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

 

3rd August, 2004

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 10TH AUGUST 2004 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

Committee Members:                  His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson, Crs Andrews, Bastic, Belleli, Daley, Hughes (Deputy Chairperson), Kenny, Nash, Notley-Smith, Procopiadis, Seng (Chairperson), Sullivan, Tracey, White & Woodsmith.

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 20TH APRIL, 2004, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WHOSE MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 13TH JULY, 2004.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Development Applications

 

5.1                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 165A-167B MAROUBRA ROAD, MAROUBRA.

2

 

5.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 1 DOVE LANE, RANDWICK.

37

 

5.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 80 BEACH STREET, COOGEE.

114

 

 

 

 

5.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 3 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK.

183

 

5.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 181 - 191 MAROUBRA ROAD, MAROUBRA.

196

5.6

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 125-125A BOYCE ROAD MAROUBRA.

236

 

5.7                       

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT’S REPORT 55/2004 - 126-130 BARKER STREET, RANDWICK.

318

5.8

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT’S REPORT 56/2004 – 1599 – 1601 ANZAC PARADE, LA PEROUSE.  (Report to be separately circularised prior to the Meeting.)

 

 

 

6           Miscellaneous

 

6.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 57/2004 - STREET NAMES AND SUBURB NAMING FOR FORMER BUNDOCK STREET DEFENCE LAND.

338

 

6.2                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT’S REPORT 57/2004 - RANDWICK TRANSPORT STUDY - FINAL REPORT.

341

 

6.3                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT’S REPORT 58/2004 - RANDWICK CITY PLAN - HERITAGE REVIEW.

351

 

 

7           General Business

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………….

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

23 July, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 1210/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing commercial premises and construction of a new mixed commercial and retail building containing three shops at ground level, twenty-one apartments and two levels of basement car parking.

PROPERTY:

 165A-167B Maroubra Road, MAROUBRA.

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 MR G GRUNSTEIN, EXOWAVE P/L AND MESTRA P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the proposed development is valued at $4 million.

 

The proposal amends an application submitted to the Council on 23 December 2002.  The application has been subject to two pre-application reviews prior to lodgement.  Amendments since lodgement have been submitted to the Council on 29 December 2003, 31 May 2004 and 21 June 2004.  Prior to the submission of amendments, the application was reviewed at meetings between the applicant and Council officers on 3 April 2003 and 20 November 2003 and by the Council’s Design Review Panel on 5 May 2003 and 2 June 2003.

 

The amended application departs from the Block controls of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP (MJTCDCP) by incorporating a seventh-storey element over part of the roof space and by providing a six-storey annex to the south along the site’s Robey Street frontage.  The resulting building form entails a development density substantially above that envisaged by the MJTCDCP.

 

Assessment of the proposed building form reveals that it does not adequately address the MJTCDCP’s primary objectives for building envelope, building height, building depth, building separation and rear setbacks.  The proposed non-compliances with the prescribed building envelope create an unreasonable level of additional overshadowing of properties to the south and prevent future development from achieving adequate building separation. 

 

Given the excessive extent of additional floor space sought by the applicant, it is not considered that the impacts can be justified.  Of particular concern are the limitations the proposal places on the ability of adjoining properties to successfully accommodate future development in accordance with the DCP’s prescribed block layout and building design controls. 

 

The proposal also fails to satisfy DCP objectives and performance criteria for visual privacy, apartment layout, apartment mix, balconies and building flexibility. 

 

The application is considered to demonstrate an unsatisfactory level of design quality in accordance with SEPP 65.  This primarily stems from the application’s failure to demonstrate adequate regard for the prescribed desired future character for the site and surrounding properties.

 

Since the issue of pre-lodgement advice in September 2002, the applicant has been consistently advised of the need to comply with both the Block controls of the MJTCDCP and the design quality principles of SEPP 65. It is considered that an acceptable design solution for the site can now only be achieved with substantial modifications to the building form and internal layout.

 

The application has been the subject of two pre-lodgement reviews in June and August 2002 and subsequent reviews by Council officers and the Council’s Design Review Panel.  It is considered that the applicant has been provided with sufficient opportunities to achieve an acceptable proposal for the site. 

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to demolish the existing single-storey commercial premises and construct a new seven-storey mixed commercial and residential building.  The proposed building contains three shops fronting Maroubra Road and one commercial suite fronting Robey Street at ground level, twenty-one apartments and two levels of basement car parking.  Driveway access to the site is to be provided from Robey Street.

 

The proposed dwelling mix comprises 2 x one-bedroom units, 13 x two-bedroom units and 6 x three-bedroom units.  The proposed apartments comprise a mix of single-aspect, cross through, cross-over and corner types.  The proposal has a total gross floor area of 2,596.2m², including 359.0m² at ground level and 2,237.2m² within the above-ground residential levels.

 

Communal open space totalling 285m² is provided at podium level to the rear of the building and on the roof top.  Pedestrian access to the residential levels is provided from Robey Street.  A single lift provides access between the basement levels and upper levels of the building.

 

The proposal seeks substantial variations to the MJTCDCP.  These principally refer to the DCP’s primary controls for building envelope, building height, building separation and rear setback.  The proposed variations stem from the applicant’s desire to extend the six-storey building form along the site’s secondary street frontage to Robey Street. 

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site comprises Lot 12 DP 844529 and includes establishments known as No.s 165A, 165B, 167A and 167B Maroubra Road.  The site is located on the western periphery of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre and occupies the south-eastern corner of Maroubra Road and Robey Street. 

 

The site currently contains a single-storey retail building with four shops fronting Maroubra Road.  The rear portion of the site contains an open concrete car park with driveway access from Robey Street.  Uses currently located on the site include a restaurant, take-away shop, bakery and grocery store.

 

The site has an area of 752.8m² and frontages of 18.1 metres to Maroubra Road and 44.4 metres to Robey Street.  The site has a slight slope downwards towards its Maroubra Road and Robey Street frontages.  Levels vary by approximately 1.1 metres across the site.  Three medium-sized eucalyptus trees are located along the site’s rear (southern) boundary.

 

The site adjoins properties zoned 3A General Business to the east along Maroubra Road and to the south along Robey Street.  Development to the east of the site comprises a mix of one and two storey retail and commercial buildings and the Maroubra Junction Hotel (No. 197-199 Maroubra Road), a listed heritage item. 

 

Properties immediately south of the site at No.s 1 and 3 Robey Street were rezoned to 3A General Business by Randwick LEP 1998 Amendment No. 33, which was gazetted on 7 May 2004.  These properties currently contain a pair of single-storey dwelling houses.  Properties further south on the eastern side of Robey Street are zoned 2B Residential and include an electricity substation and a mix of one and two storey dwelling houses and townhouses. 

 

Properties on the western side of Robey Street are zoned 2A Residential and contain a mix of single-storey and two-storey dwelling houses, a church and Scout Hall.   

 

Properties on the northern side of Maroubra Road opposite the site are zoned 3A General Business.  These properties contain a mix of one and two storey retail and commercial buildings, including the Maroubra Junction Police Station, Coles Supermarket and the southern frontage of Maroubra Mall.  Several large residential and commercial mixed use buildings occupy land diagonally opposite the site to the west of Bruce Bennetts Place.  These range up to twelve storeys in height. 

 

The subject site is located within Block 9 as defined by the MJTCDCP.  The Block controls for the site define a six-storey building envelope massed at the site’s Maroubra Road frontage and extending across the adjoining parcels at No.s 169 and 171 Maroubra Road.  This envelope adjoins another six-storey envelope further east at No. 191 Maroubra Road. Other building envelopes defined for the block include a five-storey envelope over properties immediately south of the site at No.s 1 and 3 Robey Street and a five-storey envelope within the rear portion of No. 191 Maroubra Road. 

 

The rear portion of the site is defined as comprising open space, a 6 metre-wide right of carriageway and a 1.5 metre-wide deep soil zone along the rear boundary. 

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was submitted to the Council on 23 December 2002.  At the time of lodgement, the application was subject to draft DCP and LEP controls for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.  These have since been adopted in the form of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP (MJTCDCP) adopted on 23 November 2003 and Randwick LEP 1998 (Amendment No. 33) gazetted on 7 May 2004.

 

The application was subject to separate pre-lodgement reviews in June and August 2002.  The applicant was subsequently advised to ensure the proposal complied with the Block controls of the Draft MJTCDCP and the design quality requirements of SEPP 65.  Concerns were raised regarding the need to provide useable communal open space, reduce the visual bulk of the proposal and re-consider the proposed location of waste management facilities within open space at the rear of the building.

 

Application drawings subsequently submitted to the Council in December 2002 failed to adequately address a number of issues, including issues previously raised in the pre-lodgement advice.  In March 2003 the applicant was advised to amend the proposal.  Concerns related to the depth and narrow width of proposed units, unsatisfactory building access and internal layout, non-compliances with building use and floor-to-ceiling height controls, inappropriate corner treatment and crowning element, inadequate vehicle access and the inappropriate arrangement of ground level communal open space, waste management and driveway access at the rear of the building. 

 

The Council’s DRP considered the application at its meetings of 5 May 2003 and 2 June 2003.  The Panel confirmed earlier concerns regarding the proposal’s density, the narrow width and excessive depth of proposed cross-over units, the inappropriate treatment of the communal open space at the rear of the building and the inclusion of residential uses on the ground floor. 

 

Sketch amendments to the proposal were discussed with the applicant and Council officers in November 2003.  These amended the earlier design to include a six-storey annex along the site’s Robey Street frontage.  The stated intention of this approach was to compensate for “lost” floor space resulting from changes to the MJTCDCP’s building envelope and building depth controls adopted in November 2003.  The applicant was advised at this time of concerns relating to the proposal’s non-compliance with the relevant density, building envelope and building separation requirements.

 

The applicant submitted amended drawings for referral to the DRP on 29 December 2003.  These retained the six-storey annex to Robey Street and introduced a seventh-storey addition over part of the roof space.  

 

The amended proposal was subsequently considered by the DRP at its meetings of 1 March and 5 April 2004.  The applicant submitted amended application drawings to the Council on 31 May 2004, however these contained inadequate details for assessment and revised drawings were re-submitted with additional details on 21 June 2004.   

 

On 12 July 2004 Council advised the applicant that it was unable to support the amended application due to the extent and nature of non-compliances with the Council’s building envelope and building separation controls.  The applicant was invited to withdraw the application but requested the assessment proceed.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.  J&D Properties Pty Limited

     169 Maroubra Road, MAROUBRA   2035

 

Concerns:

 

·     Construction of the two proposed basement car parking levels on the subject site will threaten the security of the existing buildings at No. 169 Maroubra Road and No. 1 Robey Street.

 

Response:

 

·     Conditions of consent may be applied to control the potential impacts of any site excavation.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The comments of the Council’s Design Review Panel are included below.  The amended application has not been referred to any other relevant technical officers. 

 

6.1       Design Review Panel Comments

 

The Council’s Design Review Panel considered the application on 5 May 2003, 2 June 2003, 1 March 2004 and 5 April 2004.  The comments provided by the Panel are included below. 

 

It should be noted that the Panel’s review has included a limited assessment against specific criteria within SEPP 65 and does not assess the application against the desired future block layout and built form for the site prescribed by the MJTCDCP.  A complete assessment of the application pursuant to both SEPP 65 and the MJTCDCP is included in Sections 8(d) and 8.1(a)below.

 

The Panel considers that this application, now seen for the third time, is considerably improved and that, subject to some minor improvements being made to internal planning, is satisfactory.

 

1.  The suggested improvements include:

 

§ Reducing the depth of the north facing balconies to a maximum of 3m to improve light into living rooms

 

§ Clearer separation of commercial and residential entrances

 

§ Provision of a separate service stair from the garage to the first floor courtyard and a clearer entrance to this area from the generous first floor lobby

 

§ A simpler layout for the lobbies generally

 

§ The 2 7m wide bedroom should be made wider

 

A landscape plan should be provided detailing the treatment of the courtyard and the deep soil area at the south of the building. The deep soil landscape and the first floor common terrace should be integrated to together provide amenity for future residents. An interconnecting external stair should be provided. Planter boxes and landscaping should be provided along the eastern side of the terrace to prevent overlooking of neighbours.

 

The application should now be submitted as an amended DA, any amendments to be undertaken in discussion with the assessing planner, and that this proposal should progress to its subsequent stages.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A master plan is not required as the site is less than 4,000m² in area.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

      -     Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)

-     State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1)

-     State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

-     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-     Building Code of Australia

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3(a) General Business under Clause 13 of Randwick LEP 1998.  The proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. A summary of the proposal’s compliance with the relevant clauses of the LEP is included in the table below.

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

42D(4) – Number of storeys

6 storeys (max)

7 storeys

No (SEPP 1)

42D(5) – Building height

21.0 metres (max)

21.59 metres

No (SEPP 1)

43 – Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

N.A.

Not a heritage item and not located in a Heritage Conservation Area

N.A.

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

Consider impact

In proximity to Maroubra Junction Hotel

No Impact

 

Clause 40 – Excavation and filling of land

 

The proposed development includes excavation to a depth of approximately 6.7 metres below ground level.  The applicant has submitted a preliminary assessment of groundwater within the site.  The report identifies no groundwater at a depth of 8.7 metres below ground level.

 

Based on the results of the preliminary assessment, the application does not require referral to the NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources as “integrated development”.  However, further testing is required to confirm this.

 

(NB:  The applicant was notified of the requirement to undertake groundwater investigations in pre-lodgement advice issued by the Council in September 2002 and again in advice issued in March 2003).

 

The potential impacts of any site excavation on adjoining properties can be controlled through appropriate conditions of consent.

 

Clause 42B – Contaminated land

 

The site is currently occupied by a single-storey retail building containing a restaurant, take-away shop, bakery and grocery store.  The rear portion of the site is occupied by a hard surface car park.  A review of the site’s application history indicates that the site is unlikely to contain contamination.

 

Clause 42D – Maroubra Junction Town Centre

 

An assessment of the proposal in accordance with Clause 42D is included in Section 9.1 below.

 

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

 

The subject site is located within 75 metres of the Maroubra Junction Hotel (197-199 Maroubra Road), listed as a Heritage Item in Schedule 3 to the Randwick LEP 1998.  The proposal will not detract from the hotel’s heritage qualities.

 

(b)   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to the strict compliance with the building height standards of Subclauses 42D(4) and (5) of the Randwick LEP 1998.  An assessment of the SEPP 1 objection is included in Section 9.1 below.

 

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

 

The proposal involves a change of use to accommodate the proposed residential uses.  The site’s application history indicates that the site is unlikely to contain contamination and a preliminary investigation is not required.

 

(d)   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

The proposal is defined as “residential flat development” for the purposes of SEPP 65.   Clause 30(2) of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to consider (a) the advice of the Design Review Panel, (b) the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles described in the SEPP, and (c) the Residential Flat Design Code

 

The advice of the Council’s Design Review Panel is included in Section 6 above.  It is noted that this advice is limited in scope and does not address the full range of issues associated with the proposal’s non-compliance with the Block layout and design controls of the MJTCDCP.  A complete assessment of the proposal in accordance with the design quality principles of SEPP 65 is included below.

 

Principle 1:     Context

 

Good design responds and contributes to its context.  Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area.

 

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, desired future character as stated in planning and design policies.  New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

 

The Maroubra Junction Town Centre is a precinct undergoing transition.  The desired future character for the Town Centre is defined by the Block controls and accompanying design controls of the MJTCDCP.  The proposed building form seeks to depart from the prescribed building envelope for the site.  Justification for the variations sought is undermined by the proposal’s failure to adequately address the objectives for building height, building separation, rear setback and building flexibility required by the DCP and recommended by the Residential Flat Design Code.  The proposal does not demonstrate a satisfactory level of regard for context and is not supported.

 

Principle 2:     Scale

 

Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings.

 

Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development.  In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

 

The proposed building height and layout require significant departures from the prescribed building envelope for the site.  The additional height sought and the proximity of the proposed six-storey annex to the site’s rear boundary are inconsistent with the urban strategy of the MJTCDCP and fail to demonstrate adequate regard for the intended development configuration of the adjoining properties.  The proposed scale is inconsistent with the desired future character for the site and is not supported.

 

Principle 3:     Built form

 

Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements.

 

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

 

The proposed building form fails to have adequate regard for the urban strategy for Maroubra Junction Town Centre and does not achieve a satisfactory relationship with the prescribed building envelope and layout of the adjoining property at No. 1 Robey Street.  The proposal is not supported.

 

Principle 4:     Density

 

Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents).

 

Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density.  Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

 

The proposal achieves a density well in excess of that envisaged for the site by the Block controls of the MJTCDCP.  By adhering to the building envelope controls of the DCP, development on the site could achieve a theoretical maximum gross floor area of 405.0m² for the ground floor and a combined total of  1,229.6m² for residential floors.  Achieving the maximum gross floor areas is dependent on being able to satisfy detailed design criteria for apartment layout and amenity. 

 

The proposed development incorporates a combined gross floor area for the proposed residential floors of  2,237.2m², which exceeds the DCP’s maximum by 1,007.6m² (or 82%).

 

A large proportion of the additional density sought is housed within the proposed seventh-storey element and the six-storey annex to Robey Street.  These variations to the prescribed Block controls fail not satisfactorily demonstrate consistency with the objectives for building height, building separation and rear setback prescribed by the MJTCDCP and recommended by the Residential Flat Design Code.  The proposed additions create an unreasonable level of additional overshadowing of properties to the south and constrain the potential for future development within these properties to satisfy the intended block layout and building design criteria.  The proposal fails to satisfy the principle for density and is not supported. 

 

Principle 5:     Resource, energy and water efficiency

 

Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout full life cycle, including construction.

 

Sustainability is integral to the design process.  Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

 

The proposal satisfies this principle.

 

Principle 6:     Landscape

 

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain.

 

Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways.  It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values.  It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character.

 

Landscape design should optimise useability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbour’s amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.

 

The proposal satisfies this principle.

 

Principle 7:     Amenity

 

Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.

 

Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

 

Proposed variations to the prescribed building envelope for the site do not demonstrate sufficient regard for the intended layout and orientation of future development on adjoining properties.  It is not considered that the proposed variations ensure satisfactory levels of privacy and amenity for the adjoining properties.  The proposal is not supported. 

 

Principle 8:     Safety and security

 

Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain.

 

This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

 

The proposal satisfies this principle.

 

Principle 9:     Social dimensions

 

Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities.

 

New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

 

The proposal provides limited mix of apartment sizes, although this is achieved by means of an excessive development density and unsuitable building form.   Five of the proposed three-bedroom apartments are located within the proposed six-storey annex to Robey Street and fail to meet minimum apartment sizes required by the MJTCDCP and recommended by the Residential Flat Design Code

 

A reduction in the development density and number of apartments would require reconfiguration of the internal layout to achieve a mix of one, two and three-bedroom dwellings capable of accommodating a variety of household sizes and types.  The proposal fails to achieve a satisfactory dwelling mix in a manner that is consistent with the desired future character for the block and is not supported.

 

Principle 10:   Aesthetics

 

Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development.  Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

The proposal satisfies this principle.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP

 

The subject site is located in Block 9 as defined by the MTCDCP.  The numeric controls applying to the proposal are summarised in the table below.

Compliance Table - Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP

 

Control

Required

Proposed

Compliance

3.1.3 Building Envelope

Residential floors

 

 

Commercial floors (ground level)

 

Commercial floors (above ground)

 

 

70% building envelope (max) (=1,229.6m²)

 

100% building envelope (max) (=405.0m²)

 

80% building envelope (max) (=324.0m²)

 

 

127% (2,237.2m²)

 

 

89% (359.0m²)

 

 

N/A

 

Does not comply

 

 

Complies

 

 

N/A

3.1.4 Building Height

No. of storeys

 

 

6 storeys (max)

 

7 storeys

 

Does not comply

 

Building height

21.0 metres (max)

21.79 metres

Does not comply

 

3.1.5 Building Depth

Residential floors

 

 

 

 

Commercial floors

 

 

 

22.0 metres (max)

 

18.0 metres glassline to glassline

 

25.0 metres (max)

 

41.1 metres

 

38.5 metres glassline to glassline

 

41.7 metres

 

Does not comply

 

Does not comply

 

 

Does not comply

 

3.1.6 Building Separation

18 metres (min) between habitable rooms + balconies

 

Potentially 4-5.5 metres, subject to future development.  Refer to Section 9.2.4 below.

Does not comply

 

 

13 metres (min) between habitable rooms + balconies/non-habitable rooms

 

9 metres (min) between non-habitable rooms

 

-

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.1.7 Articulation

 

 

1 metre (min) at front + rear (above ground floor)

 

Balconies not to extend beyond property boundaries

 

-

 

 

Balconies to Units 2, 5, 10, 15 and 19 extend beyond the property boundaries.

Complies

 

 

Does not comply

 

 

 

3.1.8 Street Setbacks

 

 

Zero setback to Maroubra Road

0 metres

Complies

3.1.9 Side and Rear Setbacks

Side Setbacks

 

Rear Setbacks

 

 

 

0 metres

 

10.0 metres (min)

 

 

 

0 metres

 

3.0 metres

 

 

Complies

 

Does not comply

 

3.1.10 Rights of Carriageway

 

6.0 metres (min)

 

Not provided

Does not comply

 

3.2.9 Block 9 Controls

Building Use

 

 

2 floors commercial + residential above

 

 

1 floor commercial + residential above

 

Does not comply

 

4.1.1 Deep Soil Zones

Communal Open Space

 

 

 

Deep Soil Zone

 

25% site area (188.2m²) (min)

 

 

1.5 metre-wide (min) strip along rear boundary

 

 

216.6m² at podium level + 166.2m² at rooftop = 51% (382.8m²)

 

3.0 metre-wide strip provided along rear boundary

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

4.1.4 Open Space

Private Open Space

 

 

Ground level private open space

 

 

All dwellings to have private open space

 

25m² (min) + dimension of 4 metres (min)

 

All dwellings have private open space

 

Unit 1 = 15.5m² (2.1m x 7.4m)

 

 

Complies

 

 

Does not comply

4.2.1 Parking

 

Parking to be accommodated underground where possible

 

Parking provided in 2 basement levels

Complies

4.4.1 Apartment Layout

Apartment Size

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apartment Depth

 

 

Apartment Width

 

 

1 bedroom – 50m² (min)

 

2 bedroom – 80m² (min)

 

3 bedroom – 125m² (min)

 

 

Single-aspect apartments 8 metres (min) depth

 

Apartments over 15 metres deep 4 metres (min) width

 

 

-

 

-

 

Units 1, 4, 9, 14 and 17 – 95m²

 

Unit 3 – 9.6 metres

Unit 16 – 10.9 metres

 

Units 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20 and 21 – 3.85 metres

 

Complies

 

Complies

 

Does not comply

 

 

Does not comply

 

 

Does not comply

 

 

 

4.4.3 Balconies

Primary Balcony Depth

 

 

Balcony Size

 

 

2.5 metres (min)

 

 

1 bedroom – 6m² (min)

2/3 bedroom – 10m² (min)

 

 

Units 1, 4, 9, 14 and 17 – 1.3-2.0 metres

 

-

 

 

Does not comply

 

 

Complies

 

4.4.4 Ceiling Heights

Ground Floor

 

First Floor

 

Floors Above

 

 

3.6 metres (min)

 

3.3 metres (min)

 

2.7 metres (min)

 

3.8 metres

 

3.3 metres

 

2.7 metres

 

Complies

 

Complies

 

Complies

4.4.10 Storage

Accessible Storage

 

 

1 bedroom – 8m³ (min)

2 bedroom – 10m³ (min)

3 bedroom – 12m³ (min)

 

 

-

 

Complies

 

4.5.2 Daylight Access

 

 

Living rooms/private open spaces for at least 70% of apartments to receive 3 hours (min) of direct sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm in midwinter

 

Single-aspect apartments are not to be oriented towards Maroubra Road

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Units 3 and 16 are oriented towards Maroubra Road.

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

4.7.1 Energy Efficiency

 

Residential component to achieve NatHERS rating of 4 stars (min)

 

Proposed units capable of achieving 4 stars rating.

Complies

Condition of consent required.

4.7.3 Total Water Cycle Management

 

Application to include Water Cycle Management Strategy

 

AAA rated appliances and fixtures

 

-

 

 

 

-

Complies

Condition of consent required.

 

Complies

Condition of consent required.

 

4.7.4 Waste Management

 

Application to include Waste Management Plan

 

-

Complies

Condition of consent required.

 

 

The proposal’s compliance with the DCP’s controls is discussed in Section 9 below.

 

b.     Development Control Plan - Parking

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

Car Parking

(a)   Number of spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b) Parking layout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(c) Bicycle Storage

 

 

 

1 space per one-bedroom dwelling or bed-sitter unit over 40m² (2 spaces)

 

1.2 spaces per two-bedroom dwelling (16 spaces)

 

1.5 spaces per three-bedroom dwelling

(9 spaces)

 

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

(5 visitor spaces)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 32

 

1 car wash bay per 12 dwellings

(2 bays)

 

Unenclosed spaces 2.5m x 5.5m minimum

 

End bay spaces 3.2m x 5.5m minimum.

 

 

 

 

Maximum ramp gradient 1:6 (16.7%) or  1:5 (20%) for long ramps greater than 20m

 

 

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

(9 bicycle spaces)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37 SPACES

 

 

0 bays

 

 

 

2.5m-2.6m x 5.5m

 

 

2.6m-3.4m x 5.5m

 

 

 

 

 

10-20%

 

 

 

 

 

Total bicycle storage area of 16m² provided in basement levels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

Can be required as a condition of consent.

 

Complies

 

 

Does not comply

Spaces 6, 11, 20, 26, 31and 37 do not comply with the required minimum width.

 

Complies

Proposed ramp gradients are satisfactory in the circumstances.

 

Does not comply

Bicycle storage dimensions are inadequate for accommodating 9 bicycles.

 

 

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.  Environmental impacts that apply in addition to those addressed in Section 8 above are discussed below.

 

            9.1       Randwick LEP 1998

 

9.1.1    Building height

 

The MJTCDCP prescribes a maximum of six storeys for the site and a maximum building height (measured to the underside of the topmost ceiling) of 21.0 metres.  The proposed development comprises seven storeys and has a maximum building height of 21.59 metres on the eastern side boundary and 21.30 metres on the western side boundary. 

 

Clauses 42D(4) and (5) of the Randwick LEP 1998 operates to apply these controls as if they were incorporated into the LEP.  The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to the standards.

 

The proposed seven storey element comprises the lift overrun, rooftop stair access and the upper levels of proposed Unit No.s 18, 20 and 21.  The proposed lift overrun and rooftop stair access are located within the building’s western elevation and are visible from street level.  The proposed upper residential levels are set back from the site’s street frontages and are generally not visible from Maroubra Road or Robey Street.

 

Potential impacts from the proposed seventh storey principally relate to the additional overshadowing cast by the building’s non-compliance with the maximum number of storeys prescribed for the site.  Shadow diagrams submitted with the application for 21 June indicate that the proposed seventh storey will entail additional overshadowing of properties to the south from approximately 11.00am onwards and is likely to impact on the ability of upper levels of future development on these sites to achieve minimum daylight access requirements.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application appear to incorrectly plot the shadow cast for 3.00pm and do not indicate the boundaries of the affected properties.  On this basis, the application is insufficient to determine the precise impacts of the proposed seventh storey, however it is apparent that the proposal will significantly increase overshadowing of properties to the south. 

 

The SEPP 1 objection fails to demonstrate that the application satisfies the objectives of the height standards, namely: to ensure development responds to the desired future scale and character of the Town Centre; to ensure development responds to the scale and character of streets surrounding the town centre, and to allow reasonable daylight and solar access to all developments.  The SEPP 1 objection fails to demonstrate that non-compliance with the height standards will achieve a more desirable outcome for the site and on this basis is not supported.

 

9.1.2    Clause 42D(2) - Town Centre objectives

 

Clause 42D(2) requires development to be consistent with the zone objectives and the objectives for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.  An assessment of the proposal in accordance with the objectives for the Town Centre is included below.

 

(a)        to achieve high quality design in all new developments and improvements undertaken in the public domain

 

The proposal incorporates substantial non-compliances with the building envelope prescribed for the site by the MJTCDCP (refer to Section 9.2 below).  The resulting overshadowing and privacy impacts undermine the ability to achieve a satisfactory block layout with future development on the adjoining properties to the south.  The proposal fails to demonstrate high quality design in accordance with the applicable design controls and is not supported.

 

(b)        to encourage a vibrant and active town centre that provides a range of facilities and services that benefit the locality and local government area

 

The proposal is consistent with this objective.

 

(c)        to provide opportunities for residential development in the town centre that complement the primary business function of the town centre

 

The MJTCDCP requires the provision of two levels of retail/commercial uses within new development on the subject site.  The applicant has submitted an economic assessment to justify the proposed residential use of the first floor.  However, the proposed cross-over arrangement of the first and second floor apartments constrains opportunities for future conversion of the first floor to non-residential uses and fails to adequately satisfy the DCP’s objectives for building flexibility.  The proposed arrangement is considered to be inappropriate as it potentially constrains, rather than complements, the primary business function of the Town Centre.

 

(d)        to encourage a variety of housing forms that complements development within the town centre and do not impact adversely upon the amenity of surrounding residential areas

 

The proposal incorporates a limited mix of one, two and three-bedroom apartments, with the vast majority (62%) comprising two-bedroom apartments.  Five of the six three-bedroom apartments are located within the proposed six-storey annex to Robey Street and do not comply with the MJTCDCP’s minimum apartment size. 

 

The six-storey annex entails substantial breaches of the DCP’s building envelope, building separation and rear setback controls and is considered to be an inappropriate form for the site.  Removal of the annex would substantially reduce the mix of apartments within the development.  The proposal is not considered to be appropriate as it does not adequately contribute to the variety of housing forms within the Town Centre in a manner that avoids adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties. 

 

(e)        to ensure that social and cultural needs are considered with any development proposals in the town centre

 

The proposal is consistent with this objective.

 

(f)         to encourage and facilitate the provision of vehicular access and off-street parking to support businesses in the town centre

 

The subject site is traversed by a proposed  right of carriageway defined by the MJTCDCP.  The proposal is potentially consistent with the LEP’s objective, however additional details would be required to demonstrate that the proposed vehicle access off Robey Street is capable of being extended to accommodate the right of carriageway.

 

(g)        to ensure that public transport and associated facility needs are considered and promoted with any development proposals and public domain improvements in town centre

 

The proposal is consistent with this objective.

 

(h)        to require and encourage environmentally sustainable approaches to future land use and development

 

The proposal is consistent with this objective.

 

(i)         to improve the overall environmental quality of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

 

The proposal comprises a building form that is inconsistent with the prescribed block layout for the site.  The proposal’s additional height and proximity to the site’s rear boundary fail to ensure a satisfactory level of environmental quality for the adjoining properties and are inconsistent with the objective.

 

            9.2       Building Envelope

 

9.2.1    Urban Strategy

 

The MJTCDCP identifies Anzac Parade as the most prominent and important street in the Town Centre and Maroubra Road as the Town Centre’s principal east-west axis.   The DCP recommends building heights of up to 7 storeys along Anzac Parade and up to 6 storeys along Maroubra Road to ensure building forms clearly establish the hierarchy of the two main roads.  Lower building forms are proposed on less prominent streets, including Robey Street, and towards the periphery of the Town Centre.

 

The proposal seeks to depart from the building envelope controls of the DCP by extending the six-storey building form along the site’s Robey Street frontage.  This undermines the DCP’s strategy of employing taller seven and six-storey building forms to reinforce the Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road axes and is considered to be inappropriate.  The proposal fails to demonstrate satisfactory regard for the desired future context and is not supported.

 

9.2.2    Density

 

The subject site is located within Block 9 as defined by the MJTCDCP.  The proposed seventh-storey element and extension of the six-storey building form along the site’s Robey Street frontage represent significant departures from the prescribed building envelope.  The approach entails a development density far in excess of that envisaged by the DCP’s controls. 

 

The maximum permissible gross floor area for the residential floors is 70% of the building envelope (or a combined total of 1,229.6m² for the five permissible storeys).  The proposed development incorporates a total residential gross floor area of 2,237.2m².  This equates to 127% of the permissible building envelope and exceeds the maximum permissible gross floor area by 1,007.7m² (or 82%). 

 

Arguments put forward by the applicant that the additional density is required to compensate for “lost” floor space resulting from changes to the building envelope controls for the site are considered to be irrelevant.  In practice, the achievable gross floor area for the site is governed by detailed building design criteria including a maximum apartment depth of 18.0 metres and a requirement to avoid single-aspect apartments fronting Maroubra Road.  These requirements have remained consistent since lodgement of the original application in December 2002.

 

The proposed variations to the building envelope fail to demonstrate that the proposal will achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with the DCP’s requirements for building height, building depth, building separation, rear setback.  The non-compliance entails an unreasonable level of additional overshadowing of properties to the south and compromises the ability of adjoining development to comply with the DCP’s controls for building separation.  The proposal fails to satisfy the DCP’s objectives for building envelope and is not supported.

 

9.2.3    Building Depth

 

The proposed development seeks to depart from the MJTCDCP’s building envelope controls by extending the proposed building form along the site’s Robey Street frontage.  The proposed building depth fails to demonstrate a satisfactory regard for the amenity of the adjoining properties to the south and is inconsistent with the desired future scale of development prescribed by the DCP’s Block controls.  The proposal fails to satisfy the DCP’s objectives for building depth and is not supported.

 

9.2.4    Building Separation

 

The proposed inclusion of a building form along the site’s Robey Street frontage conflicts with the MJTCDCP’s objectives for building separation.  Principal concerns are the potential overshadowing and privacy impacts on future development within the adjoining site at No. 1 Robey Street. 

 

The DCP’s Block controls prescribe a permissible building envelope for No.s 1 and 3 Robey Street of up to five storeys in height and set back 1.5 metres from the shared boundary with the subject site.  The northern elevation of No.1 Robey Street is an advantageous location for habitable rooms and balconies, an aspect  recognised in the DCP’s Block controls.  These prescribe a significant separation between the building envelopes of No. 165A-167B Maroubra Road and No. 1 Robey Street.

 

The proposal implies a potential minimum building separation of between 4 and 5.5 metres.  This represents an unreasonable constraint on the ability of future development within No. 1 Robey Street to occur in accordance with the site’s building envelope.  The proximity of the proposed building to the site’s rear boundary entails an unacceptable level of additional overshadowing and effectively precludes the ability of future development within No. 1 Robey Street from achieving the DCP’s prescribed separation distance of 18.0 metres between habitable rooms or balconies.  

 

In light of the excessive amount of additional floor space sought by the applicant, it is considered that the proposed extension of building form along the Robey Street frontage is unjustified.  This portion of the building would need to be removed in order to achieve an acceptable degree of compliance with the building separation controls and to allow adjoining properties to accommodate development in accordance with the DCP’s Block controls.  The proposal fails to satisfy the DCP’s objectives for building separation and is not supported.

 

9.2.5    Side and Rear Setbacks

 

The proposed variation to the site’s building envelope entails an unacceptable degree of additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties to the south and prevents future development within No.1 Robey Street from complying with the MJTCDCP’s controls for building separation.  Given the extent of additional floor space sought by the applicant, it is not considered that the non-compliance with the rear setback can be justified.  The proposal fails to satisfy the DCP’s objectives for rear setback and is not supported. 

 

            9.3       Building Use

 

The Block controls of the MJTCDCP require development to incorporate commercial uses on the ground and first floors and residential uses above.  The proposed development incorporates retail and commercial uses on the ground floor only.  The applicant has submitted an economic analysis to justify the variation.

 

The proposal achieves the prescribed minimum floor-to-ceiling height for the first floor of 3.3 metres.  The  purpose of this control is to allow flexibility for the first floor to be converted to commercial uses should future demand arise.  The resulting “flexibility of use” is a key element in ensuring a robust building form able to accommodate a range of uses over time.

 

The proposed cross-over arrangement of Levels 2  and 3 is unsatisfactory as it effectively precludes future adaptation of the first floor to non-residential uses.  It is considered that units within the first floor should be wholly contained within the floor to avoid any physical or ownership constraints to a future change in use.  The proposed arrangement of cross-over apartments is inconsistent with the DCP’s objectives for flexibility.  The proposal fails to satisfy the DCP’s objectives for building flexibility and is not supported. 

 

(NB:  The applicant has previously been advised on 11 March 2003 and 2 October 2003 of the need to comply with this requirement). 

 

9.4       Visual Privacy

 

Section 4.3.2 of the MJTCDCP requires communal open space, common areas and access routes to be separated from windows of habitable rooms.  Proposed Unit 1 includes a dining room and bathroom with windows opening directly onto the adjoining podium level communal open space and does not satisfy this requirement. 

 

The proximity of development to the site’s rear boundary conflicts with the DCP’s building separation controls and block layout and constrains the ability of future adjoining development to achieve a satisfactory level of visual privacy.  The proposal fails to satisfy the DCP’s objectives for visual privacy and is not supported.

 

            9.5       Apartment Layout and Mix

 

9.5.1    Apartment layout

 

The MJTCDCP prescribes a minimum apartment size of 125m² for three-bedroom apartments.  Proposed Units 1, 4, 9, 14 and 17 have gross floor areas of approximately 95m² and do not comply with the DCP’s minimum requirement.  These units are contained within the proposed six-storey southern annex to Robey Street.  This extension to the building entails unacceptable breaches of the DCP’s controls for building separation, rear setback, visual privacy and daylight access and is considered to be inappropriate.

 

9.5.2    Apartment mix

 

The proposed development achieves a limited mix 2 x one-bedroom units, 13 x two-bedroom units and 6 x three-bedroom units.  Five of the six three-bedroom units are located within the proposed six-storey southern annex to the site’s Robey Street frontage.  Removal of these units is considered to be a prerequisite for the building to achieve an acceptable degree of compliance with the DCP’s controls for building separation, rear setback, visual privacy and daylight access.  In this regard, the proposal fails to achieve a satisfactory apartment mix and does not satisfy the DCP’s objectives for apartment mix.

 

            9.6       Open Space

 

9.6.1    Balconies

 

Primary balconies for proposed Units 1, 4, 9, 14 and 17 on the southern elevation of the six-storey annex to Robey Street have balcony depths ranging between 1.3 metres and 2.0 metres and do not achieve the DCP’s required minimum depth of 2.5 metres.  These balconies are insufficiently separated from the site’s rear boundary and compromise the ability of future development at No.1 Robey Street to achieve building separation in compliance with the DCP’s requirements.   The proposed arrangement conflicts with the DCP’s objectives for visual privacy and is considered to be unsatisfactory.  The proposed apartments fail to demonstrate the provision of balconies in accordance with the DCP’s objectives.  The proposal is not supported.

 

            9.7       Daylight Access and Overshadowing

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application for 21 June appear to incorrectly plot the shadow cast for 3.00pm and do not contain sufficient details of the adjoining property boundaries.  It is evident from the submitted drawings that the proposed seventh-storey element and six-storey annex along the site’s Robey Street frontage will entail significant additional overshadowing of properties to the south that are identified for redevelopment by the MJTCDCP.  Given the extent of additional floor space sought by the applicant, it is considered that the additional overshadowing is unreasonable.  The proposal fails to satisfy the DCP’s objectives for building height, building depth, building separation and daylight access and is not supported.

 

            9.8       Building Design and Appearance

 

9.8.1    Articulation

 

The front and rear elevations of the proposed building are articulated in accordance with the minimum depths required by the Draft DCP.  Balconies to proposed Units 2, 5, 10, 15 and 19 extend beyond the property boundaries and do not comply with the DCP’s requirements. 

 

            9.9       Car Parking and Vehicle Access

 

9.9.1    Car Parking

 

The proposed development exhibits minor non-compliances with the Council’s requirements for car space widths and bicycle storage.  Revised car park layouts would be required to demonstrate compliance with these controls.

 

9.9.2    Rights of Carriageway

 

The DCP defines right of carriageway as traversing the rear portion of No. 165A-167B Maroubra Road.  The intention of the right of carriageway is to provide future vehicle access between Robey Street and properties fronting Maroubra Road to the east of the site. 

 

(NB:  The “proposed 6m wide right of carriageway” is incorrectly depicted on the application drawing No. SK-2-A02/8 as traversing the adjoining property at No. 1 Robey Street).

 

The optimal arrangement for the right of carriageway to be provided in accordance with the DCP’s Block controls is for driveway access off Robey Street to be located beneath a podium level area of communal open space.  This maximises the open space available at the residential level and avoids conflict between vehicle access and the open space.  The location of the proposed driveway off Robey Street is consistent with this approach, however additional details would be required to demonstrate that the proposed development could accommodate the future extension of the driveway to serve the adjoining properties.  

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The application fails to demonstrate a satisfactory level of compliance with the relevant controls for the site.  The proposed seventh-storey element and six-storey extension along the site’s Robey Street frontage entail significant departures from the prescribed building envelope for the site and result in a development density well in excess of that envisaged by the MJTCDCP.  In seeking these variations, it is considered that the proposal fails to have adequate regard for the site’s context, including the urban strategy and block controls of the MJTCDCP, and does not demonstrate an acceptable level of compliance with the DCP’s building design objectives.

 

Proposed non-compliances with the DCP’s primary controls for building envelope, building height, building depth, building separation and rear setback entail unacceptable impacts for adjoining properties and significantly constrain the ability of future development within these properties to occur in accordance with the DCP’s Block controls.  Accompanying non-compliances with the DCP’s objectives for visual privacy, apartment layout, apartment mix, balconies and flexibility are considered to be unjustified given the substantial extent of variations sought to the prescribed building envelope.

 

In failing to achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with the desired future character for the site, the application also fails to adequately address design quality principles prescribed by SEPP 65 for context, scale, built form, density, amenity and social dimensions.  It is considered that achievement of an acceptable design solution for the site requires much greater regard for the intended building layout of the site and adjoining properties.

 

The application has been subject to two pre-lodgement reviews and subsequent reviews by the assessment officer and Design Review Panel.  Arguments for varying the prescribed building envelope for the site were previously considered by the Council prior to the adoption of the MJTCDCP in November 2003.  It is considered that the applicant has had sufficient opportunities to achieve an appropriate design solution for the site.  It is recommended that the application be refused.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 1210/02  for the demolition of the existing commercial premises and construction of a new mixed commercial and retail building containing three shops at ground level, twenty-one apartments and two levels of basement car parking at No.s 165A-167B Maroubra Road, Maroubra  for the following reasons:-

 

1.           The development proposes a building form of seven storeys in height which does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 42(D) of RLEP 1998.

 

2.           The development proposes a building height of up to 21.59 metres which does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 42(D) of RLEP 1998.

 

3.           The development does not demonstrate a satisfactory level of design quality in accordance with the principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development with regard to context, scale, built form, density, amenity and social dimensions.

 

4.           The development does not satisfy the objectives (a), (c), (d), (f) and (i) for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre prescribed by Clause 42D(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

5.           The development proposes a six-storey building form along the site’s Robey Street frontage and fails to demonstrate satisfactory regard for the urban strategy of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan with regard to building height.

 

6.           The development exceeds the permissible gross floor area for the site by 1,007 m² and does not satisfy the objectives of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan with regard to building envelope.

 

7.           The development proposes a building depth of up to 41.7 metres from the site’s Robey Street frontage and does not satisfy the objectives of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan with regard to building depth.

 

8.           The development constrains the ability of development on adjoining properties from satisfying the performance criteria of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan for building separation and does not satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan with regard to building separation.

 

9.           The development proposes a rear setback of three metres and does not satisfy the objectives of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan with regard to rear setback.

 

10.         The development does not satisfy the objectives of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan with regard to visual privacy.

 

11.   The development does not provide all units with private open space in accordance with the minimum sizes and dimensions prescribed by the Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan and does not satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan with regard to open space and balconies.

 

12.         The development does not adequately provide for the future non-residential use of the proposed first floor and does not satisfy the objectives of the Maroubra Junction Development Control Plan for flexibility.

 

13.         Proposed Units 1, 4, 9, 14 and 17 do not comply with the minimum apartment size requirements of the Maroubra Junction Development Control Plan and the development does not satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan for apartment layout.

 

14.         Proposed Units 1, 4, 9, 14 and 17 are inappropriate as they entail unreasonable impacts on the adjoining properties and the development does not satisfy the objectives of the Maroubra Junction Development Control Plan for apartment mix.

 

15.         The information submitted with the application is insufficient to accurately assess the environmental impacts of the proposed development with regard to the overshadowing of surrounding properties.

 

16.         The information submitted with the application is insufficient to accurately assess the environmental impacts of the proposed development with regard to the facilitation of a future right of carriageway across the property.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reduced Plans.

Photomontage.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

CHRIS BROWN

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

29 July, 2004

FILE NO:

D/560/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification seeking retrospective approval for concrete stairs to attic rooms and minor internal alterations to the townhouses.

PROPERTY:

 1 Dove Lane, RANDWICK

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Arttech Design and Construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Chris Bastic, Dominic Sullivan, Paul Tracey.

 

The applicant seeks approval for works which have already taken place and subsequently approved by the Accredited Certifier including internal alterations and replacement of pull down stairs to an attic storage area, with concrete stairs.

 

The removal of the originally approved pull down stairs and the installation of permanent stairs, hallway and door will allow the attic area to be formally used as a bedroom or study.  This increase in the number of bedrooms constitutes an increase in the parking requirements under both Councils Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan and the Development Control Plan - Parking.

 

The recommendation is for refusal of the subject application due to non compliance with the parking requirements of both Councils Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan and the Development Control Plan Parking.  Further the proposed modification does not satisfy the assessment criteria for Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that the proposal does not constitute a modification of minimal environmental impact.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant seeks approval for works which have already taken place and subsequently approved by the Accredited Certifier.  These include replacement of the pull down ladder access to the attic with permanent stairs, internal alterations to the internal layout of the upper floors of each dwelling and new side door to Townhouse 1.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located at the intersection of Par Lane and Dove Lane in Randwick. The allotment is located on the western side of the triangular-shaped block formed between these two lanes and Raby Lane.

 

The site has a total area of 1,147m². The western frontage (to Dove Lane) is 49.11m. The southern frontage (to Par Lane) measures 62.115m. The north-eastern boundary of the site is 47.41 metres in length and adjoins a recently constructed townhouse development which fronts Raby Lane. There is a change in level of approximately one metre from the north-eastern boundary of the site to the south-western corner, however the length of the site results in an almost negligible apparent gradient.

 

Currently the site is occupies by two building one containing two, two storey attached townhouses fronting Dove Land and six, two storey attached townhouses fronting Par Lane.

 

The character of the area is comprised of a range of residential development types and architectural styles. This is reflective of the 2(b) residential zone that encourages a variety of residential uses. Most of these buildings back onto the laneways and have their principal frontage to surrounding streets. This gives the immediate area a ‘back-of-house’ character with garages and parking areas dominating the streetscape.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The original development application No 0560/2002 sought approval to construct a two (2) storey residential development comprising nine (9) townhouses. Five townhouses were proposed to provide two bedrooms with the remaining four being three bedroom dwellings. Several issues were raised with the applicant including streetscape, surveillance, lack of landscaping, the proposed carparking, and the overall appearance of the development from the street.

 

The applicant lodged amended plans on 10 September, 2002. These plans incorporated minor changes to the dwellings, including reducing the number of bedrooms in some of the townhouses. The amendments did not resolve all of the initial concerns with the scheme and exacerbated some issues, such as surveillance. A set of amendments addressing these concerns were received on 16 October, 2002 which reduced the size of the scheme from nine (9) to eight (8) townhouses.

 

Many of the objections raised during the original notification period raised the issue of the ‘third’ floor storage space. The amended plans included a change to the access arrangements to the attic area, in response to the concern that it would be used as a habitable room. The open stair access had been removed in favour of a pull-down attic ladder. This made use of the space for a bedroom or study difficult, as continuous access is not available. The use of this area for storage would provide amenity to the occupants of the development without compromising the amenity of existing dwellings. The dormer windows originally proposed to the Par Lane elevation of this area were removed in favour of operable skylights. This would allow light and ventilation to this area while reducing the visual impact of the Par Lane elevation. The skylights have a high sill height, which minimises impacts to visual privacy, particularly to residences to the south (fronting Douglas Street). The skylights are flush with the roof, which reduces the angle of vision from the attic and limits the area, which is visible from the attic storage room.

 

Development Consent was granted on the 26 November 2002 subject to 87 conditions.

 

On  28 March 2003 a Section 96 Modification was lodged for the deletion of condition no. 44 relating to hoses to be fitted to the garage areas, modification of condition no. 86 (h) where only one spotted gum exists not two as stated and modify condition no. 83 (a) where all but one tree are to be retained.  This modification was approved on 12 May 2003.

 

On 8 January 2004, a letter was sent to Council from Mr Robert Mason of 11 Douglas Street Randwick.  This letter stated amongst other concerns that the proposed pull down attic stairs had been replaced with concrete stairs.  After contacting the owner of the subject site and Accredited Certifier, Council was advised that the concrete stairs had been approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

The Accredited Certifier was subsequently advised by Council Officers that the proposed changes to the internal layout of the development would require a Section 96 Modification.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised in accordance with the Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Helen Lipton, 11 Douglas Street Randwick.

·    The applicant has ‘mislead’ Council by proposing a loft, when it was intended to be a third floor and has not complied and had no intention of complying.

·    Seeks ‘urgent action to prevent these builders from applying for alterations that were strongly objected to by residents in their original submissions, and were in fact a condition of approval.’

Robert Mason, 11 Douglas Street Randwick

·    The proposal has a floor area of 0.89:1 which is more than Randwick Local Environmental Plan Requirement.  The applicant has ‘ignored the loft area, which should have been treated as a third floor, and consequently would have increased this breach significantly.’

·    ‘By blithely dismissing the loft level from all calculations they were being dishonest, as it is in effect a third level.  The developers have clearly mislead Council in their original submission, with regard to the third floor, which, by referring to as a “loft” they ignore in compliance calculations to meet the Randwick Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan for Multi-Unit Housing.’

·    ‘Concrete stairs were in fact built, with no regard for this requirement, and effectively installed a third level to the townhouse, for another bedroom.’

·    Strongly Objects ‘to allowing developers to apply for alterations in retrospect, that were strongly objected to by residents originally, and were in fact a condition of approval’

Rhonda MacMillan, 13 Douglas Street Randwick.

·    Concrete stairs were in fact built in January, which clearly indicated blatant lack of compliance with the submitted Development 0200560GE for a drop down staircase to the loft level of the development.’

·    ‘The maximum permissible floor space has been significantly breached, as the builders have installed a third level.  The developers clearly mislead Council in their original submission, with regard to the third floor, which by refereeing to as a “loft” they ignored when making compliance calculations to meet the Randwick Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan for Multi-Unit Housing.’

·    ‘Strongly objects to allowing developers to apply for alterations that have already been built, and that were strongly objected to by the residents originally, and were in fact a condition of approval’

 

Peter and Suzanne Fagan, 3 Douglas Street Clovelly.

 

·    Plans approved by Council included pull down ladder access to the loft levels which were a concession to sustain objections raised by residents.

 

·    The pitch of the roof should have been lowered with the original application.

 

·    People will purchases the townhouses with larger familles than anticipated, causing traffic and parking problems.

 

·    Council has allowed a 3 storey development in a two storey zone.

 

·    Council has demonstrated that it will not enforce its Development Controls.

 

·    The buildings are an overdevelopment of the site.

 

·    ‘The buildings present a massive and ugly façade.’

 

·    ‘Parking, access and traffic management is a looming problem.’

 

Leonie Urquhart and Nicki Vinnicombe, 68 Albion Street Randwick.

 

·    The proposed amendments have already taken place.

 

·    The building is intrusive and ‘disregards most of’ Councils regulations.

 

5.2  Support

 

Sheilah Marshall, 47 Carrington Road Randwick.

 

·    Has no objection to any alterations to the townhouses in Dove Lane.

·    Raised concerns with regard to other issues including residents not parking in off street parking spaces and graffiti being sprayed on garage doors.

 

6.    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 2b under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

6.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan No. Multi Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements of performance solutions)

 

PARKING

 

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   

1.5 spaces per dwelling
dwelling
                              

 

 

8 x 1.5 Spaces = 12 Spaces Required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 spaces are provided which is 2 spaces less than the Preferred Solution requirement of the Development Control Plan.

 

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

8 / 4 = 2 Visitor Spaces Required.

2 are provided which satisfies the Preferred Solution requirements of the Development Control Plan.

 

7.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

7.1       Substantially the same

 

The proposed modifications to the original development proposal are considered to represent substantially the same development.

 

 

 

 

The proposed Section 96 Modification has been lodged as a Section 96(1A) Modification however the proposed amendments do not satisfy the requirements of Section 96 (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

 

Section 96(1A) states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all).

 

Although the proposed modifications represent substantially the same development, the proposed modification is not one which will have minimal environmental impact as it will result in an increase in the amount of bedrooms to 7 of the 8 dwellings and increases the requirements for on site parking. The proposed modifications are in fact Section S96(2) Modifications and cannot be considered under Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

7.2       Consideration of submissions

 

Some objections have raised issues which were assessed with the original Development Application report.  These do not relate to this Section 96 Modification and are not relevant to the assessment of this application.

 

Some objections have also stated that the pull down attic stairs were a condition of the Development Consent.  No condition was imposed upon the Development Consent requiring pull down attic stairs, the pull down attic stairs were in fact detailed on the approved plans and are within the terms of Condition 1 of the Development Consent

 

Issues relating to traffic and possible illegal building works have been addressed in section 8.1 and 8.2 of this report bellow.

 

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       Internal Alterations

 

No objections are raised to the changes to the internal bedroom, bathrooms and hallway layouts of the second floors of units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 with the exception of the stairs to the attic. 

 

There is no increase in the Gross Floor Area (and therefore Floor Space Ratio) to the development from the original proposal as storage space is included in Gross Floor Area calculations as defined in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

 

 

The original development proposal was amended to include amongst other amendments, changes to the access arrangements to the attic area, in response to the concern that it would be used as a habitable room. The open stair access was removed in favour of a pull-down attic ladder. The intention of this amendment was to make use of the space for a bedroom or study difficult, as continuous access is not available whilst allowing the area to be used as a storage space.

 

The removal of pull down stairs and the installation of permanent stairs, hallway and door to the attic area will allow the attic area to be formally used as a bedroom or study.  Investigation into the marketing of the development at 1 Dove Lane has revealed that all 8 of the townhouses are being marketed as 3 bedroom dwellings.

 

The increase in bedrooms to 7 of the 8 units results in an increase in the Parking requirements of both Councils Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan and Development Control Plan – Parking.

 

8.2     Traffic & Car parking

                       

The installation of concrete stairs to the attic area has allowed the opportunity for the attic store rooms to be formally used as bedrooms.  This increase in bedrooms results in an increase in the parking requirements of both Councils Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan and Development Control Plan - Parking.

 

Although the development satisfies Council’s requirements with regard to visitor car parking the increase in the number of bedrooms in 7 of the 8 townhouses has increased the amount of parking required for the development from 8 to 10 car parking spaces. 

 

Councils Development Control Plan – Parking, requires any variation to the parking requirements to be justified and in the case of significant variations, a report should be prepared by a suitably qualified transport consultant. In the case of this modification the applicant has not supplied any information, justifying the parking deficiency.

 

Development application No 0560/2002 originally sought approval to construct a two (2) storey residential development comprising nine (9) townhouses. Five townhouses were proposed to provide two bedrooms with the remaining four being three bedroom dwellings.  The application was amended and development consent granted for (6) two bedroom townhouses and (2) three bedroom town houses.  This amendment was required, due to several issues, raised with the proposal including carparking.

 

Given that the buildings are located within a laneway, which offers limited opportunities for on street parking, any increase in parking demand which is not accommodated on site will have significant impact on the parking capacity of the laneway.  The increased on street parking demand may have also lead to obstruction of the many driveways and rear parking areas of properties which have access to the laneway.

 

It is therefore considered that the development does not satisfy the traffic and parking provisions of both Councils Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan and Development Control Plan - Parking.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification is not one which will have minimal environmental impact and as such cannot be considered under Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

The installation of concrete stairs to the attic area allows the attic store rooms to be formally used as a bedroom and results in an increase in the parking requirements of both Council’s Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan and Development Control Plan - Parking. Given that the subject site is located within a laneway, which offers limited opportunities for on street parking, any increase in parking demand, which is not able to be accommodated on site is likely to significantly impact on parking availability.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed modification does not meet the relevant assessment criteria and should be refused.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.            THAT Council, as the consent authority, refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify condition/s of Development Application No. D/560/2002 for permission for Section 96 Modification seeking retrospective approval for concrete stairs to attic rooms and minor internal alterations to the townhouses. for 1 Dove Lane for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed modification does not satisfy the assessment criteria for a Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as it does not constitute minimal environmental impact

 

2.         The proposal does not comply with the numerical requirements of the DCP – Parking and Multi Unit Housing DCP in relation to the provision of on-site carparking.

 

3.         The proposed 2 space deficiency in onsite car parking will have an adverse impact on the parking capacity of Dove, Par and Raby Lane.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reduced Plans

 

Director of Planning & Community Development's Report dated 14 November 2002. 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

SHAUN HEHIR

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 93/2002

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

1 DOVE LANE, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

14 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/560/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. D/560/02 for demolition of the existing building on the site and construct eight (8) new two (2) storey residential townhouses on the site at 1 Dove Lane, Randwick for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 12 November 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report                         

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

12 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/560/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolish two, two storey buildings on the site and construct eight (8) two storey, two bedroom townhouses with associated ground level parking.

PROPERTY:

 1 DOVE LANE, RANDWICK

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 ARTTECH DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for consideration by Councillors Paul Tracey and Freda Backes and Mayor Sullivan.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing building on the site and construct eight (8) new two (2) storey residential townhouses on the site at 1 Dove Lane, Randwick. Seven (7), two (2) bedroom townhouses and one (1), three (3) bedroom townhouse are proposed. The estimated cost of development is $1,500,000.00.

 

The application was lodged on 14 June, 2002. The development comprised nine units (9) and resulted in a significant number of non-compliances relating to floor space, landscaping and carparking. The design of the scheme also raised issues relating to streetscape, security and surveillance and internal amenity of the townhouses. The use of the loft area as storage was also queried due to the open stair access and size of these areas. In response to the concerns of Council and the public, amended plans were submitted on 9 September 2002.

 

The amended scheme addressed some, but not all of the issues raised with the original application and additional amendments were sought. Further amendments were lodged with Council, the final set being submitted on 25 October, 2002 (which are the subject of this report). The proposal now generally complies with the building envelope and amenity controls stipulated under the Randwick LEP and Multi Unit Housing Code and meets character and streetscape objectives for this part of Randwick.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent, including deferred commencement conditions. The deferred commencement conditions has been imposed to ensure that plans resolving issues raised by the Director, Assets and Infrastructure and inconsistencies between the plans can be submitted to the satisfaction of Council prior to the operation of the consent.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing building on the site and erect a two (2) storey residential development comprising eight (8) townhouses (7 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom). Parking at ground level is provided for 12 vehicles. A separate pedestrian entry is provided to each townhouse directly from Dove and Par Lanes. Vehicular access is also provided from the laneway to each townhouse. Visitor parking is provided at the eastern end of the site and at the midpoint of the Dove Lane frontage.

 

The long street frontages of the site have dictated a building form that follows the street boundaries with private open space being accommodated at the centre of the site behind the proposed dwellings. The buildings are to be constructed of rendered and painted brickwork, incorporating corbelling and column details to provide relief. In order to simplify the pitched roof forms, the townhouses have been grouped in pairs. Three pairs front Par Lane, the others front Dove Lane. The dwellings fronting Dove Lane are separated by a two storey section that has a flat roof. As part of the amendments made in October 2002, a dwelling was deleted from the proposal and the form of the buildings rationalised.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located at the intersection of Par Lane and Dove Lane in Randwick. The allotment is located on the western side of the triangular-shaped block formed between these two lanes and Raby Lane.

 

The site has a total area of 1,147m². The western frontage (to Dove Lane) is 49.11m. The southern frontage (to Par Lane) measures 62.115m. The north-eastern boundary of the site is 47.41 metres in length and adjoins a recently constructed townhouse development which fronts Raby Lane. There is a change in level of approximately one metre from the north-eastern boundary of the site to the south-western corner, however the length of the site results in an almost negligible apparent gradient.

 

The site is currently occupied by two large single storey buildings which are aligned to the north-eastern and a portion of the southern boundaries. These buildings are abutted to each other and form an L shape. Despite these buildings being comprised of a single level, they are both have a height equivalent to two residential storeys (up to 6m). The larger building, aligned to the north-eastern boundary, is constructed of brick with a metal roof, the smaller building being entirely constructed of metal. These buildings are industrial in scale and character and are currently used as a gymnasium. An open concreted area comprises the remainder of the site. Sixteen mature trees are located on the southern and western boundaries of the site.

 

The character of the area is comprised of a range of residential development types and architectural styles. This is reflective of the 2(b) residential zone that encourages a variety of residential uses. Most of these buildings back onto the laneways and have their principal frontage to surrounding streets. This gives the immediate area a ‘back-of-house’ character with garages and parking areas dominating the streetscape.

 

The recently constructed townhouses at 3 Raby Lane (to the northeast of the site) provide a two storey building form to the laneway. This development promotes surveillance and provides streetscape character through the provision of balconies and landscaping to the street. Across Dove Lane, to the west, are multi-storey residential flat buildings, mostly elevated above ground level parking. Across Par Lane, to the south, are single storey garage structures attached to freestanding and semi-detached dwellings which front Douglas Street.

 

4.         HISTORY

 

a.         Site History

 

Council’s records indicate that the site was previously (prior to 1992) used for storage and wholesale plumbing supplies. The preliminary site investigation indicates that the site was occupied by a timber joinery workshop from approximately 1935-1970. Since 1992 the site has been used as a children’s gymnasium centre. Several incidental development applications have been considered and approved by Council from 1992 to the present, however these have not significantly affected the use of the site or the buildings thereon. There is no further history relevant to the subject site for this application.

 

b.         Application History

 

The original development application No 0560/2002 sought approval to construct a two (2) storey residential development comprising nine (9) townhouses. Five townhouses were proposed to provide two bedrooms with the remaining four being three bedroom dwellings. Several issues were raised with the applicant including streetscape, surveillance, lack of landscaping, the proposed carparking, and the overall appearance of the development from the street.

 

The applicant lodged amended plans on 10 September, 2002. These plans incorporated minor changes to the dwellings, including reducing the number of bedrooms in some of the townhouses. The amendments did not resolve all of the initial concerns with the scheme and exacerbated some issues, such as surveillance. A set of amendments addressing these concerns were received on 16 October, 2002 which reduced the size of the scheme from nine (9) to eight (8) townhouses. These plans were readvertised in accordance with Council’s LEP, concluding on 5 November 2002. A subsequent set of amendments to address concerns raised by Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services department were received on 25 October and are the subject of this assessment.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified by letter to surrounding properties and advertised in the local newspaper, in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

5.1       Objections

 

The original application was open for comment between July 2 and 16, 2002. Amendments were also notified between 22 October and 5 November, 2002. In relation to the original proposal twenty (20) objections were received from the following:

 

1.       R. Adams, 15 Douglas Street, Randwick

2.       Richard Newton, 7 Douglas Street, Randwick

3.       Helen Lipton, 11 Douglas Street, Randwick

4.       Robert Mason, 11 Douglas Street, Randwick

5.       R. MacMillan, 15 Douglas Street, Randwick

6.       Simon Carless, 10 Fern Street, Clovelly

7.       R & M Douglas, AR Douglas, 58 Albion Street, Randwick

8.       Leonie Urquhart & Nicki Vinnicombe, 68 Albion Street, Randwick

9.       Bronwyn Tricks, 22 Fern Street, Randwick

10.     Anthony Rosenthal, 5 Douglas Street, Randwick

11.     Alice Leslie, 68A Albion Street, Randwick

12.     Peter & Suzanne Fagan, 3 Douglas Street, Clovelly

13.     Una Chapman, 12/76 Albion Street, Randwick

14.     Anthony Nemeth, Franco and Linda Astore, 6/3 Raby Lane, North Randwick

15.     Ian Dunwoodie & Susan Tanner, 14 Fern Street, Randwick

16.     Grainne Moran, 3/3 Raby Lane, Randwick

17.     Jenny Newton, 7 Douglas Street, Randwick

18.     Kay Robinson, Secretary of the Body Corporate of Strata Plan 6203, 70 Albion Street, Randwick

19.     Robert Mason, 11 Douglas Street, Randwick

20.     Richard Newton, 7 Douglas Street, Randwick

 

These submissions raised the following issues:

 

§  Appalling consideration to introduce townhouses to small allotment.

§  Congested living & potential ‘slum-type’ existence.

§  Extensive traffic use of three narrow laneways.

§  Prospect of extra cars parking across driveways.

§  More people increases noise pollution.

§  Lack of privacy in existing backyards if 3 storey structures are built.

§  Overshadowing issues if 3 storey structures are built.

§  The removal of well established trees in the laneways.

§  Development contravenes Council regulations and disadvantages residents.

§  Grossly exceed Council’s guidelines as regards to 2(b) Zone developments. Floor Space Ratio is exceeded.

§  The 3 storey development is not consistent with surrounding homes.

§  In areas the development appears to exceed maximum Council height allowances.

§  The required set back is ignored. Compliance would allow a footpath for pedestrians both for aesthetic and safety reasons. It would also allow for existing native trees to survive and improve streetscape.

§  The lanes are very narrow.

§  Car parking does not comply with the LEP.

§  The car turning circle does not comply with the Australian standard.  No regard at all is given to pedestrian safety.

§  Concerns over cutting down of native trees resulting in increased risk of flooding as they were initially planted to help alleviate this problem, as well as for their natural beauty.

§  Development does not comply with LEP requirement to landscape 50% of the total site area.

§  Concerns over lack of amenities provided to surrounding residents.

§  Concerns over proposed “loft” when it is obviously a third floor.

§  “Ugly” development.

§  Concerns over criteria stated in the proposal doesn’t comply with the LEP.

§  Concerns over provision of space for garbage bins on collection days.

§  The LEP required 1 visitor car space per 4 dwellings, and only 2 are proposed for 9 dwellings.

§  Parking congestion in laneways will severely hamper emergency vehicle access for fire engines and ambulance.

§  The road surface of the rear lanes will not withstand the increased traffic flow.

§  The roof pitch is to an unacceptable and non-compliant.

§  Concerns over inadequate Environmental Impact Statement supplied to Council.

§  Lack of traffic impact study on the existing lanes.

§  Concerns over stormwater run-of and subsequent environmental degradation.

§  Minimum separation between properties in relation to Council’s DCP requirement has been breeched by 4 metres.

§  Site should be geotechnically surveyed in order to identify its water bearing propensity and any springs and water courses.

§  Recommend balconies from the townhouses fronting Par Lane be removed to avoid privacy concerns of the residents of 1-17 Douglas Street.

§  Recommendation to reject ARTTech Design submission, which essentially seeks to use the flawed development of the KiaOra site (3Raby Lane).

§  Proposed development will result in 8 multi storey units and further impact on over development of area.

§  Concerns over breach of bulk and scale proposed for development.

 

In response to the amended plans nine (9) submissions were received from the following:

 

1.      R & N Douglas, 58 Albion Street, Randwick

2.      H. Lipton, 11 Douglas Street, Randwick

3.      Anthony Rosenthal, 5 Douglas Street, Randwick

4.      Peter and Suzanne Fagan, 3 Douglas Street, Clovelly

5.      Jenny Newton No address given

6.      Robert Mason, 11 Douglas Street, Randwick

7.      Richard Newton, 7 Douglas Street, Randwick

8.      Franco and Linda Astore, 6/3 Raby Lane, Randwick

9.      R.G Adams, 15 Douglas Street, Randwick

 

These submissions raised the following issues:

 

§  8 Units too many, 6 would be acceptable

§  Loft level constitutes a third storey

§  Overlooking from balconies and attic windows into back yards of properties in Douglas Street

§  No reference made to difficulty of garbage collection from the laneways

§  Non-compliance with FSR

§  Non-compliance/ insufficient setbacks

§  Reduction in pedestrian safety due to footpath width

§  Traffic safety and visibility to and from proposed driveways and garages

§  Overshadowing, especially from ‘third floor’

§  Tandem carparking spaces do not meet Council’s requirements

§  No communal landscaped open space provided

§  Loft level not included in FSR to reduce landscaping requirement and non-compliance

§  Planter boxes included in landscaped area

§  Too high especially when compared with 3 Raby Lane

§  Former gymnasium operators have left the site and any reference to this previous use is not valid

§  Increase in traffic volume, not reduction

§  700mm land dedication is not wide enough to fit a pram or meet Australian Standards

§  Corner of the triangular site should be landscaped to provide easier access to the lanes

§  Minimum separation of 6 metres provided instead of 10 metres required by Council.

§  Inadequate parking on site will result in traffic obstructions and access difficulties for service and emergency vehicles

§  Issues raised regarding groundwater including requirement for geotechnical survey and retention of existing trees

§  Concern regarding construction damage to neighbouring properties

§  Proposal relies on the ‘flawed’ development at 3 Raby Lane as a precedent

§  Six units, flat rooves, underground parking, relocation of units to provide northerly aspect, compliance with FSR, setbacks and minimisation of privacy impacts are suggested as amendments which would result in an acceptable development

 

Many of the objections raised the issue of the ‘third’ floor storage space. The amendments included a change to the access arrangements to the attic area, in response to the concern that it would be used as a habitable room. The open stair access has been removed in favour of a pull-down attic ladder. This makes use of the space for a bedroom or study difficult, as continuous access is not available. The use of this area for storage will provide amenity to the occupants of the development without compromising the amenity of existing dwellings. The dormer windows originally proposed to the Par Lane elevation of this area have been removed in favour of operable skylights. These will allow light and ventilation to this area while reducing the visual impact of the Par Lane elevation. The skylights have a high sill height, which minimises impacts to visual privacy, particularly to residences to the south (fronting Douglas Street). The skylights are flush with the roof, which reduces the angle of vision from the attic and limits the area, which is visible from the attic storage room.

 

As no excavation is proposed a geotechnical survey of the site is not required to support the application.

 

In relation to the waste management and traffic issues raised by residents, Council’s Director Assets and Infrastructure has addressed both these issues in commenting on the proposal and has proposed conditions of consent to ensure a satisfactory outcome. Council requires a dedication of a 700mm wide strip of land along both frontages, which will result in a footpath allowance of up to 1.4m in width. The allowance along the Dove Lane frontage will be paved by the applicant in accordance with condition 471)f). In order to retain the trees on Par Lane the ‘footpath’ area will not be paved. Regardless of this, the dedication of the land to Par Lane will improve pedestrian amenity and movement in the area.

 

The development complies with Council’s statutory height control of 9.5 metres. The ridge height of the proposed townhouses is approximately one metre above the ridge height of 3 Raby Lane. This is not considered to be excessive, as the difference is due to the change in ground levels across the two sites.

 

The proposal complies with the parking requirement under Council’s DCP – Parking and the Multi-Unit Housing Code. The provision of parking is considered adequate and will not result in obstruction of the laneway. If the parking provision were to be placed underground it would result in less landscaping provision, particularly deep soil planting.

 

The applicant’s SEE has not been relied upon in the completion of this assessment. Clarifications have been sought where necessary and several site visits have been undertaken. The proposal has been assessed on its merits as a residential development against the applicable Council codes and policies. Previous uses of the site have not been considered as justification for non-compliances or impacts on surrounding properties. The amendments made by the applicant are significant in terms of compliance and the mitigation of impact to surrounding properties and are therefore satisfactory.

 

The final set of amended plans, received on October 25, 2002 were not readvertised as they did not result in a scheme which was significantly different from the final set of amendments notified for comment.

 

5.2       Support

 

In response to the original notification a letter of support was received from Ms Sheilah Marshall of 47 Carrington Road, Randwick. This letter raised issues relating to the intensity of the existing gymnasium use of the site, and supported the proposed change to a residential use in terms of less traffic, noise and rubbish.

 

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 of Building Services

 

The Manager of Building Services has provided appropriate conditions of consent, should the application be approved (see conditions 14-41).

 

6.2       Director of Assets & Infrastructure

 

The Director of Assets & Infrastructure has provided the following comments:

 

Landscape Comments

 

Council’s Landscape Technician has reviewed the amended plans dated 25/10/2002 and provides the following comments:

 

1.      As per the report provided by Council’s Tree Management Officer, dated 30 August 2002, the following trees are to be retained along Par Lane:

 

a)   Three (3) Eucalyptus mannifera (numbers 10, 13 and 16 on the landscape plan)

b)   One (1) Eucalyptus maculata (number 15 on the landscape plan)

 

Council’s Landscape Technician would not object to the following trees being removed, however, they may be retained if required by the applicant:

 

a)   Four (4) Lophostemon confertus (numbers 1, 3, 4 and 5 on the landscape plan)

b)   One (1) Eucalyptus species (number 2 on the landscape plan)

c)   One (1) Harpephyllum caffrum (number 8 on the landscape plan)

d)   One (1) Eucalyptus punctata (number 11 on the landscape plan)

e)   One (1) Eucalyptus scoparia (number 12 on the landscape plan)

f)    One (1) Eucalyptus maculata (number 14 on the landscape plan)

 

Permission should be granted for the removal of the following trees in order to allow for the proposed construction to take place:

g)   Two (2) Lophostemon confertus (numbers 6 and 7 on the landscape plan)

h)   One (1) Eucalyptus species (number 9 on the landscape plan)

 

2.      The proposed layout of the development (as shown on the plans received 25/10/2002) would necessitate removal of tree number 15 on the landscape plan. This tree is to be retained as part of this application and as such, Council’s Landscape Technician requests that the applicant be advised to set back the garage to townhouse 3, a minimum of one (1) metre from the existing property boundary (i.e. at least 0.3 metres from the land dedication boundary).

 

3.      It is noted that the amended plans received show proposed construction works within three (3) metres of the trunks of the trees noted for retention. Additional details showing the proposed methods of construction as well as an Arborist’s Report, prepared by a qualified Arborist shall be required prior to the issuing of a construction certificate to ensure that the trees noted for retention are not adversely affected by the proposed works.

 

The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall clearly show the exact clearances from the tree trunks to the proposed works and shall include the provision of permeable paving surfaces throughout all paved areas within three (3) metres of the trunks of the trees to be retained (it is noted that this includes driveways).

 

The applicant has agreed to the retention of all trees except for those numbered 11, 12 and 14 on the submitted Landscape Plan. However, an assessment of the likelihood of these trees surviving construction has been made and it is considered unlikely that these trees will be able to withstand the stress of the proposed building works. Council’s Landscape Technician has made the following additional comment:

 

The following trees are in poor condition and it is unlikely that they will be able to survive the development even though the submitted plans show them being retained:

Street trees - 8, 9

Internal trees - 2, 4, 7

 

The following trees are generally in a reasonable condition, however the proposed development will necessitate their removal:

Street trees - 11, 12, 14

Internal trees - 6

 

Thus a total of only 7 trees are noted for retention:

 

Street trees - 10, 13, 15, 16

Internal trees - 1, 3, 5

 

The retention of as many trees as possible is considered important in terms of screening and streetscape and the protection of the trees which are not required to be removed has been included as a condition of consent (see Conditions 83-87).

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

All stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to Council’s underground drainage system in Dove Lane via a new double grated gully pit located in front of the development site  (as shown on the submitted concept stormwater drainage plan SW200205-1, by AJK Design dated 16/10/2002).

 

One covered carwash bay is required for this development. The carwash bay shall be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

Road Dedication/Setback Comments

 

To facilitate safe pedestrian movements around the development the applicant shall dedicate a 0.7 metre wide strip of land along the Dove Lane and Par Lane site frontages for road widening purposes.

 

The applicant shall also dedicate a 3 metre by 3 metre splay corner at the Dove Lane/Par Lane intersection to improve vehicular manoeuvrability and visibility.

 

It is noted that in dedicating the 0.7 metre strip of land along both site frontages, all of the townhouses will need to be set back 0.7 metres. This will necessitate:

 

·    The corner of townhouse 6 being splayed (as shown on the amended plans dated 25/10/2002);

·    The corner of townhouse 7 being pushed hard against the boundary with townhouse 3;

·    The visitor parking space/carwash bay off Par Lane being either relocated closer to townhouse 6, reduced in length or splayed.

·    The visitor parking space off Dove Lane being slightly reduced in length or splayed;

·    The size of the rear courtyards being reduced.

 

To improve vehicular manoeuvrability in the laneways, it is recommended that all of the garages in both Par Lane and Dove Lane be set back at least 1 metre from the proposed property dedication boundary.

 

Traffic Comments

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 8 residential townhouses will be in the range of 32 and 40 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 4 vehicles per hour is considered low and no significant delays should be experienced in either Dove Lane of Par lane as a result of this development.

 

Waste Comments

 

The amended plans (dated 25/10/2002) show small garbage bin storage areas for townhouses 1 to 6. It is noted that the size of the garbage areas will have to be increased to facilitate at least 1 x 120 litre bin (garbage) and 1 x 240 litre bin (recycling). Should the development require green waste collection, provision shall also be made for an additional green waste bin.  It is further noted that garbage bin storage facilities shall be provided for townhouses 7 and 8.

 

A condition relating to the applicant providing garbage bin storage facilities for at least 1 x 240 litre bin and 1 x 120 litre bin for each townhouse has been included in this report. It is noted that this condition will necessitate the front planters being reduced in size.

 

6.3       Manager Environmental Health and Building

 

The proposal

 

The proposal is for the demolition of two existing industrial buildings and the erection of a two-storey town house development at No.1 Dove Lane Randwick.

 

Background

 

The site is currently occupied by two separate industrial buildings, which are being used as a children’s’ gymnasium. Council’s records indicate that the site has been previously used for non-residential or commercial purposes, namely a children’s gymnasium centre and a plumbing supply business.

 

Key Issues

 

Upon assessment of all information received, the following has been identified:

 

Preliminary Site Investigation Report

 

A preliminary site investigation report, prepared by Environmental Monitoring Services dated 21 October 2002 has been received. The report has revealed that no potentially contaminating activities have been conducted on the site.

 

The report has concluded that,

‘the potential for the discussed occupants to contaminate the underlying soils across the site is considered to be low to the lack of potentially contaminating industries historically on the site’.

‘Environmental Monitoring Services (EMS) is of the opinion that at this stage the potential for the site to be contaminated is assessed to be low’.

 

It is recommended that no further action / information be required in regards to site contamination at this stage.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site is less than 4,000m2 in area and as such is not subject to any master planning requirements under LEP 98. The site is not subject to the provisions of any current master plan in the assessment of this application.

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2(B) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the RLEP 1998 have been considered during the assessment of the proposal.

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

30 – Min. Lot Size

N/A

N/A

N/A

31 - Landscape Area

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 31(2):

50% of site area (or 573.50sq.m)

 

Clause 31(3):

Not more than

50% (or 286.75sq.m) of the required landscaped area to be provided over podiums or excavated basement areas

 

52% or 592.05sq.m

 

 

 

0sq.m or 0%

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

32 – FSR

0.65:1 or 745.55 sq.m

0.76:1 or 868.41sq.m

No.

(SEPP 1 objection submitted. See section 9.1)

33 - Building Height

Clause 33(2):

9.5m max. overall

 

Clause 33(4):

7m max. wall height

 

9.23m

 

 

6m

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Federation Cottages at 12,16 Douglas Street and 19 Douglas Street are significantly separated from subject site.

N/A

 

The relevant clauses of the RLEP98 have been discussed under Section 9 of this report.

 

(b)    SEPP 1

 

The applicant’s SEPP 1 objection made in response to the non-compliance with the 0.65:1 FSR standard will be discussed under Section 9.1 of this report.

 

(c)    SEPP 55

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. Due to the previous use of the site for horse stables, a preliminary site investigation was undertaken by the applicant to consider the issue of site contamination.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed this report and is satisfied that the site is suitable for the residential use proposed. The preliminary investigations into contamination on the site have satisfied Council’s obligations under SEPP 55 and the development is considered satisfactory.

 

8.1       Policy Controls

 

§ Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan 2000 (DCP)

§ DCP – Parking 1998

§ Section 94 Contributions Plan, 1999

 

a.   Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan 2000 (DCP)

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements or preferred solutions)

site planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

P2  Development sites have appropriate areas/dimensions to allow for satisfactory siting of buildings.

 

 

 

 

S2 Sites are of regular shape with frontages of at least 20m.

Complies

 

 

 

Site is irregular in shape; however, frontage to laneways is well in excess of 20m minimums in preferred solution.

building height

P1 Heights of walls, their location and orientation do not cause substantial adverse impacts on streetscape or adjoining properties.

 

P2 Variations in massing and height create visual interest, distribute the bulk of the building and minimise amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

 

Complies; Refer to discussion under section 9.2.

 

 

 

 

Complies; Refer to discussion under section 9.3.

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front  boundary setbacks

P1 The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A. No established front setback due to triangular shaped block. See discussion under Section 9.5.

 

Side boundary setbacks

P2 Side setbacks to ensure:

· Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

· Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

· Landscaping and private open space provided.

· Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres.

No part closer than 2.5 metres. 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

 

 

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

N/A No side boundaries due to irregular shaped block.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of unarticulated wall is 10.0m. Complies.

 

 

 

Minimum 1-2m. Does not comply; however, relevant performance requirements are satisfactorily met.

 

 

Rear Boundary Setbacks

P3 Ensure that:

· solar access and overshadowing are 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 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

Nil setbacks to existing wall on boundary-Average setback to building is over 6 metres and complies with the preferred solution. Refer to discussion under Section 9.5.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

General

P4 Eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection pose no significant adverse impact on adjoining properties.

 

 

S4  No device may encroach  more than 25% of the Preferred Solution.

 

Complies.

DENSITY

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms and minimises impact on nearby buildings, open spaces and the streetscape.

 

 

 

Complies; The proposed building is an infill development. The bulk and scale of the building is compatible with the predominant scale of existing development in the locality, and provides an acceptable streetscape fit.

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.

 

 

Complies; 1 metre solid. 

LANDSCAPEAND OPEN SPACE

Landscaped Areas

P1   Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

P2 Areas around multi-unit buildings are communal open space and not divided up for allocation to individual units.

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Complies; Landscaped areas and terraces to the rear of the proposed building have dimensions greater than 2.0metres.

 

 

 

N/A Townhouse form each dwelling has individual front entry garden.

 

Private Open Space

P3    Provides privacy for its users, is readily accessible, and provides opportunities for outdoor recreation / living.

 

P4 Is located in front of the building only where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

Townhouses

P5 Each dwelling is provided with an area of useable private open space or courtyard area, at ground or podium level.

 

S5    Minimum area of 25m2 and a minimum dimension of 3 x 4 metres.

 

 

Complies.

 

PRIVACY

Visual Privacy

P1 Windows and balconies of main living areas are located to avoid overlooking windows in adjoining dwellings and private open space.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Acoustic Privacy

P3 Building layout and design minimises noise transmission. of noise. Quiet areas separate noise generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

 

S1 Offset, angle or screen windows with less than 10m separations . Sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S4 Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

 

 

Complies-see Section 9.8 of report.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies-as per BCA requirements.

VIEW SHARING

 

P2 Development minimises effects on views and shows how view loss is minimised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies- See Section 9.9 of report.

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

P1 Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

 

P1.1 Solar access to existing solar collectors maintained between 9am and 3pm.

 

P1.2-3 Solar access to living areas and at least 50% of principal landscaped areas of neighbouring properties is not reduced to less than 3hrs/day.

 

 

 

 

Complies-See Section 9.10of report.

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Complies-refer to Section 9.10 of report

 

 

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.

 

 

 

S4 75% of dwellings achieve 3.5star 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.

 

 

Complies. All dwellings achieve 3.5(+) star rating.

 

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.

 

Complies; windows and balconies overlook street and entry area, and low front fencing and planting is proposed allow surveillance.

CAR

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 is provided.

 

Required On-site Parking

 

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

 

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

Complies;

 

 

 

 

N/A as development contains less than 15 dwellings.

 

 

 

Complies; Storage within individual garages

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies- see Section 8.1b of report.

DRIVE-WAYS AND TURNING

AREAS

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3 Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

 

P4 Space between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces enables landscaping and planting.

 

 

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

 

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

 

 

 

 

S2  Vehicles enter with a single turn and leave in no more than 2 turns.

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays

 

 

S4  Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and be at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

 

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5 for ramps over 20m.

 

Complies

 

 

Complies Vehicles do not enter and leave in a forward direction, however low traffic volumes ensure that there are no traffic or safety impacts of non-compliance vehicles can enter and leave in two turns or less.

 

Passing bay/s not required due to short length of proposed driveway.

 

 

Complies; except for visitor bay at south-eastern corner, this is to be splayed to achieve compliance.

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies.

STORAGE

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1 10sqm of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1m. At least 50% of storage space is within dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area. Storage facilities may be in basement areas, or attached to garages .

Complies-Attic storage provided to each dwelling.

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

P1 Design must provide access for people with special access needs as required (foyer parking open space).

 

 

P2  Dwelling requirements:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 so on…

The requirements of AS1428.1 and AS 4299 are to be considered.

 

P3  Dwellings for people with a disability have corresponding parking space.

 

P4  Passenger lifts provide access for people with a disability to common and parking areas.

 

S1 Publicly accessible areas comply with the Building Code of Australia for access and mobility.

Not required;

 

 

 

 

N/A as the proposed building contains only 8 dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of the compliance of the development with the Multi Unit Housing DCP is provided in section 9 of this report.

 

b.    Development Control Plan Parking (DCP Parking), 1998

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

 

Car Parking

a)    number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) layout

 

 

 

 

 

Bicycle Storage

 

 

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

 

1.5 spaces for each three bedroom dwellings (1 x 1.5 = 1.5 spaces)

 

1space/4 dwgs for visitors ( 2 spaces required for 8 units)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 12 SPACES

 

 

As per DCP.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

10 PRIVATE AND 2 VISITOR SPACES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garages to each townhouse

 

 

 

 

Storage provided in individual garages.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally complies, subject to conditions refer to Traffic Comment in Section 6.2.

 

 

Yes

 

As indicated above, the amended proposal complies with the number of spaces required, driveway location, width and gradient controls. Council’s Traffic and Parking Engineer has commented on the proposal and is satisfied that it meets the requirements of Council’s DCP Parking, subject to conditions of consent (see deferred commencement condition 1 and Conditions 47-50).

 

c.   Section 94 Contributions Plan, 1999

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes an additional eight (8) dwellings on the site. As a result of this assessment a condition of consent has been proposed requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities and administration charges totalling $22,564.20. This amount must be paid prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate (see Conditions 7-9).

 

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       Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.75:1 (868.41m2), which exceeds that permissible under the existing RLEP for a development on the site, being 0.65:1 (745.55m2) by 122.86m2. The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 32(1) of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

§ The proposed development is of a scale and bulk that is consistent with the existing development in the surrounding locality;

§   It complies with the building height requirements of the Randwick LEP 1998 and the private open space area, car parking, solar access and view requirements of Council’s DCP for Multi-Unit Housing development.

§   The proposal does not represent an over-development of the site in that it complies with Council’s open space requirements, maximizes the usability of open space and area devoted to the proposed dwelling (sic) with a suitable level of amenity

§   The proposed FSR is not considered unreasonable as it is not likely to have an adverse effect on the adjoining or adjacent development.

§   It has a significantly reduced bulk and scale when compared with the existing buildings and is comparable with the character of the surrounding residential development comprising a mix of one and two storey dwellings, townhouses and residential flat buildings.

§   The proposed development has been sited to protect the privacy and solar access of adjoining buildings.

§   The subject site is well serviced by public transport (buses) and is in close proximity to a range of community services and facilities, it is considered unlikely to adversely impact on any of these services. Given the proposal will include more on site car parking than is required under Council’s DCP and is likely to reduce the level of traffic generated than the existing use on the site (sic), the proposal is not likely to impact on the level of service, capacity or function of the surrounding road network and therefore satisfies the objective of the FSR standard.

§   The proposal (sic) development will have no greater impact on the amenity of the surrounding locality than if compliance were achieved and significantly less impact than the current use of the site as a children’s gymnasium centre. Although the proposal does not adhere to the maximum permissible FSR for the site, it will satisfy the above objective of the standard.

 

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.

 

Consistent with the objective of the FSR standard, the development minimises impacts to neighbouring properties, despite the non-compliance of the proposal with the density standard of 0.65:1. The non-compliance with the FSR standard results in an additional 122.86m2 of floor area. Over half this area can be attributed to non-habitable areas such as the generous robes and ensuites provided to each dwelling. These are considered to improve the amenity of the dwellings without significantly increasing the bulk of the development. If compliance was sought, the applicant would most likely delete these areas from the development first which would have minimal benefits in terms of the amenity of surrounding properties, while having a negative impact in terms of the occupants of this development.

 

The development will not impact surrounding properties with regard to visual privacy, view sharing or solar access as discussed throughout this report. As noted above non-habitable robes and ensuites contribute to the non-compliance. Likewise, an area of over 30m2 can be attributed to the void areas provided over the stairs in each townhouse. The void areas provide an entry feature to the townhouses but will not impact on surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy. The removal of these areas would not result in additional articulation significant enough to warrant their removal.

 

The bulk and scale of the development is considered to be consistent with that envisaged on this site and for an area with a Mixed Type character under the DCP. The attached townhouse building form provides identifiable dwellings of an appropriate size and scale on this irregular site.

 

The proposal meets the parking requirement under the Multi-Unit housing DCP. This is a further indication that the density of the development is consistent with development on the site envisaged by the RLEP98 and the DCP, despite non-compliance with the numeric density standard.

 

The proposal complies with the statutory height and landscaping controls. It is unlikely that a reduction in floorspace would have any significant amenity benefits for surrounding properties due to the general compliance of the current scheme with Council’s policy and statutory controls. Compliance with the FSR standard in this case is not considered to result in significant amenity benefits to adjoining properties or the appearance of the development and is therefore unnecessary.

 

It would be unreasonable to enforce compliance with the FSR standard contained within the RLEP when the proposed development on the site achieves the underlying purpose of the standard and meets Council’s controls with regard to streetscape, residential amenity and parking. It is considered that SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

9.2       Height

 

The proposed development has a maximum height of 9.23 metres and a wall height of 6 metres. The development therefore complies with the permissible height and wall height for development on the site, being 9.5 and 7 metres respectively. The development represents an increase of just over three (3) metres on the ridge height of the existing building on the site.

 

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.

 

Despite being taller than the existing buildings, the proposal meets Council’s requirements for solar access and will not result in excessive overshadowing impacts to adjoining properties during the midwinter period. The orientation of the site to the north and layout of the townhouses results in large shadow movements throughout the day. This has ensured that properties are only affected for a short time before the shadows move. Shadow impacts are similar to the existing situation, with additional shadow being cast to the southeast of the site (across Par Lane) and some additional shadow to the property at 3 Raby Lane during midwinter afternoons. Properties to the south of the site across Par Lane have garages and carports facing the subject site. These will be subjected to the additional shadow, with rear yards and habitable rooms of these dwellings generally being unaffected.

 

The development will not have a significant impact on the amenity of surrounding properties with regard to views, overshadowing or privacy. The development is satisfactory with regard to height.

 

9.3       Desired Future Character

 

The site is located in a Type 7 – Mixed Building Type Area under Part 2 of the Randwick Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The site is located amongst a variety of development types including 3-4 storey 1960s and inter-war walk-up flats and freestanding and semi-detached dwelling houses. A recently completed two-storey townhouse development occupies the north-eastern portion of the block. The development is of a lesser scale than the surrounding 3-4 storey residential flat buildings and is consistent with the dwelling houses and smaller scale residential uses around the site. Amendments to the development have ensured landscaping and building articulation is incorporated into the design and that garages do not dominate the streetscape. The design of the proposal has considered the existing development and will make a positive contribution to the mixed character of the area.

 

9.4       Site Planning

 

A site analysis plan was provided with the application. The site has been considered in terms of existing development, surrounding uses, vegetation and microclimate. The site is an irregular shape and has frontage to Par Lane of 62.115 metres and to Dove Lane of 49.11 metres. This meets Council’s preferred solution for redevelopment having a minimum frontage of 20 metres. The deletion of a townhouse from the originally proposed scheme recognises the limitations of the irregular site and has reduced impacts in terms of streetscape. The townhouse building form takes advantage of the long frontages of the site to minimise impacts on streetscape and to provide sufficient areas to the front and rear of the development for planting.

 

The site is a corner allotment and the proposed design addresses both Dove and Par Lane frontages with vehicular and pedestrian entries. Balconies and windows also address both frontages which engage residents with the street and provide passive surveillance which is important given the previously ‘back lane’ nature of these streets. Council has also negotiated a new 700mm wide land dedication for a new footpath to both Dove and Par Lane frontages, which will improve the streetscape and be of public benefit. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to site planning.

 

9.5       Building Setbacks

 

The triangular shape of the site yields two front boundaries and a rear boundary for the purposes of calculating building setbacks.

 

The subject site is located on a corner with frontages to both Par and Dove Lanes. There is no established front building line to these laneways due to the lack of development addressing these streets. The front (southern and western) setback to the laneway is 2-3 metres. This is consistent with the setback of the recently constructed development at 3 Raby Lane and is more generous than the garages to the south of the site, which have a nil setback. The front setback of the development is generous enough to allow for planting that will make a contribution to the streetscape. Part of the amendments to the original scheme increased the setback to the garage areas to reduce their prominence from the street.

 

The applicant is required to dedicate 700mm wide strip of land for footpath/ road reserve allowance. The dedication will require the front setback to the garages of town houses 3 and 4 be increased to one metre from the existing property boundary to allow for the dedication of land and a 300mm separation from existing trees for retention. The setback of the visitor parking bays will also need to be increased to allow for the dedication.

 

To the north-eastern (rear) boundary, the average setback to the building is over six (6) metres, which complies with Council’s requirement for an average setback of six (6) metres. The building has a nil setback to the north-eastern boundary due to the retention of the existing brick wall on this boundary. The wall has been retained by the applicant in response to concerns from residents of 3 Raby Lane regarding privacy and loss of the ‘back wall’ of their gardens. The non-compliance will not result in significant impacts on the adjoining property to the northeast (3 Raby Lane) as the wall is existing and elevations facing this boundary do not have any windows in them. The development will result in some additional shadows to this property during midwinter afternoons, however Council’s minimum three hours solar access requirements will still be met.

 

The development meets the requirements for articulation to all elevations, minimising flat areas of façade to less than ten (10) metres in length. The proposal does not comply with the minimum depth requirements for recesses in the façade, by 1-2 metres. This is not considered to be significant as the building incorporates windows, balconies, columns and other elements that break up the façade and provide additional relief. The development is considered satisfactory with regard to the building setback requirements of Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

9.6       Fences

 

The height of proposed front fencing meets Council’s preferred solution. The fencing design incorporates low planting to soften the appearance of the development without limiting passive surveillance.

 

The existing wall which separates 3 Raby Lane from the subject site will be retained by the proposal as a dividing fence. This wall has been retained in response to objections from 3 Raby Lane residents regarding privacy and their use of the wall as a backdrop to their private open space. The retention of this existing wall will not exacerbate impacts and is considered appropriate in the circumstances subject to certification by an engineer to ensure structural stability (see Condition 4).

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to the objectives and controls for fencing under section 3.5 of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

9.7       Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

The development provides 52% (592.05m2) of the site area as landscaping. This exceeds the statutory requirement under clause 31(2) of the RLEP98 of 50% (573.5m2) by 18.55m2. As no basement is proposed for this development the entire landscaping provision is deep soil planting capable of sustaining large plantings and meets the requirements and objectives of clause 31(3) (Landscaped area over basements) of RLEP98. A minor reduction in the landscaped area may result from the increased setbacks to the garages and footpath dedication, however this will not result in non-compliance with the statutory standard.

 

The original scheme proposed the removal of 13 of the 16 mature native trees that exist on the front boundaries of the site. Amendments to the proposal have resulted in the retention of 7 of these trees. Council’s Landscape Technician has granted consent to the removal of the seven trees. An arborists’ report supporting the retention of the trees and indicating measures during construction to ensure their ongoing health is required by Condition 86. The trees were planted to provide screening to properties fronting Douglas Street and their retention (along with additional plantings) is considered important for streetscape, screening and encouraging native fauna into the area.

 

The revised landscape plan indicates shrubs and trees ranging from 0.3 to 4 metres in height. Additional tree plantings with mature heights ranging from 5-14m are also proposed. The development complies with the overall landscaping requirement that 50% of the site be landscaped and provides generous areas of open space that can be used for recreational purposes. The proposed landscaping also makes a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

Council’s Landscape Officer is satisfied with the proposal, subject to conditions of consent (see Conditions 77-87).

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to landscaping.

 

9.8       Privacy

 

The site benefits from having its main outlook (to Par and Dove Lanes) towards the rear of existing properties. Properties to the south of the site (Par Lane) generally present garages and carports to the laneways, which obscure direct views to the rear yards and dwelling houses on these allotments. In addition to the buffer provided by the garages, dwellings to the south are a significant distance from the subject site, which maintains adequate separation for visual privacy. Residential flat buildings to the west (across Dove Lane) are generally constructed above ground floor parking, which increases the visual separation between dwellings due to the change in levels.

 

To the northeast of the site is the recently constructed townhouse development at 3 Raby Lane. The back of the proposal addresses this property. Living areas are located on the ground floor of the development and due to the flat topography in the area have their outlook confined to the private open space provided. Upper floors of the development are generally more than 10 metres from the north-eastern boundary of the site due to the irregular shape of the site and the orientation of the buildings to the street edge. As a result only the window of bedroom 1 to townhouse 6 is closer than ten metres to the north-eastern boundary (approximately 2.5 metres). The retention of the six (6) metre high brick wall between the subject site and the dwellings at 3 Raby Lane ensures no privacy impact from this non-compliance.

 

The development has incorporated features to mitigate privacy impacts and meets Council’s performance requirements and preferred solutions.

 

9.9       View Sharing

 

The development complies with the height standard for the site. Although the proposal increases the building footprint on the site and reorients development to the street edges the compliance with the height standard is considered to preserve views and aspect from surrounding buildings. The residential flat buildings to the west of the site will still have outlook across the site and existing view opportunities will be preserved. The flat topography in the area does not promote extensive view opportunities from smaller scale development and the proposal will not have any significant impact on these properties.

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to view sharing.

 

9.10     Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

The proposal meets the requirements of the DCP maintaining at least 3 hours of midwinter solar access per day to surrounding properties. The layout of the building allows for the provision of operable windows to habitable rooms and encourages passive ventilation to all townhouses in accordance with ESD principles.

 

The applicant has submitted a NatHERS report of the dwellings in the proposed development, which shows that all dwellings achieve minimum rating of 3.5 stars. These ratings surpass Council’s minimum requirements.

 

The proposal is considered acceptable in relation to solar access and energy efficiency.

 

9.11     Safety and Security

 

The development meets the requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP with regard to safety and security. The development provides an entry portico to each dwelling within the development. Each dwelling is readily identifiable from the street and this identification is enhanced by the townhouse form.

 

The location of the development on laneways rather than established streets raised issues regarding pedestrian safety with the initial scheme. In response, the applicant has widened each townhouse to ensure that dining and living areas have a direct relationship to the street. Land dedications to create new footpaths to Dove and Par Lanes are also proposed in the amended scheme and are considered to improve the safety of the development. The use of large, dense plantings has been restricted, with low shrubs in planters being used along the street edge. Existing trees along the edge of the site with a higher canopy will retain landscape qualities of the street without compromising surveillance. The height of the front fencing complies with Council’s requirements and will not result in a reduction of public safety or security around the site.

 

The development meets the safety and security requirements of Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

9.12     Parking

 

The development meets Council’s requirements with regard to resident and visitor car parking. The driveway width and gradient proposed to each of the garages meet Council’s requirements. The amendments made to the plans has allowed for planting to the street edge without resulting in reduced pedestrian or vehicular safety. Council’s traffic engineer is satisfied with the quantity, layout and location of parking subject to conditions (see deferred commencement condition 1 and conditions 47-50).

 

The development is considered to be of lesser impact on the local traffic situation than the existing use for a children’s gymnasium, which results in large peak traffic volumes and parking demand at the commencement/ end of classes. The use of the site for residential purposes is considered to generate less traffic movements than this existing use and the required parking can all be accommodated on site.

 

The development is considered to be satisfactory with regard to traffic and parking provision.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The SEPP 1 objection lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the floor space ratio of the development is considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

It is considered that the proposed building is appropriate on the site given the desired future character of the area and the objectives contained within the RLEP98 and the Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The development proposes a building envelope, height and façade treatment that generally meets the criteria and fulfils these objectives.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties and the non-compliances with statutory and policy controls will not exacerbate impacts. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to compliance with the deferred commencement condition and development conditions of consent.

 

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 use complies with the objectives of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that Planning NSW be advised accordingly.

AND

 

B.         THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80(3) (Deferred Commencement) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0560/02 for construction of a residential development comprising 8 dwellings and associated car parking at 1 Dove Lane, 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 Planning and Community Development:

 

1.         Plans clearly indicating:

§ The dedication of a 0.7 metre strip of land along both site frontages and a 3 metre by 3 metre splay corner to Par and Dove Lanes. The plans are to include any changes to the layout of the development required to achieve the land dedication required by development consent conditions 2 and 3.

§ Garbage bin storage areas capable of containing at least 1 x 120 litre bin (garbage) and 1 x 240 litre bin (recycling) as required by development consent condition 76.

§ The garage to townhouses 3 and 4 shall setback a minimum one (1) metre from the existing property boundary (i.e. at least 0.3 metres from the land dedication boundary). This condition has been attached to allow for the retention of the Eucalyptus maculata located on Council’s nature strip near proposed garage for townhouse 3. The garage to townhouse 4 is to be setback to maintain the symmetry of the two dwellings and improve the relationship of the dwellings to the street.

§ The plans are to include a revised landscape plan which is consistent with the architectural drawings and which clearly indicates the retention of all trees on the site with the exception of trees 2,4,6,7,11,12,14 as numbered on Revision C of the Landscape Plan LSK01, which may be removed.

§ The retention of the existing wall on the north-eastern boundary of the property. This wall is to be shown on the landscape plan and any landscaping treatments are to be indicated.

 

2.         The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity of amenity of the streetscape.  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 prior consent to being issued.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the Revision C of the plans drawn by Arttech Design and Construction Job No.0223 and sheet numbered 1C-8C, dated 13/06/02 and stamped received by Council on 25/10/02, 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:

 

2.         The applicant shall dedicate (at no cost to Council) a 0.7 metre wide strip of land along the Dove Lane and Par Lane site frontages for road widening purposes. This condition has been attached to facilitate pedestrian movements around the development. This dedication is to take place prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

3.         The applicant shall dedicate (at no cost to Council) a 3 metre by 3 metre splay corner at the Dove Lane/Par Lane intersection. This dedication is to take place prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

4.         The retention of the existing brick wall along the north-eastern boundary is to be certified by a structural engineer to ensure its structural integrity after the rest of the existing building is demolished. This certification is to be received prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

5.         The external colours, materials, finishes and landscaping of the proposed development shall be in accordance with the details and plans submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development pursuant to the deferred commencement condition.

 

6.         The visitor car spaces shall be readily accessible at all times and shall be clearly marked with appropriate signage

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for Section 94 Contributions:

 

7.         In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted in September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision or improvement of public open space in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $15,282.16. This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

8.         In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted in September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision of community facilities in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $6,757.04. This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the issuing of the construction certificate. Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

9.         In accordance with Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted in September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for administration charges for an amount of $425.00. This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate. Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

10.       The consumption of water within the proposed building shall be minimised by the use of triple A-rated water efficient plumbing features (taps and shower roses) and water-efficient dual flush toilets. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate.

 

11.       The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  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 Environment, prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted to Council and approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste.

 

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

 

15.       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.

 

16.       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 $3,000.

 

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 conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the terms of Council's approval and relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

17.       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 accordance with clause 78H of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.

 

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.

 

18.       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.

 

19.       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.

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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.

 

22.       The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council’s approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant building inspections, 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 on behalf of the applicant) 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 approval:

 

·    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, waste containers or other obstructions.

 

23.       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. 

 

24.       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.

 

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.

 

25.       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.

 

26.       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

d)               external finishes and materials

 

27.       A coloured works-as-executed fire services plan is to be submitted to the Council prior to occupation of the development, detailing the location of the essential fire safety measures installed within the building premises.

 

28.       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.

 

29.       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.

 

30.       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.

 

31.       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.

 

32.       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.

 

33.       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”.

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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.

 

A soil and water management plan (SWMP) must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority and implemented prior to the commencement of any site works or activities.

 

The soil and water management plan must contain a site plan, detailing:

 

·          the slope of the land

·          site access points and access control measures

·          location and type of all sediment control measures

·          location of existing vegetation, to be retained

·          material stockpile or storage areas and methods of sediment control

·          location of existing and proposed drainage systems

·          proposed disposal of site water

·          location of building operations and equipment

·          proposed re-vegetation details

 

All soil and water management measures must be maintained at all times throughout demolition, excavation, building and site works and a copy of the soil and water management plan is to be kept on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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.

 

38.       If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

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.

 

39.       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.

 

40.       The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council.

 

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

 

41.       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 AS 3786 - 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 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 maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

 

42.       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)

 

43.       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.

 

44.       Garbage storage enclosures are to be fitted with a hose cock and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste connected to the sewer. Approval is to be obtained from Sydney Water.

 

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

 

45.       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)     $5000.00 -           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.

 

 

46.       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 new vehicular crossings.

 

a)         $ 5000.00        -           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:

 

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

 

a)         Construct full width concrete vehicular crossings opposite the new vehicular entrances to the site in Dove Lane.

 

b)         Construct full width vehicular crossings opposite the new vehicular entrances to the site in Par Lane. It is noted that all vehicular crossings within three (3) metres of trees being retained shall be constructed from permeable paving and all other crossings in Par Lane shall be constructed from asphalt.

 

c)         Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks in Dove Lane and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

d)         Reconstruct any damaged sections of Council’s kerb and gutter along the full site frontage in Dove Lane.

 

e)         Repair any damaged sections of the asphalt laneway (along the site frontages in Dove Lane and Par Lane) as required by Council’s Department of Asset and Infrastructure Services.

 

f)          Construct a new concrete footpath between the existing kerb and gutter in Dove Lane and the land dedication boundary. It is noted that all sections of footpath within three (3) metres of the trees to be retained shall be constructed from permeable paving.

 

g)         Construct a new double grated gully pit with a minimum kerb inlet of 1.8 metres in front of the proposed development, and connect the gully pit to Council’s existing stormwater pit in Dove Lane via a 375 mm diameter RRRCP (rubber ringed reinforced concrete pipe).

 

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

 

49.       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.

 

50.       A work zone is to be provided in the vicinity of the proposed development (location to be determined by the Randwick Traffic Committee). The ‘workzone’ shall have a minimum length of 12 metres and the prescribed fee for the work zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of building works.

 

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

 

51.       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, shall be as follows:

 

·          In Dove Lane:

 

(a)        30 millimetres below the top of kerb opposite at the proposed vehicular crossings.

 

(b)        30 millimetres above the existing top of kerb opposite at all points other than the vehicular entry/exit points.

 

·          In Par Lane:

 

(a)        100 millimetres above the centreline of the lane at all points opposite the laneway along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

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

 

53.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services  have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1957.60 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.

 

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

 

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

 

55.       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.

 

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

 

57.       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.

 

58.       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 proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant must liaise with Sydney Electricity prior to lodging the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

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

 

59.       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.

 

60.       On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 10 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions.  All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible the detention tank must have an open base to infiltrate stormwater to the groundwater. Note that the ground water and any rock stratum has to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

61.       All stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to Council’s underground drainage system in Dove Lane via a new double grated gully pit located in front of the development site  (constructed by Council or a Council approved contractor at the applicant’s expense). Details of the proposed gully pit and stormwater line to be constructed under Council’s roadway shall be submitted to Council for approval and approved prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

Note:    Sketch details of a standard double grated gully pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer

 

62.       The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year storm event, plus an additional 50% of storage volume should no overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

63.       A "restriction as to user and positive covenant" shall be placed on the title of the subject property prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate. Such restriction and positive covenant shall relate to the onsite stormwater detention system and shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.         The "restriction as to user and positive covenant" are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department.

b.         The linen plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

This condition is to ensure that no works that could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council.

 

64.       The detention area must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

65.       The stormwater detention area must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

66.       The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be constructed.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

67.       A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

68.       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 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.

 

69.       A work-as-executed plan prepared and signed by the hydraulic engineer or a registered surveyor, and approved by an accredited certifier, must be submitted to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, detailing the location of the detention basin with finished surface levels, contours at 0.2 metre intervals and volume of storage available.  The outlet pipe from the detention basin to its connection with Council's drainage system, must be indicated on this plan in conjunction with the following information:

 

a)         location

b)         pipe diameter

c)         gradient

d)         pipe material ie PVC or EW etc

e)         orifice size (if applicable)

 

70.       A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

h)        within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to Council’s underground drainage system; and

i)         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.

 

71.       A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention area.

 

72.       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.

 

73.       One covered car washing bay shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bay 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 bay must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system and must be suitably signposted.

 

c)         The car washing bay must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay (or equivalent)

 

d)         A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bay.

 

74.       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.

 

75.       Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

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

 

76.       The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall clearly show adequate garbage bin storage areas for each of the townhouses. The garbage bin storage areas must be capable of containing at least 1 x 120 litre bin (garbage) and 1 x 240 litre bin (recycling).

 

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

 

77.       The landscaped areas shown on the landscape plan number LSK 01, issue C, dated 25.10.02 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:

 

a.         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), 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 trees to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

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.         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.

 

h.         Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

78.       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.

 

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.

 

79.       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.

 

80.       In order to allow for adequate water infiltration to ensure the retention of trees in good health, brick unit pavers or similar permeable paving units shall be used throughout the driveway, footpath, car park and any other paved areas proposed within three (3) metres of the existing trees to be retained. 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.

 

81.       Any substation required shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications.

 

82.       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

 

83.       The applicant shall submit a total payment of $29,140.00 to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to remove the existing street tree specimens of Harpephyllum caffrum  (number 8 on the submitted landscape plan), Eucalyptus species (number 9 on the submitted landscape plan), Eucalyptus punctata (number 11 on the submitted landscape plan), Eucalyptus scoparia (number 12 on the submitted landscape plan) and Eucalyptus masculata (number 14 on the submitted landscape plan) ($1,920), and

 

b.         To compensate Council for the loss of amenity caused by the removal of the street trees ($27,220.00).

 

The contribution shall be paid into Account Number 43459939 Activity Code R36 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.

 

 

84.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 3 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), number 2 on the submitted landscape plan.

 

b.         Three (3) Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box), numbers 4, 6 and 7 on the submitted landscape plan.

 

85.       Permission is granted for the selective pruning of overhanging branches from the Eucalyptus mannifera (Red Spotted Gum), number 10 on the submitted landscape plan. Only those branches in direct conflict with the proposed construction may be pruned. All pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist, with suitable qualifications in Arboriculture and to Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

86.       In order to ensure the retention of the three (3) Eucalyptus mannifera (numbers 10, 13 and 16 on the landscape plan) and one (1) Eucalyptus maculata (number 15 on the landscape plan) 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.         All detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the set back of the proposed garage to townhouse number 3, a minimum of on (1) metre from the existing property boundary.

 

c.         The trees are to be physically protected by material such as hessian, taped or tied around the tree trunks to approximately 300mm thick. Palings are to be attached to the outside of the padding. A minimum 100mm thick layer of roadbase/gravel (or similar) shall be placed over the root zone of the trees.

 

            The protective measures are to be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed.

 

d.         Within a minimum radius of 1 metre from the outside edge of the tree trunks there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of in the area, nor any stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

Any works required within this zone (only as approved on the construction certificate) shall be under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist.

 

e.         Prior to the commencement of any demolition works, the applicant will be required to contact Council’s Landscape Architect on 9399 0786 to organise for an inspection of the tree protection measures.

 

            The applicant will also be required to contact Council’s Landscape Architect prior to the commencement of any construction works within three (3) metres of the trunks of the trees to be retained, as the Council Officer will be required to supervise these works along with a qualified Arborist (as per point f).

 

f.          Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, services, pipes, detention tanks, stormwater infiltration systems, paving etc within three (3) metres of the tree trunks shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist and Council’s Landscape Architect with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

g.         Watering of the trees three times a week for the duration of the period of the refundable deposit described in Point i.

 

h.         A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque or bank guarantee of $69,280.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the preservation of the trees in accordance with the requirements described in this condition.

 

 

   QUANTITY

 

        SPECIES       

 

   AMOUNT

 

3

 

Eucalyptus mannifera

(Red Spotted Gum)

 

$50,150.00

 

2

 

Eucalyptus maculata

(Spotted Gum)

 

 

$19,130.00

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

$69,280.00

 

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.

 

87.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $8,000.00 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.      Should the development require greenwaste collection, it is recommended that the plans submitted for the construction certificate make provision for storing greenwaste garbage bins within the site.

 

A2.      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.

 

A3.      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.

 

In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with a number of the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

            a)         Part 3.1                        -           Site preparation

            b)         Part 3.2                        -           Footings and slabs

            c)         Part 3.7.1                     -           Fire separation

            d)         Part 3.7.2                     -           Smoke alarms

            e)         Part 3.8.5                     -           Ventilation requirements

            f)          Part 3.8.6                     -           Sound insulation

 

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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

28 July, 2004

FILE NO:

D/273/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a multi-unit housing development in the form of two separate buildings containing in total 4x3 bedroom dwellings with basement parking for nine cars and the strata subdivision of the finished building.

PROPERTY:

 80 Beach Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 ABC Planning Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Bradley Hughes, Murray Matson, Margaret Woodsmith.  The estimated cost of the development is $1.2 million.

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling house, the construction of a multi-unit housing development consisting of two buildings over a basement carpark and the strata subdivision of the finished building.  The proposed development contains four dwellings in a townhouse style development, with parking for nine cars, including one visitor space.

 

The subject site is a corner lot with three street frontages, having a unique topography, being the site of a former quarry.  It has a western edge to Beach Lane at the top of a cliff, then a steep fall at its western end to a fairly level area (being the majority of the site) to Beach Street at the front (east).  At its south, it adjoins the road embankment to Alison Road.

 

The proposed design sets the two buildings well back from its northern neighbour by providing a nil setback on its southern boundary.  This does not have any significant detrimental impact to the streetscape of Alison Road or Beach Street due to the wide and fairly steep embankment to Alison Road, adjoining the southern boundary of the site.  As part of the proposal it is intended to provide extensive landscaping, a footpath and stairs leading up to Alison Road (at the applicant’s expense).  These improvements will be to Council’s specifications, although a preliminary design is indicated on the submitted plans.  These works will rejuvenate a fairly neglected area of the road reserve and provide tree canopy and amenity to the surrounding area that is otherwise lost through on-site tree removal, necessary for any potential development on the site.  These works include the removal of two large mature Moreton Bay Fig Trees, which are considered inappropriate plantings for a suburban residential block and better suited to a park/public environment, due to structural damage that they can cause.

 

The application seeks variations to the floor space and building height controls by way of submissions under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1.  It is considered that these submissions should be supported as the proposed design does not result in any overshadowing to residential properties, relates to the topography of the cliff face and the adjoining residential flat building to the north, is well-setback from its northern neighbour and does not result in any significant view loss or privacy issues, subject to appropriate conditions of consent.

 

The design of the proposed development has positive features, such as providing  spacious dwellings with large terraces/balconies, cross-flow ventilation, access to northern light and a quality landscaped setting.  These features will ensure that a good level of amenity is provided for future residents.  In addition it is considered that the proposed design is of high architectural merit and is supported by the Design Review Panel.  Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions of consent.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a multi-unit housing development involving the following:-

 

·    The erection of four (4) x three (3) bedroom dwellings in two separate built forms.  The building fronting Beach Street to the east consists of two storeys with clerestory windows, containing two (2) dwellings with their frontages to Beach Street.  The rear (western) building consists of three storeys and contains two (2) dwellings with their frontages to Alison Road.

·    Both buildings are located above a basement car park containing nine (9) car parking spaces, including one (1) visitor parking space, bicycle storage and garbage room.  Driveway access to the basement car park is from Beach Street on the northern side of the site.

·    Associated site landscaping, including replacement tree planting, and landscaping works to the Council verge along the site frontage to Alison Road, including a new public footpath and a public stair to the roadway, constructed in accordance with Council requirements.

·    The strata subdivision of the finished development.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is a corner lot with three street frontages, being located on the western side of Beach Street, the northern side of Alison Road and at its rear, the eastern side of Beach Lane along the cliff top.  The property is identified as Corner Lot 1303 in DP 752011 and is fairly regular in shape, with a frontage to Beach Street and Beach Lane of 14.02m, a frontage of 47.28m to Alison Road and a total site area of 663m2.

 

Existing on the site is a single storey painted brick and tile dwelling house and free standing garage at the rear.  As well, there are two large Moreton Bay Fig Trees and  seven (7) Cocos Palms approximately between 6m-8m in height along the southern side of the driveway (see Figure 1).

 

The majority of the site is fairly flat, being located at the base of a former quarry and has a western edge to Beach Lane at the top of the cliff.  The cliff drops steeply at the western end of the site and then is fairly uniform to Beach Street at the front (east).

 

 

Figure 1 – subject site from Beach Street

 

Located on the adjoining site to the north (78 Beach Street) is a two storey painted brick and tile residential flat building (its relationship with the subject site can be seen in Figure 2).

 

 

Figure 2 – 78 Beach Street adjoining the subject site to the north

 

Adjoining the site to the south is Alison Road, which has quite a wide verge on its northern side immediately adjacent to the subject site.  The verge has a fairly steep progressive rise from the site boundary, commensurate to the steep slope in the Alison Road pavement to the west (refer Figure 3).  Opposite the site, on the south-west corner of Beach Street and Alison Road (82 Beach Street) is a two storey dwelling house (refer Figure 4).

 

 

Figure 3 – Council verge on the northern side

 of Alison Road adjoining the subject site

 

 

Figure 4 – 82 Beach Street on the

south-west corner of Beach Street and

Alison Road

 

To the rear of the site, on the western side of Beach Lane at the top of the cliff is a heritage listed property (370 Alison Road), which is a substantial Edwardian era mansion, known as “Ocean View”, dating back to the late 1930’s (refer Figure 5).

 

 

Figure 5 – Subject site with 370 Alison Road to the rear

 

4.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The present application was the subject of a pre-lodgement application (PL 0005/2004).  A meeting was held on 24 February, 2004, with Council Officers and written advice issued in regard to the re-development concepts for the site.  This included advice that should an Arborist Report recommend removal of the mature fig trees on site, then replacement planting of semi-advanced tree species on the verge area, adjacent to the site in Alison Road, should be considered as part of the development proposal.

 

The pre-lodgement application was also referred to the Design Review Panel on 1 March, 2004, which recommended that the rear building be re-located closer to the southern boundary in order to improve the set back to the north and reduce overlooking to the rear yards of properties to the north.  Further, the applicant was recommended to explore further options for the site by moving the rear block to the east, to improve the relationship to the cliff face at the rear and increase the public view to the cliff face.  Consolidating the building scale to the Beach Street frontage was an option suggested for achieving this outcome.  A further pre-lodgement meeting was recommended to consider the merits of an alternative scheme.

 

Instead the applicant preferred to submit the subject plans with conceptual drawings of the alternative scheme for the Design Review Panel’s consideration as part of the development application process.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998.  Submissions were received from the following:- H M Hargraves of 79 Beach Street, Coogee; C Noonan of 82 Beach Street, Coogee; D and J Buchanan of 83 Beach Street, Coogee; A and M Simpson of 1/78 Beach Street, Coogee; Taylors First National, 62 Belmore Road, Randwick.  As well, a petition containing 30 signatures objecting to the development was also received.

 

5.1         Objections

 

Excessive Height

 

·          The proposal breaches the maximum height restriction.

 

Comment

 

The proposal’s non-compliance with the height controls as contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 is discussed in Section 8.23 of the report.

 

The building at the front of the site complies with Council’s overall height limit, while the building at the rear of the site is the building which exceeds the overall height limit.  This is located against the backdrop of the higher cliff face and will not dominate the streetscape due to the setback of the Alison Road reserve. The non-complying height components of the rear building will not be responsible for any view loss or overshadowing.  Conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation of the report for appropriate screening to reduce overlooking impacts to an acceptable level.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

·          The proposal breaches the maximum floor space restriction.

·          One bedroom should be eliminated from each unit to ensure compliance with density and height provisions.

·          The excess floor space is not a response to any special circumstance or peculiarity of the site and only acts as an undesirable precedent.

 

Comment

 

The proposal’s non-compliance with the density control for the 2B Residential Zone as contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 is discussed in Section 8.22 of the report.

 

Setbacks

 

·          The site is constrained by the narrow frontage, this is less than the minimum 20m frontage required for multi-unit development.  As a direct result of the narrow frontage, the south face of both blocks are placed right on the boundary with the road reserve of Alison Road, with a number of windows right on the boundary of a public place.  This is an undesirable feature and presents a security hazard.

·          The plans provide for no setback from Alison Road boundary and a new footpath and staircase to provide access for the owners.  As such, it is a blatant attempt to resume public land for private use.

 

Comment

 

The proposal’s non-compliance with the setback controls as contained within the Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing is discussed in Section 8.41 of the report.

 

The design and amenity impacts are considered reasonable and comparable to other buildings in the immediate vicinity. The scheme complies with landscaping and parking requirements. Given the unique topographical nature of the site, the additional building bulk does not result in any significant adverse impacts to either the Beach Street or Alison Road streetscapes, nor does it result in any overshadowing of adjoining properties.  

 

Parking and Traffic.

 

·          Street parking will be reduced by visitors to the proposed development.

·          The proposal will result in increased traffic, noise and inconvenience to residents.

·          Loss of street parking during construction.

·          To allow a development with access for nine vehicles in close proximity to the corner and on the crest of the hill will be hazardous and create a traffic problem.

 

Comment

 

One visitor car space is provided for the development in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking (DCP-Parking).  Two additional resident parking spaces are provided within the basement carpark than required by the DCP-Parking (refer to Figure 11 in Section 8.5 of the report).

 

Traffic movements on the site are improved as vehicles will be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction, while the driveway distance from the intersection has been maximised by its siting adjacent to the northern boundary.  The driveway location is in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard (AS 2890.1: 2004).

 

Loss of privacy

 

·          The proposed building will overlook 78, 76 and 82 Beach Street, particularly the rear yard of 78 Beach Street.

·          People using the proposed walkway will look into the front bedroom of 3/78 Beach Street.

·          Loss of privacy to 82 Beach Street from new dwellings “stacked” into the air.

 

Comment

 

The issue of overlooking and loss of privacy are discussed in Section 8.43 of the report.

 

The design takes account of the adjoining neighbour to the north by providing a generous setback to the northern boundary for the rear building on the site, providing an area of deep soil landscaping along the northern boundary in front of this building and locating bedrooms on the upper levels of this building.  The level of the basement has also been lowered to ensure the living room component does not overlook the rear garden to the north.

 

Landscaping, tree removal and use of Council reserve

 

·          The proposed landscape includes the felling of advanced heritage palms and other trees.

·          Locating the two buildings on the southern boundary, replaces the palm and fig trees with brick walls.  If the development is approved, the applicant should be required to fund the replacement of substantial landscaping on the road reserve.

·          Loss of visual buffer provided by the seven palms on the Alison Road side of the property.

·          The two very large fig trees provide a sense of park-like relief from the monotony of the built environment as well as being a home for birds and fruit bats.

·          When the cliff and the platform above are omitted from the landscaped area calculation for the site, the landscaped area not over a podium appears to be much less than 25% of the site area as required.

·          The developers propose to use part of public land for private use (i.e. a footpath and stairway to provide private access for future unit owners).

·          Trees proposed for planting will take decades to grow and may not survive to maturity.

·          The “pocket park” on the corner of Alison Road and Beach Street has been planted out by keen local residents which will be lost as part of the proposed development, particularly a banana tree that fruits annually.

 

Comment

 

Landscaped area and landscaping are discussed in Sections 8.21 and 8.42 of the report respectively.  Council’s Tree Officer has raised no objection to the removal of the Cocos Palms and Moreton Bay Fig Trees on the site.   A comprehensive landscape plan has been submitted with the proposal which integrates with the built form on the site and also provides a planting plan (at the applicant’s expense) for the Council reserve. The steps, path and landscaping will significantly improve the appearance and function of the Alison Road street reserve without adversely affecting the local environment.  The design should significantly improve the landscape quality, usefulness and surveillance of this currently neglected street verge.

 

Loss of coastal and district views

 

·          Views from 76, 78 and 82 Beach Street will be obstructed from the proposed development.

·          View from the front bedroom of Unit 1 and Unit 3, as well as the lounge of Unit 3 will be obstructed.

 

Comment

 

View loss issues are discussed in Section 8.44 of the report.  The existing dwelling and vegetation on the site impairs clear views to the coast from the neighbouring flat building to the north at No. 78 Beach Street. The street setback of the proposed flat building is consistent with neighbouring forms along this side of Beach Street. The front building complies with Council’s overall height limit and exceeds the required side setback from the common boundary with No. 78 Beach Street. The front building is sited further from the common boundary than the existing dwelling. An aspect through the front balconies will be available due to their open form. Therefore, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to loss of view impacts.

 

It should be noted that the owner of the residential flat building at No. 78 has inspected the plans and agrees in principle to the proposal. A copy of the letter from the managing agent has been provided with the application.

 

Loss of amenity from construction noise

 

·          Construction noise will disturb the afternoon sleep of young children living in 1/78 Beach Street

 

Comment

 

Construction noise is a necessary part of redevelopment and will be carried out within conditioned hours for building work that are standard for all development within the Council area.

 

Loss of light to 78 Beach Street

 

·          The proposal will reduce the light entering the front bedroom of 1/78 Beach Street.

 

Comment

 

The proposal is located to the south of 78 Beach Street and as such there will be no loss of solar access to the front bedroom of 1/78 Beach Street.  As the new building on the front of the site adopts increased setbacks (3.6m and 4.8m) to the northern common boundary compared to the existing building on the site (900mm), an improvement to the amount of reflected light should be available to the front bedroom of 1/78 Beach Street.  

 

Loss of the setting of the heritage building

 

·          The public view of “Wirth House” will be immeasurably compromised by the removal of trees and the substitution with tall apartment buildings.

 

Comment

 

The impact to the heritage item at 370 Alison Road has been commented on by Council’s Heritage Planner (refer Section 8.3 of the report), who considers that the proposal will not challenge the prominence of the heritage item, nor significantly reduce its visibility from the surrounding area to its east.  As such, no objections are raised to the proposal from a heritage point of view.

 

Noise impacts from the garage door

 

·          The proposed driveway runs directly beside the bedroom window of 1/78 and 3/78 Beach Street and the noise from traffic and the automatic gate opening will disturb the residents of these units.

 

Comment

 

The setback of the door, at the base of the ramp, below the concrete slab will minimise any noise impacts. Council’s Environmental Health Surveyor has provided appropriate conditions in regard to noise emissions in order to provide reasonable levels of amenity in accordance with legislative requirements.  These are contained in the Recommendation of the report.

 

Health risk from asbestos

 

·          The building may contain asbestos and lead paint.  If demolition goes ahead, Council should impose and regulate effective dust reduction and lead remediation measures.

 

Comment

 

Appropriate standard conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation of the report to address issues relating to asbestos, lead paint and dust control.

 

Overdevelopment

 

·          The proposal represents “rezoning by stealth” as it breaks the zoning regulations and over time, such incremental changes will result in gross changes to the character and amenity of the area.

 

Comment

 

Multi-unit development is a permissible form of development within the 2B Zone.  The departures from Council’s floor space and height controls are well-justified by the applicant’s submission and are considered reasonable given the site constraints and topography.  The proposal is considered a development of high quality as per the Design Review Panel’s comments (refer Sections 8.11 and 8.12 of the report) and it is considered that it will not dominate or detract from the streetscape or the area character.

 

5.2         Support

 

One letter of support was received from Taylors First National, 62 Belmore Road, Randwick, who as managing agents of 78 Beach Street, after perusing plans and speaking to their client, advise that they agree in principle to the proposed development.

 

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

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has commented on the proposal as follows:

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Beach Street and Alison Road and is occupied by a single storey cottage, with painted brick walls and a terracotta tiled roof.  To the north of the site is a two storey residential flat building, as well as a number of single and two storey dwellings.  To the west of the site is “Ocean View”, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the building describes it as “an outstanding individually styled Edwardian mansion, virtually unaltered.  One of the best surviving mansions in the Municipality.  Historical association with famous circus.”

 

The application proposes a residential development comprising two and three levels over basement carparking.  The development is in the form of two separate buildings- a two storey building fronting Beach Street and a three storey building fronting Alison Road.

 

Clause 46 of Randwick LEP 1998 requires Council to take into consideration the likely effect of the proposal on the heritage significance of any heritage item in the vicinity.

 

The application has been accompanied by a report prepared by Hill Thalis assessing the impacts of the proposal on the adjacent heritage listed property.  The report notes that prominent siting of the building on a knoll on the corner of Alison Road and Arden Street as well as the encircling verandahs and central tower taking advantage of the district views.  The report includes a visual survey of the visibility of the mansion from the east, and an elevation and photomontage indicating the impact of the proposed development on the visibility of the mansion.

 

The subject site is at a considerably lower level than the site of the heritage item, with a sandstone cliffline around 10 metres high at the rear of the site, providing vertical separation.  It is noted that Beach Lane, on a similar level to the mansion, and the cliffline itself provides a horizontal separation between the heritage item and the subject site. 

 

The highest point of the ridgeline of the proposed development is at around the same level as ground level adjacent to the heritage item, with the floor level of the heritage item somewhat higher.  The scale of the proposed development will however be greater than that of the existing building on the site, and will reduce the views towards the heritage item from directly in front of the subject site.  The setback of the development form the northern boundary however will be greater than that of the existing building and will allow for views between the buildings towards the heritage item.  It is considered that the proposal development is consistent with the scale of surrounding development.  The proposal will not challenge the prominence of the heritage item, nor significantly reduce its visibility from the surrounding area to the east of the site.  There are no heritage objections to the proposed development.

 

6.2       Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

Council’s Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There are two (2) Nerium oleander (Oleanders) on Council’s Beach Street nature strip, towards the south side of the site. These trees are not deemed suitable and were likely planted by the owner. These two trees shall be removed and replaced with more appropriate species which are in keeping with Council’s Street Tree Masterplan at the applicant’s cost.

 

Immediately to the north, in front of 78 Beach Street, there is one Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwood) on Council’s Beach Street nature strip. This tree appears in reasonable condition, and will require protection measures to ensure its retention.

 

There are seven (7) Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palms) of between 6-8 metres in height, along the southern boundary of the site. They appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. It will not be possible to retain these palms and proceed with construction as indicated, and as they are not deemed significant, approval is granted for their removal subject to replacement plantings being undertaken elsewhere within the site.

 

In the rear yard, against the southern boundary, there are two (2) Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Figs), both of approximately 6 metres in height and 6 metres in width. They appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

Although they currently provide effective screening and privacy, they are considered inappropriate in such a location for this proposal due to their large size at maturity and the relatively small area they would be growing in. As such, in order to accommodate the proposed works as is shown on the plans, approval is granted for the removal of these two trees, subject to super advanced replacements being provided in their place.

 

The plan shows the proposed use of Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) in the rear yard, however, the selection of this species is not supported due to its large size at maturity and small area it will be required to grow within. As such, a more suitable alternative shall be chosen for this area.

 

The applicant proposes to provide landscape treatment to the embankment between Alison Road and the southern boundary of the site, comprising a variety of Eucalypts (Gum trees) and native groundcovers. Council is supportive of such a proposal, subject to a separate, more detailed plan being provided showing all proposed treatments including (but not limited to) exact location and number of proposed trees and plants, contours and cross sections through the embankment and all other relevant details considered necessary to fully assess such a proposal.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On-site stormwater detention is not required for this development however the stormwater discharge from the site is not to exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm

 

Traffic Comments

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. 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 Beach Street frontage must be 3.50 metres wide and located at least 1.0 metre clear of the side property.

 

The EPCD Department is to determine whether the internal driveway gradients and carpark layout comply with Council's DCP - Parking.

 

6.3       Environmental Health and Building

 

Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building has advised the following in relation to the proposal.

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a 2 storey residential multi unit housing building, with basement level car park.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§    Class 2     -           Residential units

§    Class 7a   -           Car park

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

 

No information in relation to construction site management has been provided with the application to address issues such as, the location of stock piled material or the storage and disposal of excavated materials, sediment and erosion control, public safety, perimeter safety fencing and construction management.

 

Standard conditions have been included in the consent to address a range of 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.

 

Contamination:

 

The existing building on site is a post war brick cottage bounded by buildings of a similar nature.  It is considered that a preliminary investigation is not required in accordance with SEPP 55 and Council’s Contaminated Land Policy.

 

Acoustics:

 

No information has been submitted to Council in relation to noise emissions and/or imissions. Standard conditions should therefore be attached to the consent.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (663M2) is less than required for the submission of a master plan (4000m2).

 

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, including the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:-

 

8.1       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DR Panel) convened under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65).  The design was considered by the DR Panel, both as a pre-lodgement application on the 1st March, 2004 and again after the lodgement of the development application on the 5th July, 2004, in relation to the design quality principles for residential flat buildings, as set out in Part 2 of SEPP 65, as follows:-

 

8.1.1      Panel Comments - Pre-lodgement Application

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The Panel considers that the relationship with the cliff face could be improved by retaining more open space at the western end of the allotment.  The ‘outdoor room’ that could be created would have unique qualities and would be more suitable in the context of the neighbouring back yard.

 

2.2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The Panel considers that increased scale to the Beach Street frontage would be acceptable.  This would also enable the applicant to reduce the footprint towards the cliff face.

 

3.3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

Suggest making rear block closer to Southern boundary to improve set back to the north – reduce overlooking.

 

Also consider moving rear block to the east with Fig tree to be removed to improve relationship/views to cliff face.  Alternatives to be explored in finalising DA and demonstrate advantages of preferred solution.

 

4.4.       The Proposed Density

 

Building in current configuration does not justify increased floor area therefore need to see alternative solutions examined.

 

5.5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

6.6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

Suggest improving relationship to Alison Road, verge at ground level to increase amenity for eastern block.  Consider access from Beach Street to this space.  Landscaping of verge required.

 

Noted Figtree now proposed to remove given Council and Arborist advice. 

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

Consider side access to front ground floor unit on south side.

 

Overlooking of neighbouring rear yard is a potential concern.  Noted that this was communal space, as opposed to a private dwelling rear yard.  Suggested considering alternative solution of larger building at the front of the site and maintaining open rear yard. The advantages and disadvantages of this recommendation should be explored.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

9.       Social issues

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

Summary and Recommendations

 

Any argument for increased density needs to be supported by high quality design, good amenity to all dwellings and reasonable impacts on neighbours. At this stage the panel is unconvinced that the proposal justifies the additional FSR. Recommend revised pre-lodgement to consider alternative scheme.

 

8.1.2        Panel Comments - Development Application

 

Concerns raised in the Panel’s previous report with regard to the building footprint have been adequately addressed. 

 

The opportunities for overlooking have been reduced and are considered to be less of an issue than the levels of overlooking currently possible from the elevated lane to the western boundary.

 

It is suggested that the extended north-facing roof over the two western apartments be reduced to allow for a larger tree canopy spread, and that the upper balconies be reduced to ‘Juliet’ balcony size. The balconies could be around 450 in depth to allow only standing room outside.

 

The panel supports the proposed southern building alignment, and considers that the wide road reserve will benefit from added casual surveillance and the proposed landscaping upgrade.

 

The Panel supports this application and considers the proposal well designed, with a high level of amenity and reasonable impacts on neighbours.

 

8.2       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the RLEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscaped Area

50% of total site area

25% (max) of total site area over podium/excavated basement

50.1%

 

25%

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

32 - FSR

0.65:1

0.77:1

No – refer SEPP 1 (Section 8.22)

33 - Building Height

9.5m overall

7m  external wall

North

Building A (front)

8.7m (max) overall

7m (max) wall

 

Building B (rear)

10.3m (max) overall

9.05m (max) wall

 

South

Building A (front)

9m (max) overall

7.4m (max) wall

 

Building B (rear)

10m (max) overall

9.1m (max) wall

 

 

 

 

Yes

Yes

 

 

No - refer SEPP 1 (Section 8.23)

No - refer SEPP 1 as above

 

 

 

Yes

No - refer SEPP 1 as above

 

 

No - refer SEPP 1 as above

No - refer SEPP 1 as above

 

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

Acceptable – refer Section 6.1 and 8.3

 

8.2.1    Clause 31 – Landscaped Area

 

Development, otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2B is required under Clause 31 (2), to provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area.  Further Clause 31 (3) requires landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas not to exceed 50% of the landscaped area requirements specified by Clause 31 (2) above.  The purpose of the development standard is stated as:

 

“To establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes”.

           

The proposal provides approximately 50.1% of the site as statutorily defined landscaped area, of which the equivalent of 25% of the site area is landscaping above the excavated basement car park level, in the form of terraces, pathways and landscaped garden beds.  Please note, the cliff face has been excluded from the calculation of landscaped area.  Although a natural feature of the site, it is considered that it presents no utility as a recreational area and minimal utility as a ‘garden area’.  Nevertheless, the proposal complies with the minimum landscaped area requirements for the site even excluding such a sizeable proportion (5.4% approximately) occupied by the cliff face.

 

8.3       Clause 32 - Floor Space Ratios

 

Under Clause 32(2), a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.65:1 is applicable for the site.  The proposed development has a FSR of approximately 0.77:1 which exceeds the control by approximately 84m2.

 

The objective of the FSR standard under the LEP is as follows:

 

“To establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special uses 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.”

 

A submission pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) has been received with the application that argues that compliance with the standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:-

 

·    The break in built form between the front and rear of the site reflects the development pattern immediately to the south across Alison Road.

·    The proposal responds well to the site context which has three street frontages, a cliff face to the west and a sole residential neighbour to the north.  The design provides for an attractive building which will enhance the built environment.

·    The proposed development will form a positive contribution to the streetscape along both Beach Street and Alison Road.

·    The additional floor space proposed will not be responsible for any loss of views or outlook from surrounding properties due to its siting at the base of a former quarry.

·    The landscaping plan proposed will compliment the built form and the landscaping improvements to the verge along the north side of Alison Road will enhance the public domain.

·    The setbacks proposed exceed Council requirements and will ensure that the additional bulk will not result in unreasonable aural or visual privacy impacts.

·    The proposed floor space will not be responsible for any adverse shadowing impacts.  The proposal will improve the natural light to the southern windows of 78 Beach Street due to the increased setback of the front building compared to the existing building.

·    The proposal will not be detrimental to the setting of the heritage listed building to the west of the site.

·    The proposed development will create an attractive living environment with high amenity for future residents.  Each unit has a north facing living area or access to northern sun to its living area and each unit has the ability for cross-flow ventilation.

 

The SEPP 1 submission is generally considered to be well founded and should be supported for the following reasons:-

 

·    The additional building bulk does not result in any shadow impact to adjoining properties.  The shadows from the proposed development only affect the cliff face to the rear of the site, Alison Road and Beach Street road reserves.

·    The site context is such that there is only one residential neighbour (78 Beach Street to the north) and the level of overlooking to the rear yard of this property is mitigated to a reasonable level by the substantial setback of the building (approximately 6m) to the northern boundary and the provision of deep soil screen planting along the northern boundary.  Further conditions of consent restricting upper level balcony sizes will also reduce the potential for adverse impact (refer Section 8.43 later in report). 

·    The majority of the additional building bulk is located toward the rear of the site and given the unique topography of the site (i.e. it is a former quarry, with a steep cliff face to the rear), the proposed development responds well to this topographic constraint with the rear building sitting just below the top of the cliff, ensuring that there is no adverse impact on the heritage item (370 Alison Road) located on the cliff top.

·    The front building responds well to its only immediate neighbour by adopting a similar overall height and a consistent front setback.  As well, the comprehensive landscaping proposed along the northern boundary, in the middle of the site between the two proposed buildings, within the front setback and along both the Alison Road and Beach Street verges will ensure that the building bulk is well integrated within its surrounding context.  This will ensure that the proposed development will make a positive streetscape contribution.

·    The design of the proposed development has positive features, such as spacious apartments (apartments being either 122.5m2 or 130.7m2) with large terraces/balconies, cross-flow ventilation, access to northern light and a quality landscaped setting.  These features will ensure a good level of amenity is provided for future residents.

 

8.4       Clause 33 – Building Heights

 

Clause 33 (1) of the RLEP 1998 requires that the maximum building height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2B be no more than 9.5m measured vertically from any point on ground level, while the maximum external wall height, under Clause 33 (3) is 7m measured vertically from any point on ground level.  The purpose of the development standard for building heights is as follows:-

 

“To set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas”.

 

The proposed development has a maximum overall height of 10.3m for the building at the rear of the site and a maximum overall height of 9m for the front building.  The rear building has a maximum external wall height of 9.1m and the front building has a maximum external wall height of 7.4m.  The proposal thus seeks variation to both external wall and overall height controls contained with Clause 33. 

 

As the overall building height and external wall height are the product of the building form and therefore inter-related, it is considered reasonable to consider the applicant’s SEPP 1 submissions together.  These argue that compliance with the building heights standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:-

 

·    The degree of variation sought to the external wall height standard for the front building is relatively minor (400mm and only on the southern elevation) and the overall building height for the front building complies.

·    The variation sought for the rear building is less than 1m with regard to the overall height and relates to the roof projection.  As such it is also relatively minor and allows for a modern and interesting roof form, as well as optimal solar access to the internal areas of bedrooms on the upper levels.

·    The height variation for the front building is associated with the provision of clerestory windows to provide northern sunlight to the living area of the southern most dwelling and therefore is a positive design feature.

·    The height associated with the roof projection will not dominate either streetscape along Beach Street or Alison Road.

·    The proposed overall height along the primary frontage (Beach Street) is consistent with the predominant height of residential development in the area.

·    The overall height of the development is lower than the top of the cliff and does not detract from the setting of the listed heritage building to the west of the site.

·    The proposal has no overshadowing impacts to residential properties.

·    The increased height does not result in any significant loss of view or loss of outlook from surrounding properties due to its location at the base of a cliff.

·    The height does not result in adverse aural or visual privacy impacts.

 

The SEPP 1 submission is generally considered to be well founded and should be supported for the following reasons:-

 

·    The site is located at the base of the cliff and below the landscaped verge along Alison Road.  It is therefore considered that the height variations proposed will be generally unobtrusive to the streetscape of both frontages, Beach Street and Alison Road.

·    The proposed height is consistent with other development in the vicinity (refer Figures 6 - 8 below)

·    The proposed height variations do not result in any significant degree of view loss (refer Section 8.44 of the report).

·    The proposed variations do not result in any detrimental shadow impacts to adjoining properties.

·    Overlooking from the rear building may be reduced to an acceptable level through appropriate conditions of consent (refer Section 8.43 of the report).

 

 

Figure 6 - 82 Beach Street opposite

on the south-west corner of Beach Street and Alison Road

 

 

Figure 7 – Recent development in Beach Street

to the north of site

 

 

Figure 8 – Older development types in Beach Street

to the north of site

 

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

 

The subject site is located in the vicinity of a heritage item listed in the RLEP 1998, being a two storey Edwardian mansion at 370 Alison Road, to the west (rear) of the site, at the top of the cliff adjoining Beach Lane.

 

Clause 46 of the RLEP 1998, requires Council to take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item.  As such, Council’s Heritage Planner has commented on the proposal (refer to Section 6.1 of this report). 

 

While the scale of the proposed development is greater than the existing building and will reduce views to the heritage item to some extent from immediately in front of the proposed development in Beach Street, a greater degree of separation is provided to the residential flat building on the adjoining site to the north, thus opening up views to the heritage item.  As well, the oblique view (refer Figure 9), looking north-west from further south along Beach Street, will not be greatly affected as the top of the roof of the rear building is located approximately in line with the top of the cliff at the rear of the site and the heritage item is also further elevated with respect to the top of the cliff.

 

 

Figure 9 - view of heritage item

from western side of Beach Street to the south of the subject site

8.6       Development Control Plan - Multi-Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements of performance 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres from any side boundary.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

Maximum length one section of wall 10 metres

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

 

 

Yes – generally consistent with adjoining dwelling to north and predominant setback along western side of Beach Street

 

Refer Section 8.41

North

Front building

3.6m – minimum setback

3.62m – minimum average setback

11.3m – max length of wall

3.7m step

 

Rear building

4.5m – minimum setback (balcony)

6m – minimum setback (wall)

13.1m – unarticulated wall length

No step

 

South

Front and rear building

Nil setback

No steps

 

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 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

No part closer than 4.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall section 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

 

Refer Section 8.41

3.5m – minimum setback (stairs)

4.5m – minimum and minimum average          setback (building)

8m  - unarticulated wall length

 

 

 

 

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

 

Yes – surrounding built form is generally 2-3 storeys

 

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.

 

 

 

No*1.2m-1.5m solid front fence Beach St

           -  1.8m paling (Alison Road)

 

*Appropriate conditions of consent to meet preferred solutions are contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

 

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1    Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

 

Yes - All areas of landscaped area greater than 2m

 

 

P2    Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided communal open space.

 

 

 

 

No – Refer Section 8.42

Proposal is similar to townhouse style development with each dwelling having own area of attached landscaped area

 

 

 

Private Open Space

General

P3   

·      Provides privacy.

·      is accessible from main living areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – Each dwelling has own private space in form of terrace and/or balcony accessible from living areas

 

 

Townhouses, row housing, villa housing etc

P5  Dwellings provided with useable private open space at ground or podium level.

 

 

 

 

S5  Minimum area of 25 m2 of private open space with minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m.

 

 

 

Yes – Refer Section 8.42

 

 

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.

 

 

 

No – Refer Section 4.43

Overlooking of rear yard of 78 Beach Street

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

 

 

VIEW SHARING

 

 

P2 Development minimises effects on views and shows how view loss is minimised

 

 

Minimal impact on views - Refer Section 8.44

 

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

P1 Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

P1.1 Solar access to existing solar collectors maintained between 9am and 3pm.

P1.2 Living areas of neighbours sunlight less than 3 hours per day.

P1.3 At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbours have sunlight less than 3 hours per day.

*

 

 

 

Northern light provided to each dwelling, even dwelling on southern side front building through clerestory in roof design.

 

All but one dwelling has north facing terrace area.

 

No loss of solar access to adjoining neighbour as it is located to the north of the site

 

 

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 – Front building has balconies and habitable rooms that overlook the street and both dwellings in this building have separate street entrances.

 

Both front and rear buildings have windows of habitable rooms to Alison Road and each dwelling in rear building have their own separate entrance from a new footpath proposed (at the applicant’s expense) along the Alison Road frontage.

 

Basement parking is provided and as such will not dominate streetscape.

 

 

 

PARKING

 

 

P1 Garages and parking structures do not dominate the street frontage.

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

 

 

Yes – Basement parking provided and will not dominate streetscape.

 

Yes – Bicycle storage provided within Basement Carpark.

 

DRIVEWAYS AND MANOUVERING AREAS

 

P1 Driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised.

 

 

Yes –by condition

Driveway is required to be increased in width from 3.4m to 3.5m, off-set 1m (min) from northern boundary in accordance with AIS guidelines.  This is the minimum acceptable width.

 

 

 

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 – by condition

 

 

 

P3 Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

 

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

 

Driveway of minimal length (7.3m)

 

 

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 – Driveway internal width of 3.2m and located 1.14m from northern boundary

 

 

 

P5 Materials and finishes consistent.

 

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

No large areas of concrete proposed

 

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

 

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5  for ramps over 20m (see Parking DCP).

 

Certification of driveway gradients with Australian Standard without increasing overall building height required as a condition of consent.

 

 

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 – Bicycle and other storage provided in basement garage and storage provided in each dwelling under stairs, however falls short of area and height requirements (approximately 2m2 with clearance 0-2m).  It is considered unreasonable for a re-design of the proposal on this basis alone.

 

 

WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT

 

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities are provided.

 

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.

 

P3  Collection facilities complement design and not obtrusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Waste facilities not to  be located between the front alignment of the building and the road

 

Yes - Garbage room provided in basement car park with sufficient room for requisite number of garbage and recycling bins

 

8.6.1      Building Setbacks

 

The objectives for building setbacks are as follows:-

 

·          To reduce the impact of development on adjoining land.

·          To ensure that adequate separation is maintained between buildings for landscaping, visual and acoustic privacy, sunlight penetration and private open space.

·          To integrate development with desirable characteristics of the established streetscape.

 

Front boundary setbacks

 

The performance requirement for the front setback is that it be consistent with the setback of adjoining development or the dominant setback along the street. The front setback is to be determined by the existing and desired future character of the streetscape.

 

The dominant front wall of the proposed front building is proposed to be setback 5.685m, which is slightly behind the front wall line of the only neighbouring building (78 Beach Street to the north), however ground and first floor level balconies are proposed which project forward of the wall alignment by approximately 2m.  This is considered acceptable as the front setbacks within the immediate area of the streetscape (along the western  side of Beach Street between Alison Road and Clovelly Road) display encroachments forward of main building line, particularly garages and carport structures, built to the front boundary.  The proposed front balcony element has been designed as a lightweight structure that serves to articulate and add character to the front building façade, particularly important for a corner site.  The encroachment within the front setback is therefore considered acceptable.

 

Side boundary setbacks

 

The setback of the rear building has been setback 6m from the northern boundary and is in excess of the minimum required by the preferred solutions of the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing (a minimum average setback of 4m from any side boundary with no part being closer than 2.5m), in order to achieve the maximum separation to the rear yard of the adjoining property to the north (78 Beach Street) and to allow deep soil planting along the northern boundary to minimise overlooking.  Appropriate conditions of consent are provided within the recommendation to ensure appropriate screening species and the provision of a number of advanced tree plantings to minimise the impact to the adjoining property.  

 

The front building exceeds the minimum setback requirements by over 1m (3.6m) but falls slightly short (400mm) of the minimum average setback set by the preferred solutions.  Nevertheless the front building considerably improves on the setback (900mm) of the existing building to the northern boundary and it is considered will improve the amenity of the dwellings on the southern side of the residential flat building to the north of the site at 78 Beach Street, by improving the reflected light available to their southern windows and introducing landscape softening along the boundary.

 

By maximising both the front and rear building distances from the northern boundary, both the front and rear buildings have adopted a nil setback along the southern boundary.  While this arrangement is not in accordance with the preferred solutions, it is considered that the proposal still achieves the performance requirements for the following reasons:-

 

·    There is no resultant overshadowing to residential buildings due to the location of the site on two street edges.

·    The development presents the opportunity for the rejuvenation of the landscaping along the Alison Road embankment adjacent to the subject site.  This is currently in a poor condition.  It also presents the opportunity to regain tree canopy that will be lost as a result of the removal of trees on the subject site.

·    Given the separation to the neighbouring property to the south (82 Beach Street) provided by Alison Road, there will be no privacy impacts associated with providing a nil setback.  Ground floor windows on the southern elevation of the two proposed buildings have high sill heights (1.5m or greater) and thus there are no internal privacy issues from their location on the boundary.

 

Rear boundary setbacks

 

The proposed development has both a minimum setback and a minimum average setback of 4.5m to the rear boundary, with the stairs from the basement carpark encroaching within the rear building setback.  The building setback meets the minimum (4.5m) required under the preferred solutions but does not achieve the minimum average (6m) set by the preferred solutions.  Notwithstanding it is considered that the unique topographical characteristics of the site, i.e. a cliff face forming its rear boundary and thus a significant difference in levels to the heritage item at the rear on the opposite (western) side of Beach Lane, allows the development to achieve the performance requirements in relation to privacy and solar access to the rear neighbour.  

 

8.7         Landscaping

 

As discussed previously in the report, the proposal is in excess of the minimum statutory requirement for landscaped area, notwithstanding the exclusion of the cliff face from the calculation.  This natural feature of the site is retained as part of the proposal, with the weed infestation removed.  The rear dwelling has an outlook onto the cliff face to the west, although the primary orientation of the living and bedroom areas are to the north and the east.

 

The proposal results in the loss of two large mature Moreton Bay Figs and a row of Cocos Palms along the southern boundary.  It was originally proposed to retain one of the Moreton Bay Figs in the centre of the site as a landscape feature of the development (this was shown as such in the pre-lodgement plans), however Council’s Tree Officer recommended replacement tree planting (with super advanced specimens) as the Moreton Bay Fig is a tree species more suitable for park planting rather than residential allotments, due to the damage that may result to buildings from its extensive root system.  To compensate for the loss of canopy from the removal of these trees and the palms, the applicant has proposed comprehensive planting, particularly along the northern boundary and also to the Alison Road embankment (at the applicant’s expense).  These improvements will enhance the general amenity of the area.

 

The development is proposed as a townhouse style development with each dwelling having access to their own private open space at podium level in the form of terraces.  In the case of the rear dwellings, these are north facing terraces at ground level directly located off living areas.  The two front dwellings have switched their living spaces from the ground to the first floor to take advantage of the south-easterly view to Coogee Bay and the Pacific Ocean.  While retaining ground level terraces, these dwellings also have first floor balconies at the front (east) which open off sunrooms. 

 

8.8         Privacy

 

The location of the two buildings down the site rather than across the site with a similar building footprint as the adjoining property to the north has resulted in potential overlooking issues to the rear yard of the adjoining property. 

 

The Design Review Panel requested the applicant, at the pre-lodgement meeting, to consider the option of consolidating the floor space to the front of the site and thus retain a greater street view to the cliff face and reduce the potential overlooking concerns of the adjoining neighbours.  It was considered, however, that an increase in height to Beach Street would be out of character with the pattern of development along the street front and would reduce reflected light to the northern neighbour.  Instead, bedrooms are proposed on the upper levels of the rear building to minimise overlooking, as these are passive spaces, mostly used for sleeping, while the active recreation areas are confined to the ground floor level with a substantial setback to the northern boundary.   In addition, deep soil planting is proposed along the northern boundary to screen the ground floor terrace areas and this is reinforced by appropriate conditions of consent contained within the Recommendation.

 

The Design Review Panel have also recommended that the extended north facing roof over the two western (rear) apartments be reduced to allow for a larger tree canopy spread and that the upper balconies be reduced to “Juliette” balconies (approximate depth of 450mm) to allow standing room only on these balconies.  Both these measures are supported, as they serve to minimise the extent of overlooking from the middle level (Level 1) of the rear building.  Further, to minimise overlooking to the north from the upper level (Level 2) terraces, louvred privacy screens are considered appropriate for their northern edge to a height of 1.5m.  This will still allow sunlight penetration to these terraces while minimising overlooking impacts.  Appropriate conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation to the report.

 

8.9         View Sharing

 

Objections have been received regarding the loss of views from dwellings to the north of the site (76, 78 and 82 Beach Street).  The only property to reasonably have any significant view loss is the dwellings on the southern side of the adjoining residential flat building to the north (Units 1 and 3 of 78 Beach Street).  These views are obtained from the front porch area to these units and to a lesser extent from the bedroom adjoining the porch and are across the present building to the south-east to Coogee Bay and the ocean (refer Figures 9 and 10 below)

 

 

Figure 9 - View from ground floor porch

 to 1/78 Beach Street

 

 

Figure 10 - View from first floor porch

 to 3/78 Beach Street

 

The objective of view sharing as contained in Clause 4.3 of the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing is to :-

 

Minimise the obstruction of views by new development from adjoining buildings and public places

 

The explanation of view sharing provided in the DCP states that “view sharing requires design which considers the preservation of existing views from neighbouring property while allowing development (which meets other Council controls and guidelines) to take advantage of available views”.

 

The Performance Requirements requires new development to take into account topography, vegetation and surrounding development to minimise effects on views, particularly of significant features such as ocean, coastline, open space and landmarks, and to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

The abovementioned clauses do not state what is view sharing or when view sharing is reasonable.  In this regard it should be noted the comments by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004) in regard to the concept of view sharing:

 

“The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment”.

 

Senior Commissioner Roseth adopts a four part assessment based on the following:-

 

1.           An assessment of the view affected. 

2.           An assessment from what part of the property the views are obtained.

3.           An assessment of the extent of the impact.

4.           An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact.

 

Applying the above principles to views obtained from units on the southern side of 78 Beach Street, it is considered that the views are only periphery views to the ocean and are not as significant as views obtained from primary living or recreation areas.

 

It is considered that the extent of view loss will be minor from the ground floor porch of Unit 1, as the proposal adopts a greater setback to the building wall than currently exists for the alignment of the front verandah as seen in Figure 9 above.  The new development is also setback considerably further from the northern (common) boundary (approximately 4m) than the existing dwelling (900mm).  As well, the balcony is a more open structure.  Thus the present outlook will remain relatively unchanged.

 

Similarly, the upstairs porch of Unit 3 is approximately at the same level as the proposed first floor balconies and therefore at an average eye height (1.5m), the view through the proposed balconies will be largely maintained, as long as future occupants do not erect a privacy screen on the northern elevations of their front balconies.  Accordingly a condition to this effect is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

8.10     Development Control Plan - Parking

 

Figure 11 – Parking Requirements

 

Type of land use

Parking Requirements

Provided

Compliance

Multi-unit housing

 

 

 

·   Residential

1.5 spaces per 4 x 3 bedroom units = 6 spaces

 

8 resident spaces 

Yes

·   Visitor

1 visitor space per 4 units = 1 visitor car space

1 visitor spaces

Yes

·   Bicycle (residential)

     Bicycle (residential visitor)

1 resident bicycle space

1 visitor bicycle space

 

6 resident bicycle spaces

1 visitor bicycle space

Yes

·   Car wash bays

1

1

Yes

 

Note:   Two additional residential spaces are provided within the basement carpark, however a turning area is required so that vehicles may leave in a forward direction should the visitor space be occupied.  Accordingly one resident space should be sign posted and line marked as a turning bay and allocated as a dedicated turning area on the strata plans.

 

8.11     Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The calculations for the residential component of the proposed development are set out in Figure 13 below.  Please note a credit has been given for the existing three bedroom dwelling house on the site.

 

Figure 12: Levies for additional residential dwellings

Units

Open space levy per unit ($)

Total open

Space

($)

Community facilities levy per unit ($)

Total community facilities

($)

3 x 3 Bedroom Units

2,732.00

8,196

1,208.00

3,624

 

8.12     Randwick 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.  A rainwater tank is proposed as part of the application and is shown in the basement carpark. An appropriate condition of consent to ensure that the proposed rainwater tank is in accordance with Council requirements is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposal seeks variation to statutory controls for floor space ratio and building heights under the RLEP 1998, by way of SEPP 1 submissions.  The SEPP 1 submissions are considered appropriate in the circumstances of the site and its constraints, including its unique topography and corner location.  As such, the proposed bulk, form, scale and height will not have any significant detrimental impact on the streetscape or the character of the area.  The proposed design minimises its impact on adjoining development and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions of consent as contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to vary the provisions of Clause 32 (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to maximum floor space ratio on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality and the Director of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources be notified accordingly,

 

AND

 

B.         THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to vary the provisions of Clause 33 (1) and (3)of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to maximum building height and maximum external wall height respectively on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality and the Director of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources be notified accordingly;

 

AND

 

C.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 273/2004 for Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a multi-unit housing development in the form of two separate buildings containing in total 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings with basement parking for nine cars and the strata subdivision of the finished building. at 80 Beach Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 100, 101, 102, 200, 300, 301, 401, all Revision E, dated 15/4/2004 and received by Council on 20/4/2004, Draft Strata Plans, Sheets 1-4, prepared by David John Tremain of Harrison Friedmann and Associates P/L, dated 20/5/2004 and received by Council on 23/7/2004, 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.         All components of the building work shall be wholly within the subject site and the entry awnings on the southern elevation shown over Council land shall be deleted from the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

Reason: No encroachment is permitted over Council property.

 

3.         The fence on the Beach Street and Alison Road alignments are to be a maximum height of 1.8m, with the solid portion no higher than 1.2m.  The portion of the fence above 1.2m shall have openings that make it at least 50% transparent.

 

Reason: To maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the streetscape.

 

4.         The north facing balconies on Level 1 of the western dwellings (Houses 3 and 4) shall be reduced in depth to a maximum projection of 450mm from the wall of the building and the north facing roof over shall be reduced in extent to have the same projection from the building.  Details of compliance with this condition shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

Reason : To minimise overlooking and allow for a larger tree canopy.

 

5.         Louvred privacy screens to a height of 1.5m shall be located on the northern elevation of the Level 2 terraces of the western dwellings (Houses 3 and 4) and shall be shown as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate

 

Reason : To minimise overlooking

 

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

 

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

 

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

         

In this regard, prior to occupation of the building, an application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director Planning & Community Development, together with the required fee, for the allocation of an appropriate street number/s to the development.

 

9.         Power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

10.       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.

 

11.       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.

 

12.       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.

 

13.       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:

 

14.       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.

 

15.       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 manufacturer’s details.

 

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

 

16.       Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

17.       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.

 

18.       A rainwater tank, of sufficient size to provide water for irrigation of all landscaped areas within the development, is to be provided to the development in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy

 

The tank is to be located behind the front building line and be incorporated into the relevant construction certificate and landscape plans, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The noise level from the pump is not to exceed 5dBA above ambient background noise, measured at the property boundary and the pump must not be audible within any dwelling located upon any other premises between 10pm and 8am.

 

The following condition/s are applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

19.       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   $8, 196.00

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $3,624.00

i)        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.

 

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

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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.

 

22.       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.

 

23.       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.

 

24.       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.

 

25.       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.

 

26.       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:

 

27.       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 located upon:

 

§  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 above stated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

28.       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.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises and the report is to detail 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, must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation 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.

 

29.       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.

 

30.       A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the principal 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:

 

31.       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.

 

32.       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”.

 

33.       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.

 

34.       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.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that the relevant site management, public safety and sediment and erosion requirements specified in Council’s consent are being satisfied.

 

35.       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.

 

36.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

38.       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.

 

39.       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.

 

40.       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.

 

41.       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.

 

42.       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.

 

43.       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.

 

44.       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.

 

45.       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.

 

46.       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.

47.       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.

 

48.       During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

 

·        Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·        Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·        Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·        Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·        Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

49.       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.

 

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.

 

50.       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.

 

All soil and water management measures must be maintained at all times throughout demolition, excavation, building and site works and a copy of the soil and water management plan is to be kept on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

51.       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

 

52.       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.

 

53.       The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council prior to commencement of works.

 

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

 

54.       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 smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

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:

 

55.       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 following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety:

 

56.       Hazardous or intractable wastes arising from the demolition process being removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environment Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·          New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000;

·          The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001;

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

·          Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and

·          Environment Protection Authority's Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non Liquid Wastes (1999).

 

57.       Only ‘virgin excavated natural material’ is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW EPA ‘Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. 1999’.

 

58.       Any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction works which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

 

59.       The works shall not give rise to environmental pollution or public nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act (2000) & Regulations (2001).

 

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:

 

60.       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 operation of the premises and plant and equipment 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 an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

61.       The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.

 

62.       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, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

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:

 

63.       The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance and there are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

64.       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 a satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge. The applicant is to advise 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.

 

65.       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:

 

66.       One car space in addition to the visitor parking space shall be allocated as a dedicated turning bay and shall be sign posted and line marked as such and allocated as common property on the strata plans prior to the release of the strata subdivision certificate.

 

67.       A longitudinal section from the kerb in Beach Street to the basement carparking level shall be submitted with the construction certificate.  The section be certified by a professional practising Traffic Engineer and  shall demonstrate compliance with the following:-

 

a)         issued alignment level at the street boundary

b)         ramp grades in accordance with Australian Standard (AS) 1890.1: 2004.

 

68.       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.

 

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

 

a)         Construct a heavy duty concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site in Beach St.

 

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 of Beach Street except opposite the vehicular entrance.

 

d)         Carry out a full depth, 1.50 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

e)         Construct a concrete footpath along the Alison Rd frontage, adjacent to the property boundary with any associated retaining walls.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

f)          Construct a concrete set of stairs, with associated hand railing, between the existing Council footpath adjacent to the kerb in Alison Rd to the proposed Council footpath that will run along adjacent to the development sites Alison Rd side boundary.

 

70.       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.

 

71.       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.

 

72.       All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

73.       The driveway opening at the Beach Street frontage must be 3.50 metres wide and located at least 1.0 metre clear of the side property.

 

74.       The applicant must, at no cost to Council dedicate a 1.5m x 1.5m splay corner for road widening and pedestrian safety purposes at the southeast corner of the site at the Alison rd & Beach St intersection. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

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

 

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

 

Beach St Frontage - match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

Alison Rd Frontage – the rear townhouse entrances are to be at RL 43.50 and the site gate entrance is to be at RL 43.00.

 

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

 

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

 

77.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1,686.00 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:

 

78.       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.

 

79.       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.

 

80.       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.

 

81.       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 proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant must liaise with Energy Australia prior to lodging the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

82.       A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney water Act 1994 must be obtained. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Notice must be issued to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to release of the plan of subdivision.

 

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

 

83.       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 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.

 

84.       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.       On-site stormwater detention is not required for this development however the stormwater discharge from the site is not to exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm. The applicant shall submit details and calculations from a suitably qualified hydraulic engineer showing compliance with this condition prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. A copy of the details is to be forwarded to Council prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.

 

86.       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.

 

87.       A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

88.       Stormwater pipes shall be located in accessible locations.

 

89.       Pump out systems will only be considered if the applicant can demonstrate to the Principal Certifying Authority that it is not possible to manage stormwater runoff in any other manner.

 

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.

 

90.       A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

i.            within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

ii.            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.

 

91.       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.

 

92.       One covered car washing bay shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bay 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 bay must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system.

 

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’

 

c)         The car washing bay/s must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay (or equivalent)

 

d)         A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bay.

 

93.       Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

94.       As the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)   Any subsoil drainage is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be discharged 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).

 

95.       Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

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

 

96.       The garbage room areas will have to be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 4 x 240 litre bins (2 garbage bins & 2 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

97.       The waste storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

98.       Prior to the credited certifier issuing an occupation certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to contact Council’s Manager of Waste in regards to meeting Council’s requirements for waste services to the development site.

 

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

 

99.       The landscaped areas shown on drawing number DA 103, job no. 0332, Revision E, dated April 2004, shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority or {the Director of Assets & Infrastructure in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979}, 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:

 

a.         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 trees 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.

 

It is noted that the plans show the proposed planting of Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) in the rear yard.  The selection of this species is not considered appropriate due to its large size at maturity and the relatively small area it would be growing within. There are also issues regarding ‘loss of water views’ associated with the planting of large trees in such coastal locations, and as such, the applicant is advised that this species shall be replaced on the planting plan and schedule with a more suitably sized native tree that is capable of attaining a height of approximately 10 metres. This requirement will need to be shown on the landscaping plan submitted for the construction certificate application.

 

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 3 x 45 litre broad canopied trees (not palms), and 2 x 100 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located within the site. The trees selected shall be of a species that attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

In order to provide reasonable levels of screening and privacy between this site and the adjoining property to the north (78 Beach Street), the two advanced trees (100 litre) shall be planted along the northern boundary, comprising one each in each rear courtyard, immediately in front of each of the proposed dwellings. In addition, a continuous screen planting using a species that can attain a minimum height at maturity of 3 metres shall be provided along the northern boundary, immediately in front of each proposed dwelling.

 

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.          The plan shall respect the prevailing coastal influences and the coast's special design considerations and requirements, and shall be designed accordingly. Generally, species selection shall be restricted to local indigenous coastal species, that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

j.          In order to reduce the amount of stormwater generated by the site, porous paving shall be used in all paved areas and pathways not over slab (excluding the driveway ramp). Details are to be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

k.         Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

100.     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.

 

101.     The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the embankment between Alison Road and the southern property boundary, which shall include (but not be limited to) footpaths, steps, handrails, planting plans, planting details, proposed spot levels, contours and cross sections.

 

The Landscape Design plans shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director A & I Services in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the certifying authority issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

The applicant shall note that the approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's requirements for Civil Works on Council property. An application for the cost of the landscape works on Council property 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 checking 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.

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $8,000 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the Alison Road site frontage.

 

All landscaping works along the Alison Road frontage shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director Assets and Infrastructure Services prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

102.     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.

 

103.     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.

 

104.     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.

 

105.     Any substation required shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications.

 

106.     Any 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.

 

107.     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.

 

Tree Management

 

108.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $319.00 to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 2 x 45 litre street trees (Hibiscus tiliaceus, Cottonwood) on the southern side of the proposed driveway at the completion of all works ($290 + GST)

 

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.

 

 

 

109.     Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 3 x 45 litre, 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.

 

i.                         Seven (7) Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palms) along the southern boundary

ii.                         Two (2) Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Figs) along the southern boundary, in the rear yard

 

110.     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.

 

111.     A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque for the amount of $4000.00 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.

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

 

112.     All the conditions of development consent (DA 273/2004) must be satisfied and their compliance verified by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to finalisation of the strata subdivision. Also all public roads and reserves must be satisfactorily restored.

 

113.     The applicant shall provide Council with a survey plan of the property prior to receiving strata subdivision approval (this shall include location of any on-site stormwater detention systems).

 

114.     The applicant shall create suitable rights 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.

 

115.     Should an on-site dentention area be provided in conjunction with this development, a "restriction as to user and positive covenant" shall be placed on the title of the subject property in conjunction with the registration of the proposed plan of strata subdivision for this property. Such restriction and positive covenant shall relate to the onsite stormwater detention system and shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.         The "restriction as to user and positive covenant" are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council's standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council's Asset and Infrastructure Services Department.

b.         The linen plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

This condition is to ensure that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

1          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 E4         -         Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

d)     Part F4         -         Light and ventilation ,in particular, carpark ventilation.

 

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.

 

B.      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.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

A4 photomontage 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

28 July, 2004

FILE NO:

D/0049/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of an existing single garage and erection of a new double garage to the rear of the site.

PROPERTY:

 3 Avoca Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Tom Casey

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, Chris Bastic, Anthony Andrews and Paul Tracey.

 

The application details the erection of a new single storey double garage at the rear of the site.  The estimated cost of development is $40,000.

 

The issues for consideration are the location, bulk and scale of the proposed garage structure, its overshadowing impact on the adjoining property at 5 Avoca Street and the visual impact upon the streetscape.

 

The recommendation is for refusal subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent for the demolition of an existing single garage and construction of a single storey double garage with flat roof to the rear of the site with nil setbacks to the rear, northern and southern side boundaries.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the eastern side of Avoca Street in Randwick, one allotment to the north of Centennial Avenue (which is closed to traffic at its western end). The site is an irregular-shaped allotment. The western (front) and eastern (rear) boundaries measure 9.375m and 12.145m respectively. The side (northern and southern) boundaries measure 31.015m and 40.945m respectively. The site has an area of 295.6m2.

 

The site is currently occupied by a two storey dwelling house and a fibro single garage structure to the rear. The eastern boundary of the site adjoins Centennial Avenue and provides access to the garage. To the north of the site is a two storey dwelling (1 Avoca Street). To the south of the site is a two storey dwelling (5 Avoca Street). Across Avoca Street to the west are one and two storey freestanding dwelling houses.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The subject application was lodged with Council on 30 January 2004 and was referred to the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services for comments.  Several issues were raised in relation to the existing trees (i.e. Hills Weeping Fig and Port Jackson Cypress) on the nature strip and the possible damage to these trees by the construction of the driveway and garage.  The applicant was requested to prepare an Arborist report to determine the feasibility of constructing the driveway and garage in close proximity to these trees.

 

The applicant submitted the Arborist report, prepared by Dr Treegood, reference 2004-011 on 31 March 2004 and was referred to Council’s Landscape Technician for comments.  The Council’s Landscaped Technician agrees with the recommendations contained within the Arborist report and has requested the applicant to make the following amendments:

 

§  Redesign the proposed vehicle entry and vehicle turning paths to be drawn, showing vehicles entering and exiting the garage and the relation to the existing trees on Council’s nature strip.

 

The applicant submitted the amended plans on 4 June 2004, which detailed the changes made as requested.

 

b.    HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

03/00632/GA

First floor addition to the existing dwelling.

 

Comment:

 

The applicant originally proposed a double garage with loft above to the rear of the site which had a nil setback to the southern boundary and did not meet Council’s objectives in relation to overshadowing, bulk and scale. Due to the awkward geometry at the rear of the site. Reduction of the garage structure to accommodate 2 vehicles and meet Council’s objectives was not possible. The applicant agreed to delete the garage.

Approved

01/10/03

03/00777/JA

First floor addition and ground floor alterations to existing dwelling

Withdrawn

03/11/03

03/00632/GA A

Section 96 - Modify window and door openings on northern, eastern and southern elevations, make internal changes including lowering part of the ground floor level.

Approved

07/01/04

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original and amended proposals have been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposal and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the original proposal on 5 February 2004.  As a result of this notification the following submission was received.

 

M & T Cohen of 5 Avoca Street, Randwick

 

l The proposed double garage is quite lengthy and will be sited on our northern boundary. The bulk of the garage will have an adverse impact upon our property.

 

Comments:

 

The applicant was advised to redesign the garage structure to minimise the adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours and to satisfy Council’s concerns in relation to the existing trees on the nature strip.

 

The applicant submitted the amended plans and the owners of adjoining properties were renotified on 11 June 2004.  As a result of the re-notification, the following submission was received.

 

M & T Cohen of 5 Avoca Street, Randwick

 

l The proposed garage will exceed Council’s floor space ratio requirement.

l The proposed garage does not meet Council’s setback requirement.

l The proposed garage will have overshadowing their property.

l The proposed 3m high and 11m long brick wall will have adverse impact upon the amenity of their property.

l The landscaped area does not comply with Council’s requirement.

 

       Comments:

 

All of the above issues have been addressed in detail in Sections 7.1 and 8 of this report.

 

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  Director of Asset and Infrastructure

 

The application has been referred to the Director of Asset and Infrastructure for comment, conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.  The following comments were made: -

 

“Landscape Comments

 

There is one Callitris rhomboidea (Port Jackson Cypress) of approximately 10 metres in height in the rear of the adjoining property to the north, 1 Avoca Street, close to the common boundary. The tree appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. The plans indicate that the proposed garage will be constructed within close proximity to the trunk of this tree, and as such, protection measures will be necessary to ensure its retention.

 

There is one large Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig), of approximately 20 metres in height and 10 metres in width on Council’s nature strip, in Centennial Avenue. The tree is a significant and imposing specimen and forms part of an established avenue planting of this species in Centennial Avenue. It appears in good condition and is covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order.

   

The plans indicate that a double garage is to be constructed along the eastern and northern property boundaries, approximately 1-2 metres from the trunk of the Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii (Hills Weeping Fig) and the Callitris rhomboidea (Port Jackson Cypress) tree. Given the aggressive and invasive root system of the Fig and the close proximity of the Cypress, the proposed construction may, given the age and size of the trees, have a detrimental effect on their health.

 

In order to ensure their retention as indicated, an Arborist Report was requested, and was received on 31st March 2004, prepared by Dr Treegood, reference 2004-011. Council’s Landscape Technician advises that the contents and recommendations contained within this report are supported, and as such, the applicant will be required to comply with recommendations contained therein, particularly the requirement to re-design the proposed driveway as well as points 5.1 – 5.13.

 

6.2  Heritage Planner

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for comment and the comments are as follows: -

 

“The proposed garage is compatible with the scale of surrounding outbuilding and will not adversely impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area.”

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

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

 

-    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

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

-    Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A and is in the vicinity of a heritage conservation area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

7.1  Policy Controls

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

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

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

S9 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 is already available the amount is not reduced.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

No – 36% (see Section 8)

 

 

No – approx. 15% (see Section 8)

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>30 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

No – 0.87:1 (see Section 8) Under the DCP, associated car parking area exceeding a total of 40sqm is included in the gross floor area.

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

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

Yes – 3m (but the height and length of the southern wall of the garage is excessive and will adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining neighbours. See Section 8)

BUILDING SETBACKS

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

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.

 

 

 

 

No – Nil setback (see Section 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – Nil setback (see Section 8)

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.

 

 

 

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).

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – 48% (see Section 8)

 

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.

 

Landscaping

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that a minimum of 40% of the total site area is provided as landscape area and half of which should be soft permeable landscaping.

 

Upon completion of the proposed works, a total of approximately 36% of the site area is available as landscaped area and approximately 15% of which would be soft permeable landscaping, which does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP. The proposal also fails to comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the extent of unpaved or unsealed landscaped area is not considered sufficient to achieve the broader objective of reducing storm water run off.  The degree of hard landscaped area also limits the potential for mature vegetation to soften the visual impact of the development.

 

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 indicates that the maximum floor space ratio for a site area of 297 sqm is 0.65:1 (193sqm).  The gross floor area of the proposed garage is 63sqm.  Under the DCP, associated car parking area exceeding a total of 40sqm is included in the gross floor area.  As the result, the floor space ratio will increase from 0.79:1 to 0.87:1 (255sqm) which does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP. 

 

The proposed garage does not meet the objectives of the DCP in that its bulk and scale will result in an overbearing impact on the adjoining property at No 5 Avoca Street.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal satisfies the DCP requirement in that the proposed garage will have a maximum external wall height of 3m.  However, it is considered that the proposed garage wall (i.e. 3m in height and 11m in length) on the southern side boundary is excessive and will adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining property at 5 Avoca Street in terms of its visual bulk.

 

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.

 

It is acknowledged that the existing garage has a setback of 100mm to 500mm from the southern side boundary and a nil setback to the rear boundary.  The proposed garage will provide nil setbacks to the eastern (rear), northern and southern side boundaries, which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.  Due to the awkward geometry at the rear of the site and the applicant’s intention to provide a fully enclosed side by side garage for two (2) vehicles, reduction of the garage structure to meet Council’s objectives was not possible.  However, it is considered that if the garage structure is setback from the southern side boundary (a minimum of 500mm and the height of the southern wall of the garage reduced), the potential adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbour at 5 Avoca Street would be reduced to an acceptable level.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment and garages & carport to a rear land are setback at least 1m to improve pedestrian visibility.

 

The proposed garage will occupy the full width of the site with nil setbacks from the side and rear boundaries, which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP and will detract from the appearance of the streetscape.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

The applicant has provided shadow diagrams of the winter solstice with the application, which demonstrates the degree of additional overshadowing that will arise from the proposal.  Notwithstanding that the proposed garage will reduce the sunlight access to the principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwelling at 5 Avoca Street, the proposal is still considered to be acceptable as the minimum preferred solution of the DCP with respect to solar access is maintained and the principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receives at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The application is recommended for refusal, as the proposed development does not comply with requirements of the DCP in relation to landscaping, floor area and building setbacks.  The proposal will also have a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbours and the character of the streetscape, due to its siting, height and visual bulk.

 

 

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. 49/2004 for Demolition of an existing single garage and erection of a new double garage to the rear of the site at 3 Avoca Street, Randwick for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposed development does not comply with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.1 Landscaping & Open Space of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

2.       The proposed development does not comply with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.2 Floor Area of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

 

3.       The proposed development does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of Part 4.3 Height, Form & Materials of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the proposed garage wall on the southern side boundary is excessive in height & length and will adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining neighbours at 5 Avoca Street.

 

4.       The proposed development does not comply with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.7.1 Garages, Carports & Driveway of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

5.       The proposed development does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.4 Building Setbacks of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 July, 2004

FILE NO:

99/01088

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to approved mixed use multi-storey development involving:- deleting planter boxes, increasing height by 1.05m, relocating & altering garbage areas, additional part level to basement carpark, exterior facade changes and internal alterations to comply with the BCA.

PROPERTY:

 181 - 191 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Welcome Homes Real Estate Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Council

 

The proposed application is for a section 96 modification to an approved development application for demolition of an existing rear commercial building and erection of a part 3 & part 7 level commercial/retail and residential development over 6 existing ground floor shops. The modifications involve deleting planter boxes, increasing the height of the building by 1.05m, relocating garbage rooms and bicycle parking, altering garbage areas, altering parking to comply with Australian Standards – including an additional part level of basement parking, altering the building to comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and exterior facade changes.

 

The application was notified to surrounding neighbours and no objections were received.

 

The assessment of the modifications reveals that the proposed changes do not result in amenity impacts to surrounding commercial and residential uses.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to amendment, addition and deletion of conditions, which has been agreed to by the applicant.

 

1.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed section 96 modification seeks Council consent for the following:

 

Modifications to Conditions No’s 1, 21A and 41, which read as follows:

 

Condition 1.

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A01 – A17, dated August 2000 and received by Council on the 30th August 2000, 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.

 

Condition 21A

 

a)   prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

The plan shall detail the following:

 

·    Relocation of the proposed garbage room to the area occupied by car space No.71 and the bicycle store, and all necessary provisions for collection of garbage off Ferguson Street;

 

·    Provision of a waste/garbage area for the retail/commercial units in the area at the front of Shop No.6 on the ground level;

 

·    Type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste recycling; construction waste recycling materials to be reused or recycled; facilities/procedures for storage, collection and recycling and disposal of waste and ongoing management of waste.

 

Condition 41

 

Building and demolition work must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am and 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.

 

The modifications proposed above result in the following changes to the existing approval:

 

·    An overall increase in the height of the building by 1.05m resulting in a maximum height of 25.06m. The increased height is a result of the requirement to allow a structural beam to be positioned over the existing ground floor shops to ensure structural stability and compliance with the BCA. A minor increase in height over all remaining floors is proposed to improve internal amenity by having higher ceilings.

·    Reconfiguration of parking layout and an additional basement level parking area is proposed so the development complies with the Australian Standard (AS 2890.1) requirements for parking (the original plan did not have adequate parking space dimensions or manoeuvring areas). No alterations are proposed to the number of parking spaces, the alteration is purely required to provide adequate manoeuvring area.

·    Garbage rooms and bicycle parking have been relocated to suit the new parking layout.

·    Garbage rooms have been split (offices/units) and sized to comply with Council’s waste management guidelines.

·    The shops are provided with their own garbage areas;

·    General BCA compliance revisions as required by conditions of consent and proposed amendments,

·    Exterior facade changes to comply with structural and BCA matters, including exterior masonry façade articulation, amended exterior finishes, aluminium windows, metal louvres, concrete columns and metal awning,

·    Altering the hours of operation to allow the construction of new ground floor columns to be undertaken between 5.00pm and 7.00am from Monday to Friday.

·    The proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR), Landscaped Area, number of units and number of carparking spaces remain unaltered as a result of the proposed modifications.

 

Deletion of conditions 4 and 5, which read as follows.

 

Condition 4

 

A planter box be installed along the whole length of the northern perimeter of the balcony to proposed unit No.8. Details shall be provided in the plans and the specifications for the construction certificate.

 

Condition 5

 

All proposed planter boxes on the perimeter of all terraces on each level of the proposed development shall be no less than 1.5m in depth and 1.2m in height. Details shall be provided on the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

The modifications proposed above result in the following changes to the existing approval:

 

·    Deletion of all planter boxes to the proposed balconies.

 

2.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the south-western corner of the intersection of Maroubra Road and Ferguson Street. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 39.47m to Maroubra Road, 61.635m to the western boundary, 36.975m to the southern (rear) boundary and 47.86m to Ferguson Street (eastern boundary). The site is generally level and has a total site area of 2024 sq.m. The site contains a carpark, shops fronting Maroubra Road and disused commercial premises at the rear that have been heavily vandalised.

 

The subject site is adjoined to the south by an electricity sub-station. To the east across Ferguson Street is a two storey commercial development and to the south-east a four storey residential flat building. Immediately to the west of the site is a two storey commercial building and two dwelling houses, which back onto the subject site. Approximately 30 metres further east of the subject site is the Maroubra Junction Hotel. To the north across Maroubra Road is the Maroubra Mall.

 

Development in the Maroubra Junction commercial centre is mixed in character with some traditional two-storey buildings remaining on Anzac Parade and single storey post-war commercial developments on Maroubra Road. There are also sites that have been more recently developed to eight storeys in a mix of styles ranging from curtain glazed commercial to brick residential flat buildings.

 

3.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

In August 1999, Council received a development application (DA 99/01088) for the demolition of an existing rear commercial building and erection of a part 3 & part 7 level commercial/retail and residential development over 6 existing ground floor shops at the subject site. At the Health, Building and Planning Committee Meeting held 12 September 2000, Council resolved to approve the proposed development subject to 94 conditions.

 

On 14 July 2003, a section 96 modification was submitted seeking consent to remedy an error in the letter of consent with respect to condition 1. The modification was approved under delegated authority on 16 July 2004.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. No submissions were received.

 

5.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers and the following comments have been provided:-

 

5.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

Council’s Building Section advised the following with respect to the proposed altered construction hours:

 

Council raises no objection to the proposed minor variation in building operation hours (required under condition 41) subject to the work being carried out in accordance with the following requirements;

 

1. The work duration, for the drilling work for the piers, is to be seven (7) days maximum.

 

2. Building work is to be carried out Monday to Friday only.

 

3. No works are to be carried out on weekends and public holidays.

 

4. Two (2) days written notice will be hand delivered to the surrounding residents and businesses together with telephone numbers to the site foreman.

 

5. If the nuisance occurs, work will halt immediately and will consult Council to seek a resolution of the nuisance.

 

6. A boring machine is to be used in accordance with the geotechnical report.

 

7. The total number of piers to be excavated is 5 and the work must be done between the hours of 7am and 10pm

 

5.2  Engineering Issues

 

Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Services Section provided the following comments with respect to engineering matters:

 

An application has been received to modify development consent for demolition of the existing rear commercial building and erection of a part 3 and part 7 level commercial/retail and residential development over 6 existing ground floor shops.

 

The applicant proposes another level of basement carparking at RL 19.83 (AHD).

A copy of a Geotechnical Report by Grant Alexander & Associates P/L dated 5th Nov 2003 was submitted with additional detail and states that no groundwater was encountered in the bore holes and Hawkesbury sandstone bedrock was encountered at depths of 7.8m to 10.0m and thus the Section 96 application does not need to be referred to DIPNAR as integrated development.

 

The applicant has also requested Condition No 21 a) be amended, the condition currently reads as follows:

 

Prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development. The plan shall detail the following:

 

Relocation of the proposed garbage room to the area occupied by carspace No 71 and the bicycle store, and all necessary provisions for collection of garbage off Ferguson St

 

Provision of a waste/garbage area for the retail/commercial units in the area at the front of Shop No 6 on the ground level.

 

Type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development, demolition waste, recycling, construction waste, recycling materials to be reused or recycled, facilities/procedures for storage, collection and recycling and disposal of waste and ongoing management of waste.

 

The DPCD Dept is advised after negotiations with the Architect, Alec Pappas, and further amended plans have been submitted in relation to garbage areas (Job No J25-03, Drwg No A-05(B) – Bin store July 04 which are considered satisfactory.

 

The AIS Dept recommends Condition No 21a) be amended to read as follows:

 

Prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development. The plan shall detail the following:

 

Type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development, demolition waste, recycling, construction waste, recycling materials to be reused or recycled, facilities/procedures for storage, collection and recycling and disposal of waste and ongoing management of waste.

 

Note: garbage rooms for the residential, commercial and retail units are to be installed as shown on the amended plans marked (Job No J25-03, Drwg No A-05(B) – Bin store July 04

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-         Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-        Building Code of Australia.

-        Development Control Plan- Parking

-         Development Control Plan - Maroubra Junction Town Centre

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is subject to the provisions of Amendment 33 under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent and is consistent with the objectives of Clause 42D Maroubra Junction Town Centre. Under Clause 42D (Maroubra Junction Town Centre) of Amendment 33:-

 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

42(D) (6) – Maximum Building Height

21m

25.05m

No

 

Under the Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP, the site is located within block 9. The desired envelope shown for block 9 is a 6 storey building to Maroubra Road and 5 storeys at the rear. The proposed modifications do not alter the approved number of storeys.

 

The proposed modification results in increased height resulting in a non-compliance of 4.05m. The applicant has submitted information contending that the proposed non-compliance is not unreasonable for the following reasons:

 

Notwithstanding the non-compliance, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the purpose of the control for the following reasons. Firstly the proposal merely raises the floor to ceiling height for each level and does not result in any change to other development restrictions such as floor space and landscaping. Secondly, the proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on the amenity of the surrounding areas. The increase in height will only have a marginal increase in the shadow cast by the development and is not likely to have any privacy loss or view loss impacts. Given the minor increase in height, the proposal will still be in keeping with the height and built form, particularly of recent multi storey developments in the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal, despite the non-compliance with the height control, is consistent with the purpose of this control and appropriate from a planning point of view.

 

The proposed additional height is not considered unreasonable given the building is essentially the same development. The building envelope, number of units, number of parking spaces and landscaping are essentially the same. The impact created to adjacent properties by the additional metre is not considered to be any more excessive than that already approved by Council. Issues such as privacy, solar access, shadowing and streetscape remain predominantly unaltered. The additional 1.05m in height will not create a building that excessively exceeds the controls and that would therefore be inconsistent with other taller buildings in the area (such as the Maroubra Mall currently under construction). It is considered that the minor height non-compliance does not generate significant additional amenity impacts to adjacent properties, does not result in an intensification of use at the site, nor is it inconsistent with the height of other buildings in the area. It is considered that the minor height exceedance is reasonable.

 

6.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan Maroubra Junction Town Centre

 

The proposed development is sited within block no. 9 in the DCP. The approved development varies significantly from the block controls of the DCP, which was introduced this year. The minor modifications also result in a building which is not consistent with the block controls of the DCP. It is considered that despite the significant difference in building envelopes between those specified in the DCP and those approved and proposed in the DA, the proposed development results in minor changes to the original consent which results in no significant additional impact to the area. For the purposes of this modification, it is not possible to apply the DCP block controls given the original development varies significantly from the current DCP controls and was approved under a previous DCP (namely DCP no. 15 – Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre).

 

7.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

7.1.1    Substantially the same development.

The proposed development results in substantially the same building envelope, has the same FSR, landscaped area, number of parking spaces and general floor layout. The main differences between the modification and the approved development is in the additional 1.05m of height overall, the additional half level of basement for parking below ground and the removal of the planter boxes to the external balconies.

 

7.1.2    Consideration of submissions

 

No submissions were received in response to the amended proposal.

 

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     Impact on adjoining development

 

8.1.1      Privacy & overshadowing

 

              Privacy.

 

The proposed additional height and the removal of all planter boxes (replaced with glass balustrading) will not result in additional amenity impacts to adjacent buildings. Condition four of the current consent would effectively result in a planter box to nearly all second floor bedsits fronting Maroubra Road. This is not required on other levels and the planters have no benefit in terms of reducing overlooking to rear yards as the balconies overlook a busy commercial street. It is considered that the glass balustrades proposed combined with the exterior masonry façade articulation will act as a sufficient acoustic barrier.

 

The current approved plans show that all east and west facing units contain planters to their balconies. The proposed deletion of condition 5 would mean that these balconies would no longer have planters and would instead have either glass balustrading or masonry walls. The proposed alterations would not result in any additional overlooking impacts to the rear yards of the adjacent dwellings to the west or the balconies to the units southeast of the site. This is achieved due to the significant separation between buildings, the stepping back of the building as the height increases and lower level planters that block the site lines of residents living higher up.

 

Overall the proposed modifications have been designed in consideration of the likely impact of the proposal on the adjacent and surrounding residents privacy. The design successfully prevents any additional impact. The very minor adjustments in floor levels throughout are not significant to result in an evening of floor levels between the proposed building and adjacent buildings (even floor levels would increase cross viewing and adversely affect the amenity of residents).

 

Overshadowing.

 

  Amended shadow diagrams have been submitted with the modified proposal. The shadow diagrams submitted show that minor additional overshadowing will occur to surrounding properties however it shall not be to an extent which will result in a significant or unreasonable loss of solar access to the yards of such properties.

 

8.2     Traffic & Carparking

 

8.2.1      Parking provisions

 

The proposed modification includes an additional part basement of parking. The original plans complied with the parking requirements in terms of the number of spaces however did not comply with aisle widths, parking space dimensions and manoeuvring areas. The amended plan provides the same number of vehicles but also provides appropriate ramp grades, turning circles, aisle width and manoeuvring areas in accordance with the Parking DCP and the Australian Standard. No objections are raised with respect to the additional part basement.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed amendments overall will not have a significant impact to the surrounding area/residents in terms of amenity, privacy, overshadowing, height, floor space, parking and overall compliance with relevant controls. The cosmetic changes improve the appearance of the building and the minor internal alterations ensure compliance with relevant sections of the BCA, Australian Standards and Council Policies. Conditions are proposed to minimise the impact of the construction noise to the ground floor columns. The additional 1.05m in height will not result in a building that is inconsistent with surrounding development and the proposed modifications are considered worthy of approval.

 

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. 99/01088 on property 181 – 191 Maroubra Road, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

·      Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A-01(A) to A-04(A), dated April 04 and received by Council on the 20th May 2004, and plans numbered A-05(B), dated April 04 and received by Council on the 13th July 2004, and plans numbered A-06(A) to A-14 (A), dated April 04 and received by Council on the 20th May 2004, and A-15(B), dated April 04 and received by Council on the 13th July 2004, and plans numbered A-16(A) to A-20(A), dated April 04 and received by Council on the 20th May 2004, and plans numbered SD-01 to SD-03 dated April 04 and received by Council on the 20th May 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, 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:

 

·      Amend Condition No. 21 A to read:

 

21 (a)  Prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development. The plan shall detail the following:

 

Type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development, demolition waste, recycling, construction waste, recycling materials to be reused or recycled, facilities/procedures for storage, collection and recycling and disposal of waste and ongoing management of waste.

 

Note: garbage rooms for the residential, commercial and retail units are to be installed as shown on the amended plans marked (Job No J25-03, Drwg No A-05(B) – Bin store July 04

 

·      Deletion of conditions 4 and 5.

·      Addition of the following conditions:

 

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the terms of Council’s approval and relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction.

 

95. The work duration, for the drilling work for the piers of the new ground floor columns, is to be seven (7) days maximum.

 

96. Building work is to be carried out Monday to Friday only with respect to the ground floor columns.

 

97. No works are to be carried out on weekends and public holidays with respect to the ground floor columns.

 

98. Two (2) days written notice will be hand delivered to the surrounding residents and businesses for the works to the ground floor columns together with telephone numbers to the site foreman.

 

99. If a nuisance occurs with respect to work on the ground floor columns, work will halt immediately and the developer will consult Council to seek a resolution of the nuisance.

 

100. A boring machine is to be used in accordance with the geotechnical report with respect to works to the ground floor columns.

 

101. The total number of piers to be excavated with respect to the ground floor columns is 5 and the work must be done between the hours of 7am and 10pm

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configurations

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

LUKE JACKSON

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 


 

Development Application Report