the façade of the residential building with windows partially open.

In addition, the EPP 2007 provides assessment criterion of LAmax of 60dBA for night-time for the proposed development (for application for development authorisation) [1], which agrees with the criterion stipulated by the WHO [3].

Building Acoustics The level of background and transient/intermittent noise, the speech privacy rating and the room acoustics define the quality of the acoustics within a building. The recommended criteria for each space are shown in Table 3below. Please refer to each individual section below for interpretation of the criteria.

Type of occupancy/activity

Background Noise LAeq,

dBA Reverberation

Time, sec

Weighted Sound Reduction Index with Spectrum

Adaptation Term, RW + Ctr

Speech Privacy Rating, DW

Apartments 501 Bedrooms 30 - 40

Living Areas 35 - 45 Work Areas 35 - 45

Sitting areas 40 - 45 Minimise as practical N/A

Gymnasium 45 - 50 Minimise as practical 45 - 50

Spa 40 - 45 Minimise as practical 40 - 45

Car park 55 - 65 N/A N/A Table 2: Proposed building acoustic design criteria for the 8 - 9 South Esplanade, Glenelg

1 Between apartments 55152/7/1 3 April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES Background Noise

These criteria will be relevant to the assessment of continuous noise from sources such as traffic, engineering services etc.

Residential Component

AS 2107-2000 [4] sets the criteria for background noise in terms of A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level over 15-minute intervals (LAeq, 15min) in accordance with the use of the spaces and the location of the buildings. For apartments and houses located near major roads, the Standard recommends criteria for background noise levels for bedrooms, living areas and work areas with no reference to the time of the day.

Sound Insulation

For enclosed spaces, the noise from activities in the adjacent rooms transmitted through walls, floors, ceilings etc. increase the background noise level similarly to the noise intrusion from any outside sources. The level of noise transmitted from the adjacent rooms and the level of sound insulation/speech privacy is controlled by the design of building elements and providing adequate level of sound attenuation through specifying appropriate construction types for walls, floors, doors, ceilings etc. Apartments

The minimum requirements for sound insulation for the residential component (Buildings Class 2) are set by the National Construction Code Series 2014, Building Code of Australia [5] stipulates the required weighted sound reduction index (Rw), weighted sound reduction index with spectrum adaptation term (Rw + Ctr) and weighted normalised impact sound pressure level with spectrum adaptation term (Ln,w + Cl) for building elements separating sole-occupancy units. We note that the proposed residential apartments would be classified as Class 2 buildings, and therefore note the following criteria are applicable to the proposed development:

“A floor in a Class 2 or 3 building must have RW+Ctr (airborne) not less than 50 and an Ln,w+CI not more than 62 (impact) if it separates -

(i) Sole occupancy units; or (ii) A sole occupancy unit from a plant room, lift shaft, stairway, public corridor, public lobby or

the like, or parts of different classification” “A wall in Class 2 or 3 building must - (i) Have an RW + Ctr (airborne) not less than 50, if it separates sole-occupancy units; and (ii) Have an RW (airborne) not less than 50, if it separates a sole-occupancy unit from a plant

room, lift shaft, stairway, public corridor, public lobby or the like, or parts of a different classification; and

(iii) Is of discontinuous construction if it separates -

(A) A bathroom, sanitary compartment, laundry or kitchen in one sole-occupancy unit from a habitable room (other than kitchen) in an adjoining unit; or

(B) A sole-occupancy unit from a plant room or lift shaft.”

“A door may be incorporated in a wall of Class 2 or 3 building that separates a sole-occupancy unit from a stairway, public corridor, public lobby or the like, provided the door assembly has an RW not less than 30.” “Where a wall required to have sound insulation rating has a floor above, the wall must continue to- (i) The underside of the floor above; or (ii) A ceiling that provides the sound insulation required for the wall.” “If a duct, soil, waste or water supply pipe, including a duct or pipe that is located in a wall or floor cavity, serves or passes through more than one sole-occupancy unit, the duct or pipe must be separated from the rooms of any sole-occupancy unit by construction with an RW + Ctr (airborne) not less than - (i) 40 if the adjacent room is a habitable room (other than a kitchen); or (ii) 25 if the adjacent room is a kitchen or non-habitable room.”

55152/7/1 4 April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES Communal Areas There are no Australian or International Standards giving recommendations for sound insulation ratings for adjoining spaces. Instead recommendations are based on experience from previous projects, with these recommendations reflecting budget constraints and user expectations. The privacy rating is dependent on the sound absorption and background noise level in the adjoining space as well as the area and acoustic performance of the dividing partition. The proposed criteria for speech privacy between the spaces separated by partitions (extending either to the ceiling level or to the roof structure above are presented in terms of DW rating (Weighted Sound Level Difference as defined by AS ISO 140.4-2006 [6]), which is related to the sound level difference between two spaces are detailed in Table 2. The criteria are based on our experience in the acoustic design of similar facilities. Table 3 details the subjective response of individuals to the proposed privacy ratings for interpretation of the recommendations.

DW Rating Subjective Rating 50-55 Confidential privacy 45-50 Very good privacy. Speech inaudible unless raised 40-45 Good privacy. Speech audible but unintelligible 35-40 Normal privacy. Neighbouring conversations are audible and may be understood <35 Privacy not required

Table 3: Subjective perceptions for various privacy ratings

Assessment and Recommendations General Acoustic Sealants

We note that for the acoustic integrity of building elements to be maintained, all gaps and interfaces along the junctions and joints of linings must be sealed with an appropriate acoustic grade sealant. Penetrations for mechanical or electrical services must be properly caulked and sealed around the ductwork and cabling to ensure the intended acoustic rating of the partition is retained. Appropriate acoustic caulking products include:

• Bostik Firemastic.

• Bostik Seal-n-flex 2637.

• Pyropanel Multiflex.

• Boral Fyreflex.

• Dow-Corning 790 Silicone.

• Dow-Corning 795 Silicone.

• Sika Sikaflex-11 FC.

• Fosroc Flamex 3.

Cavity Infill Where a cavity infill is recommended, equivalent alternatives are:

• Fibreglass - 50mm, 12kg/m3.

• Rockwool - 50mm, 38kg/m3.

• Polyester - 900gsm.

Ceiling Overlay Where a ceiling overlay is recommended, equivalent alternatives are:

• Glasswool - 100mm, 12kg/m3.

• Rockwool - 100mm, 38kg/m3.

• Polyester - 100mm, 32kg/m3. 55152/7/1 5 April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES Where higher durability and/or water resistance is required, 6mm compressed fibre cement sheeting could be used in lieu of the 13mm fire-rated plasterboard and 9mm compressed fibre cement in-lieu of 16mm fire-rated plasterboard.

Noise Intrusion The main sources of external noise impacting on the building envelope are traffic along St John’s Row to the east, noise from people using the Esplanade and the public domain to the west, noise associated with the pool use and noise from the external visitors’ carpark. Please note that the constructions of the building envelope proposed below have been designed to achieve the interior design sound levels set by AS/NZS 2107-2000 [4] with windows/doors closed as the Standard is intended for design and selection of building components that exclude noise that is external to the building (e.g., traffic noise, industrial noise and plant noise).

Based on the results of our assessment, we make the following preliminary recommendations for construction of the building envelope2:

• Glazing:

- Ground floor:

6.38mm laminated glass or as required structurally.

- Residential floors:

Eastern, Northern and Western façades:

Bedrooms - minimum 10.38 mm laminated glass to the bedrooms up to Level 4 and 6.38mm laminated glass to Level 11.

Living and work rooms - 6.38 mm laminated glass to the living rooms.

Please note that where operable glazing is considered, it should be fitted with appropriate acoustic seals (Raven or Schlegel ranges).

Southern façade - bedrooms, living and work rooms - 6.38mm laminated glass.

Northern and Eastern facades

Bedrooms - minimum 10.38 mm laminated glass to the bedrooms up to residential Level 9 (from Level 6 residential) and 6.38mm laminated glass to Level 10 and above.

Living and work rooms - 6.38mm laminated glass for all levels.

- Solid façade - the following constructions are acceptable from acoustic point of view:

150mm precast concrete. Please note that this construction is sufficient from acoustic point of view, however, it might require additional thermal insulation; or

200mm aerated autoclaved concrete block with 1 layer of 13mm plasterboard on 25mm furring channels and cavity infill of 25mm, 14kg/m3 glasswool or equivalent; or

75mm Hebel Powerpanel to the external side of 92mm steel studs and 1 layer of 13mm plasterboard to the internal side and cavity infill as specified; or

Composite light weight façade constructed of 9mm fibre cement to the external side of minimum 92mm steel studs and 1 layer of 13mm plasterboard to the internal side with cavity infill as specified above.

2 Please note that these recommendations are based on external noise only and will be revised once details about the engineering services plant are available. 55152/7/1 6 April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES Sound Insulation Communal Areas In order to achieve the selected criteria for speech privacy, we recommend the walls separating the gymnasium and the spa from the adjacent spaces be constructed of 2 layers of 13mm plasterboard to each side of minimum 76mm steel studs extending to the structure above and with cavity infill as specified. In order to limit structural vibration resulting from the use of treadmills, we recommend they to be installed on vibration isolation pads - details will be provided once the structural design is sufficiently developed. Apartments

To achieve the BCA 2015 requirements, we recommend:-

• Walls between sole-occupancy units - 2 layers of 13mm plasterboard to one side of two rows 64mm separate steel studs offset from each other by minimum 20mm air space and 2 layers of 13mm plasterboard to the other side extending to the structure above and with cavity infill as specified above.

• Walls separating sole-occupancy units from corridors and lobbies - 2 layers of 13mm plasterboard to one side of 64mm staggered steel studs in minimum 92mm track and 1 layer of 13mm plasterboard to the other side extending to the structure above and cavity infill as specified.

• Walls between sole occupancy units and lift shafts, car lift overrun and stairwells - assuming that the lift shafts and stairwell walls would be minimum 200mm thick precast concrete panels, we recommend construction consisting of 1 layer of 13mm plasterboard installed to apartment side of 64mm steel studs offset from the precast concrete panel by minimum 20mm gap, with cavity infill of 50mm, 12kg/m3 glasswool.

• Walls separating sole occupancy units from garbage disposal chute - we recommend precast concrete panels, 150mm thick, with minimum 13mm plasterboard installed to one side (i.e. apartment side) of 64mm steel studs offset from the precast concrete panel by minimum 20mm gap, with cavity infill of 50mm, 12kg/m3 glasswool.

Note that this construction should be used for walls of chutes that form part of apartment walls

• Apartments - entry doors - minimum 45mm thick solid core doors with compressible seals (e.g. Raven or Schlegel ranges).

• Floors between apartments - minimum 150mm concrete with ceiling of 1 layer of 13mm plasterboard with ceiling overlay as specified above. Where a hard floor finish is used in a room above habitable spaces (bedrooms and open plan living / kitchen areas for example), for NCC compliance they must be installed on resilient underlay (e.g., Acoustifloor by Construction Chemicals, Thermotec Impact Foam, Regupol, Damtec etc.). The resilient underlay is also required where balconies extend above habitable areas.

Hydraulics

The following stipulates the recommended design, in order to reach NCC compliance with hydraulic systems. Where a wall separates a room of a sole-occupancy unit from a duct, soil, waste or water pipe serving or passing through more than one sole-occupancy unit, we recommend the following constructions:

• Where the adjacent room is a habitable room (i.e. bedroom, open plan living room, etc.), the pipes should be lagged with Soundlag 4525C or equivalent and enclosed with 1 layer of 13mm fire-rated plasterboard with cavity infill as specified in the General Recommendations (See Figure A- 1 attached).

• Where a waste water pipe is running within the ceiling space of a habitable room or the waste water pipe is running within the ceiling space next to a habitable room, the pipes should be lagged with Soundlag 4525C or equivalent with ceiling overlay of 100mm, 32kg/m3 polyester extending minimum 1,200mm each side of the pipe. Please note that down lights should be avoided in these areas (See Figure A- 2).

55152/7/1 7 April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES We note that the specified constructions above will achieve a rating of RW + Ctr 40, and will meet the NCC requirements for a services riser adjoining a habitable space.

• Where the room is a non-habitable room (See Figure A- 3) - The pipes should be lagged with Soundlag 4525C or equivalent, and the wall construction

would be as per architectural requirements, or

- The pipes left unlagged and enclosed with 1 layer of 13mm fire-rated plasterboard with cavity infill as specified.

We note that both the constructions specified will achieve a rating of RW + Ctr 25, and will meet the NCC requirements for services riser adjoining a kitchen or non-habitable room.

A flexible coupling must be used at the point of connection between the service pipes in a building and any circulating or other pump, in order to avoid vibration from pump operation be transmitted into the building structure, which could lead to structure borne noise.

Room Acoustics In order to control reverberation and achieve the selected room acoustics criteria in the public spaces (lobby, sitting area, gymnasium and spa), we recommend acoustic ceiling tiles or other absorptive ceilings be used, however, detailed recommendations will be provided once the arrangements between base building and fit-out components are advised.

Environmental Noise Continuous Noise

Noise Associated with Mechanical Plant

Details of the engineering plant that will be serving the development are not available yet, however, we note that the airborne noise associated with engineering services will be controlled by design of appropriate attenuators, duct lagging and acoustic enclosures.

The vibration and structure borne noise will be controlled by design of appropriate vibration isolators (double deflection mounts, spring isolators etc.).

Noise Associated with Rubbish Collection

We understand that the rubbish will be stored in the waste room on the upper level carpark with the rubbish collection vehicles to access the waste zone from St John’s Row. Given the fact that there are no commercial tenancies in the proposed development, we consider that the collection of the residential waste will take place at the same times as for all other residences in the area and therefore, we consider that the proposed development will generate noise in excess of the noise levels during rubbish collection at present.

Noise Associated with Car Park

We have assessed the car park noise associated with the vehicles access and egress via St John’s Row d using a time weighted average approach to generate an average noise level of 52 dB(A) (LAeq, 15min),based on 4 car exits/entries and egress per a typical 15-minute period. Therefore, the predicted noise level at the nearest noise sensitive boundary (the residential property opposite the proposed development across St John’s Row) would be 38 dB(A), which complies with the selected criteria for continuous environmental noise.

55152/7/1 8 April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES PIPE WORK DETAILS TO ACHIEVED NCC COMPLIANCE

Figure A- 1: Construction to achieve Rw+Ctr 40, for pipes running adjoining habitable spaces (Bedroom, Living)

Figure A- 2: Construction for pipes running through ceiling of habitable spaces

55152/7/1 9 April 2016 88321


Figure A- 3: Construction to achieve Rw+Ctr for pipes adjoining non-habitable spaces (e.g. Bathroom, Laundry)

55152/7/1 10 April 2016 88321

8 SOUTH ESPLANADE, GLENELG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACOUSTIC SERVICES GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY

dB(A) Also referred to as dBA. A unit of measurement, decibels (A), of sound pressure level which has its frequency characteristics modified by a filter ("A-weighted") so as to more closely approximate human ear response at a loudness level of 40 phons. The table below outlines the subjective rating of different sound pressure levels.

L1 The noise level which is equalled or exceeded for 1% of the measurement period. L1 is an indicator of the impulse noise level, and is used in Australia as the descriptor for intrusive noise (usually in dBA).

L10 The noise level which is equalled or exceeded for 10% of the measurement period. L10 is an indicator of the mean maximum noise level, and is used in Australia as the descriptor for intrusive noise (usually in dBA).

L90, L95 The noise level which is equalled or exceeded for 90% of the measurement period. L90 or L95 is an indicator of the mean minimum noise level, and is used in Australia as the descriptor for background or ambient noise (usually in dBA).

Leq The equivalent continuous noise level for the measurement period. Leq is an indicator of the average noise level (usually in dBA).

Lmax The maximum noise level for the measurement period (usually in dBA).

Note:The subjective reaction or response to changes in noise levels can be summarised as follows: A 3dBA increase in sound pressure level is required for the average human ear to notice a change; a 5dBA increase is quite noticeable and a 10dBA increase is typically perceived as a doubling in loudness.

55152/7/1 11 April 2016 88321

Noise Level (dBA) Subjective Rating

25-30 Barely audible and very unobtrusive.30-35 Audible but very unobtrusive.35-40 Audible but unobtrusive.40-45 Moderate but unobtrusive.45-50 Unobtrusive with low levels of surrounding activity.50-55 Unobtrusive with high levels of surrounding activity.


STC/RW Sound Transmission Class or Weighted Sound Reduction Index. Provides a single number rating (from the sound transmission loss or sound reduction index for each frequency band) of the sound insulation performance of a partition. The higher the value, the better the performance of the partition. The subjective impression of different ratings is shown in the table below.

FSTC/RW’ The equivalent of STC/RW, unit for sound insulation performance of a building element measured in the field.

CI, Ctr The ratings (RW, DnTw, LnTw) are weighted in accordance to a spectrum suited to speech. This term modifies the overall rating to account for noise with different spectra, such as traffic (Ctr) or footfalls (CI). The ratings may be written as RW+Ctr, or DnTw/LnTw+CI.

NNIC/DnTw Normalised Noise Isolation Class, or Weighted Standardised Sound Level Difference. Provides a single number rating of the sound level difference between two spaces, and incorporates the effects of flanking noise between two spaces. This rating is generally accepted to be about 5 points less than the STC/RW rating.

IIC/Lnw Impact Insulation Class, or Weighted Normalised Impact Sound Level. Lnw=110-IIC. The higher the IIC rating, or the lower the Lnw rating the better the performance of the building element at insulating impact noise. The table below gives the subjective impression of different ratings:

FIIC/LnTw’ The equivalent of IIC/Lnw, but the performance is for the building element measured in the field.

55152/7/1 12 April 2016 88321

40 45 50 55 60Normal Speech Audible Just

AudibleNot

AudibleRaised speech Clearly

AudibleAudible Just

AudibleNot

AudibleShouting Clearly

AudibleClearly Audible

Audible Just Audible

Not Audible

Small television/small entertainment system

Clearly Audible

Clearly Audible


Not Audible

Large television/large hi-fi music system

Clearly Audible

Clearly Audible

Clearly Audible


DVD with surround sound Clearly Audible

Clearly Audible

Clearly Audible

Audible Audible

Digital television with surround sound

Clearly Audible

Clearly Audible

Clearly Audible

Audible Audible

Type of noise source STC/Rw Rating

IIC Lnw Subjective Rating40 70 Clearly Audible45 65 Clearly Audible50 60 Audible55 55 Audible60 50 Just Audible65 45 Inaudible

BESTEC

8 South Esplanade

Desktop Pedestrian Level Wind Report

Document No. GWTS-DPR-10110-2016-2 8 South Esplanade

BESTEC 2 GWTS-DPR-10110-2016-2

August 17th, 2016

8 South Esplanade

Desktop Pedestrian Level Wind Report PREPARED FOR:

PREPARED BY:

BESTEC Global Wind Technology Services (GWTS)

144 Gawler Place 205B, 434 St Kilda Road Adelaide, SA 5001

Melbourne 3004 Vic. Australia

Gwts.com.au Contact: Ivailo Dimitrov [email protected] + 61 8 8232 4442 +61 3 9939 9490 Fax: + 61 8 8232 4244 Fax : +61 3 8677 9421

PROJECT CATEGORY DOCUMENT NO: ST-CL-DPR-FV-CFD GWTS-DPR- GWTS-DPR-10110-

2016-2

PREPARED BY:

Michael Swaney

Date: August 4th, 2016

REVIEWED BY: Seifu Bekele

Date: August 4th, 2016

REVISION HISTORY

Revision No. Date Issued Reason/Comments

0

1

2

4th April, 2016

4th August, 2016

17th August, 2016

Initial Issue

Updated

Updated

NOTE: This is a controlled document within the document control system. If revised, it must be marked SUPERSEDED. This document contains commercial, conceptual and engineering information which is proprietary to GWTS. We specifically state that inclusion of this information does not grant the Client any license to use the information without GWTS's written permission. We further require that the information not be divulged to a third party without our written consent


August 17th, 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GWTS has been commissioned by BESTEC to perform an assessment of pedestrian level winds for the proposed residential development on 8 South Esplanade, Glenelg, South Australia. This study was conducted by GWTS as a study to help in achieving a greater understanding of the wind conditions and environment of the proposed development. GWTS investigated the wind environment around the proposed building by considering the form and exposure of the proposed development, the nearby existing developments, the local wind climate and the proposed use of ground level areas in and adjacent to the proposed development.

This study concludes that localized increases in ground level wind conditions due to the proposed development are unlikely to occur. The proposed design is expected to alleviate any significant adverse wind effects at pedestrian level. Some recommendations and specifications of the existing design features have been provided.

Please note that this is an opinion statement solely based on empirical data and experience, and is not based on a wind tunnel test. If a high level of confidence is required a comparative wind tunnel test is recommended.


August 17th, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 5

2. WIND CLIMATE ............................................................................................. 7

2.1 WIND EXPOSURE ......................................................................................... 8

3. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ............................................................................. 8

4. WIND ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS .............................................................. 13

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 18

6. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 20

7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 21

APPENDIX A - DRAWING LIST ............................................................................. 22


August 17th, 2016

1. INTRODUCTION The proposed development on 8 South Esplanade, Glenelg, South Australia (“the proposed development”), is an 11-storey multi residential apartment development . The site is bounded by the existing Seafield Tower to the north, St Johns Row to the east, the Barquentine Complex and Melrose Apartments mid-rise developments to the south (approximately 20m and 27m respectively) and the South Esplanade Beach to the west. A close-up aerial view of the site is shown in Figure 1. A satellite view of the proposed development with the surroundings of an approximately 2 km radius is shown in Figure 2.

The objective of the study was to consider the likely wind conditions at ground level outdoor

areas adjacent to the proposed development in relation to criteria for human comfort and

safety. The pedestrian wind environment study of the development was based on

experience, empirical data, architectural drawings supplied to GWTS by BESTEC (Appendix

A) and statistical data about the site wind climate.

This report is an opinion statement, and is not based on wind tunnel testing. Thus, the

findings of this study are based on a wind climate assessment of the site of the proposed

development as well as the authors’ experience of scale model wind tunnel testing and full

scale assessments of other similar developments.

Figure 1: Location of the proposed development – 8 South Esplanade, Glenelg, Adelaide.

Project Site

N


August 17th, 2016

Figure 2: Satellite image of the site of the proposed multi residential development on 8 South Esplanade, South Australia, and surrounding terrains.

N


August 17th, 2016

2. WIND CLIMATE Weather records from Adelaide Airport meteorological station (1985-2011) have been

obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology [4] and statistically analysed to

produce the directional distribution of mean (averaged over 1 hour) wind speed thresholds

at a reference height of 10m, with a probability of exceedance of 0.05% ( Figure 3). The

0.05% probability of exceedance for the directional wind speeds is approximately

equivalent to a combined probability of exceedance for winds from all directions of 0.1%,

as required by the criteria in Table 2 [5].

Figure 3: Directional distribution of annual maximum 10 minute mean wind speeds (m/s) at 10m height at Adelaide Airport.

The stronger winds of the Adelaide region originate from the westerly and south westerly

directions, with the highest predicted wind speeds coming from the south-west.


August 17th, 2016

2.1 WIND EXPOSURE The surrounding terrain within a 2km radius of the site consists of low and medium-rise developments and parkland in all directions with exposure to open water, subjected to shoaling waves, along the western coast line. The surrounding topography within 2km of the site in all directions is predominantly low rise. Therefore, the site of the proposed development is considered to have a Terrain Category 3 wind exposure for wind directions within 0°-180°, and a terrain category 1.5 for wind directions within the range of 180°-360°, as defined in the Australian Standard for Wind Actions [4], with no significant topographic effects in any direction. Satellite photographs of the project site and surrounding terrain are shown in Figure 2.

3. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA GWTS's assessment criteria for pedestrian wind comfort are based on 3-second gust criteria. A set of annual maximum peak 3-second gust velocities is derived from meteorological data for the geographical location under consideration, for all wind directions to be assessed. For all of these possible wind directions and speeds, the regions where each of the wind speed criteria may be exceeded are then considered. Most people will consider a site unacceptable for a given activity if the mean and/or gust velocities in that area during the annual maximum wind event exceed the annual maximum wind speed criterion for that activity. The site would also be likely to be considered excessively windy for that activity during more moderate winds. The threshold gust velocity criteria are:

Table 1 –Wind Comfort and Safety Gust Criteria for Adelaide Area

Annual Maximum

3 second Gust Speed

Result on Perceived Pedestrian Comfort

>23m/s Unsafe (frail pedestrians knocked over)

<16 m/s Acceptable for walking (steady steps for most pedestrians)

<13 m/s Acceptable for short standing (window shopping, vehicle drop off, queuing)

<10 m/s Acceptable for long standing, sitting (outdoor cafés, pool area, gardens)


August 17th, 2016

Recommended Criteria Table 2 lists the specific areas adjacent to the development and the corresponding recommended criteria. The assessment areas are also shown in Figures 4a-4f with the recommended criteria overlaid.

Table 2 – Recommended application of criteria

Area Recommended Criteria

Cafes and outdoor seating areas

Recommended to meet the criterion for sitting

Public Footpaths Recommended to meet the criterion for walking

Building Entrances Recommended to meet the criterion for standing

Balconies, Podium rooftop,

External deck

Recommended to meet the criterion for walking (refer to the discussion below)

Intended Use of Adjacent Ground Level Areas

There are public footpaths and pedestrian thoroughfares adjacent to, or in close proximity, to the proposed development on South Esplanade. These areas are highlighted in green in Figure 4a. It is recommended that the walking criterion be satisfied for these pedestrian walkway areas. The building entrances of the proposed development are highlighted in orange in Figure 4a. It is recommended that the standing criterion be satisfied for these entrance and retail arcade areas. Balconies and external decking areas are highlighted in green in Figures 4b-4f. It is recommended that the walking criterion be satisfied for such areas.


August 17th, 2016

Recommended to meet criterion for standing

Recommended to meet criterion for walking

Figure 4a: Schematic plan view of proposed development with recommended wind criteria overlaid on adjacent ground level.


Figure 4b: Schematic plan view of proposed development with recommended wind criteria overlaid on adjacent levels 1 and 2.


August 17th, 2016


Figure 4c: Schematic plan view of proposed development with recommended wind criteria overlaid on levels 3 to 5.


Figure 4d: Schematic plan view of proposed development with recommended wind criteria overlaid on levels 6.


August 17th, 2016


Figure 4e: Schematic plan view of proposed development with recommended wind criteria overlaid on levels 7 to 10.


Figure 4f: Schematic plan view of proposed development with recommended wind criteria overlaid on level 11 (penthouse).


August 17th, 2016

Building Roof Terrace/Deck Recommended Criterion Discussion Building roof terrace/deck and balconies may not be intended for use all the time. People need to be safe and comfortable to walk around to decide to use the space for other activities. The walking criteria can be used in this spaces since;

The use of this area can be avoided during high wind event;

These areas are not public spaces and their use is not required all the time; It is likely to be difficult to achieve wind conditions meeting a more stringent criterion than the walking criterion on the podium roof and elevated decking areas of the proposed Development due to their exposure and the form and proximity of adjacent developments. It should therefore be noted that meeting the walking criteria recommended as the minimum requirement on elevated recreation areas will not guarantee that occupants will find wind conditions in these areas acceptable. In our experience we suggest that outdoor recreation areas should meet the criterion for walking comfort in order that the majority of reasonable people consider such areas acceptable for their intended use from a wind point-of-view. General adverse conditions/scenarios that may occur on a rooftop in extreme wind events include:

The cooling effect of the wind on the human body (particularly for pool deck areas),

The removal of lightweight items such as towels, serviettes, newspapers, lightweight furniture (e.g. plastic banana lounges),

Difficulty hearing others speak.


August 17th, 2016

4. WIND ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS The wind profile of the site can be factored for height above ground, estimated local terrain roughness, local turbulence and the influence of buildings to produce estimated annual average maximum 3-second moving average gust wind speeds adjacent to the proposed development. These estimates can then be compared with the applicable criteria to determine whether they would be acceptable or not. Estimates of ground level wind speeds have been made based on the Adelaide region wind climate data, empirical aerodynamics data and upstream exposure.

Wind conditions in all ground level areas adjacent to the proposed development are predicted to meet the criterion for safety. Winds from the North

A northerly wind is the second strongest wind direction next to the west. The wind from the north will hit the northern facade of the building and is expected to create a downwash. However, due to the short distance between the proposed development and the adjacent ‘Seafield Tower’ to the north, wind vortices are unlikely to penetrate effectively between the buildings and thus the wind speeds are expected to be small [8].

The northern frontage of the proposed development is comprised of a porte cochère (a porch under which vehicles may drop off or pick up passengers) which gives way to the main entrance of the building, which are expected to attract pedestrian traffic. Thus, wind mitigation techniques are required to ensure comfort and safety to pedestrians entering and exiting the retail area.

Considering the canopy implemented by Chasecrown architects, as highlighted in red in Figure 5, and the degree of shielding provided by the ‘Seafield Tower’ (approximately 11m), the wind conditions at the northern entrance are expected to be within the recommended standing criteria.

Figure 5: Canopy implemented in proposed design


August 17th, 2016

Wind from the East Winds generated from the east are weakest in magnitude, for the city of Adelaide, as shown in Figure 3. As illustrated in the drawings provided, an east facing ‘green roof/garden’ has been implemented into the design of the proposed development. The east facing entrance to the ‘green roof’ has no clearly identified canopy, however, the render shown in Figure 6 below illustrates that east facing balconies will provide some protection to pedestrians upon entry and exit of the garden area. Figure 6 also illustrates the use of a glass balustrade that has been implemented in the design, which will further increase pedestrian comfort within the garden area. Thus, considering the strength of the wind from the east and the well protected outdoor area, it is expected that public areas facing the east are unlikely to experience wind speeds in exceedance the recommended criteria.

Figure 6: Possible use of east facing balconies as canopy over garden entrance

Wind from the South Winds originating from the southwest are the strongest for the region. The adjacent building to the south of the proposed development (The Barquentine Complex) will provide some shielding from southerly winds and the short separation distance between the two buildings is expected to reduce the effects of downwash. Thus, considering the degree of shielding and the relative strength of the wind from the south, the wind environment is expected to meet the criterion as recommended.

Balcony over garden entrance

Glass balustrade


August 17th, 2016

Winds from the West Wind from the west directions are the strongest winds for the City of Adelaide. The western face of the proposed development is comprised of steps leading up to the building front, an entrance along the southern boundary and an area reserved for bike racks and public artwork. As illustrated in the drawings provided, building setbacks have been implemented in the design of the proposed development. As illustrated in Figure 7 below, levels 2-5 have been set back from level 1 and levels 6-11 have been set back from level 5. Downwash that is generated by westerly winds is expected to be deflected by these setbacks and thus, the ground floor area exposed to westerly winds is expected to satisfy the recommended walking criteria.

Figure 7: Setbacks on the western façade

Setback on levels 6-11

Setback on levels 2-5


August 17th, 2016

The southern side of the proposed development contains an entrance gate, located on the south western corner, as illustrated in the drawing provided by Chasecrown architects. Direct exposure of westerly (and south westerly) winds are expected to result in discomfort for some occupants between the proposed development and the adjacent Barquentine Complex, particularly the entrance, highlighted in yellow in Figure 8. However, it is unlikely that wind speeds will exceed the recommended criteria. As the drawings indicate that a gate will be used (allowing wind to flow through), it is considered to be unlikely that any adverse wind effects will be felt when using this entrance. For the event where a door, rather than a gate, is used in the design, recommendations have been made. Recommendations of the placement of foliage on the western garden have also been made to ameliorate direct exposure of westerly winds to this entrance.

Figure 8: South eastern entrance

Balconies Balcony and terrace areas located at the mid-section of a broad face are usually a lot calmer when compared to areas located at the ends and corners of the building. Accelerated corner flows, standing vortices and high exposure to corner balconies often create a windy environment that may impede the overall use of the recreational area. Owners of corner apartments may therefore resort to using their balcony less frequently or limiting the area of recreational use to zones that are more protected. As illustrated in drawings provided, corner balconies have been implemented in the proposed design of the penthouse on level 11 on the south western and north western comers. The circular corners, however, are expected to reduce the effect of corner acceleration by encouraging wind to flow laterally around them. Although the proposed balconies will often be acceptable for outdoor recreation, conditions may occasionally exceed the criteria for human comfort during strong winds due to the height of the balconies to strong westerly winds. Thus, minimum heights for balcony balustrades have been recommended.


August 17th, 2016

5. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations have been made regarding canopies, foliage, balustrades and the green roof/garden area of the proposed development, as outlined below:

Canopy over the northern entrance Chasecrown architects have implemented a canopy over the main entrance of the proposed development. Due to the geometry of the design, a distinct canopy width has not been clearly identified. Thus, it is recommended that a minimum canopy width of 2m from the wall of the proposed development is satisfied.

Figure 8: Minimum canopy distances

South western entrance In the event where a door, rather than a gate, is used in the design, a minimum setback of 2m is recommended, as illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Minimum setback distance

Minimum width of 2m from building wall

Minimum

setback of 2m


August 17th, 2016

Foliage along South Esplanade It is recommended that evergreen (year-round) vegetation, with a minimum height of 3m highlighted, are used on the western side of the proposed development, as shown in yellow in Figure 11, to act as a wind ameliorate westerly winds approaching the corridor along the southern boundary.

Figure 11: Proposed location of foliage

Balconies Some minor exceedances of the recommended walking criterion are expected on the western balconies during strong wind events. As these winds are expected to be of infrequent occurrence and may not impede the intended use of the balconies, it is recommended that an allowance be made to increase the western balustrade heights in the event of unpleasant conditions. Thus, it is recommended that the original balustrade heights be trialled and, if required, the height increased to 1.2m by retrofitting an extension.

There is also a potential risk that lightweight items will be removed from these balcony areas of the proposed development during high wind events. High level balconies are expected to have wind conditions close to or above the recommended walking criterion. GWTS therefore recommend that the original balustrade heights be trialled and an allowance be made to increase the penthouse balustrade heights to 1.5m in the event of unpleasant conditions.

Educating residents about wind conditions at high level balconies during high wind events and securely fix lightweight items and furniture is highly suggested.


August 17th, 2016

6. CONCLUSIONS GWTS has carefully evaluated the wind environment around the proposed building by considering the form and exposure of the proposed development, the nearby existing developments, the local wind climate and the proposed use of ground level areas in and adjacent to the proposed development. Based on our experience and empirical relations for wind speed at a ground level and the above consideration, expected wind speeds around the proposed building are predicted and then compared in relation to widely used and accepted criteria for comfort and safety. This study concludes that localized increases in ground level wind conditions due to the proposed development are unlikely to occur. The proposed design is expected to alleviate any significant adverse wind effects at pedestrian level. Some recommendations and specifications of wind mitigation features have been provided.

Please note that this is an opinion statement and is not based on wind tunnel test. If a high level of confidence is required a wind tunnel test is recommended.


August 17th, 2016

7.0 REFERENCES 1) Australian Standard 1170.2:1989, Wind actions

2) Melbourne, W. H., “Criteria for Environmental Wind Conditions”, Jour. Industrial

Aerodynamics, Vol. 3, 241-249,1978 3) Australian Wind Engineering Society, “Cladding Pressure and Environmental Wind

Studies” Quality Assurance Manual, 1994 4) AS/NZS 1170.2 Supplement 1: 2011 5) Adelaide City Development Plan (current), Adelaide City

Council,http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/planning-development/cityplanning/development-plan/

6) Aynsley R, Melbourne W, Viclery B, Architectural Aerodynamics, Applied Science Publishers

7) Australasian Wind Engineering Society, Guidelines for Pedestrian Wind Effects Criteria, http://www.awes.org/archives/news/pedestrian-wind-effects-criteria/

8) Simiu, E., Scanlan, R.H., Wind Effects on Structures, Fundamentals and Applications to Design, Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc. 1996

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/planning-development/cityplanning/development-plan/

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/planning-development/cityplanning/development-plan/

http://www.awes.org/archives/news/pedestrian-wind-effects-criteria/


August 17th, 2016

APPENDIX A - DRAWING LIST

Drawing List

8 South Esplanade

Glenelg

Transport Impact Assessment

Client // Chasecrown

Office // SA

Reference // 16A1191000

Date // 28/07/16

© GTA Consultants (GTA Consultants (SA) Pty Ltd) 2016

The information contained in this document is confidential and

intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it has

been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as

being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in

whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants

constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property

contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants. TIA

Re

po

rt -

SA

(1

50

630

v1

.8)

Melbourne | Sydney | Brisbane

Canberra | Adelaide | Perth

Gold Coast | Townsville

8 South Esplanade

Glenelg

Transport Impact Assessment

Issue: B 28/07/16

Client: Chasecrown

Reference: 16A1191000

GTA Consultants Office: SA

Quality Record

Issue Date Description Prepared By Checked By Approved By Signed

A 11/03/16 Final Lydia Kairl Richard

Frimpong Paul Froggatt Paul Froggatt

B 28/07/16 Final

-Layout Amendment Lydia Kairl

Richard

Frimpong Paul Froggatt

16A1191000 // 28/07/16

Transport Impact Assessment // Issue: B

8 South Esplanade, Glenelg

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Purpose of this Report 1

1.3 References 1

2. Existing Conditions 2

2.1 Subject Site 2

2.2 Road Network 2

2.3 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 3

3. Development Proposal 4

3.1 Land Uses 4

3.2 Car Parking 4

3.3 Vehicle Access 4

3.4 Bicycle Facilities 4

3.5 Pedestrian Facilities 4

4. Car Parking 5

4.1 Development Plan Car Parking Requirements 5

4.2 Adequacy of Parking Supply 5

4.3 Car Parking Layout 5

5. Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 7

5.1 Bicycle End of Trip Facilities 7

5.2 Walking and Cycling Network 7

5.3 Public Transport 7

6. Refuse Collection 8

6.1 Refuse Collection 8

7. Traffic Impact Assessment 9

7.1 Traffic Generation 9

7.2 Traffic Impact 10

8. Conclusion 11

16A1191000 // 28/07/16


8 South Esplanade, Glenelg

Figures

Figure 2.1: Subject Site and its Environs 2

Figure 2.2: Public Transport Map 3

Figure 2.3: Glenelg Interchange Map 3

Figure 7.1: Traffic Generation 10

Tables

Table 4.1: Development Plan Car Parking Requirements 5

Table 7.1: Traffic Generation 9

16A1191000 // 28/07/16


8 South Esplanade, Glenelg 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

A development application is currently being sought for a proposed residential development on

land located at 8 South Esplanade in Glenelg. The proposed development incorporates some 63

residential units, with under croft car parking and associated facilities.

GTA Consultants was commissioned by Chasecrown in February 2016 to undertake a transport

impact assessment of the proposed development.

1.2 Purpose of this Report

This report sets out an assessment of the anticipated transport implications of the proposed

development, including consideration of the following:

i existing traffic and parking conditions surrounding the site;

ii parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed development;

iii suitability of the proposed parking in terms of supply (quantum) and layout;

iv traffic generation characteristics of the proposed development;

v proposed access arrangements for the site;

vi walking, cycling and public transport facilities in the vicinity of the site;

vii transport impact of the development proposal on the surrounding road network.

1.3 References

In preparing this report, reference has been made to the following:

Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan (consolidated 26 November 2015)

Australian Standard/ New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities, Part 1: Off-Street Car

Parking AS/NZS 2890.1:2004

Australian Standard / New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities, Part 6: Off-Street Parking

for People with Disabilities AS/NZS 2890.6:2009

plans for the proposed development prepared by Chasecrown

traffic and car parking surveys undertaken by GTA Consultants as referenced in the

context of this report

various technical data as referenced in this report

an inspection of the site and its surrounds

other documents as nominated.

1

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



2. Existing Conditions

2.1 Subject Site

The subject site is located at 8 South Esplanade in Glenelg. The subject site has frontages to both

South Esplanade and St Johns Row.

The site is located within a Residential High Density zone in Policy Area 15 (Urban Glenelg) and is

currently occupied by residential buildings.

The surrounding properties include a mix of residential land uses. The notable exceptions include

Glenelg beach to the west.

The location of the subject site and the surrounding environs is shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Subject Site and its Environs

(PhotoMap courtesy of NearMap Pty Ltd)

2.2 Road Network

2.2.1 Adjoining Roads

St Johns Row

St Johns Row is a local two-way road aligned in a north to south direction. It is configured with an

approximately 8 metre wide carriageway set within an approximately 12 metre wide road

reserve.

2

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



Kerbside parking is permitted on either side of the carriageway, and is not subject to time

restrictions, with the exception of a short residential permit zone on the opposite side of the street

to the proposed development.

2.3 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure

2.3.1 Public Transport

Figure 2.2 shows the subject site in relation to existing public transport routes within its vicinity, and

Figure 2.3 shows the nearby Glenelg Interchange public transport services.

Figure 2.2: Public Transport Map Figure 2.3: Glenelg Interchange Map

Bus routes 190, 970 265 and 300 service Moseley Street near the subject site, in addition to the bus

routes servicing the Glenelg Interchange. These routes service many different areas of Adelaide

including Marion, Arndale, Glen Osmond, Klemzig and Flinders University, as well as Adelaide

CBD.

In addition to road based public transport the Moseley Square Tram Stop on the Glenelg to

Entertainment Centre service is located approximately 200 metres from the subject site, with

services running at a frequency ranging from 5 to 20 minutes (with the higher frequency during

weekday AM and PM peak hours) 7 days a week. Services run to the Entertainment Centre via

Adelaide CBD.

2.3.2 Pedestrian and Cyclist Infrastructure

Pedestrian footpaths are located on either side of St Johns Row.

In addition, the subject site fronts onto the Coast Park shared path which runs along the

Esplanade in a north-south orientation. Coast Park shared path is of good quality, and is well

utilised, particularly by recreational walkers and cyclists.

On street bicycle lanes are not provided on any of the adjacent streets, although they are

generally of sufficient width for cyclists and vehicles to share the carriageway. In addition, cyclists

may cycle on footpaths near the subject site (unless signed otherwise).

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



3. Development Proposal

3.1 Land Uses

The proposal includes the construction of some 63 residential units, with a variety of one, two,

three and four bedroom units.

3.2 Car Parking

The proposed development includes two levels of under croft car parking providing some 104 car

parking spaces, including 14 marked for visitor spaces (7 of which are on the ground floor). The

under croft carpark includes 4 disabled parking spaces with associated shared spaces.

In addition, the site will provide 8 scooter parking spaces in the under croft car park.

3.3 Vehicle Access

Vehicle access to the under croft car park is proposed via a new crossover to St Johns Row while

vehicle access to the ground floor visitor car parking is proposed via an existing crossover to St

Johns Row.

3.4 Bicycle Facilities

20 secure bicycle parking spaces are proposed in the under croft car park. An additional 22

bicycle spaces are proposed in the public realm.

3.5 Pedestrian Facilities

The subject site will provide pedestrian access to both South Esplanade and St Johns Row.

3

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



4. Car Parking

4.1 Development Plan Car Parking Requirements

Table HoB/1 of the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan sets out the Development Plan

requirements for car parking applicable to the proposed development. The applicable rates are

as follows;

Residential flat building and

tourist/visitor accommodation

within the Residential High Density

Zone comprising three or more

storeys (external wall heights

greater than 10.5 metres) above

natural ground level

0.75 spaces per 1 bedroom independent habitable unit

1 space per 2 bedroom independent habitable unit

1.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom independent

habitable unit

*Add an additional 1 visitor space for every 5

independent habitable units

Based on the above Table 4.1 summarises the car parking requirements based on the above

rates.

Table 4.1: Development Plan Car Parking Requirements

Use Number of Units Rate Requirement

1 bedroom unit 15 0.75 spaces/unit 11

2 bedroom unit 36 1 space/ unit 36

3 or more bedroom units 12 1.5 spaces/unit 18

Visitor 63 0.2 space/unit 13

TOTAL 78

As summarised above the proposed development has a car parking requirement of 78 spaces

including 13 visitor car parking spaces.

4.2 Adequacy of Parking Supply

The proposed development includes some 104 car parking spaces, including 14 visitor car

parking spaces. This exceeds the requirements of the development plan.

4.3 Car Parking Layout

The parking layout has been designed in accordance with Australian Standard for Off Street Car

parking (AS2890.1:2004).

The following is noted regarding the layout:

90 degree angled parking spaces that are typically 2.45 m wide by 5.4 metres long set

within a 5.8 metre aisle, which meets the minimum requirements as per the standard.

Car parking spaces adjacent physical structures such as walls have been provided with

a minimum 300 mm clearance.

Columns have been positioned outside the vehicle design envelope.

A blind aisle has been provided at the end of the lower ground, which exceeds the

minimum 1.0 metre requirement.

4

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



2.0 m x 2.5 m pedestrian sight distance splays have been provided at the entrance of

the car park.

The layout is suitable to provide ramp grades to achieve the minimum 2.2 metre

headroom clearance.

Disabled car parking spaces have been provided with accompanied shared spaces in

accordance with the Australian Standard for Off-street parking for people with

disabilities (AS2890.6:2009).

The circulation swept paths within the car park have been checked for a B85/B99 and

are satisfactory as per the standard.

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



5. Sustainable Transport Infrastructure

5.1 Bicycle End of Trip Facilities

The Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan does not provide bicycle parking rates applicable to

the proposed development. Principle of Development Control (PDC) 47(b) is applicable to the

proposed development, and is as follows;

PDC 47(b) Site facilities for group dwellings, residential parks and residential flat buildings and

should include: bicycle parking for residents and visitors.

Appendix H of the Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides provides guidance on the provision of

bicycle parking at residential developments. The Guide indicates the following rates:

Residents 1 per 4 lodging rooms

Visitors 1 per 16 lodging rooms

Based on the above the proposed development (with a total of 124 rooms) has a recommended

bicycle parking provision of 31 spaces for residents and 8 spaces for visitors.

The proposed development includes 20 secure bicycle storage spaces located in the under croft

parking area for residents. Furthermore, 22 bicycle parking spaces are provided within the public

realm.

The proposed development also includes a storage compartment for each unit in the basement

car parking area. GTA understands these are generally of sufficient size to store a bicycle and

could be used by residents as additional bicycle storage if required. Notwithstanding this

provision, bicycle storage may also occur in individual units.

5.2 Walking and Cycling Network

The proposed development provides pedestrian and cyclist access to Coast Park shared path

along South Esplanade.

5.3 Public Transport

The site is accessible by public transport as discussed in Section 2.3.1.

5

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



6. Refuse Collection

6.1 Refuse Collection

Refuse collection will be carried out on-street along St Johns Row within the frontage of property.

It is understood waste collection bins will be stored on site in a specific waste room and wheeled

to the western frontage of St Johns Row as required. Private waste collection vehicles up to an

8.8 metre MRV, and collection will occur six (6) times per week.

Given the low volume nature of St John’s Row and low frequency for refuse collection, GTA

believes that on-street collection won’t adversely impact the function and safety of St John’s

Row. GTA suggests that a time restricted loading area be nominated along the western frontage

of St Johns Row between the basement car park access and the Porte Cochere access.

6

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



7. Traffic Impact Assessment

7.1 Traffic Generation

7.1.1 Design Rates

Traffic generation estimates for the proposed development have been sourced from the RMS

‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Updated Traffic Surveys’ published as Technical

Direction 04a in August 2013. The rates applicable to the proposed development are as follows;

High Density Residential

Flat Dwellings

AM Peak Hour 0.19 vehicle trips per unit

0.15 vehicle trips per car space

PM Peak Hour 0.15 vehicle trips per unit


Daily 1.52 vehicle trips per unit


Based on the above, estimates of peak hour and daily traffic volumes resulting from the proposal

are set out in Figure 7.1.

Table 7.1: Traffic Generation

Time Period Number Rate Vehicle Trips

AM Peak Hour

104 car parking spaces

0.15 16 trips

PM Peak Hour 0.12 13 trips

Daily 1.34 142 trips

Table 7.1 indicates that the site could potentially generate 16 vehicle movements in a peak hour

with 142 vehicle movements over the entire day.

GTA notes that given the existing residential use of the subject site there is some existing traffic

generation and as such the above will not be entirely new trips and thus is a conservative

estimate.

The directional split of traffic (i.e. the ratio between the inbound and outbound traffic

movements) has been assumed as 20:80 in the AM Peak Hour and 80:20 in the PM Peak Hour,

and 50:50 across the entire day.

7

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



Figure 7.1: Traffic Generation

7.2 Traffic Impact

Against existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site, the additional traffic generated by the

proposed development could not be expected to compromise the safety or function of the

surrounding road network.

Moreover, the use of St Johns Row by vehicles accessing residential uses which abut them is

entirely appropriate and consistent with their functional role in the road network.

16A1191000 // 28/07/16



8. Conclusion

Based on the analysis and discussions presented within this report, the following conclusions are

made:

i The proposed development generates statutory requirement of 78 spaces, including 13

visitor parking spaces based on the Holdfast Bay Development Plan.

ii The proposed supply of 104 spaces (including 14 visitor car parking spaces) which

exceeds the development plan requirement.

iii The proposed parking layout is consistent with the dimensional requirements as set out

in the Australian/New Zealand Standards for Off Street Car Parking (AS/NZS2890.1:2004

and AS/NZS2890.6:2009).

iv The subject site fronts onto Coast Park shared path which runs along the South

Esplanade providing a good walking and cycling link to Glenelg, Glenelg public

transport interchange and further south.

v 22 secure bicycle parking spaces are provided in the under croft car parking area, and

22 visitor bicycles is provided in the public space along the Esplanade frontage of the

development.

vi Refuse collection will be carried out by an 8.8-metre-long private waste collection

vehicle on-street six (6) times per week. The low volume nature of St Johns Row and the

low frequency of collections mitigates the traffic impacts on-street.

vii The site is expected to generate up to 16 and 142 vehicle movements in any peak hour

and daily respectively.

viii There is adequate capacity in the surrounding road network to cater for the traffic

generated by the proposed development.

8

Melbourne

A Level 25, 55 Collins Street

PO Box 24055

MELBOURNE VIC 3000

P +613 9851 9600

E [email protected]

Brisbane

A Level 4, 283 Elizabeth Street

BRISBANE QLD 4000

GPO Box 115

BRISBANE QLD 4001

P +617 3113 5000

E [email protected]

Adelaide

A Suite 4, Level 1, 136 The Parade

PO Box 3421

NORWOOD SA 5067

P +618 8334 3600

E [email protected]

Townsville

A Level 1, 25 Sturt Street

PO Box 1064

TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810

P +617 4722 2765

E [email protected]

Sydney

A Level 6, 15 Help Street

CHATSWOOD NSW 2067

PO Box 5254

WEST CHATSWOOD NSW 1515

P +612 8448 1800

E [email protected]

Canberra

A Tower A, Level 5,

7 London Circuit

Canberra ACT 2600

P +612 6243 4826

E [email protected]

Gold Coast

A Level 9, Corporate Centre 2

Box 37, 1 Corporate Court

BUNDALL QLD 4217

P +617 5510 4800

F +617 5510 4814

E [email protected]

Perth

A Level 27, 44 St Georges Terrace

PERTH WA 6000

P +618 6361 4634

E [email protected]

www.gta.com.au www.gta.com.au

GLENELG SOUTH ESPLANADELANDSCAPE SCHEMATIC DESIGNJULY 2016

SCHEMATIC DESIGN | SOUTH ESPLANADE DEVELOPMENT | 2

0.0 | CONTENTS

1.0 | des ign response

2.0 | ground f loor precedents

3.0 | roof garden precedents

4.0 | mater ia ls pa let te

5.0 | p lant ing pa let te

6.0 | schemat ic des ign


1.0 | DESIGN RESPONSE

introduct ion landscape approach plant ing design designed maintenance

The proposal outlined creates both gardens for residents and a laneway connecting South Esplanade to St John Row. The ground plane is an attractive and high quality landscape with amenity for users. The layout works with the architectural ground plane to integrate both soft and hardscape treatments to create a singular effect.

A green roof provides a private space for residents.

The projects creates a transition between South Esplanade and St Johns Row by providing a laneway that draws people through the site.

Key design initiatives include: › An appropriate palette of materials that reference

and respond to the site and architecture. › An appropriate planting palette that creates a

range of experience within the site. › A robust landscape comprising simple materials,

proven planting and bold forms that can be managed and maintained.

› A mix of communal and semi-private spaces that accommodate public passage while retaining privacy and safety for residents.

› )JìSNYNTS� TK� XUFHJX� HTRUWNXNSL� YMJ� QFSIXHFUJ�including shared pedestrian corridor and private roof garden.

› Consideration of the harsh coastal weather conditions.

› Integration of subtle lighting in the landscape.

The planting scheme uses a native and indigenous palette chosen for its colour, form and tolerance to coastal conditions:

The planting design: › Establishes robust green spaces. › Uses planting elegantly to create identity and

maximise amenity for residents and users of the public realm.

› Is suited to the site aspect, prevailing wind conditions and minimises water use.

The rooftop garden provides a comfortable garden for residents incorporating a variety of sub-spaces for residents.

The maintenance needs of any landscape are absolutely tied to the resolution of the design at planning level. The proposal negotiates the desire for a strong planting scheme with the need to ensure that these plants have longevity within a low-maintenance environment.

The proposal includes: › A strong palette of proven performing plants

that are tolerant to low water and harsh coastal conditions.

› A planting palette that utilises numerous species for each application ensuring seasonal change as well as a consistent level of amenity should one of the species under perform.


2.0 | PRECEDENTS | ground f loor


3.0 | PRECEDENTS | green roof


4.0 | MATERIALS PALETTEMaterials have a contextual relationship to Glenelg and work coherently with one another.

ROOFTOP TIMBER DECKING LIGHTWEIGHT TIMBER SHELTER SMALL FORMAT BRICK PAVING

SOFT COASTAL PLANTING

ELLIPTICAL RAISED PLANTING BEDSCLEAN CUT CONCRETEIN-LAY LIGHTING CATENARY LIGHTING

INSITU CONCRETE


5.0 | PLANTING PALETTEThe planting palette mixes soft neutral grasses and shrubs with an assortment of vibrant coloured coastal species. The planting palette responds to low maintenance requirements and harsh coastal conditions; whilst still creating a landscape that is vibrant and a strong focal point to the ground plane.

Poa labillardieri ‘eskdale’Tussock Grass

Russelia equisetifoliaFirecracker Plant

Pennissetum alopercurioidesPurple Lea

Myoporum parvifoliumCreeping Boobialla

Leucophyta browniiCushion Bush

Carpobrotus rossiiPig Face

Scaevola humilisPurple Fusion

Westringia fruticosaBlue Gem

Isolepis nodosaKnobby Club Rush

Dianella revolutaCassa Blue


6.0 | SCHEMATIC DESIGN | ground f loor

SO

UT

H

ES

PL

AN

AD

E

C A R P A R K

FIRST FLOOR

ROOFTOP GARDEN

WITH PERGOLA

S O U T H E S P L A N A D E D E V E L O P M E N T

PAVING

PAVING

MAIN ENTRY

UNDERGROUND

CARPARK ENTRYPERG

OLA

ENTRY

ENTRY

ST

JO

HN

S R

OW

1 Bladed fencing

2 Shotblast concrete pedestrian pathway

3 Native planting garden bed

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

7 Raised planting bed

8 Timber decking

9 Raised planters [400 - 600mm]

4 Steps / terraces to foyer

5 Raised tube planters

6 Sculptural artwork

10 Integrated seating

11 Flexible seating

elements

Alex

Alex


6.0 | SCHEMATIC DESIGN | balconies

1 Architectural raised planters

2 Flexible outdoor seating

3 GRC raised planter pots

4 4ZYITTW�YNQJ�íTTWNSL

elementsSECOND FLOOR

LIVING /

DINING

LIVINGLIVING

BEDROOM BEDROOM

LIVING /

DINING

LIVING /

DINING

LIVING /

DINING

4

3

1

3

1 Waymouth Place Adelaide SA 5000 t 8231 8344 [email protected] www.dasharchitects.com.au ABN 82 059 685 059

DASH (Danvers Schulz Holland) Architects was founded in 1964 and has since established itself as one of South Australia’s leading practices in the provision of specialist heritage services. DASH Architects has been at the forefront of the development of a sustainable paradigm for the conservation of cultural heritage within Australia. This approach is based on contemporary values and traditions, and recognises the importance of both tangible and intangible cultural significance within our community.

Seafield Tower Redevelopment Lot 106 South Esplanade, Glenelg Heritage Impact Assessment DA153138 Issue – 08.09.16

1.0 Introduction This report has been prepared by Jason Schulz, Director of DASH Architects. I have over 20 years experience as a heritage architect, with particular expertise in adaptive reuse, heritage policy and impact assessments. I also have a detailed knowledge of the State’s planning system, including relevant legislation (Development Act & Regs, SA Heritage Places Act & Regs), Council Development Plans, DAC, PLP and related processes. This collective expertise has afforded me the following past and present postings: Present

• South Australian Heritage Council (since 2011); • Local Heritage Advisory Committee (since 2011); and • City Centre Design Review Panel (ODASA).

Past

• Deputy Presiding Member, City of Unley Development Assessment Panel;

• Presiding Member, City of Adelaide Urban Design Advisory Committee;

• City of Adelaide Heritage Advisor; and • Salvation Army Advisory Board.

I have been engaged by Chasecrown to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the proposed redevelopment at Lot 106 South Esplanade, Glenelg (Seafield Tower). This engagement extended to the provision of heritage advice during the development of the concept and current application. This assessment will consider the following:

• Heritage Impacts of the proposed new residential tower on the context of the State Heritage listed Seafield Tower; and

• Heritage Impacts of the proposed works to the State Heritage listed Seafield Tower.

Seafield Towers Redevelopment : Issue 8 Sept 2016

My advice has been based on the following documentation prepared by Chasecrown:

• 15 SFT, Dwg 000, Issue A, 11 August 2016: Cover Sheet & Locality Plan

• 15 SFT, Dwg 100, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Ground Floor Demolition Plan

• 15 SFT, Dwg 101, Issue A, 16 August 2016: First Floor Demolition Plan

• 15 SFT, Dwg 102, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Ground Floor Plan Proposed

• 15 SFT, Dwg 103, Issue A, 16 August 2016: First Floor Proposed Plan • 15 SFT, Dwg 200, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Reflected Ceiling Plans • 15 SFT, Dwg 300, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Existing Elevations • 15 SFT, Dwg 301, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Existing Elevations • 15 SFT, Dwg 302, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Elevations Proposed • 15 SFT, Dwg 303, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Proposed Elevations • 14 SES, Dwg 000, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Cover Sheet & Locality

Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 001, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Site Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 100, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Basement Car Park 2 • 14 SES, Dwg 101, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Basement Car Park 1 • 14 SES, Dwg 102, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Ground Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 103, Issue A, 16 August 2016: First Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 104, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Second Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 105, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Third Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 106, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Fourth Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 107, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Fifth Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 108, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Sixth Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 109, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Seventh Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 110, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Eighth Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 111, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Ninth Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 112, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Tenth Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 113, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Eleventh Floor Plan • 14 SES, Dwg 200, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Elevations • 14 SES, Dwg 300, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Section • 14 SES, Dwg 402, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Heritage Relationship • 14 SES, Dwg 400, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Heritage Relationship • 14 SES, Dwg 401, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Heritage Relationship • 14 SES, Dwg 402, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Heritage Relationship • 14 SES, Dwg 403, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Perspectives • 14 SES, Dwg 404, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Perspectives • 14 SES, Dwg 405, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Perspectives • 14 SES, Dwg 406, Issue A, 16 August 2016: Shadow Diagrams • 14 SES, Rev. E, 16 August 2016, Urban & Architectural Design

Report • 14 SES, Rev. A, 16 August 2016, Architectural Context Presentation


Disclaimer: This HIA has been based on the information scheduled above. Any changes to these scheduled items may result in differing heritage impacts to those considered and assessed in the below report. It is recommended that the above issue dates and revision numbers be confirmed to those lodged for Development Plan Consent when considering the findings are recommendations of this report.

2.0 Subject Site / Locality The proposed development is located at Lot 106 South Esplande Glenelg (The Subject Site). The site accommodates ‘half’ of the State Heritage listed Seafield Tower, along with a c1960s residential flat building, and a c1950s residential apartment building (to the south of the State Heritage place). Both of these later structures are proposed for demolition to accommodate a proposed new residential tower complex (summarised in more detail in Section 3 of this report).

Image 1. Locality Plan. Source (base image): location.sa.gov.au


Image 2. Beachscape view of site

Image 3. Seafield Tower.

3.0 Proposed Development The planning report prepared by Future Urban Group provides the following description of the proposed development:

The proposed development seeks to demolish all existing buildings and structures on the subject site, with the exception of the State Heritage listed Seafield Tower; and to construct a 12 level (43 metres when excluding the lift overrun) building comprising two levels of basement car parking, ground level communal amenities, 11 levels of residential apartments (including penthouse level, providing a total of 63 apartments) and roof garden.


The proposal also includes conservation works (exterior and interior) to Seafield Tower and the creation of a new publicly accessible pedestrian link through the site connecting St John’s Row with the South Esplanade.

As noted, the development proposed the demolition of the c1950s and c1960s apartment buildings on the site, the later of which currently stands in very close proximity to the State Heritage listed Seafield Tower (refer Image 1). The project designer’s, Chasecrown, have provided the following statement with regard to the architectural response to the surrounding context (extracts taken only):

Existing Site Condition The amalgamated site area will be in the order of 2650m2 and have a frontage to South Esplanade of approximately 48 metres. This duel street frontages adds significant value both in terms of access and building form. [sic] Currently the combined sites contain buildings, state heritage listed Seafield Tower, a two story 1970’s brick flat roofed brick building and a 3 level short accommodation building built on the South Esplanade boundary. All three buildings currently provide short-term accommodation to ANI members and the general public. Podium Relationship with Seafield Tower To create a diversity of contemporary residential accommodation that incorporates sustainable design initiatives, responding to its significant coastal location and adjacency to historic Seafield Tower.

The building has two main components - the podium and the tower. The podium height is set to provide a height relationship with Seafield Tower. The solid to void ratio, detail and colour are designed to create a dialogue between the two. The tower is predominately glass promoting transparency with extensive balconies providing outdoor areas and shading. The form is contemporary with cues relating to its coastal location. Fluidity and movement through changing floor plates and external detailing are a response to the buildings coastal location. The east facade of the building has a considerable set back from the St Johns Row and its lower scale neighbours and incorporates extensive green walls and roof and balcony gardens to soften the buildings appearance. The proposal seeks to establish a strong relationship with Seafield Tower through material pattern, finish and colour. It is proposed to use patterned precast concrete panels with the podium that links color and finish to Seafield Tower stonework. [sic]


Image 4. Proposed Development. Source: Chasecrown.







4.0 Planning Context 4.1 Holdfast Bay Council Development

Plan The Subject Site is located within The City of Holdfast Bay’s Residential High Density Zone, Policy Area 15 Urban Glenelg, 12 Storey Precinct. Relevant extracts from Council’s Development Plan (consolidated 2 June 2016) include:

Residential High Density Zone PDC 7: High density development that achieves gross densities of

more than 45 dwellings per hectare (which translates to net densities of more than 67 dwellings per hectare) should typically be in the form of over 4 storey buildings.

PDC 8: Development should result in high-quality aesthetic and

urban design outcomes, and where possible, allotments should be amalgamated to assist the achievement of this.

Urban Glenelg Policy Area 15 The policy area provides the Council’s premier coastal medium and high density living opportunities… The policy area adds to the choice of accommodation within Holdfast Bay and the wider metropolitan area by providing for a variety of


medium and higher density dwelling types, including apartments for residential purposes and visitor accommodation… Development will be of the highest architectural standard, contemporary in style and contribute positively to the quality of the public realm. Its built form will contrast with the open character of the adjacent foreshore and reserve public spaces. It will capitalise on the highly desirable location through significant scale, with built form between three and twelve stories in height. This development will demonstrate excellence in urban design. It will create design relationships between buildings at ground level and the street frontage that acknowledge and respect the existing context, ensuring that scale and the built form edge protects and enhances significant visual and movement corridors (including key vistas to the sea and views through to public spaces). Views into and out of development sites will also reinforce visual connectivity and way-finding within the policy area. Building form and setbacks will vary to provide large-scale articulation within the streetscape. Building form will also use light and shade through articulation, eaves, verandas, canopies and balconies, to provide architectural detail, summer shade and promote greater energy efficiency. Likewise, buildings will use a balanced approach to the use of solid materials and glazing so to provide an attractive backdrop to key public spaces and streets. …a higher degree of overshadowing and loss of privacy is expected in the policy area given the medium-to-high density nature of development (and heights)… Precinct 5 Twelve Storey Development within Precinct 5 Twelve Storey will be predominantly in the form of residential flat buildings, serviced apartments and tourist accommodation of up to 12 storeys (or 43 metres) in height… Development will be of the highest architectural standard and contribute positively to the public realm through establishing clearly defined space between buildings, incorporating surface articulation using a balanced approach to the use of solid materials and glazed areas and adopting a building design that incorporates design elements that relate to the surrounding buildings, streetscape and public open space. Building design will complement the scale, proportions, siting and materials of the existing heritage places in the locality… PDC 14: Development above 5 storeys (or 18.5 metres) in height

should incorporate spaces between buildings or other design techniques that enable sunlight access and avoid wide continuous building walls.


PDC 23: Development should not exceed an external wall height of 43 metres above natural ground level (excluding lift service levels and gables).

PDC 24: Buildings should be setback on a podium that is designed to

be a maximum height of 11.5 metres above natural ground level.

This policy framework provides some context to the architectural response for the site.

4.2 Office for Design + Architecture The development of the application has also undergone a Design Review Process through the Office for Design + Architecture (ODASA). This process has heavily informed the configuration and design response of the current proposal. Relevant final advice from the Associate Government Architect (in their correspondence dated 5 May 2016) is outlined below. It is worth noting this advice predates the current Development Plan (consolidated 2 June 2016) that resulted in significant policy changes to this locality:

…I support the proposed below ground car parking, residential use and commend the intent to engage building users with public areas. The height of the proposed development above ground is 12-storeys (53 metres) presenting to the Esplanade. I consider this height to be justifiable given the anticipated policy direction for the locality and precedence for comparable scale along the Esplanade. However, this support is contingent on the final refinement of the architectural expression. The site incorporates one half of the State Heritage Place Seafield Tower, an attached building with only its southern portion within the boundaries of the subject site. The scheme proposes internal and external refurbishment works to the heritage place, which I support. I also support the treatment of the podium, which establishes a positive relationship with the heritage place. The new building envelope is set back from the northern boundary, providing a pedestrian link and affording views to the heritage place from the Esplanade and in the round. I strongly support the introduction of this public connection and consider the pedestrian link to be a positive addition to the pedestrian network… However, the extent of the northern set back and establishment of clear curtilages are also critical to achieving a positive relationship between the new and old buildings and the scale and proximity of the proposed development are such that it remains visually dominant. This is intensified by the large V-shaped columns and the cantilevered form of the structure.


In evaluating my support of the setback I have considered both the impacts of the limited curtilage to Seafield Tower, as well as positive outcomes arising from the pedestrian link provides direct access between St Johns Row and the foreshore. On balance, I support the proposed setback, however, I encourage the design team to further refine and reduce the emphasis of the large v-shaped columns… The proposed development is expressed as two elements, configured as a defined solid base transitioning to a setback glazed residential building above. The balconies comprise glass and aluminium panels, with a plastered finish to the underside. The form of the balconies transitions between geometric and curved elements, which I consider to be incongruent with the prevalent sinuous architectural expression. This also applies to the treatment of top of the building and I recommend further refinement of these elements. Overall, the proposed architectural expression is supported in principle, however opportunities still exist to further strengthen the cohesion and sinuous character of the architectural expression… In response to materials presented at the first Design Review Session for this scheme, in principle I support the overall design approach and commend the proponent team on the advancement of the scheme following the Design Workshops…

5.0 Seafield Tower 5.1 State Heritage Files The following information was sourced on Seafield Tower from files held by DEWNR:

• Location: 6-7 South Esplanade, Glenelg • Status Date: 05-April-1984 • State Heritage ID: 12029

Statement of Significance (Data Base Report) Built 1876 as seaside retreats and adjoining residences for H Ayers and Sir T Elder. Representative of the large marine mansions in Glenelg and its boom period of the 1870s-80s. Designed by Thomas English. Bluestone construction, Italianate style. Prominent lookout and significant element in the streetscape. (SHB) Register Nomination Report (12.05.83) Heritage Significance Historically, "Seafield Tower" is significant for its association with both Sir Henry Ayers and The Hon. Thomas Elder, who were representative of the upper social class which built large 'marine villas ' or mansions in Glenelg during the latter part of the 19th century. 'Seafield Tower' is also associated with Glenelg's "boom" period of the 1870's and l880's, and with 'Glenara' was one of the first of a number of major houses and buildings constructed along the South Esplanade.


Architecturally, 'Seafield Tower', with its belvedere is an important example of the Italianate style of Thomas English, and notable as a semi-detached residence of a grander scale than usual. Environmentally, 'Seafield Tower' with its prominent lookout has always been a significant element in the streetscape. Although dwarfed by nearby highrise, the building still maintains a sense of grandeur and history on the Esplanade. The Integrity of the building is fair. Balcony modifications could be removed; however a recent building erected alongside is incongruous. History Context: Associated with rapid development of Glenelg foreshore along South Esplanade during 18701s-1880s and with economic class which dominated social life of Glenelg until 1900. Person/Group: Built as two adjoining but self contained residences for Sir Henry Ayers and The Hon. Thomas Elder, both important figures in South Australian history. Event: No event of significance known; however, the double mansion was the venue for a large number of social occasions during the summer when Ayers and Elder were in residence. Architecture Architect / Builder: Thomas English Design: Attached residences, each 15 rooms; bay windows, projecting central belvedere, side entrance porches. Balcony/ verandah follows line of façade. Construction: Random coursed blues tone-, smooth rendered quoins. Stucco arches with romanesque pilasters, and keystones around openings. Interior: Not Inspected. Representation: The most outstanding of several double residences on the esplanade. Notable for lookout tower. Environment Continuity: Mixed development - the building is an important element in the immediate streetscape. Local Character: Contributes to and reinforces the historic character of the South Esplanade and surrounding area. Landmark: Historically a prominent landmark, the impact of the tower on the skyline reduced by nearby high rise development. Integrity Alterations: The balcony / verandah filled in. Recent additions to the rear of the building.


Condition: Reasonable for its age. Compatibility: Each side on separate title; used for holiday flats. History “Seafield Tower” was built in 1874 as two attached residences, each of fifteen rooms. Number 6 was built for Sir Henry Ayers and Number 7 for Thomas Elder, both of whom contributed greatly to the development of the State. Sir Henry Ayers was a lawyer who invested successfully in Burra Burra Copper Mine and became Secretary of the South Australian Mining Association. He held many other positions, among them Trustee and later Chairman of the Savings Bank of South Australia, Director of the Bank of Australasia, Chairman of Directors of the SouthSouth [sic] Australian Gas Co., Governor of the Botanic Gardens Board, Member and Treasurer Adelaide University Council. In addition, his political career lasted some thirty-six years, from the time of his entry into the Legislative Council as its youngest member (1857) through seven ministries during which he was State Premier. He was knighted In 1872. After Ayer’s [sic] death in 1897, Harry Ayers owned the property until 1911, when the house and land were divided, going to separate owners. Sir Thomas Elder who had a commercial training became a noted pastoralist and explorer establish the firm of Elder Smith G Co. He promoted the use of camels in exploration and owned a stud farm and racing stables (Morphettville). As well he owned a cutter yacht, the “Edith”, and became a Commodore of the Glenelg Yacht Club. He was a major benefactor of many public institutions in Adelaide, notably the University of Adelaide the Art Gallery of South Australia the Museum and the Zoological Gardens. Elder also featured in South Australian politics, winning seat for the District of West Adelaide in the first election of the Legislative Council. In 1851 he was knighted in 1878. 1891 Charles Phillipson purchased the home, and after his death his widow retained it until 1911, when John Kelly, son of Dr. A.C. Kelly (who had been involved with Thomas Elder in the wine-making industry) became the owner. Mrs. Kelly introduced the name 'Seafield Tower’ and Mrs. Tennant, then owner of Number 6, adopted the name also. At present Number 6 belongs to Seafront Holiday Flat Pty Ltd, and Number 7 to the Commonwealth Railways, who also use it as holiday flats. Seafield Tower is highly significant on a State level for its close association with two major South Australian personalities. It also represents the lifestyle of the State's nineteenth century aristocracy, especially during the boom period of Glenelg in the 1870’s and 80's. Elder and Ayers used the building as a summer retreat, and "combined to have large week-end parties (there), with Lady Ayers acting as hostess, for Elder was a bachelor". (I. Mudie, 1974, p.22.) Although now divided into flats, it still retains its main function as a place in which holidays are spent.


Glenelg Heritage Survey The two self contained residences, each of 15 rooms known, as Seafield Tower, were built in 1876 as seaside retreats for Sir Henry Ayers and Sir Thomas Elder, it was the first of many grand homes built along South Esplanade. The architect was Thomas English. A marble fountain, a feature of the district was removed to Port Augusta when the Commonwealth Railways purchased Elder’s residence. The Tennants occupied Ayer’s House for many years. Building of the Italianate Style though the façade has been added to. Built of random coarse bluestone with smooth rendered quoins. The openings are Roman arched with Romanesque pilasters and keystones. Heavily moulded string course with dentils and corbels under the eaves. Original windows are double hung sash windows.

5.2 Historic Photographs The following photographs were sourced from The State Library of South Australian

Image 9. The Esplanade foreshore, with Seafield Tower to right of frame, c1877, Ref B_7874


Image 10. The Esplanade foreshore, with Seafield Tower to right of frame, c1877 (enlargement),

Ref B_7874

Image 11. The Esplanade foreshore, with Seafield Tower visible in background, c1889,

Ref B_1733


Image 12. The Esplanade foreshore, with Seafield Tower indicated by red arrow (added by

author), c1909, Ref B_9284

Image 13. The Esplanade foreshore, with Seafield Tower visible in background, c1909,

Ref B_17437

Image 14. The Esplanade foreshore, with Seafield Tower indicated by red arrow (added by

author), c1925 Ref B_43969


5.3 Integrity, Setting and Context Seafield Tower stands in a modest state of integrity. Key changes that have diminished its integrity include:

• previous internal refurbishments and reconfigurations to create additional apartments within the building. These have, at times, had little regard to the original layout and historic internal detailing;

• later (c1910s) refurbishment, creating several historic overlays within the building;

• enclosure of the external verandah and removal of some verandah detailing. The basic structure of the original verandah, and original external building (western) wall remains; and

• portion of original front (western) fence has been removed.

Image 15. Seafield Tower, May 2015, showing modified fence and enclosed verandahs.


Image 16. Typical Interior, May 2015

Image 17. Typical Interior, May 2015


Image 18. Typical Interior, May 2015 The setting of Seafield Tower has evolved over time. Originally, Seafield Tower was set as one of many large prestigious mansions fronting the Esplanade (refer Images 9, 11, 12). Even then, however, sites along the Esplanade in this location were developed in a relatively intensive manner to maximise the frontage to the primary coastal views. This resulted in narrow, yet deep titles being developed with minimal side setbacks. Today, many of these original mansions have been demolished to make way for medium scale residential apartment complexes. While this has affected the broader setting of the place, its context remains relatively intact, namely that of a substantial historic seaside mansion surrounded by intensive seaside development. This change to the broader setting of the place is recognized in Register Nomination Report which noted:

'Seafield Tower' with its prominent lookout has always been a significant element in the streetscape. Although dwarfed by nearby highrise, the building still maintains a sense of grandeur and history on the Esplanade. Landmark: Historically a prominent landmark, the impact of the tower on the skyline reduced by nearby high rise development.

Like the State Heritage listed Stormont (further south), Seafield Tower now stands in contrast to its surrounds, representing the original pattern of development of the locality. Its sea frontage (west) is its primary setting, with the rear (eastern) setting being of notably less importance.


The original grounds to Seafield Tower have also seen development within their original boundary, in the form of the c1960s residential flat building proposed for demolition. This flat building is located in very close proximity to the original building entry portico (located on the southern façade), and visually ‘crowds’ this setting of the place with a relatively unsympathetic built form.

Image 19. Broader setting of Seafield Tower (sea frontage). Seafield Tower centre of frame

behind tree, May 2015

Image 20. Seafield Tower (sea frontage), May 2015


Image 21. Rear (east) of Seafield Tower, St John’s Row, May 2015

Image 22. Probable original site boundary. Base image source: Google Maps


Image 23. Interface of c1960s residential flat building with southern facade (and original entry

portico) of Seafield Tower (looking eastward). May 2015

Image 24. Interface of c1960s residential flat building with southern facade (and original entry

portico) of Seafield Tower (looking westward). May 2015


6.0 State Heritage Impact Assessment

6.1 Legislative Background Schedule 8 of the South Australian Development Regulations (2008) notes the following forms of development to necessitate a referral to the Minister administering the South Australian Heritage Places Act (ie the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources , DEWNR): …development which directly affects a State heritage place, or development which in the opinion of the relevant authority materially affects the context within which the State Heritage place is situated. On this basis the following State Heritage Impacts associated with this application will need to be referred to and considered by DEWNR:

• potential impacts arising from changes to the context of Seafield Tower (ie works within the proximity of the heritage place); and

• direct impacts to the State Heritage place (ie physical works proposed to Seafield Tower).

6.2 Assessment of Contextual Impacts 6.2.1 Overall Building Form The proposed development seeks to demolish the c1960s residential flat building that was built within the probable original site boundaries of Seafield Tower, and construct a new residential tower complex to the southern side of the State Heritage place. The residential tower complex is proposed to be 12 storeys (43m excluding lift overrun) in height, and includes two levels of basement carparking. This proposed height is in accord with Council’s Development Plan expectations for this locality.


Image 25. Residential tower complex section. The residential tower design response established a building base (podium), middle (apartment floors) and top (penthouse level). The footprint of the podium base has been set back from the southern façade of the State Heritage place by 10m in order to:

• re-establish some ‘breathing space’ to its original southern setting that was lost through the construction of the c1960s residential flat building; and

• provide a pedestrian walkway connection between the foreshore and St Johns row: and urban design response strongly supported by ODASA.

The upper storeys (middle component) of the proposal build over this setback to maximize development on the site, and provide cover to the walkway below. Considerable design studies were undertaken by the applicant in developing the proposals northern setbacks so as to avoid a visual imbalance in the overall building form, or visual crowding of the State Heritage place. The resulting proposal avoids any cantilevering of floor plates over the heritage place, and provides a progressive stepping of the built form as it elevates. I consider this design approach to result in a net positive impact to the setting of the State Heritage place. The ground level setbacks provide additional


visual ‘breathing space’ to the southern side of Seafield Tower, and significantly increase views of the heritage place from its primary foreshore setting. While the upper storeys encroach within the original boundary curtilage of the heritage place, the overall form remains both balanced, and an improvement on the existing built form relationship to this side of Seafield Tower. As noted in the background discussion of this HIA, while the setting of Seafield Tower has changed and evolved over its life, its context has remained that of a substantial historic seaside residence surrounded by seaside development. Council’s Development Plan has recently amended the permissible height limits in this locality, from five storeys to twelve. This change in policy (in a relatively small precinct) demonstrates a clear intent for the scale and nature of development envisaged in this locality. The proposed development is consistent with both this policy intent, the historic pattern of development for this locality, and the context of the State Heritage place. The design provides a balanced and measured response to the visual setting of the heritage place, and the intensity of development sought in this precinct.

Image 26. Proposed western (seafrontage) elevation

Image 27. Western (seafrontage) townscape, red arrow identifying proposed residential tower


Image 28. proposed pedestrian walkway to southern side of Seafield Tower

Image 29. Perspective view of proposed walkway to southern side of Seafield Tower (looking

westward (towards coast)


Image 30. proposed development setback back to southern side of Seafield Tower

Image 31. current setbacks and views from southern side of Seafield Tower


Image 32. Seafield Tower rear elevation

Image 33. overall setback alignments to Seafield Tower.

6.2.2 Detailed Design Response The detailed design response for the residential tower has been strongly influenced by the ODASA Design review process and Council’s Development Plan. The proposed podium incorporates key horizontal alignments with the adjacent heritage place, and shares a similar vertical rhythm. The corners of the podium are well defined with ‘high mass’ treatments, and utilize a banding and colour palette that draws reference from the heritage place. Columns to the front façade have been exaggerated in size, and configured to provide a comparatively high visual solid-to-void in response to the adjacent heritage place. The upper storeys utilize deliberately contrasting forms and materials in order to emphasis the podium’s relationship to the adjacent heritage place. Upper storeys are more fluid and articulated in form, with a predominantly glazed façade and balconies. The project Design Statement notes with regards to the upper storey design:

The form is contemporary with cues relating to its coastal location. Fluidity and movement through changing floor plates and external detailing are a response to the buildings coastal location.


This detailed design response has been supported by ODASA, subject to some minor further resolution. This response is also consistent with Council’s Development Plan, that seeks:

Its built form will contrast with the open character of the adjacent foreshore and reserve public spaces. It will capitalise on the highly desirable location through significant scale, with built form between three and twelve stories in height… It will create design relationships between buildings at ground level and the street frontage that acknowledge and respect the existing context, ensuring that scale and the built form edge protects and enhances significant visual and movement corridors (including key vistas to the sea and views through to public spaces). Views into and out of development sites will also reinforce visual connectivity and way-finding within the policy area. Development will be of the highest architectural standard and contribute positively to the public realm through establishing clearly defined space between buildings, incorporating surface articulation using a balanced approach to the use of solid materials and glazed areas and adopting a building design that incorporates design elements that relate to the surrounding buildings, streetscape and public open space. Building design will complement the scale, proportions, siting and materials of the existing heritage places in the locality…

I consider this detail design response is also an appropriate approach to the establishment of a contextual relationship with the adjacent State Heritage place, providing an overall visually compatible built form expression to the podium level, and a ‘coastal’ residential tower expression to the broader context.

Image 34. South Esplanade podium design relationship with Seafield Tower. Source:

Chasecrown


Image 35. South Esplanade podium design relationship with Seafield Tower. Source: Chasecrown

Image 36. South Esplanade podium design relationship with Seafield Tower. Source: Chasecrown

Image 37. South Esplanade podium design relationship with Seafield Tower. Source: Chasecrown Critical to the success of this approach, however, will be the configuration, physical proportions and thickness of the angled supporting columns beneath the tower overhang (adjacent the heritage place). These columns are


presented in the application (images 29 and 30 above) as being of a slender angled configuration. I would anticipate that these columns have had limited structural input at this stage, and that further detailed structural design will be necessary. This structural design may result in changes to these columns (setout, thickness, configuration) which in turn could impact on the successful interface of the proposal with the heritage building. Should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted, consideration should be given to the following Condition of Approval in order to enable a review of the structural design development of these columns: Condition: Final design resolution of the angled columns within the public realm between Seafield Tower and the multi-residential development is to be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to maintaining the slenderness and general configuration as presented in the planning application. Reasons for Condition: to ensure design development of structural systems maintains a visually compatible setting to the adjacent State Heritage place.

6.3 Assessment of Physical Impacts Physical impacts to the State Heritage listed place can take the following forms:

• proposed modifications and fitout to the place; and • potential impacts arising from nearby construction works

6.3.1 Proposed Modifications and Fitout to the Place – Interior

No 7 Seafield Tower (ie the half of the State Heritage place affected by this application) is presently configured and fitout as 12 separate holiday tenancies, with shared laundry facilities. This existing layout has had little regard to the heritage values of the building, however has generally maintained the original room configurations, and finishes (such as ceilings, skirtings, doors, fire places), resulting in an overall moderate interior integrity. The application seeks to rationalise the existing 12 apartments into a total of 6, while undertaking a general upgrade of finishes, wet areas and kitchen. This rationalization will be primarily achieved though:

• removal of existing lightweight partitioning; • new lightweight dividing walls; and • closing off of basement (for compliance reasons, discussed later).

The proposed rationalisation maintains all wet areas in their present location, resulting in negligible additional heritage impacts associated with their provisions.


As with all refurbishments of this nature, there are a range of works required to meet current accommodation and compliance standards with positive and negative impacts. These impacts can be summarised as follows:

6.3.1.1 Negative Heritage Impacts Enclosure of Basement Staircase The existing basement is access via a staircase that appears original (or dating from an early period). The basement has been used as a holiday tenancy, however falls well short of current standards to maintain this use. Its ongoing occupation in the proposed facility presents a safety and compliance risk to the project, and as a result will be closed off to public access by the proposed works. This will be achieved by enclosing the existing basement staircase behind a new stud wall. This approach is considered appropriate given safety and compliance risks. Final detailing of this enclosure is yet to be resolved, and accordingly I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: Details of proposed basement stair enclosure are to be further documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to the avoidance of any physical fixings into the existing stair handrail and balustrades. Reasons for Condition: to minimize incremental loss of original fabric, and facilitate the reversibility of proposed fitout works.

Image 38. Location of Basement Stair (Ground Floor Plan).


Image 39. Basement Stair (Ground Floor) to be closed off.

Image 40. Existing basement fitout. Compliance upgrade to first floor split level stair


The first floor split level staircase appears to be a product of several phases of development. While it contains some elements of early balustrading, its run is compromised by a complex configuration of walls and openings. The present configuration fails to comply to current codes (width and gradient) and will require reconfiguration. The reconfiguration of this staircase to comply to current standards appears to be achievable with limited impact on ground floor ceilings, however final details are yet to be developed. Accordingly I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: Details of first floor split level stair upgrade to be further documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to minimising impacts on ground floor original lath and plaster ceilings. Reasons for Condition: to minimize incremental loss of original fabric, and facilitate the reversibility of proposed fitout works.

Image 41. Location of split level staircase (First Floor Plan)


Image 42. non-complying split level staircase to be upgraded. Relocation of some doors in original walls / adjustment of opening widths While the proposed rationalisation of apartments within Seafield House are generally accommodated within the original building layout, some minor modifications to door locations and opening widths are nonetheless proposed. These changes are generally minor in nature, with the proposed internal refurbishment resulting in minimal changes to the original building layout. While I consider these modifications to have minimal impact to the heritage values of the place, any removed original paneled doors, architraves and skirtings should be retained and reused where possible. Accordingly I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: Original internal doors, skirtings and architraves noted for removal are to be carefully removed and reused where possible. Extent of reuse to be informed by suitably qualified heritage architect. Reasons for Condition: to minimize incremental loss of original fabric, and facilitate the reversibility of proposed fitout works.


6.3.1.2 Positive Heritage Impacts Reinstatement of original southern portico as building entry (for Unit 2) While original (or early) floor plans of Seafield Tower were not able to be located, it appears that the residence’s original entrance was via the southern portico, which opened into the building’s lobby that accommodated the staircase to the first floor. This original staircase has unfortunately been removed while the lobby now predominantly accommodates wet areas for the existing apartments. The proposed works seek to reinstate the southern portico as the main entrance into Unit 2, and remove some of the wet areas located in the former lobby. This reinstated use of the historic building entry has a significantly positive impact on the heritage values of Seafield Tower As the details of this work are yet to be finalized, I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: Extent of fabric removal to the southern portico to be limited to later infill and fitout. Original historic walls, plaster, detailing and ceilings (if present) are to be retained and conserved. Reasons for Condition: to avoid removal of original historic fabric of heritage significance.

Image 43. Southern Portico to be reinstated as building entrance


Reinstatement of external balconies The reinstatement of the western balconies as open space (rather than enclosed rooms) will have a significant positive impact on the heritage values of the place. This work is discussed in more detail in in Section 6.3.2.2 below.

Image 44. Currently enclose western balconies General modernisation of facility The existing facility appears to have been last refurbished in the 1970s. While it remains in generally good condition, the quality of fitout fall short of that befitting a building of this statue. The building also currently falls well short of modern accommodation, and compliance standards. An upgrade of the nature proposed is necessary to enable the building’s ongoing use, which in turn will greatly assist its ongoing maintenance and care. For these reasons the modernisation of Seafield Tower is considered to have a positive impact on the heritage values of the place.


Image 45. Typical existing interior fitout to Seafield Tower.

Image 46. Typical existing interior fitout to Seafield Tower. Retention of existing fabric The application notes that existing ceilings are to be retained throughout the residence except where noted otherwise, where and such removal is limited to later ceilings. Skirtings, cornices, and door joinery are also to be retained.


6.3.1.3 Internal Works Yet to be Confirmed Door and Window Hardware Existing internal door and window hardware is of generally mixed provenance. While a detailed audit has not been undertaken, most door hardware does not appear to be of any specific significance. In the absence of a proposed hardware schedule, I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: An audit of existing door and window hardware is to be undertaken to determine any heritage value or remaining items. This audit is to be reviewed by a suitable qualified heritage architect to determine any hardware of heritage value. This audit is to inform the proposed door and window hardware schedule, which is to be documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to retaining and (where practical) reusing any original hardware of heritage value. Reasons for Condition: significant fabric of a heritage place should be preserved. Services The application notes

• existing plumbing and gas services to be used where possible; • new air conditioning layout and unit locations TBC • existing power points, TV points and light switches to be retained

generally. While this approach is generally supported, final services design and documentation (and in turn any associated heritage impacts) is yet to be determined. For this reason I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: Any new services to the heritage place are to the further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to minimising physical and visual impacts on original fabric of significance. Reasons for Condition: significant fabric of a heritage place should be preserved.


Window sill height compliance Several of the existing windows within Seafield Tower have window sills below code compliant height. Such cases typically necessitate additional protective measures to be provided to minimize any potential falling risk under the National Construction Code (NCC). The extent (if any) and detail of any potential window protective measures is yet to be determined. For this reason I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: Any new window protective measures to Seafield Tower to comply with the NCC are to be further detailed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to minimising physical and visual impacts on original fabric of significance. Reasons for Condition: significant fabric of a heritage place should be preserved.

6.3.2 Proposed Modifications and Fitout to the Place – Exterior

As noted for the Heritage Impact Assessment for the building interiors, there are both positive and negative heritage impacts associated with the proposed external works. These impacts can be summarised as follows:

6.3.2.1 Negative Heritage Impacts Extent of outbuilding demolition The application seeks to remove the majority of the existing southern façade and internal walls of the early stone outbuilding to accommodate five carparks for the proposed Seafield Tower apartments.

Image 47. Extent of demolition of early stone outbuilding.


Image 48. Extent of demolition of early stone outbuilding. The existing stone outbuilding stands in a moderate state of integrity. Internally the outbuilding has been partly refurbished as rental accommodation, while externally some of the southern façade openings have been modified, most notably to accommodate a garage roller door. Notwithstanding this, the southern façade retains sufficient early fabric to be clearly discernable as an early outbuilding associated with the original residence. While later modifications have compromised the buildings integrity, the proposed demolition works to accommodate site carparking is considered to have a negative heritage impact. The application has provided a detailed statement outlining the reasons behind the proposed works to the stone outbuilding. This statement is appended to this report, however notes:

In our opinion, the following points need to be considered when assessing the heritage impact of the proposed demolition:

• The provision of accessible car parking will substantially enhance the value and level of amenity of the short-term accommodation units within Seafield Tower. In our view this is no different to the original and historic use of the stables that were more than likely used to accommodate traditional modes of transport (i.e. horse and cart);

• The existing façade of the stables has been substantially

altered over time with large sections of masonry already removed to accommodate the existing garage roller door and sections of light-weight cladding;

• The internal condition of the existing stables is poor,

displaying badly damaged concrete flooring and asbestos partitions to the existing garage space;

• The stables are predominately used for storage and are not

suitable for accommodation due to their dilapidated state and the substantial works required to achieve contemporary living standards;


• Although a basement car park is being provided to service the

adjacent tower, it is not financially feasible for the owners of Seafield Tower to purchase off-site car parking in the new development…

In our opinion, the following key messages can be gleaned from the statement of heritage significance:

• The construction of major houses along South Esplanade (and not subservient small scale structures to the rear) are representative of the historical upper social class. This is somewhat reinforced through the demolition of similar structures to the rear of Stormont House;

• The architectural significance refers to the grand scale of

Seafield Tower and not the stables;

• The prominent lookout and façade and the manner in which Seafield Tower presents to South Esplanade is of particular importance, not the presentation to St John’s Row where the stables are located. The proposed development enhances key vistas to Seafield Tower (particularly from the south along South Esplanade) and substantially improves the presence of the building within the streetscape.

In consideration of all the above, we believe that the proposed demolition works to the stables are acceptable. Further, while such works will result in heritage impacts such impacts in the context of the statement of heritage significance and the overall benefits of the proposal are not serious.

There is no Conservation Management Plan for Seafield Tower to provide guidance with regards to the heritage values of the rear outbuilding. Having reviewed the State Heritage files, and undertaken several inspections of the place, I consider the outbuilding to likely be of moderate significance (rather than of considerable or high significance), as they contribute (rather than primarily represent) the established heritage values of the place, namely:

• A seaside retreat; • A representation of a large marine mansion in Glenelg; • The boom period of the 1870-80s; and • The work of Thomas English


Image 49. Southern façade of outbuilding.

Image 50. Internal refurbished portion of outbuilding


Image 51. Internal non-refurbished portion of outbuilding The existing outbuilding floor levels are set down from the site external levels. It is unclear at this stage whether any adjustment of the internal levels will be required to accommodate the proposed carparking. For this reason I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: details of any changes to internal floor levels of carpark outbuilding are to be documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to avoiding bridging of any existing damp proof courses. Reasons for Condition: ongoing preservation of significant fabric of a heritage place. Eastern (rear) and southern boundary wall demolition Ongoing development to, and around, Seafield Tower has seen most of the site’s original (or at the very least early) boundary walling to the eastern and southern boundaries demolished. Notwithstanding this, portions of stone walling remain to the eastern (rear) boundary, and a section of stone walling remains to the front (western) end of the southern boundary.


Image 52. Remnant stone walling to rear (eastern) boundary

Image 53. Remnant stone walling to southern boundary (indicated by red arrows) The proposed development seeks to demolish the last remaining portion of stone walling to the southern boundary as in order to provide the proposed pedestrian walkway through the site. This section of southern wall (along with the corresponding portion of western wall, discussed below) provides the last remaining legibility of the probably original site boundaries of Seafield Tower, prior to later infill development. While, as a result, the removal of this section of walling is considered to have a negative heritage impact, it has been undertaken in order to achieve broader public realm outcomes, as encouraged by the ODASA Design Review workshop sessions. The application seeks to demolish most of the remnant eastern (rear) boundary wall, in order to provide the necessary vehicular access (and associated sightlines) for the site. A small portion of stone boundary wall will remain adjacent the stone outbuilding. An indicative extent of demolition is illustrated on the below image.


Image 54. Indicative extent of eastern boundary stone wall demolition. Source: base image

source Google Maps While the portions of rear boundary wall proposed for removal are likely to be of early provenance, they play a lesser role in defining the original site boundaries due to the remaining walling, rear outbuilding and St John’s Row defining the original eastern edge of the original site. Notwithstanding this, the walling is of some significance and its removal is considered to have a negative heritage impact. Modifications to front (western) boundary wall / fence The existing front (western) boundary wall appears to be generally remaining in its original configuration, albeit the original cast iron infill on The Subject Site’s side has been replaced with a tubular style fencing.

Image 55. Seafield Tower front pier and infill fence, c1877 (enlargement), Ref B_7874


Image 56. Existing western wall to Seafield Tower Like the southern wall, the southern corner of the western wall provides a legibility to the original site boundaries since lost with the incursion of later infill development. The application seeks to modify the western wall by demolishing the southern portion in order to accommodate the proposed pedestrian walkway through the site. I understand this demolition has been supported by ODASA (and DEWNR) in order to achieve the broader public realm outcomes. The application notes the existing southern pier to be “relocated”. Like the southern wall, the modification of the western wall will have a negative heritage impact. Some of these impacts will be offset by proposed reinstatement of new cast infill elements (assumed to be aluminum given the coastal environment). Additional modifications include relocating the existing gateway through the front fence. The application presently lacks detail with regards to the specific works to the front wall, and accordingly I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted.


Condition: proposed works to the front (western) pier and infill fence are to be further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given: Reinstated cast infill to match the pattern detail of original remaining

to northern portion of the site. New pier to southern end of wall to be visually different in detail to the original in order to provide legibility to later modification. Any repairs (eg repointing, repainting) to plinth (if required).

Reasons for Condition: to conserve remaining fabric and provide legality between original and later modifications.

6.3.2.2 Positive Heritage Impacts Removal of later structures / infrastructure. As indicated in Image 22, the original site boundaries to Seafield Tower appear to have provided a parcel of open land approximately 10m wide to the southern side of the building. This open land has since been developed over with several structures (including the noted c1960s residential flat building), diminishing the setting and original curtilage of the heritage place. These later structures unsympathetically crowd the heritage place, and limit original views to its southern façade. The application seeks to demolish these later structures in order to provide a new (public) pedestrian, and in doing so reinstate the open setting, and views to, the southern side of the heritage place. These modifications to the public realm are considered to have a notably positive impact on the heritage values of the place.

Image 57. Later buildings to be removed (hatched in pink)


Image 58. Current and proposed views of the heritage place. Source: Chasecrown. Rationalisation of external mechanical services At present, external mechanical services are located ad hoc around the exterior of the heritage place. The application seeks to remove and rationalise this service plant, however final details are yet to be provided. Rationalisation of external services is considered to have a positive heritage impact. Final details of proposed modification to building services can be assessed and addressed under the proposed Condition of Approval as recommended in Section 6.3.1.3 of this HIA.


Image 59. Existing external mechanical services (to be rationalised) Reinstatement of balconies As noted in Section 6.3.1.2, the application seeks to remove the later enclosures to the western balconies and reinstate their original detailing (balustrading, posts, fascias, gutters). While not specifically noted in the application, I understand the works will include the removal of paint to the building facades (within the verandah enclosures) and associated conservation to these facades. These balconies were an important and key feature to the building, and their reinstatement (albeit to the southern side only) is considered to be of significant benefit to the heritage values of the place. As final details of the restoration works are not included the application, I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: Balcony reinstatement and associated façade conservation works are to be further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given: Reinstated fabric to match original detailing as determined from site investigations and historic photographs. Paint to stonework within existing balcony enclosure to be removed and stonework repointed to match existing original in sound condition. Reasons for Condition: to ensure consistency with original historic detailing of heritage significance


Image 60. Seafield Tower original balcony configuration, c1877 (enlargement), Ref B_7874

Image 61. Seafield Tower current balcony configuration, 2015.

6.3.2.3 Miscellaneous / Works Yet to be Confirmed Southern garden bed The application seeks to remove an existing slate plinth to the southern side of Seafield Tower and lower the surrounding levels. This work includes the provision of a garden bed in close proximity to the heritage place. This slate plinth does not appear to be original given its level interface with the original southern portico, and accordingly its removal (in itself) is not considered to have any heritage impacts.


The provision of a garden bed in such close proximity to the heritage building’s footing may result in a change to moisture levels around the building, and in turn could cause differential movement in the structure, and associated damage. Ideally, this garden bed would be set back form the building to limit changes in moisture levels in the proximity of the buildings footings. As a result, I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: The public realm works immediately adjacent the heritage building should be reviewed and amended to avoid garden beds immediately adjacent the heritage building. Final public realm layout to be updated to satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Reasons for Condition: to avoid change in ground moisture conditions in close proximity to Seafield Tower that may result in differential movement and cracking to the heritage place.

Image 62. Slate plinth to be removed (showing raised interface with original portico).

Image 63. Proposed garden beds in close proximity to the heritage place.


Slate repairs to portico steps Existing slate steps and landing to southern portico are showing signs of wear and delamination. No conservation works are documented, however it is highly likely that compliance and safety upgrades will be necessary. As this work (if required) is not included in this application, I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted. Condition: Any repairs or upgrades to the southern portico original slate steps and landing (if required) to be further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to retention and conservation of original fabric. Reason for Condition: Conservation of original fabric of heritage significance.

Image 64. Existing slate steps to portico showing signs of decay Roofing works During preliminary discussions the applicant made mention of potential roof repair works to the State heritage place. While no roofing works are included in the current application, it is likely at the very least that some guttering will need to be replaced (as they are heavily corroded). Townsend House currently accommodates a mix of D and Ogee profile gutters. As a result, I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warrant.


Condition: Any roofing, gutter, rainwater goods repairs to Seafield Tower to be further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given use of traditional roofing (corrugated), downpipe (circular) and gutter (ogee) profiles.

6.3.3 Potential Impacts Arising from Nearby Construction Works

The proposed development will involve the extensive excavation of land within close proximity to several State Heritage places in order to construct the proposed underground carpark associated with the adjacent residential tower development. Potential heritage impacts arising from these works include:

• excessive ground vibrations; • undermining of ground support or footings of heritage places, or • accidental impact damage.

The proposed basement storeys are set out in very close proximity to the footprint of the heritage building, increasing the above risks.

Image 65. Setout of basement storeys adjacent the heritage place Construction works of this nature in the proximity of heritage places are not uncommon, with well established building techniques, protective measures and monitoring protocols available to provide the necessary protection of fabric to places of significance.


Vibration Control There is no Australian Standard that provides recommended levels of vibration relating to potential structural damage, however German Standard DIN 4150-3 Structural Vibrations Part 3 – Effects of vibrations on structures provides some useful guidance with regards to the appropriate vibration levels adjacent sensitive structures, such as heritage buildings. This standards sets vibration limit levels in the proximity of such structures to a maximum Vibration velocity (PPV-mm/s) of between 3 and 5 at frequencies less that 10Hz. Australian Standard AS 2670.2-1990 Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration – Continuous and Shock Induced Vibration in Buildings provides additional guidance. In order to appropriately manage these issues, a suitably qualified engineer should prepare a Construction Vibration Management Plan (CVMP) in accordance with DIN 4150-3. This CVPM should include:

• establishment of appropriate vibration limits in the proximity of the National Heritage places to ensure they remain unaffected during the works;

• establish appropriate construction techniques to limit vibration at heritage places to the established limits, and set exclusions zones for equipment and construction practices that are likely to exceed these.

• establish appropriate monitoring techniques to ensure vibration limits are not exceeded, and

• undertake regular inspection of the heritage places to ensure no damage is arising form the adjacent works.

Foundation Support In order to mitigate potential damage, the design / construction team will need to design a structural system / construction process that ensures adequate ongoing support to the substrate and footings of the Heritage place during the works, and following their completion. This design / process should have regard to any vibration limits set by and project CVMP (refer above) and seek to mitigate any risk of accidental damage associated with large excavation equipment in close proximity to the heritage place. Accidental Damage Risks associated with accidental damage to the heritage places should be mitigated through:

• a review of proposed construction practices in close proximity to heritage places, including the avoidance of heavy machinery where possible. Where heavy machinery is unavoidable, construction tolerances should be carefully reviewed to provide adequate clearances to fabric of heritage significance;

• provision of protective measures to the heritage places. These measures may include:

- physical protective barriers (the nature of which needs to have regard to the potential impact force)

- provision of suitable ‘spotters’ during the works to ensure suitable separation of heavy equipment to heritage fabric;


• undertake regular condition inspections of the heritage places to ensure no damage is occurring during the works.

Summary These above protective measures should be outlined in a Heritage Management Plan for the project. As a Heritage Management Plan is yet to be prepared for the proposed works, I recommend consideration of the following Condition of Approval should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warrant: Condition: A Heritage Management Plan is to be prepared for the project to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. The Heritage Management Plan should clearly identify:

what parts of the place are important and why;

potential risks to the place arising from the works, including those arising from the construction process (footing support, vibration accidental damage);

mitigation measures employed to avoid identified risks;

identification of persons responsible to managing and reviewing ongoing risks;

contractor inductions (with regards to heritage matters / risks).

The Heritage Management Plan should be informed by a suitably qualified heritage architect, and a Construction Vibration Management Plan (prepared by a suitably qualified engineer) that sets clear limits of vibration adjacent the heritage building so as to avoid potential damage to the place. Reason for Condition: Protection of fabric of heritage significance.


7.0 Summary Seafield Tower has been identified as a State Heritage place due (in summary) to it being a representation of:

• A seaside retreat; • A representation of a large marine mansion in Glenelg; • The boom period of the 1870-80s; and • The work of Thomas English

While the setting of Seafield Tower has evolved over time, its context has remained relatively constant, namely that of a historic seaside mansion set amongst intensive seaside development. The design of the proposed new residential tower complex has been developed with input from the ODASA Design Review process. It is my understanding that ODASA support the present proposal (with some minor caveats). Its scale and use is consistent with both that envisaged for the locality by Council’s Development Plan, and the context of the heritage place. The proposed tower responds to the immediate context of the heritage place through considered setbacks, horizontal alignment of key features, articulation and use of materials. Seafield Tower stands in a modest state of integrity, with an outdated and compromised fitout not befitting a building of this statue. As with most large scale redevelopments of heritage places of this nature, there are both positive and negative impacts to the heritage values of the place. The refurbishment and conservation works to Seafield Tower is no exception. While there are some negative heritage impacts arising from the proposed works (as outlined in detail in this report), there are also some notable benefits, including the reinstatement of the original open balconies to the primary (western) facades, the removal of later surrounding unsympathetic infrastructure, reinstatement of the use of the southern portico. On balance, the proposed works (positive and negative) are generally consistent with the established heritage significance of the place, while the general modernisation of the facility that will greatly assist the long term use, and preservation. As some details that may influence the heritage impacts of the proposal are yet to be resolved, this HIA recommends consideration of the following Conditions of Approval in the event that the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the application is warranted:


Condition: Final design resolution of the angled columns within the public realm between Seafield Tower and the multi-residential development is to be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to maintaining the slenderness and general configuration as presented in the planning application. Reasons for Condition: to ensure design development of structural systems maintains a visually compatible setting to the adjacent State Heritage place. Condition: Details of proposed basement stair enclosure are to be further documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to the avoidance of any physical fixings into the existing stair handrail and balustrades. Reasons for Condition: to minimize incremental loss of original fabric, and facilitate the reversibility of proposed fitout works. Condition: Details of first floor split level stair upgrade to be further documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to minimising impacts on ground floor original lath and plaster ceilings. Reasons for Condition: to minimize incremental loss of original fabric, and facilitate the reversibility of proposed fitout works. Condition: Original internal doors, skirtings and architraves noted for removal are to be carefully removed and reused where possible. Extent of reuse to be informed by suitably qualified heritage architect. Reasons for Condition: to minimize incremental loss of original fabric, and facilitate the reversibility of proposed fitout works. Condition: Extent of fabric removal to the southern portico to be limited to later infill and fitout. Original historic walls, plaster, detailing and ceilings (if present) are to be retained and conserved. Reasons for Condition: to avoid removal of original historic fabric of heritage significance.


Condition: An audit of existing door and window hardware is to be undertaken to determine any heritage value or remaining items. This audit is to be reviewed by a suitable qualified heritage architect to determine any hardware of heritage value. This audit is to inform the proposed door and window hardware schedule, which is to be documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to retaining and (where practical) reusing any original hardware of heritage value. Reasons for Condition: significant fabric of a heritage place should be preserved. Condition: Any new services to the heritage place are to the further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to minimising physical and visual impacts on original fabric of significance. Reasons for Condition: significant fabric of a heritage place should be preserved. Condition: Any new window protective measures to Seafield Tower to comply with the NCC are to be further detailed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to minimising physical and visual impacts on original fabric of significance. Reasons for Condition: significant fabric of a heritage place should be preserved. Condition: details of any changes to internal floor levels of carpark outbuilding are to be documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to avoiding bridging of any existing damp proof courses. Reasons for Condition: ongoing preservation of significant fabric of a heritage place.


Condition: proposed works to the front (western) pier and infill fence are to be further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given: Reinstated cast infill to match the pattern detail of original remaining

to northern portion of the site. New pier to southern end of wall to be visually different in detail to the original in order to provide legibility to later modification. Any repairs (eg repointing, repainting) to plinth (if required).

Reasons for Condition: to conserve remaining fabric and provide legality between original and later modifications. Condition: Balcony reinstatement and associated façade conservation works are to be further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given: Reinstated fabric to match original detailing as determined from site investigations and historic photographs. Paint to stonework within existing balcony enclosure to be removed and stonework repointed to match existing original in sound condition. Reasons for Condition: to ensure consistency with original historic detailing of heritage significance Condition: The public realm works immediately adjacent the heritage building should be reviewed and amended to avoid garden beds immediately adjacent the heritage building. Final public realm layout to be updated to satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Reasons for Condition: to avoid change in ground moisture conditions in close proximity to Seafield Tower that may result in differential movement and cracking to the heritage place.


Condition: Any repairs or upgrades to the southern portico original slate steps and landing (if required) to be further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to retention and conservation of original fabric. Reason for Condition: Conservation of original fabric of heritage significance. Condition: Any roofing, gutter, rainwater goods repairs to Seafield Tower to be further designed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given use of traditional roofing (corrugated), downpipe (circular) and gutter (ogee) profiles. Condition: A Heritage Management Plan is to be prepared for the project to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted. The Heritage Management Plan should clearly identify:

what parts of the place are important and why;

potential risks to the place arising from the works, including those arising from the construction process (footing support, vibration accidental damage);

mitigation measures employed to avoid identified risks;

identification of persons responsible to managing and reviewing ongoing risks;

contractor inductions (with regards to heritage matters / risks).

The Heritage Management Plan should be informed by a suitably qualified heritage architect, and a Construction Vibration Management Plan (prepared by a suitably qualified engineer) that sets clear limits of vibration adjacent the heritage building so as to avoid potential damage to the place. Reason for Condition: Protection of fabric of heritage significance.

Level 1, 89 King William Street

GPO Box 2403

Adelaide SA 5001

PH: (08) 8221 5511

[email protected] ABN: 34 452 110 398

REF 0006-004-ANI | 25 August 2016

1

Mr Jason Schulz

Dash Architects

Via email: [email protected]

Dear Jason,

PROPOSED DEMOLITION WORKS TO STABLES – SEAFIELD TOWERS

We write further to your recent discussions with Chasecrown in relation to the heritage impacts arising

from the proposed demolition of the stables located to the rear of Seafield Towers. As you are aware,

the proposed demolition will provide accessible car parking for the accommodation units contained

within Seafield Towers.

You have informed Chasecrown that the stables form part of the State Heritage listing and that the

proposed demolition will result in heritage impacts.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide additional information for your further consideration

of the significance of such heritage impacts.

In our opinion, the following points need to be considered when assessing the heritage impact of the

proposed demolition:

The proposed demolition forms only a small part of the overall proposal and indeed is

outweighed by the positive impacts of the proposed conservation works to Seafield Towers;

The provision of accessible car parking will substantially enhance the value and level of

amenity of the short-term accommodation units within Seafield Tower. In our view this is no

different to the original and historic use of the stables that were more than likely used to

accommodate traditional modes of transport (i.e. horse and cart);

The existing façade of the stables has been substantially altered over time with large sections

of masonry already removed to accommodate the existing garage roller door and sections of

light-weight cladding;

The internal condition of the existing stables is poor, displaying badly damaged concrete

flooring and asbestos partitions to the existing garage space (refer attached photos);

The stables are predominately used for storage and are not suitable for accommodation due

to their dilapidated state and the substantial works required to achieve contemporary living

standards;

Although a basement car park is being provided to service the adjacent tower, it is not

financially feasible for the owners of Seafield Towers to purchase off-site car parking in the

new development.

In addition to the above, as you are aware the files held by the Dept of Environment Water and

Natural Resources (DEWNR) provide the following summary of the place (dated 1982):

REF:0006-004-ANI

25 August 2016

mailto:[email protected]

REF 0006-004-ANI | 25 August 2016

2

HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

Historically, ‘Seafield Tower’ is significant for its association with both Sir Henry Ayers and The Hon. Thomas Elder, who were representative of the upper social class which built large 'marine villas’ or mansions in Glenelg during the latter part of the l9th century.’Seafield Tower' is also associated with Glenelg's “boom” period of the 1870's and l880's, and with . 'Glenara' was one of the first of a number of major houses and buildings constructed along the South Esplanade.

Architecturally, 'Seafield Tower', with its belvedere is an important example of the Italianate style of Thomas English and notable as a semi-detached residence of a grander scale than usual.

Environmentally, 'Seafield Tower' with its prominent lookout has always been a significant element in the streetscape. Although dwarfed by nearby highrise, the building still maintains a sense of grandeur and history on the Esplanade. The Integrity of the building is fair. Balcony modifications could be removed; however a recent building erected alongside is incongruous.

In our opinion, the following key messages can be gleaned from the statement of heritage

significance:

The construction of major houses along South Esplanade (and not subservient small scale

structures to the rear) are representative of the historical upper social class. This is somewhat

reinforced through the demolition of similar structures to the rear of Stormont House;

The architectural significance refers to the grand scale of Seafield Towers and not the stables;

The prominent lookout and façade and the manner in which Seafield Towers presents to South

Esplanade is of particular importance, not the presentation to St John’s Row where the stables

are located. The proposed development enhances key vistas to Seafield Towers (particularly

from the south along South Esplanade) and substantially improves the presence of the

building within the streetscape.

In consideration of all the above, we believe that the proposed demolition works to the stables are

acceptable. Further, while such works will result in heritage impacts such impacts in the context of the

statement of heritage significance and the overall benefits of the proposal are not serious.

Should you need to discuss further please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Yours sincerely

Chris Vounasis

Director

Documents

URBAN & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REPORT · URBAN & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REPORT JOB NO 14-SES ... resolve the existing parking and access issues, respond to the coastal frontage and