Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

4 March 2003

 

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 11TH MARCH 2003 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

Committee Members:                  His Worship, the Mayor, Cr D. Sullivan, Crs Andrews (Deputy Chairperson), Backes, Bastic, Daley (Chairperson), Greenwood, Matson, Matthews, Notley-Smith, Procopiadis, Schick, Seng, Tracey, White, Whitehead.

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2000, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WHOSE MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 11TH FEBRUARY, 2003.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Development Applications

 

5.1                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 15 GARNET STREET, COOGEE.

2

 

5.2                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 6 COBHAM STREET, MAROUBRA.

10

 


 

5.3                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 52 RAGLAN STREET, MALABAR.

33

 

5.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 46 KITCHENER STREET, MAROUBRA.

60

 

5.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 266-270 CLOVELLY ROAD, COOGEE.

87

 

 

6           Miscellaneous

 

6.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 14/2003 - RANDWICK LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1998 DRAFT AMENDMENT NO 23 AND DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE SITE, BUNDOCK AND AVOCA STREETS, KINGSFORD.

108

 

 

7           General Business

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 February, 2003

FILE NO:

DA 1190/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Bed and Breakfast Accommodation

PROPERTY:

 15 Garnet Street Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 G Didier

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Health, Building and Planning Committee at the request of Councillor’s Matson, Greenwood and Backes.

 

The Development Application seeks consent to utilise the first floor level of the existing dwelling for Bed & Breakfast Accommodation.

 

The main issues with the application are the appropriateness of the use within a residential area and the generation of traffic and parking. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent to use the first floor portion of the dwelling for Bed & Breakfast accommodation. The first floor contains one bedroom, a bathroom, water closet and walk in robe.  Access is from the internal staircase adjacent to the entry of the dwelling. There is no proposed signage to the building.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject premises is a two storey dwelling with a double garage on the eastern side of Garnett Street which falls steeply towards the ocean front. The surrounding development includes one and two storey dwellings of older and contemporary styles.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

A Local Approval 816/98 was granted on the 7th August 1998 for alterations and additions to the dwelling including a new first floor addition to the existing dwelling and new garage to the front of the premises.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Mrs D Chapman of 11 Denning Street Coogee

 

-       Garnet Street is a very narrow street which also provides access to Cairo Street and any additional street parking may block access to Cairo Street.

-       Is Garnet Street not a residential area?

 

M & N Peterson & M Watts of 11a Denning Street Coogee

 

-       The area is zoned residential and there is no shortage of other accommodation in the area.

-       Approval would set a dangerous precedent and may lead to applications for backpacker lodges and cafes.

-       Garnet Street is a very narrow street, which is already congested and there is insufficient parking for guests.

 

D Murray of 4 Garnet Street Coogee

 

-       Opposes the application on the principle that a business should not be operated within a residential area.

-       If consent is granted there will be potentially more traffic and could lead to backpackers in the area.

 

J Rock of 3 Garnet Street Coogee

 

-       Consent to operate a Bed & Breakfast would set an undesirable precedent in this street which already is over burdened with traffic.

-       The original application to erect the first floor level to the dwelling was considered on the basis that it would only be used as part of the residence and not for a separate use. 

 

V Ward of 1 Cairo Street Coogee

 

-       Objects to a business being conducted within a residential area.

-       Approval of a Bed & Breakfast would set a precedent that could have an adverse impact upon the amenity of local residents.

 

Comment:

 

It is acknowledged that Garnet Street is a very narrow street however given that the proposed use would generate the demand for one additional vehicle only, the refusal of the application on the basis of additional traffic movements could not be sustained.

 

With respect to the operation of a business within a residential area and the setting of a precedent, under Clause 10 of the Randwick LEP 1998, Bed & Breakfast accommodation is permissible with Council’s consent. It is considered that consent should be granted subject to suitable conditions to protect the amenity of the adjoining residents.

 

In regard to the concern that the proposal would set a precedent for café’s and backpackers, both these uses are prohibited in the residential 2A zone.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure for comment with respect to waste disposal and the following comments have been provided:-

 

“The proposed change of use for this premise may result in an increase in the amount of waste generated.  Provision of domestic or commercial waste services will depend on the category of Council rate levied. However, sufficient space is required for the storage and access of garbage and recycling bins no matter which service is provided.

 

The bin storage area (for both the residential and B&B components of the development) will have to be able to contain a total of 2 x 120 litre garbage bins and 2 x 240 litre recycling bins whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.  There must also be appropriate access for presentation of the bins at kerbside for collection. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

Waste Management Conditions

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

1.     A garbage bin storage area (capable of containing a total of 2 x 120 litre garbage bins and 2 x 240 litre recycling bins) shall be provided for the development. It is noted that the garbage area must be sized to allow satisfactory access to the bins.  There must also be appropriate access for presentation of the bins at the kerbside for collection.

 

Details of compliance are to be provided prior to the commencement of the use”.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

8.1   Clause 10 of RLEP 1998

 

Clause 10 of the Randwick LEP applies in this case which includes an objective that a range of activities are permitted to be carried out within peoples homes where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality or compromise the amenity of the surrounding residences.

 

It is considered that the proposed use of the upper level of the dwelling for Bed & Breakfast accommodation is consistent with the objectives of Clause 10 of the LEP and that consent may be granted subject to conditions.  The proposal involves a modest intensification given that only one bedroom would be allocated for guests. As such, it is not envisaged that the proposed use would result in any adverse impacts on neighbouring residents in terms of noise and privacy.

 

8.2   Development Control Plan - Parking

 

Under the controls of the DCP, for Bed & Breakfast accommodation 1 space is required for guest use and 1 space for the dwelling component. The proposed use complies with the DCP in that two carspaces are provided within the existing double garage to the front of the dwelling.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed use of the upper level of the dwelling satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and should not result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 1190/02 for permission to use the upper level of the existing dwelling at 15 Garnet Street Coogee for Bed & Breakfast accommodation subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans dated 11th December 2002 and received by Council on the 18th December 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

2.         The use of the premises for Bed & Breakfast accommodation is to be consistent with the definition of Bed & Breakfast accommodation under Clause 49 of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the management of waste from the development:

 

3.         A garbage bin storage area (capable of containing a total of 2 x 120 litre garbage bins and 2 x 240 litre recycling bins) shall be provided for the development. It is noted that the garbage area must be sized to allow satisfactory access to the bins.  There must also be appropriate access for presentation of the bins at the kerbside for collection. Details of compliance are to be provided prior to the operation of the Bed & Breakfast.

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the relevant pollution control criteria and to maintain reasonable levels of health, safety and amenity to the locality:

 

4.         The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure compliance with Local Government Legislation and Policies of Council:

 

5.         The Bed & Breakfast must comply with the Local Government (Orders) Regulation 1999 and the premises must be registered with the Council on an annual basis, and the approved registration/inspection fee is to be forwarded to Council prior to occupancy.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that reasonable levels of fire safety are provided in the building:

 

6.         Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1b building or dwelling in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Smoke alarms must comply with AS3786 – Smoke alarms and be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.

 

The smoke alarms are to be installed in suitable locations on or near the ceiling, in any storey containing bedrooms; located between each part of the dwelling containing the bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling, or where bedrooms are served by a hallway, the smoke alarms are to be located in that hallway; and smoke alarms are to be installed in any other storey not containing bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Smoke alarms are not to be located in ‘dead-air-spaces’, in the corner junction of walls and ceilings between exposed rafters/joists or at the apex of raked ceilings, as detailed in Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

7.         A fire extinguisher and fire blanket are to be provided in the kitchen.

 

8.         Upon satisfactory completion of works a copy of the fire safety schedule attached to this application and a copy of the fire safety certificate is to be displayed in a prominent position in the building  and a copy referred to the NSW Fire Brigades and Council.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

9.         Prior to commencement of the use of the premises as a bed and breakfast, and after completion of the building work encompassed in this development consent an Occupation Certificate must be obtained from Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

14 January, 2003

FILE NO:

02/00802/GA

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and first floor addition to the existing semi detached dwelling house

PROPERTY:

 6 Cobham Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Heinz & Karen Mueller

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Bruce Notley-Smith, Ted Seng and Marjery Whitehead.

 

The estimated cost of the development is &150,000.

 

The application is seeking approval for alterations and ground and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling. The existing semi-detached dwellings are  unusual as they have been constructed as separate dwellings attached by the study of the existing dwelling and share a common boundary.

 

The proposal was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners and two (2) submissions were received. The main concerns relate to loss of amenity, architectural character, height and overshadowing.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking approval to carry out ground floor alterations and additions to create an open lounge, dining, kitchen, family room with laundry a separate WC and a study. It is also proposed to construct a new first floor addition. The first floor will contain 3 bedrooms, one with ensuite and walk-in-wardrobe and a bathroom.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the northern side of Cobham Street, Maroubra and is occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling. The site is an irregular shaped allotment, having a frontage of 19.78m to Cobham Street, depth of 15.325m. the subject site has a total site area of 265m2. Adjoining the site to the east and west are existing single storey dwellings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

There is no previous development application history relevant to the subject application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified on 12 December 2002 in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Joan McLeod - 16 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

 

-     Back fence of subject property backs onto their property. Proposed development will compromise privacy of backyard.

-     First floor bedroom window can be reduced in size or have sill height raised.

-     The application proposed new glass doors at the rear ground floor level.

-     Removal of trees at rear of site will reduce the level of privacy currently achieved.

 

Jim Demetrio Architectural Design and Building Consultant on behalf of Ms Gardiner      - 18 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

 

-     Part of the extension on the common boundary is not cavity brick, it is face brick and will be sited directly on common boundary with nil setback.

-     Area between the existing two buildings is main outdoor leisure area for client. The proposal will have an unacceptable bulk and scale impact on clients property.

-     Proposal will have a great overshadowing impact in particular on neighbours garden area.

-     Shadow diagrams are incomplete, unclear and not directly labelled.

-     Proposal does not preserve natural light access to clients property.

-     Proposal has nil setbacks at both levels and does not comply with objectives of the DCP for setbacks.

-     The proposed addition in its current form is inconsistent with the DCP for the following reasons:

o It is in front of the main roof ridge line of the semi

o It is quite unbalanced in its appearance when considering both buildings

o The proposed design has a “butter box” approach to its design

o It will destroy the symmetry of both semi

o It will destroy the architectural integrity of both semis.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided:-

 

6.1       Building and Construction Issues

 

Under the Building Code of Australia, the classification of the building is:

 

Dwelling – Class 1a

 

-     General comments

No objections is raised with respect to compliance with the

 

·    Environmental health and building provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

·    Provisions of the Building Code of Australia

 

6.2       Engineering Issues

 

Landscape Comments

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Not Applicable as the site is less than 4000m2.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

P1  New dwellings must achieve (Nathers) rating of 3.5 stars.

 

Design minimise  energy  for heating, cooling.

High thermal mass materials.

Solar hot water systems.

Insulated hot water pipes.

Hot water tanks and heaters close to rooms where hot water used.

Cooking tops located away from windows, fridges and freezers.

Task lights.

 

Maximised natural lighting.

 

S1  New dwellings provide certificate complying with a minimum (Nathers) rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent.

 

N/A alterations and additions to existing dwelling.

 

 

Ceiling and wall insulation to AS2627.1-1993.

 

P2  Orientation and design maximises solar access to living areas and open space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P9  Neighbour’s north-facing living area windows receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced.

 

P9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor area receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced. 

 

P10  Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

 

 

 

 

 

S2.8  North-facing windows to living areas received at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

S2  Private open space

receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

 

S9  North-facing windows to living areas of neighbours receive 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

 

 

 

 

S9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies: 3 hours sunlight received to north facing windows to living areas.

 

 

Complies: 3 hours sunlight received to recreation areas of adjoining properties.

 

Complies, north facing windows to living areas of adjoining properties will receive 3 hours of sunlight.

 

 

 

 

Complies, principle recreation areas will receive 3 hours of sunlight.

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

fit in with hydrology;

use on–site stormwater infiltration;

maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

retain existing trees.

S1  Stormwater is graded and drained via a gravity system to Council’s street gutter; or to a suitable absorption system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

A suitable condition is included in the recommendation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A suitable condition is included in the recommendation.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

allows year-round use

minimises impact on neighbours

addresses privacy and sun access

addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

P5  Planting will not obscure or obstruct dwelling entities or personal safety.

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

 

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

Complies, approx 49% of site area is landscaped.

 

Complies > 72m2

 

 

Complies dimensions include 4.6m x 15.67m

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies Approx 35%

FLOOR AREA

P1  Building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms, minimise effects on neighbours and streets.

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>30 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

Complies 0.65:1

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

P3  Design relates to the topography with minimal cut and fill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

P5  Second storey of a semi detached dwelling integrates with streetscape and adjoining dwelling.

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

S1  Maximum 7m external wall height for house or attached dual occupancy.

 

S1  Maximum 3.5m external wall height of buildings or additions to the rear.

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

S4  Length of second storey portion is not greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

 

S5  Second storey potion of a semi is confined within a existing roof space or setback from the front elevation and respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi.

 

Complies 6.1m

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

P1  Generally conforms with adjoining development or dominant setback along street.

 

Rear Setback

 

P2  Allow neighbours adequate access to natural light, view sharing and retains trees and vegetation.

 

Side Setback

 

P3  Allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

 

Side setbacks on corner allotments must integrate with established setbacks of both streets and maintain the streetscape.

Front Setback

 

S1  The average of adjoining dwelling or 6m setback where no adjoining dwelling.

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

S3  900mm for any part over 1m above ground level up to one level in height.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.5m for any part of a building, two levels at that point.

 

 

 

 

3.0m for any part of a building more than two levels at that point.

 

 

 

No proposed changes to front setback of dwelling.

 

 

 

 

Complies, rear setback, 4.6m

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, 6.1m and nil setback from eastern and western side boundaries respectively.

 

Does not comply, 6.1 m and nil setback from eastern and western side boundaries respectively (See section 8.2.1)

 

N/A

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1  Overlooking neighbouring internal living areas and private open spaces is minimised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

 

S1  Habitable room windows with direct outlook to others windows within 9m are offset by more than 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing or sill height to 1.5m.

 

S1  Direct view into the private open space of adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m.

 

S1  Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

 

 

 

 

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

S1,.3  At least one habitable room window overlooks the street.

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, bedroom window at rear first floor within 9m (See section 8.2.1)

 

Does not comply

(See section 8.2.1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

enable the efficient use of car spaces.

safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

P3  Do not detract from the streetscape and are compatible with the dwelling.

 

P4  Car parking areas and accessways facilitate stormwater infiltration on site.

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S1  Car parking spaces have minimum dimensions of 5.5 metres x 2.5 metres.

 

Driveways have a minimum width of three metres and are set back at least one metre from the side boundary (max width 3m at boundary).

Driveway gradients have a maxium of 1 in 6. The gradient for the first 5m from street not more than 1 in 8.

 

Garages and carport to a rear leane are 1m setback.

 

 

S2  Carports and garages located behind the building where rear access available, or behind building line where front access available.

 

S3  Driveways, car parking facilities <35% of frontage.

 

 

 

 

 

N/A garage existing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.2  Council Policies

 

8.2.1    Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Landscaping

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced, dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation area, storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

 

As indicated in the table above, the proposal fully complies with the landscaping requirements of the DCP, which requires a minimum of 40% of the site area to be landscaped of which 20% of the area has a permeable treatment.

 

It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily complies with Council’s objectives and performance requirements in regards to landscaping requirements.

 

Floor Area

 

The objective and performance requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, compatible with the existing character of the locality and also minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The preferred solution for an allotment with an area of 265m2 is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 applies.

 

The proposed additions meet the maximum floor space ratio preferred solution for the site. The proposed dwelling is an existing semi-detached building, however, has been constructed such that both halves of the semis appear as separate dwellings, and not as one split dwelling. The adjoining semi addresses the adjoining side Street, Kingsford Street The proposed additions are an extension of the existing building envelope and is compatible in bulk with the surrounding locality and will not be out of character with the streetscape.

 

It is considered that the proposal is acceptable with regard to bulk and scape and is compatible with the character of the existing building and surroundings. The proposal satisfactorily complies with the preferred solutions, performance requirements and objectives relating to floor area. 

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

The objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality, and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant performance requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets.

 

The proposal satisfactorily complies with the relevant preferred solutions and performance requirements relating to building height, form and materials and will not be excessive in height and is compatible with the character and form of the surroundings. The proposed semi is constructed such that its appearance is that of two separate dwellings, furthermore, the adjoining semi addresses the adjoining side street. The proposed first floor addition is designed to integrate with the character of the existing building. The design elements of the proposed first floor additional are substantially congruous with the character of the existing building and the characteristics found in the surrounding built form.

 

The proposal satisfactorily complies with the preferred solutions and performance requirements with regard to height form and materials.

 

Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

 

Preferred solutions include that side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level and 1.5m at first floor level, and that no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The proposed additions generally follow the envelope of the existing building. The existing building being a semi-detached dwelling has a nil setback along the common western boundary which it shares with the adjoining property. It is proposed to extend the building along the existing envelope which does not meet the preferred solutions for side setbacks. Overshadowing arising from the proposal will be acceptable as adjoining properties will be able to receive the minimum 3 hours sunlight requirement during winter (see section 9 Environmental Assessment), and the limited encroachment is not considered to give rise to adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, access to light, air and views.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

The objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The performance requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

It is not considered that significant overlooking will transpire from the proposed development at ground floor level due to the position and location of the windows relative to the adjoining properties and also the separation between the properties. At first floor level there is a proposed bedroom and bathroom window. These are setback approx 4.6m from the rear boundary. There is concern from the adjoining rear property with regards to overlooking into the private courtyard of the adjoining rear property. It is recommended that should approval be granted, the sill height of the window be increased to be a minimum height of 1.5m above floor level, or alternatively, the window be fixed and provided with translucent glazing below the specified level in order to maintain privacy to the adjoining property.

 

Urban Design and Streetscape fit

 

The majority of Cobham street comprises of generally unaltered single storey semi-attached cottages the streetscape therefore is relatively intact in terms of its scale and form however the architectural design features of most of the semis are quite different. There are a few examples of first floor additions to semis in the street, namely the very modern first floor addition located on the corner of Cobham and Kingsford Street. This development is a very new and innovative addition which does not respect the symmetry and simple proportions of the existing semi however the addition is considered to be very interesting and sets a high standard and quality of development. It also creates a distinct definition and transition between old and new and this design concepts seems to work well. Further down the street there is another rather large and bulky first floor addition to a semi on the corner of Cobham street and Wild Street.

 

Like most neighbouring streets Cobham Street is wide and windy and as such can be read as a series of components to the streetscape rather than one long narrow road with houses all relating to one another. Although there is some consistency still remaining in the street this relates more directly to the form and scale of development being single storey semi detached cottages rather than the architectural design characteristics exemplified. The site isn’t part of a conservation area and is in an area that is experiencing much transition in the form of most properties being improved and upgraded to provide for larger more spacious homes. The subject property is a simple semi-detached cottage linked by a study. Both semis are simple in scale and form and haven’t been upgraded in any way. The only real common features of both is a central gable feature, roof and red brick. First floor additions are permissible in the street and the proposal complies with the floor space ratio control. Both semis front facades are long and hence the proposal will to some degree break up the bulk of that building wall. The common feature being the study will remain a single storey element and this component is part of No.6 Cobham. This means that in the future No.8 Cobham can be redeveloped and will be read as a separate development unlike the traditional semis where additions should relate to one another since they are so similar. The central gable feature will be retained and there will be an ample setback from the rear and sides despite part of the building wall being sited directly on the boundary. 

 

Although the proposed first floor addition will alter the design of the current property there is scope for improvement and the design will not adversely affect the adjoining semi or the streetscape.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the street scape, and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment. Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 there after.

 

It is proposed to replace the existing garage door with a new roller door and enlarge the existing opening, however there are no changes to the size and dimensions of the garage. No objections are generally seen to this.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

9.1       Proposed design in relation to existing building and natural environment

 

The proposed first floor addition to the semi is setback behind the front section of the existing roof line, however is not setback behind the main roof ridge. The proposed pair of semis are designed such that they are presented as two separate dwellings and not as a typical semi which are designed as one house with a common wall between them. The proposed first floor addition will not affect the symmetry of the pair. The proposed first floor addition is compatible with the character of the existing building and the surroundings.

 

9.2       Physical relationship to and impact upon adjoining development

 

Shadows cast by the proposed development affects No 18 Kingsford Street, Maroubra (indicated on the plans as No 8 Cobham Street) to the west in the morning period and falls along the road to the east in the afternoon.

 

The DCP requires as a preferred solution, that at least 3 hours of sunlight is received to the principle outdoor recreation spaces and north facing windows of adjoining properties between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less than 3 hours are available under the current conditions, access to sunlight is not reduced.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that the majority of shadows cast by the proposed development would fall onto the roof, side walls and part of the rear yard area of No 18 Kingsford Street to the west in the morning period up until 12 noon. The shadows cast by the proposed development would fall onto the subject property, along the road and part of the front yard area of No 18 Kingsford Street to the east in the afternoon period from about 12 noon onwards.

 

The requirement for a minimum 3 hours sunlight being substantially received to rear yards and living spaces of adjoining properties would be reasonably met, by the proposed development.

 

9.2       Matters raised by objectors

 

A majority of the issues raised in the submissions have been discussed in the report above. The following relates to issues in the submissions not previously discussed.

 

-       Part of the extension on the common boundary is not cavity brick, it is face brick and will be sited directly on common boundary with nil setback.

 

Comment:

 

The plans indicate that part of the extension at ground floor will be cavity brick with face brickwork along the common boundary.

 

-       The proposal will have an unacceptable bulk and scale impact on clients property.

 

Comment:

 

The existing pair of semi have an unusual subdivision pattern. They are not directly divided in half and the courtyard of the adjoining semi adjoins the common wall of the subject property. The two semis are joined by one bedroom along the southern common wall. Due to the irregular subdivision pattern the wall of the building is sited on the boundary of the adjoining courtyard, however the bulk is broken up by the irregularity of the subdivision.

 

-       Shadow diagrams are incomplete, unclear and not directly labelled.

 

Comment:

 

Additional plans submitted indicate the cumulative shadow impact of both the existing building and the proposed addition.

 

-       Proposal does not preserve natural light access to clients property.

 

The shadow diagrams indicate that under the current conditions the main courtyard at the north eastern corner of the adjoining property is in shadow during the morning period from about 9.00am until about 12 noon. The proposed additions will result in an increase in the length of the shadows and these will primarily fall onto the roof and side walls of the adjoining property. Three hours of sunlight will still be received to primary outdoor recreation areas during the afternoon period.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed additions generally satisfy the relevant objectives and performance standards applicable to the subject site under the Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 802/2002 for alterations and first floor addition to the existing semi detached dwelling house at 6 Cobham Street, Maroubra subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 32/02, dated 16/8/02 and received by Council on 23 August 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENTITY:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

2.        The sill height of the first floor bedroom window at the western rear elevation is to be increased to be a minimum height of 1.5m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below the specified level.

 

3.        The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the street scape, to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of Planning and Environment.

 

4.        The colour and texture of the brickwork is required to match, as closely as possible, the existing external walls of the building.

 

5.        The design and colour of the roof tiles to the proposed building/s are required to match, as closely as possible, the material and colour of the existing roof.

 

6.        The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

7.        There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure/s onto the adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

8.        External walls sited less that 500mm from the boundaries of the site are to be erected as ‘face brickwork’ or other maintenance free materials, to ensure that adequate provisions are made for maintenance purposes within the property boundaries.

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS & FIRE SAFETY:

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations:

 

9.        All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

10.      In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Where the work is to be done by a licensed contractor, excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·          has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and

·          is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the insurance requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989, or

 

Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner builder), excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·          has been informed of the person’s name and owner-builder permit number, or

·          has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

Details of the builder and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, on the notice of appointment of the PCA / Intention to commence building work.

 

STRUCTURAL:

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

11.      A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey.

 

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT:

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

12.      A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be available to the Council officers upon request.

 

13.      The building works are to be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority), to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction and Council’s development consent.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority shall specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

14.      Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

15.      Prior to the commencement of any building work, a principal certifying authority must be appointed and Council is to be notified accordingly and, at least 2 days notice of the intention to commence building work must be given to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

16.      A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or compliance certificate is to be forwarded to the principal certifying authority (and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority), detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stage/s of construction:

 

(a)        Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks.

 

(b)        On completion of the erection of the building showing the area of the land, the position of the building and boundary setbacks and verifying the building has been constructed at the approved levels.

 

17.      Building and demolition works must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive, between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and public holidays, except with the specific written authorisation of Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services.

 

18.      Noise emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 & the Noise Control Manual published by the Environment Protection Authority, except as may be amended by the conditions of this approval.

 

19.      Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions and debris at all times.

 

20.      Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written consent of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Council’s Local Approvals Policy.

 

21.      During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

22.      Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any drainage line, natural watercourse, footpath, roadway or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

23.      Public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site (unless the site is separated from the adjoining land by an existing structurally adequate fence, having a minimum height of 1.5 metres).  Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

Hoarding or fences are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

FIRE SAFETY:

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that reasonable levels of fire safety are provided in the building:

 

24.      Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or dwelling in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Smoke alarms must comply with AS3786 – Smoke alarms and be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.

 

The smoke alarms are to be installed in suitable locations on or near the ceiling, in any storey containing bedrooms; located between each part of the dwelling containing the bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling, or where bedrooms are served by a hallway, the smoke alarms are to be located in that hallway; and smoke alarms are to be installed in any other storey not containing bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Smoke alarms are not to be located in ‘dead-air-spaces’, in the corner junction of walls and ceilings between exposed rafters/joists or at the apex of raked ceilings, as detailed in Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

Security Deposit Conditions:

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate security against damage to Council’s infrastructure:

 

25.      The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for Council or a Council approved subcontractor to construct the vehicular crossing.

 

a)         $700.00           -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

  The vehicular crossing deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the Council vehicular crossing by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions:

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for access, transport and infrastructure:

 

26.      The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

A.  Extend the existing concrete layback and construct a concrete vehicular crossing between the layback and property line to suit the modified vehicular entrance to the site.

 

27.      The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's roadway.

 

28.      The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

Alignment Level Conditions:

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for future civil works in the road reserve:

 

29.      The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must be:

 

·    100 mm below the back of the existing layback at all points opposite the layback; and

·    150 mm below the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0919.

 

The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

30.      The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level)  issued by Council and their relationship to the layback/kerb must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

31.      The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $68.20 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

32.      The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

SERVICE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS:

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate consideration for service authority assets:

 

33.      A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

34.      The applicant must meet the full cost for Telstra, Energy Australia, Sydney Water or Natural Gas Company to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS:

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for landscaping and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

35.      That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'ANL Organic Garden Mix', and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf. Such works shall be completed at the applicants expense prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be maintained by the applicant in accordance with Council guidelines. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, watering, mowing, fertilising, and the removal of weeds.

 

ADVISORY CONDITIONS:

 

The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

NADIA ELBOTATY

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

25 February, 2003

FILE NO:

02/01084/GA

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house including new decks, boundary fence alterations and rear awning

PROPERTY:

 52 Raglan Street, MALABAR

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Robert McDonald

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Charles Matthews, Bruce Notley-Smith, Ted Seng.

 

The application is seeking approval to carry out alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a new first floor addition. The new first floor addition includes terraces extending from the front and the rear of the building.

 

The estimated cost of the development is $140,000.

 

The proposal was notified to the adjoining and nearby property owners and one (1) submission was received. The main concerns relate to loss of amenity, building bulk and architectural character.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking approval to carry out alterations and additions including a new first floor addition to the existing dwelling. The ground floor alterations include conversion of a bedroom into a study and new stairwell to first floor and a new awning will extend from the rear of the building. At first floor level, the proposal will include a new lounge room with a bar sink and a bedroom with walk in wardrobe and ensuite.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Raglan Street, Malabar and is occupied by an existing single storey cottage. The site is a regular shaped allotment having a frontage of 9.47m, depth of 32.92m and a total site area of 311.75m2.

 

The street is comprised predominately of double storey buildings. There is currently an existing single storey building to the east with double storey dwellings further east towards Malabar Beach The adjoining side street, Victoria Street to the west is characterised by large double storey buildings.  To the north is the existing garage of the subject property and single storey dwellings. Single and double storey building adjoin the subject property to the south.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 
App'n Number                 Description/Type                                           Decision/Ref

69/00897/BZ             Garage                                                 App 01/01/69

92/00263/BY             Building Certificate                                App 31/08/92

 

Amended plans were submitted on the 29 January 2003 which noted that the first floor north eastern wall constructed 900mm from the boundary. The amendments also included a reduction in the depth of the first floor rear balcony from 3.685m to 2.4m with a planter along the end of the deck.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

MCHP Architects P/L on behalf of Mrs Jean Burke – 54 Raglan Street, Malabar

 

-     The style and scale of the proposed first floor addition is not sympathetic with the existing streetscape.

-     The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site with an FSR of 0.7:1 is unacceptable/

-     The statement of environmental effects is grossly wrong when claiming there will be no loss of privacy.

-     The proposal to extend the boundary fence to 1.8m high is inappropriate given the height of other boundary fences in the vicinity.

-     Overall size of first floor addition should be reduced

-     Applicant should reconsider materials selected to produce a more pleasant aesthetic appearance harmonious with their surroundings.

-     Replan first floor windows from bedroom 1 and lounge so that they are not overlooking the second bedroom at No 54.

-     Provide suitable and permanent screening to both decks at first floor level to eliminate loss of privacy to No 54.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided:-

 

6.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

-     BCA Classification

 

Under the Building Code of Australia, the classification of the building is:

 

Class 1a - Dwelling

 

6.2  Engineering Issues

 

An amended application has been received for alterations and additions at the above site.

 

The amended plans do not fully detail whether the existing front fence is to be demolished and a new fence constructed. Should the application include the demolition and reconstruction of the front fence then the following condition shall be included (See Cond No 3 of this report):

 

“Should the front fence be demolished it is to be reconstructed with a 2m x 2m splay at the southeast corner of the site at the Raglan St/Victoria St intersection. Details showing compliance with this condition are to be on the plans submitted for the construction certificate.”

 

Note: Council will allow the front fence to be constructed to a maximum height of 600mm above the Council footpath level in Raglan St within the proposed splay area.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A Master Plan is not required as the site is less than 4000 square metres.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

Proposal is consistent with developments in the foreshore area

43

Heritage Item of Conservation Area

Not a heritage item of within conservation area

N/A

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

In vicinity of 44-46 Raglan Street Heritage Items

Proposal will not impact on heritage items.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

P1  New dwellings must achieve (Nathers) rating of 3.5 stars.

 

·      Design minimise  energy  for heating, cooling.

·      High thermal mass materials.

·      Solar hot water systems.

·      Insulated hot water pipes.

·      Hot water tanks and heaters close to rooms where hot water used.

·      Cooking tops located away from windows, fridges and freezers.

·      Task lights.

·      Maximised natural lighting.

·      Ceiling and wall insulation to AS2627.1-1993.

 

P2  Orientation and design maximises solar access to living areas and open space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P9  Neighbour’s north-facing living area windows receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced.

 

P9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor area receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced. 

 

P10  Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

S1  New dwellings provide certificate complying with a minimum (Nathers) rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2.8  North-facing windows to living areas received at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

S2  Private open space

receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

 

 

S9  North-facing windows to living areas of neighbours receive 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

 

 

 

 

S9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

 

 

N/A alterations and additions to existing dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies: 3 hours sunlight received to north facing windows to living areas.

 

 

Complies: 3 hours sunlight received to recreation areas of adjoining properties.

 

 

Complies, north facing windows to living areas of adjoining properties will receive 3 hours of sunlight

 

 

 

 

Complies, principle recreation areas receive 3 hours of sunlight.

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

·      collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·      do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·      fit in with hydrology;

·      use on–site stormwater infiltration;

·      maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

·      retain existing trees.

 

S1  Stormwater is graded and drained via a gravity system to Council’s street gutter; or to a suitable absorption system.

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

 

A suitable condition is included in the recommendation.

 

 

 

A suitable condition is included in the recommendation

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

P5  Planting will not obscure or obstruct dwelling entities or personal safety.

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

 

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 Complies, approx 44% of site area is landscaped.

 

Complies > 76m2

 

 

Complies dimensions include 8.8m x 9.47m

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies, approx 25%

FLOOR AREA

P1  Building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms, minimise effects on neighbours and streets.

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>30 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

Dos not comply 0.7:1 (See section 8.2.1 Floor Area  below)

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

P3  Design relates to the topography with minimal cut and fill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

 

P5  Second storey of a semi detached dwelling integrates with streetscape and adjoining dwelling.

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

S1  Maximum 7m external wall height for house or attached dual occupancy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply 7.1m (See Section 8.2.1 Height Form and Materials below)

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

P1  Generally conforms with adjoining development or dominant setback along street.

 

Rear Setback

 

P2  Allow neighbours adequate access to natural light, view sharing and retains trees and vegetation.

 

Side Setback

 

P3  Allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

 

Side setbacks on corner allotments must integrate with established setbacks of both streets and maintain the streetscape.

Front Setback

 

S1  The average of adjoining dwelling or 6m setback where no adjoining dwelling.

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

S3  900mm for any part over 1m above ground level up to one level in height.

 

 

 

 

 

1.5m for any part of a building, two levels at that point.

 

 

 

N/A no proposed changes to front setback of dwelling.

 

 

 

 

Complies 8.6m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, 860mm & 900mm from eastern and western side boundaries.

 

 

Does not comply, 900mm from eastern and western side boundaries

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1  Overlooking neighbouring internal living areas and private open spaces is minimised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

P3  Dwellings close to noise sources such as busy roads or industry designed to provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 P1  Buildings provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

P3  Front fences, landscape areas and driveways promote safety and security.

S1  Habitable room windows with direct outlook to others windows within 9m are offset by more than 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing or sill height to 1.5m.

 

S1  Direct view into the private open space of adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m.

 

S1  Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

 

 

 

 

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

S1,.3  At least one habitable room window overlooks the street.

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

 

S3  Fences comply with fencing requirements.

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply (see section 8.2.1 Visual and Acoustic Privacy below)

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Does not comply (see section 8.2.1 Fences below)

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

P3  Do not detract from the streetscape and are compatible with the dwelling.

 

P4  Car parking areas and accessways facilitate stormwater infiltration on site.

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S1  Car parking spaces have minimum dimensions of 5.5 metres x 2.5 metres.

 

·     Driveways have a minimum width of three metres and are set back at least one metre from the side boundary (max width 3m at boundary).

·     Driveway gradients have a maximum of 1 in 6. The gradient for the first 5m from street not more than 1 in 8.

 

·     Garages and carport to a rear lane are 1m setback.

 

S2  Carports and garages located behind the building where rear access available, or behind building line where front access available.

 

S3  Driveways, car parking facilities <35% of frontage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A garage existing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

.

 

Solid front fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.2m.

 

Fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.8m with upper two thirds at least 50% open. (Not applicable in Heritage Conservation Areas).

 

 

Does not comply (see Section 8.2.1 Fences below)

 

 

 

Does not comply (see Section 8.2.1 Fences below)

 

8.2  Council Policies

Landscaping

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced, dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation area, storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

 

 Preferred solutions include that a minimum of 25m² of useable private open space be provided, a minimum of 40% of the total site area is provided as landscape area, half of which should be soft permeable landscaping, and each dwellings private open space shall be capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

 

If the private open space is proposed towards the front of the dwelling it should be located behind the required building line.

 

As indicated in the table above, the proposal fully complies with the landscaping requirements of the DCP, which requires a minimum of 40% of the site area to be landscaped of which 20% of the area has a permeable treatment.

 

It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily complies with Council’s objectives and performance requirements in regards to landscaping requirements.

 

Floor Area

 

The objective and performance requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, compatible with the existing character of the locality and also minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The preferred solution for an allotment with an area of 311.75m2 is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies. The proposal is typical of the type of developments that are built in the area. The immediate surroundings are characterised by large scale double storey buildings which are well in excess of Council’s FSR preferred Solutions The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in bulk and scale as the building is lessen in scale than the adjoining buildings in the locality. Building bulk has been minimised through the setback of the first floor addition from the front of the building and the redesign of the roof form.

 

It is considered that the proposal is acceptable with regard to bulk and scale and is compatible with the character of the surroundings. The proposal satisfactorily complies with the performance requirements and objectives relating to floor area.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

The objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality, and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant performance requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets.

 

Preferred solutions include that the external wall height of the building not exceed 7m, the length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a side boundary, and that the second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and further, the design respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height preferred solution by approx 100mm. This is due to the slope of the land and the elevated base of the existing building. The proposed building will not be excessive in height relative to the surroundings which consist predominately of large scale double storey buildings to the south of the property, further east of the subject site and to the west along Victoria Street.

 

The proposal satisfactorily complies with the performance requirements and objectives of the DCP with regard to height, form and materials. The surrounding locality consists predominately of large double storey buildings and the proposed development is consistent with the type of developments built in the area.

 

Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

 

Preferred solutions include that side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level and 1.5m at first floor level, and that no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The subject building as it exists, is setback less than the 900mm preferred solution at ground level. Ii is proposed to erect the new first floor addition with a setback of 900mm. The proposal is consistent with the predominant setbacks of the adjoining properties. Overshadowing arising from the proposal will be acceptable as adjoining properties will be able to receive the minimum 3 hours sunlight requirement during winter (See section 9 Environmental Assessment), and the encroachment is not considered to give rise to adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, access to light, air and views.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

The objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The performance requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

The proposal has been designed such that the windows of the proposed first floor addition does not directly overlook into the windows of the adjoining building which is single storey in level. The two (2) living room windows on the first floor north eastern elevation face the front yard of the adjoining property which is not the primary outdoor recreation area and it is not considered reasonable to require sill heights of the windows be raised.

 

A balcony is proposed to extend from the front south eastern elevation and from the rear north western elevation. The balcony at the rear has been amended and reduced in width by 1.3m such that its new width is 2.4m with a planter along the northern end. It is recommended that the width of the balcony be reduced to 2m so that it is not excessive in size resulting in visual and acoustic privacy to the adjoining property. A obscure glass privacy screen is proposed to be erected to the north eastern side of the balcony. A balcony is also proposed to extend from the front elevation. This provides outlook to Malabar Beach.

 

It is considered that the proposal satisfies the relevant performance requirements and objectives relating to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Safety & Security

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that a safe physical environment and crime prevention is promoted through design, including that buildings are designed to face the street and other public areas to provide for surveillance, dwellings and their entrances are readily identifiable by street numbering and design of front fences and landscaped areas allows for safe access to the dwelling.

 

Preferred solutions are that the front doors of dwellings are visible from the street, at least one habitable room window overlook the street, a Council approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence, and that any front fence comply with the other relevant requirements of the DCP. 

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant preferred solutions and performance requirements for safety and security.

 

Fences

 

Generally the objectives and performance requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the street scape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.

 

Preferred solutions include that solid fences front fences are no higher than 1200mm and other types of fences be 1800mm maximum in height and they be designed so that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

 

The subject site has an existing front fence and it is proposed to extend the height of the fence by an additional 300mm. The existing solid front fence has a height of 1.5m to the far west and has an existing height of 1.8m to the far eastern corner. The site slopes from west to east and the existing fence is stepped to accommodated the fall of the land. At the eastern side, the fence with a solid height of 1.4m and metal infill to a height of 400mm. It is proposed to brick up one section of the fence to a solid height of 1.4m with 400mm of infill to match the eastern section. It is proposed to extend the existing solid brick fence at the western end by and additional 300mm. It is not considered that the proposal will detract from the streetscape and the character of the building.

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant performance requirements and objectives with relation to fences.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

9.1   Proposed Design in relation to Existing Building and Natural Environment

 

The proposed additions generally satisfies the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies with respect to landscaping, materials and height, side setbacks, and visual and acoustic privacy. The proposed additions will not be out of character with the streetscape as there is no consistent streetscape character of building styles in the immediate locality. There are numerous new large developments which incorporate similar features to the proposed building.

 

9.2   Physical relationship to and impact upon adjoining development

 

9.2.1    Overshadowing

 

Shadows cast by the proposed development will fall along Victoria Street to the west in the morning period and the subject property and Raglan Street to the east in the afternoon.

 

The DCP requires, as a preferred solution, that at least 3 hours of sunlight is received to principle outdoor recreation spaces and north facing windows of adjoining properties between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less than 3 hours are available under the current conditions, access to sunlight is not reduced.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that the majority of shadows cast by the proposed development would fall onto Victoria Road to the west in the morning period up until 12 noon. The shadows cast by the proposed development would fall onto the subject property and Raglan Street to the east in the afternoon period from about 12 noon onwards.

 

The requirement for a minimum 3 hours of sunlight being substantially received to the rear yards and living spaces of adjoining properties would be reasonably met.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed additions generally satisfy the relevant objectives and performance standards applicable to the subject site under the Development Control plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 1084/2002 for Alterations and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house including new decks, boundary fence alterations and rear awning  at 52 Raglan Street, Malabar subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans numbered .2207 Sheet No 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A dated January 2003, and received by Council on 29 January 2003, and plans number 10 & 11 dated November 2002 and received by Council on 18 November 2002.The application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITY:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

2.        In order to maintain reasonable levels of visual and acoustic privacy to the adjoining property, the deck at the rear first floor north western elevation is to be reduced to a width (depth) of 2m. Details are to be provided on the construction certificate plans.

 

3.        The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the street scape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Environment, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to commencement of any building works.

 

4.        The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

5.        There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure/s onto the adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

6.        Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway or public place.

 

7.        Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

8.        The premises is to be used as a single residential dwelling only at all times and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes without obtaining the prior written development consent from the Council.

 

9.        No cooking facilities are to be installed in the first floor without the prior written consent of the Council.

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS & FIRE SAFETY:

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations:

 

10.      All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

11.      In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Where the work is to be done by a licensed contractor, excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·          has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and

·          is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the insurance requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989, or

 

Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner builder), excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·          has been informed of the person’s name and owner-builder permit number, or

·          has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

Details of the builder and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, on the notice of appointment of the PCA / Intention to commence building work.

 

STRUCTURAL:

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

12.      A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey.

 

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT:

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

13.      A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be available to the Council officers upon request.

 

14.      The building works are to be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority), to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction and Council’s development consent.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority shall specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

15.      Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

16.      Prior to the commencement of any building work, a principal certifying authority must be appointed and Council is to be notified accordingly and, at least 2 days notice of the intention to commence building work must be given to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

17.      A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or compliance certificate is to be forwarded to the principal certifying authority (and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority), detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stage/s of construction:

 

(a)        Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks.

 

(b)        On completion of the erection of the building showing the area of the land, the position of the building and boundary setbacks and verifying the building has been constructed at the approved levels.

 

18.      Building and demolition works must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive, between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and public holidays, except with the specific written authorisation of Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services.

 

19.      Noise emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 & the Noise Control Manual published by the Environment Protection Authority, except as may be amended by the conditions of this approval.

 

20.      Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions and debris at all times.

 

21.      Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written consent of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Council’s Local Approvals Policy.

 

22.      During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

23.      Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any drainage line, natural watercourse, footpath, roadway or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

24.      Public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site (unless the site is separated from the adjoining land by an existing structurally adequate fence, having a minimum height of 1.5 metres).  Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

Hoarding or fences are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

FIRE SAFETY:

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that reasonable levels of fire safety are provided in the building:

 

25.      Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or dwelling in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Smoke alarms must comply with AS3786 – Smoke alarms and be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.

 

The smoke alarms are to be installed in suitable locations on or near the ceiling, in any storey containing bedrooms; located between each part of the dwelling containing the bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling, or where bedrooms are served by a hallway, the smoke alarms are to be located in that hallway; and smoke alarms are to be installed in any other storey not containing bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Smoke alarms are not to be located in ‘dead-air-spaces’, in the corner junction of walls and ceilings between exposed rafters/joists or at the apex of raked ceilings, as detailed in Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

Traffic Conditions/Civil Works Conditions:

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for access, transport and infrastructure:

 

26.      The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

27.      The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

28.      Should the front fence be demolished it is to be reconstructed with a 2m x 2m splay at the southeast corner of the site at the Raglan St/Victoria St intersection. Details showing compliance with this condition are to be on the plans submitted for the construction certificate.”

 

Note: Council will allow the front fence to be constructed to a maximum height of 600mm above the Council footpath level in Raglan St within the proposed splay area.

 

SERVICE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS:

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate consideration for service authority assets:

 

29.      The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS:

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for landscaping and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

30.      That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'ANL Organic Garden Mix', and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf. Such works shall be completed at the applicants expense prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be maintained by the applicant in accordance with Council guidelines. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, watering, mowing, fertilising, and the removal of weeds.

 

ADVISORY CONDITIONS

 

The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

NADIA ELBOTATY

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

21 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0815/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A Review of the decision to refuse consent

PROPERTY:

 46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Modum P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Bastic and Sullivan.

 

The issue central to the application revolves around the extension of the first floor addition forward to the street from the existing roof ridge and the vertical extension of the front wall of the house to form the addition.  All examples cited by the applicant to support the proposal, do not reflect this architectural form.  Either they keep a substantial portion of the existing front hipped roof form when the roof ridge is extended forward to the street and set the first floor wall back from the ground floor wall or they locate the addition behind the front hipped roof (the preferable solution).  It is considered that the proposed design is out of scale, unsympathetic and asymmetrical to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and will be incongruous and out of character to the Kitchener streetscape, forming a precedent for this inappropriate form of first floor addition when only one of a pair of semi-detached proposes the addition.

 

The location of the proposed first floor addition forward to the existing roof ridge introduces non compliances with the preferred solutions, performance requirements and objectives of the Development Control Plan, particularly in regard to floor space, height and setbacks.  Other areas of non compliance are landscaped area, car parking, and visual privacy.  When considered in totality, the non compliances reinforce each other to demonstrate that the proposal is clearly an overdevelopment of the site.

    

It is considered that the proposal has been poorly conceived in relation to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and its appearance to Kitchener Street.  As well, the configuration of the floor plan may be better executed to achieve a more satisfactory appearance and reduce the areas of non compliance, whilst still retaining a three bedroom house plus study.  This should be the subject of a new development application, with consultation with Council’s planning officers prior to its lodgement or as amended plans accompanying the Section 82A Review. 

 

The recommendation is confirmation of the determination for refusal.

 

2.    THE REVIEW

 

The applicant seeks a review of the determination to refuse consent to Development Application No. 02/00815/GA pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

The proposal, for which the review is sought, is for demolition of the existing outside toilet attached to the rear of the semi-detached dwelling and alterations and additions the existing semi-detached dwelling, including a new first floor addition comprising three (3) bedrooms, bathroom, W.C., corridor, internal stairs and lobby opening onto a balcony.  The ground floor is proposed to be reconfigured to convert the existing master bedroom to a study; to provide internal stairs to the first floor; relocation of the laundry opening onto a covered landing and the extension of the dwelling towards the rear (north) and also to the eastern boundary (Beatty Street).

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is one of a pair of Torrens Title semi-detached dwellings and is located on the north-west corner of Kitchener and Beatty Streets, Maroubra.  The site is an irregular shaped lot due to its corner position and an irregularity in the wall line between the other semi-detached dwelling.  The site has a total site area of 276.5m2.  Currently existing on the site forward of the building line to Kitchener Street is a carport with a hipped tiled roof, while existing forward of the building line to Kitchener Street of the adjacent semi-detached dwelling is a garage with a trafficable flat roof and balustrading.  The area is characterised by freestanding and semi-detached dwellings, both two storey and one storey. 

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 02/00815//GA for alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling, including a first floor addition was refused (report attached in full) on the 20th December, 2002 for the following reasons:-

 

“1.     The proposed first floor addition does not satisfy Section 4.2 of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the floor space ratio does not comply with either the objectives and performance requirements or the preferred solution of the DCP.  The proposal is excessive in bulk and scale and is not compatible with the existing character of the locality. 

 

2.       The proposed first floor addition does not satisfy Section 4.3 of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP are not complied with. The first floor addition to the semi detached dwelling does not integrate with the streetscape and the adjoining semi detached dwelling.  The addition is also excessive in height and scale, is not compatible with the existing character of the locality, will be visually obtrusive in the streetscape and will detract from the appearance of the existing building

 

3.       The proposed development will set a poor precedence for future residential development within the locality.

 

4.       The proposal is not in the public interest.” 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The application for the Section 82A Review was notified with no submissions received.  The original application was notified in accordance with the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, with one (1) submission received from P. Martin of 44 Kitchener Street, Maroubra.  Many of the issues raised in this submission remain relevant and discussed under “Environmental Assessment” later in the report.  The issues raised are listed below.

 

·  Size and bulk of the addition

·  Loss of sunlight

·  Loss of privacy and sunlight from the rear balcony

·  No heights provided

·  Questions if existing roof tiles are to be used

·  Water proofing to existing roof

·  TV antennae relocation

·  Loss of light to back room

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application for the Section 82A Review was not referred for comment.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and the following relevant planning documents:-

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

7.1  Policy Controls

 

a. Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

P2 Orientation and design maximises solar access to living areas and open space.

 

 

 

P9 Design and siting of buildings, alterations minimises loss of solar access to neighbours.

 

S2.8  North-facing windows to living areas received at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

S2 Private open space

receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

Yes

Kitchen and family room reconfigured to allow more useable space with northern orientation.

 

Yes

No living areas located within the first floor addition.  Existing lounge and proposed family room windows will achieve at least 3 hours of sunlight

 

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

(Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

P9  Neighbour’s north-facing living area windows receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced.

 

P9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor area receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S9  North-facing windows to living areas of neighbours receive 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

 

S9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

 

Yes

Private open space achieves full sun

 

Yes

Additional shadows fall over roof area of adjoining properties to the west at 9.00am and on street surfaces at 12 noon and 3pm.

 

 

 

 

Yes

The proposal does not shadow principal outdoor areas of neighbours

 

 

 

 

 

 North facing windows of adjoining properties to the west are unaffected by proposal

 

 

 

Neighbour’s principal outdoor area unaffected by proposal

 

WATER MANAGEMENT

 

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

·    collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·    do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·    fit in with hydrology;

·    use on–site stormwater infiltration; maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

·    retain existing trees

 

S1  Stormwater is graded and drained via a gravity system to Council’s street gutter; or to a suitable absorption system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Dwelling will be able to adopt gravity system to Council’s street gutter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

 

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

S1  25m2   of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

No

31.2%

 

Yes

58.28m2 

 

Yes

Dimensions

7.285m x 8m

 

FLOOR AREA

P1  Building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms, minimise effects on neighbours and streets.

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

 

No

0.77:1 –see Environmental Assessment

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P5  Second storey of a semi-detached dwelling integrates with streetscape and adjoining dwelling.

 

S1  Maximum 7m external wall height for house or attached dual occupancy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S4  Length of second storey portion is not greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S5  Second storey potion of a semi is confined within an existing roof space or setback from the front elevation and respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi.

 

No

8m maximum –see Environmental Assessment

 

No

The mass, proportion and articulation of the first floor addition detracts from the street – see Environmental Assessment

 

 

No

The length of the second storey addition is 17.385m with a zero setback from the western boundary, however the design does not significantly affect the light and privacy of adjoining neighbours- see Environmental Assessment

 

No

The second storey of this semi is built to the front elevation and fails to respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi.

BUILDING SETBACKS

 

Rear Setback

 

P2  Allow neighbours adequate access to natural light, view sharing and retains trees and vegetation.

 

Side Setback

 

P3  Allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

 

Side setbacks on corner allotments must integrate with established setbacks of both streets and maintain the streetscape.

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

S3  900mm for any part over 1m above ground level up to one level in height.

 

 

 

1.5m for any part of a building, two levels at that point

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

8m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

900mm for single storey portion at the rear

 

 

No

1-2.2m for side setback for the 2 storey portion of the building.

 

 

 

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

P1  Overlooking neighbouring internal living areas and private open spaces is minimised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

P3  Dwellings close to noise sources such as busy roads or industry designed to provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 P1  Buildings provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

.

 

S1  Habitable room windows with direct outlook to others windows within 9m are offset by more than 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing or sill height to 1.5m.

 

S1  Direct view into the private open space of adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Buildings comply with

•AS-2107: Acoustics – recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors.

 

 

 

 

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

Yes

Habitable room windows are not directly located within 9m

 

 

No

Rear balcony from Bedroom 3 will overlook private open space of adjoining property to the west – No screening provided

 

No

Rear balcony not provided with screening to street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front door visible from street, however design indicates laundry door as being the primary entry

 

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

 

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

1 space existing – no new spaces proposed.

The building is extended from a 2 bedroom dwelling to a 3 bedroom dwelling plus study

 

 

b.       Development Control Plan - Parking

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and the reasons for refusal as listed in the determination of the application.  An amended design has been discussed on-site with the applicant.  It is considered that an amended design may achieve a more reasonable and acceptable impact to the Kitchener Street façade in terms of bulk, scale and aesthetics with a reduction in the amount and degree of non-compliances with Council’s controls as set out in the above table.  Such an amended design would require the lodgement of a new development application.

 

 

8.1   Landscaping

 

The application proposes to create a family room at the rear of the property by way of the re-configuration of the existing kitchen, the relocation of the existing laundry from the rear of the dwelling house, the demolition of outside W.C. and by extending the footprint of the dwelling to the rear (north) by approximately 1.5m and to the eastern side (Beatty Street) boundary by 1.26m.  As well, a landing with steps is proposed opening from the relocated laundry toward the middle of the ground floor in the area currently utilised as a second bedroom.  The resultant increase in the building footprint causes a net loss of landscaped area of approximately 33.1 m2 and reduces the landscaped area from the existing 43.2% to 31.2% of the site area.  It is considered that although this is not a sufficient reason on its own to refuse the application, given that the extension of the building footprint does not result in any significant loss of soft landscaping and private open space, the non compliance with the minimum landscaped requirement of the Preferred Solution (40%) should be considered in conjunction with the other areas of non compliance to determine if the proposed development in its totality is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

8.2   Floor Area

 

The proposed floor space ratio (0.77:1) exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio (0.65:1) for the site by approximately 32.1m2 under the Preferred Solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies (Development Control Plan).

 

The Objective of the floor area control is “to ensure that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale but are compatible with the existing character of the locality”, while the Performance Requirements require that building bulk be “compatible with the surrounding built forms” and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours, streets and public open spaces.

 

The proposed second storey addition is located directly above the ground floor southern wall (Kitchener Street elevation) of the semi-detached dwelling and is setback from the ground floor rear (northern) extension by approximately 3.7m.  As such, the bulk and mass of the building is located forward of the common ridge of the pair of semi-detached dwellings and projects the first floor addition forward of the existing hipped front roof, only retained on the adjoining semi to the west (44 Kitchener Street). Therefore presenting an asymmetrical form to the semi-detached dwellings as a pair.

 

The stepped form of the internal dividing wall within the front bedroom of the subject semi-detached dwelling, located forward of the existing southern end of the roof ridge will, as a consequence of proposed first floor addition, be projected through the plane of the hipped front roof, which is currently read as the hipped roof of a single building.  This will compound the asymmetrical nature of the addition.  The front and western side wall of the proposed development will thus be a dominant and intrusive element into the streetscape of Kitchener Street, particularly when viewed from the western approach to the building.

 

The proposed addition will present a lopsided appearance of the building to the Kitchener Street, will not maintain a compatible scale with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and will be out of character to both the building and the existing streetscape character of Kitchener Street.  In this regard, both the original objection received from the adjoining semi-detached dwelling regarding the bulk and scale of the addition and the reason for refusal (Reason 1) in the original determination are supported.  It is considered that the floor space ratio of the proposed development fails to comply with the Objectives, Performance Requirements or the Preferred Solution of the Development Control Plan in regard to floor area, with the proposal being excessive in bulk and scale, as well as being incompatible with the existing character of the locality.

 

It should be noted, in line with discussions with the applicant in the course of this review, that if the first floor addition were to be located to the rear (north) of the existing southern (Kitchener Street end) of the roof ridge, thus maintaining the hipped roof form to the Kitchener Street front, this would present a more acceptable and reasonable approach for the design of the development.  In fact, the floor space lost (28.2 m2) from the first floor addition resulting from the reduction in bulk   approximately equates to the excess floor space (32.1m2) resulting from the development as currently proposed.

 

While it is understood, that the applicant wishes to gain a three bedroom dwelling for future family growth, as well as a study and an extended and useable family room, it is considered that the proposed floor layout is poorly conceived with the proposed stairs, corridor and lobby area having the potential to be re-configured to create a study, with the existing master bedroom downstairs and adjacent storage area over-utilised as a study and storage area when it could be more properly retained as a bedroom.  In effect, the proposed study because of its size and configuration should properly be considered a fourth bedroom. 

 

Additionally, the design of the first floor lobby (opening onto a balcony) and the laundry underneath (opening onto a landing), presents to the Beatty Street elevation, with its projecting roof and columns, as the main entrance to the building, rather than a laundry access.  In contrast, the main entrance to the building on the Beatty Street elevation has a ‘low key’ awning structure subservient to the pilastered structure to the laundry.  It is considered that this area of the building has been over-designed, with this building form failing to follow function, conflicting with the performance requirement of the Development Control Plan that “individual dwellings and entries are readily identifiable”.

 

8.3   Height, Form and Materials

 

The proposed first floor addition fails to comply with the Preferred Solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in regard to the external wall height (8m maximum instead of 7m), the length of the second storey portion (17.385m instead of 12m) and the requirement for the second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling to be confined either within the existing roof space or setback from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form, with the design respecting the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

As discussed previously, the wall of the building is extended vertically at the front to form the first floor addition.  This results in both the non complying external wall height of 8m and the entire removal of the existing hipped roof of the subject semi-detached dwelling that forms the dominant element in this elevation.  This design fails to respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.  As well, by extending the first floor roof ridge to the south, well beyond the current roof ridge, the length of the second storey portion is pushed beyond the allowable length by over 44%.    This is an insensitive design approach that fails to achieve the performance requirements of the height control.  Not only will it fail to integrate the second storey with the existing building and with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, it will appear incongruous to and detract from the Kitchener streetscape.

 

A schedule of external materials, finishes and colours was not submitted with the application nor do the plans note the material, finishes and colours of the external walls, however it appears that it is proposed to render the subject semi-detached dwelling.  This treatment would further exacerbate the incongruity between the subject semi-detached dwelling and the other semi-detached dwelling in the pair.  In consideration of the above, the proposal fails to meet the performance objectives in regard to its height and scale by its location on the existing semi-detached dwelling and its detailing.

 

The applicant argues that the design is acceptable by virtue of the different front (Kitchener Street) elevations to each of the semi-detached dwellings in the pair and by adopting a similar hipped roof form on the proposed second storey as currently existing on the building.  Examples (with photographs) of similar development in the locality have been put forward as setting a precedent for this form of development.

 

It is considered that the arguments put forward do not carry any merit for the following reasons:-

 

·    The pair of semi-detached dwellings have a common dominant element in their presentation to Kitchener Street, being the hipped roof form.  This will be destroyed by the proposed first floor addition.  The differences in their current appearance being an additional secondary hipped roof element and the garage and balustrade forward of the building line on the western semi-detached dwelling (44 Kitchener), while the subject semi-detached dwelling having a hipped roof with a gablet over a single carport that projects forward of the building line and a bay window.  Both the garage and the carport are incongruous to the streetscape, however the main hipped roof common to both semi-detached dwellings is still read visually as the dominant element in the streetscape.  The symmetry of this roof linking the semi-detached dwellings as an integrated whole will be lost if the proposed development were to proceed.

 

·    The incorporation of a hipped roof on the second storey addition will not successfully integrate the addition with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling as the dominant element will be the proposed two storey front wall to the street.  This ‘wraps’ around to the western elevation and would be highly visible when approached from the west along Kitchener Street.

·    The examples and photographs submitted by the applicant have been carefully examined.  Although they represent pairs of semi-detached dwellings which have a first floor addition on only one of the pair, in all cases where the addition has been brought forward of the roof ridge, an area of the existing hipped roof has been left remaining.  In the remainder of the examples cited, the addition is either located in line with the existing end of the roof ridge or set back beyond the roof ridge to the rear.  None of the examples have demonstrated a front wall of a semi vertically extended to form the first floor addition, as proposed in the subject application.   Therefore Council has been consistent in the approvals granted and if this application were to be approved it would form an undesirable precedent for this form of development.

 

8.4   Building Setbacks

 

At the southern (Kitchener Street) end of the eastern elevation, the proposed development consists of three levels for approximately the first 6.4m of its length toward the rear (north) of the dwelling.  As such a 3m setback from the eastern boundary is required by the Preferred Solutions instead of the 2.2m as proposed.   It is in this area of non compliance with the building setback that the proposed first floor addition extends past the existing roof ridge toward the street and which is the predominant issue of the application.  Further the proposal extends the semi-detached dwelling along the alignment of the common wall, that is a zero setback on the western boundary of the site.  In all cases, the performance requirement for building setbacks notes that setbacks should only be varied where the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the streetscape or adjoining premises.   As demonstrated previously in the report, the proposal to extend the ridge forward of its present position and extending the existing front wall vertically to form the first floor addition will be incongruous to the form of the semi–detached dwellings and detract from the Kitchener streetscape.

 

As discussed previously, the design proposes a covered first floor balcony (from the first floor stair lobby) and a landing (from the ground floor laundry) framed by columns on the eastern façade of the building.  This portion of the building is two levels requiring a 1.5m setback, instead this projection from the building façade is setback only 1m approximately, thereby increasing its dominance to the eastern façade.

 

8.5   Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

A first floor balcony is proposed at the rear of the semi-detached dwelling which will overlook the private open space of the adjoining dwelling to the west.  This was a subject of concern to the neighbouring property owner in the original submission received for this application.  No screening, either to the adjoining property to the west or to Beatty Street to the east, has been included as part of this application.  At the very minimum, the balcony should have privacy screens, on both its eastern and western ends, to restrict the angle of outlook to a 45 degree angle in accordance with the Preferred Solutions of the Development Control Plan.  Additionally screen planting along the western boundary fence to a mature height of 3m would also restrict the opportunity for overlooking of private open space.

 

8.6   Car Parking

 

The proposed development converts an existing two bedroom house, requiring one (1) car parking space (already provided on site) to a three bedroom dwelling house plus study, requiring two (2) car parking spaces.  A more realistic representation of the proposal, however, would be as a four bedroom house, given the size (14.9 m2) of the study and its configuration (ability to have a door). Either way, the proposed development requires the provision of two car parking spaces on site under the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Parking.  The proposal before Council fails to provided the additional on-site car space and is therefore deficient also in this regard.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that Council may review the determination to refuse consent to Development Application No. 02/00815/GA under delegated authority on the 20 th December, 2002, pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and confirm the decision to refuse consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council’s original Determination of Development Application No. 02/00815/GA dated the 20th December, 2002 for refusal of consent be confirmed.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  A4 reduced plans

2.  Delegated Report dated 20 December 2002 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                             DELEGATED REPORT

  Report of the Director of Planning –20 DECEMBER 2002

 

 

PROPERTY:                    46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra      

 

WARD:              Central Ward

 

FILE REF:                       815/2002

 

APPLICANT:                   Modum P/L

 

OWNER:                          G and T Goodacre

 

PROPOSAL:                    Alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling including a first floor addition.

 

VALUE OF WORK:        $160 000

 

BCA

CLASSIFICATION:        Class 1a

 

DATE SUBMITTED:     28 August 2002

 

ADVERTISING:             Clause 23

 

AUTHOR:                        Marnie Stewart

 

1.         DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY:

 

The site is located on the corner of Kitchener Street and Beatty Street.  Currently existing on the site is a semi-detached dwelling with carport forward of the building line.  The site is an irregular shape lot due to its corner position and has a total site area of 276.5m2.  The area is characterised by freestanding and semi-detached dwellings. 

 

2.         RELEVANT HISTORY:

 

94/00364/BY       SGL STY SEMI-DET BK/DW WITH T     App 26/09/94  26/09/9

 

00/00141/GB       Removal of tree and demolish                       App 19/05/00  16/02/0

 

00/00463/JB        Pave the front yard & create  App                09/06/00  30/05/0

 

01/00629/GB       Timber frame carport to front                        Rej       16/08/01  19/07/0

 

01/00533/JB        New timber and tile carport.                         App 29/11/01  26/07/0

 

 

3.         DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:

 

The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling.  On the ground floor, it is proposed to internally reconfigure the existing dwelling and extend the dwelling towards the rear and eastern boundary.  On the upper floor, it is proposed to construct an addition containing 3 bedrooms, lobby, bathroom and rear balcony. 

 

4.         ZONING AND STATUTORY CONTROLS:

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls: -

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

-           Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

5.   POLICY CONTROLS:

 

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Landscaping

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced, dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation area, storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

 

Preferred solutions include that a minimum of 25m² of useable private open space be provided, a minimum of 40% of the total site area is provided as landscape area, half of which should be soft permeable landscaping, and each dwellings private open space shall be capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

 

The proposed development will not result in the loss of any significant landscaping to the site.   Details and calculations of soft landscaping have not been provided with the application.  Although it appears unlikely that the soft landscaping requirements of the DCP will be achieved

 

Floor Area

 

The objective and performance requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, compatible with the existing character of the locality and also minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 applies.  The proposed FSR of the development is 0.77:1, which exceeds the preferred solutions of the DCP. 

 

In regard to the non-compliance, the applicant has provided additional details in support of their application including a written response and photographs.  The applicant believes that:

 

·    The proposed additions do not have any detrimental effect upon the amenity of the neighbours.

·    As depicted in the photographs, the proposal is compatible with existing developments in the immediate area and locality.

·    The floor area is not substantial, but creates a family home that meets modern standards.

·    Articulation has been provided in the form of a balcony and corbel bands. 

 

In considering the additional detail and photographs submitted, it is considered that the information does not adequately demonstrate that the bulk and scale of the upper floor addition is compatible with the existing character of the locality and that it is compatible with the surrounding built form.  It is considered that the design and location directly above the front external wall with no setback results in a visual obtrusive element in the streetscape and excessive bulk and scale when viewed from both the Kitchener and Beatty Street streetscapes.  

 

It should also be noted that of the 16 photographs submitted in support of the application, only 2 photos were taken in Kitchener Street. The remaining photographs were taken in different streets such as Holmes Street, Garret, Keating and Edgar Street, which are some distance from the subject site.  It is therefore difficult to argue that these additions depict the character of the surrounding built form. Regardless, the majority of these photos depict first floor additions that retain some of the existing roof form at the front of the dwelling and additions which are setback from the front of the dwelling.  None of the photos submitted by the applicant depict additions located directly above the existing front external wall presenting to the street a full two storey addition.  None of photos depicted dwellings that confer the same degree of bulk to the streetscape or are as visually dominant in the streetscape as the propose development

 

The bulk and scale of the upper floor addition is excessive and is not compatible with the existing character of the locality and the surrounding built form.  It is considered that the proposed development does not satisfy the performance requirements or objectives of the DCP for floor space and cannot be supported. 

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

The objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality, and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant performance requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets.

 

Preferred solutions include that the external wall height of the building not exceed 7m, the length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a side boundary, and that the second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and further, the design respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

The proposed external wall of the addition at the front of the dwelling is proposed at around 7.7m, which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.  Also, the second storey portion has not been set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design does not respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi.  The first floor addition is proposed to be located above the front external wall of the existing dwelling and will not retain any of the existing roof.  The addition has no regard for the preferred solution,  whereby an upper level to a semi detached dwelling is sited behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form. It is noted that the pair of semis are not symmetrical, however it is considered that the first floor addition as proposed would have an adverse impact upon pair of semis as it does not integrate with the adjoining semi, it will detract from the existing local streetscape and will set a poor precedent for future residential development. 

 

The photographs submitted of the upper floor additions at 1 and 27 Kitchener Street reveal that the additions retain some of the existing roof form and have some setback from the front of the dwelling.  In particular, the addition at 27 Kitchener Street is setback behind a significant portion of the existing roof.  In regard to 1 Kitchener Street, it is acknowledged that it is not setback behind the ridge, however, perusal of Council’s records indicate that the addition was approved by Council in 1992 under a different planning document, which has been replaced by a policy that places a greater emphasis upon streetscape amenity. 

 

Furthermore, the site inspection revealed that there are no examples in Kitchener Street of additions that have been designed to go straight up from the front external wall like that proposed.  Also, as detailed in the section above, none of the photos submitted by the applicant depict additions located directly above the existing front external wall presenting to the street a full two-storey front facade.  All additions retain some form of roof to reduce the prominence of the upper floor additions in the streetscape. 

 

The proposed development is excessive in height and scale, the additions will detract from the character and appearance of the building, the additions do not enhance the existing built form and the additions do not integrate with the existing adjoining semi.  It should also be kept in perspective that the site is located in a very prominent position on the corner and any approval of such an addition would be very prominent in the area.  If the upper floor were setback from the front of the dwelling (Kitchener Street) it would reduce the prominence of the addition in both Beatty and Kitchener Street. 

 

It is considered that the proposed development does not comply with the performance requirements and objectives of the DCP and cannot be supported. 

 

Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

 

Preferred solutions include that side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level and 1.5m at first floor level, and that no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The side and rear setbacks are considered to be acceptable and satisfactory in relation to the DCP requirements. 

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

The objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The performance requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

The application includes new openings to the ground and upper floors, new rear deck located off bedroom 3 and side deck located off the lobby on the upper floor.  To minimise overlooking impacts from the proposed rear deck, the deck has been designed to be located within the rear roof form.  

 

 Safety & Security

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that a safe physical environment and crime prevention is promoted through design, including that buildings are designed to face the street and other public areas to provide for surveillance, dwellings and their entrances are readily identifiable by street numbering and design of front fences and landscaped areas allows for safe access to the dwelling.

 

Preferred solutions are that the front doors of dwellings are visible from the street, at least one habitable room window overlook the street, a Council approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence, and that any front fence comply with the other relevant requirements of the DCP. 

 

The proposed development is satisfactory in relation to safety and security.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the street scape, and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment. Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 there after.

 

It should be noted that Council has passed a Draft Amendment to the DCP, which deleted performance requirement P2, which reads;

 

“ P2    -Not breach the predominant building alignment

-Not become an undesirable precedent”.

 

Also the following note has been included in the DCP:

 

“Hardstand parking areas before the building line may be permitted and considered preferable to a garage or carport where it may demonstrate that it does not dominate or detract from the appearance of the existing development and the local streetscape”.

 

The absence of the prescriptive Performance Requirement will create a greater degree of flexibility from the Preferred Solutions and will place more reliance on merit assessment of streetscape impact, and generally allow for hardstand areas in the front of the building. This Draft Amendment is currently on exhibition and therefore Council may include the draft amendment in the assessment criteria of this application.

 

With respect to garages and carports to rear lanes these should be set back 1m to improve pedestrian visibility.

 

Currently existing on the site is a carport forward of the building line.  There is no opportunity to provide any additional parking provision on site due to the constraints of the site. 

 

Fences

 

Generally the objectives and performance requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the street scape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.

 

Preferred solutions include that solid fences front fences are no higher than 1200mm and other types of fences be 1800mm maximum in height and they be designed so that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

 

The plans do not depict any alterations and additions to the existing fencing on the site. 

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

The overall objectives of the DCP seek to ensure that development promotes and has regard to the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development. In this respect the objectives promote energy efficiency in design and construction, the use of appropriate resources, encourage the use of passive solar design, and protect solar access enjoyed by the adjoining premises.

 

As a general guide new dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies must demonstrate that they have been designed to achieve an energy efficiency, NatHERS, rating of 3.5 stars and buildings are orientated and internally configured to take advantage of and maximise solar access.

 

The preferred solutions of the DCP include that private open spaces, outdoor recreation areas and north facing windows to the subject and adjoining premises receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm during the winter equinox. If less than the preferred solution is currently available access to sunlight should not be reduced.  

 

It should be noted that the Draft Amendment to the DCP which is on exhibition from the 2nd May to the 31st May 2002, seeks to delete, amongst other items, the performance requirement that 3 hours of sunlight be available over at least part of the surface of the adjoining premises between 9.00am to 3.00pm and replace it with as follows;

 

The design and siting of new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.  Solar access is to be maximised to the north facing windows of living areas and the principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings”

 

A NAThers Certificate is not required as the proposed is not for a new dwelling.  ‘

 

In regard to overshadowing, the proposed development will not result in excessive or unreasonable additional overshadowing to the adjoining premises private open space.  The proposed development is considered to satisfy the DCP requirements for overshadowing. 

 

6.         REFERRALS:

 

No referrals required.

 

7.         NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 9.9.2002 .  As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received: -

 

P Martin – 44 Kitchener Street, Maroubra

 

·    Size and bulk of the addition

·    Loss of sunlight

·    Loss of privacy and sunlight from the rear balcony

·    No heights provided

·    Questions if existing roof tiles are to be used

·    Water proofing to existing roof

·    TN antennae relocation

·    Loss of light to back room

 

Comment

 

The objector has raised some valid concerns in regard to bulk, scale and height, which have been discussed in the body of this report.

 

In regard to overshadowing, it is considered that overshadowing impacts are not excessive and the development is satisfactory in relation to the DCP requirements. In terms of privacy, any potential privacy impacts can be mitigated by conditions of consent. 

 

Water proofing concerns and issues are BCA matters.  The applicant has not indicates whether or not they will re use the existing roof tiles.

 

The location of the TV antennae is a private matter for the affected parties to resolve.

 

8.         SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT:

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

9.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will adversely impact upon the character of the locality.  It is recommended that the application be refused. 

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria.  It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed in the recommendations.

 

11.       RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council's Team Leader under delegated authority from the General Manager, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 815/2002 for alterations and addition to an existing semi-detached dwelling including a first floor addition at 46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra for the following reasons: -

 

1          The proposed first floor addition does not satisfy Section 4.2 of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the floor space ratio does not comply with either the objectives and performance requirements or the preferred solution of the DCP.  The proposal is excessive in bulk and scale and is not compatible with the existing character of the locality. 

 

2          The proposed first floor addition does not satisfy Section 4.3 of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP are not complied with. The first floor addition to the semi detached dwelling does not integrate with the streetscape and the adjoining semi detached dwelling.  The addition is also excessive in height and scale, is not compatible with the existing character of the locality, will be visually obtrusive in the streetscape and will detract from the appearance of the existing building. 

 

4.            The proposed development will set a poor precedence for future residential development within the locality

 

3.         The proposal is not in the public interest. 

 

 

 

 

...................................................                                

 

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

DATE: .........................................                              

 

 

Having considered the report of the Assessment Officer and after having taken into account Council's Local Environmental Policies and Codes I determine that the application subject of this assessment report should be determined in accordance with the recommendation.

 

I have exercised my delegation of authority, in accordance with the instrument of delegation dated 6th March 2002, to determine this application.

 

 

 

................................................

 

TEAM LEADER

 

DATE:....................................

 

G:\TOWN\WP\DEVE\DEVE2002\kitchener46.doc

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

25 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/287/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to alter Condition 2 in relation to hours of operation.  Proposed hours 8:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 1pm Saturday.  Auctions limited to once every 3 weeks

PROPERTY:

 266-270 Clovelly Road, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 M Edwards

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Judy Greenwood, Dominic Sullivan and Paul Tracey..

 

The applicant proposes to alter Condition 2 of the Development Consent 287/2002 to allow for auctions, and alter the existing signage and internal layout of the building.

 

Auctions have been proposed for once every three weeks on a Wednesday or Thursday evening between 6:30 pm and 8pm.  During each auction evening, 1 to 8 properties will be auctioned attracting 30 to 100 people.

 

The application was notified to adjoining property owners and in reply 10 objection letters from 9 properties in Dans Avenue and Clovelly Road have been received.  A letter of support from Neustein Rosenberg Earnshaw Architects and Urban Planners on behalf of the applicant has also been received.  

 

The parking study submitted with the application has not adequately assessed the impact of the proposal on the parking capacity of the area, and demonstrated the parking available on site is adequate to cater for the peak parking demand of the proposed auctions.  The inadequacy of the onsite parking provided will result in the intrusion of car parking within the surrounding residential area with a resultant adverse impact on the amenity of local residents.

 

The application is therefore recommended is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant proposes to alter Condition 2 of the Development Consent 287/2002 to allow for auctions, and alter the existing signage and internal layout.

 

The applicant has stated in their Statement of Environmental Effects that auctions will be held once every three weeks on a Wednesday or Thursday evening between 6:30 pm and 8pm.  During each auction session 1 to 8 properties will be auctioned attracting 30 to 100 people

 

The applicant has suggested altering Condition 2 of the Development Consent, which states:

 

‘2.       The hours of operation for business are from 8:30am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:30am – 1pm Saturday and no auctions are to be carried out within the premises during or after operation hours, to minimise the likely residential amenity impact in terms of noise, traffic and on street parking congestion.’

 

and replacing it with the following Condition:

 

‘2.       The hours of operation for business are from 8:30am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:30am – 1pm Saturday. Auctions are to be limited to week days, on average once every three weeks between 6:00pm and 8:30pm.’

 

The applicant has stated that the hours suggested in the condition vary from the actual auction hours to allow for people arriving before 6:30pm and remaining after 8:00pm.

 

In addition to allowing for auctions, the applicant proposes to change the internal layout of the building by installing partition walls and creating an auction room with seating for up to 60 patrons.  The applicant also proposes to install a 1 metre wide by 1 metre deep by 400mm high under awning sign to the street frontage of Clovelly Road.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Clovelly Road between Dans Avenue and Arden Street in Coogee. The site is a regular shaped allotment with street frontages to Clovelly Road and Dans Avenue, and contains a single storey commercial building with parking under accessed from Dans Avenue.  

 

The site is located at the end of a small shopping strip and is surrounded by predominantly residential premises with the exception of the properties to the east along Clovelly Road. Immediately to the east of the site is the Castle Backpackers Hostel.  The property to the west contains a semi-detached dwelling house.  Across from the site is a 3 storey residential flat building with parking under.  Next to the residential flat building to the east is the start of the shopping strip.   Further to the west on the Corner of Clovelly Road and Knox Street is the Clovelly RSL/ Air force Club.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Council received a development application to change the use to a real-estate agency and new signage at 266-270 Clovelly Road Coogee on 4 April 2002.  The application was notified to the adjoining and neighbouring residents on 12 April 2002.  Two objection letters were received from Ms Penny Robbins and Mr Kim Dalton of 41 Dans Avenue and Mr Tim and Mrs Linda Street of 37 Dans Avenue.  Both residents were concerned about the lack of parking in the area and problems with previous tenants of the building.  Concerns were also raised regarding auctions being held on the property.

 

The applicant subsequently advised the Council that they were considering holding auctions fortnightly on a Wednesday or Thursday nights finishing no later than 9pm.  As no details of auctions and the potential traffic generated accompanied the application, a condition prohibiting auctions being held on the site was included with the consent.  The application was approved on the 14 May 2002 subject to conditions restricting the hours of operation, prohibiting auctions being held on site and deleting some signage.

 

b.    HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The following development applications have been lodged for the site:

 

70/00011/DZ -   To use premises for sale used and new car      Rejected 07/07/70

 

70/00100/GF-    Use existing premises as panel beaters

                          and used car sales                                           Rejected 04/08/70

 

71/01581/DZ -   Use premises as a self service

                          grocery shop                                                  Approved 03/08/71

 

71/00140/GF -   Erect a retail self service grocery shop             Approved 03/08/71

 

99/00813/GN -  Carry out internal alterations and

                          change use of the premises from

                          supermarket to office                                      Approved 02/09/99

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Glenda Donazzan, 7 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-     Lack of street parking in the vicinity.

-     Allowing auctions will put an extra strain on the street parking caused by commercial and residential uses already existing in the area particularly the Air Force Club, Catholic Church and backpackers.

-     Fears that people will park illegally across bus stops and driveways.

-     Fears that residents will have to walk large distances from their homes to find street parking causing an increase in car break-ins and being detrimental to residents personal safety.

 

Tim and Linda Street, 37 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-     Lack of street parking in the area.

-     The auctions will add extra strain on the existing street parking caused by the existing commercial uses on Clovelly Road, the RSL and Backpackers Hostel.

-     Fears that the people coming to auctions will become too emotional and will have disregard for parking laws, parking illegally on nature strips and across driveways.

-     Problems in the past with the previous tenants of 266 – 270 Clovelly Road not providing enough parking for employees and people parking illegally on the street.

-     Has recently experienced street auctions in Dans Avenue where large amounts of people have attended.

-     Problems in the past with abandoned cars being left on the street by former guests of the backpackers.

-     Suggests that the applicant use the Clovelly Surf Club for auctions as it has a large car park.

-     Considers the proposal ambiguous with specific reference to the frequency of auctions, the days to which they are to be held and the proposed hours of operation.

-     Has concerns with the applicant’s parking study particularly that the data was sampled over one Wednesday night.

-     Concerned that not all properties in the parking study area were notified of the proposal.

-     Unaware of why the applicant now wishes to provide auctions on site when the development application prohibited them.

-     Does not believe that holding auctions on site is in the best interest of the residents and ratepayers of the area.

 

Lynn and Peter Race, 9 Dans Avenue Randwick.

 

-     Believes holding auctions will increase the parking congestion in the area caused by lack of on site parking for existing commercial and residential uses including existing houses, unit blocks, the RSL and Backpackers Hostel.

-     Fears the proposal will cause an increase in illegal parking causing safety issues for traffic.

-     Fears that residents will have to walk further away from their homes to find street parking and will be detrimental to residents’ personal safety.

 

D A Craner 27 Dans Avenue Clovelly.

 

-     The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the existing street parking of Dans Avenue.

-     Has problems walking along the footpath due to illegally parked cars near the backpackers hostel.

 

Ross and Roslyn Miles, 39 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-     The proposal will cause undue strain on the existing off street parking facilities of the street.

-     Fears that holding auctions once every three weeks is the ‘thin edge of the wedge’

-     Fears that people will park illegally and that Council will have trouble policing this potential problem.

-     Fears that people will not leave immediately after auctions have finished and that the finishing time may be closer to 10pm.

-     Fears that people staying after auctions have finished may cause a noise nuisance.

 

Kim Dalton and Penny Robins 41 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-       Upset that not enough properties were notified of the proposed amendment.

-       Fears that auctions being held on site will increase the demand for on street parking in the area.

-       Dans Avenue has problems with vehicles being parked in the street by guests of the Castle Backpackers. 

-       Problems in the past with the previous tenants of 266 – 270 Clovelly Road not providing enough parking for employees and people parking illegally on the street.

-       Believes that the surrounding area will not be able to accommodate the amount of people that the applicant has stated may attend auctions and that residents will have to park several blocks away when arriving home on nights that auctions will be held.

-       Believes that it is unreasonable for the applicant to hold auctions on the site when the development application prohibited them.

-       Believes that the hours of operation and the frequency of the proposed auctions as specified in the application are too flexible.

-       Believes that the parking study is inadequate and does not take into account the summer backpacker’s season. 

 

Sue O’Connor, 33 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-       Does not understand why the Council is considering the applicant to hold auctions on the site when the development application prohibited them.

-       Has stated that their understanding for the reason that no auctions are to be held on site are that there is a lack off street parking to accommodate people attending auctions.

-       Concerned that insufficient residents were notified of the application and that the date the letter was sent out was inappropriate. The objector believes that this is a cynical ploy to allow the application to be approved.

-       Believes that there is not enough parking available in the area due to the bus zones on Clovelly Road, Australia Post Boxes, traffic calming devices, the local church, residential flat buildings in the area and cars parked by guests of the backpackers hostel.

-       Suggests that the applicant use the Clovelly Surf Club for auctions as it has a large car park.

 

Anthony Brooks, 295 Clovelly Road Clovelly.

 

-       Clovelly Road has existing parking problems and believes that the parking study is inaccurate.

-       Believes an extra 100 persons attending auctions will only increase this problem and cause major disruption and inconvenience to residents.

-       The area already has inadequate parking for the Backpackers and RSL.

-       Elders staff never use the existing under cover parking.

-       Believes the proposal will cause traffic congestion, decrease pedestrian safety and has the potential to cause additional accidents.

-       Noise pollution caused by large amounts of people entering an leaving the site.

-       Does not understand why the modification has been lodged when the development application prohibits auctions.

-       Questions whether the proposed modification is substantially the same development.

-       The proposal does not relate to the objectives of the 2A Residential Zoning.

-       Does not believe that the applicants proposed hours of operation are accurate.

-       The proposed signage is inappropriate and will cause a nuisance to surrounding property owners.

 

5.2  Support

 

Neustein Rosenberg Earnshaw Architects and Urban Planners.  Level 4, 75 Grafton Street, Bondi Junction.  (Acting on behalf of Applicant.)

 

The following is a summary of a letter of support received in response to the objection letters submitted to the Council.

 

-       The traffic report indicates 136 car spaces within 250 metres of the subject site.  13 to 33 of those spaces were available between 6pm and 9pm on the evening surveyed.  The applicant recognises that the number of parking spaces may change on a daily basis but has stated that the parking study is an indication of the typical parking situation on a Wednesday night.  The applicant has also stated that the study does not address the availability of spaces beyond the survey area as it is unreasonable to assume that persons attending auctions would not utilise these areas if necessary.

-       In response to claims of inadequate parking associated with the backpackers, takeaway food premises, the RSL and Air Force Club, the applicant has stated that the proposed auctions would generate demand approximately once every 3 weeks between 6:30pm and 8:30pm, not on a daily basis.   This would result in approximately 17 auctions per year.  As a percentage, this would apply to 4.6% of the total days of the year instead of 80 – 100% like existing commercial uses.

-       The applicant has stated that it is unlikely that people will stay for the entire 1.5 hours.  It is proposed that 8 auctions will be held every session each taking between 10 – 12 minutes.  On this basis the applicant believes that the maximum time any person would attend is 30 minutes.

-       On average, a maximum of 80 –100 people would attend the auctions for 8 properties.  This averages at 12 persons per item, including the vendor.  On the basis that people attending auctions will arrive as couples or groups, this would generate demand for 6 spaces for an average of 30 minutes.

-       The applicant has stated that a minimum of 8 spaces could be made available for people attending auctions in the basement car park of the building as not all employees need attend auctions.

-       Public transport is available at the front of the property in Clovelly Road with a bus service operated every 20-30 minutes.  A bus time table has been attached to the letter.

-       The proposed auction hours of 6:30pm to 8:00pm do not conflict with other commercial activities in the area whose core business hours are 9:00am to 5:30pm.

-       Problems with people parking illegally are matters to be addressed by the police and should not be a factor in determining the application.

-       In response to concern regarding the wording that auctions will be held approximately once every three weeks, the applicant has stated that this is to allow for a variation caused by public holidays.  The applicant has stated that there will be no more than 17 auctions held on site every year.

-       With regard to noise, the applicant has stated that people will enter and leave the site through Clovelly Road and it is not expected to cause any more additional noise than patrons leaving the existing restaurants or takeaway food premises. 

-       The applicant has also stated that people attending auctions are unlikely to linger around in the office or surrounding area.  In addition the proposed auction room is mechanically ventilated and does not contain any external openings. 

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided:-

 

6.1  Engineering Issues

 

The Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has advised that the following comments and condition are to be included with any approval of the section 96 application:

 

Comments

The applicant shall be advised that Council may be implementing a new policy (under Section 611 of the Local Government Act) wherein fees may apply for advertising in public airspace.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

1. The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath in Clovelly Road to the underside of the proposed under-awning advertising sign, (i.e. the sign to be installed above the footpath in Clovelly Road), shall be 2.6 metres.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

The applicant shall be advised that Council may, in the future, be implementing a new policy (under Section 611 of the Local Government Act) wherein fees may apply for advertising in public airspace.

 

The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.’

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site is less than 4,000 square metres and therefore the master planning requirements do not apply.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is prohibited.  However evidence was provided during the assessment of the Development Application No. 287/02 that the site enjoys existing use rights pursuant to section 108(1) of the EPA Act 1979 as amended.  Under the provision of this Act the existing use may, with consent, change to another use, which would otherwise be prohibited under the Act.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan Parking

b.    Development Control Plan Outdoor Advertising

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1   Substantially the same

        The proposed modification represents substantially the same development.

 

9.2   Consideration of submissions

 

Issues relating to outdoor advertising have been addressed in section 10.1 of this report.

 

Issues regarding the availability of on street parking have been addressed in section 10.3 of this report.

 

Issues relating to hours of operation have been addressed in section 10.4 of this report.

 

With regard to the objectors concerns relating to notification of adjoining property owners, the proposal was notified in accordance with the requirements Clause 23 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

10.1     Outdoor Advertising

 

The applicant has proposed to erect a 1 metre by 1 metre by 0.4 metre illuminated under awning advertising sign to the front of the premises.  No objections are raised to this sign subject to a condition being imposed to ensure that light from the advertising signs does not cause nuisance to residential properties in the surrounding area.

 

10.2 Internal Alterations

 

The proposed internal alterations represent the installation of partition walls to the inside of the premises.  Councils Exempt and Complying Development Control Plan classify these as exempt development, and as such no objection is raised to this aspect of the proposal.

 

10.3 Traffic & Car Parking

 

The applicant has stated that they expect to hold auctions on a Wednesday or Thursday evenings between 6:30pm to 8:00pm approximately once every three weeks.  Each evening to which auctions are to be held between 1 and 8 properties are to be auctioned and anywhere between 30 to 100 people may attend the auctions at any one time.  

 

The applicant has provided a parking study from Christopher Hallam and Associates setting out the availability of on street parking in the area.  The parking study looked at vacant car parking spaces in the following streets:

 

-       The southern and northern sides of Clovelly Road from Knox to Beach Streets. 

-       The eastern side of Arden Street between Greville and Division Street,

-       The western side of Arden Street from Burnie to Quail Streets. 

-       The southern and northern sides of Dans Avenue between Arden Street and the rear of the Commercial centre along Clovelly Road.

-       The angle parking on the eastern side of Fewings Street. 

 

The study area represents 150 metres each direction from the site along Clovelly Road and 250 metres in each direction from the site along Arden Street.  The survey area has been divided into 15 separate areas representing one street block and restricted and unrestricted parking spaces.

 

The survey took place on Wednesday the 13th of November 2002 between the hours of 6:00pm and 9:00pm.  It was found that there were 136 parking spaces in the surveyed area. 

 

The applicant has stated that at 6:00pm, there were 33 vacant car spaces which fall to 28 at 6:30pm when auctions are due to start.  At 7:00pm 26 spaces are available, at 7:30pm the amount of vacant street car spaces in the area falls to 13, this rises to 19 at 8:00pm  but falls to 18 at the time auctions finish at 8:30pm.

 

The parking study that has been submitted with this application has serious deficiencies.  The parking study fails to provide an accurate measure of the average distribution of parking on a Wednesday and Thursday evening. The sample of information collected for the study was sampled during one Wednesday evening in November.  This could not be considered an accurate measure of the average distribution of vacant parking spaces on Wednesday and Thursday evenings as the study fails to take into account the available parking on a Thursday evenings and any other activities which may increase or decrease the demand for on street parking in the area. Without a large sample of data taken over more than one evening, an accurate representation of the available vacant street parking in the area cannot be ascertained.  In addition the area to which the parking study applies does not take into account the full length of Dans Avenue from Arden Street to Clovelly Road.  The study only applies from Arden Street to the end of the commercial sites in Clovelly Road.

 

The applicant has stated that the site currently contains eleven car parking spaces, which are used for staff parking.  Further information from Neustein Rosenberg Earnshaw Architects and Urban Planners has stated that the applicant is willing to provide a minimum of eight car parking spaces for use for people attending the auction with the staff parking being stacked parking.  The internal layout of the basement car park does not satisfy the requirements of the Councils Parking Development Control Plan-Parking, and the applicant has not supplied sufficient information demonstrating how the proposed parking arrangements will work and whether these parking arrangements will satisfy the relevant requirements.

 

In considering the scenario that a maximum of 100 people attend the auction and on the basis that an average of two people per car will attend, 50 car parking spaces would be required over the course of the evening.  If 8 auctions are held on that evening, and an even amount of people attend each auction approximately 12 to 13 people will attend each auction.  If by the applicants estimates people attending each auction lasts for 10-12 minutes, and the average time that someone stays in the area is 30 minutes, a maximum of 36 to 39 people will be in attendance at all times.  This would require 18 on street car parking spaces at 7:30pm, however, there would not be sufficient available parking in the survey area to accommodate the parking demand.  Furthermore, the majority of on street parking at 8pm and all of the on street parking at 8:30pm would be required to accommodate auction patrons.

 

The above scenario relies on people arriving immediately before or during the auction before they wish to attend and people leaving during or immediately after the auction they wished to attend. It does not take into consideration people bidding on multiple properties or more people attending the auction of one property than another, or people who arrive earlier and leave later than the specified 30 minutes.

 

The applicants parking study has stated that except at the time of 7:30pm, 40 patrons could be accommodated.  Under the applicant’s own estimate of an average of 2 people per car attending, 20 parking spaces will be required.  However at the times of 7:30pm, 8:00pm and 8:30pm less than 20 spaces will be available.

 

Notwithstanding the deficiencies of the sample data of the parking study, the above examples demonstrate the insufficient supply of on street parking available in the study area especially during the hours of 7:30pm to 8:30pm. 

 

The applicant has also stated that public transport is available at the front of the site, however, no data has been provided which demonstrates the percentage of people who typically attend property auctions and catch public transport.  Therefore without sufficient information demonstrating this, the applicant’s argument cannot be supported.

 

The parking study has not taken into account the increase in traffic flows which may be generated by a large group of people attending one site over such a  small period of time.

 

It is considered that the parking survey is deficient and does not provide accurate information of the available vacant street parking in the area. Notwithstanding, the parking study demonstrates the insufficient supply of on street parking available in the study area especially during the hours of 7:30pm to 8:30pm.

 

10.4 Hours of Operation

 

The applicant has stated that auctions will be held once every three weeks on a Wednesday or Thursday evening between 6:30 pm and 8:00pm with a maximum of 17 auctions per year to be held on site. The applicant has asked for operating hours of 6pm to 8:30pm to allow for people entering and leaving the site. This differs from what the applicant has requested  for the proposed amendment of condition 2.

 

The applicant has stated that  ‘Auctions are to be limited to week days, on average once every three weeks between 6:00pm and 8:30pm’.  There is no mention of auctions being held on Wednesday or Thursday evenings or that a maximum of 17 auction nights a year be held.  In addition, there is no mention of auctions starting at 6:30pm and finishing at 8:00pm.   It is therefore considered that the proposed condition 2 brought forward by the applicant is ambiguous and open to varied interpretation.

 

The applicant has stated that the proposed auction hours of 6:30pm to 8:00pm do not conflict with other commercial activities in the area whose core business hours are 9:00am to 5:30pm.  However, the Clovelly RSL does operate after 5:30pm and also generates a demand for on street parking.

 

10.5 Site Suitability

 

The proposal is located at the end of a small shopping strip, which is zoned residential and represents a non-conforming use enjoying existing use rights.  With the exception of the Backpackers Hostel on the corner of Arden Street and the RSL/ Air Force Club on the Corner of Knox Street and Clovelly Road, the proposed auction site will be the only use attracting people from large distances to the area.

 

The site contains onsite parking for staff, however, it does not contain sufficient parking to accommodate the expected amount of people who will attend the proposed auctions.  With a lack of onsite parking and no public car parking available except on street parking in the surrounding area, and after considering the information contained in the applicants parking study, it is considered that allowing auctions to be held on the site will adversely impacts on the amenity of neighbouring residents .

 

 

 

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal for auctions to be held on the site represents significant intensification of a non-conforming use and is therefore not considered a suitable form of development in the context of the predominantly residential surrounding area. 

 

The parking study has not adequately assessed the impact of the proposal on the parking capacity of the area or demonstrated that the parking available on site is adequate to cater for the peak parking demand.  It is likely that the inadequacy of the onsite parking will result in the intrusion of carparking associated with a commercial activity within the surrounding residential area adversely impacting on the amenity of local residents.

 

It is therefore considered that proposed Section 96 Modification does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. D/287/2002 for Section 96 – Modification to alter Condition No. 2 in relation to hours of operation. Proposed hours 8:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 1pm Saturday.  Auctions limited to once every 3 weeks between 6:00pm and 8:30pm. New signage and alterations to inter layout at 266-270 Clovelly Road, Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.       The applicant has not demonstrated that the parking available is adequate to cater for the peak parking demand of the proposed auctions.

 

2.       The proposed auctions represent a significant intensification of a non-conforming use and are therefore not considered a suitable form of development in the context of the predominantly residential surrounding area.

 

3.       The proposed auctions would be adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding residential properties in terms of noise, parking and traffic.

 

4.       The proposal would establish an undesirable precedent having regard to the submissions received and the circumstances of the case.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  A4 reduced plan.

2.  Parking Study by Christopher Hallam & Associates Pty Ltd 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SHAUN HEHIR

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 14/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 draft amendment No 23 and draft Development Control Plan, Department of Defence Site, Bundock and Avoca Streets, Kingsford

 

 

DATE:

25 February, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/3816 & 98/S/2844

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 draft Amendment No 23 (DLEP 23) introduces two new zonings for the City of Randwick and applies these specifically to the redevelopment of the Department of Defence site, Bundock and Avoca Streets, Kingsford by rezoning the site from Zone No 5 Special Uses to a mix of, Zone No 2D residential, Zone No 7 Environmental Protection, Zone No 6A Public Open Space and Zone No 6B Private Open Space. The site rezoning is complemented by a draft Development Control Plan (DCP), which sets the detailed provisions for development on the site.

 

Both DLEP 23 and the DCP seek to reduce the ecological footprint of the development, through the integration of ecologically sustainable development practices and performance standards, many of which set a new benchmark for development in the City of Randwick, particularly in the areas of water sensitive urban design and the use of renewable energy technology.  

 

This report reviews issues raised by public submissions, the workshops and government authorities. While the consultation process raised many relevant comments for consideration only relatively minor changes were considered appropriate and necessary.

 

Consequently it is recommended that Council endorse draft LEP amendment No 23 (see Attachment 4) and agree to forward the amendment to the Minister for Planning requesting that he make the plan in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). It is further recommended that Council endorse the draft DCP (see attachment 2) as the site specific DCP governing the redevelopment of the Defence site.

 


LOCATION AND CONTEXT:

 

The Department of Defence own 69 hectares of land located on Bundock and Avoca Streets, Kingsford of which 49.5 hectares has been declared by the Commonwealth Government as surplus to Defence needs and is proposed for residential redevelopment, open space and environmental protection. A further 2.6 hectares is proposed as Private Open Space to accommodate an Army Oval. The remainder of the site is unchanged and does not form part of the draft LEP, draft DCP or the master plan for the site adopted (with variations) by Council 13th November 2001.

 

The master plan sets a framework for:

§  32 Super lots for residential use accommodating approximately 2,000 residents

§  A mix of dwelling types including 1 and 2 storey dwellings on the perimeter of the site with up to 3 to 4 storeys at its centre

§  Randwick Environment Park (the eastern 13 ha portion) an environmental protection area that contains an ephemeral wetland, bushland remnants, threatened species, access/interpretation facilities and passive recreation areas.

§  7 other parks and open spaces

§  A purpose built 1,200 sq m community facility on a parcel of 3,000 sq m

§  Local retail facilities

§  Package of traffic and transport measures including the potential for State Buses

 

In adopting the master plan Council resolved to prepare an amending LEP and site specific DCP, which are before Council for endorsement tonight.

 

PROVISIONS DRAFT LEP AMENDMENT No 23:

 

The site is currently zoned 5 Special Uses under Randwick LEP 1998. Surrounding land uses are primarily zoned 2A Residential (low density), apart from the land to the east which is zoned 2B and 2C Residential (allowing flats and townhouses in addition to houses and semis), comprising both private and Department of Housing dwellings.

 

The draft LEP establishes appropriate land uses and development controls consistent with the Defence Site Master plan adopted by Council in November 2001 with variations. Two new zones for Randwick are proposed in the draft LEP; Zone No 2D – (Residential D Comprehensive Development Zone) and Zone No 7 – (Environmental Protection Natural Heritage Areas).

 

While draft LEP 23 specifically re-zones areas of the Bundock Street site to Residential 2D and Zone 7 Environmental Protection, the two new zones will potentially apply across Randwick, subject to future re-zoning of sites to these zones. A copy of draft amending LEP No 23 is at Attachment 4

 

Zone 2D

 

The new Zone 2D (Residential D Comprehensive Development) provides for mixed residential development, open space, community facilities and a limited range of non-residential uses such as local shops at ground floor level in designated areas.

 

DLEP 23 includes a built form control map for the Bundock Street site. The map includes a table and an area plan that together illustrate the maximum allowable wall and building heights, FSR and landscaped area throughout the site. It is generally consistent with the adopted Master Plan for the site, with minor improvements having been made following public notification and consultation. A copy of the Built Form Control Map is included with the copy of draft LEP 23 at Attachment 4.

 

Zone 7

 

The new Zone 7 (Environmental Protection Natural Heritage Area) aims to identify, conserve, enhance and manage land with natural environmental values while allowing compatible recreation and public utility undertakings.

 

Heritage Conservation Area

 

The DLEP proposes to include the wetland and bushland area (Lots 16 and 17) as a Heritage Conservation Area in the heritage conservation maps supporting the plan. This is consistent with the management of other areas of natural heritage value throughout Randwick such as the Botany Bay National Park, Yarra Bay and other areas. No additional heritage clauses are proposed in DLEP 23.

 

Mechanisms to protect and manage natural heritage on the Defence Site are now secured in the adopted master plan and in the re-zoning and heritage listing proposed in DLEP 23.

 

Sustainability

 

Under DLEP 23 all sites that that are subject to master plan provisions are now required to be more pro-actively and sustainably managed through the appropriate use of buffer areas to protect, enhance and conserve rare and threatened species.

 

At present, most of the sites in Randwick City known to contain rare or threatened species are either sites which would require a master plan or are zoned Open Space and thereby protected by State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 Urban Bushland.

 

Under DLEP 23 master plans must now specifically address, illustrate and explain the identification, extent and management of habitat corridors and acid sulfate soils. In addition master plans must now at the concept phase seriously address other sustainability issues which can reduce the ecological footprint of development, such as the identification of opportunities to apply integrated natural water cycle design (ie. water sensitive urban design) and renewable energy design (ie. solar technology).

 

Definitions

 

DLEP 23 includes new definitions and amends existing definitions in the Randwick LEP 1998. The definitions are not limited to DLEP 23 but will apply across Randwick.

 

Definitions cover:

·    Updates in response to environmental best practice or the requirements of new statute, such as, ‘buffer zone’, ‘habitat corridor’ and ‘acid sulfate soil’.

·    Amendments to some existing definitions so that they are less ambiguous, such as ‘gross floor area’ and ‘landscaped area’.

 

Contaminated land

 

Development on contaminated land in Randwick is currently governed by State Government legislation and policies. Notwithstanding these requirements DLEP 23 will further strengthen the legislative requirements for contaminated land across Randwick City, as it includes specific clause that will not allow Council to consent to development of contaminated land unless Council is satisfied that the land after remediation will be suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed and that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose. This is consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy and Randwick Council’s Contaminated Land Policy.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that the remediation of the site is being carried out under a Commonwealth works approval, the Master Plan for the Defence site specifically requires remediation to the maximum standard for residential and other sensitive land uses, together with an unconditional site audit statement. It also requires that the land be remediated to an asbestos free level or to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed in writing by the relevant State and/or Commonwealth Government Authority.

 

To date Council has received an unconditional Site Audit Statement (SAS) for stage 1A, together with the concurrence by NSW Health Department for both the SAS and the work plan strategy which specifically addressed the asbestos in soil issue, see attachment 1. The approach taken in the strategy for dealing with the remediation and validation of the site to an asbestos free level has been confirmed by NSW Health as being appropriate for the site and consistent with the risk based protocols being developed by enHealth (Federal Health Department) for the wider issue of non-occupational exposure to asbestos.

 

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN:

 

The draft DCP aims to guide and prescribe the built form controls and the environmental and amenity standards for the redevelopment of the Defence land. The DCP expands and details the controls set out in the DLEP and documents the environmental and built form requirements that will enable the type and calibre of development illustrated in the adopted Master Plan.

 

The DCP is in five sections divided into sub-sections. They are:

 

1.         Introduction (purpose, relationship, submitting a development application)

2.         Subdividing land (other the strata subdivision)

3.         Locating and designing residential buildings (density, height, landscaped area, building envelopes and activity strips)

4.         Environmental standards and requirements (landscape, open space, privacy, energy efficiency, solar access, water efficiency and safety)

5.         Access and facilities (parking, driveways, access, utilities, waste management, traffic management works)

 

The DCP is supported by detailed plans and figures that illustrate on maps, tables and elevations the controls and requirements established in each sub-section. The building envelope diagrams are detailed and set maximum wall and building heights, car park entry points, the building articulation zone, winter and summer sun angles and numerous other details. Set-backs and landscaping are also prescribed in the draft DCP.

 

These controls are all are consistent with the adopted master plan for the site.

 

Sustainability

 

The DCP has a strong emphasis on ecologically sustainable development (ESD) particularly in the areas of sustainable water management and the use of renewable energy. The DCP seeks to reduce the ecological footprint of the development with the integration and appropriate application of best planning practices and best management practices, through performance standards, many of which set a new benchmark for development in the City of Randwick..

 

Water Sensitive Urban Design
 

Every person in Australia uses more than 1 million litres of fresh water each year. Our current water useage is not sustainable, we only use 1% for drinking and cooking, 50% on gardens, lawns and pathways and the remaining 49% goes down plug holes and toilet to be flushed out to sea.

 

Under the draft DCP rainwater tanks are required on all buildings for garden water purposes, this mandatory provision has now been extended following public exhibition of the DCP to also utilise rainwater for toilet flushing and washing machine use. In addition the DCP also encourages waste water re-use, particularly grey water (ie, non-toilet plumbing fixtures such as showers, basins, etc). Considerable reduction in mains water use (up to 85%) and stormwater discharges (up to 90%) can be achieved with appropriately sized rainwater tanks, provided that roofwater is used for indoor purposes and a dual water supply strategy is implemented.

 

In addition at least two thirds of private paved areas are to be constructed from porous paving and the overflow from rainwater tanks are to discharge to ground infiltration systems wherever possible. The water conservation measures in the draft DCP will result in a significant reduction in the amount of stormwater runoff from private allotments, which inturn helps to reduce the impact of urban development and protect receiving waters.

 

Energy Efficiency

 

The average Australian home emits some 8 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year, to reduce this impact and demand on finite resources and also to save residents money on their energy bills, solar hot water heaters (instantaneous gas boosted if needed) are to be provided to all dwellings, together with energy efficient appliances.

 

Additionally the minimum NatHERS energy efficient design rating for development to achieve has been increased from 3.5 to 4 star rating on 1 and 2 storey dwellings and from 3.5 to 4.5 star rating on 3 and 4 storey dwellings, which will increase the thermal performance of the building reducing the demand for heating and cooling.

 

The draft DCP sets out a range of passive and active energy efficient design requirements for an energy smart home.

 

Waste Management

 

Every person in Australia produces more than 690 kilograms of waste each year – more than any other country except the United States. To help address the problem waste creates the DCP encourages waste avoidance and resource recovery in accordance with the latest best practice guidelines. In addition landscaped areas must provide for on-site composting.

 

Environmental Education

 

One of the keys to sustainability is environmental education, consequently it is a requirement of the DCP for an environmental education toolkit/resource package to be provided for incoming residents. The resource package is to explain the individual design features of the development with regard maximising and maintaining the conservation features such as, the rainwater tank, pervious paving, energy saving devices, solar panels, composting, etc.

 

The environmental education package is to be complimented with the information brochure on the Randwick Environmental Park which will highlight the natural heritage and passive recreation features of the park..

 

A copy of the DCP is at Attachment 2

 

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION:

 

At its meeting 23rd July 2002 Council resolved to exhibit the draft LEP and draft DCP for public comment and review. The draft LEP and draft DCP were exhibited for public comment from 30th July to 9th September 2002, exceeding the statutory requirement of 28 days, while receipt of submissions was further extended by requested up to 18th October 2002.

 

Council also held two planning focus group meetings, on the 23rd and 25th September 2002 to discuss the issues is detail. Both the public exhibition and focus group meetings were extensively advertised in the local press. The focus group meetings were independently facilitated by Brian Elton and Associates and attended by all relevant consultants and Council officers. The first focus group meeting provided a question and answer session on the draft LEP, the draft DCP and traffic which, was attended by 10 community representatives; the other provided a question and answer session on site remediation, which was attended by 8 community representatives, 7 of which attended the first meeting. To allow for submissions arising from the focus group meetings the receipt of submissions was extended into October.

 

Relevant Precinct Committees were notified and a copy of the draft LEP/DCP was provided for review. A council officer also attended the Moverly Precinct meeting during the exhibition period.

 

The draft plans were also placed on Council’s web site to further assist consultation.

 

A total of 13 submissions were received, including 8 from individuals, 2 from Precinct Committees (Moverly and the Spot), one on behalf of the land owner (Defence) and 2 from sustainability bodies, SEDA (Sustainable Energy Development Authority) and WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban Design).

 

Government authorities were also consulted under s.62 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and no objections to the LEP exist. The draft LEP has been amended in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Parliamentary Counsel for minor wording changes, with no change in the meaning or intent of the draft LEP. The Parliamentary Counsel has given an opinion that the plan may legally be made.

 

DRAFT LEP & DCP ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS AND FOCUS GROUPS:

 

The issues raised in submissions and at the focus group meeting are discussed below under the relevant topics raised.  It should be noted however that the Department of Defence received approval from Environment Australia in December 2000 for Commonwealth works identified in the Notice of Intention (NoI). The following works were identified in the NoI

·    Remediation of contaminated land and buildings

·    Clearing and removal of vegetation

·    Demolition and removal of buildings

·    Earthworks, recontouring of the site and landscaping

·    Construction of a sporting oval

·    Construction of a Community Facilities Centre (Development Application will be submitted to Council as changes have been made to increase size and appropriately locate the facility.)

Note: Commonwealth does not require Council’s consent to carry out NoI work

 

A full summary of submissions can be found at Attachment 3

 

ISSUES:

 

ISSUE – Site Contamination and Remediation

 

The draft LEP and DCP do not authorise any site remediation works. The specific clause in the LEP was discussed earlier in this report, together with an update of the remediation and validation of the site.  Remediation of the site is being carried out through the NoI, nevertheless Council has set performance requirements and controls, including the deferred commencement of development works until the site is remediated to the level suitable for its intended land use. The LEP requires that contaminated land will, after being remediated, be suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed to be carried out; and that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

 

ISSUE - Environmental Park – Plan of Management

 

One submission queried who would produce the required plan of management (POM) for the proposed Environmental Park.

 

The plan is to be produced by the landowner. A draft plan has been prepared for the proposed park and has been reviewed by a panel representing Council, NPWS, DLWC and a community expert. Council is undertaking a final review before reporting it to Council shortly for adoption.

 

It was also queried whether any development would be approved prior to adoption of the POM. As a draft POM has been prepared and was submitted with a DA for the Environmental Park, the nature of development proposed has regard to this draft plan, as revised by the review panel.

 

ISSUE – Environment Protection Zone 7

 

The following amendments were suggested to zone 7:

·    Water treatment structures should not be permitted. Water treatment structures already exist within the zone and play an import function in pre-treating stormwater prior to discharge into the wetland. All new devices will be placed having regard for sensitive vegetation and maintenance accessibility. Council in conditionally approving stage 1A required the relocation of stormwater lines and water treatment devices to a more suitable location away from threatened species.

·    Zone 7 should prohibit all accommodation, industrial and commercial uses. All development not consistent with the objectives of the zone and defined in the Plan of Management is prohibited

·    All land transferred to Council should have a Plan of Management under the Local Government Act. Current amendments to the POM will make the POM consistent with requirements of the Act. The land will become community land when dedicated to Council and the Plan of Management conforming with the requirements of the Local Government Act will be required.

·    Land zoned 2D south eastern and north eastern end of site near wetland should be zoned 7. Zone 7 contains buffer areas to all sensitive vegetation and the wetland.

·    Lot 15 should be rezoned 7. Lot 15 has not been declared surplus to Defence needs, it did not form part of the master plan and subsequently does not form part of the draft LEP rezoning. Defence has advised that the land is to be retained, under Commonwealth control, for possible future housing for senior naval staff (permissible, with consent, under the current Special Uses Zoning No 5).

 

ISSUE – Wetland buffer

 

·    The wetland should have a 50m buffer. A minimum 10m buffer was considered adequate in the Land and Environment Court for this site and in subsequent discussions with DLWC. The wetland has variable buffer widths the minimum on the south west side 10m greater in other areas

·    Buffer should be outside Zone 7, 20m zone should be zoned separately. The buffer area is part of Zone 7, thereby giving this area of land the same protection and management status as the remainder of the natural heritage area. This action is fully supported by NPWS and DLWC.

·    Should include clause requiring management of wetlands under Sydney Coastal Councils(SCCG) model wetland DCP. The wetland within Zone 7 has a site specific Plan of Management, the generic SCCG model DCP has been used in developing both the POM and clause 48A of the LEP amendment which sets out the requirements for a POM in Zone 7

 

ISSUE – Use of the Army Oval

 

Questions were raised at the focus meeting over the future use of the existing army oval

 

The draft LEP rezones the army oval, to provide certainty about its future as open space and recreational use, as well as retaining the army’s right to continue to use the oval for its operational purposes

 

ISSUE – Size of strip parks

 

The master plan and draft DCP identify various parks throughout the site, including small strip parks. Some queries as to the worth of these small parks for recreation purposes were noted at the focus meeting.

 

The proposed parks across the site provide for a range of active recreational purposes such as the park adjacent to the community centre and the proposed cycleway, while others provide for passive recreations, such as strip parks, providing visual enhancement to parts of the site and passive recreation opportunities. This mix is considered appropriate for the size of the site and future population requirements.

 

ISSUE – Loss of views over green space for adjacent residences

 

Concerns were raised at the focus group over the loss of views over green spaces that may arise for some adjacent residences.

 

The Master plan, LEP and DCP seek to minimise any loss by restricting height and development density on the outside of the developable area. Any loss of views to this green space is primarily an issue for the development application stage, along with all other potential impacts on adjoining residences, such as privacy, solar access and overlooking.

 

ISSUE – Lot sizes

 

A query at the focus group was that the proposed lots (at 350-400 sq m) would be smaller than the surrounding areas.

 

The surrounding areas provide a range of lot sizes and are consistent with many lots in the surrounding streets. The draft DCP provides the framework to enable lot sizes that facilitate housing diversity and choice. However this is governed by a minimum 9 metre street frontage for lots with direct vehicle access, the super lot size that has been created to accommodate the roads and open spaces, together with the built form controls of height, floor space ration and landscaping.

 

ISSUE – Residential Development in the site’s north-east corner

 

The scale and height of development and habitable use of attic space in the northeast corner of the site (Blocks 5 and 6) was queried and has since been reviewed.

 

A reduction in floor space ratio (FSR) within Block 5 and 6 was imposed by Council as a variation to the master plan and the current FSR is considered to be necessary to achieve the desired development type and siting within the blocks.

 

The built form controls for Block 6 are considered to be appropriate due to the topography of the site and its location. The Block does not have a frontage to Bundock Street and recent survey information undertaken as a part of the review indicate minimal or no impact.

 

An extensive review of Block 5 has been undertaken and as a consequence revised controls have been imposed to concentrate the development to the street frontage within the site and minimise any impact on adjacent residences. The revised controls for Block 5 set a maximum 7 metre building height as measured from Bundock Street, two storey only zones and single storey only zones. Recent survey work supporting theses controls have been incorporated into the DCP block studies.

 

Due to the road alignment in this area of Bundock Street any potential traffic hazard concerns by the use of private driveways off this part of Bundock Street has been avoided by using the streets internal to the site as the primary street frontage.

 

Another area of contention was the potential use of attics and in response the DCP now prohibits the habitable use of attic space over the entire block 5. The LEP and DCP have been amended accordingly to reflect these controls.

 

The above revisions and justifications for developments controls within block 5 and 6 have also been discussed with the residents who had earlier objected and live adjacent to Block 5, at an onsite meeting 24 February 2003. The residents noted the improvements to the draft controls for the site.

 

ISSUE - Number of dwelling proposed for the site

 

The total likely number of dwellings proposed for the site was queried at the focus group.

 

It was noted that the traffic study in the master plan used a figure of 949 dwellings for traffic movement prediction purposes, however a range of between 650-850 depending on dwelling type is most likely. The draft LEP and DCP does not provide for a specific number of dwellings, as this would vary with the combination of dwelling types and sizes proposed across the site, working within the proposed envelopes set out in the draft LEP ‘Built Control Form’ map. Nevertheless, planning work is being undertaken on the basis of an expected population of about 2,000.

 

The Master plan and draft LEP/DCP average a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.65:1 across the development site excluding any roads and open space, with higher densities internal to the site and densities at the site edge equivalent to the surrounding areas, at 0.5:1.

 

ISSUE – Public Utility Undertakings

 

One submission stated that services should be below ground. The provision of services such as electricity will be below ground.

 

A concern was also raised about development consent exemption for public utility undertakings. This is normal practice and consistent with State planning practice and provisions for all zones, including National Parks. Nevertheless environmental assessment under part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act may apply depending on the activity.

 

ISSUE – DCP provisions

 

·    DCP is essentially advisory and not legally enforceable. DCPs are recognised in the Land and Environment Court and are therefore legally defendable.

·    Some objectives whilst having noble sentiment are in practice impossible to achieve. The satisfaction of all with regard to character and architectural quality are difficult, as it is a subjective judgement on behalf of the individual. The DCP requires design verification for both dwellings and multi-unit housing from a person registered as an architect.

·    Landscaping objectives should specify local provenances. Control C7 specifies local provenance. Objective 6 amended to include word provenance.

·    Concerns about use of deciduous trees. Control C6 applies to private landscaped areas to maximise solar penetration in winter and minimise in summer.

·    The DCP does not set conditions for earthworks, clearing, etc. The DCP sets the framework for development applications post Commonwealth Works.

·    The DCP does not set requirements for protection of future and adjacent residents. Appropriate conditions are applied to applications to Council for development, such as site management plans, appointment of an environmental officer for the site. The statement of environmental effects requires, amongst other things, details on the measures taken to mitigate any likely adverse environmental impact. Notwithstanding the above an additional requirement for dilapidation reports to be obtained for existing residences in the locality and submitted as part of the DA will be included in the submitting a development application section in the DCP.

·    Confusion over the colouring of the built form control mapping with zoning map colours throughout the City. Every density should have a separate zone. The built form control map is site specific, only the zoning map has colours which must and do accord with the zone index which applies to the whole city. The built form control map are set out at a larger size and with more detail in the DCP.

 

ISSUE – Certainty of built for controls

 

Concern over certainty of built form controls were raised.

 

The LEP and DCP both contain mirroring built form controls prescribing, maximum height, maximum FSR and minimum landscaped areas. As with development in any zone these controls can only be varied by a SEPP 1 objection. All SEPP 1’s require justification.

 

ISSUE – Road and traffic matters opposite 86A Bundock Street

 

A submission was received from a resident of 86A Bundock Street objecting to the location of the T-intersection opposite as it may lower the amenity of the home and neighbours, necessitating the need for a very big wall, soundproofing and air-conditioning. Concerns have also been raised regarding headlight glare affecting 86A Bundock Street from vehicles leaving Oval Avenue and entering Bundock Street at night.

 

In response to the abovementioned concerns consideration was given to the relocation of Oval Avenue between Blocks 2 and 3 eastward to align with Ellen Street. Works associated with this suggestion include the alteration of Lomandra Street, currently a 16m wide local street to accommodate busses, with the loss of street trees and on-street parking in this area. Changes to the stormwater management would also be required, including managing the velocity of overland flows from Ellen Street.

 

Effects of relocation - Urban design:

·    The Oval Avenue alignment respects the history of the former uses, the T-intersection is at the former main entry road to the Naval Stores. The arrangement of blocks around Oval Avenue respects the layout of the sheds as recommended by the heritage assessment and supported by the Heritage Commission.

·    Loss of the Oval Avenue vista and the rectilinear street pattern.

·    Oval Avenue is a key street connecting three open spaces, the relocation would effect the continuity and design intent. Risk of making the development more inwardly focused

·    Properties within the development would be affected by headlight glare

·    Accommodating busses in Lomandra Street will affect streetscape

·    Ellen Street already has a T-intersection resulting in headlight effects, at the northern with Rainbow Street, its continuation will concentrate north bound traffic effecting residents at that end.

·    No public benefit

 

Effects of relocation - Traffic:

·    Off set T-intersections have a number of safety advantages over full intersections, because there are fewer turning movements and because vehicles approach from the side street at a lower speed. The are also safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

·    Two additional turning movements for proposed bus may be a disincentive for Sydney Buses, who will not provide a service until demand is demonstrated, post development.

·    The current proposal utilises an existing access point, which has had a considerable level of activity in the past.

·    The proposed off set intersection will help discourage ‘rat running’. This was an issue at Hendy Street requiring a central median strip to restrict through movement.

 

Benefits of the Oval Avenue to existing houses in Bundock Street:

·    Number 86A will benefit from an open vista along Oval Avenue.

·    By contrast other existing dwellings in Bundock Street will have the impact of the construction of new dwellings opposite and garages, which inevitably has some effect on open outlook and headlight glare from driveways opposite.

 

Effects of headlight glare:

As cars travelling north will approach the T-intersection from a lower level, there is a point where car headlights rise above the horizontal and drop off again. The design of Oval Avenue has been to take this point as far as possible away from 86 and 86A Bundock Street, with cars mounting a rise 40-50 metres from the house so that as cars approach the intersection beams drop below the house windows opposite. Whilst there will be some impact it has been minimised due to the approach road design, the short duration of the effect and the low frequency of night time traffic movements. Other strategies can include higher fence to street boundary, night time window screening and additional planting. Further planting in the nature strip could also be carried out.

 

Comments Traffic Engineer

Council’s Traffic Engineer “does not support the relocation of Oval Avenue to align with Ellen Street as it will promote rat running of north-south traffic corridor movements. Oval Avenue has been designed to limit the effects of headlight glare on surrounding properties. The provision of a T-junction as opposed to a cross junction will provide a safer environment by limiting the number of conflict points and limit delays to vehicles. Furthermore the proposed T-junction is at the existing alignment of the access road to the Defence site.”

 

ISSUE – Traffic and transport measures

 

Following from the traffic studies and the master plan framework put in place for traffic management, devices and controls, Council has received requests have for further detail on traffic and transport measures, both on and off-site and the timing or staging of works.

 

As a result clause 30B of the draft LEP ties consent for development of land in a 2D Zone to any relevant traffic and transport measures. In the case of the Defence site this is both the DCP and the master plan, which set out the street layout hierarchy, the traffic management devices and controls and the overall staging for development.

 

Additionally a specific clause for the off-site traffic management works, complemented by figure 18, has been inserted into the DCP detailing the type and staging of works (see draft DCP Attachment 2). These fine details are to be included in an applicant’s report indicating proposed on-site and off-site traffic management devices and controls which is to be submitted with a development application for that stage. It is envisaged that the appropriate public consultation covering the refined detail of the proposed device and control will take place at this juncture.

 

SUMMARY PRINCIPAL AMENDMENTS:

 

The principal amendments include:

·    The prohibition of habitable attic space within block 5,

·    A 7 metre maximum building height control for block 5 as measured from Bundock Street,

·    Specified two storey and single storey only zones for block 5,

·    Further detail on the staging of traffic measures within and adjacent to the site,

·    Enhanced sustainability provisions within the DCP, and

·    Minor wording and syntax improvements.

 

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL:

 

The draft LEP was referred to the Parliamentary Counsel (PC), as required in the preparation of an LEP. The Parliamentary Counsel has examined the draft LEP Amendment No 23 and has given its opinion that the draft LEP may be legally made.

 

The most notable change made by PC to the DLEP was the deletion of proposed amendments to clause 26 of the LEP. The provisions of this clause deal with exempt and complying development and as a result of the change Council’s exempt and complying LEP and DCP will apply to Zone 7. Consequently it will be necessary for Council to review our exempt and complying LEP and DCP to ensure that only appropriate exempt and complying development provisions apply to land within both Zone 7 Environment Protection and Zone 2D Comprehensive Development. A resolution to enable this LEP and DCP review is a recommendation of this report.

 

Parliamentary Council has requested that the s69 report provide detail on the following:

 

DAs currently before Council (3 as below) and Land and Environment Court DA appeals (none), as yet undetermined

 

DA No

DETAIL

02/00840/GJ

Removal of silt from wetland

03/00062/GL

Stage 2+3 infrastructure works, ie, subdivision, roads, drainage, public utility undertakings

03/00063/GL

Part stage 5+6 infrastructure works, ie, subdivision, roads, drainage, public utility undertakings

 

 

There are no currently DAs that have been appealed to the Land and Environment Court and the Court has not considered the appeal.

 

Section 117 Direction G20 – “Planning for Bushfire Protection 2001”

 

The preparation and public exhibition of this amendment commenced prior to the this Ministerial Direction, however consultation with the Rural Fire Service regarding the preparation of bush fire prone map for the City have resulted in an exemption to this requirement. This matter was reported to the Health Building and Planning Committee meeting 11 February 2003

 

Notwithstanding the above an assessment of the site in accordance with the guidelines was carried out and the Randwick Environmental Park did not meet the requirements of the guidelines for listing on bushfire prone maps. Management of bush fire risk within the Randwick Environmental Park has been achieved on a site specific basis with an assessment from the NSW Fire Brigades Specialised State Operations Bushfire/Natural Hazards Section, recommendations of the Brigade are to be implemented by Defence and maintained by Council upon dedication of the Park.

 

PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONSULTATION:

 

As required under Sections 34A and 62 of the Act, Council has consulted with various government authorities in the preparation of the draft LEP and DCP and there were no major issues raised, as reported to Council on 23 July 2002. No outstanding Public Authority objections remain with regard to the making of the draft LEP and DCP.

 



Public Authority

Comment

Council response

RTA

No Objection – LEP clause requested

Clause 30B inserted in LEP, as discussed and agreed with RTA and Planning NSW

Transport NSW

No Objection – in order to help achieve viable public transport services, that the densities adopted under the master plan be retained or increased

Public transport is included as a permissible use in the land use table for 2D

 

Densities have been retained from Master plan to LEP

NSW Fisheries

No Objection – commends Council on incorporating ESD principles within LEP

Noted

NSW Heritage Office

No Objection – notes that Randwick Barracks, listed as of heritage significance is on Lot 1 and not affected by the rezoning

Noted

NSW NPWS

No Objection – supports the Environment Protection 7 Zone. Requests clause 19A to ensure all development permissible is consistent with objectives of the zone.

 

Recommends Recovery Plan for ESBS, currently under preparation, to be used to guide the plan of management.

Clause 19A consistent with NPWS suggestion.

 

Clause 48A requires Plan of Management refers to be consistent with Commonwealth, State and Council, plans, policies and guidelines

 

The review panel for the Randwick Environmental Park POM has NPWS representation

Environment Australia

No objection

Noted.

NSW EPA

No comments received

 

DLWC

No Objection – various comments and suggestions of future management

Have been brought forward into the LEP and POM for Randwick Environmental Park, as appropriate.

The review panel for the Randwick Environmental Park POM has DLWC representation.

State Transit

No comments received

 

Dept of Health

No comments received

 

Air Service Australia

No comments received

 

Sydney Water

No comments received

 

Dept Education

No comments received

 

Energy Australia

No comments received

 

Dept of Defence

No outstanding objection

The Dept of Defence was involved throughout preparation of the draft LEP/DCP

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The draft LEP has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulation. The provisions of s.66 and 67 of the Act have been complied with in relation to public involvement in the preparation of the draft LEP. The draft LEP is consistent with all State Environmental Planning Policies, Regional Environmental Plans and Ministerial Directions under s.117 of the Act, which have been taken into consideration.

 

The DCP has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulation. The provisions of s.77 of the Act have been complied with in relation to public involvement in the preparation of the draft DCP.

 

All issues raised by public submissions, the workshops, and by the government authorities have been taken into consideration. While the issues have raised many relevant comments for consideration only minor changes were considered appropriate and no substantial amendments were considered necessary.

 

The draft LEP and DCP represent an important step forward for Randwick in terms of sustainability provisions and are consistent with the objective and policy statements in Council’s Environmental Policy. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

1.   Endorse draft LEP Amendment No. 23 to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and agree to forward the draft LEP to the Minister for Planning requesting that the draft LEP be made, and

 

2.   Adopt the draft Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Department of Defence land at Bundock and Avoca Streets, Kingsford, as the site specific DCP governing the redevelopment of the Defence site, to commence in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulations, upon public notification of the LEP gazettal and DCP commencement date, and

 

3.   Resolve to prepare an amendment to the LEP and DCP for Exempt and Complying Development (Randwick LEP amendment No 13), to accommodate Zone No 2D Residential-Comprehensive Development and Zone No 7 Environmental Protection-Natural Heritage, and

 

4.   Agree that the Director of Planning and Community Development may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical and formatting errors if required in the finalisation of the DCP.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

1. Correspondence to Contaminated Land Site Auditor from NSW Health Department dated 20 December 2002.

2.Draft Development Control Plan Defence Site, Kingsford (under separate cover)

3. Public submissions summary

4. Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan, amendment No. 23

 

 

    ……………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

TONY WATSON

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

TEAM LEADER STRATEGIC PLANNING

 



Attachment 3 – PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

 

SUBMISSION

COMMENTS

RESPONSE

1. Moverly Precinct

LEP amendments suggested:

§ Remediation:

-     All DAs on contaminated land (inc Clth Land) to meet NSW laws

-     All remediation should be a separate DA, subject to LG Act

-     All DAs should ensure protection to residents during process irrespective of a site audit

-     All DAs should ensure no contamination off-site

§ 2D zone should be replaced by different zones for each different density

§ 2D zone should include an objective to ensure no adverse effect on adjacent natural environment

§ Water treatment structures – should not be permitted in 7 zone

§ 2d zoned land in the S-E and N-E near wetlands should be included in Zone 7

§ Zone 7 should prohibit all accommodation, industrial and commercial uses

§ All land transferred to council should have a POM under LG Act

§ Any development on Zone 7 land should be subject to 8 part test

§ Buffer:

-     Should have 50m riparian buffer zone for wetlands

-     Buffer should be outside Zone 7 – 20m zone should be zoned separately

-     Should include clause requiring management of wetlands under SCC model DCP requirements

§ Lot 15 should be rezoned 7 Zone

§ Army oval should be zoned 6A.

§ Traffic modelling should be done

§ No Cycle lanes through site

§ DCP – no detailed comments – complies with most ESD principles

§ Whole –of-site approach needed

§ Open space –  No built form on any of the current open space

§ Built form – 949 dwellings is overdevelopment

§ Services – treat contamination prior to any servicing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted.

 

The Master plan, LEP and DCP provide a comprehensive site analysis and planning

 

Issues discussed in report

2. The Spot Precinct

§ Supports Moverly Precincts concerns as follows:

§ Contamination should be addressed as a priority prior to any development

§ Consider residents in any contamination clean-up

§ Allows gross overdevelopment of site

§ Whole of site approach is required

§ Lack of open space

§ Traffic and Transport issues not thoroughly considered

§ Mixed densities in 2D zone is misleading/negative impact in future

 

 

 

Noted.

 

The Master plan, LEP and DCP provide a comprehensive site analysis and planning

 

Issues discussed in report

3. J& G Visvis

 

114 Bundock St

§ Concerns over block 5 & 6 controls:

-     Height, 5m setback to curb should be 10m

-     Council had successfully argued this at L & E Court

-     O.75:1 FSR higher than other frontages (should be 0.5:1)

-     Height measurement should be from Lomandra not Bundock St

-     Should remain park/open space

-     Medium density should be confined to centre of site

-     Compatibility with DOH buildings only reason given

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments and responding LEP/DCP  amendments addressed under report heading;

‘Issues - Blocks 5 and 6’

4. J & R Rizkalia

 

104 Bundock St

Object to Blocks 5 and 6 due to:

§ 12m height and 5m setback

§ At L & E court, Council agreed too steep to build on

§ High-rise – pocket of overdevelopment – should leave as parkland

Comments and responding LEP/DCP  amendments addressed under report heading;

‘Issues - Blocks 5 and 6’

5. D Halliday

 

PO Box 602

Edgecliff

 

 

Concerns as follows:

§ Oval Ave too narrow – will congest with through traffic, limits emergency access

§ Won’t relieve Avoca and Malabar Rd congestion – wide N-S road would assist

§ Buildings are ‘boxy looking’ – expect high crime rate, low morale, boredom

§ Park has no courtyard style visibility for children – ‘paedophile paradise’

§ Why not arrange buildings as pentagons for parents to watch over and northern sunlight access/community gardens

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

 

DCP block studies show building envelope not building form.

6. A Moran and P Tighe

 

116 Bundock St

Endorse Moverly Precincts submissions and the following additional concerns:

§ Contamination:

-     Council legal responsibility

-     Site auditor independence and information sources questioned

-     Groundwater contamination – source not discovered

-     No off-site testing

§ 2D – what is status of zone densities and DCP when master plan expires?

§ Can developer change density – by what process?

§ Traffic – modelling needs to be redone given increase from 660 to 949 dwellings

§ Built form – gross overdevelopment - what limit to the number of dwellings?

 

Noted

 

LEP and DCP prevail and are independent of master plan

 

The Master plan, LEP and DCP provide a comprehensive site analysis and planning

 

Issues discussed in report

7. P Adam

 

3 Benvenue St

§ Documents are premature as proposals depend on ability to remediate the site

§ Lot 15 – exclusion mystifying - what is proposed?

§ Welcomes new Zone 7

§ Will significant sites be included in Schedule 3 of LEP (for heritage items)?

§ Who will produce POMs – what if development is proposed prior to a plan of management?

§ Public Utilities – treatment unclear.

§ Contamination:

-     What is acceptable health risk?

-     Who decides if the site meets it?

-     Should clearly responsible agency

§ Draft DCP:

§ Not statutory/enforceable

§ Motherhood statements – cannot guarantee good design – some specific examples in DCP given.

 

 

 

Noted.

 

The Master plan, LEP and DCP provide a comprehensive site analysis and planning

 

Issues discussed in report

 

DCPs are recognised in L&E Court and they are therefore legally defendable/enforceable

8. L Davidson

 

86A Bundock St

§ Objects to LEP (as per previous submissions) on various grounds

§ Contamination:

-     Clause 42 C is insufficient re L&E Court findings, community health issues – narrow and restrictive, not comprehensive

-     Contaminated groundwater  - no guidelines to adequately remove, & enhance environmental quality, long term control and monitoring

-     No requirements set to protect adjacent residents from adverse impacts

-     Do not fully acknowledge Council’s responsibilities under the legislation

-     A condition should be set for ‘asbestos free’ land, in line with Court findings

§ 2D zone:

-     Confusion/suspicion about the zone

-     Needs 2 maps now not one

-     Colours do not photocopy well/not reliable or clear, may have legal issues

-     No lines delineating shaded boundaries

§ Report on the remediation of the site also enclosed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted.

 

The Master plan, LEP and DCP provide a comprehensive site analysis and planning

 

Issues discussed in report

9. B Patterson

 

110 Bundock St

§ Concerns raised over impact on outlook, privacy and amenity, as follows:

§ Blocks 5 and 6 impacts:

-     Front setback of 5.5m should be 6m

-     Significant visual impact – on current views to S and S-W to Botany Bay – should provide for view sharing

-     Excessive heights  - 9m/12m above kerb

-     Only perimeter areas where density is above 0.5:1

-     Loss of privacy – from buildings across road – DCP should address this and tree planting

-     Should have as a park or same densities as 2A zone

§ Noise impact– traffic – should be no speed humps/roundabouts

§ Lighting impacts - should minimise impact on existing residents

§ All services should be underground

§ Vehicle headlight disturbances – DCP measures should minimise

§ Safety and security – new development adjacent to DOH unties will extend social problems – measures across the site should ensure safety, security and amenity

§ Increased traffic, emissions and parking problems – vibration and noise – developer should make further improvements to road surfacing

§ Bundock St – needs another exit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

 

The Master plan, LEP and DCP provide a comprehensive site analysis and planning

 

Issues discussed in report

10. S Heiler

 

86A Bundock St

§ 7 parks are actually 4 +3 wide medians

§ Contamination – who makes decision on ‘acceptable risk’?

§ The draft LEP omits LEP 1998 Clause 26(2) ‘Table B’ – what is this”

§ Object to 2D zone – lucky dip

§ Definition of building height has ‘outs’ – ‘unless varied’ etc

§ 2D objective ‘not inconsistent with master plan’ is not clear/not certain

§ Colours for zone – concern they may be confused

§ Location of T intersection opposite S Heiler’s property – will lower amenity of home (and neighbours) – may require a ‘very big wall’, air conditioning, soundproofing windows. L & E court suggested alternatives would have less impact

§ Not a true variety of housing types – all 2 storeys with attic

§ DCP – refer to previous submissions

§ DCP- objectives are internal to the site only/won’t count for existing residents eg visual/acoustic privacy, scale of buildings, landscaping, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

 

Parks in the draft plans are designed to provide a variety of sizes and uses

LEP clauses for ‘exempt and complying’ development have been excluded from the draft LEP for the Bundock site, so that development consent requirements are specified for this site.

 

Issues discussed in report

11. BBC

(for Department of Defence)

§ Comments and objections as follows:

§ Cl 19(2) and 19(3) – works in Zone 7 need to be consistent

§ Building height and wall height needs clarification/amendment

§ Some provisions apply to whole City – LEP should comply with legislation on this matter

§ Definition of rare species and threatening processes – applies to whole LGA – should be in a separate LEP

§ Clause 30B (traffic and Transport) unnecessary even though RTA requested– other legislation covers -SEPP 11 and 66

§ DCP comments provided

 

 

 

Noted – No outstanding objections remain

 

The Master plan, LEP and DCP provide a comprehensive site analysis and planning

 

Relevant issues discussed in report

12. SEDA

§ Sustainable Energy Development Authority congratulates Council on Bundock St DCP which  ‘clearly and comprehensively address solar access, energy efficiency and water efficiency’

§ Latest standards for land subdivision, energy efficiency, NATHERS ratings, lighting, and energy smart appliances were provided – for input to DCP

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted.

 

13. WSUD in Sydney Project Group

§ Water Sensitive Urban Design  - pleased council is tackling sustainable development in draft DPC

§ Commend for compulsory water tanks – use of the water to be clarified

§ Detailed DCP comments also provided

 

 

 

Noted.

 

 


Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 23)

 

under the

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

 

 

I, the Minister for Planning, make the following local environmental plan under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. (S02/01644/S69)

 

 

 

 

 

Minister for Planning

 

 

_______________________________


Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

(Amendment No 23)

 

under the

 

Environmental Planning and assessment Act 1979

 

1.         Name of plan

 

            This plan is Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No 23).

 

2.         Aims of plan

 

            The aims of this plan are:

 

(a) to amend provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as they relate to the City of Randwick, and

 

(b) to rezone certain land at Bundock Street, Kingsford, being lots 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 in DP 1042814, for residential purposes, open space and environmental protection purposes.

 

3.         Land to which this plan applies

 

(1) This plan applies to all land within the City of Randwick.

 

(2) In so far as it rezones land, this plan applies to land known as the Department of Defence site Bundock Street, Randwick, being land edged in heavy black, on the map marked “Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 23)”, deposited in the office of Randwick City Council.

 

4.         Amendment of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

            Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 is amended as set out in Schedule 1.

 


Schedule 1 Amendments

(Clause 4)

[1]       Clause 8 Zones

 

Insert in appropriate order in the table to the clause:

            Zone No 2D (Residential D-Comprehensive Development Zone)- coloured medium pink with green vertical  hatching

                      Zone No 7 (Environmental Protection-Natural Heritage Areas Zone)-coloured grey-green

 

[2]       Clause 12A  

           

            Insert after clause 12:

 

12A     Zone No 2D (Residential D Comprehensive Development Zone)

 

(1)       The objectives of Zone No 2D are:

(a)       to allow the comprehensive redevelopment of land for primarily residential and open space purposes, and

(b)       to enable development that is not inconsistent with a master plan adopted under clause 40A, and

(c)        to allow a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors, and

(d)       to enable residential development in a variety of density and housing forms, where such development does not adversely affect the amenity and function of surrounding areas, and

(e)       to allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality, and

(f)         to allow a limited range and scale of non-residential uses, that are compatible with residential amenity on land identified for those uses within a master plan adopted under Clause 40A

 

(2)       Development for the purpose of the following does not require development consent:

 

Bushfire hazard reduction;                             Recreation.

Public utility undertakings;

 

(3)       Demolition, remediation or development for the purpose of the following requires development consent:

 

Bed and breakfast accommodation;                  Home activities;

Boarding houses;                                                Multi-unit housing;

Car parks (ancillary to primary land use);          Outdoor advertising;

Child care facilities;                                             Places of worship;

Communication facilities;                                   Public transport;

Community facilities;                                          Recreation facilities;

Dwelling houses;                                                Residential care facilities;

Demolition;                                                          Restaurants;

Educational establishments;                              Roads;       

Group homes;                                                     Serviced apartments.

Health consulting rooms;                                   

                                                                                               

            (4)       Any development not included in subclause (2) or (3) is prohibited.

 

[3]       Clause 19A

 

            Inserting after clause 19:

           

19A     Zone No 7 (Environmental Protection-Natural Heritage Areas Zone)

 

(1) The objectives of Zone No 7 are:

(a)         to identify, protect, conserve and enhance land of natural heritage value, and

(b)         to enable the sustainable management of land with natural heritage value over time, and

(c)          to prohibit development which could adversely affect natural heritage values and significance, and

(d)         to enable public access and passive recreation where appropriate, and

(e)         to provide for appropriate buffer areas, and

(f)           to identify, protect, conserve and enhance land that acts as a habitat corridor, and

(g)         to enable public utility undertakings that are compatible with  natural heritage values where appropriate

 

(2)       Development for the purpose of the following does not require development consent:

 

Bushfire hazard reduction;                       Public utility undertakings;

Environmental management works;         Recreation.

 

(3)       Development that, in the opinion of the consent authority is consistent with the objectives of this Zone and is defined as appropriate in an approved plan of management for the land requires development consent.

 

(4)       Any development not included in subclause (2) or (3) is prohibited.

 

[4]       Clause 21 Subdivision

 

Insert “12A”  after “12,”.

 

[5]       Clause 21

 

Insert “,19A”  after “19”.

 

[6]       Clauses 30A and 30B

 

Insert after clause 30:

 

30A      Development of certain Land in Zone No 2D

 

(1)       This clause applies to land within Zone No 2D (Residential D-Comprehensive Development Zone).

 

(2)       The maximum floor space ratio for development of land within Zone No 2D is identified in the built form control maps applicable to the land supporting this plan.

 

(3)       The minimum landscaped area for development of land within Zone No 2D is identified in the built form control maps applicable to the land supporting this plan.

 

(4)       The maximum building and wall height for development on land within Zone No 2D is identified in the built form control maps applicable to the land supporting this plan.

 

30B      Traffic and Transport Measures for Zone 2D

 

(1)       This clause applies to land within Zone No 2D (Residential D-Comprehensive Development Zone).

 

(2)       Despite any other provision of this plan, the Council must not grant consent to development of land within Zone No 2D unless it is satisfied that any relevant traffic or transport measures that may apply will be met.

 

[7]       Clause 35A

 

Insert after clause 35:

 

            35(A)  Certain Non Residential Uses in Residential Zone 2D

           

Despite clause 12A, the Council may grant consent to development for the purpose of business premises, local shops, medical centres or restaurants on land within Zone 2D if it is satisfied that the development:

(a)       is located on land identified as an activity strip on the built form control maps supporting this plan, and

(b)       is limited to ground floor non-residential uses, and

(c)        is consistent with residential amenity, and

(d)       primarily serves the local community.

 

Purpose:         To provide for the establishment of small scale businesses and services with active street frontages in locations identified in an adopted master plan.

 

[8]       Clause 40A Master plans

 

Insert after clause 40A (5) (o):

(p)       identification, extent and management of buffer areas,

(q)       identification, extent and management of habitat corridor,

(r)        identification, extent and constraints of acid sulfate soils,

(s)        opportunities to apply integrated natural water cycle design, and

(t)         opportunities to apply integrated renewable energy design.

 

[9]       Clause 40A (13)

 

Insert after clause 40A (12):

                       

(13)       Subclause 5 (p),(q),(r),(s) and (t) do not apply:

 (a)      to a draft master plan lodged with the Council before the day on which Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No 23) commenced, or

(b)       to a master plan adopted by the Council  pursuant to subclause (7) before the day on which Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No 23) commenced.

 

[10]     Clause 42B

 

Insert after clause 42A:

 

42B          Contaminated land

 

Despite any other provisions of this plan, the Council must not grant consent to the development of contaminated land within any zone unless the Council is satisfied:

(a)       that the contaminated land will, after being remediated, be suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed to be carried out; and

(b)       that the contaminated land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose; and

(c)        that the use of the land for that purpose is permissible in the zone.

Purpose:         To ensure land will be suitable after remediation for the purpose for which the development is proposed and that the land will be remediated to that suitable standard before it is used.

 

[11]     Part 4A

 

Insert after Part 4:

                       

        Part 4A    Natural Heritage Provisions

 

Purpose:         To establish sustainability provisions relating to the protection, conservation, enhancement and management of areas of natural heritage over time.

.

48A     Plan of management for land in Zone No 7 (Environmental  Protection-Natural Heritage Areas Zone)

 

(1)       The objectives of this clause are to ensure that natural heritage is sustainably managed over time and that management practices are consistent with the objectives of Zone No 7.

 

(2)       The Council must not determine an application for consent to carry out development of land within Zone No 7 unless the Council has approved a plan of management for the land that complies with this clause.

 

(3)       For the purposes of this clause, a plan of management is a document (consisting of written information, maps and diagrams), prepared by a suitably qualified person. Where appropriate and applicable, plans of management for land within Zone No 7 must address (but need not be limited to) the following:

(a)       any natural heritage studies that include the land,

(b)       the natural heritage significance and value of the land,

(c)        scale maps of natural heritage attributes and values,

(d)       consistency of the plan of management with relevant Commonwealth, State or local plans and policies,

(e)       consistency of the plan of management with relevant Council policies, plans and guidelines,

(f)         the identification and management of threatening processes,

(g)       the identification and management of buffer areas,

(h)        a schedule of environmental management works,

(i)         the provision and management of any public utility undertakings,

(j)         any financial funding arrangements,

(k)        any restrictive covenants on the land, and

(l)         performance monitoring and review criteria.

 

Purpose:         To approve a management plan for environmental protection zones, which will ensure the protection, conservation and enhancement of natural heritage over time.

 

[12]     Clause 49 Definitions

 

Insert in alphabetical order in clause 49:

 

acid sulfate soils (ASS) means soils that contain iron sulfides that are stable and do not cause an environmental or economic problem when waterlogged, but when exposed to air, after drainage or excavation, rapidly form sulfuric acid.

 

biodiversity (or biological diversity) means the variety of life: the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, the genes they contain and the ecosystems of which they form part.

 

buffer areas means an area of land which is managed in a way that ensures the protection, conservation and enhancement of natural heritage, rare species and threatened items, over time.

 

building height means the vertical distance from the highest point on the building to the ground level and includes ancillary services,  installations and works (including works to conceal and integrate services) unless the Council is satisfied that they will not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining or nearby land.

 

contaminated land means the same as in Part 7A of the Act.

 

ecologically sustainable development (ESD) means development that uses, conserves and enhances the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased. These principles of ESD relate to precautionary decision making, intergenerational equity, conservation of biodiversity and improved valuation of resources.

 

environmental management works means a structure or work identified in a the plan of management for Zone No 7, that provides the following:

 (a)      nature study or display facilities such as walking tracks, board walks, observation decks, interpretation signage, bird hides, or the like, and

(b)       ongoing environmental management work such as bush restoration, wetland restoration, erosion and run off prevention works, bank stabilisation, dune restoration, bushfire hazard reduction, or the like, and

(c)        passive recreation areas such as picnic grounds and structures incidental to the functioning of the area, such as picnic shelters, play equipment, sheds and toilet facilities, roads and their maintenance, and

(d)       provision and management of public utility undertakings.

 

ground level,  in relation to land shown edged heavily on the map marked “Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment no 23)”, means the ground level that exists after completion of earthworks and re-contouring of the site as determined by the applicable Commonwealth works approval or by any development consent issued for the land. Any variation will require the approval of Council.

 

habitat corridor means an area of habitat that enables migration, colonisation, interbreeding within populations of native plants and animals, between two areas of habitat. Habitat corridors may consist of a sequence of discontinuous areas of habitat, such as feeding trees, caves, wetlands and roadside vegetation.

 

local shops means a building or place used for selling, exposing or offering for sale by retail, goods, services, merchandise or materials primarily to serve the needs of the surrounding residents.

 

natural heritage areas means land with natural heritage values that may include but are not limited to:

(a) species, populations, ecological communities and habitats,

(b)       ecological and environmental processes,

(c)        natural or modified wetlands,

(d)       groundwater,

(e)       the soil and all its components, including seed banks,

(f)         ground surface features, including bush rock, etc,

(g)       geological and topographical features, both above and below ground.

 

natural heritage item or natural heritage conservation area means heritage items or conservation areas with natural heritage significance and values listed in Schedule 3 (Heritage Items) or included as a conservation area on the maps supporting this plan

 

natural water cycle design means the application of a wide variety of design and management practices that are complementary to the natural water cycle, minimise disturbance to natural water courses, minimise on-site water usage and maximise rainwater harvesting opportunities, such as water sensitive urban design and water smart design.

 

plan of management means a plan of management approved by Council, for land within an Environmental Protection or Open Space Zone. It can include any plan of management, management plan or management statement adopted under Local Government Act 1993, Crown Lands Act 1989, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, Fisheries Management Act 1994, the Environment Protection, Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 [Clth], and Rural Fires Act 1997, or prepared on behalf of a landowner.

 

rare species are those species identified as rare species in Rare or Threatened Australian Plants 1995 by Briggs & Leigh, or in Appendix 8 of Council’s most current State of the Environment Report.

 

renewable energy means alternative (non-fossil fuel) energy sources, such as solar technology for hot water heaters and lighting in open space areas.

 

residential care facilities means accommodation for older people, including hostels and nursing homes, that includes:

(a)   meals and cleaning services, and

(b)   personal care or nursing care, or both, and

(c)    appropriate staffing, furniture, furnishings and equipment for the provision of that accommodation and care,

            not being a dwelling, hospital or psychiatric facility.

 

threatened items means those species, populations and ecological communities listed as endangered or vulnerable in the schedules of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 of the Commonwealth.

 

threatening processes are processes that threaten, or have the capability to threaten, the survival or evolutionary development of species, populations or ecological community. Threatening processes include those identified as threatening processes in the appendices of Council’s most current State of the Environment Report and threatening processes identified as ‘key threatening processes’ under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 of the Commonwealth.

 

wall height means the vertical distance from the highest point on an external wall to the ground level of that wall. Each external wall height measurement must include gable ends and attic walls with an area over 6 metres2 and dormer windows that protrude horizontally from the roof more than 2.5 metres.

 

wetland means:

(a)     natural wetland including marshes, mangroves, backwaters, billabongs, swamps, sedgelands, wet meadows or wet heathlands that form a shallow water body (up to 2 metres in depth) when inundated cyclically, intermittently or permanently with fresh, brackish or salt water, and where the inundation determines the type and productivity of the soils and the plant and animal communities, or

(b)     artificial wetland, including marshes, swamps, wet meadows, sedgelands or wet heathlands that form a shallow water body (up to 2 metres in depth) when inundated cyclically, intermittently or permanently with water, and are constructed and vegetated with wetland plant communities

 

[13]     Clause 49, definition of “gross floor area”

 

Omit the definition. Insert instead:

 

gross floor area means the sum of the areas of each level of a building where the area of each level is taken to be the area within the inner face of the external enclosing walls and the area of any attic measured at 2.1 metres above the floor level of the attic excluding:

(a)     columns, fin walls, shading devices, awnings, balconies and any other elements, projections or works outside the general lines of the outer face of the external wall, and

(b)     lift towers, cooling towers, machinery and plant rooms, and air-conditioning ducts, and

(c)      associated car parking and any internal vehicular or pedestrian access to that parking (to ground level), and

(d)     space for the loading and unloading of goods.

 

[14]     Clause 49, definition of landscaped area”

 

Omit the definition. Insert instead:

landscaped area means the part of a site area which is used, or capable of being used, for outdoor recreation or garden areas (such as lawns, gardens, unroofed swimming pools, clothes drying areas, barbecue areas, footpaths and the like) and includes landscaped podium areas and water tanks located at ground level.  It does not include areas used for parking, driveways, balconies, rooftop gardens or areas used for garbage or recycling material storage or sorting.

 

[15]     Clause 49, definition of “the map”

 

Insert instead in appropriate order:

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 23)

 

[16]     Schedule 2 Development of land for certain additional purposes:

 

Insert at the end of the Schedule:

 

Land within Zone No 6B, as shown light green on the map entitled “Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 23)”.

Defence purposes and public use and access.

Public use of the oval for active recreation subject to the operational needs of the army and as identified in a plan of management for the oval.

 

G:\BusinessPaper\DPE\H030225-DPE-1061.doc