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

 

5th December, 2003

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 9TH DECEMBER, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report

 

6.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 77/2003 - MAROUBRA BEACH PLAN OF MANGEMENT - MCKEON STREET UPGRADE.

2

 

 

7           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 98/2003 - 15 WAVERLEY STREET, RANDWICK.

8

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 99/2003 - 2A STEPHEN STREET, RANDWICK.

24

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 100/2003 - 2-4 FRANCES STREET, RANDWICK.

78

 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 101/2003 – 96-98 ST PAULS STREET, RANDWICK.

93

 

7.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 103/2003 – 308-310 ARDEN STREET & 3 ALEXANDER STREET, COOGEE.

134

 

7.6                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 104/2003 - 17 CASTLE STREET, RANDWICK.

205

 

 

8           Petitions

 

9           Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

9.1                        

By Councillor Matson – Call for Restoration of Commonwealth Funding to Botany Migrant Resource Centre. 

248

9.2

By Councillor Matson – Free RICC Access to the Vonnie Young Auditorium. 

248

9.3

By Councillor Matson – Council Notes Incorrect Interpretation of Amendment at Health, Building & Planning Committee of 2nd December, 2003.

248

9.4

By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – Council Election Seminars.

248

9.5

By Councillor Notley-Smith & Seng – Dudley’s Corner. 

248

9.6

By Councillor Notley-Smith& Seng – Mobile Telecommunications Installations.

248

9.7

By Councillor Matson – Telstra Towers

249

9.8

By Councillor Matson – Complaint Concerning Bream Street Croquet Club.

249

9.9

By Councillor Greenwood – Development of Memorandum of Understanding with NSW Labor Council.

249

9.10

By Councillor Greenwood – Malabar Headland Development Application.

249

 

 

10         Urgent Business

 

11         Confidential Reports

 

12         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

13         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

14         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 77/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

MAROUBRA BEACH PLAN OF MANGEMENT - McKEON STREET UPGRADE

 

 

DATE:

4 December, 2003

FILE NO:

98/s/3014

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council’s adopted budget for 2003-2004 capital works has an allocation of $600 000 for the completion of upgrade works to McKeon Street, Maroubra Beach. These works are an adjunct to the recently completed Plan of Management works undertaken along the beachfront.  Given the commencement of construction works at the former Maroubra Bay Hotel site by Multiplex Development Pty Ltd an appropriate and coordinated delivery programme for the McKeon Street Upgrade works needs to be developed. In the following, options for the completion of the upgrade works are outlined and plans are attached showing these options.

 

ISSUES:

 

The construction of the Maroubra Hotel redevelopment is now underway. The streetscape improvements work directly in front of the Hotel cannot be undertaken until the completion of the Hotel redevelopment.  Further to this No 36 McKeon Street also has an approved development application. At this time Multiplex has verbally advised staff that the construction work is proposed to be finished in October 2004.

 

Northcrofts, Quantity Surveyors for the McKeon Street upgrade have provided preliminary cost estimates for the entire upgrade work. The total projected cost of works is $1,000,000 (incl. works in front of the former Maroubra Bay Hotel). It should be noted that these estimates do not include upgrading of the street lighting and service relocation, both of which may add considerable cost to the works.

 

It should also noted that completing the works in stages will be more expensive as it will incur extra site establishment costs.

 

Options

 

Options for phasing of the McKeon Street Upgrade are as follows:

 

OPTION 1 - Available council budget expended in early 2004. (Refer Attachment 1)

 

Phase 1, to be undertaken early 2004. - Complete all streetscape works to the western end of McKeon Street only i.e. from Fenton to Duncan St on the southern side and Hereward St to Duncan St on the northern side; exclude all works to the eastern end. Leave McKeon Street two-way until after the redevelopment of the hotel when the adopted one-way westward scheme can be implemented.

 

This option may cause heavy congestion in McKeon Street as the hotel site and street upgrade would be occurring at the same time.

 

Phase 2 (to be constructed to finish with Maroubra Bay Hotel redevelopment) The construction of the footpath works at the eastern end and along Marine Parade would occur with the completion of both 36 McKeon and the Maroubra Bay Hotel site in approximately late 2004.

 

OPTION 2 (Refer Attachment 1).

Phase 1- (to be undertaken early 2004)

Complete all streetscape work in McKeon Street except the works along the hotel frontage up to No 36 McKeon St.

 

The disadvantage of this option is that damage could occur to the new street upgrade works due to the construction of the hotel redevelopment. There would also be intense construction related activities occurring simultaneously and heavy traffic congestion could occur.

 

Phase 2 - (to be constructed in with the completion of the Maroubra Bay Hotel redevelopment)

The street upgrade in front of the hotel is completed in the final stages of the Maroubra Bay Hotel site in approximately late 2004.

 

OPTION 3 – (all street works to be constructed to finish with Maroubra Bay Hotel redevelopment)

This option would be that all the McKeon Street Upgrade Works are completed simultaneously with the completion of the Maroubra Bay Hotel, therefore McKeon Street works would be programmed to be completed in late 2004.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The most appropriate alternative for the programming of the upgrade works to McKeon Street Maroubra is OPTION 3. This will result in the best quality and most cost effective project delivery. This will allow the McKeon Street Upgrade works be completed simultaneously with the completion of the Maroubra Hotel redevelopment.  Given that the works adjacent the former Maroubra Bay Hotel site are to be funded by the developer of the site a review of the costs for the project will also need to be undertaken.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 

It is recommended that:

 

The proposed streetscape improvement works for McKeon Street, Maroubra, be delayed to coincide with the completion of the redevelopment of the former Maroubra Bay Hotel site as described in OPTION 3.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.   Plan - Option 1

2.   Plan - Option 2

3.   Plan - Option 3 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS & RECREATION CO-ORDINATOR

 





 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 98/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

15 Waverley Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

1 December, 2003

FILE NO:

810/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the development Application Report fro Development Application No 810/2003 for alterations and first floor additions to an existing dwelling

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the attached report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 20 November, 2003

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 November, 2003

FILE NO:

DA 810/03

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and first floor additions to existing dwelling

PROPERTY:

 15 Waverley Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 B Crawford

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling. The estimated cost of the work is $ 75 000.

 

The main issue is that this dwelling is the first within the row of terraces, which are within a Heritage Conservation Area, which will have alterations and additions carried out and the impact which will result upon the adjoining dwelling to the south.

 

The application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Tracey, Sullivan and Procopiadis.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal details alterations and additions to the dwelling to provide for an enlarged dining area to the ground floor and a bedroom and bathroom to the upper level. A new bathroom will also be provided to the ground floor. The scope of the proposed works will provide for 26sqm of additional floor area to the dwelling.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings. The immediate locality as a whole is a Heritage Conservation area. The subject premises is on the eastern side of Waverley Street and is within a group of terrace style dwellings, the site has a street frontage of 3m, and has an overall site area of 138sqm.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with Development Control Plan- Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans and the following submissions were received:

 

4.1       Objections

 

Ms Tholen of 13 Waverley Street Randwick

 

-the proposed addition will result in a loss of outlook from their premises.

-access to sunlight to the adjoining premises will be restricted.

-there will be a loss of privacy to their premises.

-there is no indication as to how stormwater will be disposed of.

-there is no plans indicating loads to common walls and foundations.

-the proposed renovation includes correction of an encroachment upon their premises.

-the plans as submitted are inaccurate and will result in the façade of the building being altered.

-the reason that similar renovations have been carried out to dwellings in Gordon Avenue does not justify this development.

-approval for the waste container to be sited on the street should not be supported.

 

A Stead of 17 Waverley Street Randwick

 

-there will be a loss of sunlight to the main bedroom window, bathroom skylight and window, kitchen skylight and rear garden.

-the rear wall should not be extended past the rear of the dwelling.

-the use of precedent in Gordon Avenue cannot be justified.

-the first floor should be setback from the rear of the dwelling.

-consideration should be given to the impacts upon the heritage conservation area.

-the enlargement of the existing terrace house should not be supported as it will be inappropriate.

-there is no indication as to what finishes will be provided to the building.

-it is unclear as to the impact upon the front of the dwelling.

-who is responsible for organising and payment for works affecting both premises such as flashings and the timber dividing fence.

-how will access be sought for entry to the adjoining premises to enable building works to be carried out.

-how are disputes resolved during the course of building works.

 

Comment:

 

It should be noted there are no changes to the façade of the building proposed by this application. Any necessary consent with respect to matters relating to the dividing fence, flashing and access to the adjoining premises to undertake building works are essentially private matters between the affected parties and any consent that may be granted does not absolve the applicant’s responsibilities with respect to the Dividing Fences Act or other legislative requirements.

 

As has been stated, it is acknowledged that there will be a degree of additional overshadowing to the adjoining premises due to the orientation of the allotments on an east west axis and as has been discussed the degree of additional overshadowing will not be unreasonable. In addition, the loss of direct sunlight to skylights serving a bathroom and kitchen do not alone warrant the refusal of the application. Conditions of consent are included with the report which reduce the overall height of the building by 300mm and length of the building by 1000mm, which will also reduce the impact upon the adjoining premises, and also eliminate the need for a box gutter.

 

5.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner and the following comments have been provided:-

 

“The subject site is within the Gordon Street Conservation Area and is part of a two storey terraced group comprising nos.11-23 Waverly Street.  The group is of very simple design with cantilevered upper level balconies divided by timber screens.  The terrace consists of front two storey section under a low pitched gabled roof, and a single storey rear section under a skillion roof falling towards the rear.  To the north is another two storey terraced group comprising nos.25-35 Waverly Street, characterised by cantilevered upper level balconies and a high parapet.

 

The application proposes alterations and additions to the rear of the dwelling, at both ground and first floor levels.  At ground floor level, it is proposed to rebuild the existing bathroom and laundry, and to extend the existing dining area towards the rear.  At first floor level, it is proposed to convert the existing rear bedroom to a study and to provide a rear addition including a bathroom and bedroom.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement, prepared by Peter Banfield, which notes that the front elevation is generally intact and demonstrates elements and architectural attributes of the Victorian style of terrace domestic architecture.

 

It is noted that the rear elevations of the dwellings have been subject to only minimal change at ground and upper floor level, the original pattern of the two storey front section and the single storey rear section of the terraced group remains.  Upper level changes comprise a rear deck to one dwelling, and replacement of several original upper level windows.  Ground level changes consist generally of minimal extensions towards the rear.

 

It is noted that the existing dwelling is of very modest dimensions, with an overall width of around 3m, and that the proposal complies with Council’s floor space ratio controls.  The proposed rear alterations and additions will not be prominent from the street.  Two storey rear wings, such as that proposed, are a traditional element for terrace houses.  Such rear wings remain a subservient element to the front section of dwelling, and are generally lower in height, with a roof sloping to the side.  It is noted that the application proposes an upper level atrium connecting the addition to the original house, allowing windows to be provided to the proposed bathroom and study.  The proposed atrium will allow the proposed rear addition to the differentiated from the original front section of the dwelling.  The existing dwelling has a low pitched gabled roof falling towards the front and the rear, while the drawings indicate that it has a low pitched skillion roof falling towards the rear.  The proposed rear bedroom and bathroom is to have a ceiling height of 2.7m.  It is suggested that a consent condition be included requiring the ceiling height of the proposed rear addition to be reduced if necessary, so that the highest point of the new roof is below the line of the existing rear gutter.

 

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·    The ceiling height of the proposed rear addition to be reduced if necessary, so that the highest point of the new roof is below the line of the existing rear gutter.

 

·    The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area.  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 and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

·    Details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  Unpainted surfaces, eg- brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted.”

 

6.    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 2C 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:-

 

6.1  Policy Controls

a.         Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has achieved preferred solutions).

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

The size and dimensions of landscaped areas suit the projected needs of the dwelling occupants and accommodate outdoor recreation needs

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped and half of this is soft landscaping

 

No major change to existing levels of landscaping

 

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

<300m2   0.65:1

 

 

No, 0.7:1 (See Section 7)

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

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

 

 

The external wall height of the dwelling does not at any point exceed the preferred solution of the DCP.

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

P3 Building forms and setbacks allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

S3 Side setbacks are no less than 900mm for any part of a building over 1m above ground level and 1500mm for any part of a building which is two levels at any point

No, Nill Setback  (See Section 7)

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

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

 

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

 

No direct overlooking into the private open space areas of the neighbouring dwellings. (See Section 7)

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

P2 Buildings are sited and designed to maximise solar access to north facing living areas and areas of open space

 

P9 The design and siting of new buildings and additions to existing buildings minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties

S9 The principal outdoor recreation area of neighbouring dwellings receives at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of its area between 9.00am to 3.00pm on June 21

Yes (See Section 7)

 

7.    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.

 

Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

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. 

 

Floor space ratio of the dwelling will be 0.7:1 which does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP. The applicant has not demonstrated that compliance with the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP have been satisfied. A condition of consent which requires that the rear building line be maintained will reduce the overall floor area and floor space ratio to 0.66:1.

 

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.

 

Buildings may be setback less than the Preferred Solution standard or may be built to the boundary where:

 

·          It is proposed to extend an existing terraced or semi detached building along the alignment of the common wall

            or

·          The proposal will not have an adverse impact on the streetscape or adjoining premises provided, the performance requirements relating to neighbours privacy and access to light, air and views would be met an clearly addressed or demonstrated in the Statement of Environmental Effects.

 

The proposed setbacks to the terraced dwelling are to both side boundaries, and will result in the extension of the building along the common walls, therefore satisfy 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 proposal will not result in any adverse privacy impacts.  The proposed timber framed window from the study and timber framed louvered window to the bathroom will look upon the proposed void area.  The glass block windows to the bathroom are non opening and have obscured glazing and will not allow an opportunity for overlooking.

 

The applicant has proposed two timber-framed windows to the rear.  These windows will allow for some passive overlooking upon the rear yards of the adjoining premises however given their size and that they are located from a rear bedroom, not a major living area, it is considered to still satisfy the performance requirements of the DCP.

 

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.

 

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.  

 

The preferred solutions of the DCP state that 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.

 

There will be additional overshadowing to the adjoining premises due to the orientation of the site on an east west axis. With the exception of a small area of the rear yard and rear wall of number 17 Waverly Street the proposal will provide at least 3 hours sunlight to the majority of the rear yard area of 17 Waverly Street during the winter solstice.

 

Conditions are to be included with any consent to reduce the overall height of the building by 300mm and length of the building by 1000mm. This will further reduce the impact upon the adjoining premises.

 

It is considered that this will reduce the degree of additional overshadowing to the adjoining premises and will not result in a substantial additional impact, therefore  satisfying the DCP Performance Requirements. 

 

Randwick LEP Clause 43

 

Clause 43 of the LEP states that when determining any development with a conservation are that consideration must be given to the likely effect upon the conservation area. Having regard to this consideration it is not regarded that the proposal will have any significant adverse impact upon conservation are in that the proposal does not compromise the existing appearance of the dwelling and is regarded as an acceptable form of development, subject to conditions, by Council’s Heritage Planner.

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and provided the additions are modified as required by conditions 2 & 3, the proposal should not result in any significant adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/810/2003 for permission to carryout alterations and additions to the dwelling at 15 Waverley Street Randwick subject to the following conditions:

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent is not to operate until the following material has been submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development:

 

1.         The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area.  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 and Community Development.

 

2.         Details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development. Unpainted surfaces, eg- brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent. 

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Community Development, development consent is granted under Section 80 & 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following conditions:         

 

1          The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 42/03, dated 30th July 2003 and received by Council on the 9th September 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:

 

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 overall height of the first floor addition is to be reduced by 300mm to RL 16.5 and the ceiling height of the first floor addition is to be reduced by 300mm to 2400mm in order to reduce the overall impact of the height of the building with respect to the adjoining premises. The plans accompanying the Construction Certificate are to be amended accordingly.

 

3          The proposed ground and first floor additions are not to extend past the existing rear face of the subject building in order to reduce the impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises in terms of loss of sunlight and natural light and relative bulk and scale and maintain the existing rear building line of the group of dwellings. Plans accompanying the Construction Certificate are to be amended accordingly.

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

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 noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

5          Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

6          External timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturers details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be noted in the construction certificate application.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate drainage is provided from the premises and to maintain adequate levels of health and amenity in the locality:

 

7          Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or a suitably designed absorption pit and details are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

Absorption pits or soaker wells must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development prior to commencement of works.

 

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

 

8          The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

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        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.

 

11        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.

 

12        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 / Notice of Intention to commence building work.

 

13        The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

14        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.

 

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:

 

15        All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in force at 1 July, 1993.

 

16        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.

 

17        The building works are to be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by 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 details of compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical phase inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon, shall be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate or, upon finalisation of works if no occupation certificate is issued.

 

18        Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

19        All building, demolition and associated site 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.

 

20        A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations.

 

21        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 at all times.

 

22        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.

 

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

 

23        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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 99/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

2A Stephen Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

1 December, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0290/2003

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for the Development Application No 290/03 for the demolition of the existing house and structures and construction of a new dwelling house and garage.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 21 November, 2003

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

21 November, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0290/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing house and structures and construction of a new dwelling house, double garage and swimming pool

PROPERTY:

 2A Stephen Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Ms Phillips Thurgood

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 John Procopiadis, Dominic Sullivan and Paul Tracey.

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing single storey house and double garages to the street and the construction of a new two storey dwelling house with new double garages to the street.

 

The existing house has been extensively altered, internally and externally, such that very little original detail remains.  Council’s Heritage Planner is satisfied that the building is a non contributory building in the conservation area and that the degree of reconstruction required for restoration would not be in accordance with Burra Charter principles.

 

The original proposal was considered unsatisfactory in relation to its height, scale, form, massing, colour and materials and front setbacks.  A series of meetings were undertaken with the applicant that have resulted in the amended plans now before Council for consideration.

 

Objections to the proposed development principally relate to the visual form of the proposal in the streetscape and its impact to the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area. Concerns have also been raised by immediately adjoining properties in relation to privacy and shadow impacts from the proposal. 

 

The proposed double garages located on the street boundary are a similar height to those already existing, with their width reduced when compared to the width of the existing garages.  Given that there is no rear lane or side street access to the site, it is considered reasonable to maintain double garages to the street front.

 

The amendments to the original proposal included increased front setbacks of the dwelling, redesign of the pedestrian entry to the site to provide an open fence and landscaped areas, change of balustrade detail to terrace area over the garages from a solid to open design, introduction of a gable element to the front of the dwelling to reflect similar gables evident in the neighbouring properties, use face brick work to the front of the dwelling and changed roof form to the rear to minimise overshadowing to neighbours. 

 

Council’s Heritage Planner considers that the amended plans generally address heritage concerns and the form and massing of the proposed development will not detract from the streetscape of the conservation area.  Conditions of consent are recommended to minimise privacy impacts.

 

Accordingly, the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes demolition of the existing dwelling house and garages and the construction of a new two storey dwelling house, lap pool, spa and deck to the rear and with a double garage at the property boundary to Stephen Street.

 

The proposed new dwelling house consists of the following:-

 

Basement Level

 

·          Double garage, plant room, hallway and internal access and stairs to first floor level.

 

Ground floor level

 

·          Entry, hall and internal stairs to basement garage and first floor level.

·          Lounge area opening onto a front (north facing) terrace over the garage area.

·          Dining area opening onto a central (west facing) courtyard.

·          Laundry and WC.

·          Kitchen and family room opening onto a rear (south facing) terrace.

 

First floor level

 

·          Internal stairs to ground floor level, hall and void area over entry on the ground floor level.

·          Bedroom 1 (with ensuite) opening onto a north facing balcony.

·          Bathroom opening onto a north facing balcony overlooking the central courtyard.

·          Three bedrooms with Bedrooms 2 and 3 opening onto a rear (south facing) balcony.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Stephen Street, between Wentworth Street and Stephen Lane and is identified as Lot 6 in DP 28555 and is fairly regular in shape, having a total site area of 417.3m2.  Existing on the site is a single storey dwelling house with double garages to Stephen Street with a terrace over (see Figure 1).  The site falls from the rear (south) to Stephen  Street at the front (approximately between 2m to 2.6m) and has a cross-fall, east to west, between 200mm and 900mm approximately.

 

 

 

Figure 1 – subject site from Stephen Street

 

Located on the adjoining site to the east (4 Stephen Street) is a single storey Federation dwelling house elevated with respect to Stephen Street (its relationship with the subject site can be seen in Figure 2).

 

 

Figure 2 – 4 Stephen Street adjoining the subject site to the east

 

Located on the adjoining the site to the west is a single storey Post War dwelling house (2 Stephen Street), with single garage to the street on its eastern boundary with the subject site.

 

 

Figure 3 – 2 Stephen Street adjoining the subject site to the west

 

4.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged on the 11th April, 2003 and was notified and advertised until the 14th May, 2003.  Following a preliminary assessment, the applicant was advised that the proposal was considered unsatisfactory and was given the opportunity to provide amended plans.

 

Following discussions and meetings with Council Officers, amended plans were received on the 12th September, 2003 and were re-notified and advertised until the 1st October, 2003.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Eight (8) submissions were received from the following:-G Naher of 51 Wentworth Street, Randwick; A Johnstone of 6 Stephen Street, Randwick; K and H Callander of 49 Wentworth Street, Randwick; M and A Malpas of 4 Earl Street, Randwick; P Barker of 4 Stephen Street, Randwick; B Smith of 2 Stephen Street, Randwick; S Vitale Keyes-Pearce of 4 Monmouth Street, Randwick;  Warren Long of Longitude Planning (on behalf of 2 Stephen Street, Randwick) of PO Box 4033 Illawong.

 

The amended proposal was notified and advertised and the following submissions were received:-

 

Objections

 

Longitude Planning Pty Ltd

(on behalf of 2 Stephen Street)

P O Box 4033

Illawong   NSW   2234

 

·          Original objections to the proposal are maintained, specifically in relation to heritage conservation, streetscape, height, form and materials, the siting and bulk of the garage component and general impacts on the amenity of 2 Stephen Street.

·          The existing garage is an intrusive element in the streetscape and it is not agreed that the proposed solution is the best in terms of visual character.  As the existing garage structure and the whole building is to be demolished, it is not appropriate to compare any new proposal to that existing when assessing the suitability of the proposed development.  Instead an optimum design outcome should be sought in terms of the streetscape, visual impact, privacy and heritage conservation.

·          From the street level, the building will present as a three storey building.  An alternate arrangement for the car parking under the building would allow for a single driveway and a substantial area in front of the site for landscaping and a pedestrian entrance.  Such a design would also remove the substantial front terrace formed by the garage roof and would improve the amenity of both 2 and 4 Stephen Street in terms of privacy, outlook and overshadowing.

·          The proposed two storey dwelling, double garages and roof terrace will be an anomaly in this part of Stephen Street, totally out of character with the surrounding development because of the excessive height and scale of the dwelling and the unsympathetic arrangement of the garages and high front walls that will be a dominant element in the streetscape.

·          The proposal will not be consistent with the landscaping and open space objectives of the DCP, especially given the amount of hard surfaces provided by way of a lap pool, spa and paving.

·          The proposed development will not make a positive contribution to the streetscape and will compromise the heritage significance of the conservation area in which it is located.  The existing single storey dwellings at Nos. 2, 2A and 4 Stephen Street represent a compatible row of dwellings in terms of their height, style and form.  This arrangement will be severely compromised by the proposed development.

·          The height of the proposed building will be excessive and will not relate to the surrounding streetscape or the immediate context.  It will be a dominant element in the streetscape because of its excessive height  and mass, uncharacteristic roof forms, window and door proportions and the absence of front garden and any significant landscaping.

·          Impacts relating to visual and acoustic privacy, the open outlook from the front of the dwellings and overshadowing could likely be resolved to an acceptable degree by a proposal that was consistent with the height and scale of the surrounding development.

A S Johnstone

6 Stephen Street

Randwick   NSW   2031

 

·          The amended proposal does not address the previous concerns raised with the original proposal. This design could be acceptable in more north-eastern suburbs but not in a heritage area.  The proposal should be refused and a proposal congruous with the streetscape, neighbour relations and heritage listing should be submitted.

 

M and A Malpas

48 Earl Street

Randwick   NSW   2031

 

·          The scale and bulk of the amended proposal is still entirely out of character with the surrounding dwellings, in particular the properties to the east and west.

·          The north facing windows will overlook the backyard and pool area of 48 Earl Street is located across the road to the north of 2A Stephen Street.

·          The proposed home will completely dominate the street and this can’t be appropriate in a heritage conservation area.

 

B Smith

2 Stephen Street

Randwick   NSW   2031

 

·          The proposal is incompatible with the streetscape of Stephen Street and the heritage conservation area by nature of its height, bulk and design.

·          The proposal will have an adverse visual impact on the outlook and amenity on the streetscape of Stephen Street and more specifically properties in Monmouth, Wentworth and Earl Streets.

·          The ground floor is proposed on the same level as the garage roof thereby creating an above ground three storey residence to the street.

·          The consent for alterations and additions at 2 Stephen Street was conditioned to reduce the height to RL 67.24 in order that it appeared visually lower than the existing residence at 2A Stephen Street.  Other applications for first storey additions in the immediate vicinity have been rejected by Council without exception

·          Substantial excavation is proposed under the ground to form a basement with internal stair access that could easily have been designed to locate the garages under the house with landscaping to the front.

·          If high fencing is out of character with the heritage conservation area and pedestrian amenity then it should also apply to the front garages proposed along the front boundary.

·          The lack of landscaping at the front street level is out of character with all other properties on the southern side of Stephen Street.

·          The first floor balcony on the northern elevation is incompatible with the streetscape.

·          The windows on the northern elevation are excessive in size and should reflect traditional proportions.  As such, there should be consistency with other developments as conditioned, especially the consent for alterations and additions at 2 Stephen Street.

·          The windows on the southern elevation are excessive in size and will have adverse privacy impacts on the backyard, pool and cabana of 2 Stephen Street and the rear yard of 4 Stephen Street.

·          There will be a substantial increase in overshadowing to 2 and 4 Stephen Street.

·          There will be a substantial loss in light to both 2 and 4 Stephen Street.

·          Due to overshadowing and reduction in light to Bedrooms 2 and 3 of 2 Stephen Street, these will become cold rooms and also a reduction in the energy efficiency of the dwelling house at 2 Stephen Street.

·          The ground floor entry and first floor walkway is excessive in size and reduction of which, would considerably alleviate overshadowing and bulk.

·          Loss of privacy to the lounge/dining room, Bedrooms 2 and 3, rear yard, pool and cabana (now used as fourth bedroom and study) by way of the entertaining area above the garages; first floor balcony from the master bedroom; balcony on the southern elevation; balcony over the courtyard on the western elevation, courtyard on the western elevation, walkway on the first floor, all clear glass windows on the western elevation and the southern window to the main bedroom, even though shutters are proposed.

·          There will be a substantial increase in noise due to the courtyard on the western side and its relationship to the living and dining rooms of the proposed dwelling house.  As well, the proposed water feature will cause noise as it is in close proximity to eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street.

·          The proposed privacy screens to balconies are not permanent structures and are removable and as such will lead to privacy impacts.

·          Glazed roofing over the ground floor rear patio will be hazardous due to the strong south-west prevailing winds and consequent falling branches of trees and glare it will create causing a fire hazard.

·          The above ground level pool should be in ground for privacy and security fencing reasons.

·          The plans do not indicate the roof top exhaust for air conditioning plant nor the location of the pool and cabana of 2 Stephen Street on the shadow diagrams.

·          Approval of this structure will ultimately lead to the destruction of the North Randwick Conservation Area.

 

P Barker

4 Stephen Street

Randwick

 

·          The front alignment is not consistent with the other houses in the block, i.e. Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 Stephen Street.

·          Overshadowing from the proposed development will put the rear yard of 4 Stephen Street in almost total shade in June and July, not to mention 2 Stephen Street.

·          The second storey extends too far to the south and it will take all natural light from the kitchen window, laundry and hallway of 4 Stephen Street.  This will mean using electric light from mid-afternoon.

·          The plan shows a basement but it is unclear whether this is for garages only or if it extends further thus making it a three storey house.  No. 4 Stephen Street is a Federation house which should not be overshadowed by a 2/3 storey house, alien to other surrounding houses in a heritage conservation area.

 

G Campbell and K Well

8 Stephen Street

Randwick

 

·          The changes to the front façade of the proposed development are noted, however, given that the ground floor will be on the same level as the existing garages, this will continue to give the impression from the street of a three storey dwelling.  This is inconsistent with the current ambience of the area.  The garages are referred to as “basement garages” giving the impression that they are underground.  This is not the case, as they are totally above street level.

·          The changes made to the dwelling will not reduce the impression of a building towering over both of its neighbours.  The height of the roof line should not be above those of its adjoining neighbours.  The amended proposal appears to have a more intrusive impact on the area than the previous proposal.

·          If approved, the amended application would be inconsistent with previous decisions taken by Council in respect to development applications in the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area, including that for 8 Stephen Street.

·          The proposal is totally out of character with the surrounding properties and inconsistent with the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area.

 

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       Heritage Conservation

 

Council’s Heritage Conservation Planner has provided the following comments in relation to the amended proposal:-

 

The subject site is within the North Randwick Conservation Area and is occupied by a single storey dwelling elevated above the street over a pair of garages.  To the east of the site, at no.4 Stephen Street, is a single storey Federation style detached cottage set at a slightly higher level than the subject dwelling.  It is likely that the subject dwelling was originally in a similar style to no.4, but has been substantially altered.  To the west, at no.2 Stephen Street, of the site is a single storey cottage apparently constructed in the post war period, set at a slightly lower level than the subject dwelling.

 

The application proposes demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey dwelling, over street level garages.

 

In relation to the demolition of the existing cottage, it is noted that the dwelling has been extensively altered internally and externally and retains very little evidence of its original internal and external detail.  I am satisfied that the building is a non-contributory building in the conservation area and that the degree of alteration would require considerable reconstruction which would not be in accordance with Burra Charter principles.

 

In relation to infill development, the Draft Development Control Plan for the North Randwick Conservation Area has the objective that new buildings be in keeping with their neighbours and the conservation area, without pretending to be anything other than a modern building.  This may be achieved by designing in keeping with the street’s established scale, height, form, setbacks, massing, colour and materials, without being overly imitative.  Concerns were raised in relation to the front setbacks, the height and scale, and the form and massing of the original proposal.  A series of meetings were held with the owner, their planning consultant and heritage/conservation architect, and final amended plans have now been received.  As compared to the original proposal, the final amended plans have increased the front setback of the dwelling, somewhat reduced its height and scale, and reconsidered the dwellings interface with the street.

 

In relation to front setbacks, the proposal has been redesigned to increase its upper ground floor and first floor setbacks.  At upper ground level setbacks of the front wall of the dwelling and the front verandah relate to the setbacks of the front wall and front verandah of the adjacent dwelling to the east.  At first floor level, the bulk associated with the upper level balcony has been reduced, including the extent of the roof and privacy blades to the sides of the balcony.  It is considered that the upper ground floor level setbacks of the proposal are consistent with adjacent dwellings to the east and west, and that the first floor setbacks will minimise the dominance of the dwelling in the streetscape.  In relation to height and scale, the proposal has been redesigned so that the wall heights and overall heights of the dwelling have been reduced.  The increase in the front setbacks of the proposal, in conjunction with the reduction in height, will considerably improve the compatibility of the proposal with the predominantly single storey scale of the Conservation Area.

 

In terms of form and massing, it is noted that the proposal incorporates a pair of street level garages similar to the existing pair of garages.  The amended drawings have minimised the height of the proposed garages so as not to significantly exceed the height of existing garages.  The original proposal incorporated a pedestrian entrance gateway, so that the front boundary wall extended across the full width of the site.  The current proposal has redesigned the pedestrian entry to provide an open fence and landscaped areas to either side of the entry steps.  The design of the fencing relates to the design of the railing to the terrace above the garages.  It is considered that the height of the proposed fencing is compatible with fencing to adjacent properties and that the pedestrian entry treatment will relate the proposal to the front garden settings of adjacent properties.  It is considered that the form and massing of the proposal will not detract from the streetscape of the Conservation Area.

 

It is considered that the final amended plans which have been submitted generally address the heritage concerns which have been previously been raised.

 

In terms of materials and finishes the Draft Development Control Plan for the North Randwick Conservation Area notes that an important part of the heritage value of the area derives from its predominantly single level face brick construction, with slate and terracotta tiled roofs.  It is noted however, that the dwelling to the east has a painted finish to original face brickwork, while the dwelling to the east has face brickwork walls.  The final amended plans propose the use of face brickwork for the front section of the dwelling and bagged brickwork for the rear section, and a tiled roof.  The lower ground floor garages are to be faced with stone.  There are no objections to the proposed combination of face brickwork and bagged brickwork provided the colour scheme is compatible.  It is considered that the use of face brickwork will improve the compatibility of the proposal with the overall characteristics of the Conservation Area and maintain a precedent for the retention of face brick walls to existing dwellings in the Conservation Area.

 

6.2       Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has provided the following comments in relation to the proposed development as amended:-

 

6.21     Landscape

 

There are no existing trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order on the site, however, there is one large Pine tree in the adjoining property to the south, whose canopy slightly encroaches over the common boundary, as well as a small Bottlebrush in the adjacent property to the east, against the existing brick wall. Both these trees should not be adversely affected by the proposed development.

 

In order to ensure a satisfactory level of privacy and screening between adjacent properties, a screen/hedge attaining a minimum height at maturity of 3 metres is to be provided along the southern, western and eastern sides of the rear yard, as has been shown on the plans provided.

 

6.22     Drainage Comments

 

Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to a minimum 5 metre square base infiltration area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit that drains to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

The Environmental Planning and Community Development Department is to condition development consent for site drainage requirements.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site area (417.3m2) of the proposed development is less than required for the submission of a master plan (4,000m2)

 

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 2A Residential 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:-

 

 

 

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

43

Heritage Conservation Area

Demolition of existing dwelling house and garages and construction of a new dwelling house, pool, spa and garages

Refer Heritage comments previous in report and Environmental Assessment below

 

(b)        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.

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3  Design minimises use of mechanical appliances.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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. 

 

.

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  Solar access to solar collectors on adjacent buildings maintained between 9.00am and 3.00pm each day.

 

 

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 3.5 stars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – living room

No – family room

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – Cross ventilation provided

 

 

No solar collectors evident on adjacent properties

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

P2  Water consumption minimised inside dwelling .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3  Water consumption minimised to landscaping.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S1  Rainwater tanks or other storage systems collect roof run-off.

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

S3  Landscaped area: contain low water demand plant species and design.

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

 

Yes – by condition

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.

 

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.

 

 

Yes – 45.6%

 

 

Yes – 40.7m2

 

 

Yes – 3.5 x 4.6

 

 

Yes – Rear Yard

 

 

 

No – Private open space is largely in shadow at the winter solstice.

Raised level of pool impacts on

 privacy of adjoining neighbours - refer Environmental Section of report

 

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – 13.6% refer Environmental Assessment section of report

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

0:6.1

No –

0.61 : 1

Refer  Environmental Assessment section of report

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – East elevation

3.9 – 7.4

 

 

No – West elevation

4.8m – 7.4m

 

 

 

 

No >1m

 

 

No – Garage abuts western boundary

 

No – Pool within 3m of rear boundary

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

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 Garages - nil

Dwelling - 6.09m

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

 

 

Yes – 11.56m

 

 

 

 

 

EAST

Ground Floor - Yes

1.2m, 1.5m and 1.7m

 

First Floor - No

1.2m, 1.5m &

1.7m

 

 

WEST

Ground Floor - Yes

900mm, 1.5m, and 4.2m

 

First Floor- No

900mm, 2m &

3.9m

 

 

 

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

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.

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

 

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

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.

No – Front door located on eastern sides of dwelling house

Yes – lounge and terrace and main bedroom overlook the street

 

Yes – by condition

 

Yes –  Refer Environmental Assessment section of Report

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Yes – 2 spaces provided

 

Yes – 5.8m x 3.1m

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – Garages set on western side boundary

 

 

 

 

 

No - Garages forward of building line 6.09m- refer Environmental section of report

 

No – Garages 63.8% of site frontage

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

S1  Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

 

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).

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

(c)        Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The proposal provides two (2) car parking spaces in accordance with the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Parking

 

(d)            Rainwater Tank Policy

 

Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy, effective from the 15th October, 2003, requires all new development to install a rainwater tank for the collection and reuse of roof water.  This should be connected for the internal purpose of toilet flushing and clothes washing (cold water only) and then allow for other authorised uses such as landscape watering, refilling of swimming pools and the like.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation.

 

(e)            Development Control Plan - North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area

 

The heritage value of the conservation area is largely derived from its Federation and Inter-War housing, its predominantly single level scale, face brick construction, dominant slate and terracotta tiled roofs and well established cultural plantings.  Also of importance is the continuing physical and historical links with Centennial Park, especially to houses fronting Darley Road.

 

Part 3 of the Draft Development Control Plan – North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area 1998 (Draft DCP). relates to demolition and new building work.  Prior to demolition being permitted, Council must be satisfied that the structure no longer has historical, social, aesthetic or other significance and that it makes little positive contribution to the streetscape.  In this regard, Council’s Conservation Planner has advised (refer Section 6.1 previous in report) that the building has been extensively altered, both internally and externally and retains very little evidence of its original detail. As such, it would require considerable reconstruction, which would not be in accordance with the Burra Charter principles. Accordingly, demolition of the building is considered acceptable, subject to the new replacement building making a positive contribution to the significance of the area, or the very least remaining neutral with respect to the significance of the area.

 

With regard to new building work, the Draft DCP outlines streetscape design principles that seek to ensure compatibility with neighbouring buildings and the streetscape.  These principles include building form and massing, contextually fit, scale and proportion, setbacks, siting, materials, and detail.  These issues are discussed below in the Environmental Assessment section of the report.

 

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       Heritage conservation area and streetscape

 

The primary area of concern raised in the objections to the amended proposal relate to the contextual fit of the new building within the streetscape and its impact on the surrounding heritage conservation area.  In particular the areas of concern relate to the perceived three storey form to the street and the consequent height of the proposal with respect to the single storey form of the buildings on the adjacent properties to the east and west.  This is considered by many of the objectors as a dominant and intrusive element in the streetscape within a heritage conservation area.  Also, stated areas of concern within the streetscape context are the following:-

 

·          inconsistent front alignment with neighbouring buildings;

·          building bulk, scale and mass to the street;

·          uncharacteristic roof forms, window and door proportions; and

·          absence of traditional front garden and landscaping.

 

The visual appearance of three storeys to the street derives from the replacement of the existing street front double garage, with a new double garage and a two storey dwelling house, such that the ground floor of new dwelling house is in approximate alignment with the terrace area forming the garage roof.

The overall level of impact on the streetscape and the heritage conservation area is considered acceptable for the following reasons:-

 

·          No alternate access to the site is provided either from the rear or to the side. Therefore maintaining existing garaging to the street is a reasonable approach in the circumstances, especially given that the adjoining property to the west also has a garage located on the front property boundary, to a similar height.

 

·          The degree of variation in height between the proposed and existing terrace level on the top of the garages is relatively minor being approximately in the order of 160mm to 190mm.

 

 

·          Compared to the existing garages, the width of the proposed garages has been reduced from 7.9m to 6.45m along the street boundary, the entry along the eastern end of the front boundary widened and planting introduced into this area.

 

·          Stone cladding to the garage/terrace structure and base of the front fence integrates with similar treatments within the conservation area.

 

·          The introduction of an open wrought iron balustrade to the front terrace (as opposed to the solid balustrade in the original application) along with the reduction in garage width means that the proposed double garages are an improvement on that already existing on the site.

 

·          Setting back the garaging on the site would not necessarily create any substantial increase in landscaped area but would create a larger paved area at street level in the form of a driveway. The amended proposal is considered to be a more sympathetic approach.

 

·          Other two storey dwelling houses and second storey additions that sit alongside single storey neighbours are not uncommon within the conservation area and neither the DDCP nor the LEP exclude two storey dwellings within the conservation area.  Within the immediate context two storey development can be seen at 10 and 12 Stephen Street in the form of two Victorian terraces that sit immediately above the high point in the road cutting.  There is also a two storey residential flat building located on the north-east corner of Stephen and Earl Streets that presents a two storey wall directly on its boundary with Stephen Street.  As well, a three storey residential flat building sits above street front garages at 30 Stephen Street to the east.

 

·          The topography of the site is such that there is a significant fall in levels from 2.1m to 2.6m approximately from the rear to the street front, with approximately half the change in levels occurring within the front 6m of the site (i.e. in the area of the proposed garages).  The sudden change in levels is evident in the height of the front verandah in relation to the road level as can be seen in Figure 1 previous in the report.  The proposal retains approximate existing ground floor levels to minimise the extent of cut to the rear of the site, which is considered a reasonable approach.

 

·          The front northern ground floor wall of the proposed new dwelling is set back 6.09m and is setback further than the existing front wall of the single storey residence.  This introduces a staggered front setback line between 4 Stephen to the east, with the front wall setback of 4.8m and 2 Stephen Street to the west, with the front wall setback of 7m.  Similarly the roof over the ground floor terrace of the proposed new dwelling is recessed behind the verandah roof of the dwelling on the adjoining property to the east.

 

·          At the front, the proposed upper level of the new dwelling house is recessed in relation to the ground floor wall (approximately a further 1.5m).  The top floor balcony to the street is setback 5.1m from the front boundary and is consistent with the front northern wall of the dwelling house to the east and the alignment of the front balcony of the dwelling to the west.  The setback between the ground and first floor level serves to minimise the visual bulk of the building to the street, as does the predominant hipped roof forms to the street.  The front presentation of the proposed new building has been further articulated by the introduction of a gable feature as a reflection of adjoining houses.

 

·          The parapet roof form of the bagged rear pavilion apparent on the northern elevation is set well back (approximately 18.5m) on the site and will appear as a recessive element to the street. The parapet roof has been introduced to the rear to minimise overshadowing impacts to adjoining neighbours.

 

·          The pattern and location of the fenestration on the northern front elevation has been broken up into vertical elements and is

 

9.2       Privacy

 

The adjoining neighbour to the west (2 Stephen Street) and the neighbour opposite (48 Earl Street) have both raised privacy issues arising from the proposed new dwelling house.

 

The rear yard of 48 Earl Street is located opposite (to the north) of the subject property.  The rear yard contains a swimming pool and is the principal private open space of this dwelling house (see Figure 4 below).  The pool is screened from the subject property by a large street tree. As well, adequate separation is provided between the two properties by the road reserve of Stephen Street.  Accordingly the objection cannot be sustained.

 

 

Figure 4: Pool area 48 Earl Street

looking south to 2A Stephen Street

 

No. 2 Stephen Street has raised privacy issues arising from overlooking from windows, balconies and pool area to their property and also to 4 Stephen Street, although it should be noted that 4 Stephen Street did not raise any issues in these regards.

 

Due to the elevation of the ground floor level above the existing ground line along the majority of the length of the western elevation of the building, ground floor windows will over look a standard 1.8m dividing fence.  This is similar to the existing situation with the current dwelling on the site (see Figures 5 and 6 below).

 

 

Figure 5- Western boundary fence

 with eastern wall of 2 Stephen Street

 

 

Figure 6 – Southern end of existing house

 with lattice/boundary fence on left of photo

 

A lattice screen is fixed to the top of the masonry fence for the predominant part of the length of the western boundary of the site.  Even if the existing lattice screen were to be continued along the top of the masonry fence to minimise overlooking from the ground floor of both 2 and 2A Stephen Street, it would not be a totally satisfactory solution in regard to the kitchen and dining room western windows which are not sufficiently off-set from opposite eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street (i.e. they are offset less than 45 degrees). It is therefore considered appropriate that they should have opaque glass to a height of 1.5m above the ground floor level of the proposed new dwelling house.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

A courtyard central to the western elevation is proposed.  This is raised approximately 1m to 1.5m from existing ground level, such that it will be at the same level as the ground floor level of the proposed house, with a water feature placed on the western boundary, adjacent to the eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street.  Both acoustic and visual privacy have been raised as concerns by 2 Stephen Street in relation to the central courtyard and water feature and are supported given the proximity to bedrooms of 2 Stephen Street.  In order to minimise privacy impacts, the raised courtyard should be separated from the side walkway by a wall located 1m (minimum) from the western boundary.  The stairs along the boundary could then be deleted along with the water feature, which may be relocated onto the eastern side of the new courtyard wall. Appropriate conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

The two windows on the northern end of the eastern elevation of 2 Stephen Street are highlight windows with a raised sill heights (see Figure 5) and overlooking with regard to these windows does not present any significant issues from either the ground or first floor levels of the proposed house.  Overlooking from the front terrace and balcony to either 2 or 4 Stephen Street is not considered significant as privacy screens are proposed to both the eastern and western elevations of the first floor balcony and an appropriate condition of consent is contained in the Recommendation to ensure that they are a minimum height of 1.5m from the balcony floor level.

 

The upstairs western and southern window to the proposed Bedroom 1 as well as the proposed north facing balcony off the bathroom may provide opportunities to look down into the ground level windows on the eastern elevation of 2 Stephen Street.  It is considered that the bathroom balcony should be deleted and the bathroom be enlarged to cover this area to ensure appropriate waterproofing over the ground floor.  A north facing window to the enlarged bathroom could be considered as long as it contains opaque glass.  Additionally, the western and southern windows proposed for Bedroom 1 should be opaque glass to a height of 1.5m from the first floor level to minimise overlooking to the ground floor eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street. Appropriate conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

The windows to the hallway overlooking the internal courtyard are marked on the elevations as “obscure glass” and this is considered acceptable to ensure the privacy of east facing windows opposite in 2 Stephen Street.

 

Overlooking from the rear (southern) first floor windows and first floor balcony is not considered to warrant any major change to their design, given that the windows open into bedroom and the minimal depth of the balcony (approximately 1m) will hinder its use as an entertaining area.  As well, the balcony is proposed to have external shutters. It should be noted that the two storey “cabana” to the rear of the subject site, which forms part of the property of 2 Stephen Street, already overlooks the rear yard of 2A Stephen Street. Given the highly urban nature of the locality, overlooking cannot be entirely avoided.  It is considered that landscaping along the rear yard (see Section 9.4 of report) will minimise the two way overlooking to an acceptable level. 

 

It is acknowledged that one of the issues of concern raised by 2 Stephen Street is that privacy screens are removable and as such an appropriate condition of consent is included within the Recommendation of the report to ensure that they remain in situ.

 

The rear yard of the property has an area of lawn in its south-eastern corner (see Figures 7 and 8 below) raised above the general level of the rear yard.  It is proposed to locate a lap pool, spa and deck raised between approximately 90mm to 310mm above the already raised level.  While this does not raise significant overlooking issues to the rear due to the height of the rear masonry fence and lattice screening, it is considered that elevated level in relation to the private open space of the adjoining properties to the east and west are not desirable.  As such, it is considered that the pool and spa surrounds, as well as the proposed deck should be lowered to the proposed terrace level (i.e. a reduction of 1m approximately), with the proposed deck replaced by permeable pavers.

 

Location of air conditioning condenser units have not been detailed on the amended plans.  Accordingly appropriate conditions of consent have been included within the Recommendation to ensure that they will not be visible from the street and will not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997.

 

 

Figure 7 – Rear yard

with cabana of 2 Stephen Street

 

 

Figure 8- Raised lawn area in existing rear yard

 

9.3       Overshadowing

 

The immediately adjacent properties to both the east and west have raised concerns regarding the level of overshadowing from the proposed development, particularly to the rear yards of both properties.   In addition, No. 4 Stephen Street also raises issues regarding loss of light to the western windows, being the hall way, kitchen and laundry, while No. 2 Stephen Street considers that the loss of light to their second and third bedrooms will make them colder and reduce the energy efficiency of their house.

 

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that there will be an increase in the extent of the shadow cast when compared to the existing dwelling house on the site, however the amended proposal is considered to meet the solar access requirements as set out in the preferred solutions of the DCP.  In this regard, the proposal does not reduce either the amount of morning sunlight currently available to the private open space of 4 Stephen Street, nor the currently available afternoon sunlight to 2 Stephen Street.  The proposal impacts predominantly on bedroom windows of 2 Stephen Street and as identified in the submission the hall, kitchen and laundry windows of 4 Stephen Street, not north facing living area windows.  Accordingly the objections relating to the shadow impacts of the proposed development are not sustainable. 

 

9.4       Landscaping

 

The proposal provides 45.6% of the total site area as landscaped open space, with private open space provided by way of a rear yard, with minimum dimensions and area in accordance with the preferred solutions for private open space as contained in the DCP.  The applicant has provided a preliminary landscaping plan that indicates that privacy hedging is to be provided to the rear and side boundaries of the rear yard in planter beds of minimal width (600mm).  While this may alleviate to a certain extent, the privacy impacts associated with an elevated pool, spa and deck in the rear yard, it is considered that a more sustainable approach is to lower the level of the pool to the same level as the under cover rear terrace, as previously discussed and increase the width of the garden beds in the rear yard to a clear width of 1m.  Additionally, by removing the deck and incorporating permeable paving in the open space of the rear yard, the amount of permeable open space deficient in the proposal before Council (13.6%) will be maintained to an acceptable level, in accordance with the preferred solutions. Appropriate conditions of consent for suitable landscape plans to be provided with the construction certificate application are contained within the Recommendation. 

 

9.5       Floor space

 

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies to the site.  The amended proposal has a FSR of 0.61:1.  This represents a variation of 4.5m2 approximately to the preferred solution.  This variation is minor and is considered acceptable as compliance with the preferred solution would not significantly alter the bulk or scale of the proposal.  The impact on the streetscape and neighbours are considered acceptable, subject to conditions as detailed previously in the report.

 

9.6       Height

 

The amended proposal seeks a variation to the maximum permissible wall height of 400mm maximum.  The variation sought relates predominantly to the parapet roof (approximately 500mm) included in the external wall height calculation.   The parapet roof is located to the rear of the main hipped roof presented to the street.  Compliance with the preferred solution for external wall height (7m) may be achieved with a hipped roof as originally proposed to the rear of the proposed hipped roof at the street front of the dwelling house, however, this presents a bulkier roof form and would increase shadows at 9.00am and 3.00pm to adjacent properties to the east and west.  Accordingly the variation to the preferred solutions in relation to external wall height is considered acceptable.

 

9.7       Setbacks

 

The amended proposal seeks variations to the preferred solutions for the first floor setbacks to both the eastern and western side boundaries for the dwelling house and the western and front boundary setback for the double garage.

 

The alignment of the double garage to the front boundary has previously been discussed in the report and is considered acceptable in the circumstances.  The alignment of the western wall of the garage/terrace area with the western boundary is also considered acceptable as it abuts the garage of 2 Stephen Street, which is similarly built to the boundary.  A planter box with a clear width is proposed along the western edge of the terrace above the garage, which will soften the junction between the two structures.  It is considered however, that the width of the planter should be increased such that the eastern edge of the planter is in alignment with the western wall of the proposed dwelling house.  This will help minimise any overlooking from the terrace back to the south between 2 and 2A Stephen Street, as well as minimise the view to the street of the bagged rear pavilion, while not significantly decreasing the size of the terrace area over the garage area. An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

The variation sought to the preferred solutions for the first floor eastern setback relates to the wall of Bedroom 4 that projects 300mm beyond the general alignment of the first floor wall.  This wall contains a window along its entire eastern elevation.  It is considered that this section of wall can achieve compliance without significantly compromising the useability of the fourth bedroom.  Further, the length of window to this room could be reduced by half from its southern end to provide an adequate off-set to the kitchen window of 4 Stephen Street. An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

The variation sought to the preferred solutions for the first floor western setback relates to the rear (southern most) section of western wall.  This is considered acceptable given that the bulk of the building on the western side has been alleviated considerably by the proposed courtyard centrally located along this elevation.  Additionally the windows in this section of wall both have raised sill heights (approximately 1.7m from the level of the first floor) and will not adversely affect the privacy of 2 Stephen Street.

 

9.8       Fences

 

The front of the proposed double garage with the wrought iron balustrade to the terrace above presents as the front fence for approximately two thirds of the front boundary.  This has been previously discussed in the report and represents a reduction in length compared to the length of the existing garage located on the front boundary (1.4m approximately).  Although this is not considered an ideal solution, it is acceptable in the circumstances.  The remaining one third of the front boundary is proposed to be fenced with an open metal fence consistent with the balustrade to the top of the terrace over the garage, with some landscaping introduced immediately behind within the property. Along with the stone cladding to the garage it is considered to be an improvement to the existing situation and therefore acceptable. Conditions requiring details of materials, finishes and colours are contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

9.9       Glazed roofing

 

Concerns have been raised that the glazed roofing to the rear ground floor terrace will cause a nuisance by way of reflection and will be unsafe if flying branches caused by strong winds hit it.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained in the Recommendation of the report requiring the glass to be toughened glass and non reflective.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal has been amended satisfactorily by increasing the ground and first floor setbacks to the Stephen Street, reducing the bulk of the rear roof form (and thereby minimising overshadowing to adjacent properties), the introduction of privacy screening to front and rear balconies, decreasing the overall length of the garages along the front boundary, introducing a gable element to the street similar to the roof forms of the immediately adjacent properties to the east and west and the proposed use of face brickwork to the front of the dwelling house. Council’s Heritage Planner considers that the amended proposal generally address the heritage concerns raised by a new infill development, given the site constraints, and that the form and massing will not detract from the streetscape of the North Randwick Conservation Area.

 

The amended proposal only introduces minor variations to the preferred solutions for floor space, external wall height and setback requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and the associated impacts are considered acceptable subject to conditions of consent as contained with the Recommendation below.  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council, as the responsible authority, grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 290/03/GA for demolition of existing house and structures and construction of a new dwelling house, double garage and swimming pool at 2A Stephen Street, Randwick, subject to the following deferred commencement conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent is not to operate until the following material has been submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development:

 

1          The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e.- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development. 

 

2          The awning over the rear ground floor terrace shall be toughened glass to minimise safety hazards and the reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 per cent in order to minimise glare to adjoining properties.  The details and samples of the glass to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

3          Details of the design, height, materials and structure of the front fence and gates to are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.  Fencing and gates are to be compatible with the architectural style of the building and streetscape.

 

4          Details of the design and finish of the proposed garage doors are to be submitted for approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

B.        Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Community Development, development consent is granted under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 290/03/GA for demolition of existing house and structures and construction of a new dwelling house, double garage and swimming pool at 2A Stephen Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered with Job No. 1516-03 and drawing numbers 01C-04C with amendment date 29 August, 2003 and received by Council on 12 September, 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:

 

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 kitchen and dining room western windows shall have opaque glass to a height of 1.5m above the ground floor level to minimise privacy impacts to 2 Stephen Street.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

3.         The stairs along the western boundary of the site and the water feature on the western boundary shall be deleted and a 1.8m masonry wall shall be located on the western side of the courtyard 1m (minimum) from the western boundary.  This condition has been imposed to minimise privacy impacts to 2 Stephen Street.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

4.         Privacy screening to front and rear balconies shall be to a minimum height of 1.5m from the balcony floor level.  Details demonstrating compliance shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

                                           

5.         The northern balcony located off the bathroom balcony shall be deleted and a roof shall be located over the kitchen below.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

6.         The corner western and southern windows of Bedroom 1 shall be opaque glass to a height of 1.5m from the first floor level to minimise overlooking to the ground floor eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

7.         The pool and spa surrounds shall be the same RL as the proposed rear terrace level (RL 60.50), with the deck replaced by permeable pavers at the same level to minimise overlooking to adjoining properties.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

8.         The first floor eastern wall of Bedroom 4 shall be in alignment of the first floor eastern wall of Bedroom 3, with the length of the window to Bedroom 4 reduced to 1.6m (maximum) from the northern end of Bedroom 4 to minimise privacy impacts to 4 Stephen Street and improve the streetscape appearance of the new building.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

9.         Demolition materials shall be recycled wherever practicable to promote environmental sustainability.

 

10.       Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

11.       The fence on the street alignment and on the side boundaries in front of the building line are to be a maximum height of 1.8m and designed so that the upper two thirds are at least 50% open at any point, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining residential development and the streetscape.  Details demonstrating compliance shall be submitted prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

12.       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.

 

13.       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.

 

14.       All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rainwater heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

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

 

16.       A single common television aerial, and/or satellite dish (having a maximum diameter of 700mm and not located on the front or street elevation of the building) is to be installed to serve the development.

 

17.       All existing outbuildings on the site must be demolished and removed in conjunction with the development.

 

18.       Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

19.       Landscaping shall be provided to the site to reduce the impact of the development upon the amenity of the environment and a landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

20.       The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

21.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area.

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

22.       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 noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

23.       A rainwater tank shall be provided at ground level for the collection and reuse of roof water designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy and shall be connected for the internal purpose of toilet flushing and clothes washing (cold water only) and also allow for other authorised uses such as landscape watering.  The rainwater tanks shall be located at the rear of the premises only, have a maximum height of 2.4m above ground level, have a maximum diameter or width of 2.4m and be located not less than 500mm from a side or rear boundary.  Overflow shall be directed to Council’s approved Stormwater System or a suitable absorption area (design by professional engineer).  Details of the location of the pump, and colour of the tank, structural engineer’s specifications for installation and plumbing shall be provided to the Director Planning & Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

24.       Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

25.       External timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturers details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be noted in the construction certificate application.

 

26.       The hot water system installed in the development must achieve a minimum greenhouse score of 3.5 as detailed SEDA’s Energy Smart Homes Policy.  Any electric clothes dryers to be provided in the development must also have a minimum 2 star energy rating.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

27.       The operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

In this regard, the operation of the premises shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as a LAeq, 15 min descriptor and adjusted in accordance with NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate drainage is provided from the premises and to maintain adequate levels of health and amenity in the locality:

 

28.       Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or a suitably designed absorption pit and details are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

Absorption pits or soaker wells must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development prior to commencement of works.

 

29.       The finished ground levels outside of the building are required to be not less than:

 

·        150mm below the internal floor level of the building, or,

·        100mm below the internal floor level of the building in sandy, well drained areas, or,

·        50mm below the internal floor level of the building where an external paved area or slab is provided adjacent to the building, which is graded not less than 50mm over the first 1m away from the building,

 

Details of stormwater drainage are to be provided in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

30.       External paths and ground surfaces are to be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises in such a manner so as not to result in the entry of water into a building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

31.       The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

32.       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.

 

33.       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.

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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 / Notice of Intention to commence building work.

 

36.       The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

37.       Driven type piles/shoring must not be provided unless a geotechnical engineer’s report is submitted to the certifying authority, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, which demonstrates that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

Any practices or recommendations specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises or land must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

38.       The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises including (a public roadway or public place) must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises and (where applicable) details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

 

39.       A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures (i.e. including dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, verandahs, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon:

 

a)         all of the premises adjoining the subject site to the east (4 Stephen Street and the west/rear (2 Stephen Street).

 

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status and condition of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the above stated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

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:

 

40.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in force at 1 July, 1993.

 

41.       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.

 

42.       The building works are to be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by 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 details of compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical phase inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon, shall be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate or, upon finalisation of works if no occupation certificate is issued.

 

43.       All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

44.       If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

·          preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·          if necessary, underpin and support the building and excavation in an approved manner; and

·          at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), give notice of the intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining land. Particulars of the excavation are to be provided to the owner of the adjoining land and also the owner of the land where the building is being erected or demolished.

 

45.       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 first completed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete), showing the area of land, building and garages and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building and garages are being construction at the approved levels.

 

b)       Prior to the pouring of concrete for the swimming pool [i.e. specified floor levels) showing the land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the pool is being constructed at the approved levels and in the correct location as conditioned by this consent.

 

c)       On completion of the erection of the building and pool showing the area of the land, the position of the building, garages and pool and boundary setbacks and verifying the building, garages and pool have been constructed at the approved levels.

 

46.       In addition to the matters contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the following matters are to be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development consent, prior to the occupation of the building:

 

b)         car parking and vehicular access

c)         landscaping

d)         stormwater drainage

e)         external finishes and materials

f)          swimming pool safety fencing/barriers and acoustic enclosure to pool

 

47.       Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

48.       All building, demolition and associated site 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.

 

49.       The use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum), Monday to Friday inclusive and from 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturday, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

50.       Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

51.       A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations.

 

52.       Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

53.       Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like

 

54.       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 at all times.

 

55.       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.

 

56.       Any building/demolition works involving asbestos cement are to be carried out in accordance with the Work Cover New South Wales “Guidelines for Practices Involving Asbestos Cement in Buildings”.

 

57.       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.

 

58.       Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line 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, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

59.       A warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed in a prominent position on the building site, visible to both the public and site workers.  The sign must be displayed throughout the construction period.  Copies of a suitable warning sign are available at Council’s Customer Service Centre for a nominal fee.

 

60.       Public safety must be maintained at all times and 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, safe and be constructed in a professional 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.

 

61.       A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·        location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·        location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·        location of building materials for construction;

·        provisions for public safety;

·        dust control measures;

·        site access location and construction

·        details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·        protective measures for tree preservation;

·        provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·        location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·        details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·        construction noise and vibration management.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain adequate levels of public health and safety.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

62.       Any building/demolition works involving asbestos cement are to be carried out in accordance with the Work Cover New South Wales “Guidelines for Practices Involving Asbestos Cement in Buildings”.

 

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

 

63.       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.

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

64.       Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926-1986.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

A sign shall be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the document entitled “Policy Statement No.9.4.1: Guidelines for the Preparation of Posters on Resuscitation”, published in 1985 by the Australian Resuscitation Council and the sign must bear a notice that contains the words “YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS SWIMMING POOL”, together with details of resuscitation techniques (for adults, children and infants) set out in accordance with the document entitled “Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation” published by the Australian Resuscitation Council.

 

65.       Swimming pools are to be designed and installed in accordance with the following general requirements:-

 

·        Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

·        All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises.

 

·        Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection and occupational health and safety.

 

66.       All hazardous or intractable wastes and materials (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environmental Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001; and

·        The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines

 

67.       Prior to demolition of any building constructed before 1970, the person acting on this consent shall submit a Work Plan prepared in accordance with Australian Standards AS260-2001, Demolition of Structures by a suitably qualified person.  The Work Plan shall outline the identification of any hazardous materials, including materials containing asbestos and surfaces coated with lead paint and the plan should detail the method of demolition, the precautions to be employed to ensure public safety and to minimise any dust nuisance and methods of disposal of any hazardous materials.  A copy of the work plan is to be forwarded to the Council prior to commencing such works.

 

68.       The removal, cleaning and disposal of any lead-based paints must be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures, The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the requirements and guidelines of the Environmental Protection Authority.

 

69.       All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of WorkCover NSW.

 

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

 

70.       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)         $1000.00         -           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.

 

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

 

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

 

a)         Construct concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

b)         Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

72.       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.

 

  1. 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.

 

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

 

74.       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 match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

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

 

75.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

76.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $277 calculated at $27.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

77.       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.

 

78.       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.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

79.       Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to a 5 metre square base infiltration area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit to drain to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

The location and details of the proposed internal stormwater pipelines, silt arrestor pit and the infiltration area shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

Notes:

 

a.         The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed:-

 

i.          within the site at or near the street boundary.

ii.          with a child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system (e.g. spring loaded jay-bolt).

iii.         with a minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (preferably located in the walls of the pit at the floor level) and with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located around the weep holes.

iv.         with the pit floor being a minimum 300mm below the invert level of the outlet pipelines.

v.         with a galvanised heavy duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipes draining to the infiltration pit and the kerb. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

b.         The infiltration/rubble pit shall:-

     

i.          have a minimum 300 mm of soil cover (600 mm where the pit is located under a garden/landscaping area).

ii.          be located a minimum of 3.0 metres from the dwelling or other structure (closer if a structural engineer certifies that the infiltration area will not adversely affect the structure) and 2.1 metres from the adjacent side or rear boundaries.

iii.         be constructed with a minimum 200 mm thick layer of 20 mm basalt/blue metal (or similar) that is wrapped in a suitable geotextile material covering with a high filtration rating (Geofabrics Bidim "A" range of filtration fabrics or equivalent). A suitable means of dispersing the stormwater over the area of infiltration is to be constructed.

Note:  other equivalent methods of infiltration may be adopted.

iv.   have a minimum base area of  5.0 square metres (m2).

 

The outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the infiltration area shall be located at least 50 mm below the outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the kerb and gutter.

 

c.         The requirement for an infiltration/rubble pit will not be enforced should the underground soil conditions preclude the construction of the infiltration pit (eg rock is located within 300 mm of the base of the infiltration area). If the infiltration/rubble pit is not constructed then all site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter via a sediment/silt arrestor pit (as detailed in note a. above).

 

All works shall be to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Note:

 

Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit can be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

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

 

80.       Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties. A landscape plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect or horticulturalist shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued.   The landscaping plan shall reflect the amended architectural plans as conditioned by this consent and shall include the following:-

 

1.         Landscaping beds with a minimum clear width of 1m along the east and west boundaries of the rear yard from the southern end of the rear terrace to the rear southern boundary and along the length of the (rear) southern boundary.

 

2.         A planter box with a width of 1.5m from the western boundary of the garage roof with appropriate screening species to soften the junction between the garages at 2 and 2a Stephen Street and minimise overlooking.

 

3.         A planting schedule that utilises predominantly local indigenous species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions, their mature heights, supply size and planting details.

 

4.         An area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting.

 

5.         Porous paving in all pathways, wherever practicable, and in the rear yard to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater.

 

81.       The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

In order to ensure a satisfactory level of privacy and screening between adjacent properties, a screen/hedge attaining a minimum height at maturity of 3 metres is to be provided along the southern, western and eastern sides of the rear yard, as has been shown on the plans provided.

 

82.       To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all the landscaped areas. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways.

 

Details of the automatic irrigation system shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans and specifications. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards.

 

83.       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 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicants expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

84.       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.

 

85.       In order to visually 'soften' the expanses of hard pavement, brick unit pavers, stenciled concrete (or similar) shall be used throughout the driveway areas on the site. Such details shall be shown on the detailed engineering documentation and shall include all structural design details including pavement/subgrade thickness.

 

Such details shall be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

86.       All detention tanks and stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping on top of these services as stipulated by these conditions of development consent.

 

All stormwater documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the top of the detention tanks and stormwater infiltration devices being 600mm below the finished ground level of the landscaped areas.

 

87.       The applicant shall be required to ensure the retention and long term health of all trees located on adjoining properties adjacent to the proposed development. As a general guide there shall be minimal excavation or root pruning within the driplines of the subject trees.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specifications must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

A2       The applicant is advised that compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia may necessitate variations to the development consent plans.  In this regard, any variations which alter the configuration, size, floor layout or design of the building, may necessitate an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application), and Council’s Building Surveyor or an Accredited Certifier should be consulted prior to the lodgement of an application for a Construction Certificate.

 

A3.      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 plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

TOWN PLANNER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 100/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

2-4 Frances Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

1 December, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1230/01/GE

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for a Section 96 modification to Development Application No 1230/01 to increase the depth of the balconies to the northern elevation of the rear building.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 27 November, 2003

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

27 November, 2003

FILE NO:

D1230/2001/GE

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification to increase the depth of balconies to the northern elevation of the rear building.

PROPERTY:

 2-4 Frances St Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 SPD Town Planners

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as Council determined the original application.

 

The primary issue in the assessment of the application is the potential privacy impacts from the increase in balcony areas to the northern elevation. Amended plans were submitted based on correspondence between the assessing officer and the applicant in relation to privacy impacts, reducing the extent of the increase in balcony area. It is considered that this amendment satisfies all amenity concerns raised in submissions objecting to the proposal.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal as originally submitted was for a Section 96 modification to the approved plans to increase the northern balcony areas for the ground, first and second floor units by a maximum of approximately 1000mm. The modification also sought to delete condition 82, to allow for the early release of a strata plan of subdivision.

 

The assessing officer requested a reduction in the increase of the balcony areas so that overlooking would be minimised to neighbouring properties. Additionally, the component of the application relating to deletion of Condition No. 82 was withdrawn by the applicant, as Council is unable to release a strata plan prior to the works having being completed in accordance with the development consent.

 

The assessment will be undertaken on the amended plans submitted 28/11/03.

 

Amended balcony enlargement

 

To the ground floor (elevated over podium) the only increase is to the easterly unit no. 13 where the balcony is to be increased by 600mm. To the first floor, the balcony areas to be extended are unit 15 by 500mm. Unit 16 and 17 are to be increased by a further 1m. Unit 18 is to be extended consistent with Unit 13, by 500mm. To the second floor, units 20 and 21 are retaining their approved dimensions. Unit 22 is to be increased as per units 13 and 18 by 500mm.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The rear of the subject site which is the subject of this consent is predominantly vacant with site preparation being undertaken for the approved building. Works have commenced on the two dwellings to the front of the site.

 

The site is located on the northern side of Frances St between the intersecting streets of Church and Prince. The site has a total area of 1619.3sqm with a frontage of 30.085m.

 

Two arts and crafts architectural period houses currently occupy the site which are being retained and altered as part of the consent.

 

The site is bounded by predominantly three and four storey residential flat buildings. North of No. 2 Frances St is an 18 dwelling multi unit development, which has balconies oriented to the south and communal recreation space.  North of No. 4 Frances St is a detached dwelling house with an extensive rear yard.

 

To the east of the site is a four storey multi unit development that has some living room windows oriented towards the subject site however these are predominantly concealed by window furnishings to avoid the heat of the western sun. To the west of the site are two 1930s multi unit developments that have their common recreation areas and habitable room windows oriented towards the subject site.

                                      

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Consent was issued at a full Council meeting on the 10 September 2002. Subsequent to this approval two other Section 96 applications have been lodged. Section 96 ‘A sought to delete conditions 53 and 55 which related to the dimensions of the driveway entry point, as the conditioned dimensions would result in demolition of a significant sandstone wall the conditions were deleted, this was undertaken under delegated authority on the 25 June 2003.

 

Section 96 ‘B’ related to deletion of condition No. 54, which specified a designated work zone, as a result of discussions with the assessing officer this application was withdrawn on the 23 July 2003.

 

Section 96 ‘C’ the subject of this report, was lodged with Council on the 18 September 2003, amended plans were requested to satisfy Council concerns for overlooking and were submitted on the 28 November 2003.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Ten objections were received as a result of the notification period. These were received from:

 

B Saunders

29 Prince St

 

N Hall

63/6-8 Frances St

 

D McDonald

19/30 Cowper St

 

V Baker

15/30 Cowper St

 

IF Pitkin

5/30 Cowper St

 

B F Wheeler

8/30 Cowper St

 

CR Moody

10/30 Cowper St

 

W McCullough

16/30 Cowper St

 

P Fitzgerald

12/30 Cowper St

 

JJ & AC Brophy

32 Cowper St

 

The points of objection were:

 

·          Noise and public nuisance as a result of the increased deck area

·          Any early release of the strata plan would not be appropriate as it would mean there would be no way of regulating compliance with the consent

·          The bulk of the building will increase

·          Overlooking into Nos 30 and 32 Cowper St

·          The increased depth will allow the balconies to be used for entertainment purposes.

·          To avoid increase in depth the condition restricting enclosure should be reinforced.

·          Reduction in setback to northern boundary does not comply with Council’s requirements

·          Why are the changes sought now not as part of the original DA?

·          Where are the trees that were meant to be planted will it still be possible to plant the trees with an encroachment towards our boundary?

 

Comment on objections

 

Noise and public nuisance as a result of the increased deck area

 

Comment

 

The assessing officer considered the extent of balcony increase to be excessive and likely to result in increased amenity impacts. A reduced balcony design was submitted as amended plans, which were not notified as the proposal is of lesser impact. It is considered that this reduced increase in some balcony areas as described under the proposal section of this report will reduce the amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Any early release of the strata plan would not be appropriate as it would mean there would be no way of regulating compliance with the consent

 

Comment

 

Assessing and technical officer’s identified this issue and a recent amendment to the conveyancing Act that restricts early release, as such this component of the application has been withdrawn.

 

The bulk of the building will increase

 

Comment

 

The additional depth to the balconies is minimally and not visually dominant therefore will not create any additional bulk.

 

Overlooking into Nos 30 and 32 Cowper St

 

Comment

 

Amenity concerns were raised for 30 Cowper St, this was the reason for the amended plans. The reduced balcony areas represents a minimal increase from what was approved and is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the level of privacy enjoyed.

 

The increased depth will allow the balconies to be used for entertainment purposes.

 

Comment

 

The amended deck depths will allow for more reasonable use of the balconies so that they will function as recreation areas however intensive entertainment areas are unlikely with most of the balconies being accessed from bedroom areas.

 

To avoid increase in depth the condition restricting enclosure should be reinforced.

 

Comment

 

In the original consent a condition restricting enclosure of balcony areas was included, as the applicant is not seeking its deletion the condition still applies.

 

Reduction in setback to northern boundary does not comply with Council’s requirements

 

Comment

 

The reduced rear setback associated with the increase in balcony depth does not result in significant amenity impacts and meets the performance requirements of the DCP-Multi unit housing

 

Why are the changes sought now not as part of the original DA?

 

Comment

 

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act an applicant is able to undertake modifications to their approved plans provided the development remains substantially the same. The changes sought are minor and whilst Council does not need to speculate as to the reasons for an application being lodged, retrospective design improvements are common.

 

Where are the trees that were meant to be planted will it still be possible to plant the trees with an encroachment towards our boundary?

 

Comment

 

Landscaping is undertaken at the final stage of a development, once the building has been completed. This application does not seek to vary the original conditions imposed relating to landscaping therefore these conditions still remain and need to be complied with. The proposed increase to balcony areas does not change the building footprint such that the same amount of available deep soil for planting remains.

 

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

 

A section 96 application has been received to modify development consent to convert the existing dwellings on-site to 8 units as well as construction of a multi-unit housing building at the rear of the site now containing 14 units with basement parking and strata subdivision of the development into 22 lots at the above site.

 

The application seeks to modify development consent 1230/2003 in the following manner:

 

·          Amend condition 1 to refer to new drawings which increase the depth of all balconies on the northern elevation by approximately 950 mm; and

 

·          Amend condition 82 to permit the release of the strata subdivision once the building is at a stage where the internal and external structure if the building have been clearly defined (rather than when all conditions of development consent have been satisfied).

 

Proposed amendments to Condition 1

 

Amending condition 1 as detailed above will not affect any of the AIS Department conditions issued previously.

 

 

Proposed amendments to Condition 82

 

The AIS Department notes that Schedule 3 of the Building Legislation Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act 2002 amends the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2000 by introducing clauses 2 and 3 to Schedule 2 of the Regulation (Refer to attachment). The effect of the new legislation is that the vendor must provide a final occupation certificate under section 109M of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 at least 14 days before settlement.

 

It is understood that the applicant seeks to modify condition 82 to facilitate the early release of the strata plans and subsequent financing of final works by the sale of the units. Given that the new amendments to Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Act 2000, will not permit settlement until 14 days after the final occupation certificate has been issued, it appears that the proposed amendments to condition 82 may not actually achieve the desired outcome of the applicant.

 

Further to the above, it is noted that the AIS Department does not support the strata plans being released until all works are completed, as if there is a loop hole in the legislation that would permit settlement prior to a final occupation certificate being issued, any difficulties such as the builders/developers defaulting prior to all works being completed, may result in major problems if the units have already been settled on.

 

Given the above, the AIS department objects to the proposed changes to condition 82.

 

Should the EPCD Department consider approving the proposed modifications to condition 82, it is recommended that legal advice be sought.

 

As a result of these comments the component of the Section 96 application relating to deletion of condition No. 82 was withdrawn.

 

7.    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 & Multi Unit Housing DCP

 

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

 

The proposed modifications to the approved plans do not seek to vary any of the development standards contained in the LEP 1998 or Multi Unit Housing DCP.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1       Substantially the same

 

The proposed works seek a minor extension to the rear balconies of the northern elevation. These works do not vary the proposal in any substantial way and are considered to be consistent with the development proposal as originally sought.

 

8.2  Consideration of submissions

 

This has been assessed under the Notification section of this report.

 

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.

 

Privacy

 

The increase in the balcony areas is relatively minor. The most extensive increase is to units 16 and 17, which will result in a maximum balcony depth of 2400mm. This will be a total area of 13.5sqm, which is a reasonable area for a 50sqm unit. It should be noted that half of this area is accessed and adjacent to a bedroom such that the usability of the area is reduced to approximately 6sqm, which is unlikely to serve as an intensively used entertainment area. Similarly, the smaller increases associated with the other balconies, will serve to provide a more reasonable area but will not create excessive areas that allow for intensive recreational use.

 

The increased balcony areas will be sufficiently concealed and screened from adjoining properties by the approved screen landscaping.

 

Bulk and scale

 

The building footprint is not being varied by this proposal and the envelope will be only minimally extended where balcony areas will be increase by a maximum of 1000mm. This slight increase will not be noticeable from adjoining properties and as such will not increase the apparent bulk of the development.

 

Urban design and built form

 

The building is not visible from the street and the northern elevation where the modification is sought can only be viewed from the rear of adjoining properties. It is considered that the minimal increase in balcony area will not detract from the design and appearance of this elevation as the minor increase is within the building footprint not protruding beyond the existing line of the building and retains the same proportions and lines as originally approved.

 

The increase is slight an unlikely to be noticeable from the originally approved built form.

 

Setbacks

 

The proposed building footprint is not being varied by the increase in balcony areas however the setback for the northern elevation is being varied at its upper levels.

 

The DCP Multi Unit Housing specifies that the rear building alignment shall have an average setback of 8m with no part encroaching closer than 6m. The proposed increase in balcony depths will result in an encroachment towards the northern boundary for this elevation of a maximum of 1000mm however this is still within the approved building’s footprint. The revised setbacks for the ground, first and second floors will result in a more articulated built form but for the most part will not be readily apparent. This revised building alignment does not affect landscaping or amenity and meets the performance requirements of the DCP- Multi Unit Housing.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification is minor in scale and will not unreasonably affect the amenity of adjoining properties. The resultant balcony areas would be adequately screened by the proposed landscaping to the rear of the development. The modification is substantially the same as the development proposal originally sought and does not seek to vary any of the relevant development standards applicable to the site.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 1230/01 on property 2-4 Frances St Randwick in the following manner:

 

·      Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01, DA02 & DA05 issue G, DA03 issue H, DA04 issue I, DA06 & DA08 issue F, DA07 issue E DA12 issue B dated Sept 2001 and submitted to Council by 19 July 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans dated Nov 2003 and received by Council on 28 November 2003, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

·      Add condition No. 104

 

104.   The northern balcony to Unit No. 15 shall have a maximum depth of 1900mm to ensure privacy impacts are minimised to neighbouring properties.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Architectural Plans

………………………………

………………………………

 

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 101/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

96-98 St Pauls Street Randwick

 

 

DATE:

1 December, 2003

FILE NO:

865/2003

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for the Development Assessment No 865/2003 for the demolition of existing motel and construction of a 4-5 storey multi-unit housing development containing 23 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 24 November, 2003

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

24 November, 2003

FILE NO:

DA 0865/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing motel and construction of a 4-5 storey multi-unit housing development containing 23 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking

PROPERTY:

 96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 CSA Architects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Freda Backes, Murray Matson, Bruce Notley-Smith. The stated cost of works is $ 4.8m.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing buildings on the site, excavate and construct a new multi-unit housing development comprising 23 units and parking over two basement levels on the site at 96-98 St Pauls Street in Randwick. The use of land for multi-unit housing is prohibited in the 2(a) Zone, and the applicant seeks to rely upon existing use rights and the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which facilitate a non-conforming use to another non-comforming use with consent. The applicant has not provided the requisite evidence to discharge the onus of proof it bears in establishing an entitlement to existing use rights.

 

The applicant has lodged appeal proceedings with the Land and Environment Court on the grounds of deemed refusal (Proceedings No. 11418 of 2003). A callover date has been set for 23 December, 2003.

 

The proposal is considered to be excessive in height, bulk and scale and will be intrusive when viewed from the street and the surronding district. The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing motel buildings, ranging in height from 1-3 storeys, swimming pool and ancillary outbuildings on the site and construct a new four storey residential flat building comprising 23 units. 7 x 1 bedroom, 7 x 2 bedroom and 8 x 3 bedroom units and 1 x 4 bedroom unit are proposed. Excavation to a depth of 11 metres is required to accommodate two basement parking levels with parking for 34 cars. One hardstand space is proposed in the front setback, resulting in a total parking provision of 35 spaces.

 

The building is proposed as a single mass, with units being staggered across the site from the lower, western corner to the upper, eastern corner of the site. The building averages a bulk of 4 storeys, however the prominence of the site from surrounding areas results in the four storey height of the building appearing as 6 storeys from certain vantages (see attached photomontage).

 

Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is proposed from St Pauls Street with secondary pedestrian access provided from Howard Street via an existing access handle.

 

The applicant also proposes new landscaping to the site, including a communal swimming pool and private terraced gardens to lower level units.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the southern side of St Paul’s Street, two allotments to the west of the intersection of St Paul’s Street and Dudley Street in Randwick. The site is an irregular parcel with a main frontage to St Pauls Street of approximately 31.5 metres. An access handle to the rear of the site joins Howard Street with a frontage of 6.38m. The rear boundary of the site adjoins Howard Place (a private road) and measures 69.525 metres. The eastern and western boundaries of the site measure 58.65 and 54.24 metres, respectively. The area of the site is 2,283.8m2, including the access handle to Howard Street (approximately 196m2). The site is a north facing slope (having a fall south to north of approximately 14m) and its elevation gives excellent opportunities for coastal and district views.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The site is currently occupied by three interconnected buildings that form an ‘L’ and leave a north facing area of open space that incorporates a swimming pool and landscaping. The buildings are generally 3 storeys with the exception of the original 2 storey dwelling house that connects later brick additions from the 1960s. To the rear of the site is an open-air hardstand area used for parking that is accessed from Howard Street. Around the hardstand area is a single storey rendered garage and metal sheds. Six open air parking spaces are also provided to the front of the site with access from St. Paul’s Street.

 

St Pauls Street represents the boundary between a large 2(a) zone that extends south to Maroubra. The northern side of St Pauls Street (across from the subject site) and eastern side of Dudley Street (to the east) form part of a 2(c) zone. The site is located two allotments to the west of The Spot Heritage Conservation Area and 100m from the heritage items at 16-22 Dudley Street (Dudley Street Heritage Conservation Area).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Development in the locality is comprised of a variety of residential uses. Adjoining the site to the west of the site is a 1-2 storey dwelling house, 94 St Pauls Street. Adjacent the site to east is a two storey dwelling (14C Dudley Street) and a 2–3 storey multi-unit housing development (two separate buildings) known as 14E Dudley Street. 86 Howard Street (a single storey dwelling) adjoins the access handle to Howard Street on its northern side. Directly to the south (rear) across Howard Place is a single storey detached dwelling (4 Howard Place) and a pair of semi-detached dwellings (2A&B and 3 Howard Place). On the corner of Howard Place and Howard Street (to the southeast of the site) is a three storey block of flats (59 Howard Street). To the southwest of the site is a two storey residential flat building, 3 Hardiman Avenue. The residential flat buildings in the area predate the 2(a) zoning. Despite their non-conforming use, these buildings are representative of the predominantly 2-3 storey scale in the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Across St Pauls Street to the north is a 2(c) zone. This is 60m from the site and obscured by a treed traffic island that separates the intersection of St Pauls Street with Dudley Street. Despite the 2(c) zoning, 1-2 storey dwelling houses currently exist directly opposite the site across St Pauls Street.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held between the applicant and Council on 19 June, 2003. At this meeting issues were identified with the development concept and the applicant was advised that the scheme submitted would not be supported by Council. The bulk and scale of the proposal, the number and amenity of the units proposed, streetscape presentation of the building, excessive excavation and poor pedestrian access were listed as major impediments to the proposal.

 

Despite prelodgment advice given by Council officers, the current scheme is similar in density to the scheme presented at the prelodgement meeting (1.47:1). The building form has changed from the pre-DA submission, presenting a single building rather than two wings and changing the layout on the site to a diagonal, staggered form stretching from the northwestern to southeastern corner of the site. This has made some improvement to the amenity of the proposed dwellings. The current scheme represents a reduction in the number of units proposed from 27 to 23, and changes to the articulation, materials and finishes proposed.

 

The pre-lodgement scheme was considered at the July and August meetings of the Design Review Panel. At its July meeting the Panel recommended that the applicant seek specialist urban design advice to improve site planning and design of the proposal. It was noted that there was no site analysis provided and the amenity of units was poor. The outcome of the August Panel meeting was more favourable and the Panel noted that the scheme should be presented for review if formally lodged. Site analysis was still noted as lacking.

 

The Design Review Panel considered the proposal at its November meeting. The Panel were satisfied with the proposal subject to a reduction in height at the rear of the building (from 5 storeys to 4) and removal of a unit (to result in 23 units being proposed. The Panel also considered that the materials and finishes proposed were inconsistent with the surrounding context and should be further considered.

 

In response to this advice, the applicant lodged amended plans on 19 November 2003. These plans show a reduction in the number of units (to 23) and consequent reduction in height of the southern elevation (to 4 storeys). The plans also show the deletion of one parking space to the front of the site to accommodate more landscaping in accordance with the advice of the Design Review Panel (reducing the number of spaces to 35). These plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Land and Environment Court on the grounds of deemed refusal on 21 November, 2003. A callover date has been set for December 23, 2003.

 

b.         HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

The following development applications have previously been lodged for the subject property:-

 

64/01049/BZ

Hostel brick additions

Approved 01/01/1964

65/00232/BZ

Additions

Withdrawn

67/00416/BZ

Car parking area

Approved 01/01/1967

69/00135/BZ

Additions to hostel

Refused 01/01/1969

73/01429/BZ

Alterations to carparking

Approved 01/01/1973

79/00056/DZ

Alterations and additions to existing motel building

Refused 10/07/1979

88/00192/DZ

Alterations and additions to existing motel

Refused 21/11/1998

91/00818/BZ

Fire stairs and doors to motel

Approved 13/04/1992

96/00022/D1

Erect illuminated sign

Approved 29/06/1996

98/00275/CR

Air conditioning units

Refused 04/06/1998

00/00060/JF

Install air-conditioning units, visual screens and noise control barriers to existing motel

Approved 28/01/2000

 

Council’s records do not extend to show any original consent to use the site for the purposes of a motel. The applicant has not addressed the issue of existing use rights in their statement of environmental effects (SEE) and has not provided supporting evidence that the site enjoys the benefits of existing use rights (conferred by continuous use of the premises under a valid consent). Although the supporting information for the proposal is lacking, the 1991 consent (above) indicates the use of the building at that time for a motel and predates the current Randwick LEP (1998) and 2(a) zoning of the site. The site is currently being used as a motel. Existing use rights have not been established in support of this proposal. The lack of supporting information provided with the application has been cited as a reason for refusal.

 

“Existing-use rights” are provided for under s108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The effect of s108 is largely to protect existing non-conforming uses. Clauses 42-46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 allows for change of use and rebuilding of buildings used for existing uses, with Council’s consent.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.         B. Bourke, 3/3 Hardiman Avenue, Randwick

 

§ Height – previously was advised the building would not increase in height beyond the existing, proposal is five metres higher.

§ Proposal of this magnitude will degrade the ambience of the surrounding district

 

2.         B. Bourke, 3/3 Hardiman Avenue, Randwick

 

§ View loss as a result of increased height and increased bulk, compared with existing development on the site.

 

3.         T. Carroll, 1/5 Hardiman Avenue, Randwick

 

§ View loss

§ Will exacerbate local parking issues due to proximity of the site to ‘The Spot’ commercial precinct.

§ Overshadowing during morning periods as a result of height.

§ Overdevelopment

 

4.         L.M Powers, Director of Melsay P/L 13/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

 

§ View loss

§ Overlooking from roof decks to east and west, insufficient details to determine impact

§ Overdevelopment

§ Bulk, density loss of amenity

§ Inappropriate design – industrial aesthetic

§ Will exacerbate existing issues relating to traffic generation and parking

 

5.         A.Bidwell & R.Illidge, 3/5 Hardiman Avenue, Randwick

 

§ View loss

§ Will exacerbate local parking issues due to proximity of the site to ‘The Spot’ commercial precinct.

§ Overshadowing during morning periods as a result of height.

§ Overdevelopment

6.         Body Corporate 2704, 59 Howard Street, Randwick

 

§ Additional floor higher than Esron Motel results in view loss and privacy impacts

 

7.         M.J Kesteven & P Nelson, 14 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Scale, and in particular traffic and parking impacts

§ Parking is insufficient given proximity to The Spot and lack of parking in the neighbourhood

§ Privacy impacts, design shows little regard for neighbourhood amenity

 

8.         V.M Schramm, 28/1-3 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Overdevelopment

 

9.         B & B Goodman, 9 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Parking is insufficient given proximity to The Spot and lack of parking in the neighbourhood, substantial increase in traffic impacts

 

10.       T. Levi, 2 Howard Place, Randwick

 

§ Overdevelopment

§ Overshadowing

§ Loss of breezes and amenity

§ Overlooking

§ Parking impacts

§ At least top two floors should be scaled back and parking increased

 

11.       S. Levi, 4 Howard Place, Randwick

 

§ Excessive height

§ Insufficient parking

§ Overlooking

§ Overshadowing

§ Top two floors should be removed from the building.

§ No fire escapes shown, stormwater retention or carwashing bays

§ Insufficient provision for garbage.

 

12.       T. Clancy, 12/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

 

§ Proposal has increased in size from the prelodgement scheme shown to neighbouring residents

§ Lack of clarity in application, discrepancies in plans and supporting documents

§ Excessive height – higher than existing building

§ Car parking – safety issue due to location of driveway near to the bend in St Pauls Street.

§ Loss of views

§ Excessive density

§ Lack of water conservation due to inclusion of swimming pool, proximity of development to ocean would not result in significant loss of amenity to residents if pool were to be deleted.

 

13.       M. Lennan, 5/11 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Overdevelopment

§ Excessive height is inconsistent with surrounding development

§ Development will exacerbate existing parking problems in the area

 

14.       P. Chilcott, PO Box 172, St Pauls

 

§ Proposal does not comply with Council’s basic guidelines and does not provide SEPP 1 objections for non-compliance. Proposal should be refused on these grounds.

 

15.       B. Bourke, 3/3 Hardiman Avenue, Randwick

 

§ Height results in privacy and overshadowing impacts and loss of outlook and amenity, should be reduced to be within the existing roof lines

§ Inappropriate to surrounding area

 

16.       Dr. E. Tork, 94 St Pauls Street, Randwick

 

§ Structural damage to surrounding property – request details of insurance and appropriate conditions be applied to any consent.

§ Out of scale and proportion with surrounding buildings, doesn’t comply with 2A zoning

§ View loss

§ Loss of market value

§ Overshadowing during morning periods

§ Overlooking

§ Noise from location of driveway and pedestrian access adjacent to the boundary and potentially from air-conditioning to units

§ Landscaping is minimal, trees will grow very slowly on western side of the site and building may create a wind tunnel effect.

§ Access to property is to be maintained throughout any construction period, requests Council impose a condition of consent to this effect

§ Insufficient parking

§ Lack of integration with surrounding buildings due to the proposed bulk, materials and high density.

 

17.       A. Halperin, 3 Howard Place, Randwick

 

§ Height and construction of building

§ Loss of privacy and degredation of amenity to 3 Howard Place through loss of views and overshadowing

§ Faulty proposals for internal facilities

§ Queries about the required infrastructure

§ Insufficient parking, car wash and garbage facilities

§ Power and water utilities are at maximum capacity

§ Inaccuracies and discrepancies in plans and associated documentation.

 

18.       G. Kompolthy, 1/11 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Demands on on-street parking

§ Increased traffic

§ Excessive height of the building from St. Pauls Street

§ Proposal is out of character with existing adjoining buildings

§ Loss of residential amenity

§ Overdevelopment of the site

 

19.       A. Davenport, 2/3 Hardiman Avenue, Randwick

 

§ Privacy impacts and overshadowing due to excessive height of wall to rear of the site

 

20.       S. Ganderia, 24 Dudley Street, Coogee

 

§ Size and height of development is out of character with the area

§ Increased traffic and parking impacts, particularly given proximity to The Spot

§ Overdevelopment

 

21.       J. Jewel 6/2 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Traffic increases

§ Increased demand for on-street parking

§ Will add to existing pollution in terms of noise and air pollution from additional vehicles

§ Extra loading of street gutters with rubbish will result in environmental impact to Coogee Beach

§ Bulk is out of character with surrounding area

 

22.       Tropman & Tropman Architects on behalf of 10/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

 

§ View and aspect loss

§ Loss of amenity

§ Overshadowing during mornings

§ Loss of privacy to living areas and balcony

§ Inappropriate large scale massing and bulk as viewed from the west

§ Demolition of Federation (possibly late Victorian) house to the rear of the stie, the applicant has neglected to address the issue of heritage or potential heritage in the application.

 

23.       S. Wong, 12/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Demands on on-street parking

§ Increased traffic

§ Excessive height of the building from St. Pauls Street

§ Proposal is out of character with existing adjoining buildings

§ Loss of residential amenity

§ Overdevelopment of the site

 

24.       L. Cable, 10/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

 

§ Too big and tall for the site

§ View, sunlight and privacy will all be lost as a result of the proposal

 

25.       A. Tosti, PO Box A640 Sydney South

 

§ Extreme overdevelopment

§ Excessive height will detrimentally affect adjoining properties

§ Excessive bulk

§ Loss of residential amenity for the area

§ Building does not integrate will with existing streetscape

§ Increased pressure on St Pauls Street for on-street parking

 

26.       N. Melick, 17/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Demands on on-street parking

§ Increased traffic

§ Excessive height of the building from St. Pauls Street

§ Proposal is out of character with existing adjoining buildings

§ Loss of residential amenity

§ Overdevelopment of the site

 

27.       L.J Selby, 1/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Demands on on-street parking

§ Increased traffic

§ Excessive height of the building from St. Pauls Street

§ Proposal is out of character with existing adjoining buildings

§ Loss of residential amenity

§ Overdevelopment of the site

 

28.       A. Barila, 14C Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Application incorrectly states that my property is flats, not two storey dwelling house as is the case, proposal is incompatible with scale of surrounding properties

§ Prohibited development, should be refused

§ Applicant has not made any application for existing use rights under statutory provisions, application should be refused.

§ FSR is 1.35:1 and is excessive given the statutory standard in the 2(a) zone of 0.5:1 and resultant impacts

§ Overdevelopment and is not compatible with the streetscape as stated in applicant’s documentation

§ Height at St Pauls Street should be no higher than existing building at 14C Dudley Street (3 storeys).

§ Site is close to 2 Heritage Conservation Areas and current DA will detract from these zones

§ Extensive excavation of site is inappropriate given sandhills are foundation material

§ No specifications of retaining walls etc. given by the applicant to ensure neighbouring properties.

§ No information provided as to construction management measures

§ Deficiencies and discrepancies in documentation including unit and parking numbers

§ Requests check of FSR, unit sizes and shadow diagrams to verify that these are correct

§ Should battleaxe be excised from site area for the purposes of FSR calculation

§ Excessive bulk and scale

 

29.       APT Planning on behalf of 14C Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Deficiencies in SEE, does not address s.79C adequately, in particular provisions of LEP98 and likely impacts on the locality

§ DA submission does not address Existing Use Rights provisions and Council may technically refuse application on basis that it is prohibited in the 2(A) zone

§ SEE does not address impacts on surrounding properties

§ Increased bulk and scale, site coverage/ building footprint, introduction of permanent residential population on the site will increase intensity of development on the site

§ Overlooking of14C Dudley Street from east facing windows and balconies due to the topography

§ Overshadowing to west facing window to living areas and private open space shadow diagrams are deficient in the amount of context shown and the lack of diagrams for December 22.

§ Exceeds the height, bulk and scale of comprable existing residential buildings and will have an adverse impact on the streetscape because of its dominance

§ Height of 15.95 metres far exceeds 9.5m allowable in 2(a) zone and maximum permissible for flats in 2(c) zone being 12.5 metres

§ Excessive FSR is reflected in bulk and scale and impact on St Pauls Street streetscape

 

30.       Andrew Tosti, Chairperson The Spot Precinct Committee, PO Box 72, St Pauls

 

§ Excessive FSR – control of 0.5:1 is exceeded by 170%

§ No SEPP 1 objection has been provided to support non-compliances

§ Poorly presented application that does not address mandatory development application criteria represents a waste of Council and community resources

§ No application for existing use rights has been received

§ Excessive height, six tiers of building each 4 storeys in height is not a reasonable nor a justifiable response to the site topography

§ Setbacks unduly increase the impact on the amenity of the property at 94 St Pauls Street

§ Excessive bulk dominates the landscape of the site and has a bulky and unsympathetic appearance, contributes to loss of views, natural ventilation and solar access

§ Overshadowing

§ Visual privacy of adjacent properties to the east

§ Non-compliance with all of the design principles under SEPP 65

§ Safety concerns from location of the driveway on a ‘blind’ corner

§ NatHERs report has not been submitted

§ In the public interest, development should be referred to full Council meeting for determination

§ Loss of existing residential amenity

§ Lack of integration with surrounding neighbourhood

 

31.       A& M Ricci 5/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

 

§ Currently adjoined by 3 storey blank wall, proposal represents 5 storey building with windows and 15 balconies looking directly over deck and rear yard

§ Monolithic structure is out of keeping with surrounding buildings and streetscape, dwarfing surrounding buildings

 

32.       S. Levi 4 Howard Place, Randwick (letter forwarded from the Mayor)

 

§ Overdevelopment

§ Excessive height – 8 storeys including the carpark levels

§ Car parking of 30 spaces is insufficient and will exacerbate existing parking problems

§ Loss of privacy and overshadowing calls for deletion of top two floors of the building

§ Plans do not show requirements for fire, garbage or car washing

§ Building needs to be scaled down

 

Issues raised in the submissions have been discussed under the relevant sections of this report. Issues raised relating to character of the area, bulk & scale and the adequacy of information are considered primary reasons for the refusal of the application. The amendments received on November 19 have not been renotified as they have not reduced the bulk and scale of the proposal to an acceptable level.

 

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 Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building has provided the following comments on the proposal:

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing motel and the erection of a four (4) storey residential multi unit housing building, with two (2) levels of basement car park.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§ Class 2        -   Residential units

§ Class 7a      -   Car park

§ Class 10b    -   Swimming pool

 

Background

 

The existing building is a three (3) storey brick building currently used as a motel on site.  A search of Council’s records could not disclose any previous use of a potentially contaminating nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Noise:

There is potential for the generation of noise from the proposed development due to the installation of plant and equipment, such as any mechanical exhaust system serving the basement car park and from other plant and equipment. Conditions should imposed on the consent to address potential noise emissions from the development.

 

Site Management:

Although a Sediment Control Plan has been provided with the DA, it does not address issues such as, the location of stock piled material or the storage and disposal of excavated materials, sediment and erosion control, public safety and perimeter safety fencing. Standard conditions can be included in the consent to address construction site management issues.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Access for people with a disability:

The proposal does not appear to satisfy the BCA requirements and DDA objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the basement car park, sanitary facilities for people with a disability are also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of the BCA.

 

Standard conditions could be included to address these requirements, although compliance will require changes to the design of the building to accommodate a lift and/or ramp system and sanitary facilities, complying with the BCA and AS1428.

 

The failure of the building to meet DDA objectives and the need to make changes to the building to ensure compliance with the BCA support the view that the proposal is excessive on the site and has not been prepared with adequate regard to relevant issues.

 

6.2 Director, Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

The Director, AIS has provided the following comments on the proposal:

 

An application has been received for construction of a residential flat building at the above site containing 24 units.

 

The AIS Dept has not included associated strata subdivision conditions as the AIS Dept could not determine whether the application included the strata subdivision. Should conditions be required please contact the AIS Dept for inclusion of relevant conditions.

 

Landscape Comments

There is one Brachychiton species (Flame tree) of approximately 6 metres in height and 3 metres in width near the northwest corner at the front of the site. It appears in good condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Approval is granted for the removal of this tree.

 

There are two (2) Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos palms) of approximately 6 metres in height near the front of the site. They appear in reasonable health and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Approval is granted for the removal of these two palms.

 

There is one Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow palm) of approximately 9 metres in height towards the eastern side of the site, immediately south of the existing pool. It appears in good health and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This palm should be protected and retained as part of this proposal.

 

There are six (6) Cyathia cooperi (Tree ferns) of around 2 metres in height growing along the southern side of the existing swimming pool. They appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Approval is granted for the removal of these ferns.

 

There is one Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) of approximately 6 metres in height on the adjacent property near the southwest corner of the site. It appears in good health and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order but should not be affected by these proposed works.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

Traffic Comments

The EPCD Dept is advised that they may wish to address the following issues regarding the carpark layout prior to issuing any form of development consent:

 

Internal circular ramp radius is only suitable for 1 way traffic and is to either be increased to allow 2 way traffic or  have a signalised system so as to avoid vehicle conflict on the ramp.

 

Internal circular ramp does not show gradients along the inner radius or centreline.

 

Proposed end bay carspace widths on both levels do not comply.

 

2 carspaces located outside the basement carpark are parking on a cross grade of 1 in 8, do not comply

 

6 carspaces just inside the basement carpark are parking on a crossfall of 1 in 8, do not comply

 

The grade of the ramp from the basement carpark up to the lobby entrance is shown as 1 in 8, disabled grade is 1 in 14.

 

The rear lobby entrance at the basement carpark level is located on the internal driveway ramp, must be considered dangerous.

 

Waste Management Comments

The EPCD Dept is advised that the AIS Dept prelodgement report the applicant was advised to install a garbage compactor to reduce the required number of garbage bins. This has not been shown on the            plans submitted for the development application.

 

Note: The garbage compactor area is to be separated from the common garbage bin area via a locked door to ensure it is not accessible to the general public.

 

The number of items that remain unresolved in the planning of the basement and provision of adequate servicing indicate that the proposal has not adequately addressed all relevant issues. Difficulties in accommodating the parking on the site also indicates that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

6.3  Design Review Panel

 

Twice the Design Review Panel considered a proposal for the site in a prelodgement form and provided design advice. The development application was considered by the Panel at its meeting on 3 November 2003. The following comments were made in response to this scheme:

 

1.   Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The provision of a model has made it much easier to assess this proposal.  It has confirmed the Panel’s view that the overall form of the building is satisfactory but that too much building is being proposed.  As surrounding levels are inadequately provided in the application it has not been possible to assess the detail of interfaces with adjoining sites.

 

2.   The Scale of the Proposal

 

Nonetheless the Panel considers that the height of the building at the rear should be reduced, to match that of the adjoining building on the east.  This will lessen the visual impact of the proposal as viewed from a distance and increase the amenity of the neighbours.

 

The panel considers that there is potential for a flat roof to the rear portion of the building. 

 

3.   The Built Form of the Proposal

 

As noted above, the design is a clever one, that uses the site well and would provide a high level of amenity to the occupants of the building.

 

4.   The Proposed Density

 

This should be reduced to enable the height to be reduced.

 

5.   Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

A high performance level should be achievable within the framework of this design.

 

6.   The Proposed Landscape

 

The panel considered that car park bays at the front of the site should be removed or relocated, to allow for greater landscaping to the front of the site.

 

Panel believes that species selection to the north of the site, as identified are not appropriate.  The trees in this area should be canopy trees not just feature trees.  The panel would like to see the species nominated individually for these trees.

 

Palm trees identified in the planting schedule should be limited to the rear of the development in shaded areas.

 

7.   The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The panel consider that weather protection to all windows is required, to maximize amenity and achieve ESD.

 

The Panel commented on the lower unit to the rear of the site, stipulating that sunlight to that unit needs to be adequate.  Clarification of the amount of sunlight received should be made to council officers.

 

8.   The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

9.   Social issues

 

10. The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

This proposal has improved substantially with Urban Design input, however the panel considers that the colours and finishes proposed are not suitable and need to be re-considered in relation to neighbouring buildings.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The panel commented that it was difficult to understand surrounding levels from the plans. 

 

The panel considers that if the applicant satisfactorily addresses the issues outlined above, in association with the assessing planner, that there is no need to see the application again.

 

The Panel’s recommendation that a unit be removed has been fulfilled in the amended plans. Despite this change the proposal is still considered excessive. The proposal requires major redesign to satisfy issues of statutory compliance (BCA and DDA) and to reduce the bulk and scale of the development. In this instance it is appropriate for the application to be assessed without further discussions to achieve minor amendments.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site has an area less than 4,000m2, the Master Plan provisions of the LEP do not apply.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The site is zoned 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the development of the site for multi-unit housing is prohibited within the zone. Despite this prohibition, the applicant asserts that the existing building on the site appears to have been used continuously as a motel by virtue of a lawful consent, which predates the current planning controls (that now prohibits such a use). Under these circumstances, a property may be said to enjoy the benefits of “existing-use rights”. However, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to establish that existing use rights pertain to the site. The onus of establishing an entitlement to existing use rights rests with the applicant.

 

Should the applicant establish existing use rights then, Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act affords protection to uses operating under a lawful consent to continue even if a subsequent planning instrument prohibits that use. The protection extends to allowing the change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use (with Council’s consent). Section 108(3) also provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate the “incorporated provisions” have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument which would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims and objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

As such the proposal has been assessed in accordance with the following relevant planning documents :-

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

-           State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

-           State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended (EP&A Act)

-           Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The relevant objectives of the 2(a) zone are as follows:

 

(a)            to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

(c)            to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi‑detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development

 

The area is currently characterised by small to medium scale residential development. The proposed building on the site will not maintain the existing character of the surrounding residential area. The proposal is excessive in height and bulk compared with the generally small-scale nature of surrounding uses, including the 2-3 storey scale of existing development that also predates the current planning controls. The staggered form of the building on the site gives the building an effective width of 28 metres and effective height of 7 storeys, increasing the visible bulk of the proposal, particularly from district vantage points to the north (refer to attached photomontage). The proposal is 5 storeys in height along the St Pauls Street frontage and this exceeds the height of surrounding development and has an overbearing appearance from the street. The street elevation is not well articulated, proposing a near flat plane for a height of 15 metres and a width of 11 metres which increases the bulk of the proposal to the street.

 

The design has not adequately considered the topography and the contribution this makes to the character of the area. Surrounding buildings are set back from the street and have minimal excavation. The setback allows the topography of the sites to be read and gives a sense of scale to the buildings by clearly articulating the number of storeys distinct from ground level. The way the parking level and building above have been integrated at the St Pauls frontage has blurred this distinction by creating a sheer wall 5 storeys high. The building form repeats the same four storey volume across the site and does not use the building form to respond to the topography. A more appropriate solution would provide modulation in the building form in order to emphasise the dramatic topography of the site. This would also assist in maintaining a sense of the topography from other areas in the district.

 

The applicant has failed to provide an accurate and detailed analysis of the context and character of the area as required by Council. The design does not appear to have evolved from a process of site analysis and as a result does not relate well to its context, being within a 2(a) zone, that is in close proximity to two Heritage Conservation Areas.

 

The area is currently characterised by small to medium scale residential development and the proposed bulk and building form presented in this application fails to meet objective (a) of the zone.

 

The density of development proposed is inconsistent with objective (c) of the 2(a) zoning. The proposal represents a significant increase in the density on the site, proposing 23 residential units. The overall FSR of the proposal is 1.28:1 (2,924m2). This includes the area of the access handle to Howard Street in the site area calculation. Under clause 32(6) of the LEP the area of an access handle to a battleaxe allotment must be excised from the site area. The site is not strictly a battleaxe as it has a secondary frontage to St Paul’s Street, however the area of the access handle does not contribute to the distribution of bulk on the site. The FSR of the proposal (as compared to the area of the site without the access handle) is 1.4:1 and represents the effective bulk of the scheme. This is more than double the statutory standard for FSR on the site (0.5:1) and a clear indication that the scheme is excessive and is inconsistent with envisaged development under the RLEP98.

 

The proposal is incompatible with the dominant character of existing development. Although there is a mixture of building types in the vicinity of the site, the  overriding character of the area is of small to medium scale residential development. The development fails to meet objective (c) of the 2(a) zone.

 

The following clauses of the RLEP have been considered during the assessment of the proposal.

 

 

 

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31(1) - Landscape Area

40% of site area

(913.2m2)

50.5%

(1,152.9m2)

Yes

31(3) – Landscape Area over basements

50% of requirement under 31(1)

(456.6m2)

20% of requirement

(182.6m2)

Yes

32(1) - FSR

0.5:1

(1,141.5m2)

1.28:1

(2,924m2)

No

33(1) - Building Height

9.5m

5-15m

No

33(3) – External wall height

7m

5-15m

No

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

In vicinity of items at 16, 18,20 & 22 Dudley Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Clause 46 – Development in the vicinity of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and potential archaeological sites

 

 

The site is located nearby Heritage Conservation Areas at Dudley Street and The Spot. The site is also close to heritage items at 16-22 Dudley Street. While the site does not form part of the visual catchment of these areas from the street, it will be obtrusive in the streetscape that adjoins the two heritage conservation areas. The proposal is unsympathetic to the existing scale of development in the heritage areas and would detract from their surroundings.

 

(b)   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. The application has been referred to Council’s Design Review Panel three times for comment in relation to the principles of good design. The Panel’s final comments indicated they had reservations about the height and density of the proposal, particularly in relation to the obscuring of a ridge line behind the site, the choice of colours and materials and the amenity of a ground level unit to the rear of the site that is below existing ground level. The Panel also requested that parking at the front of the site be removed in favour of landscaping. The Panel did not make any specific comments in relation to the social mix proposed or safety and security.

 

The amended plans received on 19 November 2003 were prepared by the applicant in response to the Panel’s comments. These plans deleted unit 24 at the rear of the site, reducing the maximum height of the building by 2.2 metres. The southern elevation of the building has been reduced from 13.8 metres to 8.8 metres. One open air parking space has been deleted from the front setback to increase landscaping.

 

Despite the Panel’s recommendation, and the amendments made to the plans, the proposal is still considered to be excessive in bulk and scale given the surrounding context. The deletion of the top floor to the rear of the site has reduced the height of the proposal, however the development is still significantly taller than the existing buildings on the site. The photomontage of the original scheme submitted with the application (attached) indicates the portion of the building to the front of the site is too tall in relation to the topography. Its height diminishes the ability to read the sloping land from a distance and results in the building appearing ‘out of scale’. The applicant has not provided adequate details of the context of the site and has not provided adequate details of the site features that have been used to achieve the current design.

 

In relation to the safety and security aspects of the proposal, the provision of a carparking entry, blank carpark walls and landscaping to the street frontage at ground level does not enhance the perceived surveillance of the street. Surveillance is achieved on upper levels from the northeast facing balconies. The entrance passageway on the western boundary of the site is overlooked by bedrooms and does not achieve a high level of surveillance for building users and visitors. The entry path from St Pauls Street extends for a distance of 50 metres and turns 90o at the rear of the site, increasing opportunities for concealment. A secondary entry is also proposed along the Howard Street access handle. This entry is over 60 metres in length and no opportunities for surveillance have been provided for approximately half of this distance. The landscaping plan does not extend to Howard Street and no details of proposed treatments to this area are provided. The applicant has not provided details of lighting or security gates, including details of secured access to the pool area, which is directly accessible from the street. Sufficient detail in relation to security and surveillance has not been provided. This aspect of SEPP 65 cannot be judged as satisfactory given the level of detail provided.

 

The mix of units provided by the development provides a range of dwelling types, including a four bedroom apartment, which are rarely included in new residential developments. Despite the variety in the social mix, the number of units proposed is considered excessive for the subject site and out of character with the neighbourhood. The applicant has not provided information as to the social impacts of the increased density on the site, nor detailed information about current housing stock in the area and the need for a development of this nature on the site. The proposal fails to meet the Social Dimensions principle under SEPP 65.

 

The proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to the principles of context, scale, built form, density, security, social dimensions and aesthetics contained within SEPP 65.

 

(c)   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. The applicant has not provided details in relation to SEPP 55 and no preliminary contamination investigation has been carried out on the site. Further information is required to satisfy Council’s obligations under SEPP 55

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

The following Council policy controls apply to the proposed development.

 

§  DCP – Parking 1998

§  Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP does not apply to the proposal (which is multi-unit housing). The Multi-Unit Housing DCP only applies to development within the 2(b) and 2(c) zone and therefore is not applicable to the subject site, which is zoned 2(a).

 

a.    Parking - Development Control Plan

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

 

Car Parking

a)   number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) layout

 

 

 

 

Bicycle Storage

 

 

1.0 spaces required for each one bedroom dwelling (7 x 1.0 = 7.0 spaces)

 

1.2 spaces required for each two bedroom dwelling (7 x 1.2 = 8.4 spaces)

 

1.5 spaces required for each 3+ bedroom dwelling (9 x 1.5 = 13.5 spaces)

 

1space/4 dwgs or part thereof for visitors (5.75 spaces required s)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 35 SPACES

 

As per DCP.

 

 

 

 

1space per 3 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

(10 bike spaces)

 

 

 

7 spaces

 

 

 

 

8 spaces

 

 

 

14spaces

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

35

 

 

Not as per DCP – refer to Section 6.2

 

 

 

Not indicated.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

b.    Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes additional dwellings on the site. As a result of this assessment monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities, townscape improvements and administration charges totalling $66,050.45 would be required for a development of this size, should it be approved by Council.

 

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.

 

8.1 Height

 

The proposed development has a maximum height and external wall height of 15 metres. The development is well in excess of the permissible height and wall height for development on the site, being 9.5 and 7 metres, respectively. These heights are taken from ground level on the appointed day (as per the definitions in the LEP98). Surveyed ground levels applied to the section A-A indicate the applicant has not provided an accurate ground level to establish the true height of the proposal. The height of the proposal noted above has been measured against surveyed levels in accordance with RLEP 98. The heights measured from ground level do not take into account the significant amount of excavation proposed. The effective height of the building (taken from proposed ground level) ranges from 8.8 metres to 15.2 metres.

 

The objective of the height standards is to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones. Development should be consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard to the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

The proposed development is inconsistent with the development potential of the land and the amenity of the surrounding areas. The height of the northern elevation (to the street) at 15.2 metres above proposed ground level results in a bulky appearance and will dominate the predominantly 2-3 storey scale of surrounding sites. Likewise, the height at the rear of the building, being up to 15 metres above existing ground level and an additional storey above the existing development on the site is considered to be excessive. The proposal will significantly impact on the outlook from properties to the rear (on Howard Place) and increase the visual bulk and scale of development on the site as viewed from the rear.

 

As indicated by the photomontage, the site is visible as part of a district view from vantage points to the north. Despite the existing development in the nearby 2(c) zone, the proposal is out of character with immediately surrounding development and progression of development up the hill. The height of the building, particularly to the lower portion (front) of the site is not strongly representative of the existing topography. The building does have a staggered form, which is generally accepted as a good solution on sloping sites, however the vertical steps in the building are only 1.4 metres in height, and occur at only two points in the section. This is insufficient to provide adequate variety in the building heights and accurately reflect the changing topography along the site. A more modulated scheme with staggers of greater depth and height would result in reduced bulk and height and improve the appearance of the scheme, particularly from district vantage points.

 

A staggered building form that introduced greater articulation would provide an opportunity to break up the expansive roof plane, which contributes to the bulky appearance of the building. Service elements such as the lift overruns may also be able to be better integrated with the overall roof design to achieve a better outcome.

 

The height of the proposal towards the front of the site will result in overshadowing to the whole northern elevation of the adjoining property to the east (14E Dudley Street) during midwinter afternoons. While this represents only two windows, for a short period of time, the degree of overshadowing despite the setback of 12 metres indicates that the height of the proposal to the front of the site is excessive. A reduction in height of the building at this point would maintain existing solar access to the adjoining building. Screen planting to boundaries is proposed to ensure that overlooking of adjoining premises does not occur, despite the increased height of the development.

 

The excessive height of the proposal will remove outlook from properties to the rear of the site. The increased height of development has not minimised impacts to surrounding properties in terms of view and outlook.

 

The height of the building is considered to be excessive given the scale and character of surrounding buildings.

 

8.2 Density

 

The proposed development has a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.28:1 (2,924m2), which exceeds that permissible under clause 32(1) of the RLEP for a development on the site, being 0.5:1 1,141.5m2), by 1,783m2. Although the statutory standard cannot derogate from existing use rights provisions, the merits of the proposal can be discussed with regard to FSR and the resultant bulk and scale.

The objective of the floor space ratio (FSR) standard is to establish a reasonable upper limit for development in residential zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.

 

The development has not been designed to minimise impacts to neighbouring properties. The proposal has an FSR of 1.28:1 and is far in excess of the standard for the site of 0.5:1. Due to the lack of building proposed on the access handle to Howard Street, the bulk is distributed on an area of land approximately 2,087m2, resulting in an effective FSR of 1.4:1.

 

The non-compliance with height and FSR controls, despite significant depth and area of excavation indicates that the area contributing additional gross floor area occurs at the top of the building. This has increased its visibility and impacts in terms of bulk and scale.

 

The development also exceeds the height standard and while the existing use rights provisions prohibit enforcement of the standard, non-compliance with FSR and height are an indication that the development is contrary to the desired scale and character of the area.

 

The non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard contained in clause 32 of the Randwick LEP will result in significant impacts on adjoining development and the street. Compliance with the FSR standard contained within the RLEP is not enforceable under the protection afforded by “existing-use rights”, however the proposed development on the site does not achieve the underlying purpose of the standard and does not meet Council’s objectives with regard to streetscape and residential amenity.

 

8.3 Building Setbacks

 

Although there is no Council policy that provides setback requirements for a development of this type in the 2(a) zone, Council’s residential DCPs can be used to gauge an understanding of appropriate setbacks in the circumstances.

 

The existing buildings are setback 8.5-9.0 metres from St Pauls Street, 2.2-9 metres from the western side boundary and 21.5 metres from the eastern side boundary (at the front of the site) and 200mm-2.0 metres from the eastern side boundary to the rear of the site (3 storey building). The existing building is setback 9-17.5 metres from the rear boundary.

 

The proposal is setback 7-8 metres from the street boundary. This is consistent with the setback of adjoining buildings and the setback requirements under Council’s residential DCPs.

 

The building is setback 3.2-6.4 metres from the rear boundary. This does not meet the minimum requirements of 4.5-6 metres under Council’s residential DCPs. This setback represents a significant reduction (5-11 metres) when compared with the setback of the existing building on the site. It should also be noted that the preferred solutions under the DCP envisage a building of 9.5-12 metres in height. The reduced rear setback and increased height are considered to result in amenity impacts on adjoining properties to the rear as a result of visual bulk and scale, reduction of area for landscape screening and loss of outlook.

 

The building is setback 5-17 metres from the western side boundary. This meets the criteria under Council’s residential DCPs. The height of the building is greater than envisaged by the DCPs by up to 5.5 metres. In these circumstances more generous setback distances would be expected to maintain reasonable amenity to adjoining properties. The majority of the building is setback 5 metres from the boundary and this provides a visual separation distance of 7-8 metres when the setback of the adjoining dwelling is taken into consideration. This is less than the requirement of 9 metres under the DCPs. Large scale planting has been provided along the boundary to provide a screen between the site and adjoining premises at 94 St Pauls Street. The western side setbacks are considered satisfactory.

 

The building is setback 5-12 metres from the eastern side boundary. This meets the criteria under Council’s residential DCPs. Planting is proposed to provide screening between the site and adjoining properties. Despite the generous setback of 12 metres to the front of the site, the height of the proposal at this point will result in exclusion of all solar access to the northern elevation of the adjoining property at 14E Dudley Street during midwinter afternoons. While the proposal maintains existing access 9-12pm, midwinter in accordance with the residential DCPs, the extent of additional overshadowing despite generous setbacks indicates an overdevelopment of the site.

 

The development fails to meet requirements for wall articulation of multi-unit housing, being that flat areas of wall are minimised to 10 metres in length. The front elevation is 11 metres long without sufficient articulation. The streetscape presentation of the building is poor as a result of the inability to meet Council’s requirement and the visual bulk of the building is increased. The southern elevation of the building is 18.6 metres without relief. This exacerbates the impact of the insufficient setbacks provided. The lack of eaves or a parapet to the top of the elevations contributes to their bulky appearance. Eastern and western elevations meet the criteria for articulation.

 

The development is unsatisfactory with regard to the rear setback provided and articulation of the front and rear elevations.

 

8.4 Fences

 

Details of fencing and retaining walls have not been provided. The perspective indicates the private courtyards to dwellings will be separated by retaining walls. The change in level between the courtyards ranges from 2.5-2.9 metres. It is unclear if the walls proposed will achieve visual privacy and safety between the terraced levels of the courtyards.

 

Side and rear boundary fencing has not been indicated.

 

Terraced gardens are provided to make the transition between the existing site level and street level (currently a retaining wall exists on the site), this achieves Council’s objectives for front fencing.

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to fencing, subject to additional details relating to the fencing provided between the private courtyards on the eastern side of the building.

 

8.5 Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

The development provides 1,152.9m2 50.5%% of the site area as landscaping. This meets the statutory requirement under clause 31(2) of the RLEP of 40% of the site area. The applicant has indicated that the deep soil provision is 28% (731.9m2) of the site area. Clause 31(3) requires that landscaped areas over podiums/ basements must not exceed 50% of the required landscape provision. Landscaped areas over the basement/ podium levels represents 20% of the landscape requirement and meets Council’s statutory control.

 

The drawings do not indicate the applicant’s intention for development of the access handle to Howard Street. The SEE refers to this area as a right-of-way, however this area is not labelled as such on the survey plans and the applicant has included this area in FSR and landscape calculations that relate to site area. It is unclear from the documentation if this area is a right-of-way or not, and if it is what limitations this imposes on its use. It is considered that the access handle could be landscaped with deep soil planting to maximise the opportunities for stormwater infiltration and provide vegetation to contribute to the character of the area.

 

Private open space and communal open space (a swimming pool and terrace) have been provided to all units in accordance with the Multi-unit Housing DCP.

 

The proposal is adequate in terms of landscaping provision and has met the objectives for landscaping. Further detail is required in relation any proposed landscape treatment of the access handle, particularly as it is the secondary pedestrian entry and only accessible entry provided to the development.

 

8.6 Privacy

 

The development provides setbacks to the eastern and western sides that allow for screen planting, sufficient to minimise opportunities for overlooking. To the rear of the site the proposal is separated by the roadway at Howard Place, which results in separation of 10 metres, despite the reduced setback to this boundary. The proposal meets the separation criteria of 9 metres to provide visual privacy to the rear. Despite this compliance, the increased bulk of the proposal to the rear boundary without any substantial landscape screening is considered to result in a strong impression of being overlooked when the development is viewed from properties to the rear. No screening has been indicated to the large balconies proposed to the eastern and western ends of Unit 23 at level 6. Due to their elevation and openness, these balconies are considered to result in overlooking impacts to properties to the rear, as well as overlooking of the private open space of dwellings within the development.

 

The staggered design and number of levels proposed within the building results in opportunities for ground level private open space within the development to be overlooked by dwellings located above and to the rear of the space. This is undesirable and does not meet the requirements of Council’s multi-unit housing DCP nor the Residential Flat Design Code.

 

The proposal results in overlooking (real and perceived) of properties to the rear of the site and does not adequately address the issue of visual privacy between dwellings and private open space within the development.

 

8.7 View Sharing

 

The proposal represents an increase the height of development on the site by 2.02 metres to the southwest of the site and 5.83 metres to the southesast of the site. The additional height proposed will obscure outlook from dwellings to the rear of the site (2A,2B, 3 and 4 Howard Place and 3 Hardiman Avenue). The dwellings currently enjoy some distant ocean and district views to the north and northeast. The loss of these views is considered to be a result of excessive bulk on the site. A reduction in the height of the building, particularly to the rear would enable this outlook to be retained by the dwellings and would reduce the bulk of the proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The development has not adequately addressed opportunities for reducing impacts of additional height on the outlook from properties to the south and southwest of the site.

 

8.8 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Amended shadow diagrams were not submitted with the amendments received on 19 November, 2003. As the shadows would be reduced as a result of the amendments an assessment of the shadows has been made using the original diagrams.

 

The proposal will result in increased shadow to 2 ground floor windows on the eastern elevation of 94 St Pauls Street, at 9am midwinter. The northern elevation of this dwelling will not be affected. Likewise, dwellings to the south on Howard Place will not be affected on midwinter mornings. Shadows will generally be contained within the site boundaries at midday midwinter, with a portion of Howard Place roadway being affected by additional shadow. This represents an improvement on the current situation.

 

During midwinter afternoons, sunlight will be totally excluded from the northern elevation of 14E Dudley Street and additional shadow cast on the western elevation of 14C Dudley Street. Despite this increase, the proposal will provide the minimum of 3 hours of sunlight per day to north facing windows of adjacent development throughout the year. Notwithstanding this compliance, it is considered that reducing the height of the proposal to the front of the site would significantly reduce the shadows cast on 14E Dudley Street and maximise solar access to adjoining sites.

 

It is unclear from the shadow diagrams provided  how much sunlight units within the development will receive. Although units are generally oriented to the north-east, the shadow diagrams indicate that the development will overshadow itself (northeast facing living areas) from around 11am, midwinter. As elevational diagrams of the proposal have not been provided, the extent of shadowing is unclear. From the plans provided it appears that significant areas of the development may not meet Council’s requirement of 3 hours solar access to north facing living areas per day. Concern is also raised with regard to Unit 12 shown at the rear of the site. This unit is completely below existing ground level. The concerns of the Design Review Panel with regard to the amenity of this unit and the achievement of solar access provision are considered valid. In order to demonstrate compliance with relevant provisions detailed elevational shadow diagrams of the development should be provided.

 

The applicant has submitted a NatHERS report for the proosal, which indicates that the new dwellings achieve a rating of 3.5-5 stars. This rating meets the minimum usually applied to residential development by Council.

 

The proposal appears to meet Council’s requirements with regard to the provision of solar access to adjoining properties. The provision of adequate solar access to units within the development is questioned as sufficient evidence of solar penetration has not been provided.

 

8.9 Safety and Security

 

As discussed under section 8(b), the documentation provided with the application has raised concerns in relation to safety and security. In particular, the length and treatment of the pedestrian access proposed from Howard Street, the long walkways along the western boundary providing the primary access to the development and the carparking walls that address St Pauls Street at ground level.

 

Also in relation to safety, the southernmost lobby provided to the parking level at ground forces pedestrians to exit onto the vehicle ramp between the two parking levels. This would require pedestrians to travel 3.4 metres along the ramp, which is curved, before reaching the parking area. This is contrary to good design for pedestrians and represents a significant traffic safety issue. The awkward parking arrangement in order to achieve the requirements for both parking and landscaping are a further indication that the density proposed by this development cannot be supported on the site.

 

The proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to safety and surveillance.

 

8.10                 Traffic and Parking

 

The proposal complies with the requirements for parking for a development of the size proposed. The proposal does not provide bicycle parking nor a carparking layout that complies with Council’s DCP –Parking. The Asset and Infrastructure Services Department have made comments on traffic and parking issues and these are provided at section 6.2.

 

The provision of parking for the development does not meet the performance requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The parking dominates the streetscape presentation of the building by occupying approximately 50% of the St Pauls Street elevation at street level. The proposal also requires extensive excavation (to a depth of up to 11 metres) in order to achieve the required parking, this is contrary to performance requirement P1 under the DCP.

 

In order to reduce excavation and improve the parking layout the use of the Howard Street access handle to provide an alternative entry to the parking or one-way loop should be considered further.

 

The deficiencies in the planning of the carparking are considered to be reflective of the applicant’s disregard for Council’s statutory and policy requirements for development. The deficiencies in the parking layout have been included as reasons for refusal.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The application asserts that the subject property enjoys the benefits of existing use rights, thereby allowing for a multi-unit housing development to be constructed on the site. However, insufficient documentation has been provided to Council to establish existing use rights. Should existing use rights pertain to the site, then under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations, the proposed change from an existing non-conforming motel building to a multi-unit housing building on the site would be permissible It should be noted that the onus of establishing an entitlement to existing use rights rest on the applicant. The proposed building form is inappropriate on the site given the character of the area, the objectives and zoning of the site contained within the RLEP and its impact on residential amenity and outlook from surrounding areas.

 

While the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policies, the RLEP and Council’s policy documents cannot derogate from the protection of existing use rights, a merits based assessment has been made of the proposal, using Council’s controls as a guide to the type of development envisaged on the site and its ‘reasonableness’. The development is inconsistent with the character of existing development and fails to perform adequately with regard to streetscape, bulk and scale, safety and security, solar access and privacy to the units and visual impact.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

11.  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. 865/2003 for Demolition of existing motel and construction of a 4-5 storey multi-unit housing development containing 23 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking at 96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick for the following reasons:-

 

 

1.   ‘Existing-use-rights’ have not been established for the subject site, and as such the proposed use of the site for multi-unit housing is a prohibited development.

2.   The proposed floor space ratio of the development is excessive and will constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

3.   The height of the proposed building results in adverse amenity impacts on surrounding properties and is excessive in relation to the established streetscape and scale of surrounding development.

4.   The aesthetic appearance, bulk and scale of the proposed development are inconsistent with the streetscape character of the area, intent of the 2(a) zone and location of the site in the vicinity of neighbouring Heritage Conservation Areas and Heritage items.

5.   The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the Residential 2A zone pursuant to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and as such will adversely affect the character and amenity of the immediate locality.

6.   The proposal does not comply with Council’s DCP – Parking in relation to the carpark layout and does not provide bicycle parking in order to minimise the impact of the proposal on on-street parking in the area.

7.   The proposal has significant design deficiencies in relation to compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).

8.   The development does not meet the design quality principles of context, scale, built form, density, security, social dimensions and aesthetics under SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

9.   The building will result in removal of outlook to properties to the rear of the site along Howard Place and Hardiman Avenue and adequate steps to minimise its impact have not been incorporated in the design of the development.

10. The building will result in the loss of privacy to dwellings on Howard Place and adequate steps to minimise its impact have not been incorporated into the design of the development.

11. The proposal has poor internal site amenity and will result in dwellings within the development overlooking private open spaces of adjacent dwellings.

12. The performance of the building with regard to overshadowing is unclear from submitted information. The solar access to proposed dwellings appears deficient and the development will have an adverse impact on the solar access of adjoining properties.

13. The proposed side and rear setbacks do not allow adequate separation between buildings to ensure reasonable levels of amenity to neighbouring properties.

14. The documentation submitted with the application is inadequate, in that details of the development of the whole of the site have not been provided and the site analysis has not adequately addressed the opportunities and constraints on the site.

15. Sufficient detail (preliminary site contamination investigation) has not been provided with respect to the potential for contamination on the site. The lack of information has not enabled a clear assessment under SEPP55 - Remediation of Land.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reductions

Photomontage of proposal as originally submitted

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 103/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

308-310 Arden St and 3 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

1 December, 2003

FILE NO:

D/420/03/GE

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a Development Application Report for the Development Application No 420/03 for a proposed four storey multi-unit housing development containing 17 dwellings with basement car parking for 27 vehicles and a detached two storey studio dwelling including parking for two vehicles.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 10 November, 2003

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

10 November, 2003

FILE NO:

D0420/2003/GE

 

PROPOSAL:

 Proposed four storey multi unit housing development containing 17 dwellings with basement car parking for 27 vehicles and a detached two storey studio dwelling including parking for two vehicles addressing Alexander St.

PROPERTY:

 308-310 Arden St and 3 Alexander St, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 CSA Architects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $3 Million.

 

This application has been the subject of amended plans, as a number of issues were raised with original scheme by both the assessing officer and the design review panel.

 

The primary issues in the assessment of the proposal have been bulk and scale, relationship to the site, and the internal amenity for several units. Objectors concerns related to amenity impacts to neighbouring properties including overshadowing, loss of privacy, view loss and traffic impacts. These issues have been adequately addressed and satisfied by deferred commencement conditions and standard conditions of consent. The deferred commencement conditions require the deletion of unit 16 and void areas to the roof and re-configurations of a number of units to improve internal amenity and redesign of the basement car park.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to deferred commencement conditions as agreed to by the applicant.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

Demolition

 

Two multi unit developments known as 308 and 310 Arden St and the dwelling house known as 3 Alexander St are to be demolished as part of this application. Nos. 308 and 310 Arden St are early 20th Century construction, each are two storeys and have architectural merit. The secondary frontage is to 3 Alexander St and the dwelling is a 1920s detached bungalow. None of these existing buildings are listed as being items of Environmental Heritage or contained within a Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Apartments

 

The proposal is for a five storey residential development with basement level parking. The development is proposed primarily towards the Arden St frontage. Vehicular access and visitor parking to a garage incorporating a first floor studio is proposed to the Alexander St frontage.

 

The development provides for approximately four levels of units with an average of 6 units per floor however this varies where storage areas or voids are provided at that level.

 

The breakdown of the units is:

 

·    Unit 1 – studio

·    Units 5-12 & 14-18- contain 2 bedrooms

·    Unit 13 – contains 1 bedroom.

 

Parking

 

Car parking for 26 vehicles including 4.5 spaces for visitors and 21.2 spaces for residents are required. 27 spaces are provided with 3 visitor spaces and 23 for residents. Given the intended deletion of unit 16 as agreed by the applicant the number of required spaces is reduced by 1.2 spaces and therefore the application has an excess of parking spaces.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Arden St and the eastern side of Alexander St between the intersecting streets of Dudley St and Neptune St in Coogee.

 

The subject site is the combination of three sites reading as two components. The first being Lot A of DP 308966 and Lot B of DP317715 which constitute the Arden St section of the site making up the majority of the site area. The second component is 3 Alexander St site known as consolidated Lot 1 DP 311144 and Lot 2 DP 177453 this section provides the vehicular and service access to the site and a two storey detached building.

 

3 Alexander St                                                                      308-310 Arden St.

 

Between the two site’s is a large expanse of landscaped area which was originally used as a tennis court but has been converted into open space. This area provides a high level of amenity for all the surrounding properties.

 

Open landscaped area to centre of the site.

 

The total site area is 1,594sqm with a frontage to Arden St of 24.385m and 13.715m to Alexander St.

 

The surrounding locality is defined by the bounding streets of Dudley St, Arden  St, Neptune St and Alexander St. This locality is comprised of a mix of densities and architectural styles with three periods of development represented, the original pre World War 1 bungalows, the mixed use and multi unit developments of the interwar period and 1960s and 1970s residential flat developments. There has been a recent redevelopment trend with the older bungalows being redeveloped into multi unit developments. There have been a number of such developments approved within the locality within the past few years including the recently approved 11-15 Alexander St of a similar scale to the proposed development.

 

Alexander St eastern side looking South.                        Alexander St Western side looking South

 

Alexander St looking North towards Dudley St,                             Western side of Arden St looking South.

the ‘urban wall’ is evident.

 

 

 

Eastern side of Arden St looking North.                          Eastern side of Arden St opposite from subject site.

 

Adjacent to the subject site, to the north on Arden St are a pair of semi-detached dwellings (Nos 304-306 Arden St) and a boarding house at the corner of Dudley St. To the south of the property is a four storey red brick multi unit development. Across from the subject site on Arden St are a series of multi unit developments with a general height of four storeys. Running along the northern boundary of the subject site are a number of properties which address Dudley St these include detached residences, multi unit development and commercial properties (Nos 94, 96 and 96A Dudley St). Adjacent to the north of No. 3 Alexander St is a two storey mixed use development with associated garages (92 Dudley St). To the South is a 3 storey residential flat building known as 5 Alexander St.. Along the southern boundary is a 3 storey residential flat building that extends partially alongside the centre of the subject site (7-9 Alexander St). To the South of 310 Arden St is a 3 storey residential flat building known as 312-314 Arden St.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A prelodgement was held for the proposal in February 2003. At this time a number of concerns with the proposal were raised and a complete redesign was requested. The primary issues raised at this meeting were:

 

·    The built form is not consistent with the two streetscapes in particular a carport to the Alexander St frontage.

·    Retention of the existing dwelling at 3 Alexander St was suggested with vehicular entry provided per excavation under this dwelling. The large landscaped area to the centre of the site be retained and the bulk of the new development complying with Council’s development standards..

·    A more terraced built form was suggested with greater reference to the footprint of adjoining properties and more recent redevelopments in the locality.

 

Concept sketches of revised designs were submitted after the meeting. These sketches were considered to marginally improve the development. A redesign was still recommended.

 

The Development Application was submitted with plans that had been altered from the prelodgement plans in so far as a skillion roof replaced the original hipped roof and a minor reduction in floor area.

 

The application was referred twice to the design review panel for comments. The first panel meeting reiterated the concerns Council had raised in the prelodgement meeting and noted the internal amenity of the ground floor units would be poor. A redesign was requested.

 

Amended plans were prepared and submitted to the design review panel. These plans provided an alternative design solution to 3 Alexander St and provided a reconfiguration of some of the units, a further reduction in floor area and readdressed side setbacks. The built form and design of the development remained for the most part unchanged. The panel advised that the amendments did not satisfying their concerns and did not wish to see the proposal again without a substantial redesign.

 

A meeting was held between the applicant and Council officers after the design review panel meeting and the applicant stated they were happy with the final amended plans and wished a determination to be made on these amended plans. The plans were notified at this time. In subsequent correspondence between the assessing officer and the applicant four suggestions were made:

 

1.         deletion of unit 16 and void areas to units 10, 11 and 12.

2.         internal reconfiguration for a number of units to improve solar access.

3.         Amended plans to be submitted for the basement car park .

 

Points 1 and 2 were agreed by the applicant and can be achieved through deferred commencement conditions. Point 3 is partially resolved by amended plans however final design modifications are required and are also required as deferred commencement conditions. These conditions will comprise the recommendation of this application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised twice in accordance with the Council’s Public Notification DCP. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

GE & DA Bell

1/7 Alexander St

 

·    Car parking problems already exist within Alexander St the extra building will contribute to this.

·    Two beautiful paper bark trees will need to be removed.

·    The number of daily vehicles trips does not seem correct

·    Overdevelopment of the Randwick Coogee area

 

I Roberts & N Stahl

7/7 Alexander St

 

·    Inadequate consideration of the impact of the above development on 7-9 Alexander St

·    7-9 Alexander St is not represented on the plans.

·    Over development of the site

·    Loss of the common landscaped area and insufficient plantings

 

Strata Plan Owners

312-314 Arden St

 

·    Overshadowing

·    Loss of views

·    Loss of potential bird life

·    Potential foundation damage

·    FSR is too large

·    Parking problems within the area the result of additional units.

·    Removal of Norfolk Pine should not occur

 

Mr Caccamo & M Giovani

306 Arden St

 

·    Loss of privacy

·    Request a dilapidation report be prepared

 

I & G Swindells

3/96A Dudley St

 

·    Overshaowing

·    Overlooking

·    Loss of outlook

·    Parking constraints

·    Number of units is excessive

·    Construction noise and pollutants

·    Loss of the quaint character of Coogee new developments detract further

 

L & B Hammond

94 Dudley St

 

·    Impact from having the vehicular access to my boundary

·    Overdevelopment

·    Impacts from stormwater run off will flood adjoining shop

·    FSR is exceeded

·    Overshadowing of my backyard

·    Overlooking of my backyard

 

E McKenzie

96 Dudley St

·    Impact from vehicle access along the common boundary noise and light

·    Overlooking into courtyard

 

S Freeth

304 Arden St

 

·    Overdevelopment of the site, FSR exceeded.

·    The scale of the development exceeds that of adjoining properties

·    Loss of outlook from private open space of rear properties

·    Whilst the development complies with parking it should be noted that there is an existing situation of properties not having sufficient parking.

·    Overlooking of private open space

·    Overshadowing

·    The Norfolk Pine should not be removed

·    Aural privacy lost due to driveway

·    The façade is out of scale and character with the streetscape

 

C Hughes

4/309 Arden St

 

·    Parking constraints exist this development will contribute to the problems.

·    Loss of the Norfolk pine is significant as this was very old and a significant icon.

·    Overdevelopment of the site, the footprint exceeds other adjoining properties.

 

A & S Lewis

2/12 Alexander St

 

·    There are existing traffic difficulties on the corner of Dudley and Alexander Streets.

·    Access for large trucks onto the site will be difficult due to the narrowness of the street

·    Other developments constructing concurrently will result in further traffic problems.

 

J Hughes

1/318 Arden St

 

·    The development should comply with FSR

·    The footprint exceeds adjoining properties.

·    Loss of significant view

·    Loss of trees

·    Parking impacts

 

A Butter

10/7 Alexander St

 

·    Inadequate detail of 7-9 Alexander St and the impact of the development.

·    Existing traffic problems will be exacerbated with this development

 

Comment on objections

 

·    Car parking problems already exist within Alexander St the extra building will contribute to this.

 

Comment

 

An assessment of traffic impacts was submitted with the application and was reviewed by Council’s engineers, no specific issue was raised with the amount of traffic generated or overflow of parking into the surrounding streets. The development complies with Council’s DCP Parking requirements in so far as the number of spaces proposed. An issue exists with the configuration of the car park however this is not an insurmountable matter and will be satisfied through deferred commencement conditions.

 

·    Two beautiful paper bark trees will need to be removed.

 

Comment

 

Council’s engineers have issued consent for the removal of these two trees subject to the planting of two replacement trees to Council’s nature strip.

 

·    The number of daily vehicle trips does not seem correct

 

Comment

 

Council’s engineers raised no issue with the traffic generation rate submitted as part of the statement of environmental effects.

 

·    Overdevelopment of the Randwick Coogee area

 

Comment

 

Each development is considered on its own merits within the context of the immediate locality and the relevant planning instrument. Regional or Municipality planning cannot be undertaken as part of the assessment of an individual development application, this is undertaken when a Local Environmental Plan is prepared and exhibited as was done for the preparation of the 1998 LEP where the proposed zones and associate development standards could be commented on by the public. Where a development proposal fits within the development standards and objectives set out in the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument Council may approve an application. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone and state policy of urban consolidation.

 

·    Inadequate consideration of the impact of the above development on 7-9 Alexander St, 7-9 Alexander St is not represented on the plans.

 

Comment

 

The assessing officer undertook an inspection of the site where the context of the proposal was considered. At this time any discrepancy between the site conditions and the submitted details was noted and the assessment carried out based on the noted site context. Full consideration has been given to the impact of the development on all adjoining properties including No. 7-9 Alexander St.

 

·    Over development of the site

 

Comment

 

The proposed development satisfies the development standards for bulk and scale subject to deletion of floor area per deferred commencement conditions. This will be discussed in greater detail under environmental assessment section of this report.

 

·    Loss of the common landscaped area and insufficient plantings

 

Comment

 

The loss of the landscaped area towards the centre of the site is noted as an amenity impact to neighbouring properties. However the proposed landscaped areas achieve the minimum permissible pursuant to LEP 1998.

 

·    Overshadowing

 

Comment

 

Overshadowing is discussed in detail under the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·    Loss of views

 

Comment

 

District views are enjoyed by surrounding properties within this locality. In all view loss analysis and assessment, quality of view needs to be considered on balance with redevelopment potential. It is considered that the locality views are difficult to preserve where they will be blocked by a new building of a comparative size and scale to the adjoining properties. This point is discussed in greater detail under Environmental Assessment Section of this report.

 

·    Loss of potential bird life

 

Comment

 

The fauna of Coogee is not considered to be endangered and that should trees be removed replacement trees would provide adequate habitat for the birds.

 

·    Potential foundation damage

 

Comment

 

Should the application be recommended for approval then a condition of consent will be imposed requiring the applicant to safe guard adjoining properties during any excavation and a dilapidation report be prepared for all the adjoining properties.

 

·    Removal of Norfolk Pine should not occur

 

Comment

 

Consent has been already issued under an application to remove a tree under the Tree Preservation Policy for the Norfolk Pine and is not the subject of this application.

 

·    Loss of privacy and overlooking

 

Comment

 

Privacy impacts are discussed in detail under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·    Number of units is excessive

 

Comment

 

The number of units provided on a site is not a specific development standard contained within the multi unit housing DCP, rather floor space ratio is the relevant control. Floor area is discussed in greater detail under the Environmental Assessment Section of this report.

 

·    Construction noise and pollutants

 

Comment

 

Should the application be recommended for approval then standard conditions of consent will be imposed relating to the maximum level of noise from construction and sediment and dust control measures.

 

·    Impact from having the vehicular access to my boundary

 

Comment

 

The proximity of the driveway to the adjoining Dudley St properties and the associated amenity impacts has been identified. It is considered that adequate landscaping should ameliorate this concern This mater is discussed in greater detail under the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·    Impacts from stormwater run off will flood adjoining shop

 

Comment

 

Any approval will be the subject of adequate stormwater management conditions to ensure flooding does not occur within other properties as a result of this development.

 

·    The façade is out of scale and character with the streetscape

 

Comment

 

Built form was reviewed by the SEPP 65 design review panel and concerns were raised with the proposal. This constitutes one of the reasons for the redesign as effected by the recommended deferred commencement conditions. Urban design and built form is discussed in greater detail under Environmental Assessment Section of this report.

 

·    Access for large trucks onto the site will be difficult due to the narrowness of the street

 

Comment

 

A suitable condition has been imposed which requires a Construction Site Management Plan to be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of works.

 

·    Other developments constructing concurrently will result in further traffic problems.

 

Comment

 

Council is unable to regulate the timing of construction and concurrent construction cannot be sustained as a reason for refusal.

 

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

 

A letter of issues was sent to the applicant dated 2 July outlining a number of concerns raised by Council’s Engineers. These concerns included the failure to provide vehicle manoeuvring diagrams, not showing accurate car space dimensions and insufficient turning area. An amended basement car park plan was submitted on the 24 November 2003.

 

An application has been received for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a four-storey residential flat building at the above site containing 18 units (2 x 1-bedroom, 15 x 2-bedroom and 1 x 3-bedroom units) above a basement level carpark; with associated strata subdivision into 18 lots.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There are several trees that will be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

1.         Two (2) Melaleuca quinquenervia (Paperbark) located along the nature strip outside the front of 3 Alexander Street. These trees are in the order of 8-10 metres in height appear to be in good condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Council has adopted the “Aggressive Rooted Street Tree Strategy” (see file 98/S/4689) submitted by Council’s Tree Management Officer (Bryan Bourke), which nominates the Melaleuca quinquenervia (Paperbark) for removal within a 0-10 year time frame. As such, permission is granted for the removal of these trees subject to two replacement trees located along Council’s nature strip.

 

2.         One (1) Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) located towards the western part of the site. This tree is in the order of 8 metres in height appears to be in average condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Permission is granted for the removal of this tree subject to one replacement (not palm) located within the site.

 

3.         Two (2) Archontophoenix species (Bangalow) located towards the western part of the site. These trees are in the order of 6-8 metres in height appear to be in good condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. The proposed works will not adversely affect these trees and as such be retained as part of this application.

 

4.         Three (3) Casuarina species (Swamp Oak) located within the western part of this site. These trees are in the order of 8-10 metres in height appear to be in average condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Permission is granted for the removal of these trees subject to two replacements (not palms) located within the site.

 

5.         One (1) Metrosideros excelsa (New Zealand Christmas tree) located within the adjoining property to the north of the site. This tree is in the order of 8 metres in height appears to be in average/good condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This tree is be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

6.         One (1) Banksia species (Banksia) located within the adjoining property to the north of the site. This tree is in the order of 8 metres in height appears to be in good condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This tree is to be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

7.         One (1) Araucaria hetrophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) located within the southern part of the site. This tree is in excess of 10 metres in height appears to be in good condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Permission has been given for the removal of this tree subject to one replacement (not palm) located within the site.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On-site stormwater detention is not required for this development. The applicant will instead have the option of limiting the stormwater discharge from the site so it will not exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm and upgrading the inlet capacity of Council’s stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street;

 

OR

 

Extending Council’s stormwater line from the Council stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street to the development site frontage.

 

It is noted that the submitted drainage plans have the seepage/sub soil drainage water draining to Council’s stormwater system. Seepage/sub soil drainage water is not to be drained to Council’s kerb and gutter or stormwater system. Conditions relating to this matter have been included in this report.

 

Waste Management Comments

 

Sufficient space has been allocated within the development for storing the required number of garbage and recycling bins (9 x 240L garbage bins and 9 x 240L recycling bins). It is proposed the bins will be ‘double banked’ at the collection point in Alexander Street for collection. Council’s waste collection contractor, Collex, has agreed this is a satisfactory arrangement.

 

A waste management plan describing arrangements for the management of waste and recycling materials during the demolition and construction phase of the development is required to be submitted with the application for a construction certificate.

 

Traffic Comments

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 18 residential units will be in the range of 72 to 90 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 9 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Alexander Street as a result of this development.

 

Car Park Layout

 

The submitted plans show car parking for 27 vehicles. Council’s DCP – Parking requires the provision of only 26 spaces, giving a surplus of 1 space.

 

The driveway and carpark ramps grades, aisle widths, internal circulation and all car spaces should generally comply with the requirements of AS 2890.1. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

The AIS Department has concerns regarding several non-complying car spaces, as well as with the manoeuvring diagrams provided for some spaces, for example spaces 8, 15, 18 and 25. The EPCD Department is to determine if the carpark layout and dimensions of the proposed car spaces are adequate.

 

It is recommended that the EPCD Department include appropriate conditions regarding the provision of bicycle storage facilities.

 

Disabled Access Parking

 

The EPCD Department is to determine whether the proposed disabled parking provisions are adequate.

 

Car Wash Bays

 

The submitted plans show a total of 2 car wash bays (within visitor spaces), being provided for the development, as per Council’s DCP – Parking. The AIS Department does not object to visitor spaces being used as carwash bays provided that they are signposted with ‘Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

Vehicular Access and Splay Corners

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level or splayed 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres so that a driver of a stopped vehicle 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

The driveway opening at the Alexander Street frontage must be 5.5 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

7.    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 2C 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:-

 

 

 

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscape Area

50% landscaped area

No more than 50% over podium

52%

 

48%

 

Yes

32 - FSR

0.9:1

1.15:1

No- SEPP 1

33 - Building Height

10 m external wall height

12m maximum height

10m

 

11.8m

Yes

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

Yes built form does not adversely affect aesthetics of the foreshore

 

B.        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65- Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

The proposal was referred to the design review panel for comment. The panel reviewed the initial comments and requested amendments to be made

 

The first meeting’s comments were:

 

4th August Design Review Panel

 

1.         Context

 

Panel would like to see the proposal in context of the adjoining properties, being a large site of 1600 sq/m. Site analysis should show the existing site and proposal in the context of adjoining building footprints, windows, harden areas and existing trees.

 

Site planning not adequately considered. The balance of building form to positive landscape spaces is not satisfactory.

 

Investigate reducing the width of driveway and swapping pedestrian pathway location, to save existing trees where possible.

 

2.         Scale

 

The monolithic scale of the building mass is a concern.  The over articulation of this mass, with small set ins, roof stepping and the like, is not considered successful.

 

3.         Built Form

 

Roof terrace areas unusable, lack access and maintenance of lawn areas are a concern.

 

Building footprint overly large.  Footprint lacks coherence, too much stepping and lack of resolution.

 

More height to Arden Street could be considered.

 

Some apartments are partly subterranean this is unacceptable.

 

A compact residential component should be located on the Alexander Street frontage, rather than the car parking currently indicated.  The driveway should be incorporated within this building, so as to be less prominent.

 

4.         Density

           

            Panel consider the proposal to be an overdevelopment.

 

            SEPP 1 objection in regard to FSR not appropriate.

 

5.         Resource, Energy, Water Efficiency

           

            Extent of excavation is excessive (3 floors below ground).

 

Consider collection and storage of stormwater on site, for garden irrigation, car washing, etc.

 

6.         Landscape

 

Limited open space in relation to building, no separation in relation to neighbouring buildings of open space to open space.

 

Potentially swapping landscape areas at rear (driveway) to reduce tree loss.  Approval given for removal of trees not considered reasonable, prefer retention.

 

Loss of many trees a major concern.

 

“Green Roof” needs further consideration.

 

Planter “tubs” unacceptable.  Adequate soil depths and volumes to be provided to ensure long term health and survival of plants in situations over podiums.

 

7.         Amenity

 

            The provision of two lift cores for this number of units, is supported.

 

The common entry below grade on the south side of the building is of questionable amenity.  The extent of retaining construction and relationship to neighbouring and proposed dwellings is an issues of concern.

 

Units below street level / natural ground level are unacceptable. 

 

General concerns about the amenity of units.  Particular issues on internal planning;

 

- bathrooms

- living areas

- stairs

- bedrooms

 

No ventilation and daylight provided to access points at each level. I.e. stairwells

 

Kitchens and bathroom areas are minimal; panel would like to see these increased.

 

            Storage areas require reconsideration.

 

            Third floor bedroom one is extremely small.

 

Top floor large balcony has storage allocated, this is not useful or an efficient use of a high amenity area while other units are provided in excavated locations.

 

8.         Safety & Security

 

            Long driveway may be a furtive space, it is lacking in surveillance.

 

9.         Social Dimensions

 

            No comment provided.

10.       Aesthetics

 

            Poorly considered massing.

 

11.       Conclusion

           

The Panel has major concerns regarding the proposal in its current form;

 

-           All drawings, particularly sections need to show relationship/impact on neighbouring properties, including the location of windows of the adjoining property.

 

-           Concerns about proposed FSR, especially given numerous amenity issues.

 

-           Need to see Panel again, with additional urban design input to site planning. design and compositions of building. 

 

Amended plans were prepared and the proposal was referred to a second design Review Panel the comments made at that time are as follows:

 

13th October Design Review Panel

 

It was noted that this was a development application and the second Panel meeting with the applicant.

 

To address the Panel's comments, the applicant may need to submit amended plans.  Prior to preparing any amended plans, the applicant should discuss the Panel's comments and any other matter that may require amendment with the assessing Planning Officer.

 

When addressing the Panel's comments by way of amendments, if the applicant does not propose to address all or the bulk of the Panel's comments, and wishes to make minor amendments only, then it should be taken that the Panel considers the proposal does not meet the SEPP 65 requirements.  In these instances it is unlikely the scheme will be

referred back to the Panel for further review.

 

PANEL COMMENTS

 

1.         Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The Panel again noted concerns regarding the site planning and the lack of relationship with neighbouring buildings and garden spaces.

 

2.         The Scale of the Proposal

 

No comment provided.

 

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The Panel again noted that the massing of the building on site creates amenity and design problems overall.

 

4.         The Proposed Density

 

The Panel believes that FSR should not be factored in for the narrow neck part of the site, as it is basically only used for driveway and screen planting.

 

5.         Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

No comment provided.

 

6.         The Proposed Landscape

 

The extent of landscaping for this proposal is quite minimal, with no consolidated garden spaces with appropriate landscaping provided. 

 

The Panel would like to see a continued green open space corridor to the rear of the blocks within this development.  This is to maintain and not sever the continuous green open space link throughout this entire block.

 

7.         The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

No comment provided.

 

8.         The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

No comment provided.

 

9.         Social issues

 

The Panel still considers that the side entry does not provide a good address to the development.

 

10.       The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The Panel considers that the proposed aesthetics are not well considered, as evidenced by;

 

-           poor 3d massing

-           ill-considered stepping of the walls in plan and section

-           poorly scaled and integrated roof forms

-           poor relationship with existing and proposed ground levels

-           questionable relationship of openings to interior planning

-           location, character of terraces and parapets, and lack of integration with landscape design

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel noted that the plans provided were lacking clarity and were difficult to read. 

 

The Panel reiterates its previous concerns regarding design, specifically;

 

·    No Urban Design input has been provided, as was requested.

 

·    Panel considers that 3D massing remains very questionable, lacking any generating architectural form.

 

·    Internal planning has altered, but remains very poor.  Many awkward geometries and poorly configured rooms.

 

·    Drawings are of very poor quality.  Black walls in part are incomprehensible.

 

The Panel believes that higher quality design is required to be considered in all aspects of this proposal.  This includes but is not limited to that abovementioned. 

 

The panel does not believe the scheme as it currently stands meets the SEPP 65 requirements and it is not supported. Substantial amendments are required as indicated in the above document.

 

These comments are addressed under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

(c)   Development Control Plan Multi Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements or preferred solutions)

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

 

Front  boundary setbacks

P1        The front setback consistent  with streetscape/adjoining dwelling.

 

Side boundary setbacks

P2        Ensure that:

·      solar access is maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·      privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their own spaces provided.

·      Landscaping and private open space provided.

·      Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.  

Maximum length of wall section is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

Yes front setback is consistent with the setback of adjoining properties.

 

 

 

 

No-

Northern average: 5.2m

Northern minimum: 3.3m

 

Southern average: 4.5m

Southern minimum: 3.5m

 

Performance requirements satisfied. See Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

 

Rear Boundary Setback

P3        Ensure that:

·      solar access and overshadowing minimised.

·      Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

·      Landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces provided.

·      Building built across site.

S3 Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length any wall section 10 metres. Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Yes, some 38m to Alexander St frontage which is the rear boundary.

 

 

Yes- There is no length greater than10m.

 

DENSITY

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

No- 1.15:1 SEPP 1 objection provided. Proposed FSR is acceptable subject to deletion of unit 16 and void areas to units 10, 11 and 12, which would reduce FSR to 0.97:1, which satisfies the performance requirements.

 

FENCES

 

P1  

·      Front fences consistent  with  streetscape.

·      Entrances highlighted.

·      Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

 

S1 Solid front fences no higher than 1.2 metres. May increase to 1.8 metres when 50 % transparent.

 

 

Minimal front masonry walls proposed to both Arden and Alexander St frontages. Insufficient detail provided will be the subject of a condition of consent to submit further detail.

 

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1 Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

P2        Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided

communal open space.

 

 

Yes

 

 

Private Open Space

General

P3   

·      Provides privacy.

·      is accessible from main living areas.

 

 

 

 

Yes subject to privacy treatment and landscaping. Accessible off living areas.

 

 

Flats and apartments

 

P6 Dwellings have direct access to courtyard, balcony,  deck or roof garden.

 

 

 

S6    Minimum area of 8 m2 and a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

 

 

 

 

Yes, however minor variation for unit 5, 6, 10 and 11 in dimensions. Variation can be supported due to minor non-compliance, sufficient recreation areas are provided.

 

PRIVACY

 
Visual Privacy

 

P1 Windows and balconies of main living areas avoid overlooking windows in adjoining dwellings and private open space.

 

 

 

S1 Offset, angle or screen windows with less than 10m separation . Sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level.

 

 

 

Yes subject to deep soil landscaping and privacy treatment to deck areas and some windows as shown on plans.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

 Yes subject to landscaping and privacy treatment.

 

VIEW SHARING

 

Acoustic Privacy

 

P4 Building construction minimises transmission of noise.

 

P2 Development minimises effects on views and shows how view loss is minimised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, view loss was raised as an issue for several of the units particularly to the southern adjoining property on Arden St. The views are of the Coogee Bay basin not of the coastline. The quality of views enjoyed is considered to be minimal and would not warrant refusal of the application.

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

P1 Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P1.2 Living areas of neighbours sunlight greater than 3 hours per day.

 

 

P1.3 At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbours have sunlight greater than 3 hours per day.

* If less than this is available the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

 

 

 

Yes- considering the scale of the development is consistent with height requirements and only minimally varies FSR the resultant solar loss as a result of the permissible building envelope is acceptable.

 

No, however currently solar access to adjoining properties is minimal due to site orientation.

 

No however additional impact is not significant from what is currently experienced.

 

 

 

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

 

P4 Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·      Living areas are orientated to         the north.

·      Larger windows are located on the north.

 

 

 

 

 

S94 75% of dwellings achieve 3.5 star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.

The Nat HERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes- condition will be imposed requiring minimum of 3.5 stars.

 

Energy efficiency conditions will be imposed which will reduce the impact of the development on the environment.

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

P1 Design allows surveillance. P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

P7 External lighting not intrusive.

 

 

Yes- the site provides for an adequate level of passive surveillance to both frontages.

 

High walls are not proposed.

 

Secure access provided for resident spaces.

 

Visitor spaces are clearly identified and are readily accessible, adequate lighting will be a condition of consent.

 

PARKING

 

 

P1 Garages and parking structures do not dominate the street frontage.

 

P2 Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required (refer to dwelling number requirements in P1 and P2 Barrier Free Access.

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles are provided.

 

 

Yes- garage to Alexander St has been designed to incorporate a studio apartment to minimise adverse impacts to streetscape.

 

Yes achieved.

 

 

Yes provided.

 

 

Note:  The parking requirements are set in Randwick Parking DCP. The requirements are:

 

studio apartment*

1 space per two studios

 

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

 

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

                                                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

One space required and one  provided

One space required and one space provided.

 

16 x 1.2 required = 19.2 spaces. 21 spaces provided. With deletion of unit 16 only 18 spaces required.

 

Adequate car spaces provided.

.

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

 

 

4.5 spaces required, 3 spaces provided, additional space will be conditioned..

 

DRIVEWAYS AND MANOUVERING AREAS

 

P1 Driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

 

S2  Vehicles enter parking spaces with a single turn and leave in no more than 2 turns.

 

Yes

 

 

P3 Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

 

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

 

Yes driveway concealed from street frontage..

 

 

P4 Space between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces enables landscaping and planting.

 

S4  Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and be at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

 

Yes- landscaping will minimise impact to neighbouring properties addressing Dudley St.

 

 

P5 Materials and finishes consistent.

 

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

Yes- Will be conditioned to be consistent.

 

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

 

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5  for ramps over 20m (see Parking DCP).

 

Yes driveway gradients acceptable.

 

STORAGE

 

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

 

S1  10m2  of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1 metres.

 

At least 50% of the storage space is within the dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area.

 

Storage facilities may be in basement or sub floor areas, or attached to garages .

 

 

No less than 10sqm provided for each unit however most units have at least one storage cupboard and there are communal storage areas that can be utilised. The amount is considered satisfactory.

 

No minor variation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes some provided in basement.

 

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

 

P1 Design must provide  access for people with special access needs as required (foyer parking open space).

 

S1 Publicly accessible areas comply with the Building Code of Australia for access and mobility.

 

Yes can be readily adapted.

 

 

P2  Dwelling requirements are: 

 

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3  and so on.

 

The requirements of AS 1428.1 and AS 4299 are  to be considered.

 

 

Yes one ground floor dwelling could be readily adapted with internal enlargement of door openings and room dimensions. A condition will be imposed requiring one accessible unit.

 

 

P3  Dwellings for people with a disability have corresponding parking space.

 

 

Yes, one disabled space has been provided.

 

 

 

P4  Passenger lifts provide access for people with a disability to common and parking areas.

 

 

Yes lift openings appear to allow for wheelchair access.

 

 

 

 

 

WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT

 

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities are  provided.

 

S1  Storage cupboard in each kitchen sufficient which enables separation of recyclable material.

Holding at least a single day’s waste.

Landscaped areas provide composting.

 

Yes, to basement car park.

Yes adequately sized kitchens to allow for recycling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes through condition of consent.

 

 

P2  Garbage and recycling containers in centralised garbage/ recycling room accessible to garbage compactors  where bins can be easily wheeled for collection. Facilities to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage /recycling collection service.

 

 

Yes in basement.

 

 

P3  Collection  facilities  complement design of t and is not obtrusive.

 

S3  Waste facilities not to  be located between the front alignment of the building and the road.

 

Yes, provided to basement car park.

 

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       Urban design and built form

 

The built form of this development is contemporary in style incorporating a skillion roof and symmetrical horizontal and vertical lines with large deck areas and prominent glazed windows. The built form does not attempt to emulate the 1960s walk up multi-unit developments within the immediate locality, rather adopting a more contemporary style, consistent with similar redevelopments in the immediate surrounds such as 11-15 Alexander St and 84 Dudley St.

 

The originally proposed Alexander St elevation was raised as a substantial concern where the carport and excavated driveway would disturb the harmony of the streetscape where there continuous residential development at a reduced setback. In response to this concern the carport was deleted in favour of a two-storey structure incorporating parking to the ground floor, a studio apartment to the first floor and an excavated driveway to provide vehicular access to the remainder of the site.

 

Design review panel

 

The final comments of the design review panel as detailed previously in this report, were not positive in relation to the recommended amendments and the submitted plans. In response to these comments Council has sought further amendments and improvements to the scheme which address the concerns raised by the Design Review Panel.

 

The concerns in relation to density have been resolved through a reduction in FSR due to the deletion of voids and unit 16.

 

The extent of the building envelope has been marginally reduced and additional stepping to respond to the site’s topography will be provided with the deletion of the roof top void areas and unit 16.

 

The only partially subterranean apartment is unit 4 and as habitable areas are oriented north with extensive recreation areas provided the amenity of this unit is considered good and achieves the objectives of SEPP 65.

 

Issues raised with the usability and maintenance of the roof terraces have been resolved by the deletion of access to the terraces and as such they are no longer trafficable.

 

The changes to the Alexander St frontage were supported by the Design Review Panel.

 

Overall the comments raised by the panel appear to be mostly resolved by the deferred commencement conditions.

 

8.2       View sharing

 

The adjoining units to the south (No. 312-314 Arden St) of the subject development enjoy views over the Coogee basin. However the coastline is obscured by existing multi unit developments. The proposed development has an overall maximum height marginally higher than the ridge of the existing buildings such that the extent of loss is minimal.

 

To the centre of the site adjoining properties will also experience some view loss of the Brook St/Dudley St valley where currently these properties enjoy the amenity of the open landscaped area to the centre of the site. The views lost will be minimised by the deletion of unit 16 and roof top void areas where the built form at this point will be only two and a half storeys above ground level. The units to be affected are located to rear of 312 and 318 Arden St.

 

The views enjoyed in particular for 94 and 96A Dudley St are of the landscaped area to the centre of the subject site. This is considered to be outlook rather than views and retention cannot be justified based on outlook and borrowed amenity of neighbouring properties. Such an extensive open space is unlikely to remain undeveloped indefinitely especially where the site is zoned residential 2C and allows medium density development.

 

The extent of view loss as a result of this development is considered to be minimal and the quality currently enjoyed not high enough to warrant substantial redesign or outright refusal of the application. The anticipated view loss is considered acceptable.

 

8.3       Floor area

 

The FSR for the development as submitted was 1.15:1, which exceeds the maximum permissible FSR of 0.9:1. A SEPP 1 objection was submitted with the application in support of this variation. The variation equates to approximately 300sqm of floor area. A reduction in support of some 170sqm as required by the recommended amendments would  result in an FSR of 0.97:1. This reduction is readily achieved through the deletion of unit 16 and the void areas to units 10, 11 and 12.

 

The applicant seeks to vary clause 32 Floor Space Ratio of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 via a SEPP 1 objection to a development standard. The justification provided as part of the SEPP 1 objection was as follows:

 

·    The proposal complies with all other development standards under the LEP and DCP

·    The objectives of the development standard are achieved whereby the proposed scale is considered to be compatible with the surrounding locality.

·    The design of the development is superior to adjoining properties in terms of articulated façades and proportions.

·    The proposal is consistent with the desired future character of the area but is also consistent with the character of the area set by existing residential flat buildings.

·    The development allows for the redevelopment of the site consistent with the context of the residential 2C zone whilst minimising adverse impacts on surrounding properties in terms of overshadowing and solar access.

·    The proposal will achieve the outcomes of the development standards.

·    Strict compliance would be unreasonable and unnecessary given the design of the proposal and its relationship to neighbouring properties does not amount to any adverse impacts.

 

The SEPP 1 objection cannot be supported for an FSR of 1.15:1, however in view of the deletion of excessive floor area as part of deferred commencement conditions whereby the approvable FSR will be reduced to 0.97:1 the SEPP 1 objection is acceptable as the bulk of the development will be minimised and the anticipated amenity impacts to neighbouring properties will be improved. The development will satisfy the objectives of the development standard whereby amenity impacts to the adjoining proprieties will be minimal whilst still achieving reasonable redevelopment opportunities for the site.

 

The bulk and scale of the development at 0.97:1 is considered to be in keeping with the bulk and scale of adjoining properties in particular recent approvals in the locality including 11-15 Alexander St. The adjoining multi unit developments constructed in the 1960s and 70s would also be of a comparative scale to that of the proposed development.

 

There is no increase in privacy impacts as a result of the variation to floor space ratio as most of additional floor area is a result of excessive service and void areas. A compliant development would result in a similar number of units and therefore the anticipated privacy and overshadowing impacts.

 

It should be noted that most of the excessive floor area to contained below ground and therefore does not unreasonably contribute towards the bulk of the development. The SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

8.4       Privacy

 

In the redevelopment of any site, some amenity impacts are to be anticipated. In the instance of this site many of the surrounding properties have taken advantage of the generous landscaped back yard of 308-310 Arden St, which was previously a tennis court. Many of the surrounding properties were redeveloped when this landscaped area was not utilised and borrowed much of their amenity from this open space. The residential flat buildings of 5 and 7-9 Alexander St and 312 Arden St have oriented living areas and balconies towards this open space. Due to this orientation there will be some privacy losses to these properties.

 

The proposed building provides mostly bedrooms to the southern elevation where 5 & 7-9 Alexander St are located, so as to maximise solar access to the living areas. This orientation also reduces the opportunity for overlooking from high usage living rooms. Units 15 and 18 do provide habitable rooms to the southern elevation adjacent to 312 Arden St however these windows are noted as having obscure glass.

 

A balcony is proposed to the southern elevation for unit 8 however this is at ground level due to the slope of the land and is therefore unlikely to result in significant overlooking to No 312 Arden St due to the raised level of this site being approximately 1m above that of the subject site in this location.

 

To the western elevation oriented towards Alexander St, there are balconies proposed off several living areas for units 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 however these are for the most part addressing the driveway of the subject site not the adjoining properties and are off set from other habitable windows or balconies. To No. 5 Alexander St there will be minimal sightlines between the balconies of the northeastern units and the proposed western facing units. Any overlooking is considered minor as these balconies are of reduced dimension such that they are not considered primary recreation areas.

 

There is no anticipated privacy impact to No. 92 Dudley St which is a mixed use development with a garage to the common boundary. No. 94 and 96 Dudley St are both dwellings houses that have their private recreation areas oriented towards the common boundary with the subject site. Along this boundary there is no building proposed however the excavated driveway is positioned in this location. Whilst a driveway in this location is not an ideal design solution given the narrowness of the block there is no alternative location. It is considered that as the driveway will be excavated below the ground level of the adjoining properties, the impact will be reduced. Further, dense landscaping is proposed in this location along these common boundaries with the intention of softening the impact of the driveway. It is considered that aural privacy will be preserved and vehicular access nuisance minimised by this landscaping.

 

To the north eastern boundary alongside 96A Dudley St and 306 Arden St adequate setbacks are provided such that greater than 9m is provided between the units of 96A Dudley St and the proposed building. To No. 306 Arden St a semi-detached dwelling exists which does not have windows which will be overlooked in this location and adequate landscaping is provided. No balconies are proposed to this section of the northern elevation which could overlook private recreation area.

 

There are no concerns raised for the balconies to the Alexander St or the Arden St elevations as these overlook the street and provide for additional façade articulation and passive surveillance.

 

8.5       Height

 

The permissible height for the 2C zone of 10m external wall height and 12m overall height is achieved with this proposal. The overall height is below the 12m maximum at a maximum height of 10.4m. The maximum external wall height is 10m with part of the floor to ceiling height integrated into a skillion roof therefore visually not adding to the bulk of the development or exceeding the height requirement. The definition of external wall height requires any area including gable end (which can be expanded to include skillion roof) over 10m to also be included, however this is only where the area exceeds 6sqm. The proposed variation does not exceed 6sqm therefore does not technically vary the development standard.

 

The overall height of the development at Arden St is consistent with the streetscape. For the middle of the site the height is considered to be too high not relating to the change in level of the site, a more terraced height is preferred which is achieved by the recommended deletion of additional floor area from the third floor.

 

8.6       Setbacks

 

The proposed front setback of the building matches the front setback of the adjoining properties to Arden St and is consistent with the dominant pattern of setbacks along the street.

 

The building to the Alexander St frontage matches the front setback of 0m. There is a dominant urban wall created from Dudley St along the North-eastern side of Alexander St achieved from a two storey mixed use development and several garages. The proposed two-storey garage and studio unit maintain this wall. The effect of the two-storey structure on the Alexander St frontage is that the bulk of the main part of the development is concealed from the street.

 

The side setbacks for the main building marginally vary the preferred setbacks contained within the DCP Multi Unit Housing. To the northern boundary the average setback is 5.2m which achieves the preferred solution of 5m. The minimum is 3.3m which is minor variation form the preferred minimum of 3.5m. To the southern boundary the average setback is 4.5m which is a variation from the 5m preferred but not a substantial variation. The minimum is 3.5m, which achieves the preferred solution. Whilst the proposed setbacks represent a minor variation from standard it is considered that the performance requirements are satisfied in that there will be adequate visual separation between buildings for landscaping, privacy and solar access. The setback as visible from the streetscape will be consistent with other buildings and their siting within the streetscape.

 

8.7       Solar access and energy efficiency

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the level of overshadowing of the new development will fall primarily over the adjoining property of 312-314 Arden St and 7-9 Alexander St.

 

Currently there is overshadowing from Nos. 308-310 Arden St to 312-314 Arden St such that throughout the winter solstice this property is currently overshadowed for the lower level units. The additional shadow cast will increase such that units higher in the building will now be affected. The additional level of overshadowing will still allow for adequate solar access throughout the year and at the winter solstice represents only a minimal increase given the building is of a comparative height to the two existing dwellings. Due to the relationship of the subject to site to this affected property the level of overshadowing proposed is to be anticipated where a new development is to be constructed to the permissible height.

 

A redesign of the proposal as suggested by the Design Review Panel where additional height was encouraged to Arden St would actually result in an increase in the shadow cast.

 

The remainder of the shadow will fall over 7-9 Alexander St during the morning of the winter solstice, this will then move away by noon. This level of overshadowing is considered acceptable.

 

Given the proposed deletion of unit 16 and void roof areas to unit 10, 11 and 12 the extent of shadow cast will be reduced. The reduction in height as a result of these deletions to the centre of the proposed building is some 2800mm, which will be significant in terms of improved solar access.

 

8.8       Parking

 

The number of required parking spaces as per the DCP Parking is achieved with the amended parking plans. With the deletion of unit 16 there is an excess of two spaces. Engineering comments were provided in relation to the layout of the car park, these comments are provided under technical officer’s comment section of this report. Concern was raised for vehicle manoeuvring from several of the parking spaces. It is considered that the constricted design of the car park can be readily resolved through an internal redesign of the basemen layout. The applicant has agreed to a deferred commencement condition requiring a redesign to comply with the relevant Australian Standards.

 

8.9       Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

Clause 29 of Randwick LEP 1998 requires Council to consider the probably aesthetic appearance of a proposal for a property, which falls within the foreshore scenic protection area. The proposal will not be overly dominant in relation to this visually prominent residential area. The development fits within the character of the surrounding locality in terms of bulk, scale and height. The architectural quality of the development is acceptable and will not detract from the visual quality of the area.

 

8.10     Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

The proposed landscaped area for the site is 835sqm, which is 52% of the total site area. This achieves the development standard under RLEP 1998. 48% of this area is provided over podium level, which satisfies the development standard. The design of the landscaped area in relation to the building footprint will enable adequate landscaping. This landscaping is essential in providing privacy screening to adjacent properties and to minimise the impact of the new development on the surrounding natural environment. A landscape plan was submitted to Council, this plan provided for large native tree species to the common boundary with Nos 94 and 96 Dudley St where screening from private recreation areas is most required. Hedge plantings are proposed alongside dividing fences to soften the landscaped area to occupants of the new dwelling. Along the northern boundary between the new building and buildings of Nos 96A Dudley St and 306 Arden St and the southern boundary with 312 Arden St and 7-9 Alexander St medium scaled trees are proposed which will soften the development visually without creating additional overshadowing to the subject development and adjoining properties.

 

The landscape plan provided details of private recreation areas to the new apartments including screen planting to preserve privacy to adjoining properties. Details of the roof terrace are also outlined. As the void areas for unit 10, 11 and 12 and unit 16 are being deleted access to the proposed roof terraces will not be available. This further reduces privacy impacts from use of the roof for recreation purposes and ensures maintenance concerns for the grassed roof is resolved. Whilst this results in reduced private recreation areas for these three units there is still an alternative balcony provided to the second floor. The recreation areas will be slightly undersized from the preferred solution however this is preferable to providing roof top terraces, which would establish an undesirable precedent and result in overlooking.

 

8.11     Amending plans per deferred commencement conditions

 

Fences and retaining walls

 

Insufficient detail has been provided for the dividing, front and retaining walls, it is considered that greater detail needs to be provided and will be the subject of a deferred commencement condition.

 

Internal arrangement

 

Greater solar access can be provided for unit 3, 4, 6 and 11 by a minor internal reconfiguration. The applicant has agreed to deferred commencement conditions seeking a redesign of these noted units, in particular:

 

·    Unit 3- Bedroom 1 and ensuite are to be repositioned to the rear of the unit and the living and kitchen are to be moved to benefit from a northern aspect.

·    Unit 4- Bedroom 2 is to be repositioned to allow for a habitable room to be place in this location to enjoy a northern aspect.

·    Unit 6- Bedroom 1 and ensuite are to be repositioned to the rear of the unit and the living and kitchen are to be moved to benefit from a northern aspect.

·    Unit 11- Bedroom 1 and ensuite are to be repositioned to the rear of the unit and the living and kitchen are to be moved to benefit from a northern aspect.

 

The modifications are minor and readily accommodated in the unit envelope.

 

Reduction in floor area

 

To reduce the floor area and bulk of the development and to limit access to the roof, floor area is to be deleted by removing unit 16, and deleting the void areas to unit 10, 11 and 12. In place of unit 16 the proposed skillion can be either extended over this area or replaced by a flat roof, this is at the discretion of the architect. Where the void areas are deleted it is considered that either a ‘pop up’ skillion can be integrated into the roof form or a flat roof provided. The applicant agreed to these deletions to be imposed as deferred commencement conditions.

 

Car park layout

 

As per Assets and Infrastructure technical officer comments the car park layout needs to be revised further from the amended plans dated 20/11/03. The necessary amendments are considered to be readily achieved therefore can be dealt with via deferred commencement conditions.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development including the recommended deferred commencement conditions are considered to satisfy the relevant development standards and preferred solutions. The development is unlikely to adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining residential properties and the objections raised have been adequately resolved. The new building is of a built form and design consistent with the desired future character of this part of Coogee and the streetscape quality of Arden and Alexander Streets.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT the Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP No. 1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 32(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (relating to floor space ratio) on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objective of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality as follows, and that Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources be advised accordingly.

 

B.         THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 420/03 for a proposed four storey multi unit development containing 17 dwellings with basement car parking for 27 vehicles and a detached two storey studio dwelling including parking for two vehicles addressing Alexander St, at 308-310 Arden St and 3 Alexander St Coogee subject to the following conditions:

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent is not to operate until the following material has been submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development:

 

1.         Unit 16 shall be deleted from the plans. The unit contributes unreasonably to the bulk of the development and the variation from the permissible floor space ratio. An alternative roof treatment shall be provided where unit 16 is deleted and replaced with either flat or skillion in design.

 

2.         The void areas to units 10, 11 and 12 located on the third floor are to be deleted from the plans. The voids contribute unreasonably to the bulk of the development. The roof form over this section of the development needs to be redesigned. It is recommended that a skillion form be considered similar to what is provided over the rear section of the development. This could provide additional light and ventilation to the units below but should not be higher than 1000m at the maximum height.

 

3.         Reference to the roof terrace as accessed from unit 10, 11 and 12 is to be deleted. This area is to be roof only and in no way be accessed, trafficable or used for recreational purposes.

 

4.         The basement car park needs to be redesigned so that the driveway and  car park ramps grades, aisle widths, internal circulation and all car spaces to generally comply with the requirements of AS 2890.1. Vehicle manoeuvring needs to be readdressed for spaces 8, 15, 18 and 25 to comply with the DCP-Parking. One of the surplus spaces is to be converted into an additional visitor space to comply with the DCP Parking requirements.

 

5.         Additional detail is to be submitted for approval for the proposed front fences to both Arden St and Alexander St frontages, mailboxes, dividing walls between all adjoining properties and any required retaining walls.

 

6.         Units 3, 4, 6 and 11 are to be re-configured to provide improved solar access and internal amenity. Unit 3, 6, and 11 are to have Bedroom 1 and ensuite to be repositioned to the rear in exchange for the living and kitchen areas, which will benefit from a northerly aspect. Unit 4 bedroom 2 is to be repositioned to allow for a habitable room to be placed in this location to enjoy a northerly aspect.

 

7.         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 streetscape. Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent. 

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement requirement, approval be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered M-Arden-02B dated 29/4/03 and received 24/11/03 , M-Arden- 00, 01, 03, 04, 05, 06 & 07, dated 29/4/03 and received by Council on 6/11/03, LA01-A dated 18/5/03 and received 26/5/03 the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details approved with the deferred commencement conditions and 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.        A rainwater tank shall be provided for the collection and reuse of roof water designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy and shall be connected for the internal purpose of toilet flushing and clothes washing (cold water only) and also allow for other uses such as landscape watering. Details of the location of the pump, and colour of the tank, structural engineer’s specifications for installation and plumbing shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

3.        Public access to the visitor’s carparking spaces is to be maintained at all times and an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the carpark, together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use.

 

4.        All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rainwater heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

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

 

6.        The enclosure of balconies is prohibited by this consent. A single common television aerial, and/or satellite dish (having a maximum diameter of 700mm and not located on the front or street elevation of the building) is to be installed to serve the development.

 

7.        Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

8.        Where access is required to adjoining premises for construction purposes, the consent of the owner/s of the subject adjoining premises must be provided to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to carrying out any construction works from or upon the adjoining premises.

 

9.        Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area.

 

10.      Upon completion of the development and prior to the issuing of the strata subdivision, documentary evidence is to be submitted to the Council by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the owner of the premises, to the satisfaction of Council) which confirms that the development has been carried out in accordance with the relevant development consent conditions.

 

Details of critical phase inspections carried out by or on behalf of the principal certifying authority together with any certification relied upon and the occupation certificate for the building must also be provided to Council prior to approval of the strata subdivision plans.

 

11.      The relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be complied with and a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water.  Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

            Following application, a “Notice of Requirements” will be provided, detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing an occupation certificate or release of the subdivision linen plan, as applicable.

 

12.      The fence on the street alignment is to be a maximum height of 1.8m and be designed so that the upper two thirds of the fence is at least 50% open, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining residential development and the streetscape.

 

13.      Adequate lighting shall be provided to car parking areas to provide a good level of security.

 

14.      One accessible unit shall be provided within the development complying with DCP Multi Unit Housing requirement Part 5.4 Barrier Free Access. This unit is to comply with AS 1428.1 and AS 4299.  Amended plans are to be submitted as part of an application for a construction certificate.

 

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENERGY EFFICIENCY: 

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

14.      The development must be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum energy efficiency NatHERS rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent and a NatHERS certificate or equivalent, prepared by a suitably qualified person, is to be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate application.

 

The design of the building must be consistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the energy efficiency rating may necessitate a new or amendment to the development consent prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

15.      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 noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

16.      External timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturers details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

17.      Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

18.      The hot water system installed in the development must achieve a minimum greenhouse score of 3.5 as detailed SEDA’s Energy Smart Homes Policy.  Any electric clothes dryers to be provided in the development must also have a minimum 2 star energy rating.

 

 

19.      Landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

          Landscaped areas must include an area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting and porous paving should also be used in all pathways, wherever practicable, to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater and details are to be provided on the landscape plans.  Details of the proposed landscaping, including plant species and paved areas are to be included with the construction certificate application.

 

20.      Facilities to enable composting shall be provided within the common property garden area.

 

SECTION 94:

 

The following condition/s are applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

21.      In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council.

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $9436.20

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $3487.05

c)       Administration fee $425.00                                                         $425.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

SUBDIVISION:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

 

21.       The consolidation of the separate lots into a single lot must take place, prior to the use or the occupation of the development.  Details of the consolidation of lots are to be provided to Council prior to occupation of the development.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

22.      The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the use of the premises and the operation of any plant or equipment on the site shall not give rise to an L10 sound pressure level which is 5dB(A) greater than the A-weighted L90 background sound pressure level, measured at any point on a residential boundary or within any residential dwelling.

 

23.      The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance.

 

24.      A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council prior to

 

a)         the commencement of works,

 

certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the development will comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant conditions of approval.

 

25.      A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and conditions of Council’s approval.

 

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:

 

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

 

27.      There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which will give rise to an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

28.      The location of the discharge point serving the car park mechanical ventilation system is to be not less than 6m from a property boundary and it must discharge vertically and satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668.

 

Details of compliance are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

The location and height of the discharge of mechanical ventilation systems are required to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668 and details are to be provided in the relevant plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

29.      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.

 

30.      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.

 

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

 

31.      Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

32.      A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions and detailing any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises, are to be fully complied with and incorporated into the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

A copy of the engineers report is to be submitted to the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

33.      Driven type piles/shoring must not be provided unless a geotechnical engineer’s report is submitted to the certifying authority, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, which states that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

34.      A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures (i.e. including dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, veranda’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon:

 

a.         all of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the abovestated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

35.      The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises including (a public roadway or public place) must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises and (where applicable) details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

 

36.      A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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:

 

37.      All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993 and details of compliance are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to the principal certifying authority, prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

 

38.      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.

 

39.      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.

 

40.      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.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the following measures (as applicable), to ensure compliance with the terms of Council’s consent:

 

·          Sediment control measures.

·          Provision of perimeter fences or hoardings for public safety and restricted access to building sites.

·          Maintenance of the public place free from unauthorised materials, sand, soil, debris, waste containers or other obstructions.

 

41.      All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property. 

 

42.      Retaining walls or shoring must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land, if the soil conditions require it, and adequate provisions are to be made for drainage.

 

43.      Retaining walls and shoring are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards and details of any proposed retaining walls are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for consideration prior to installation.

 

44.      If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

 

·    preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·    if necessary, underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and

·    at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), give notice of the intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining land. Particulars of the excavation are to be provided to the owner of the adjoining land and also the owner of the land where the building is being erected or demolished.

 

45.      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.

 

46.      An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the principal certifying authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

47.      In addition to the matters contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the following matters are to be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development consent, prior to the occupation of the building:

 

a)         car parking and vehicular access

b)         landscaping

c)         stormwater drainage

 

48.      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 first completed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete), showing the area of land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being construction at the approved levels.

 

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.

 

49.      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.

 

50.      A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations.

 

51.      Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

52.      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.

 

53.      Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like.

 

Any damage caused to the road or footway must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

54.      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.

 

55.      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.

 

56.      Any building/demolition works involving asbestos cement are to be carried out in accordance with the Work Cover New South Wales “Guidelines for Practices Involving Asbestos Cement in Buildings”.

 

57.      A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·    location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·    location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·    location of building materials for construction;

·    provisions for public safety;

·    dust control measures;

·    site access location and construction

·    details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·    protective measures for tree preservation;

·    provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·    location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·    details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·    construction noise and vibration management.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain adequate levels of public health and safety.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

58.      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

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and a copy of the approved details must be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment.

 

59.      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.

 

60.      A warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed in a prominent position on the building site, visible to both the public and site workers.  The sign must be displayed throughout the construction period.  Copies of a suitable warning sign are available at Council’s Customer Service Centre for a nominal fee.

 

61.      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.

 

62.      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.

 

Fences or hoardings 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.

 

Details of the proposed temporary fences located upon the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority and 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.

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

63.      A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

64.      Any part of Council’s nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be back-filled, top-soiled and re-turfed with kikuyu turf prior to occupation or finalisation of the development, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide access and facilities for people with disabilities:

 

65.      Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with Council’s development control plan for multi-unit housing and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and carparking for people with disabilities are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development in accordance with Section 80 A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

66.      The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

67.      All hazardous or intractable wastes (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover and the Environmental Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·    Occupational health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW)

·    Construction Safety Act 1912; Regulation 84A-J Construction Work Involving Asbestos or Asbestos Cement 1983 (NSW)

·    Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 1996 (NSW).

·    Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 1996 (NSW); and

·    Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 and Regulations (NSW).

 

34.       All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of the NSW WorkCover Authority.  In this regard all contractors and employees shall adopt work practices in accordance with the requirements of WorkSafe’s Control of Inorganic Lead at Work (NOHSC:102(1994) and NOHSC:2015(1994).

 

Security Deposit Conditions

 

 

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

 

68.      The following damage deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)         $2000.00         -           Security damage deposit

 

The damage deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the applicant advising Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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.

 

69.      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)         $1000.00         -           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:

 

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

 

The Alexander Street Frontage:

 

a.         Construct a full width concrete heavy-duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

b.         Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c.         Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full site frontage except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit points.

 

d.         Carry out a full depth, 2 metre wide road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

e.         Reconstruct the concrete footpath along the full site frontage.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

f.          Upgrade the existing inlet capacity of Council’s stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street, to the satisfaction of the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services;

 

OR

 

Extend Council’s stormwater line from the Council stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street to the development site frontage; to the satisfaction of the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services.

 

The Arden Street Frontage

 

g.         Re-construct the damaged sections of the kerb and gutter.

 

h.         Re-construct the damaged sections of the footpath. 

 

71.      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.

 

72.      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.

 

73.      All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level or splayed 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres so that a driver of a stopped vehicle 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

74.      The driveway opening at the Alexander Street frontage must be 5.5 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

75.      The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

76.      A work zone is to be provided in Alexander Street for the duration of the construction works. The ‘work zone’ shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee and shall have a minimum length of 12 metres. The prescribed fee for the work zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

 

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

 

77.      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:

 

·          Match the back of the existing footpath along the Alexander Street and Arden Street frontages.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

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

 

78.      The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the existing concrete footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

79.      The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $671 calculated at $17.60 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

 

80.      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.

 

81.      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.

 

82.      Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been satisfied must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

83.      Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The applicant must liaise with Sydney Electricity prior to lodging the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

Drainage Conditions

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

84.      Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issue, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)         A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)         A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system.  This may involve either connection to the Council's street gutter, or into a Council stormwater pit.  Note:  All proposals should indicate the location of the closest Council stormwater pit and line regardless of the point of discharge.  This information can be obtained by a visual inspection of the area and perusing Council's drainage plans.

 

c)         Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)         The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

e)         Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)          Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)         The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

h)         All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

85.      All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter or drainage system at the front of the property.

 

86.      The applicant will have the option of limiting the stormwater discharge from the site so it will not to exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm and upgrading the inlet capacity of Council’s stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street, to the satisfaction of the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services.

 

OR

 

Extending Council’s stormwater line from the Council stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street to the development site frontage.

 

All future Council stormwater pipelines shall be constructed with a spigot and socket, rubber ringed steel reinforced concrete pipeline (RRRCP). Other pipelines maybe considered however the selected pipeline must have a minimum equivalent or superior qualities to that of the RRRCP. Such qualities shall include (but not limited to):-

 

-        Life expectancy minimum 80 years (including abrasion wear)

-        Vehicular loadings.

-        Resistance to chemical or biological attack.

-        Hydraulic capacity

 

Notes

 

-        Prior to backfill, the pipeline shall be inspected and approved by the Director Assert and Infrastructure Services.

-        The minimum internal diameter for a future Council stormwater pipeline shall be 375 mm.

-        Generally backfill material for the pipeline trench shall be:-

 

      ·          Clean sand, watered in, compacted in 150 mm layers with a minimum 97% relative compaction.

 

All standard extended kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD3; (Minimum concrete strength of 32 Mpa).

 

87.       Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

88.       A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

1.         Within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

2.         Prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed with:-

 

·    The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

·    The pit must be constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

·    The grate is to be a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

·    A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

·    A galvanised heavy-duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipe. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

·    A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system for the access grate (e.g. similar to a Weldlock spring loaded jay-bolt).

 

·    The inlet pipeline located on the side of the pit so that the stormwater will discharge across the face of the screen.

 

·    A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

“This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

Note:   Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit can be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

89.       Any Absorption Trenches/Pits must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

90.       Two covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)         The car washing bays must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system and must be suitably signposted.

 

c)         The car washing bays must be signposted with Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

d)         The car washing bays must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay/s (or equivalent)

 

A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bays.

 

91.       All drainage details for the site shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic consultant who shall, at the completion of the works, certify that the drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drainage plans.

 

92.       As the above site may be present within a fluctuating water table the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofed has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)   Any seepage/subsoil drainage is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be charged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

b)   Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

Waste Management Conditions

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

 

93.       The garbage storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste to the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

94.       Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal of materials during the demolition and construction phase of the development.

 

Strata Subdivision Conditions

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

 

95.       The applicant shall create suitable right of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

96.       The conditions of development consent must be satisfied and all public roads and reserves must be satisfactorily restored prior to the finalisation of the strata subdivision.

 

97.       The applicant shall provide Council with a survey plan of the property prior to receiving strata subdivision approval.

 

Landscape Conditions

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

 

98.       The landscaped areas shown on the plan number LA01 dated 18/05/03 shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

99.       A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary (buildings, trees, other structures etc), council’s footway, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the tree/s to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

The plan shall clearly show the position, canopy spread (location of dripline), trunk diameter, height and names of all existing trees upon the site and adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary which are likely to be affected by the development.

 

b.   A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size with a dense planting of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved. Plant spacings are to be clearly indicated for all accent and groundcovers.

 

                  c.   A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings for groundcovers and accent planting, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

d.   Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

e.   Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

f.    Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

g.   The landscape plan shall show a minimum number of 10 x 75 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located along the southern part of the site. The trees selected shall be of a species that attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

The landscape plan shall show a minimum number of 10 x 75 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) located along the northern part of the site. Ths trees selected shall be of a species that attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

h.   All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm. Planter box details shall be submitted with the detailed landscape plans.

 

i.    Porous paving shall be used in all pathways. Details are to provided with the construction certificate application.

 

j.    Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

100.    Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and the Council, if the Council is not the PCA) prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

101.    To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all the landscaped areas. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways.

 

Details of the automatic irrigation system shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans and specifications. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards.

 

            The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

102.    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.

 

103.    In order to visually 'soften' the expanses of hard pavement, brick unit pavers (or similar) shall be used throughout the driveway and ground level carpark areas on the site. Such details shall be shown on the detailed engineering documentation and shall include all structural design details including pavement/subgrade thickness.

 

Such details shall be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

104.    Any substation required shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications.

 

105.    All detention tanks and stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping on top of these services as stipulated by these conditions of development consent.

 

All stormwater documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the top of the detention tanks and stormwater infiltration devices being 600mm below the finished ground level of the landscaped areas.

 

Tree Management

 

106.    The applicant shall submit a total payment of $2360.00 to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to remove the existing street tree specimens of Melaleuca quinquenervia (Paperbark) ($1480.00), and

 

b.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 2 x 75 litre street trees (along Alexander Street) and 2 x 75 litre street trees (along Arden Street) at the completion of all works ($880.00), and

 

The contribution shall be paid into Fee Code 525 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for the works to be undertaken.

 

107.    Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 2 x75 and 2 x 100 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the site. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a.         One (1) Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) located towards the western part of the site.

 

b.         Three (3) Casuarina species (Swamp Oak) located within the western part of this site.

 

c.         One (1) Araucaria hetrophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) located within the southern part of the site.

 

108.    Permission is granted for the removal of only those trees falling within the area occupied by the approved works. Removal of the remaining trees on the site are subject to separate application under the Tree Preservation Order.

 

109.    The applicant shall be required to ensure the retention and long term health of all trees located on adjoining properties adjacent to the proposed development. As a general guide there shall be minimal excavation or root pruning within the driplines of the subject trees.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

110.    In order to ensure the retention of the two Archontophoenix species (Bangalow) located towards the western part of the site and the Banksia species (Banksia) located within the adjoining property to the north of the site in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.         All detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the retention of the existing tree specimens with the position of the tree trunks and full diameter of the tree canopies clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.         Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, basement carparks, services, pipes, detention tanks, stormwater infiltration systems, paving etc within 2 metres of the tree trunks shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

c.         A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $2,960.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the preservation of the tree in accordance with the requirements described in this condition.

 

 

   QUANTITY

 

      SPECIES       

 

   AMOUNT

 

2

 

Archontophoenix species (Bangalow)

 

   $2,160.00

 

1

 

Banksia species (Banksia)

 

   $   800.00

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

   $2,960.00    

 

The refundable deposit is placed to ensure that the tree protection measures as described in this condition are undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period. The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months from the time of issue of a final occupation certificate by the certifying authority providing the tree protection measures (including amendments to the plans) have been undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period and the trees have been retained in good health.

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the trees at any time during the demolition and construction period or prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate will result in the Council claiming all of the lodged security.

 

111.    A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $18,000.000 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

a.   The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months after the issue of a final occupation certificate by the principle certifying authority providing the landscape works have been successfully implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape documentation. Throughout the maintenance/bond period, the applicant shall be responsible for all routine maintenance such as grass cutting, weeding, watering, fertilising, spraying, staking and replacement of all failed plant stock.  There must be no alteration to the original design, including substitution of trees and shrubs, without the prior approval of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

b.   Any contravention of Council's landscape conditions at any time during the construction period or prior to the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the date a final occupation certificate is issued will result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security.

 

Advisory Matters

 

A1.           In order to organise for an inspection for the release of the security deposit, the applicant shall contact the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to liaise with Council’s Asset & Infrastructure Department to arrange for an inspection of the landscaping to be carried out. Should the landscaping be found to be unsatisfactory, thus necessitating further inspections, the applicant is advised that each additional inspection will be charged at $55.00 (incl.GST) and that this amount  shall be paid into Account Number 41901939, Code RGJ at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to any further inspection being carried out.

 

The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for a further inspection to be undertaken.

 

A2.      The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

            In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

           

            a)      Part E1                   -              Fire fighting equipment

            b)      Part E2                   -              Smoke Hazard Management

            c)      Part E3                   -              Lift Installations

            d)      Part E4                   -              Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

            e)      Part F2                   -              Sanitary and other facilities

 

A3.      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:

 

Architectural Plans

 

………………………………

………………………………

Sima Truuvert

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 104/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

17 Castle Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

1 December, 2003

FILE NO:

D/672/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for a Section 96 application to amend Development Application No 672/02 by extending part of the ground floor level to the side boundaries and erect a front fence.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 26 November, 2003

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

1 December, 2003

FILE NO:

D0672/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Amend the existing consent by extending part of the ground floor level to the side boundaries and erect a front fence

PROPERTY:

 17 Castle Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Annabelle James

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Michael Daley, Dominic Sullivan and Paul Tracey.

 

The application proposes to amend Development Consent No.672/02 for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building and its conversion to two (2) attached dwellings each with a double garage and new front fence.  The proposed amendment is to extend part of the existing ground floor level to the side boundaries and to erect a front fence.

 

There have been four objections to the proposed modification.  The issues raised generally relate to overdevelopment of the site; overshadowing/loss of natural light; loss of ventilation; non-compliance with FSR and setback controls; setting of an undesirable precedent; impact on the streetscape; and increased noise. 

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions, as agreed by the applicant.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to amend the existing development approval by extending part of the ground floor level, at both sides of the building, to the side boundaries.  The purpose is to create light wells that have glazed roofs and louvred windows at each end.  They are annexed to the kitchen/living area of each dwelling.

 

It is also proposed to erect a front fence that has a maximum height of 2.0 metres and an average height of about 1.7 metres.  The fence is to have masonry pillars and steel infill blades.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Castle Street between Carter Street and Stephen Street.  The site has rear access to Castle Lane.  The site is occupied by a two-storey residential flat building that has been approved for conversion to two attached dwellings. 

 

The adjoining site to the north is improved with a two-storey detached dwelling house that is built to the side boundary.  That dwelling has no openings along its boundary wall.

 

The adjoining site to the south is improved with a single storey detached dwelling house.  A development application was approved on 23 September 2002 to undertake alterations and additions to that dwelling house including a first floor addition.  The footprint of the approved development is shown on the drawings submitted with the subject Section 96 application.  It is noted that the approved development includes a skylight window (similar to those proposed on the subject development) between the boundary wall and the wall of the proposed first floor.  The top of the wall of that skylight is at RL 55.44.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

On 27 August 2003, Council approved, under delegated authority, alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building and its conversion to two (2) attached dwellings each with a double garage and new front fence.  On 22 October 2003, an amendment was approved that changed (corrected) the stated Class of the building from 2 and 10 to 1 and 10.

 

b.         HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The site is currently occupied by a residential flat building that contains four dwelling units.  The building is a non-conforming use in the zone and has existing use rights.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan – Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1       Objections

 

RM Rollason – 19 Castle Street

 

§ The proposed side extensions will set a precedent for further extensions to the side of the building.

 

§ The proposal will take the building well over the maximum FSR.

 

§ The southern lightwell will restrict light and will cause overshadowing

 

§ The glass louvres at each end will result in noise transfer.

 

M Tsagaris and D Tsagaris – 15 Castle Street

 

§ The proposal will have a precedent for other similar proposals.

 

§ The proposal will take the building well over the maximum FSR.

 

§ The proposal does not comply with the setback requirements.

 

§ The proximity of the wall of the lightwells will cause noise impacts.

 

§ The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the area.

 

Dominic Mazzone – 21 Castle Street

 

§ Dampness due to closeness of walls

 

§ Non-compliance with the side setback requirements

 

§ Overdevelopment of the site.

 

Gayl C Galbraith - 1 Carter Street

 

§ Blocking air flow between the buildings

 

§ Set a precedent for other similar development

 

§ Noise and privacy impacts

 

§ Non-compliance with side setbacks

 

5.2       Comment

 

It is considered that the only property that will be directly impacted by the proposed amendments is that at No.19 Castle Street.  The proposed lightwell that adjoins that property is considered to be excessively high and will impact on the existing property and the development as approved on the site.  In order to address this issue, it is considered that the height of the proposed lightwell be limited to RL 55.44, which is the height of the boundary wall of the approved development on that adjoining property.  Further, it is considered that the western end of the southern lightwell be shortened by 0.5 metres so that it ends at the same point as the boundary wall of the approved development on the adjoining site.

 

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

 

The Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services has advised that the drawings submitted with the proposal does not show compliance with the following deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, which must be addressed in the construction certificate plans:

 

               a)                               Part 3.2    -           Footings and slabs

               b)                               Part 3.3    -           Masonry construction

               c)                               Part 3.6    -           Glazing

               d)                               Part 3.7    -           Fire safety

               e)                               Part 3.7.1 -           Fire separation

               f)                                Part 3.7.2 -           Smoke alarms

 

6.2       Engineering Issues

 

The Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has raised no objections and has stated that there are not changes to previous reports issued in respect of the development.

 

6.3       Heritage Planner

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has provided comments in relation to the application.  No objection is rased to the proposal.  The comments are as follows:

 

The subject site is located within the North Randwick Conservation Area and is occupied by a two storey Interwar flat building which retains much of its original Art Deco character including face brick walls and rendered entry surround and leadlight glazing to the stairwell.  To the north of the site is a single storey dwelling with an upper level addition.  To the south of the site is a single storey dwelling.

 

The original application proposed to convert the four flats in the building into two flats.  The proposal included internal and external changes to the front side and rear elevations, as well as garages at the rear of the property. The original application also proposed “addition of render to the building exterior” and construction of a high brick wall to the front boundary.  A later amended application dated June 2003 proposed to render and paint the existing fence.  A Section 96 application has now been received which proposes an amended front fence design and bay windows to the side elevations.

 

An informal pre-application has been held in relation to the proposal.  The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Report prepared by Ruth Daniell.  The Report lists a number of Annexures, including City Plan Heritage comments on the contemporary fence type, however these do not appear to be attached to the Report, not contained on the file.

 

In relation to the proposed front fence, my memo dated July 2002 raised concerns in relation to proposed high brick wall to the front boundary.  My memo dated November 2002 considered that a later amended fencing design would be compatible with fencing to surrounding properties and the guidelines in Council’s Draft DCP for the Conservation Area.  Unfortunately a copy of the fence design on which these comments were based does not appear to be contained on the file.  In relation to the proposed front fence, the Draft Development Control Plan for the Conservation Area notes the heritage importance of either original fencing, or fencing which is sympathetic to the style of the house.  The existing front fence consists of a low face brick fence, which is sympathetic to the original Interwar character of the building.  This Interwar character has however will be removed by the alterations and additions to the front façade which have been approved.  It is noted that the Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies contains a preferred solution that front fences are no higher than 1.8m.  It is suggested that the height of the proposed front fence not exceed 1.8m in order to remain consistent with the DCP and to not set a precedent for further high fencing in the conservation area.

 

In relation to the proposed bay windows, it is noted that these structures are set back around 8m from the front building line, with a length of 5m and a height of around 4m.  Given the set back of the proposed structures from the street, it is considered that the bay windows will not be prominent in the streetscape.  Given the dimensions of the proposed structures, it is considered that they will not overly dominate the side elevations of the building, although it is noted that there may be some potential for reduction in height.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Not relevant.

 

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The site is zoned 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the proposal is generally permissible within the zone. Notwithstanding, the existing use of the building as multi-unit housing is prohibited with the zone and as such the property enjoys the benefits of “existing-use rights”.

 

Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act affords protection to uses operating under a lawful consent to continue even if a subsequent planning instrument prohibits that use. The protection extends to allowing the change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use (with Council’s consent). Section 108(3) also provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate (detract from) the “incorporated provisions” have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument which would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims and objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

As such the proposal has been assessed in accordance with the following relevant planning documents :-

 

§ Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

§ Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended (EP&A Act)

§ Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

8.1       Policy Controls

 

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

 

Due to existing use rights provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the proposal is not subject to the provisions of Council’s development standards and controls.  However, the above DCP may be considered as a guide in the context of the merit assessment of the proposal and, particularly, its provisions that relate to Building Setbacks and Fences would apply.  In respect of the objectives of those provisions, it is considered that the proposal, with conditions, satisfies them in so far as streetscape, natural light and fresh air are concerned.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1       Substantially the same

Subject to the imposition of condition to which the applicant has agreed, the proposed modifications are minor and will not result in any appreciable additional impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape and therefore the proposed modifications to the original development proposal are considered to represent substantially the same development.

9.2       Consideration of submissions

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 29 October 2003 and four submissions were received.  The issues raised by objectors are addressed above.

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   Streetscape

 

The proposed front fence is of a height that is generally reflective of other fence heights along the street.  Further, its steel blade infill sections will provide a lightweight appearance to the fence and will minimise its visual impact. 

 

With respect to the proposed side extensions, due to the distance from the front of the building, they will not be visually prominent and are considered to not to have any adverse impact on the visual amenity of the streetscape.

 

10.2   Impact on adjoining development

 

The proposed extensions to the sides of the building will not have any appreciable adverse impact on the adjoining properties, subject to the imposition of conditions as agreed by the applicant.  Those conditions relate to reducing the height of the southern extension and shortening its length so it better relates to the approved development on the adjoining site to the south.  This will reduce its visual impact on that property and result in the shadow impact remaining substantially unaltered.  The extension on the northern side of the building is considered to be acceptable in its current proposed form as it adjoins a boundary wall of the adjoining dwelling to the north that does not have any openings.

 

10.3   FSR and Setbacks

 

The FSR of the approved development is 0.966:1, having a gross floor area of 395.5 sqm.  The proposal will increase the gross floor area by 9.5 m2, which will result in an FSR of 1.06:1.  This is considered to be a relatively minor increase given the extent to which the approved development exceeds the preferred solution of 0.65:1 FSR that would apply to the site.  Further, with the conditions that the applicant has agreed for inclusion with any approval, the proposed increase in floor area is considered to have no appreciable adverse impacts on the site of the adjoining properties.  Further, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the DCP in respect of Floor area, in that the proposal will not have any further impacts in respect of bulk and scale.

 

In respect of setbacks, a preferred solution of a 0.9 metre side setback would apply to the site.  The proposed development is to be extended to the side boundaries (nil setback).  However, with the conditions that the applicant has agreed for inclusion with any approval, the proposed nil setback is considered to have no appreciable adverse impacts on the site of the adjoining properties.  Further, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the DCP in respect of Setbacks, in that, with the agreed conditions, the proposal will not have any further impacts in respect of access to natural light, noise, daylight and fresh air.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is considered to be relatively minor in nature.  Although it would not comply with the provisions of the relevant planning instruments, the site enjoys existing use rights and, therefore, they do not apply.  The applicant has agreed to the imposition of conditions that will address some of the concerns raised as a result of notification of the proposal.  With the inclusion of those conditions, it is considered that the proposal will have minimal environmental impacts and is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council, as the responsible authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to vary conditions of Development Consent No.0672/02 for permission to make alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building and its conversion to two (2) attached dwellings each with a double garage and a new front fence for 17 Castle Street, Randwick, as follows: -

 

 

Condition No.1 is altered to read as follows:

 

1.   The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01B and DA03B both with revision date the 6th April 2003; DA02B with revision date 7th April 2003, and the Colour Scheme Drawing all prepared by Gelder Architect Group, stamp received by Council on 5th June 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered DA01 to DA03, Issue C, dated 14 October 2003, and received by Council on 23 October 2003, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on those Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

New Conditions 71 and 72 to read as follows:

 

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:

 

71.       The addition to the southern side of the building shall have a maximum height of RL 55.44 AHD.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

72.       The overall length of the addition to the southern side of the building is to be shortened by approximately 0.5 metres so that its western end is flush with the west-facing return wall of the courtyard of the approved building footprint on the adjoining property to the south, as shown on drawing No.DA02 submitted with the Section 96 application received by Council on 23 October 2003.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

Delegated Report dated 24 March, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

TOM HUTCHISON

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                             DELEGATED REPORT

                    Report of the Director of Planning –

 

 

PROPERTY:                  17 Castle Street, Randwick.

                                                          

WARD:                           North

 

FILE REF:                      672/2002

 

APPLICANT:                Gelder Architect Group

 

OWNER:                       A James

 

PROPOSAL:                  Alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building and its conversion to two (2) attached dwellings each with a double garage and a new front fence.

 

VALUE OF WORK:     $300,000

 

BCA

CLASSIFICATION:     Class 2 to Class 1a

 

DATE SUBMITTED:    15 July 2002

 

ADVERTISING:            Clause 23 and 24

 

AUTHOR:                       David Pirie

 

1.         DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY:

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Castle Street and is known as lots 9 and 10, DP 1853. The site has a frontage to the street of 12.19m, a depth of 31.345m and total site area of 382.09m2. The site is adjoined to the north by a two storey dwelling (15 Castle Street) and to the south by a single storey dwelling (19 Castle Street).  With respect to the latter, consent to Development Application No. 02/00568/GA was granted on the 23rd September, 2002 for works that include a first floor addition, an in-ground pool and an altered carport.

 

The site is located within the North Randwick Conservation Area.  The area is characterised by single and two storey dwellings.  Currently existing on the site, straddling both lots is a residential flat building containing four separate two bedroom units, having at the rear, along the eastern façade of the building, an external stair from the first floor and a communal laundry adjacent to the rear yard.  As well, a garage is located along the southern boundary at the rear of the site, adjacent to the rear lane.

 

2.         DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:

 

The development application seeks approval for internal and external alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building to convert it to two dwellings, with one dwelling on each lot. As well, two double garages are proposed at the rear of the site and a new front fence.  The proposal also includes a new entry and balconies to the front elevation and new openings on all elevations, removal of the original internal common stairway, removal of a number of existing internal walls, construction of new walls and render to the building exterior.

 

2.         RELEVANT HISTORY:

 

Archival research during the assessment process reveals that an application (LA 647/37) for a building containing four (4) residential units was approved on the 13th May, 1938.  No other relevant history associated with the site is recorded on STOWE.

 

The subject application was lodged on the 15th July, 2002, with amended plans lodged on the 16th October, 2002, and the application referred to Planning NSW pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 10 (SEPP 10) in regard to the loss of low income housing occasioned by the proposal.

 

The original proposal included studios above the garages, a rear timber deck off the ground floor of each proposed dwelling, a 1.8m high masonry front fence and recessed aluminium louvres to the new central entry structure.  The amended proposal deletes the studios above the garages, replaces the rear timber deck with crushed granite over the rear courtyard, substitutes a more open style front fence albeit remaining 1.8m in height.  The amended proposal does not make any change to the front building façade to that originally proposed.  The applicant subsequently submitted, on the 23rd January, 2003, sketch drawings for a revised front façade.  This provides a more conservative approach to the front façade, with traditionally punctuated openings, the balcony set back from the building’s front edges to define the corners and the balcony width reduced by 300mm to accentuate the solid masonry element.

 

3.         REFERRALS:

 

Asset and Infrastructure

 

 Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department has provided conditions of consent (contained within the Recommendation) and commented on the proposal a as follows:-

 

Landscape Comments

 

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

 

Traffic Comments

 

The EPCD Dept is to determine whether the proposed garages need to comply with Council’s DCP regarding setbacks in laneways

 

Heritage

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has provided, with respect to the amended plans received on the 16th October, 2002, the following comments:-

 

The Statement of Significance for the North Randwick Conservation Area contained in the draft DCP notes that “the heritage value of the area largely derives from is Federation and Inter-War housing” and that “the mixed building stock adds to the area’s interest.”  The Interwar materials and detailing of the building are typical of North Randwick and the duplex building type contributes to the characteristic diversity of the area.  The building on the site was constructed during the main period of development of the area, retains much of its original character, and changes which have been made to date are generally reversible.  It is considered that the building makes a positive contribution to the heritage significance of the Conservation Area.  Therefore any changes which are been made to the building should retain as much evidence as possible of its original character.

 

In relation to the additions to the front of the property, my earlier memo raised concerns that the proposed projecting entry and balconies will remove all evidence of the original character of the building.  The preferred option would be for this original character to be recovered by removing the existing windows and reinstating the sunrooms as open balconies.  A second option would be for the bulk of the proposed front balconies to be reduced, so that they appear as lightweight elements across the original façade, and the central metal louvred entry structure be deleted, so that the original cement rendered facade element with its leadlight window and textured brick motif above can be retained.

 

In relation to the proposed rendering and painting of brickwork, my earlier memo raised concerns that this would not be in accordance with guidelines contained in Council’s draft Development Control Plan for the North Randwick Conservation Area and would substantially alter the appearance and character of this original building.  The existing textured and patterned face brickwork is characteristic of the Inter-War style of the building.  It was suggested that this section of the application be refused and new openings and enlargements of existing openings carefully carried out to minimise damage to the face brickwork to the front façade and the common bricks to the sides and rear.  It was noted that the face brickwork and rendered panel of the front façade are not in good condition and appears to have suffered some displacement.  It was noted that some reconstruction of the existing face brickwork may be necessary, to address this structural issue.

 

In relation to existing brickwork damage, the Statement notes that the upper level balconies may have originally had concrete lintels which were later replaced by brickwork.  The Statement also notes that there is evidence of chronic and extensive footing settlement in the north-western corner of the building which may compromise the structural stability of the walls if not attended to in the short-medium term.  The Statement has suggested two options to the rectification of these defects, the replacement of the outer brickwork skin in conjunction with underpinning or replacement of existing footings, or the repair and rendering of existing brickwork without underpinning.  While rendering and painting to existing brickwork would provide a cosmetic solution to the existing cracking, it would appear that the cause of the cracking and the structural stability of the building would not be addressed.  While the Statement and the Structural Report have noted the soft lime mortar, there has been no investigation of the option of cleaning and reusing existing bricks for the reconstruction of the front façade, in conjunction with underpinning or new footings.

 

4.         NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 30th July, 2002.  Furthermore, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper and a notice was placed on the site.  It should be noted that not all relevant properties received notification during the original notification process, therefore properties not originally notified were notified on 2nd August ,2002. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received: -

 

R. Rolloson – 19 Castle Street, Randwick.

 

·    No need for the studios above the double garages as the property is already a substantial size.

·    The current dwelling is occupied by students who are noisy.

·    Substantial additional overshadowing will be created by the two storey studios on the northern side boundary.  This will remove sunshine currently experienced in the rear courtyard of 19 Castle Street

·    The plans for 19 Castle Street include a small plunge pool which will be in shade from the proposed two storey garages.

·    The studio windows will allow occupants to look directly into their proposed family room, first floor addition and balcony.  The studios will remove all privacy to their dwelling.

·    The 1800mm high wall on the southern/western boundary adjoining the front courtyard of 19 Castle Street is excessive in height and will have the effect of ‘squashing’ the front façade of 19 Castle Street.

·    Overdevelopment of the site.

·    The Statement of Environmental Effects significantly understates the magnitude of the development.

·    The studios will be used as a separate flats.

·    Extra bulk from the garages which could create a poor precedent in the heritage area.

·    Requests that the proposal be amended by removing the studios and reducing the height of the Castle Street boundary wall.

 

M. Tsagaris – 15 Castle Street, Randwick

 

·    The proposal is a gross overdevelopment of small site.

·    The proposal detrimentally affects the amenity, privacy, airflow and outlook of 15 Castle Street.  As such it sets an undesirable precedent for the area.

·    The proposed studios will create additional noise to the rear bedroom of 15 Castle Street, with the distance of separation between the studios and the 15 Castle building clearly inadequate.

·    The applicant has not provided a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by a suitable qualified person.  The existing building is a rare prime example of post war architecture.  The modern building is not in keeping with the conservation area.

·    The applicant has failed to provide elevational shadow diagrams depicting the shadow cast on the building at 15 Castle Street, however it is considered that the height of the garages and studios will completely deprive 15 Castle Street of any eastern and northern light.

·    The height of the garages and studios with deprive their dwelling of sunlight.

·    The FSR is misrepresented as it does not take into consideration the floor space of the proposed 2 new studios.

·    There are no boundary to boundary garages or first floor additions to garages in Castle Lane.

·    The current flat building is already excessive in bulk and scale and any further development on the site would not be in keeping with the DCP requirements.

·    The balconies to the front and rear and the studio apartments will overlook 15 Castle Street and cause an invasion of privacy.

·    The existing front balconies could be restored to their original form thereby not intruding on the privacy of others.

·    The proposed timber deck to the rear yard will raise the ground level and create overlooking of 15 Castle Street.

·    The proposed and existing building do not comply with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP.

·    The overall bulk and scale of the garages and studios along with increased coverage of the site area will create an undesirable precedent within the conservation area. 

·    The bulk and scale of the garages, studios, balconies and the remodeled building will have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the surrounding/adjoining properties and the character of the existing streetscape.

·    The change of use may be a breach of SEPP 10 as the rents for this building were below the required minimum at the stated date.

·    The description of the proposed development is misleading as it fails to refer to the conversion of the building from four apartments to two dwellings and the studios located above the proposed garages. 

 

G Kennardy and I Cantanzariti – 13 Castle Street, Randwick

 

·    The proposal is contrary to the objectives of the conservation area and is an excessive development for the site.

·    The garages and studio apartments are not in keeping with the streetscape and will cause excessive coverage of the site.

·    The amenity and privacy of neighbours are breached by this application.

D L Stocker – 39 Dangar Street (owner of 23 Castle Street)

 

·     The application form incorrectly described the development and does not mention that it is proposed to convert the flat building to two separate dwellings and the construction of two double garages, with two studio apartments above.

·     Only a very small area of open space is provided.

·     The proposal if approved will be a massive overdevelopment of the site and is contrary to Council’s own planning scheme as a Conservation Area.

 

G C Galbraith – 1 Carter Street, Randwick

 

·     Strong objection to the addition of two garages in the very narrow Castle Lane.  Each site backing onto the lane has only been allowed one garage exit.  The lane is already overburdened with traffic in both directions due to the school behind and is constantly in need of repair due to the perennial spring causing eruption of water at all times.

·     The garages will obliterate the western sun to 1 Carter Street and with the addition of windows on the eastern elevation will detract from the privacy of 1 Carter Street.

·     The addition of two dwellings on top of the garages will detract from the peaceful aspect of 1 Carter Street, with the height of the garages also an issue.  Both houses on either side of 17 Castle Street will be affected by noise and light blockage, creating a precedent for this quiet heritage area, reducing property values.

 

D and A Mazzone – 21 Castle Street, Randwick

 

·     The plans clearly indicate an overdevelopment of the site, with no consideration to the privacy and amenity of others.  The sites in Castle Street are small in size and will not accommodate such overdevelopment without comprising quality of life for the residents of 21 Castle Street.

·     The garaging with studios above are not in keeping with the make up of area or the streetscape and will compromise the views, violate privacy and create extra shadow onto 21 Castle Street

·     The proposal breaches the requirements for floor space ratio and also the requirements for the conservation area and the DCP.

 

The amended plans received on the 16th October, 2002, were re-notified and advertised with the following objections received:-

 

D Mazzone – 21 Castle Street, Randwick

 

·     Although the studios have been deleted in the amended proposal, the garage structure is 4.4m high which is a ridiculous height and will hinder views to Bondi Junction from 21 Castle Street, as well as causing winter shadow. With a height of 4.4m, there is potential for their conversion to studios.  The garages should have a flat roof or a roof that does not exceed 3m in height.