Page | 8

The pond can be decreased in area (1x2m) allowing more planting area for a feature tree.

• The way the private terraces step down into the deep soil zone at the rear is supported by the DAC – a bigger space in the planters in these terraces could be considered through extending them and incorporating the stairs behind from the deep soil zone, given these stairs don’t have a function only access the planters.

- Refer drawing A1.01 with revised rear courtyard arrangement. The steps have been removed behind the platers and as such the planters have been extended.

• Sun in summer is directly above – consider the fern garden and its location as it may be impacted in summer – however, this may not an issue.

- Noted

• Central atrium space – scale may feel claustrophobic with the use of one metre deep planters, explore mounding and lower planter walls.

- Refer drawing A1.01 with revised planter arrangements. - The main planters will be a mix of 0.6m, 1m & 1.2m in height with some low scale seating areas. This will assist mitigating the height.

• Light into communal space – nett loss of amenity and how this will impact use of the development. In winter it will be a challenging space to be in with wind, need to consider worse-case scenario (due to rotation of two upper decks)

- The void and atria spaces are porous and as such will permit breezes to disperse both vertically and horizontally. - The proposal will act similarly to other ventilated access walkway apartments within the COV.

Principle 3 – Built form and scale

• Height, context of Oxford Street – explore reading/impact of the proposal from street/footpath level and other

- The proposal employs a datum at the top of the fourth level, this will match in with adjacent future developments. Refer to pages 30 & 31 for further explanation.

Page | 9

angles to demonstrate suitability. The perspectives provide a strong supporting arguments for the proposal within surrounding/ neighbouring context. The DAC is generally satisfied with the proposed design outcome inviewing these images which reflect what is intended.

• Building does clearly appear as a six storey building from Oxford Street, this does impact on the bulk and scale.

- Recession planes ensure the perception of bulk is mitigated.

• Consider modifying the balconies or reducing the number of apartments to the top level to improve the perception of height as viewed from Oxford Street.

- Top level setback to appear as roof of fifth level from street. Recession planes ensure the perception of bulk is mitigated.

• Architectural influence of top two floors on the development as a whole is acknowledged.

- Noted

Principle 4 – Functionality and build quality

• Tenancies 3 and 4 should open onto the residential lobby area to provide more activation and depth within this space.

Refer drawing A1.01 - Tenancies open up to activate entry.

• Use of integrated seating in landscaped and communal areas is supported.

- Noted

• Activity spaces around the pool area are good.

- Noted

• Concerns expressed regarding the amount of light which can access the central atrium area (impact on amenity),

Refer drawing A1.09 - Void dimensions increased from 1.8m to 2.9m. - Secondary apartment windows within deepest part of void

Page | 10

especially the deeper parts.

doubled in area. 1.43sqm to 1.87sqm

• Further consideration should be given to the roof on upper floors and how this could be altered to allow light to flare down across different seasons. Think about what is happening in section as well as plan and allow light to respond to north angled winter sun to flare down and chamfer – getting more light in to this shaft. The angles and curved element already within the design expression could be integrated into the light shaft section as well, allowing a little bit more light to permeate down through different seasons.

Refer drawing A1.09 - Void dimensions increased to 2.9m, walls retained as vertical. - Angled walls investigated, however created compromised bedrooms below.

• Further to the above notes, consider folding back the roof or the angle of the wall. Consider roof cover glazing/skylight (wrap glass over or perhaps frameless glazing along top edge), and consider increasing reflectivity of shaft walls as part of art work – one could end up with an interesting architectural response that to northern light.

Refer drawing A1.09 - Upper roof converted to translucent cover - Reflective/high-gloss materials proposed for voids in key areas to assist bouncing light.

• Upper floors – consider pushing bedrooms to balcony line and remove the balcony (or other planning adjustments) to increase the light shaft/void dimension.

Refer drawing A1.04 & A1.09 with amended plans to permit increased void dimensions from 1.8 m to 2.9m

• Consider getting calculations/running simulations on the

- MJA Studio has designed the atrium and void spaces following experience with similar such

Page | 11

level of light which can access the central area, particularly to the lower levels.

buildings within the City of Vincent. Bottleyard and Fringe apartments both employ similar strategies to ensure high amenity for the end user. - All apartments have primary living spaces with full height, full width glazing, only secondary spaces or bedrooms face into the voids to achieve cross ventilation and dual aspect.

• The use of five slim tenancies to the ground level frontage, as well as the expression of vertical ‘terracelike’ forms to the higher level street-front elevation are supported, and developer is encouraged to carry these throughout the life of the project (these initiatives often get lost in future stages).

- Noted

Principle 6 – Amenity

• Refer to previous comments in Principle 2 - Landscape Quality relating to the amenity of central void space. • Consider adjustments in section to enhance and maximise mid-winter solar access into central void spaces which have been impacted by the rotation of the top levels.

Refer drawing A1.09 with amended Atrium Design Section. - Upper voids increased in size from 1.8 m to 2.9m

Principle 10 – Aesthetics

• Elegant design, good architecture. • Façade is delightful with use of shadow play and materials is supported.

- Noted - Noted - Noted

Page | 12

• The reference to articulation and the historical elements is supported. • The use of slimmer/smaller ‘terrace’ forms in the articulation within the front façade is supported. Consider continuation of this structural rhythm extending down to the ground level façade. • The artistic treatment of boundary walls is acceptable.

- Noted - Noted

ATTACHMENT 9

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING

Further information from applicant on DAC comments regarding light penetration to central atrium area

Cathrine Temple City of Vincent 244 Vincent Street Leederville WA 6007 MJA Reference No. 17039 13 September 2017

Dear Cathrine, RE: 238-246 OXFORD STREET, LEEDERVILLE Refer additional detail in support of our proposal for 238 Oxford Street Leederville, following your email dated Sept 13 2017.

DESIGN WA_OBJECTIVE 3.5.1

We are confident in our ability to deliver quality of light within void areas because of our direct experience with City of

Vincent projects which utilise dual aspect apartments and voids such as the Bottleyard and Fringe on William.

Fringe on William is the most comparable

due to the height of built form directly

surrounding the atrium. Fringe on William

received ‘Design Excellence’ from the City

of Vincent Design Advisory Committee

and is considered an exemplar project. At

Fringe the ratio of ground floor communal

atrium area to open void above is 170m2 /

38.1m2 or a percentage of 22.4% open

void area over.

At 238 Oxford we have a ratio of podium

floor atrium communal area to open void

above of 476m2 / 141.2m2 or a

percentage of 29.6% open void area over.

This direct comparison shows we already

exceed the amount of open void above

and consequently quality of light

previously considered exemplar by the

DAC.

The diagram to the right identifies we are

not seeking one primary communal area,

rather a collection of many spaces, both

indoors and out. The concept is to afford

multiple points to have access to northern

exposure during the course of any day.

Each Zone (A, B & C) receives the

minimum 2hrs of solar access following

the sun’s path.

2

12NOON WINTER SOLSTICE SOLAR ACCESS TO CENTRAL VOID

DESIGN WA_OBJECTIVE 4.1.1

The proposal seeks to maximise the number of apartments with North, West and East aspects. Only 5 of the 58 apartments

(8.6%) currently proposed have a primary southern aspect, this was as a direct result of eastern neighbour sensitivities and

to capture significant views to the city skyline. To ameliorate this orientation, these apartments have a dual aspect to permit

secondary solar gain from the north through open atriums.

Wherever the primary aspect is East, North or West, the primary habitable rooms align to this orientation with full height

glazing to permit maximum solar penetration.

DESIGN WA_OBJECTIVE 4.1.2

Each habitable room opening to the void spaces achieve the minimum window opening size of 10% of room areas. Only

bedrooms open on to this space each having approx. 9m2 of floor area with the windows to these spaces having a total area

of 2.87m2, being more than 3 times larger than the minimum.

The proposal is seeking to utilise white/light toned paint finishes to void spaces in conjunction with supplementary reflective surfaces to assist with illumination. White paint has a LRV (Light Reflectance Value) of 80% and will adequately reflect the 10000 Lux that is emitted by the sun to achieve the minimum 80 Lux deemed to comply by the NCC. We believe the previously submitted Design Report and aforementioned further detail demonstrates MJA Studio’s commitment to exemplar design and demonstration through the proposal for 238 Oxford Street Leederville. To further demonstrate the commitment to adequate solar penetration, we will be seeking to present a daylighting report at the JDAP hearing. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned Yours sincerely,

Christopher Dwyer

P.P. MJA_Studio

Page 1 of 4

Briefing Note To: City of Vincent From: Ben Doyle

Attention: Cathrine Temple Job No: 5043

Copy to: Date: 13 September 2017

Subject: 238-246 Oxford Street, Leederville – proposed mixed use development Response to queries re Apartment Design Guide Elements 3.5 and 4.1

Dear Cathrine, Further to your email of 13 September 2017 (received 12:59pm), we provide the following brief further comments regarding the provision of daylight to the communal open space: Firstly, it is important to note that Design WA does not require 50% direct sunlight to communal open

space – the Design Criteria represent one way of achieving the Objective (refer p6-7) of the Apartment Design Guide. It is also important to note that the 2 adopted and operational policies controlling residential development (the R-Codes and the City’s Built Form Policy) do not require any communal open space at all. Apartment Design Guide - format The preamble to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG, pp6-7) sets out the format and construction of the document, and explains the process for applicants, assessors, and decision-makers to interpret and apply the provisions. Each element of the ADG is structured to outline:

Intent of the element and an explanation of its role and importance.

Objectives that describe the desired design outcomes.

Design Criteria, where applicable, provide specific, measurable requirements for how an Objective can be achieved.

Design Guidance with advice on how the Objectives and Design Criteria can be achieved through appropriate design responses, or in cases where Design Criteria cannot be met.

Element 3.5 – Communal and public open space The City has requested a light calculation analysis or similar to demonstrate daylight penetration to the central atrium area. Unfortunately, this level of detail cannot be provided in the 4-hour timeframe provided. Design Criteria DC2 ‘deems to comply’ “developments [that] achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the primary communal open space for a minimum of two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June (mid-winter)”. Regrettably, the ADG does not define or provide any further clarification on what constitutes the “principal usable part”, nor what is considered to be “primary communal open space”. The communal open space for the proposed development is designed in a ‘T’ formation, with the

Page 2 of 4

active or ‘usable’ communal open space provided along the northern boundary, and including a pool, landscaping, communal lounge/dining area, and a courtyard. Communal ‘passive’ open space is provided in the central atrium. The communal open space does not have a ‘primary’ area, but rather is arranged into a collection of interconnected spaces, designed to be used at various times of the day and in different seasons. The Design Guidance of the ADG provide for the following: 3.5.1

Communal open space should be consolidated into a well-designed, easily identified and usable area. If this is not possible, smaller spaces can offer the balance of area required, provided they are well-integrated and offer complementary uses.

Communal open space is arranged in a ‘T’ formation, with a collection of ‘zones’ functioning as interconnected spaces. As such, there is not a singular, mono-functional communal open space, but a diversity of integrated spaces capable of being used for different purposes, at various times of the day, and throughout the year.

Communal open space should have a minimum dimension of 3m, and larger developments should consider greater dimensions.

Communal open space achieves a minimum dimension of 3.0m, and is in fact more than double that dimension.

Communal open space should be co-located with deep soil areas however where not possible can be located on structure.

The communal courtyard is located within a deep soil zone. The deep soil zone along the western boundary is designed and located to mitigate impacts on the residential properties to the rear.

Universal access should be provided at a minimum to the main (largest) communal open space.

Universal access is provided to the communal open space in accordance with the regulatory requirements.

Where communal open space cannot be provided at ground level, it should be provided on a podium or roof.

Communal open space is provided at ground and podium level, due to the topography of the site.

If indoor communal space is provided explore how connectivity with communal space outdoor can occur.

The communal open space is arranged in a ‘T’ formation, with a variety of interconnected and integrated ‘zones’ allowing for communal open space to be comfortable year-round. There are

Page 3 of 4

open areas with overhead sun, and areas within the central atrium that will provide shade and respite from summer heat. Where developments are unable to achieve DC1 they should:

Provide increased private open space at a ratio of 1:1, i.e. any reduction in communal open space should be reapportioned to private open space.

Demonstrate good access to quality green open space within five minutes (500m) walking distance.

Provide communal spaces elsewhere such as a landscaped roof top terrace or a common room.

Communal open space provision exceeds the Design Criteria standard, and is therefore deemed to satisfy the Objective. 3.5.2

Communal open space facilities such as pools, barbecue areas, play spaces, sporting courts, seating areas, communal garden areas etc. should respond to immediate and anticipated future needs of residents. Needs are to be assessed against demographics and proximity to local amenity, with reference to local authority POS strategy.

Communal facilities are provided in accordance with the expectations of future residents of a development of this type. The facilities will complement, rather than duplicate, the amenities available in the surrounding locality.

The location of facilities responds to microclimate and site conditions with access to sun in winter, shade in summer and shelter from strong winds and down drafts.

The design and layout of the communal facilities has been carefully considered, and is intended to provide future residents with options for their relaxation and recreation. The active communal open space is located along the northern boundary, to optimise access to winter sun and encourage year-round usage. The central atrium is designed to provide spaces that will thrive in summer and winter, providing light and warmth, and shade and cool, when desirable. The result is a considered response to the microclimate. Further, the building is designed to optimise access to cooling sea breezes, while providing protection from strong winds.

Visual and aural impacts of services should be minimised, including location of ventilation duct outlets from basement carparks, air conditioning units, fire services, electrical substations, detention tanks and the like.

Locations of services and infrastructure has been considered carefully, and minimises impacts on the amenity of private and communal living areas.

Drying racks and bike parking areas and their associated access cannot form part of the communal open space calculation and should not be visible from the primary communal open space.

Drying racks and bike parking areas are not included in communal open space calculations, and are not visible from communal open space ares.

Page 4 of 4

Communal open spaces should be designed to be robust and easily maintained.

Communal open space areas are designed and located for easy maintenance. 3.5.3

Communal open space and the public domain should be readily visible from habitable rooms and private open space areas while maintaining visual privacy.

Communal open spaces are visible from several habitable rooms. Communal facilities achieve a balance between privacy and functionality, and passive surveillance to prevent antisocial behaviour.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to apply. Refer to 4.6 Common Circulation and Spaces.

Noted. The communal open space is designed and located to minimise opportunities for criminal or antisocial behaviour.

Where playgrounds are provided they are safe and contained.

Not applicable.

Where communal open space provides children’s play areas, sporting function or BBQs, the noise, smell and other adverse impacts are to be considered in the design

Noise, smell and amenity impacts from the communal facilities have been carefully considered. The facilities are designed and located to mitigate impacts. We trust the above responses satisfactorily address the criteria of the ADG. Again, it must be noted that neither the R-Codes nor Built Form Policy require any communal open space whatsoever. The communal open space provided will undoubtedly enhance the amenity of the development, and is arguably of better quality than the Fringe development, which was also designed by MJA Studio and was awarded ‘design excellence’ by the City’s Design Advisory Committee. ___________________ BEN DOYLE DIRECTOR 170913 5043 further information.docx