Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

5th July, 2005

 

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, 12TH JULY, 2005 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 28TH SEPTEMBER, 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, 14TH JUNE, 2005.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           Development Applications

 

6.1                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 12 BELLEVUE STREET, MAROUBRA.

2

 

6.2                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 87 MAWSON PARADE, CHIFLEY.

42

 

6.3                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 5 LITTLE STREET, MAROUBRA.

49

 


 

6.4                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 22 MINNEAPOLIS CRESCENT, MAROUBRA.

82

 

 

7           Miscellaneous

 

7.1                      

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 42/2005 -   REVIEW OF DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT.

158

 

7.2                      

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 43/2005 - GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION AND FLOOR SPACE RATIO.

175

 

 

8           General Business

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

……………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

14 June, 2005

FILE NO:

DA/257/1999/A        

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2) Application to amend Condition No. 2 by reducing the overall height of the building by 370mm, and design changes to the front and rear balconies, extend roof line over Bedroom No. 2, extend basement garage to include wine cellar, extend sewing room at the rear, provide bar to first floor TV room and other minor changes.

PROPERTY:

 12 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr X Jiang and Mrs X Z Bao

OWNER:

 Mr X Jiang and Mrs X Z Bao

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Council on 5 December 2000.

 

The original application sought approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of a new two storey dwelling house with semi basement garage and was refused under delegated authority on 27 September 1999. A request was subsequently received from the applicants on 19 October 1999 to review the determination which was subsequently approved at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 5 December 2000 subject to 47 conditions. Condition 2 required the overall height of the dwelling house to be reduced by 1.03m.

 

The current Section 96 application seeks consent to modify Condition 2 of the consent by reducing the overall height of the dwelling house by 370mm rather than 1030mm and other minor internal and external changes to the dwelling house.

 

The primary issue for consideration is whether the proposed reduction to the overall height of the dwelling house will result in any significant additional adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours at 14 Bellevue Street.

 

The recommendation is that Condition 2 be modified to permit a reduction in overall height of the dwelling house as proposed.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent for the following modifications:-

 

§  Amend Condition 2 by reducing the overall height of the dwelling house by 370mm.

 

Condition 2 reads:

 

          “2.     The overall height of the dwelling house is to be reduced by 1.03m, by:

 

(a)     reducing the pitch of the roof

(b)     reducing the internal ceiling heights

(c)     reducing the height of the semi basement garage level

(d)     reducing the height of the external walls of the building,

 

so that the maximum height of the building does not exceed 8.16m above natural ground level at any point and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.”

 

§  Minor changes to the shape of the front and rear balconies at ground and first floor levels.

§  Extension to the sewing room and bedroom 2 at the rear including extension to the roofline.

§  Extend the semi basement garage to include a wine cellar.

§  Provide a bar to first floor TV room.

§  Minor changes to the internal configuration of the dwelling.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the western side of Bellevue Street between Sackville Street and Bond Street, Maroubra and is currently occupied by a single storey brick and tile dwelling with a partially excavated sub-floor garage level on the southern side of the building.

 

The site is adjoined to the south by an existing four (4) storey multi unit building at No. 14 Bellevue Street, to the north by existing single storey brick and tile dwellings, and to the east and west by a mixture of one and two storey dwellings.  The current streetscape is dominated by single, and some two storey dark brick and terracotta tile post World War II bungalows.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 384/1998 was received by Council on 12 May 1998 for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling to create a part two/part three storey dwelling house.  This application was refused under delegated authority on 27 August 1998.

 

Development Application No. 257/1999 was received by Council on 17 March 1999 to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a new two storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage. This application was refused under delegated authority on 27 September 1999.

 

On 5 December 2000, Council’s Health, Building and Planning Committee approved a subsequent request to review Development Application No. 257/1999 subject to appropriate conditions requiring a reduction in overall height of the building by 1030mm, increased setback of the southern portion of the front façade and privacy measures.

 

Development Application No. 354/2001 for the alterations & additions to the existing dwelling house including first floor extension was approved on 28 August 2001 subject to 47 conditions.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

5.1     Objections

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. As a result of this notification, five (5) submissions were received. The main reasons for objection were:

 

Mr G V Buhagiar of 10 Bellevue Street

 

§  The area has historic value and the building at 14 Bellevue Street is heritage listed. Council should set guidelines for the development in the area.


Mr D Caruana on behalf of the owner Helen Farah of 1/14 Bellevue Street

 

§  The proposed modification to the height of the building will block the sun and view of north facing windows.

 

Miss P Poulos 2/14 Bellevue Street

 

§  The shadow diagrams submitted with the subject application are incorrect.

§  Units 1 and 2 will be affected the most by the proposed modification. The requirement of at least 3 hours of sunlight per day should be maintained for the north facing windows.

 

Mr S Morgan of 5/14 Bellevue Street

 

§  The proposed amendments do not sufficiently address the concerns that caused the original development application to be rejected.

§  A number of owners in the building that are significantly affected by the proposed amendments are not in the position to submit objections.

 

Ms S Purcell of 6/14 Bellevue Street

 

§  The applicants should adhere to the height condition imposed by Council.

§  Council should undertake independent shadow analysis on the impact of the proposed height reduction to the building.

§  The north facing windows will be severely shadowed by the proposed modification.

§  Concerned with the material used for the roof.

 

5.2     Comment on submissions received

 

The following are considered to be the main reasons for objection:

 

§  Historic value of the area and impact on the heritage listed building at 14 Bellevue Street.

 

The subject site is not located within a heritage conservation area and the building at 14 Bellevue Street is not listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. There are no relevant heritage guidelines applicable to the subject site.

 

§  Incorrect shadow diagrams

 

It is noted that the shadow diagrams submitted were different to the diagrams approved by the Committee meeting on 5 December 2000. The applicants were requested to rectify the error. The amended diagrams were subsequently received on 14 June 2005 which clearly illustrates the shadow impact of the proposed modifications on the northern elevation of the building at 14 Bellevue Street.

 

§  Overshadowing

 

The amended shadow diagrams illustrate the likely shadow impact of the proposed modifications on the northern elevation of the building at 14 Bellevue Street. The level of additional shadow impact is addressed in more detail in Section 9 of this report.

 

§  Height

 

The proposed modifications will result in a building having a maximum overall height of 8.82m and therefore satisfies the 9.5m maximum building height limits. It should be noted that the proposed building will have a maximum external wall height of 7m, which also complies with the 7m requirement under the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

§  Material to be used for the roof.

 

As indicated on the plans submitted with the application, cement roof tiles in black/brown colour are to be used for the roof.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was not referred to the relevant technical officers as the original comments received are still applicable.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is within a foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed modifications are permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the following controls and is consistent with the provisions of these controls:

 

§  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

§  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

 

7.1     Policy Controls

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

 

The DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the Objectives and Performance requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding Preferred Solutions. Therefore, the tables below assess the proposal against the Preferred Solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements.


Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.54:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.63:1. Does not comply – see Section 9 below.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceeds 7m.

The proposal has a maximum external wall height of 7 metres. Complies.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S2

Private open space receives at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

The rear yard will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

S2,8

North-facing windows to living areas receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

The proposal includes north-facing windows that will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

S9

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each throughout the year.

The proposal will not overshadow solar collectors on adjoining properties. Complies.

S9

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

The proposal will not reduce solar access to less than 3 hours on north-facing windows. Complies.

 

S9

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receives at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

The proposal will not reduce solar access to private open space to less than 3 hours. Complies.

 

8.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1     Substantially the same

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

 

8.2     Consideration of submissions

 

The issues raised by the objectors have been addressed in Section 5.1 of this report.

 

9.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1     Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

In respect of overshadowing, the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies stipulates that the north-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings should receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

The additional shadow impact on the northern elevation of the adjoining building at 14 Bellevue Street can be summarised as follows:-

 

Unit No.

Comment

1

The shadow impact will be similar to the existing dwelling. At least part of the windows will receive sunlight from approximately 12:15pm onwards.

2

About one third of the kitchen and dining room windows will receive sunlight from approximately 11:00am onwards and at least half of the bathroom and laundry windows will receive sunlight from 12 noon onwards.

3

At least half of the kitchen room window and about one third of the bathroom and laundry windows will receive sunlight from 9:00am onwards.

4

No impact.

5

No impact.

6

No impact.

Note: the above assessment was base on the shadow of the proposed building and does not include shadows cast by the existing trees.

 

From the above assessment, it is clear that the reduction in the overall height of the dwelling house by 370mm rather than 1.03m as per condition 2 of the consent will not result in any significant additional impact on the amenity of the adjoining residents at 14 Bellevue Street. At least part of the north-facing windows to living areas of No. 14 will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight between 9:00am and 3:00pm on 21 June, which complies with the preferred solution of the DCP.  For these reasons, the proposed modification to the height of the building is considered to be acceptable.

 

9.2     Floor Area

It should be noted that the original development has a floor space ratio of 0.6:1 (325sqm), which already exceeds the preferred solution requirement of the DCP. The proposed modifications will provide 16 sqm of additional floor area and of which approximately 11 sqm is located in the semi basement area adjacent to the garage. It is considered that the additional floor area is minor and will not significantly alter the original approved bulk and scale of the building. The proposed modifications are considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development and will not result in any additional adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings. It is recommended that this application be approved.

 

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 Conditions 1 and 2 of Development Consent No. 257/99 by reducing the overall height of the dwelling house by 370mm rather than 1.03m and changes to the front and rear balconies shape, extend roof line over Bedroom No. 2, extend basement garage to include wine cellar, extend sewing room at the rear, provide bar to first floor TV room and minor internal changes for property at 12 Bellevue Street, Maroubra, in the following manner:

 

·           Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans designated Project No 312 NB/99 sheets 1 and 2 dated March 1999, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, and unless modified by the Section 96 application ‘A’ plans received by Council on 18 May 2005, 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 amended by the following conditions:

 

·           Amend Condition No. 2 to read:

 

2.       The overall height of the dwelling house is to be reduced by 370mm, so that the maximum height of the building does not exceed 8.82m above natural ground level at any point and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 configuration plans

Development Application Report dated 24 November 2000

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

FRANK KO

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

24 November, 2000

FILE NO:

D/0257/1999

 

PROPOSAL:

 New two storey dwelling house - Review

PROPERTY:

 12 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr. Xing-Mai Jiang and Ms. Xiu Zhen Bao

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This review application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 82A (6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

The development application is for a new two storey dwelling house with garage under.  The east west orientation of the site in conjunction with the existence of a three storey residential flat building with carparking under on No 14 Bellevue Street (immediately to the south), has resulted in design constraints for the applicant, which makes it difficult to achieve the required solar access for the residential flat building to the south. The adjoining owners fronting Bellevue Street (Nos 10 and 14) have objected primarily on the basis of excessive height and resultant overshadowing, bulk, design, siting, loss of views and privacy.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to appropriate conditions requiring a reduction in height of the building, increased setback of the southern portion of the front façade and privacy measures.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a two storey dwelling house  with a partially excavated double garage under the southern portion of the building.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

The subject property has a frontage to Bellevue Street of 13.41m, a side boundary depth of 40.235m, an overall area of 539.55m2 and is located on the western side of Bellevue Street between Sackville and Bond Streets Maroubra. The land is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling house with partially excavated garage under. To the south is a three storey residential flat building with parking under, to the north a series of single storey dwellings and to the west and east, a mixture of one and two storey dwelling houses.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

DA 98/00384.      Application for alterations and additions to existing dwelling house was refused on 27 August 1998.  

 

DA 99/00257.      This development application seeking to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a new two storey dwelling house with garage under was refused under delegated authority on 27 September 1999 for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal exceeds the maximum floorspace ratio permitted under Randwick Development Control Plan No 4-Dwelling houses.

 

2.       Insufficient information has been provided to determine whether the proposal complies with the maximum height limit of 9.5m under Randwick Development Control Plan No. 4 – Dwelling Houses.  The architectural plans and survey plan submitted with the development application would appear to indicate that the building exceeds this limit at its highest point above ground level.

 

3.       The shadow diagrams submitted to the Council on 21 July 1999 are incorrect and do not enable an accurate assessment of the potential overshadowing impact of the proposed building to be carried out. Regardless, the siting and design is likely to cause extensive overshadowing of the existing residential flat building to the south of the subject site.

 

4.       The proposed external stairway to the northern side of the proposed dwelling is likely to cause unnecessary overlooking of the adjoining properties to the north.

 

5.       The proposed stairway, study and rumpus room windows on the first floor of the proposed dwelling are likely to cause unnecessary overlooking of the adjoining properties.

 

6.       The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

A request was subsequently received from the applicants on 19 October 1999 to review the determination.

 

Given this was the second application refused by the Council and four of the five submissions were received from the owners of dwellings within the residential flat building at 14 Bellevue Street to the south west, the applicant agreed to mediate the issues of concern with the objectors at No 14 Bellevue Street whose occupants were likely to be the main residents affected by overshadowing impacts. This informal mediation between the parties was ongoing and the subject of substantial additional information in a genuine attempt by the applicant and the spokesperson from No14 Bellevue Street, Mr G Appleton  to reach a compromise position in respect of maximum height and resultant overshadowing impacts. Notwithstanding the best efforts of those involved, no agreement acceptable to the parties concerned could be reached.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

5.1     Objections

 

The owners and occupiers of adjoining properties were notified of the original development application on 25 March 1999. As a result of this notification, five submissions were received. The main reasons for objection were:

 

10 Bellevue Street

 

-        Proposal should comply with all Council requirements.

-        Council should consider increased traffic and drainage concerns and whether Bellevue Street can sustain development of this nature.

-        Similar dwellings have been erected in Bona Vista Avenue and Beaumond Avenue, which have had an adverse effect on the area.

-        Existing dwelling is perfectly sound.

-        Existing trees should be protected.

 

3/14 Bellevue Street

 

-        New proposal does not comply with the two storey height limit.

-        New proposal is similar to the bulk and scale of the original submission.

-        Excessive overshadowing of adjoining residential flat building.

-        Loss of view.

 

6/14 Bellevue Street

 

-        Loss of views and overshadowing.

-        Loss of privacy from balcony at rear.

          Design is incompatible with the dominant style of dwellings in Bellevue Street.

 

2/14   Bellevue Street

 

-        Proposal constitutes a three storey development.

-        Insufficient headroom for the garage level.

-        Adverse levels of overshadowing, the shadow diagrams provided are inaccurate  and revised shadow diagrams should be required showing the effect on the northern face of No 14.

-        Loss of privacy from proposed balconies and external stairway. The latter will encourage conversion of the first floor to a separate dwelling.

-        Proposed cement render to external walls is out of character with surrounding development.

-        Proposal will adversely affect the privacy of property at No 4 Bond Street.

 

Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6/ 14 Bellevue Street

 

-        Proposal will unreasonably impinge upon the amenity of adjoining and nearby properties.

-        Non compliance with requirements including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations, Randwick LEP 1998 and  DCP No 4.

-        Proposal involves the same bulk, scale and design as the originally refused application.

-        The maximum floor space ratio of DCP No 4 is exceeded.

-        The height of the building is excessive.

-        Roof form and pitch is excessive, over-complicated and out of character with the dominant style of dwellings in Bellevue Street.

-        Applicant’s submission is incomplete in respect of the survey plan and Statement of Environmental Effects.

-        Excessive overshadowing of No 14 and shadow diagrams are inaccurate and incomplete.

-        Potential for use as a dual occupancy.

-        Create an undesirable precedent for future development.

-        Proposed setback from No 14 is inadequate.

-        Loss of views and reduced amenity.

 

Section 82A of the EPA Act does not contain any statutory requirement to notify any request for review of a determination or a condition/s of development consent as the application remains unaltered. Notwithstanding this fact, the above objectors were renotified of the review application and a further six submissions received. Below is a summary of the lengthy and detailed submissions received which at times are repetitive:

 

10 Bellevue Street

 

-        Original submission still stands.

-        Bellevue Street cannot sustain such development.

 

1/14 Bellevue Street

 

-        Only reasons 1 and 2 of the applicant’s request are relevant and even those are incorrect. The remaining reasons should be inadmissible in accordance with Section 82A of the E.P and A Act.

-        The applicants were aware of the inaccuracies of their submission and chose not to do anything about it. No concessions should be given.

-        Council cannot permit any amendments to be made to the application as refused.

-        Bulk and floor area of the proposed dwelling aggravates the extent of overshadowing and would create a dark, cold and windy environment between the buildings.

-        Overlooking and loss of privacy a major concern. Window of the study is unacceptable.

-        Integrity/accuracy of the shadow diagrams remain dubious for three main reasons due to inconsistencies between the extent of overshadowing from the trees on No 12, lack of accurate data of No 14, position of windows/size and living spaces and no elevations of No 14 illustrating height or windows in relation to No 12 are shown or used in presentation of shadow diagrams as required by Council guidelines.

-        No comparison of the present overshadowing with that proposed and therefore true extent of adverse shadowing of units 1,2&3 not shown. Possible/likely that overshadowing is worse than indicated.

-        Presently barely receive rightful 3 hours of solar access/direct sunlight and under this proposal her sunlight would be greatly reduced below the required 3 hours with none in mid-winter. Units 1-4 will lose critical sunshine and between 8am and 11am units 1&2 will effectively lose all their sunshine between 8am and 4pm (all day). This is clearly contrary to Randwick Council’s DCP, Nat Hers and LEP 1998, is unacceptable and contends cannot be legally allowed by the Council.

-        The proposed garage represents a third level whereas a maximum of two levels are permitted in the 2A zone. Insufficient slope to provide a garage under (third level). Contend that the applicant’s right to a view does not outway their right to solar access. Excavation could accommodate the garage without adding to the height and proposal is contrary to DCP 4.

-        The maximum floor space and building height have been exceeded.

 

          The owner of 1/14 Bellevue Street invited consultation and requested to be informed of what measures are to be undertaken in order to reduce the proposed height and associated adverse effects of the development on their amenity.

 

2/14 Bellevue Street

 

-        Reasons 3,4& 5 of the applicant’s review application should be disregarded as they represent amendments to the original application.

-        Reason 3 (shadow diagrams) has been the subject of previous dispute and will only be of academic interest since Council should ignore it being an alteration or amendment to the rejected application. Maintains however, that Council has the responsibility to have the third submission tested if included in a new application.

-        Building height of particular importance to her since it directly affects the extent of shadowing of her unit.

-        Maintains that the applicant has been aware all along of their objections and has had more than sufficient opportunity to address their concerns.

-        Applicant should be required to submit a fresh application complying with the latest Development Control Plan

 

Units 1-6, 14 Bellevue Street (Body Corporate)

 

-        Aware that they have ‘protective’ legal rights under the DCP including their rights to solar access that overrides the applicant’s conditional privilege to a view. Maintain serious opposition to four other elements, namely:

 

(a)     Overlooking and loss of privacy

(b)     Slope of the land does not permit sufficient space to enable a third level garage         

(c)   Excessive bulk and size (floor space ratio).

(d)   Excessive height.

 

-        Reason 7 of the review request (applicant was not given notice to allow changes) is invalid or irrelevant Applicant was aware of their concerns and had ample opportunity to properly submit their application.

-        If approved objectors would suffer large financial losses due to a substantial drop in their property values. Six independent people will suffer unreasonably.

-        No modifications can be made to the application and no new material can be allowed. Any change to the height, width/setbacks would represent a large alteration of the proposed design that should be part of a new application.

-        Study window modification is unacceptable.

-        Maximum floor space and building height have been exceeded. Contend that maximum height of the building will be between 0.11m and 1.01m above/below the maximum permissible height (as per DCP No 4) and will still unreasonably affect them.

-        Bulk and size of the proposed building and its close proximity to their northern wall will aggravate the extent of proposed overshadowing. Create a dark/cold  and windy environment (wind tunnel effect). Roof pitch (20 degrees) is too high and adds to the height, which will cause unreasonable overshadowing. Suggests a reduction in pitch/height.

-        Integrity/accuracy of the shadow diagrams remains dubious (see same comments on this concern outlined in letter from 1/14 Bellevue Street above).

-        Regardless of the post determination modification/amendment to reduce the height of the proposal, it will still be totally insufficient to effectively reduce the adverse impact on their amenity. Calculate a height reduction of 2m and a side setback of 3m will be needed to satisfy them. The previous decision acknowledged that the proposed dwelling will cause extensive overshadowing of their property.

-        Insufficient slope exists to accommodate the garage as it constitutes a third level which could only be permitted if with the advantageous use of excessive ‘stepups’. Garage could be accommodated without increasing the height of the building. Proposal contrary to DCP No 4.

-        Plans are inaccurate and section has not been taken through the highest point of the building.

-        Invited consultation and requested to be informed of what measures are to be undertaken in order to reduce the proposed height and associated adverse effects of the development on their amenity.

 

4/14 Bellevue Street

 

-        Supports the six reasons for refusal and suggests non-compliance with the maximum number of levels permitted by DCP No 4 could have also been included.

-        Application cannot be amended as part of the review process. Reasons 3,4&5 represent additional alterations and changes to the original application. Concerned due to the number of changes and alterations the applicant was permitted to make before its refusal and the extent of the inaccurate, unprofessional and dubious information.

-        Any amendments should form part of a new application.

 

3/14 Bellevue Street

 

-        Only reasons 1 and 2 of the applicant’s request are relevant and even those are incorrect. The remaining reasons should be inadmissible in accordance with Sec. 82A of the E.P and A Act.

-        The applicants were aware of the inaccuracies of their submission and chose not to do anything about it. No concessions should be given.

-        If approved objectors would suffer large financial losses due to a substantial drop in their property values. Six independent people will suffer unreasonably.

-        Council cannot permit any amendments to be made to the application as refused. Moreover, residents of No 14 were not made aware of any modifications to the proposed design prior to its determination and hence were not offered any opportunity to comment. Any change to the height, width/setbacks represents a large alteration of the proposed design that should be part of a new application.

-        Overlooking and loss of privacy also a major concern. Window modification unacceptable.            

-        Maximum floor space and building height have been exceeded. Contend that maximum height of the building will exceed the maximum permissible height (as per DCP No 4) and will unreasonably affect them. Proposed dwelling will be too bulky.

-        Bulk and size of the proposed building and its close proximity to their northern wall will aggravate the extent of proposed overshadowing. Create a dark/cold and windy environment (wind tunnel effect). Roof pitch (20 degrees) is too high and adds to the height, which will cause unreasonable overshadowing. Suggests a reduction in pitch/height.

-        Integrity/accuracy of the shadow diagrams remains dubious (see same comments on this concern outlined in letter from 1/14 Bellevue Street above).

-        Regardless of the post determination modification/amendment to reduce the height of the proposal, it will still be totally insufficient to effectively reduce the adverse impact(s) on their amenity. Calculate a height reduction of 2m and a side setback of 3m will be needed to satisfy them. The previous decision acknowledged that the proposed dwelling will cause extensive overshadowing of their property.

-        Insufficient slope exists to accommodate the garage as it constitutes a third level which could only be permitted if with the advantageous use of excessive ‘stepups’. Garage could be accommodated without increasing the height of the building. Proposal contrary to DCP No 4.

 

The objector invited inspection and consultation to facilitate a third application and requested to be informed of what measures are to be undertaken in order to reduce the proposed height and associated adverse effects of the development on their amenity.

 

A further lengthy letter dated 31 August 2000  (received on 7 November 2000) with illustrations of overshadowing impacts was received from unit 1/14 Bellevue Street (also signed by owners of 2-5 Bellevue Street), seeking to finalise and reinforce their position. The authors point out that notwithstanding lengthy, yet amicable consultation with the applicant they are unable to accept the height reduction offered (0.94m) as the proposal will still cause unreasonable adverse impacts on their amenity and not satisfy the requirements of the DCP or NatHers. Maintains the applicants are seeking to improve their privilege of ocean views at the expense of their solar access. They have three other main concerns, namely:

 

·        Bulk of the proposed building and setback from their northern boundary.

·        Overlooking and loss of privacy.

·        Unreasonable overshadowing due to the unnecessarily high proposal.

 

The submission also points out that whilst the top of the shadow line is now basically correct, the forward eastern edge of the shadow depicted is incorrect (by approx.1.5m for the proposal and 500mm for the shadow diagrams of the existing house). In this regard, it should be noted that the applicant’s letter of 11 July 2000 also acknowledges the inaccuracy, although to a somewhat lesser extent.

 

The extent of overshadowing of the northern wall of No 14 including the dining room window of unit 1 is addressed in detail and in summary the objectors maintain for the proposal to be acceptable to them (ie for the dining room of unit 1 to receive a minimum of 3hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm) the overall height of the proposed dwelling house will need to be reduced by 1.39m (0.94m suggested by applicant plus 0.45m representing a further lowering of the ground floor slab). The other option raised was for the front southern portion of the building to be setback another 1.4m (in addition to the 970mm already offered by the applicant).

 

Unit 2/14 Bellevue Street

 

Further letter of 8 November 2000 expressing concern that Council is proceeding with a review based on a revised proposal rather than the proposal rejected by the Council. Concern also expressed that they have not had access to accurate shadow diagrams and maintain Council must reject the application, as changes to the application should not be permitted. Moreover, there is no documentation to allow an assessment of privacy impacts between the buildings.

 

Comment on submissions received

 

The following are considered to be the main reasons for objection;

 

·        Ability of Council to consider ‘amended plans’ with a review application.

 

Although the Council must review the previous decision made on the basis of the original plans, it can accept additional information to assist in reaching its decision. However, any approval of the application must be on the basis of the original plans as altered by appropriate conditions. The reason for requiring/accepting the additional information from the applicant in respect of issues such as possible reductions in height were to determine whether or not it was feasible and reasonable for Council to consider requiring such a reduction in order to address the concerns of particularly No 14. In other words would the applicant be able to reasonably comply with such a condition in the event of Council deciding to approve the application.

 

·        Non compliance with DCP No 4- Dwelling Houses

 

(a)     Height

 

Although the maximum height on the submitted plans was uncertain, the maximum height originally proposed was 9.19m and therefore satisfies the 9.5m limits. However, in any event the building height is excessive and there is scope for the building to be lowered. This issue is addressed more specifically in section 8.21 and 8.23 of this report.

 

(b)     Floor space ratio

 

The contention that the proposal does not comply with floor space ratio is incorrect. This issue is addressed more specifically in section 8.22 of this report.

 

(c)     Overshadowing

 

This issue is a legitimate concern to the objectors at No 14 Bellevue Street. To a large extent, the height of the proposed building will dictate the level of resultant overshadowing of the residential flat building at No 14 to the south. Given the overshadowing impacts for No 14, the proposed building if approved, should be reduced in height. This issue is addressed in more detail in section 8.21 of this report.

         

·        Design/Streetscape context

         

This is a relevant consideration, which has been addressed in section 8.24 of this report.

 

·        Loss of views

 

This issue has been addressed in section 8.25 of this report.

 

·        Loss of Privacy

 

There are legitimate privacy issues and this concern has been addressed in section 8.26 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     Building and Construction Issues

 

The Manager of Building Services raised no objection  in respect to compliance with:

·        environmental health and building provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

·        provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

·        provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulations.

 

6.2     Landscape Issues

 

There is a Cocos Palm Tree located on the south-west side boundary of the site. Approval is granted for the removal/relocation of this tree.

 

6.3     Drainage Issues

 

Stormwater runoff shall be discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Bellevue Street.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is within a foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed development is permissible with Council's consent. The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the following controls and is consistent with the provisions of these controls:-  

 

C       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

C       Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

 

7.1     Policy Controls

 

Development Control Plan No 4- Dwelling House Controls and Development Control Plan- Parking

 

Standard

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Maximum FSR

0.65:1

0.6:1

Yes

Maximum height

9.5m

9.19m

Yes

Maximum number of levels.

Maximum 2 levels above highest g.level occupied by building

                                                                            Maximum 2 levels above highest G.Level Maximum 2 levels above highest g. level occupied by building-see sec.7.24

Yes

Fixed building line

4.1m

4.15m, 5.83m & 6.8m

Yes

Carparking

2 spaces

2 spaces

Yes

 

7.2     Council Policies

 

This application has been reviewed on the basis of the controls and policies that applied at the time of assessment of the original application, namely, Development Control Plan No 4 - Dwelling Houses and Development Control Plan - Parking.

 

8.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1     Reasons for review

 

The applicant has provided the following reasons for requesting the review:-

 

1.       The proposal does not exceed the maximum floor space.

         

          Agreed.

 

2.       The proposal does not exceed the maximum height.

         

          Agreed.

 

3.       A new set of shadow diagrams will be submitted to enable an accurate assessment.

 

          The overshadowing issue is addressed separately below.

 

4.       A privacy screen can be provided for the external stairway and the sides of the rear balcony at first floor level.         

 

A privacy screen to the first floor rear balcony would be adequate. There is no need for a privacy screen to the staircase.

 

5.       The rumpus room will not be transparent.

 

The general issue of privacy including the rumpus room is addressed in section 8.26 of this report.

 

7.       No pre-refusal notice was given to allow necessary changes.

 

It is not Council’s practice to issue notice of a pending refusal to applicants.

 

8.2     Physical relationship to and impact upon adjoining development Overshadowing).

 

8.21  Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

The accuracy of the applicant’s shadow diagrams has been the subject of considerable dispute between the applicant and the owners of No 14.  The owners of No 14 have consistently and correctly challenged the accuracy of the shadow diagrams (either five or six attempts) provided by the applicant. In addition the diagrams had shown the northern elevation (including fenestration) of the residential flat building incorrectly. Moreover, the height of the proposed dwelling house was conflicting in detail on the submitted plans and to some extent uncertain.

 

Given the ongoing dispute between the applicant and the adjoining owners of the units at No 14 Bellevue Street in respect of the likely level of sunlight to No 14 and the continuing dispute regarding the accuracy of the shadow diagrams, it was suggested that the parties involved should mediate between themselves in order that hopefully a solution could be found that was acceptable to all concerned. This suggestion was taken up by the applicant and the owner of unit 3 and ongoing negotiations were undertaken including during the mid-winter when both parties participated in practical demonstrations of the likely overshadowing impacts to No 14. In order to ensure accuracy, the applicant and the owners of No 14 agreed to engage a surveyor to provide a correct survey of the northern elevation of the existing residential flat building at No 14. Although no agreement could be reached, the issue has come down to the amount the proposed dwelling could be lowered in order to minimise the height of the building. If the building is required to be reduced by at least the 940mm offered by the applicant, unit 1 will be the only unit with notable overshadowing problems. Moreover, it should be noted that unit 1 has four windows that will be affected and of those four, the most western two are to the laundry and bathroom, the eastern two windows being to the kitchen and dining room.

 

The possibility of requiring the front of the dwelling to be setback (particularly on the southern side) has also been raised and a setback of 970mm agreed to by the applicant. However, it should be noted that this reduction will still result in the proposed wall being about 500mm in front of the existing building and will not result in additional sunlight.  The objectors maintain a setback of 2.4m would be required to ensure satisfactory sunlight access. A setback of this magnitude would render the lounge room virtually unusable and a condition so requiring would not pass the test of reasonableness.

 

In respect of overshadowing, DCP 4 stipulates that the period between 9.00am 3.00pm on 21 June is generally accepted as a measure of reasonable solar access. To minimise overshadowing of adjoining properties, consideration should be given to:

 

-        the relationship of the new work to existing adjoining development;

-        wall heights; and

-        roof design.

 

A proposed dwelling house should respect the reasonable desire of adjoining residences to direct sunshine.

 

The site is relatively long and narrow and together with the east west orientation of the lots and in its proposed form, the north facing windows of particularly the dining area of unit 1 of the adjoining residential flat building will not achieve the nominated 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm. This building contains six dwellings (two per floor) and unit 1 is at the front on the ground floor (above the garage level). Although this unit also has an enclosed balcony facing east, which receives early morning sunshine, the owner of this dwelling maintains that this sunshine is too early to be effective. On the other hand, the applicant maintains that sunlight prior to 9am should be included.

 

As identified by the owners of No 14 Bellevue Street, the level of sunlight received to particularly units 1 and 2 of that building is dictated by the height and siting of the proposed dwelling. Notwithstanding the proposed dwelling satisfies the maximum height limit of DCP No 4 (9.5m), both the applicant and the objectors are in agreement that the proposed dwelling can be lowered. In its submitted form the proposal has excessive ceiling heights (3m-3.3m on the ground floor and 2.7m for the first floor. In order to limit the overshadowing of No 14 generally and to maximise sunlight access to the dining room window of unit 1 in particular, the applicants have agreed by letter of 28 March 2000 to a height reduction of 940mm by reducing the roof pitch, ceiling heights and garage height. Although the objectors have acknowledged the benefits of the applicant’s concessions, they maintain by letter from Glenn and Helen Farah (unit 1) of 31 August 2000 that the applicant’s concessions are insufficient to ensure the dining room window of that unit will receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm and the building should be lowered by a further 450mm (total of 1.42m).

 

The issue of minimising the height of the building has been addressed and it is considered reasonable to require the building to be lowered by 1.03m in total being 90mm more than that indicated as achievable by the applicant. The building would then have a maximum height of 8.16m and it is likely the dining room window would receive approx. 2.25 hours of either direct or semi-direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm. Although not ideal, given all matters for consideration including the fact that unit 1 does also receive direct sunlight between 7.15am and 9am, this outcome is reasonable. Moreover, insisting on greater excavation has the potential to further compromise the design of the building.

 

The proposal achieves the required solar access to the outdoor recreational area of the adjoining properties. This is a result of the shorter footprint of the proposed dwelling house when compared to the residential flat building on the adjoining property.

 

8.22   Floor Space Control

 

The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.6:1 (325m2), which complies, with the maximum of 0.65:1.

 

8.23    Height

 

The proposal as submitted has a maximum height of 9.19m, which satisfies the applicable maximum of 9.5m. Notwithstanding the fact that compliance has been achieved, given the resultant overshadowing impacts to No 14 it is appropriate that reasonable steps be taken in order to minimise likely adverse impacts. The potential to lower the building has already been addressed in section 8.21 of this report.

 

8.24    Design/Streetscape Context

 

Although the proposed dwelling is of modern contempory design and is different to the majority of buildings on this side of the street, which are in the main single storey (apart from No 14). No objection is seen to this aspect of the proposal provided any approval requires a reduction in height. The building would then be in a form, which is generally in keeping with that envisaged for the area.

 

In terms of siting, the building observes a minimum setback to Bellevue Street of 4.15m to the front of the garage slab and up to 6.5m at first floor level. The site is adjoined on the southern side by a four level residential flat building (No 14) which observes a setback of approximately 2.85m from the common boundary with No14. Side boundary setbacks of the proposed building are 1.55m from both boundaries and are acceptable. However, given the siting of adjoining buildings, the overhang of the front balcony should be minimised (say 150mm instead of 350mm) should approval be granted.

 

In terms of streetscape fit, the building as proposed is higher than it need be and subject to any approval requiring its lowering (discussed in section 8.23 above) and preferably including the  setback of the front ground floor lounge room by 970mm to align with the first floor level (also discussed in section 8.21), the proposed dwelling house would be acceptable in its context.

 

8.25   Views

 

The majority of views obtained from the adjoining residential flat building are to the east to the ocean and upper floors also enjoy views to the north. The proposal will obscure some views presently enjoyed. This loss of a view is considered reasonable given the height of the building as modified would be well below the applicable maximum and the retention of a view over the traditional building zone of a property cannot be guaranteed.

 

8.26   Privacy 

 

The proposed dwelling incorporates a rear verandah at ground floor level and open balcony over at first floor level. The balcony although setback 3.7m from the southern boundary and 4.7m from the northern boundary will have a capacity for privacy loss particularly for No 14 (to the south) and in this regard the proposed provision of a 1.8m high lattice screen is an appropriate response. The northern side has a greater boundary setback and given the existing vegetation, the potential loss of privacy from both the first floor balcony and rear staircase is likely to be within reasonable limits.

 

The proposed window openings on the southern elevation at first floor level consist of the window to bedroom 3, the stairwell window and the window to the study. There is a potential for privacy loss from both the stairwell window and the study window, the latter being directly opposite the kitchens of the units of No14. The study window should be a highlight window and the stairwell window should comprise obscure/translucent glass.

 

The windows on the northern side at first floor level consist of windows to bedrooms 1 and 2, a window to the rumpus room and windows to the ensuite and bathroom. The latter two windows should be of obscure glass. The window as proposed to the rumpus room is considered satisfactory due to the setback of the building from the boundary (4.7m) and the existing trees/vegetation adjoining the northern site boundary. The external staircase to the rear yard is considered a reasonable expectation for the same reasons.

 

9.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been reviewed taking into account the reasons of the applicant in requesting the review. Contrary to the original assessment report and the objections received, the proposal does comply with both the maximum floor space ratio and height limit of Development Control Plan No 4- Dwelling Houses.

 

Subject to appropriate conditions requiring the lowering and partial further setback of the building from Bellevue Street, the level of overshadowing of No 14 Bellevue Street would  not comply with that envisaged by the DCP, but would be a reasonable compromise outcome. The proposal on balance and subject to the amendments outlined in this report is considered to be an acceptable development which satisfies most applicable Council requirements and may be approved subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council’s original determination of Development Application No.257/1999 dated 27 September 1999 for the proposal seeking to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a new two storey dwelling house with garage under at 12 Bellevue Street Maroubra be rescinded and the development application be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans designated Project No 312 NB/99 sheets 1 and 2 dated March 1999, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as amended by the following conditions:

 

2.       The overall height of the dwelling house is to be reduced by 1.03m, by:

 

(a)     reducing the pitch of the roof

(b)     reducing the internal ceiling heights

(c)     reducing the height of the semi basement garage level

(d)     reducing the height of the external walls of the building,

 

so that the maximum height of the building does not exceed 8.16m above natural ground level at any point and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

3.       The front (eastern) wall of the lounge room is to be setback to align with the front (eastern) wall of the first floor TV room and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

4.       The basement garage structure is to have a minimum setback from Bellevue Street of 4.6m and the concrete slab and handrail over is not to encroach on that setback by more than 150mm. Details are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

5.       A lattice (or similar)privacy screen having a height of at least 1.6m is to be provided to the sides (not rear) of the first floor rear balcony and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.    

 

6.       The sill height of the study at first floor level is to be a minimum of 1.5m and the windows to the southern stairwell and ensuite and bathroom on the northern elevation are to be provided with obscure glazing. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans

 

7.       The following security deposits requirements are 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 and defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)       $600.00    -           Security damage deposit

 

The security may be provided by way of a monetary deposit with the Council or a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of Council.

 

If the applicant chooses to provide a bank guarantee as a deposit, the guarantee must not specify any time limitations on the operation of the guarantee.

 

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:

 

8.       There must be no encroachment of the building/s onto the adjoining premises of Council’s road reserve/footway, including any associated roof guttering or footings.

 

9.       Where access is required to adjoining premises for construction purposes, the written consent of the owner/s of the subject adjoining premises must be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Planning and City Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to carrying out any construction works from or upon the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

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

 

12.     No cooking facilities or sanitary fittings other than those indicated on the approved plans are to be installed in the premises without the prior written consent of the Council.

 

13.     The provisions of Councils tree preservation order are strictly to be observed and it is a requirement that the applicant or their representative obtain any necessary consent required under the tree preservation order.

 

          Should compliance require amendment to the plan an amended development application is required to be submitted for consideration and approval prior to work commencing.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate provisions for vehicular access and parking is provided to the site and to ensure compliance with Council’s Policies and Codes:

 

14.     All crossings, repairs and ancillary works on the footway and roadway are to be carried out by the Council and the cost borne by the applicant.

 

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

 

15.     Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit and details are to be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

          Details of any works carried out in or on a public place road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of Environmental Planning and City Development Services prior to commencement of works.

 

16.     The internal floor level of the building is required to be a minimum of:

 

§  150mm above the level of the external finished surface adjacent to the building or,

§  100mm above sandy, well drained areas, or,

§  50mm above the level of an external paved or slab level adjacent to the building, which is graded not less than 50mm over the first 1m away from the building.

 

          and details are to be provided in the plans for the construction certificate

 

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

 

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

 

18.     There are to be no discharges from the premises, which will give rise to an offence under the Clean Waters Act 1970 and Regulations.

 

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

 

19.     All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (B.C.A.), in accordance with Clause 78A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.

 

20.     In accordance with clause 78C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994, building work that involves residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act, 1989) must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority:

 

a.       in the case of work to be done by a licensed contractor:

 

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

ii.       is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the requirements of Part 6 of that Act (in relation to insurance policies), or

 

b.       in the case of work to be done by any other person;

 

§  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 standard form 7 notice, a blank copy of which is available from Council.

 

21.     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, in accordance with clause 78D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.

 

22.     Retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil, must be provided if the soil conditions require it and adequate provisions made for drainage, in accordance with clause 78E of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.

 

23.     In accordance with clause 78G of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994:

 

§  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.

 

24.     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.

 

25.     Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site, 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 designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of clause 78I of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994, and be installed before any other work is commenced.

 

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:

 

26.     A copy of the construction certificate and the approved plans and specifications must be kept on the site at all times and be available to the Council officers upon request.

 

27.     The building works are to be inspected during construction, 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. In relation to developments in which the Council is the principal certifying authority, inspections are to encompass the following stages of construction:

 

a.       Foundations/footings

b.       Floor, wall and roof timber

c.       Installation of smoke detection and alarm systems

d.       Stormwater drainage

e.       Finalisation of works

 

          Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant standards of construction is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

28.     Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified person, detailing compliance with Council’s development consent and relevant standards of construction is to be provided to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority prior to occupation of the development, for the following matters:-

 

a.       Termite protection

b.       Waterproofing of wet areas

c.       Installation of glazing

d.       Installation of smoke alarm systems

 

          A copy of the documentary evidence is to be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

29.     Prior to occupation of the new building work, an occupation certificate under Part 4A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, must be obtained from the Council, if the Council is the principal certifying authority for the development.

 

30.     Building and demolition works must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive, and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and public holidays.

 

31.     Building materials, sand, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or verge at any time.

 

32.     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or verge at any time without the prior written consent of the Council, unless exempt under Councils Local Approvals Policy.

 

33.     During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for the Management of Urban Stormwater for construction Activities, published by the Environment Protection Authority (E.P.A.).

 

34.     A warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed in a prominent position on the building site, visible to both the street 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.

 

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

 

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

 

36.     A temporary hoarding or fence is to be provided 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) and the hoarding /. Fence is to installed prior to commencing any works on the site and be maintained throughout construction.

 

          Hoardings or fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of solid plywood sheeting (painted white) or of cyclone wire fencing with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence, to provide dust control.

 

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

 

37.     Temporary hoardings or fences are required to be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.       Hoardings and fences are not to obstruct access for services including fire services.

b.       A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges.

c.       A stable and level, non-slip timber/metal walking platform or firm road base material is to be provided adjacent to the hoarding/fence across the front of the site, to maintain an unobstructed and suitable footway for pedestrians at all times.

d.       The hoarding/fence must be constructed so that it will not obstruct the view of motorists, pedestrians or traffic lights.

e.       Access gates to the site shall not open over the footway/road.

f.        The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $10 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council prior to the construction of any hoarding/fence upon the road reserve/footway.

 

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

 

38.     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 to be located in ‘dead-air spaces’, in the corner junction of walls and ceilings between exposed rafters/joists or at the apex of raked ceilings, as detailed in Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

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

 

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

 

39.     The applicant shall meet the cost for Council to remove the existing concrete strips in Bellevue Street and to construct a full width residential vehicular crossing and extended layback opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

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

 

40.     The design alignment level shall be 0.10 metres above the top of the kerb opposite at all points along the Bellevue Street site frontage.

 

41.     The above alignment levels have been issued by Council’s Department of Engineering Services at a prescribed fee of $55.00. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

42.     The design alignment level at the street boundary shall be strictly adhered to.

 

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

 

43.     All site stormwater must be discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter or drainage system at the front of the property.

 

44.     A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided within the site at the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system.

 

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

 

45.     Approval is granted for the removal/relocation of the Cocos Palm Tree located on the south-west side boundary of the site.

 

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

 

46.     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.

 

47.     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.

 

Advisory Matters:

 

1.       A separate local Approval Application will be required to be submitted to and approved by Council in relation to any proposed; materials or waste containers located in a public place; hoisting or use of a crane over a footway and installation of temporary structures, in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

 

2.       All building, plumbing and drainage work is required to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

3.       The applicant, owner and builder is advised to ensure that the relevant requirements of WorkCover New South Wales are complied with, in relation to occupational health and safety, including the handling of hazardous materials. Further information can be obtained from the WorkCover New South Wales 400 Kent Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000 or telephone 9370 5000 or 13 10 50.

 

4.       Full details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia and relevant standards of construction are to be submitted with an application for a Construction Certificate including:-

 

a)       detailed architectural plans and building specifications

b)      structural engineering plans and specifications

c)       timber framing construction details, including any beams or columns

d)      stormwater drainage plans/details

e)       details of termite protection measures

f)       details of glazing and compliance with AS 1288 – 1994

g)       wet area construction details

h)       details of smoke alarms

i)        sediment and erosion control details

j)       balustrade details

 

5.       The plans and specifications must contain specific references to the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and relevant standards of construction (i.e. Australian Standard references), that are to be complied with.

 

6.       Any approval for fences on side boundaries common to other private properties is independent of any consent or agreement which may be required of any adjoining owner under the provisions of the Dividing Fences Act and you are advised to consult with the owners of the adjoining premises in this regard.

 

7.       This approval has no effect on and is independent of any necessary consents and approvals required from adjoining owners, regarding access, disturbances and making good of adjoining structures and further, this approval is not an approval for any work to be carried out on the adjoining property without the consent of adjoining owners.

 

          Such approval from the owners of the adjoining premises should be obtained regarding party walls and roof construction or any other building works on or adjacent to the site boundaries.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configurations

Delegated Report of 22 September 1999 (under separate cover) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

BILL OBRIEN

IAN BURKE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 





 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

20 June, 2005

FILE NO:

D0249/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2)  Modification to alter the roof pitch of the approved hobby room from 30 degrees to 45 degrees.

PROPERTY:

 87 Mawson Parade, Chifley

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Archman Design Services

OWNER:

 Mr D Muller and Ms R Melov

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, John Procopiadis, Alan White.

 

The original application sought approval for the replacement of the flat roof of an existing hobby room with a new 30 degree pitch roof and was approved on 3 May 2005.

 

The current Section 96 application seeks consent to modify the roof pitch of the hobby room from 30 degrees to 45 degrees, to provide additional privacy to the residents at No. 87 Mawson Parade.

 

The primary issue for consideration is whether the proposed 45 degrees roof pitch will result in any significant additional adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwelling at No. 85 Mawson Parade.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent to modify the roof pitch of the hobby room at the rear of the subject site from 30 degrees to 45 degrees.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Mawson Parade in Chifley and is presently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling being part of the existing attached dual occupancy with an existing outbuilding (hobby room) at the rear of the subject property.

 

Neighbouring the property to the north is a two storey attached dual occupancy currently under construction, to the south and rear are single storey dwellings. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of one and two storey dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 249/2005 was received by Council on 8 April 2005 for the replacement of the old roof of the existing outbuilding with new gable roof at a roof pitch of 30 degrees. This application was approved under delegated authority on 3 May 2005.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submission was received:

 

 

 

5.1     Objections

 

Mr and Mrs P Ross of 85 Mawson Parade, Chifley

 

Issue

Comment

A 45 degree pitched roof would have an impact on the natural light within the living area. It would create a very dark room that would need internal lighting on during the day and will create the perfect environment for mildew.

This issue has been addressed in Section 8.1 of this report.  

To raise the roof pitch from 30 degrees to 45 degrees would not provide any more privacy, as the 30 degree pitch roof already blocks the view from the ground floor windows.

The proposed 45 degree pitch roof will not increase the privacy of the dwellings at Nos. 87 from the ground floor windows of No. 85.

 

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

 

6.1     Policy Controls

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

 

7.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

7.1     Substantially the same

 

The proposed modification to the original development is considered to represents substantially the same development as originally approved.

 

7.2     Consideration of submissions

 

The issues raised by the objector have been addressed in Section 5.1 of this report.

 

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

 

In terms of daylight to the existing ground floor windows of No. 85 Mawson Parade, the hobby room has a maximum external wall height of 2.5m and is setback approximately 2.08m from the southern wall of dwelling at No. 85, thereby providing sufficient separation to ensure adequate daylight is received.

 

9.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development and will not result in any additional adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings. It is recommended that this application be approved.

 

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. 249/2005 by altering the roof pitch of the hobby room from 30 degrees to 45 degrees on property at 87 Mawson Parade, Chifley, in the following manner:

 

·           Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans designated drawing No 05/012-1 Job No 05/012, dated 20.03.05 and received by Council on 8 April 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, and unless modified by the Section 96 application ‘A’ plan numbered 05/012-1s96, dated 17.05.05 and received by Council on 20 May 2005, only in so far as they relate to the modification highlighted on the Section 96 plan 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:

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 configuration plans

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

FRANK KO

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

14 June, 2005

FILE NO:

00007/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a new three storey multi unit housing development comprising five residential units (5 x 2 bedrooms) with basement parking for 6 vehicles

PROPERTY:

 5 Little Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Theo Lucas

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic, Ted Seng.

 

The application is for erection of a multi-unit housing development containing 5 units and parking for 7 vehicles.  The development is not permissible in the zone and is relying on existing use rights.  On the basis of a merit assessment of the proposal, it is considered that the development is not compatible with its surroundings and will have adverse amenity impacts on the streetscape and the adjoining properties.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for an additional 2 bedroom unit above the existing approved 2-storey residential flat building resulting in 5 x 2 bed room units. The proposed unit contains a dining/living area that opens onto a rear deck/balcony. An additional parking space is proposed, increasing the number of spaces from six to seven and the garbage storage area is relocated from the rear southern side to the northern side.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Little Street between Nicol Avenue and Duncan Street approximately 700 metres west of Maroubra Beach. The site has a frontage of 15.24metres, a depth of 29.87metres and site area of 455.22 square metres. The site slopes from the street down to the rear and across the slope from north to south. The diagonal slope from the north-west corner down to the southeast corner is approximately 4.8 metres.  The site contains a basement level carpark and ground level apartments under construction (as approved under DA 865/99).  Figure 1 shows a current aerial view of the subject site and its surroundings, and Figure 2 shows the subject site and the residential flat building that formerly occupied the site.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of dwelling houses but with some residential flat buildings.  The adjoining property to the north is improved with a two-storey detached dwelling house; the adjoining site to the south is improved with a single storey detached dwelling house; the adjoining site to the east is improved with a pair of semi-detached dwelling houses, one of which has had a first floor addition; and the sites to the west (on the other side of Little Street) are improved with detached dwelling houses.  The nearest residential flat buildings are located at No.13 Little Street (to the south of the subject site), No.432 Malabar Road (to the north of the subject site) and No.436 Malabar Road (to the immediate northeast of the subject site).  Figures 3 to 6 show the surrounding development.

Figure 1: The subject site and its surroundings

Figure 2: The subject site and the former residential flat building that occupied the site

 

Figure 3: The subject site and surroundings

 

Figure 4: Looking south along Little Street showing site at mid-left

 

Figure 5: Looking southwest along Little Street, opposite the subject site

 

Figure 6: Looking northwest along Little Street from the subject site

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

DA – 0865/99 was for the demolition of the existing residential flat building and garage and construction of a new multi unit housing development containing four dwellings over two levels with basement car parking for six vehicles. Council refused the application on 01/12/1999 for several reasons including that existing use rights had not been established, the proposal was inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the 2A zone, the proposal would have a detrimental impact to adjacent properties by way of privacy loss, overshadowing, and visual bulk and scale, the floor space ratio and wall height did not comply with the LEP, the proposal did not comply with parking requirements and the proposal constituted an overdevelopment.

 

A Section 82A review application was submitted on 29 December 1999. A letter from the applicant’s solicitors was submitted with respect to existing use rights with the application. The proposal was again refused on 15 August 2000 for the same reasons except that it was established that existing use rights pertained to the site and that reason for refusal was deleted.

 

An appeal was lodged in the Land and Environment Court and the matter went to call over on 29 November 2000.

 

Amended plans together with reports from Planning Collaborative and Christopher Stapleton were conveyed to Council by Council’s Solicitors on 21 February 2001 and it was agreed that informal mediation, and if necessary formal mediation would be undertaken between the parties and involving the two objectors at 438 and 440 Malabar Road. Following discussion between the parties, the plans were amended. A report was prepared under delegated authority by Council Officers recommending approval of the application on 4 June 2001.

 

Consent orders were issued by the Land and Environment Court on 13 June 2001.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification on 27 January 2005. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1     Objections

 

Harry Malone

7 Little Street

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        3 storeys would block sunlight to the rear yard during the winter months,

·        Little street is mall/narrow and parking is limited. The proposal will compound this problem,

·        As a 50 year resident of the dwelling, the residents do not wish to spend their twilight years in the shadow of a building.

 

Pamela Evans

12 Little Street,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Suspicious that the intent was always for three levels, if this were the case we would have objected originally.

·        No increase in car parking space as this has already been completed.

·        Major on street parking problem already which will be majorly exacerbated.

·        The proposal will be visually ugly.

 

John and Mary Malone

Little Street

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        No shadow diagrams indicating impact to neighbours.

·        Loss of amenity to adjacent properties.

·        Privacy impacts to all sides generated by the upper level.

·        Size, bulk and scale are out of keeping with the low density dwellings nearby resulting in a break in the streetscape.

·        Setbacks do not comply with requirements.

·        The additional unit will cause traffic impacts in the street and parking problems.

·        Increase in FSR is not permitted under Council guidelines.

 

Hari and Vebna Kishan

PO Box 99

Round Corner NSW 2158

 

·        Proposal will block views of the water due to its height,

·        Increased traffic flow in Nicol Ave and Little Street affecting safety in the area,

·        Devaluation of surrounding properties.

 

Arthur Mezups

444 Malabar Road

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Council’s notification has been received after substantial building has occurred. Is this an amendment or a notification? If ti is a notification, why is it at such a late stage,

·        The current construction already obscures the amount of light available to adjacent properties.

 

H Eriksson

6 Little Street

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Severe impact on parking in the street,

·        Streetscape will look out of place,

·        Overshadowing to adjacent properties will be huge,

·        FSR, does this exist?

·        No RL marked for roof.

 

A Fitzgerald & Lee Miller,

14 Little Street,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        No increase in parking. This will aggravate street parking problem,

·        Building will be visually ugly and is not in keeping with the size, scale and bulk of the street,

·        Shadow diagrams do not show impact to adjacent properties,

·        Developer always intended to build three storeys, this is sneaky.

 

Patricia Garvie

2/417B Maroubra Rd,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Overall impact of development in terms of shadow, amenity and quality of life to residents that have live next to the property for over 50 years.

 

Paul Mason and Christina Alvarez

438 Malabar Rd

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        The proposal is four storeys as the basement carpark is largely above ground at the rear. This would have major impacts to the properties at the rear in terms of bulk, scale, height, privacy, and overshadowing,

·        No rear planting as proposed under the original application, this would result in privacy impacts,

·        Lack of details in new plans.

 

G R Wilson

26 Rose St

Ashfield NSW 2131 (owner of unit 2/6 Little Street).

 

·        Traffic load in the street, accident potential, parking problems in already overcrowded street.

·        Character of the street, the proposal is not in keeping with the street.

 

Catherine Malone

7 Little Street,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Overshadowing impacts to adjacent properties,

·        Not consistent with 2A zoning,

 

Pam Mezups

444 Malabar Rd,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Major impact on visual and acoustic privacy,

·        Loss of privacy,

·        Significant overshadowing impacts,

·        Noise impact from cars using proposed carpark.

 

Mark, Kim and Jordon England

442 Malabar Road,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Insufficient information to assess the application,

·        Floor space exceeds allowable by 40%,

·        Exceeds 9.5m height limit,

·        Exceeds maximum number of floors,

·        Setbacks are over allowable limits.

 

Nick Simitzis & Emma Nelson

440 Malabar Road,

Maroubra

 

·        Increased overshadowing,

·        Privacy impacts from additional level which is close to boundary.

 

A petition objecting to the proposal was signed by 22 residents. The issues raised in the objections and residents names and addresses are provided below:

 

·        It will complicate parking problems,

·        No shadow diagrams submitted showing impact to neighbours,

·        Loss of amenity to nearby residents,

·        Sunlight non-existent  on nearby properties during winter,

·        Bulk and scale is out of keeping with landscape,

·        Setbacks, to the north and south do not conform with State and Council guidelines,

·        Why were plans submitted for 2 storeys when foundations were laid for three storeys,

·        Did developer consider it easy to manipulate residents and Council for their own benefit and not the residents or Council.

 

Name

Address

R.D.Evans

12 Little Street, Maroubra

K England

442 Malabar Rd, Maroubra

M England

442 Malabar Rd, Maroubra

Harry Malone

7 Little Street, Maroubra

Arthur Mezups

444 Malabar Rd, Maroubra

Pamela Mezups

444 Malabar Rd, Maroubra

Lester Hill

1 Little Street, Maroubra

Sonia Hill

“ “     “ “

Eva Bienkowski

9 Little Street, Maroubra

Martin Bienkowski

“ “    “ “

Anne Fitzgerald

14 Little Street, Maroubra

Peter Garamy

18 Little Street, Maroubra

Samantha Horsell

20 Little Street, Maroubra

Michael Carlin

142 Duncan St, Maroubra

Maureen Finemore

“ “

Lynette Fraser

434 Malabar Rd, Maroubra

Michael Fraser

“ “

Hans Eriksson

1/6 Little Street, Maroubra

Christine Gregory

8 Little Street, Maroubra

Irene Paul

8 Little Street, Maroubra

Christina Alvarez

438 Malabar Rd, Maroubra

Kristine Supierz

10 Little Street, Maroubra

 

Amended plans were received on 16 May 2005 providing shadow diagrams and additional information not supplied in the original application. The upper level was altered by reducing the number of bedrooms from three to two and cutting back the proposal on the sides and to the rear as well as introducing a roof element at the rear.

 

These amended plans were notified and advertised for a period of 14 days from 1 June 2005 and height poles erected indicating the proposed height. The following objections were received:

 

Harry Malone

7 Little Street

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Increased overshadowing will affect adjacent properties,

·        Loss of amenity to adjacent properties,

·        Privacy impact and intrusion to adjacent properties on all sides,

·        Size, scale and bulk of proposal is out of keeping with the immediate and surrounding homes causing a break in streetscape,

·        The set back distances to the boundaries at the north and south of the development does not comply with Council requirements for residential areas,

·        Impacts to traffic in the street causing congestion and additional parking problems.

 

Catherine Malone

7 Little Street

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        The development will cause overshadowing of ling areas which have had solar access in the past,

·        Overlooking directly into the objector’s living room,

·        The scale of the building will remove any view of the skyline,

·        The development will add to parking problems,

·        The development will be out of context with the development in the area which is mainly cottages.

 

Carolyn Supierz

10 Little Street,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Concerns at the amount of car parking applied for in respect of the development,

·        The amended plans are not really any different from the original plans,

·        The foundation strength is questionable for a development of the proposed size.

Paul Mason and Christina Alvarez

438 Malabar Road,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        Shadow diagrams do not show elevational impact to buildings,

·        No height poles erected,

·        FSR 1.02:1 exceeds requirement by 40%,

·        Building exceeds 9.5m height limit,

·        Large rear balcony will impact adjacent residents,

·        The proposal is a fourth storey given the basement carpark is above ground at the rear,

·        Proposal to remove rear planting result in adverse impacts to neighbours in terms of privacy,

·        Proposal should be rejected and the original application

 

Arthur Mezups

44 Malabar Road,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        The development obstructs sky views,

·        The development is excessive with a fourth floor.

 

Mark and Kim England

442 Malabar Road,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        The development application is incomplete in respect of accurate show diagrams,

·        The previously approved building was in keeping with the scale of the former building on the site but this one is not,

·        The development exceeds the 9.5 metre height limit,

·        Dominant visual impact,

·        The balcony at the rear will look into the private outdoor and indoor areas of the objector’s dwelling.

 

Pam Mezups

444 Malabar Road,

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        The amended plans make little difference,

·        The new construction is much greater in scale and exceeds the limits of existing use rights,

·        Acoustic and visual privacy impacts,

·        Extensive overshadowing,

·        The development will be visible as four levels from the rear,

·        Cars using the driveway will impact on peach and quiet.

 

Nick Simitzis

440 Malabar Road

Maroubra NSW 2035

 

·        The proposed development does not comply with provisions of the DCP for Multi-Unit Housing.

 

5.2     Comments on Objections

 

Essentially, the objectors’ concerns are centralised around the issues of overshadowing, parking and traffic, streetscape appearance, bulk/scale/FSR, overlooking, setbacks and loss of views. 

 

In respect of traffic and parking, the proposed development provides the required number of parking spaces for the proposed number of units and is unlikely to increase traffic in the area that would result in adverse impacts.

 

Regarding views loss, the proposed development may have some impact, particularly, to properties on the other side of Little Street.  However, it is noted that this objection may have been motivated by the fact that the demolition of the former building has opened a view corridor to the ocean that previously did not exist.

 

The other issues raised are addressed in the assessment section 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:-

 

Director of Assets and Infrastructure

 

The application was referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure for comment.  No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval.  The following comments were made:

 

Landscape Comments

There are no existing trees at this site or adjoining properties which are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order that will be affected by this application.

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The DPCD is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the AIS Department has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required submit detailed drainage plans to the PCA for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Waste Management Comments

 

It is noted that the garbage room shown on the ground floor plans has not been included in the northern elevation. As such the DPCD is to determine if this garbage room is covered. Should the garbage room not be covered condition 37 requiring the area to be graded and drained to the sewer should be deleted.

 

Traffic Comments

 

It is noted that this application has been assessed in accordance with the new Service Level Agreement between the Development Assessment section, and the Asset & Infrastructure Services Department. The DPCD should ensure the proposed parking provisions are adequate. The DPCD should ensure that all internal driveway gradients are designed (including transitions) in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004).

 

For medium density developments (i.e. less than 20 units)

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 5 residential units will be in the range of 20 to 25 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 2.5 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Little Street as a result of this development.

 

Carwash Bay

 

One covered car washing bay shall be provided for this development. The AIS Department does not object to a visitor space being used for this purpose, so long as it is signposted for use accordingly

 

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 Little Street frontage must be 3.5 metres wide and located at least 0.5 metres clear of the side property. It is considered that the provision of a 3.0 metre driveway (with minimum 300mm wide kerbs on either side) would be adequate. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement

 

Carpark Layout

 

The DPCD is to determine whether visitors’ vehicles can turn around within the carpark and leave in a forwards direction, should all parking spaces including the visitor’s space be occupied.

 

The DPCD is to determine whether the internal driveway gradients comply with Council's DCP - Parking.

 

Driveway gradients are to be in accordance with AS 2870.1 – 1994 including all transitions.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

§  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998; and

 

§  State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is prohibited in the zone.   The application is made on the basis of existing use rights on the site.  In this respect, a residential flat building existed on the site previously that contained four units (see Figure 2 for siting of the former building on the site), which was erected circa 1940s.  Therefore, pursuant to Section 106 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the development has ‘existing use’ rights.

 

In applications involving existing use rights, the provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments do not apply, and assessment is merit based.  However, to appreciate the development limitations of land in the immediate surrounding area (and on the subject site if it were not for the existing use situation), it is considered appropriate to undertake an assessment of the application under the statutory provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, which will be used as a guide in the context of a merit assessment.

 

The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 are relevant for assessment purposes:-

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscape Area

40%

38%

No

32 - FSR

0.5:1

0.9:1

No

33 - Building Height

7.0 wall height

9.5 metre overall

North max:

9.5 metres (wall and overall)

South max:

10.3 metres (wall and overall)

No

 

It is evident from the above table that the proposed building is well above the scale of development that would be permitted on land zoned 2A.

 

In respect of landscaped area, the proposed development does not meet the minimum requirement for the 2A zone, as identified above.  The former development on the site had a landscaped area of 50% and the approved development (DA 0865/99) has a landscaped area of 43%.  Therefore, the subject development is proposing a reduction in landscaped area by 24%, of the former building on the site, and a reduction in landscaped area by about 12%, of the approved development.  The reduction is a result of the much greater building footprint created by the proposed development.  The former building footprint can be seen at Figure 2 and shows that the front and rear building alignment was generally in accordance with those on adjoining sites.  The proposed building footprint, however, is extended to within 4 metres of the rear boundary and 3 metres to the front boundary.

 

In respect of floor space ratio, the development is above the permissible FSR for the 2A zone.  It is proposed with a floor space ratio that reaches the limit permitted on land Residential 2C.  This alone demonstrates that the development is excessive for the site.

 

The former development on the site had a floor space ratio of about 0.72:1 and the approved development on the site has a FSR of 0.756:1.  Therefore, the subject development is proposing to increase the size of the built form on site by 20%, over the former building on the site, and 16%, over the approved development on the site. 

 

In respect of building height, the proposed development exceeds the external wall height provision by up to 3.3.  The former development on the site had a maximum external wall height of 9.2 metres and the approved development has a maximum external wall height of 7.9 metres.  Therefore, the proposed development is about 10% greater in wall height than the former development on the site and about 23% greater than the maximum external wall height of the approved development on the site.

 

The above demonstrates that not only is the proposed development inconsistent with the numerical provisions of LEP 1998 in respect of development in the 2A zone, but it is a considerably more intense development than the former building that existed on the site or the approved development on the site.  This will result in a development that is inconsistent with its immediate surroundings and will have substantial adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties and the streetscape.  Those impacts are discussed later in this report.

 

The proposed development is also considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of the Residential 2A zone.  The relevant objectives and an assessment against them follows in the paragraphs below.

 

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

 

As described earlier, the surrounding area consists predominantly of dwelling houses but with some residential flat buildings.  All immediately adjoining properties are developed with dwelling houses.  The nearest residential flat buildings are located at No.13 Little Street (to the south of the subject site), No.432 Malabar Road (to the north of the subject site) and No.436 Malabar Road (to the immediate northeast of the subject site).  Apart from those isolated residential flat buildings in the surrounding area, it is evident from an analysis of the area that is predominantly low intensity type development consisting of dwelling houses, both one and two storeys in height. (Due to the topography on the adjoining sites each dwelling on those sites appears to have an additional level when viewed from the rear).

 

At some point Council has made a decision to zone the subject site and the surrounding land Residential 2A in order to preserve the low scale nature of the area and restrict development so that it is compatible with that predominant existing scale.  The proposed development will be inconsistent with that vision for the area.  Having a street presentation of three storeys and a rear presentation of four storeys, it will be inconsistent with the one and two storey streetscape in the immediate vicinity of the site that is characteristic of the 2A zone.

 

On this basis, the development is considered to be inconsistent with the above objective, in that it will act to maintain the character of the area.

 

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

 

The proposed development does not comprise any of the abovestated building forms, as it is relying on existing use rights.  However, the essence of the objective is that development should not compromise amenity and is to be consistent with the predominant character of its surroundings.

 

As discussed above, it is considered that the development is not consistent with its surroundings in terms of dominant character.  This is because it will be of a form and scale that is excessive in its surroundings.  That form and scale will also result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties and the streetscape.  In terms of adjoining properties, the development will have overlooking and overshadowing impacts as well as visual impacts in that it will present as an overbearing building bulk.  These impacts are discussed in detail later in this report.

 

In terms of streetscape impact, the development will appear incongruous with the dominant character of its immediate surroundings.  This is due to the fact that it will have three storeys instead of two storeys which is the maximum that exists in the immediate vicinity along the street.  It is also due to the fact that the development has a flat roof in an area that contains buildings almost all of which have pitched roofs.  It is expected that the flat roof form has been adopted in order to reduce the overall scale of the building.  If the building were to include a hipped or pitched roof it would result in a development of an even more substantial presence to the street. 

 

For the reasons stated above, it is considered that the development is inconsistent with the above objective in that it will have adverse impacts in terms of amenity on the existing development and character of the area.

 

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 -

 

The SEPP 65 Panel has made the following comments in respect of the application:

 

The Panel notes that construction of this proposal is well underway and the applicant has submitted a new DA for consideration.  This is the second time the Panel has reviewed the application.  The first review in February 2005 was for a Section 96 Application.

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

No convincing argument for extra height is evident in the drawings and documentation provided.   Shadow diagrams have to be provided to show the shadows from adjoining properties as well as demonstrating the new shadow impacts that will occur on the neighbouring properties.

 

The extra height being sought is not supported by the Panel as it will have negative impacts on surrounding properties and is generally out of context and scale with the predominant character of this narrow  street.

         

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The proposed FSR is well above that permissible.  The current application does not display sufficient design merit to warrant any floor space over that permissible.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The position of the stair and garbage room precludes opportunities to optimise the northerly aspect and create bulk close to the neighbouring property.

 

The entry would have been better located on the southern side of the development as this would have enabled consolidation of landscaped area to the entry and driveway and reduce the impact of the driveway on neighbouring property.

 

Ventilation to the car park level is shown on plan and section but is not indicated on the elevations.

 

The gutters and downpipes to the balcony roofs are not sufficiently documented and could potentially be unresolved and unsightly.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

Any argument for increased density needs to be supported by excellent urban design, appropriate response to the context, high quality architectural and landscape design, good amenity to all dwellings and reasonable impacts on neighbours.

 

The proposal is well over the 0.65:1 FSR and the Panel does not consider that there is justification for any increased floor area.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The sun shading strategies need to be developed in direct response to aspect of each elevation.  Weather protection to the south and sun shading to the north should also be included.  Western bedroom windows will need sun shading.

 

Water retention for garden watering should be considered.

 

The roof design could be reconsidered to improve day lighting to the centre of the top floor apartment.

 

Ceiling fans should be provided in bedrooms.

 

Window types to living rooms should be reconsidered to allow ventilation in different weather conditions.  Bi-fold doors alone do not provide enough means to moderate or direct the breezes through the interiors.

 

The roof slab will require foam insulation covered with pebble ballast to provide effective thermal comfort to the top floor apartment.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

A landscape design by a qualified Landscape Architect is required.

 

Planting should be used to reduce the impact of the driveway.

 

Planting should be provided on the west to assist in creating privacy and sun shading to the living rooms facing the street.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

Although there have been some planning changes made since the Section 96 Plans the internal apartment layouts are generally in need of improvement.

 

Bathroom sizes and layouts are poor. Some of the kitchen sizes and layouts are poor

 

The location of the garbage room is poor.  It impacts on the ability of the ground floor apartment to open to the north (extremely desirable in winter) and also forces all apartment occupants to walk past the dining window of that apartment.

 

Floor to ceiling heights of 2700 mm are required by SEPP 65.

 

8        The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The treatment of windows with regard to fire separation within 3000 of the boundary needs to be clarified.

 

Windows and doors to ground floor apartments should be designed to allow good cross ventilation when locked, ie the use of louvres or other window types that allow ventilation whilst providing security, should be considered.

 

9.       Social issues

 

Ground floor apartments could be considered as adaptable apartments.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The aesthetics of the proposal are undeveloped and should be reconsidered to address climate and privacy issues as well as context and proximity. The proposal needs to increase amenity and contribute to a good quality streetscape.

 

A photomontage and information on detail, colour and materials is required to be submitted with the DA.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

In order to comply with the requirements of SEPP 65 this proposal needs much further development and quality of design.  The portions of the building that are already constructed do not meet the requirements of the SEPP, therefore any new proposal needs to incorporate the repair and upgrading of those areas.  The Panel recommends that the scheme be redesigned to address all the concerns listed above.

 

The Panel considers that the current application fails to meet the required standards and principles under SEPP 65 and requires significant modification in terms of the issues addressed in this report before any consent could be recommended.

 

Apart from these issues the Panel is compelled to comment on the poor quality of the drawings.  The number of anomalies such as the extent of the roofs, the height and design of the roofs, the position of the basement ventilation louvres, the posts to the balconies, the height of the wall around car space 6, the height of the south east wall on the ground floor plan, the bin enclosure, the entry planter, size and location of windows etc. display either a lack of skill or care.

 

Despite exemption from SEPP 65 due to existing use rights on the site, it is evident from the comments received from the panel above that the development is deficient in terms of its design and the amenity that it will provide for its occupants.  The panel has also opined that the development is inconsistent with its surroundings.

 

8.       EXISTING USE RIGHTS

 

The Land and Environment Court has established a planning principle which sets out the criteria for the assessment of proposals on land with existing use rights.  They are listed below[1] along with an assessment of the proposal against them.

 

§  How do the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to what is permissible on surrounding sites?

 

While planning controls, such as height, floor space ratio and setbacks do not apply to sites with existing use rights; they have relevance to the assessment of applications on such sites. This is because the controls apply to surrounding sites and indicate the kind of development that can be expected if and when surrounding sites are redeveloped. The relationship of new development to its existing and likely future context is a matter to be considered in all planning assessment.

As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed building will have less than the required amount of landscaping, more than the permitted FSR and be greater in height than is permissible under the LEP for development in the Residential 2A zone.  It is important to note that Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies allows for erection of a dwelling house in the 2A zone to a maximum of 0.65:1.  The proposed development has a FSR of 0.9:1.  Therefore, it will be considerably greater than any permissible form of development on any of the immediately adjoining sites and any others in the area that currently contain a single dwelling.  Given that the area is predominantly occupied by single dwellings, the proposed development will be inconsistent with its surroundings.

 

§  What is the relevance of the building in which the existing takes place?

 

Where an existing building is proposed for demolition, while its bulk is clearly an important consideration, there is no automatic entitlement to another building of the same floor space ratio, height or parking provision.

 

Although a non-conforming use in the zone, the residential flat building that formerly existed on the site was more modest in terms of scale.  When compared to the proposed development, it had a lesser FSR, a lesser external wall height, provided more landscaping and had a better relationship to the adjoining properties in terms of front and rear setbacks.  That aside, it is considered that any proposal to intensify an existing use should not result in greater adverse amenity impacts that are directly attributable to the proposed development.  In this respect, the proposed development results in significant additional adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties.  These amenity impacts are discussed later in this report.

 

§  What are the impacts on adjoining land?

 

The impact on adjoining land should be assessed as it is assessed for all development. It is true that where, for example, a development control plan requires three hours of sunlight to be maintained in adjoining rear yards, the numerical control does not apply. However, the overshadowing impact on adjoining rear yards should be reasonable.

 

The proposed development will have impacts in respect of overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk and streetscape.  Each of these impacts are considered to be more significant than those that would have been created by the former building on the site or the approved development on the site.  These matters are discussed later in this report.

 

§  What is the internal amenity?

 

Internal amenity must be assessed as it is assessed for all development. Again, numerical requirements for sunlight access or private open space do not apply, but these and other aspects must be judged acceptable as a matter of good planning and design. None of the legal principles discussed above suggests that development on sites with existing use rights may have lower amenity than development generally.

 

As identified earlier, the SEPP 65 Panel undertook an assessment of the design principles of the development.  In terms of internal amenity, the Panel stated as follows:

 

Although there have been some planning changes made since the Section 96 Plans the internal apartment layouts are generally in need of improvement.

 

Bathroom sizes and layouts are poor. Some of the kitchen sizes and layouts are poor.

 

The location of the garbage room is poor.  It impacts on the ability of the ground floor apartment to open to the north (extremely desirable in winter) and also forces all apartment occupants to walk past the dining window of that apartment.

Floor to ceiling heights of 2700 mm are required by SEPP 65.

 

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     Overshadowing

 

The proposed development will have overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties to the south and southeast (No.7 Little Street and No.442 and 444 Malabar Road).  In terms of the impact on No.7, the additional shadowing (greater than created by the former building on the site or the approved development on the site) will have the greatest impact on the area of private open space (see Figure 6) between 9am and noon.  It is noted that in the afternoon that area is in total shadow.  On that basis, apart from filtered solar access though the existing trees from 9am to about 11am, that courtyard would receive almost no solar access throughout the day during mid-winder period.

 

Figure 7: The rear yard area of No.7 Little Street as seen from the subject site

 

The proposal will also have overshadowing impacts on the rear yard areas of No.442 and 444 Malabar Road.  The shadow diagrams submitted do not accurately indicate the allotments boundaries.  However, based on an assessment of the shadows and likely location of the boundaries, it is considered that the rear yard area of No.444 Malabar Road (see Figure 7) is likely to receive less than 3 hours of sunlight during mid-winter. No.442 Malabar Road will most likely receive some solar access on, at least, part of its yard between about 10am and 1pm.

 

Figure 8: The rear courtyard areas of No.442 (foreground) and No.444 Malabar Road

 

9.2     Overlooking

 

The proposed development has minimal side openings and so there will be minimal adverse impact on the privacy of adjoining properties from any rooms that have openings on the northern and southern elevations. 

 

The greatest potential overlooking impact would be from the rear balconies and the rooms that have windows that face east.  The plans show that proposed development has been designed with the inclusion of planter boxes and screening devices to the rear elevation (which do not fully correlate with the northern and southern elevations diagrams) that may, if designed to prevent a direct line of sight into the rear yard areas of No.438 and 440 (see Figure 9), and 442 and 444 Malabar Road, prevent loss of privacy to those properties.  However, if that is to be the case, it is noted that the internal amenity of those dwellings at ground and first floor levels will be greatly compromised, as they will have minimal outlook and minimal access to natural light and solar access.  It is noted that those dwelling have limited northern exposure.

 

Figure 9: No.438 and 440 Malabar Road as viewed from the constructed first floor level on the subject site.

 

9.3     Streetscape

 

The proposed development is larger in overall scale than the approved development on the site and similar in scale to the former building on the site.  The approved development appears as two storeys in scale and its ridge is at RL 35.65.  The former building on the site also appeared as two-storeys to the street and the ridge of its hipped roof was at RL 37.77. The proposed development will appear to the street as three storeys and its parapet wall will be at 36.35. 

 

The former development on the site and the approved development on the site had a better streetscape presentation to the street because of two main reasons – they had a two storey appearance and they had hipped roofs.  The proposed development does not incorporate these elements and this will result in a building that will appear out of place in the streetscape.

 

9.4     Visual impact

 

The proposed development, although having essentially the same building footprint to the approved development, will have a greater visual impact when viewed from the streetscape and adjoining properties.  The proposal involves increasing the height of the building by another level which will have a greater overbearing visual impact on the neighbouring properties.  The scale of the development as it will be viewed from neighbouring properties can be partially understood at Figures 7 to 9 where pictures were taken from the constructed first floor level (the additional level is proposed).

 

From a streetscape point of view, the visual impact will be most significant in terms of its poor transition between the scale of the subject proposed development and that of the buildings on the adjoining sites, particularly No.7 Little Street which is single storey.  In that instance, the transition will be from a single storey building to a three storey building.  More than perpetuating the problem of existing incongruous scales of built form in the area, it worsens the problem as the proposed building is larger then either the former building on the site or the approved development on the site.

 

9.5     View loss

 

The proposed development is likely to have adverse impacts on views available from properties on the opposite side of the street from the subject site.  The view is over Maroubra and towards the beach and ocean. 

 

The proposed development is considerably larger in scale and height than the approved development on the site.  It is similar in overall height to the former development on the site but because the proposed development has a three storey scale, it will block view corridors that are likely to have previously existed over the sides of the hipped roof of the former building, and the pitched roof form of the approved two storey building.

 

10.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.     CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the proposed development is excessive having regard to the approved development and the former building on the site.  The proposed development is considerably larger in scale and results in greater impacts than either the former building on the site (which is the basis of the existing use rights situation) or the approved development on the site.  The development will have additional overshadowing, visual and streetscape impacts and will have poor amenity and increased potential for overlooking.  It is recommended that Council refuse its consent to the application.

 

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. 00007/2005 for Construction of a new three storey multi unit housing development comprising five residential units (5 x 2 bedrooms) with basement parking for 6 vehicles at 5 Little Street, Maroubra for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposal will compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential area and is incompatible with the dominant character of existing developments.

 

2.       The proposed development will result in adverse overshadowing impacts on the private open space areas of No.7 Little Street and No.444 Malabar Road.

 

3.       The dwellings in the proposed development have been poorly designed and will have limited internal amenity, particularly with respect to access to natural light and sunlight.

4.       The proposed development will adversely impact on the streetscape and amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk and scale and loss of views.

 

5.       The proposed development has an FSR of 0:9:1, which is considered excessive for this site and results in a building which is out of context with the dominant built form in the 2A Zone.

 

6.       The maximum height and three storey scale of the proposed building is excessive and incompatible with the predominant height of neighbouring buildings.

 

7.       The proposal does not provide adequate landscaped areas on site to soften the visual impact of the development.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configurations.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

TOM HUTCHISON

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

27 June, 2005

FILE NO:

D/1176/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2)  Application to modify Condition No. 2 which requires a 3m high masonry wall behind the building line, delete Condition No. 4 which requires the deletion of balconies, and delete Condition No. 6 which requires first floor windows on the northern and western elevations to have sill heights of 1.7m.

PROPERTY:

 22 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Cartel-Link International Pty Ltd

OWNER:

 Avid Property Group Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Health Planning and Building Committee at its meeting of the 12 October 2004 subject to 6 deferred commencement conditions.  This application seeks reconsideration and alternative design solutions to satisfy the intent of the deferred commencement conditions.

 

The Section 96 application was notified to neighbouring properties and concerns for loss of privacy were raised consistent with the issues raised as part of the original application.

 

The deferred commencement conditions imposed included:

 

2.     A 3.0m masonry wall to the western boundary shall be erected behind the building line of the subject site and 33 and 35 Chester Ave. This wall is to provide privacy between the courtyard areas of the subject site and adjoining neighbours to the west.

 

The applicant seeks to delete this condition and have an 1800m dividing fence approved. It is recommended that a terraced fence be approved which provides for a maximum height 3.0m and a minimum of 1.8m to reflect the finished ground level of the proposed development to achieve satisfactory privacy for the adjoining neighbours.

 

5.       The balconies off bed 1 townhouse 3, bed 1 and 3 townhouse 4 and bed 2 townhouse 2 shall be deleted from the plans. The doors located off these balconies shall be converted to windows with a sill height of 1700mm from finished floor level of the first floor.

 

The applicant seeks to delete this condition and approve the submitted plans which reinstate side balconies and associated access doors with louvered privacy screens to reduce sightlines. The applicant has not addressed the built form concerns for these side balconies as such the condition is to be maintained on the grounds of urban design and privacy impacts.

 

6.       All windows to the first floor level on the northern and western elevations of the building shall have a minimum sill height of 1700mm as measured from finished floor level of the first floor.

 

The applicant seeks approval of Section 96 plans which increase the sill height of these windows and provide a fixed obscure glazed treatment for the lower 1600mm of the windows. It is considered that this alternative design solution is acceptable and this condition will be deleted in preference for the submitted plans.

 

In reconsidering the purpose of the imposed conditions a balance between the imposed conditions and the modifications sought by the applicant will achieve a satisfactory outcome without compromising the visual appearance of the development or affecting the internal amenity of future occupants.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to modified conditions of consent.

 

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for deletion of deferred commencement condition No. 2:

 

2.       A 3.0m masonry wall to the western boundary shall be erected behind the building line of the subject site and 33 and 35 Chester Ave. This wall is to provide privacy between the courtyard areas of the subject site and adjoining neighbours to the west.

 

The applicant request that this condition be deleted and a 1800mm wall, as originally proposed by the applicant, be approved.

 

Delete deferred commencement condition No. 5 which was approved as:

 

5.       The balconies off bed 1 townhouse 3, bed 1 and 3 townhouse 4 and bed 2 townhouse 2 shall be deleted from the plans. The doors located off these balconies shall be converted to windows with a sill height of 1700mm from finished floor level of the first floor.

 

The applicant proposes to modify this condition so as to retain these balconies and provide fixed louvres to a height of 1600mm from finishes floor level to provide privacy to neighbouring properties. Amended plans have been submitted to reflect this proposed modification.

 

Delete deferred commencement condition No. 6 which was approved as:

 

6.       All windows to the first floor level on the northern and western elevations of the building shall have a minimum sill height of 1700mm as measured from finished floor level of the first floor.

 

The applicant proposes that first floor windows to the western elevation be provided with fixed, obscure glazing to 1600mm from finished floor level. The submitted plans depict this amendment.

 

The original plans show the northern and southern boundaries mislabelled which is corrected as part of the amended plans, the southern boundary is to Minneapolis Cres not to the rear boundary. The amended plans have also been corrected to reflect the correct RL for the rear courtyard as being approximately 1.43m below finished floor level of the ground floor/top of basement podium. As such, stair access is required to provide access from the courtyard to the rear of townhouse 4 as is detailed as part of these amended plans.

 

Internal configuration changes are also provided which reflect deletion of the stair access to attic spaces which were originally provided on the approved plans.  Stair access is shown as retained to the attic of townhouse 2 as this is not supported deferred commencement condition No. 4 remains unchanged.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Minneapolis Cres between the intersecting streets of Chester Ave and Midway Drive. The site has a total area of 578.89sqm with a frontage of 18.29m, a rear boundary of 12.19m and a site length of 38.470m. The site has a slope of approximately 2m from north to south

 

The site is occupied by a single storey dwelling with basement sub floor area to the rear, a shed to the rear boundary and a hard stand car space forward of the building line.

 

 

These photos show the existing dwelling as viewed from the street and the side passage into the rear yard.

 

 

 

Subfloor area visible to the rear of the dwelling.

 

The surrounding streetscape is comprised of a mix of recently constructed townhouse developments and existing dwelling houses of the Coral Sea Park Estate. Typically the surrounding development follows the built form of the Estate as encouraged in the Multi Unit Housing DCP that is simple symmetrical forms including two storeys and a pitched roof with a face brick finish.

 

 

Southern side of Minneapolis Cres opposite the subject site.

 

Looking east of the subject site along Minneapolis Cres

 

North side of Minneapolis Cres looking east adjacent to subject site.

 

Immediately to the east of the subject site No. 22 Minneapolis Cres is a two storey dwelling which has approval for erection of a two storey 4 townhouse multi unit development with associated basement parking for 8 vehicles. To the west of the site is a two storey multi unit development that is located on the corner of Chester Ave and Minneapolis Cres. To the rear of the subject site No. 1 Midway Drive backs onto the subject site and is also a townhouse development.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Consent was issued on the 12 October 2004 subject to 6 deferred commencement conditions. These conditions sought to ameliorate concerns raised by neighbouring properties for loss of privacy. The deferred commencement conditions have not been satisfied and modification of these conditions is sought as a part of this current Section 96 application.

 

In an attempt to satisfy these conditions, whilst maintaining an appropriate relationship to the streetscape and adequate internal amenity for future occupants of the development, approval is sought for deletion of these conditions and approval of amended plans which seek to address concern for overlooking.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1     Objections:

 

J Adamson

1/35 Chester Avenue

 

P Matheson

31 Chester Avenue

 

J Geok-Thuay Toh & S Cheng

2/35 Chester Avenue

 

Purcell Family

33 Chester Avenue

 

M & A Primero

3/35 Chester Avenue

 

R Wilkinson

5/1 Midway Drive

 

TM Chen

2/35 Chester Avenue

 

M & C Camelbeke

2/35 Chester Avenue

·        Applicant agreed to the imposition of conditions

 

Comment

 

The applicant is able to have an aspect of a consent reconsidered by Council pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as sought with this application.

 

·        Conditions should not be deleted the alternatives are misleading

 

Comment

 

It is not considered that the details are misleading however, on assessment, further modification to the design alternatives is deemed necessary to ensure loss of privacy to adjacent property owners is avoided.

·        The applicant has not put forward proper reasons for deletion of these conditions

 

Comment

 

Justification was provided as part of the statement of environmental effects. The reasons are considered to be sufficient for assessment of the application.

 

·        Concern that obscure glazing to windows could be later modified

 

Comment

 

Any removal of obscure glazed panes would result in a breach of consent.

 

·        Bathroom window should also have raised sill

 

Comment

 

A condition of consent remains unchanged by this application which requires bathroom windows to have an obscure treatment.

 

·        Balconies result in solar loss and privacy screens at 1.5m is inadequate

 

Comment

 

The minor protrusion of the building envelope represented by an approval of the cantilevered balconies would not significantly alter solar access to neighbouring properties. The original assessment on solar loss was based on diagrams submitted incorporating balconies, the extent of overshadowing as a result of this development was not considered unreasonable.

 

·        Cost is not a reasonable argument for the erection of the 3m wall.

 

Comment

 

The economic burden of erecting a 3m masonry wall is not a planning consideration in the review of the appropriateness of these deferred commencement conditions.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was not referred for technical officer comment as all conditions being modified as part of this application relate to planning consideration.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposed modifications will not affect compliance with RLEP 1998.

 

7.1     Policy Controls

a.       Development Control Plan No. Multi Unit Housing

 

The DCP for Multi-Unit Housing states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the Objectives and Performance requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding Preferred Solutions. It is considered that the sought modifications are generally consistent with the approved development and the assessment that was undertaken as part of the original application deemed the development to be consistent with the performance requirements of the DCP. A discussion on the applicable considerations of Visual and Acoustic Privacy is provided under the Environmental Assessment section of this report. 

 

8.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1     Substantially the same

 

The proposed works relate to modification of deferred commencement conditions and minor changes to the plans to reflect these and other imposed conditions. As such, should the modifications be approved then the development will not be substantially different from that for which consent was originally granted.

 

8.2     Consideration of submissions

 

A discussion on submissions received as part of the Notification process is provided under 5.Community Consultation section of this report.

 

9.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1     Privacy

 

Each townhouse has been provided with living areas located to ground floor with bedrooms at first floor level. The following three deferred commencement conditions were recommended in the Council Officer’s report to the Health Building and Planning Committee:

 

2.       A 2.5m wall to the eastern boundary shall be erected behind the building line of the subject site and 35 Chester Ave. This wall is to provide privacy between the courtyard areas of the subject site and adjoining neighbours to the west.

 

3.       The bathroom windows to the first floor shall have an obscure treatment to maintain privacy to neighbouring properties.

5.       The balconies off bed 1 townhouse 3, bed 1 and 3 townhouse 4 and bed 2 townhouse 2 shall be deleted from the plans. The doors located off these balconies shall be converted to windows with a sill height of 1.5m from finished floor level of the first floor.

 

As part of the Council resolution these three deferred commencement conditions were strengthened in an aim to reduce all possibility for overlooking into neighbouring properties to the north and west. In regard to planning principles and the reasonableness of imposing such conditions, it is considered that in some instances the conditions result in changes to the development that are both unreasonable and unnecessary:

 

3.       A 3.0m masonry wall to the western boundary shall be erected behind the building line of the subject site and 33 and 35 Chester Ave. This wall is to provide privacy between the courtyard areas of the subject site and adjoining neighbours to the west.

 

A 3m wall is a significant structure that will provide sizeable bulk and scale on the boundary for the subject site and the neighbouring property No. 33 and 35 Chester Ave. The original recommendation of the assessment report provided to Council was for a height of 2500mm. This height, whilst significantly above the 1.8m preferred solution for a dividing fence, was deemed to be appropriate as the finished floor level of the ground floor is elevated above the finished floor level of the ground floor of the adjoining properties.

 

Measuring eye height at 1600mm above finished floor level, additional height above the 1800mm dividing fence to achieve privacy would need to be a minimum of between 800mm and 1200mm. This represents a variation in height of between 2500mm and 3000mm depending on the location within the townhouse development. In an effort to ensure privacy is retained whilst minimising the bulk from this structure a three tiered fence height will be imposed as a condition of consent. Accordingly, for the first 13m of the new development (as measured from the southern elevation) the dividing fence/wall shall have a height of 2500mm. For the second section of the fence to just beyond the edge of the stair access (northern elevation) the fence shall have a height of 3000m. Fence length beyond the building footprint shall be reduced in height to 1800mm. This fence/wall is to be provided to the western boundary with No. 33 and 35 Chester Ave only.

 

It is acknowledged that a 3m high dividing wall is sizeable structure. However, as the development does not have a ground floor finished floor level in keeping with the natural ground level a suitable privacy measure is necessary. In the absence of a submitted alternative the dividing wall has been previously agreed to by the applicant and as such will be maintained as part of this modification. The applicant could elect an alternative privacy treatment to these ground floor windows and courtyard areas however this has not been provided.

 

Condition No. 2 shall be recommended for modification to reflect the above discussed three tiered dividing wall.

 

5.       The balconies off bed 1 townhouse 3, bed 1 and 3 townhouse 4 and bed 2 townhouse 2 shall be deleted from the plans. The doors located off these balconies shall be converted to windows with a sill height of 1700mm from finished floor level of the first floor.

 

It is acknowledged that No. 24 Minneapolis Cres has balconies approved where as the subject site had them deleted by way of condition. It must also be noted that the subject DA had numerous objection in relation to loss of privacy whereas the DA for No. 24 Minneapolis Cres did not. It is also noteworthy that the design of No. 24 Minneapolis Cres was of a more symmetrical, holistic form, consistent with the character of the Coral Sea Park Estate. The southern elevation to Minneapolis Cres as proposed is asymmetrical with prominent side elements attributed to the cantilevered balconies. In this regard, in the interest of a development with a built form consistent with the design principles of the Coral Sea Park Estate condition No. 5 relating to the deletion of the balconies should be maintained.

 

6.       All windows to the first floor level on the northern and western elevations of the building shall have a minimum sill height of 1700mm as measured from finished floor level of the first floor.

 

The applicant proposes to modify this condition so as to retain these windows and provide fixed obscure glazing to a height of 1600mm from finishes floor level to provide privacy to neighbouring properties. Amended plans have been submitted to reflect this proposed modification. It is considered that having obscure glazing and a fixed lower sill to a height of 1600mm achieves the same outcome as a raised sill whilst allowing filtered light through to these bedrooms.

 

The condition as approved will result in poor internal amenity where insufficient solar access would be achieved given the limited available opening to allow sun to extend into the room. It would also provide an oppressive aspect where only highlight windows were provided which affords limited architectural features within the room. It is considered that the alternative solution will improve the amenity of these rooms without compromising the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

It is recommended that condition No. 6 shall be deleted in preference for the alternative privacy treatment as detailed in the amended plans.

 

In relation to the stair access from Townhouse 4, it is considered that there is minimal opportunity for overlooking to the rear private courtyard to neighbouring properties as the 3m high dividing wall will extend out past this stair.  There is no need for a 3m high wall to this private courtyard for townhouse 4 as the level of this courtyard is at natural ground consistent with the RL of the adjoining properties. It is considered that the height of the wall can be reduced to 1800mm for this final length of wall (some 5.5m)

 

9.2     Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposal was approved with a SEPP 1 objection and an FSR of 0.66:1 subject to deletion of habitable floor area to the attic of townhouse 2. The current proposal seeks permanent stair access to this area which would facilitate the use of this space as habitable area such as a fourth bedroom and should therefore be included in floor space ratio calculations. As this is beyond the acceptable density for this site (resultant FSR of 0.8:1) and will enable use of an attic with insufficient head height pursuant to the BCA, the originally imposed deferred commencement condition No. 4 should be retained.

 

10.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification of conditions of consent as imposed to ameliorate neighbour concerns have been assessed against DCP Multi Unit Housing. It is considered that a modified version of condition 2 should be imposed whereby the height of the wall can be varied depending on the relative level of natural ground and reducing available sightlines. In regard to condition No. 5 it is considered that the built form of the development will not be improved by the reinstatement of the cantilevered balconies, the development will be inconsistent with the objectives of the Coral Sea Park estate and will result in privacy impacts to the neighbouring property where there is a minimal distance between the subject development and neighbouring properties. Condition No. 6 is deemed to be satisfied by the alternative privacy treatment with a combination of fixed lower pane and obscure glazing. The recommended modifications to the three deferred commencement conditions will result in a development that retains adequate privacy to neighbouring properties whilst achieving adequate internal amenity to the future occupants of the proposed development.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council, as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify conditions of Development Consent No. 1176/03 on property 22 Minneapolis Cres. Maroubra, in the following manner:

 

Amend deferred commencement Condition No. 2 to read:

 

2.       A 1.8m wall to the western boundary shall be erected forward of the building line of the subject site between Nos 33 and 35 Chester Ave. The height of the wall shall increase to 2.5m from the building line for a length of 13m. The height of the wall shall then increase to 3.0m for the remainder of the building footprint (a further 14.5m) until the end of the rear courtyard stair access. To the rear courtyard the height of the wall shall reduce to 1800mm. This wall is to provide privacy between the courtyard and living areas of the subject site and adjoining neighbours to the west.

 

Condition No. 6 is deleted.

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered Job 0387 Plan A01 through to A05 dated 25/3/04 and submitted 23/4/04 and A05 and 06 dated 25/3/04 and submitted 20/05/04, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, plans as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered Sheet No. 1A through to 8A of Job No. 0387 dated 14/04/05  and received by Council on 27/04/05, 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 details/amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

Development Application Report dated 16 September 2004

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

D1176/2003/GE

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing dwelling house and associated structures and construct a new two storey multi unit housing development containing four townhouses and basement parking for eight vehicles

PROPERTY:

 22 Minneapolis Cres Maroubra

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Artech Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic, Robert Belleli.

 

The cost of works of the development is $600, 000.

                   

The application has been the subject of three sets of amended plans, the final set of plans addresses Council’s concerns in relation to the architecture of the proposed building and consistency with the character of the Coral Sea Park Estate and the variation from the floor space ratio control. The proposal is the subject of continued objection on the grounds of overlooking primarily from balcony areas at the first floor to the western and northern elevations. It is considered that recommended conditions of consent will satisfactorily address these concerns.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and erection of a new multi unit housing development containing four townhouses and basement parking for 8 vehicles including one visitor parking space. The four townhouses are to comprise of 4 bedrooms with associated courtyards to side boundaries. Each townhouse shall have two stacked car spaces allocated and associated pedestrian and vehicular access.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Minneapolis Cres between the intersecting streets of Chester Ave and Midway Drive. The site has a total area of 578.89sqm with a frontage of 18.29m, a rear boundary of 12.19m and a site length of 38.470m. The site has a slope of approximately 2m from north to south

 

The site is occupied by a single storey dwelling with basement sub floor area to the rear, a shed to the rear boundary and a hard stand car space forward of the building line.

 

 

These photos show the existing dwelling as viewed from the street and the side passage into the rear yard.

 

 

Subfloor area visible to the rear of the dwelling.

 

The surrounding streetscape is comprised of a mix of recently constructed townhouse developments and existing dwelling houses of the Coral Sea Park Estate. Typically the surrounding development follows the built form of the Estate as encouraged in the Multi Unit Housing DCP, that is simple asymmetrical forms including two storeys and a pitched roof with a face brick finish.

 

There are some examples of dormer windows and colour variations from the dominant character of the estate within close proximity to the subject site however these are not considered to alter the dominant character of the streetscape and are considered to have an adverse impact and as such strict adherence to the DCP has been required as part of lodgement of amended plans relating to the built form of the development.

 

 

Southern side of Minneapolis Cres opposite the subject site.

 

Looking east of the subject site along Minneapolis Cres

 

North side of Minneapolis Cres looking east adjacent to subject site.

 

Immediately to the east of the subject site No. 22 Minneapolis Cres is a two storey dwelling which has approval for erection of a two storey 4 townhouse multi unit development with associated basement parking for 8 vehicles. To the west of the site is a two storey multi unit development that is located on the corner of Chester Ave and Minneapolis Cres. To the rear of the subject site No. 1 Midway Drive backs onto the subject site and is also a townhouse development.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.           APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A previous application was lodged with Council in 2003 known as DA 90/03 which was the subject of significant objection and planning concerns including built form and amenity impacts to neighbouring properties. The application was withdrawn. A subsequent application, the subject of this assessment report was lodged on the 18 November 2003 as DA 1176/03. A letter of issues was forwarded to the applicant on the 18 February 2004 outlining 3 concerns:

 

·    The attic and associated dormer windows are considered inconsistent with the character of the Coral Sea Park Estate and should be removed.

 

·    The colour scheme as indicated as being of a grey palette is not consistent with the preferred colour scheme of the Estate.

 

·    The front gable and filigree detail needs to be deleted and a simple hipped roof needs to be provided.

 

Based on these concerns amended plans were lodged on the 15 April 2004, these plans did not delete dormer windows and as such were superseded by plans submitted 23 April 2004. These plans were notified to adjoining neighbours and are assessed as part of this report. It should be noted that The Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services (DAIS)  had requested a geotechnical report which was not submitted to Council until the 8 September which is the reason for the delay in the application being reported.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification.  The application was notified twice, and attracted 6 letters of objection. The following submissions were received in relation to the notification of the final amended plans:

 

5.1  Objections

 

J Adamson

1/35 Chester Ave

 

P Matheson

31 Chester Ave

 

J Geok-Thuay Toh & S Cheng

2/35 Chester Ave

 

Parcell Family

33 Chester Ave

 

M & A Primero

3/35 Chester Ave

 

R Wilkinson

5/1 Midway Dr

 

·    I would like the balcony to the rear deleted from the design as it infringes on privacy to the west and the north

 

Comment

 

It is considered that due to the extent of objection to the proposed balconies to the western and northern elevations that these should be deleted. Further discussion on the impact of the proposed balconies is provided within the “Environmental Assessment” section of this report.

 

·    The bathroom windows are to be highlight in design to the western elevation.

 

Comment

 

This will be imposed through condition of consent for an obscure treatment to ensure privacy to neighbours to the west of the subject site.

 

·    Concern for stability of 35 Chester Ave  during proposed construction

 

Comment

 

Standard conditions of consent for construction management shall be imposed as part of this consent including specific requirements for a dilapidation report to be undertaken.

 

·    Request for landscaping to be retained to the rear boundary to afford privacy

 

Comment

 

There will be some trees retained including a Jacaranda to the rear boundary and there will be additional landscaping to the rear boundary including trees which will reach a mature height of between 6-10m and 12-16m.

 

·    Concern for balcony to the western elevation

 

Comment

 

This is discussed in further detail within the “Environmental Assessment” section of this report.

 

·    The site is too small for a multi unit development

 

Comment

 

The site is zoned residential 2b which allows for multi unit development. Whilst it is noted the site is deficient some 1.71m from the preferred site frontage of 20m the variation is relatively minor and the development conforms to the proportions of the site.

 

·    Concern for removal of conifers and request for additional suitable landscape screening

 

Comment

 

It is considered that sufficient mature plantings will be provided within the site as detailed on the submitted landscape plan. It is not clear where the conifers the objector is referring to are positioned, as such a plant species is not detailed on the survey or landscape plan.

 

·    Request deep soil planting along the western boundary

 

Comment

 

Deep soil planting is not provided to the western boundary due to the narrowness of the site however a setback of 500mm will allow for the planting of lilly pillies per the landscape plan. An increased setback would not be possible under the current footprint design. It is noted that the driveway located adjacent to this boundary provides for sufficient separation between the proposed building and the existing units to No. 35 Chester Ave. To the rear of the site private courtyards will allow for increased plantings and a section of deep soil which will allow for mature tree planting.

 

·    Concern for further overshadowing by the proposed reduced setback to western boundary

 

Comment

 

The level of overshadowing can be accurately interpreted by the submitted shadow diagrams as the only modification is the deletion of dormer windows which would not alter solar access significantly. A thorough discussion on solar access is provided under the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·    Loss of trees to footpath

 

Comment

 

Only one street tree is to be removed as part of this application and it is a Gum located where the driveway cross over is proposed. Council’s landscape officers have granted approval for the removal of this tree provided all other street trees are protected.

 

·    Acoustic privacy impacts

 

Comment

 

It is considered that a town house development will not generate an undue amount of noise with the use being consistent with other surrounding townhouse developments within the immediate locality.

 

·    Request a 3m wall along the western boundary

 

Comment

 

The height of dividing fence at 3m is not in keeping with DCP however given neighbours to all adjoining properties along the western boundary have requested it such a condition will be imposed for a fence at a height of 2500mm which is considered to achieve the same level of privacy. This wall must not extend past the building line of either 35 Chester Ave or 22 Minneapolis Cres and will be conditioned as such.

 

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:-

 

Assets and Infrastructure Comments

 

An application has been received for construction of a townhouse development at the above site containing 4 townhouses with basement car parking

 

Landscape Comments

On Council’s nature strip at the front of the site, there are two (2) recently planted Eucalyptus species (Gum trees) of approximately 2-3 metres in height, which, although immature, appear in good health. The plans show the proposed driveway being located along the western boundary of the site, which will mean the most western street tree will have to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed works.

 

Approval is granted for the removal of the western most street tree in front of the site (at the applicant’s cost), however, the applicant will be required to ensure the protection and retention of the eastern most street tree as part of the proposed works.

 

In the existing rear courtyard, near the centre of the site, there is one Robinia pseudoacacia (Robinia) of approximately 6 metres in height which is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Although it appears in good condition, it will not be possible to retain this tree and proceed with construction as indicated, and as it is not deemed an overly significant specimen, approval is granted for the removal of this tree subject to an advanced replacement being provided in its place.

 

In the rear yard, near the eastern boundary, there are a group of trees which are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, comprising two (2) Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) of about 4-5 metres in height and one Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). They all appear in reasonable condition and provide partial screening between this site and the adjoining property to the east. It will not be possible to retain these trees and proceed with construction of the pedestrian walkway and raised planters as shown; and as they are not deemed overly significant, approval is granted for the removal of these three (3) trees subject to suitable replacements being provided in their place in this area of the site.

 

In the northwest corner of the site, there is one Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) of approximately 5 metres in height and 5 metres in width. It appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This tree is sited a reasonable distance away from all proposed construction, and as such, it should be able to be retained as an existing site feature and be incorporated into the proposed development. As such, the applicant will be required to ensure the protection and retention of this tree as part of this application.

 

There are several other trees shown for removal on the plans, however, all of these remaining trees are too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and as such, do not require Council consent for removal.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The DPCD is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the AIS Department has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required submit detailed drainage plans to the PCA for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

A geotechnical report for the above site was received by the AIS Dept on the 13th September, 2004 and an appropriate condition (waterproofing/tanking) has been included.

 

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 site frontage must be 3.50 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property boundary. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

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

 

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

 

 

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscape Area

50% of total site area

51.8%

Yes

32 - FSR

0.65:1

0.66:1

No, SEPP 1 objection provided

33 - Building Height

7m external wall

9.5m overall height

5.8m

9.0m

Yes

 

(b).       Development Control Plan No. Multi Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements or preferred solution)

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

4m average to western boundary and 2.455 minimum.

 

3.015m average and minimum to eastern boundary.

 

Maximum length of building is 14 without a step which does not achieved preferred solution.

 

 
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.

 

 

 

 

Yes, average and minimum of 6m.

 

 

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 no more than 25% of the Preferred Solution.

 

 

Yes

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

 

Yes.

 

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.

 

 

Yes, by condition of consent

 

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1 Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

 

Yes

 

 

Private Open Space

General

P3   

·      Provides privacy.

·      is accessible from main living areas.

 

P4 In front of the building only  where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

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.

 

 

 

No, units 1 and 2 have 22sqm, performance requirements are satisfied.

 

PRIVACY

 
Visual Privacy

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Yes subject to conditions of consent deleting balconies and privacy treatment to bathroom windows.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Yes

 

 

 
Acoustic Privacy

 

P3 Building layout and design minimises noise transmission. of noise.

“Quiet areas” separate noise generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction minimises transmission of noise.

 

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

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

Standard conditions of consent requiring development to comply with BCA for sound attenuation.

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

P1.2 Living areas of neighbours sunlight 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.

* If less than this is available the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

 

P4 Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·      Living areas are orientated to       the north.

·      Larger windows are located on the north.

 

 

 

 

S94 75% of dwellings achieve 3.5 star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.

The Nat HERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

 

Note:

Central ducted heating/cooling system requires  a  minimum of 4.5 stars Nat HERS rating.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

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

 

PARKING

 

 

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

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Note:  The parking requirements are set in Randwick Parking DCP. The requirements are:

 

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling
dwelling                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, 7 spaces provided.

 

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

 

 

Yes

 

DRIVEWAYS AND MANOUVERING AREAS

 

P1 Driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised.

 

 

Yes

 

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

 

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

 

Yes

 

 

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

 

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

 

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

 

Yes

 

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 .

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Ye

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT

 

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities are  provided.

 

S1  Storage cupboard in each kitchen sufficient which enables separation of recyclable material.

Holding at least a single day’s waste.

Landscaped areas provide composting.

 

Yes

 

 

P2  Garbage and recycling containers in centralised garbage/ recycling room accessible to garbage compactors  where bins can be easily wheeled for collection. Facilities to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage /recycling collection service.

 

 

Yes

 

P3  Collection  facilities  complement design of t and is not obtrusive.

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

Yes per condition of consent.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1       Density

 

The subject site is zoned residential 2B under LEP 1998 as such the site has a maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1. The proposed multi unit development has a FSR of 0.66:1 which represents a minor variation from the maximum permissible however a SEPP 1 objection must be submitted for any variation from a development standard contained within an LEP. The SEPP 1 objection submitted with the application objected to strict compliance with the numerical standard on the following basis:

 

·    The site is zoned to accommodate medium density housing and promotes a variety of dwelling types. Compliance with the numerical requirements is not necessary to achieve superior design whilst at the same time addressing the objectives of the Residential 2B zone.

·    The site and locality have no heritage status and the site is extremely well served by public transport as well as retail, commercial and community uses. Accordingly promotion of residential development of higher densities satisfies broader integrated land use and planning objectives.

·    The development will sit comfortably within the existing and future urban context as the majority of existing buildings are multi unit development of similar height and scale to that proposed.

·    The proposed development maintains the existing established building line and provides adequate side and rear boundary setbacks, consistent with the character of the area and existing development on neighbouring properties.

·    The proposal will enhance the existing streetscape by providing landscaping opportunities and a contemporary style of architecture modulated by building forms

·    The development incorporates principles of sustainable development including energy efficiency, solar access and cross flow ventilation

·    The FSR proposed will not adversely impact on environmental amenity including

-     Overshadowing, acoustic and visual privacy

-     Streetscape

-     Views and outlook

-     Traffic and parking

-     Urban form and quality

-     Landscaping

 

The proposal meets the objectives of the LEP generally and the specific objectives of the standard. Further it will be noted that the development will not give rise to material impact in relation to the matters set out in the performance criteria of that clause. Thus strict application of the standard in the circumstances of the case may be considered unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

In considering the objective of the development standard, a development should reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development whilst still providing reasonable levels of development. It is considered that the minor increase of some 9sqm above that which is permissible can be supported.

 

The plans as originally submitted proposed an FSR of 0.8:1 due to the provision of floor area within the attic space for each townhouse, with the deletion of the attics the FSR was reduced to 0.66:1. This minor variation does not result in any amenity impacts. The primary concern for amenity impacts is overlooking which is not generated by the additional floor area rather by balconies which are to be deleted through recommended conditions of consent.

 

The FSR variation is very minor representing some 9sqm of additional floor area approximately 2sqm per townhouse which is a negligible increase and unlikely to be noticed within the context of the streetscape or from adjoining properties.

 

The FSR calculations based on the final plans excluded an attic space retained to townhouse 2. This attic space has been retained despite there being insufficient head height to use the area for anything other than storage purposes. As such it is considered that the 25sqm of storage space can be excluded from FSR calculations as it is less than 2.1m distance from floor level to underside of ceiling and as such is not considered floor area per the definition of gross floor area (LEP 1998). In accordance with the possible use of this roof space under the BCA the permanent stairs shall be deleted from the plans by condition of consent and replaced with a pull down ladder consistent with the use of a storage area.

 

The proposed density for the site is considered to be consistent with the bulk and scale of adjoining developments within the locality. There are no anticipated amenity impacts from the minor increase in floor area and the arguments provided as part of the SEPP 1 objection are considered to be generally well founded. As such the SEPP 1 objection is supported and strict compliance with Clause 32 Floor Area of Local Environmental Plan 1998 is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

8.2       Privacy

 

Each townhouse has been provided with living areas located to ground floor with bedrooms at first floor level. As such overlooking from the ground floor is restricted by the provision of dividing fences and landscaping at a height which will interrupt sightlines. At the first floor level bedrooms, which are generally considered to be low usage rooms and as such to have reduced opportunity for overlooking, are provided. The applicant has provided highlight windows to these bedrooms so as to reduce overlooking over neighbouring properties. Bathroom windows have not been shown as having an obscure glass treatment and therefore will be conditioned to have such a treatment.

 

The main opportunity for overlooking from the first floor is off balconies which are provided off bedroom 1 of town house 3 (western elevation), bedrooms 1 and 3 of town house 4 to the northern elevation and bedroom 2 of town house 2 to the eastern elevation. These balconies have been fitted with louvered privacy screens however neighbour objection remains from primarily the northern and western elevations. It is considered that the louvered screens will still allow for some sightlines to be possible to neighbouring properties which are located at minimal distances from neighbouring properties, at 3.5m and 5.3m respectively. These balconies are partially cantilevered over the ground floor footprint which does not enhance the built form of the development. It is considered that these balconies at first floor level should be deleted per condition of consent to satisfy concerns by neighbouring properties and to simplify the built form of the development consistent with the character of the Coral Sea Park Estate.

 

8.3       Built form and Coral Sea Park Estate

 

The proposal in its original form per DA 90/03 and the plans submitted in November for this application had a built form that was in conflict with the defined character of the Coral Sea Park Estate as identified in part 6.3 Coral Sea Park Estate of Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan. After discussion with the applicant amended plans were requested which were submitted on the 23 April 2004 and ensured that the proposal was closer to the preferred built form of the locality. One aspect of the development which remains in consistent with the built form characteristics of the estate is the cantilevered balconies to the first floor. As mentioned above under the Privacy section of this report these balconies are recommended to be deleted.

 

Balconies are detailed to the facade of the development overlooking the street and are to be retained as they are not inconsistent with other developments within the estate where balconies are provided to the street elevation. As the proposed balustrade is solid in design and balconies are not cantilevered, these balconies will be consistent with a symmetrical façade characteristic of the estate.

 

The proposal including recommended conditions of consent is considered to satisfy the objectives of Part 6.3 Coral Sea Park Estate of Multi Unit Housing DCP whereby:

 

·    The new development reflects the scale and massing of existing development within the estate

·    The new development maintains the characteristic of building setbacks and garden areas prevalent throughout the estate

·    The planned neighbourhood and garden suburb characteristics of the estate.

 

The overall built form of the development corresponds in architectural detailing to the design of adjoining townhouse developments that have been recently constructed or approved within the immediate streetscape and this section of the Estate. The built form incorporates face brick, simple symmetrical massing and a hipped roof of a scale, design and finish characteristic of the Estate. No concerns are raised with the proposed built form of the development subject to the recommended deletion of first floor balconies.

 

8.4       Setbacks and Building Length

 

Side setbacks do not comply with the preferred solution as set out in Part 3.3 Building Setbacks of DCP Multi Unit Housing. The control is for a minimum of 2.5m to any side boundary and an average setback of 4m. To the western elevation the average setback is achieved however the minimum is slightly deficient at 2.455m. This deficiency is considered negligible where the building provides adequate separation to the western boundary.

 

To the eastern boundary there is less articulation provided so that the average setback is 3m and the minimum 2.5m. The minimum side setback achieves the preferred solution however the average is deficient by 1m. This variation is considered to satisfy the performance requirements and objectives of the control where adequate separation between buildings for landscaping and visual and acoustic privacy, sunlight penetration and private open space is provided. To the eastern boundary opportunities for landscaping are provided and the design of the first floor ensures that sufficient privacy can be achieved. The setbacks are considered to match the dominant pattern of setbacks within the streetscape and to ensure the amenity of the streetscape is maintained. Given the narrow width of the site increasing side setbacks to achieve the preferred solution for average setbacks would result in a substandard internal layout and would not improve the relationship of the development to it neighbours and immediate surrounds.

 

Objection has been received from neighbouring properties in relation to the minimal distance between the driveway and the western boundary of some 500mm. Side setbacks as defined under Multi Unit Housing DCP are from a boundary to the side elevation. The minimal separation between the driveway and the boundary does not represent a variation from side setbacks and there is no technical control specifying a minimum distance, as such the objections raised have been considered on their merits. Some landscaping is available in this 500mm separation which will soften the appearance of the driveway and coupled with the provision of a dividing fence the driveway should not have a critical impact to the amenity of neighbouring properties. The use of the driveway will be minimal as it services as vehicular entry for only four units. There is no reasonable alternative location for the driveway and provided that dilapidation report and structural safety conditions are imposed to ensure safety to adjoining buildings there is no unreasonable impact envisaged from this driveway and associate excavation for the car park.

 

The DCP specifies a preferred maximum length of wall without a step/articulation of 10m. The development varies this preferred maximum length with one length of wall achieving 14m without a step. It is considered that overall the development provides for a good level of articulation and wall modulation and the building footprint relates adequately to site conditions. As such this variation can be supported where the performance requirements of building setbacks are satisfied by this proposal.

 

8.5       Landscaped Areas and Private Open Space

 

The proposed landscaped area exceeds 50% at 51.8% and 76% of this area is dedicated to permeable landscaping. Accordingly landscaped areas achieve the development standard of Clause 31.

 

The DCP for Multi Unit Housing specifies that a minimum of 25sqm of private open space be provided for each townhouse unit. The proposal is deficient in permissible private open space for townhouses 1 and 2 where 22sqm are provided rather than 25sqm. This variation is considered minor and as sufficient dimension is provided within the courtyard areas and balconies of 5.25sqm are provided at first floor level overlooking the street the performance requirement for providing sufficient recreation areas for each dwelling is achieved.

 

Townhouses 1 and 2 have private courtyard areas provided forward of the building line to the street. Typically private open space forward of the building line is not encouraged unless the design is sufficient as to provide adequate privacy and the relationship to the street is sympathetic. The design of the courtyard areas are considered to respond positively to the streetscape and there is an established precedent within the Estate for providing recreation areas forward of the building line, as such these courtyard areas are considered acceptable.

 

8.6       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The original plans would have required referral to the Design Review Panel and assessment under SEPP 65 however with the amended plans deleting the dormer windows and attic level the building is only two storeys and as such the SEPP is not applicable.

 

8.7       Solar Access

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that at the winter solstice at 9am the primary shadow will fall over the front of the subject site towards the street and over the setback of the western boundary with Nos 35 and 33 Chester Ave. At 12 noon the shadow will fall over the subject site primarily to the front of the property and the setback to the eastern boundary with No 24 Minneapolis Cres. At 3pm the shadow will fall over the western elevation of No. 24 Minneapolis Cres and affecting west facing windows over the ground and first floor. It is considered the degree of overshadowing to neighbouring properties is not unreasonable and sufficient solar access can be achieved throughout the winter solstice in keeping with the preferred solution of Part 4.4 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency of DCP for Multi Unit Housing.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development subject to conditions of consent is considered to satisfy the performance requirements and objectives of the development standards contained within LEP 1998 and DCP Multi Unit Housing. The proposal will be consistent with the character of the Coral Sea Park Estate and the streetscape of Minneapolis Cres. Subject to conditions of consent the amenity of neighbouring properties will be maintained and it is considered that all reasonable objections raised have been resolved. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council support the SEPP1 objection and assume the concurrence of the Director of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources to vary the provisions of Clause 32 Floor Area of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality.

 

B.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under the provisions of Section 80 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), “Deferred Commencement” to Development Application No. 1176/2003/GE for demolition of the existing dwelling house and associated structures and construct a new two storey multi unit housing development containing four townhouses and basement parking for eight vehicles at 22 Minneapolis Cres Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent shall not operate until the following amendments and details have been submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development:-

 

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

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development.

 

2.       A 2.5m wall to the eastern boundary shall be erected behind the building line of the subject site and 35 Chester Ave. This wall is to provide privacy between the courtyard areas of the subject site and adjoining neighbours to the west.

 

3.       The bathroom windows to the first floor shall have an obscure treatment to maintain privacy to neighbouring properties.

 

4.       Access to the roof space of townhouse 2 shall be by pull down ladder only in keeping with the use of the attic as a storage area.

 

5.       The balconies off bed 1 townhouse 3, bed 1 and 3 townhouse 4 and bed 2 townhouse 2 shall be deleted from the plans. The doors located off these balconies shall be converted to windows with a sill height of 1.5m from finished floor level of the first floor.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development, development consent is granted under Section 80 and 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 plans numbered Job 0387 Plan A01 through to A05 dated 25/3/04 and submitted 23/4/04 and A05 and 06 dated 25/3/04 and submitted 20/05/04, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and details/amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENTITY:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.       Power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

5.       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.

 

6.       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.

 

7.       Where access is required to adjoining premises for construction purposes, the consent of the owner/s of the subject adjoining premises must be provided to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to carrying out any construction works from or upon the adjoining premises.

 

8.       The fence on the street alignment is to be a maximum height of 1m to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining residential development and the streetscape.

 

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENERGY EFFICIENCY: 

 

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

 

9.       The development must be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum energy efficiency NatHERS rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent and a NatHERS certificate or equivalent, prepared by a suitably qualified person, is to be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate application.

 

The design of the building must be consistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the energy efficiency rating may necessitate a new or amendment to the development consent prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

10.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

12.     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.

 

13.     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.

 

14.     Landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

          Landscaped areas must include an area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting and porous paving should also be used in all pathways, wherever practicable, to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater and details are to be provided on the landscape plans.  Details of the proposed landscaping, including plant species and paved areas are to be included with the construction certificate application.

 

15.     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 a minimum of 1.5m from the side boundaries and is to have a maximum height of 2.4 metres.  The tank is to be installed behind the front building line and is to be located at ground level 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.

 

SECTION 94:

 

The following condition/s are applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

16.     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               $ 8,190.00

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $3,624.00

c)       Administration fee..............................................                         $   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.

 

17.     A development application and a formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council and all conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

18.     Public access to the visitor’s car parking spaces is to be maintained at all times and an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the car park, together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use.

 

19.     A mailbox shall be provided to the front of the site in accordance with the requirements of Australia Post.

 

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:

 

20.     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.

 

21.     In this regard, the operation of any plant or equipment on the site shall not give rise to an L10 sound pressure level which is 5dB(A) greater than the A-weighted L90 background sound pressure level, measured at any point on a residential boundary or within any residential dwelling.

 

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:

 

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

 

23.     There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which will give rise to an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

24.     The location and height of the discharge of mechanical ventilation systems are required to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668 and details are to be provided in the relevant plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

25.     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.

 

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

 

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

     

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

27.     A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions and detailing any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

28.     Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises, are to be fully complied with and incorporated into the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

29.     A copy of the engineers report is to be submitted to the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

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

 

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

 

a.            the premises adjoining the subject site in Chester Avenue and Minneapolis Crescent

 

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

 

33.     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.

 

34.     A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

35.     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.

 

36.     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.

 

37.     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.

 

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

 

39.     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).

 

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

 

41.     Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the following measures (as applicable), to ensure compliance with the terms of Council’s consent:

 

·          Sediment control measures.

·          Provision of perimeter fences or hoardings for public safety and restricted access to building sites.

·          Maintenance of the public place free from unauthorised materials, sand, soil, debris, waste containers or other obstructions.

 

42.     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. 

 

43.     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.

 

44.     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.

 

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

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

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

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

 

46.     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.

 

47.     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.

 

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

 

b.            car parking and vehicular access

c.            landscaping

d.            stormwater drainage

 

49.     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:

1.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.

2.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.

 

50.     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.

 

51.     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.

 

52.     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.

 

53.     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.

 

54.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

57.     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.

 

58.     Any damage caused to the road or footway must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

59.     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.

 

60.     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.

 

61.     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”.

 

62.     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.

 

63.     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

 

64.     Details of the proposed sediment control measures must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and a copy of the approved details must be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

65.     Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment.

 

66.     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.

67.     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.

 

68.     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.

 

69.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

71.     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.

 

72.     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.

 

73.     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.

 

74.     Any part of Council’s nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be back-filled, top-soiled and re-turfed with kikuyu turf prior to occupation or finalisation of the development, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

75.     The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.

 

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

 

76.     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.

 

77.     In this regard, the operation of any plant or equipment on the site shall not give rise to an L10 sound pressure level which is 5dB(A) greater than the A-weighted L90 background sound pressure level, measured at any point on a residential boundary or within any residential dwelling.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

 

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

 

78.       The following damage/civil works security 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)         $1000.00         -           Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security 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 and upon the completion of the civil works as conditioned in this development consent by Council. 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.

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

i.             Construct a heavy duty concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

ii.            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.

 

iii.           Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full site frontage except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit points.

 

iv.           Carry out a full depth 1.00m metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

v.            Reconstruct the concrete footpath along the full site frontage.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

80.       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.

 

81.       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.

 

82.       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.

 

83.       The driveway opening at the site frontage must be 3.50m metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property boundary. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

 

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

 

84.       The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

86.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $604.00 calculated at $33.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Service Authority Conditions

 

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

 

87.       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.

 

88.       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.

 

89.       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.

 

90.       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.

 

91.       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 occupation of the development

 

Drainage Conditions

 

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

 

92.       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.

 

93.       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.

 

94.       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 5 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.

 

95.       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.

 

OR

 

All site stormwater must be discharged by gravity via a private drainage easement through an adjoining private property (or properties) to the kerb and gutter or drainage system. This condition is required to provide a  satisfactory overland flow route should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

Should the applicant demonstrate that all reasonable attempts to procure the private drainage easement referred to in the previous condition have failed, a pump system (or infiltration system subject to Council's requirements and a satisfactory Geotechnical Engineers report) may be permitted.  The pump 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.

 

96.       The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year storm event should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

97.       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 which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council.

 

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

 

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

 

100.     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).

 

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

 

102.     Stormwater pipes shall be located in accessible locations.

 

103.     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.

 

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

 

·            within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

 

·            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 located over the outlet pipe (Mascot GMS Multi-purpose filter screen or similar).

 

·            A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system for the access grate (spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

 

·            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.

 

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

 

106.     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.

 

107.     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 must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay/s (or equivalent)

 

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

 

108.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and shall include the following details:

 

·        The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

·        Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·        Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

·        The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

·        The orifice size(s) (if applicable); and

·        Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

109.     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.

 

110.     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).

 

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

 

Waste Management Conditions

 

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

 

112.     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.

 

113.     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.

 

114.     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 additional residence/dual occupancy.

 

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

115.     The landscaped areas shown on the sheet number LSK-01, job number 03.759 dated 11.12.03, drawn by Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd 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. Should Council not be the certifying authority, the applicant will still be required to forward a copy of the approved plans to Council for our records, 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.

 

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 4 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.

 

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 not over slab. Details are to be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

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

 

l.          In order to provide reasonable levels of screening and privacy between this site and adjoining properties to the west, north and east, perimeter planting shall be provided along these boundaries using an advanced species that is capable of attaining a minimum height at maturity of 3 metres.

 

116.     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.

 

117.     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.

 

118.     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.

 

119.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

122.     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.

 

123.     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

 

124.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $639.50 to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 45 litre street tree (Eucalyptus species , Gum tree) towards the eastern boundary of the site at the completion of all works ($145.00 + GST)

 

b.         To compensate Council for the loss of amenity caused by the removal of the street tree ($480.00). Due to the small size of this tree the applicant will not be charged for removal costs.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income Code R39 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.

 

125.     Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 4 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.

 

·    The western most Eucalyptus species (Gum tree) on Council’s nature strip

·    One Robinia pseudoacacia (Robinia) near the centre of the site

·    Two Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) along the eastern boundary

·    One Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) along the eastern boundary

 

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

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

127.     In order to ensure the retention of the most eastern Eucalyptus species (Gum tree) located on Council’s nature strip 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 specimen with the position of the tree trunk and full diameter of the tree canopy clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.         The tree is to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the tree using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 1.5 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunk.

 

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

 

c.         Within this zone 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 and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

d.         Any excavations required for structures, paving etc within 2 metres of the tree trunk shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

e.         The erection of signage on the fence with the following words clearly displayed: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER".

 

128.     In order to ensure the retention of the Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) tree located in the northwest corner of the site in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.         All detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the retention of the existing tree specimen with the position of the tree trunk and full diameter of the tree canopy clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.         Detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show no alteration in the existing soil levels within a radius of 3 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunks.

 

c.         The tree is to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the tree using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 2 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunk.

 

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

 

d.         Within this zone 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 and no 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.         Any excavations required for footings, structures, pipes, detention tanks, stormwater infiltration systems, paving etc within 3 metres of the tree trunk shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

f.          The installation of woodchip mulch to a depth of 75mm within the fenced off protection area as described in Point c.

 

g.         Watering of the tree (within the fenced off area) three times a week for the duration of the period of the refundable deposit described in Point i.

 

h.         The erection of signage on the fence with the following words clearly displayed: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER".

 

i.          A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $1,720.00shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the preservation of the tree in accordance with the requirements described in this condition.

 

 

QUANTITY

 

SPECIES

 

AMOUNT

 

1

 

Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda)

 

$1,720.00

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

$1,720.00

 

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 tree has been retained in good health.

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the tree 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.

 

129.     A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque for the amount of $4,000.00 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.

 

130.     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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

a. Clause C3.2&C3.4                 Protection of openings in external walls

d. Part F4                                   Light and ventilation

e. Part F5                                   Sound Transmission and Insulation

f.Part B1                                     Structural provisions

g.Part C1                                    Fire resistance and stability

h. Part C3                                   Protection of openings

 

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 Plans

Development Application Report dated 16 September 2004

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

 

Acting Director, City Planning Report 42/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Review of Dual Occupancy Development

 

 

DATE:

27 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00250 and  F2005/00261

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting held on 14 June 2005 considered the Review of Dual Occupancy Development Report and resolved:-

 

“that the matter be deferred for a briefing from Council officers in respect to Council’s Subdivision Code (Policy 6.01.22).”

 

ISSUES:

 

A briefing on dual occupancy, subdivision and the subdivision policy is to be held on Tuesday 5 July 2005 in Council Chambers from 5:30-7pm.  

 

The deferred report as attached seeks Councils resolution to prepare a draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Section 94 amendment based on the analysis of the issues paper.

 

Any issues raised during the Councillor briefing may be incorporated into the preparation of the draft LEP and draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and reported back to Council when seeking endorsement to exhibit.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider the Director, City Planning Report 34/2005, Review of Dual Occupancy Development, and adopt its recommendations.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Report of Health Building and Planning 14 June 2005

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

ROBYN EISERMANN

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR STRATEGIC PLANNER

 

Director, City Planning Report 34/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Review of Dual Occupancy Development

 

 

DATE:

27 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00250 & F2005/00261

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report reviews Council’s current residential and subdivision dual occupancy provisions.  The report identifies the issues relating to dual occupancies, considers a range of possible changes and includes recommendations for incorporation into a draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and Local Environmental Plan (LEP). 

 

Due to the range and complexity of the issues considered, an  ‘Issues Paper’ has been developed (see Attachment 1) to provide further detailed analysis and discussion on the subdivision of land and attached dual occupancies as well as providing an in-depth investigation of the current subdivision patterns of the Residential 2A zone.

 

The review identifies potential for reducing the current 900sqm subdivision requirement for dwelling houses in the 2A zone.  The review also looked separately at attached dual occupancy provisions and concluded that, in order to ensure good design and integration with existing areas, the subdivision requirements remain substantially the same.

 

The Issues Paper has identified the need to review key sections of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP.  Given that dwelling houses and attached dual occupancy are included in a single DCP and that many of the provisions apply to both, the review has been extended to consider the dwelling house provisions and thus a complete review of the Single Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP. 

 

Additionally, the review of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP has identified the need to prepare an amendment to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998.  This report seeks Council’s endorsement under Section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act) to undertake the preparation of this LEP amendment.

 

The State Government’s Planning Reforms, announced in September of last year, will require all Councils to prepare a new comprehensive LEP within five years.  As part of the reforms, this LEP would then be reviewed on a five year basis.  To maintain this strategic planning focus, DIPNR advised Councils on 20 April 2005 that minor LEP amendments will not be processed by DIPNR, unless Council can ‘demonstrate a compelling case’.  Given that this DCP / LEP is well progressed and will enhance Council’s background work and assist rather than delay the comprehensive LEP process, verbal advice from DIPNR has suggested that this LEP / DCP is likely to be supported.

 

ISSUES:

 

Current Provisions for Subdivision and Dual Occupancy

 

Randwick City Council’s current dual occupancy provisions are contained in Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998.  The Issues Paper details the history of dual occupancy provisions across the City in Section 1.1.

 

Subdivision of Land

Randwick LEP 1998 permits subdivision (including strata subdivision), in the 2A zone, of allotments with a minimum size of 900sqm and a minimum frontage of 24m (except for battleaxe development).  Allotments that meet these criteria may be subdivided to create two separate allotments.  This subdivision creates two lots with potential for a single dwelling house on each allotment.  It is noted there is also potential for an attached dual occupancy to be built on each new allotment, if the minimum 450sqm and 12m frontage requirement can be met.

 

Attached Dual Occupancy

Clause 30 of Randwick LEP 1998, permits attached dual occupancies on allotments within the Residential 2A zone, with a minimum of 450sqm and a frontage of at least 12 metres.  Clause 32 of the LEP permits a floor space ratio (FSR) of up to 0.5:1 for an attached dual occupancy.  Under Clause 31 the minimum landscaped area is 40%, with at least half of that being soft landscaping.  Clause 33 permits a maximum building height of 9.5m with a maximum external wall height of 7m.  The external wall height provision is the same for a single dwelling house.

 

Where dual occupancy development is proposed in the Residential 2B and 2C zones it falls under the definition of ‘multi-unit housing’ and is assessed against the controls and standards contained in Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP.  Dual occupancy applications in the Residential 2B and 2C zones are minimal as higher yield land uses are often achievable.

 

Background and Progress of Dual Occupancy Review

 

Randwick City is an increasingly desirable residential location being an inner city Council with good access to employment opportunities, the beaches and a range of other recreational opportunities. Planning for a range of dwelling types and sizes is essential to ensuring adequate opportunity for residential growth within the city in appropriate locations, and for different types of households. 

 

In 1995 when the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 12 (SREP) for dual occupancies was repealed, and until the gazettal of Randwick LEP 1998, the Randwick City Planning Scheme Ordinance controls applied to single dwellings and attached dual occupancy.  These were a minimum allotment size of 325sqm and a minimum frontage of 9 metres 2(a1) and 460sqm and 15 metre frontage 2(a2).  The Randwick LEP 1998 (draft provisions) were reported to Council on 18 September 1997 and recommended a minimum subdivision allotment size of 800sqm and attached dual occupancy size of 400sqm.  The current LEP allotment sizes arose from the Council resolution on that report to amend the minimum allotment sizes to 900sqm and 450sqm (for more background details see Section 1.1 of the issues paper at attachment 1).  

 

This review of dual occupancy arose to investigate the dual occupancy provisions and the suitability of the current controls. At the Health, Building & Planning Committee (HBPC) Meeting of April 11 2003, Council resolved:

 

‘that a report be prepared for Council that numerically shows the previous requirements for dual occupancies and subdivisions and a table for comparison, including comparisons with other local Councils such as Waverley, Woollahra and South Sydney.  This report to also show any existing merit based approval systems for dual occupancies and subdivisions under the new sections of the Act, rather than basing approvals on the size of the blocks.’

 

A report was then considered and endorsed by the HBP Committee Meeting, 14 October 2003.  The report provided a background and overview of dual occupancy development in Randwick City, it compared and discussed the dual occupancy provisions of other local Councils and identified potential for change to improve Council’s dual occupancy provisions.  In summary the report found that in the five years to 2003, Council had considered 114 development applications for dual occupancies, 64% of those located in the southern suburbs (Maroubra, Matraville, Malabar, Chifley, Little Bay).  Comparison with other Councils indicated all Councils provided minimum allotment sizes, with associated performance criteria, with some variation in these minimum controls and the subdivision permissibility.  Randwick City Council’s dual occupancy controls generally fell within the middle range when compared to the minimum and maximum requirements of other inner Sydney Councils.  The subdivision minimum for attached dual occupancy varies both lower and higher, from 200sqm minimum in Leichhardt to 700sqm in Willoughby and generally from 400-600sqm (see also Section 1.7 of the issues paper). 

 

The report recommended that further investigations be undertaken across the City with the consideration of potential different requirements for different localities, laneways, corner allotments and for granny flats.  Thus it was recommended that Council amend its Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP and also its laneway policy, the “Subdivision Code”, as part of this review. 

 

Council resolved to:

 

a)         Endorse the proposed further investigations and comprehensive review of dual occupancy provisions in Randwick City;

 

b)         Resolve, under Section 72 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to prepare a draft Development Control Plan to review the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan; and

 

c)         Resolve to review Council’s Subdivision Code (Policy 6.01.22) as part of this dual occupancy review.

 

The resolution required the full review of the DCP.  This review has now been fully resourced.  This process was undertaken during this financial year and a draft DCP substantially prepared.  The expected timeframe is that the draft DCP and LEP amendment will be reported back to Council in August / September for exhibition in September / October then reported back for final endorsement by Council in late 2005.

 

A full review of the dual occupancy and single dwelling house provisions has been undertaken as found in the Issues Paper, Attachment 1 to this report.  A summary of the findings of this review follows:

 

PLANNING CONTEXT

 

State Government Context

 

Since the mid 1980’s, successive State Governments have been promoting a compact city approach for Sydney to limit urban sprawl and better utilise infrastructure and services.  This approach recognises the physical limits of expanding the city, maximising the use of existing infrastructure and increasing the efficiency of new infrastructure provision.  The strategy is supported by State policies such as Draft SEPP 66 (Integration of Land Use and Transport), which directs the location of housing close to or within commercial centres and major transport routes, to maximise accessibility to services and transport, reduce the number and length of trips required to fulfil daily tasks, and to reduce the need to use the private car.

 

Council’s residential strategy is appropriate in that new development is focussing on areas that are most accessible to services and public transport such as the town centres.  As a result, this review of dual occupancy provisions is not focussed on providing significant increases in dwelling numbers in Randwick City.  It focuses instead on providing reasonable opportunities for this type of housing to enhance housing choice, where a high standard of design can be achieved and with due regard for minimising impact on neighbours and enhancing the streetscape.

 

In terms of LEP preparation and the State Government’s requirements, the S117 Direction G9 requires that draft LEPs shall not increase minimum lot sizes for dwelling houses and shall retain provisions that allow dual occupancy development.  Residential provisions should not reduce residential densities on a parcel of land, unless that reduction is consistent with a strategy approved by the Director-General.  The critical issue is that any strategy should show that the overall residential density for each LGA should not be reduced.  This report provides recommendations consistent with the S117 Direction and a new residential strategy is not required.

 

The State Government’s Planning Reforms, announced in September of last year, will require all Councils to prepare a new comprehensive LEP within five years.  As part of the reforms, this LEP would then be reviewed on a five year basis.  To maintain this strategic planning focus, DIPNR advised Councils on 20 April 2005 that minor LEP amendments will not be processed by DIPNR, unless Council can ‘demonstrate a compelling case’.  The department acknowledges that Council will not begin the preparation of a new comprehensive LEP until the Randwick City Plan is finalised later this year.

 

Council will need to request, with DIPNR, that any LEP amendment required to implement these review outcomes enhances Council’s background work and will assist rather than delay the comprehensive LEP process.  Verbal advice from DIPNR has suggested that this approach is likely to be supported, as reported in the Councillor Bulletin of 13 May 2005.

 

Randwick City Context

 

The northern boundary of Randwick City is located approximately 5km from the Sydney Central Business District (CBD).  Due to Randwick’s close proximity to Sydney’s CBD, beaches and Sydney airport there is continuing pressure to accommodate a large amount of people and provide a variety of housing choices.  The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported from the 2001 Census that the Randwick LGA had 14,448 separate houses (30.2%), 7,577 semi-detached, row or terrace housing or townhouses (15.8%) and 24,737 flats, units or apartments (50.3%).  Compared to the whole of Sydney, which has 63.1% separate houses, 11.3% semi-detached, row or terrace housing or townhouses, and 22.2% flats units or apartments, Randwick City provides a far greater percentage of medium density dwellings.

 

The residential character of Randwick is varied and the areas of dwelling houses in the 2A zone are differentiated by locality:

·    The northern suburbs (generally Kensington, Randwick, Clovelly, Coogee, Kingsford and South Coogee) are characterised by smaller allotments on narrow streets.  These areas are generally denser with a higher proportion of semi-detached housing on smaller allotments.  Rear laneways are a feature and frequently on street parking is limited.  A grid street pattern is typical.  A number of large heritage conservation areas are located in the northern suburbs, characteristic of the Federation period development.  The large lot sizes in some of these subdivisions in the north increase the overall median size.  The median lot size is 439sqm and the median frontage is 11.0m.

·    The southern suburbs (generally Matraville, La Perouse, Little Bay, Malabar, Phillip Bay Chifley), primarily developed later in the 1950s to 1970s, are characterised by curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs in addition to the grid pattern.  Allotments are larger, as are the frontages.  Houses are generally free standing with garages, frequently for 2 cars.  There are small pockets of multi-unit housing.  The median lot size is 549sqm and the median frontage is 15.0m.

·    The central area of Maroubra is very much a transition area between the northern and southern suburbs, with extremely varied character, street patterns and allotment sizes reflecting varying periods of subdivision. The median lot size is 413sqm and the median frontage is 11.5m.

 

Nevertheless, given subdivisions across and within these areas were developed at different times, there remains variations within all three areas.  The overall median allotment size is 483sqm and the median frontage is 12.5m for 2A zoned land across Randwick City.

 

Variation of Controls across areas

 

Given the variation in lot and frontage sizes across Randwick City, consideration was given to controls for different areas and/or within these areas in Randwick City. While differences can be discerned over the three broad areas, as noted above, variations are common within these areas.  There is the difficulty and equity of establishing the boundaries for varying controls between the north and south and also the Maroubra transitional area, and potentially variations within these areas.  The development application and assessment process would be made more complex.

 

Applying area based controls would require detailed character analyses for each area and potentially prescriptive controls, where this can be undertaken more efficiently and flexibly by applicants in their site analysis process. 

 

Recommendation 1:  That the minimum allotment and subdivisions controls in the LEP apply across Randwick City as per the current LEP 1998.

 

Summary of Subdivision and Dual Occupancy Analysis

 

Sections 2-5 of the Issues Paper consider the current development potential and provide an analysis of a range of possible changes to the subdivision and attached dual occupancy controls.  The key issues identified can be summarised as follows.

 

Subdivision of Land – allotment size and frontage requirements

 

Council’s LEP does not provide for detached dual occupancy.  It however, stipulates the minimum size for an allotment that may be subdivided in the 2A zone is 900sqm.  As stated above, to subdivide a property requires a minimum frontage of 24m, as well as 900sqm.  There are an estimated 14,200 properties zoned 2A in Randwick City.  There are a number of properties in Randwick’s 2A zone, which are larger than 900sqm (approximately 130) but approximately half of those properties would not have a frontage of 24m,   therefore, would be unable to subdivide. Corner properties are more likely to meet these minimum criteria. Thus, there is potential for approximately 70 subdivisions in the entire LGA.  Should the owners wish to subdivide below the minimum requirements, they would be required to rely on SEPP 1 and demonstrate that strict compliance with the prescriptive numeric controls would be unreasonably restrictive and that the objectives of the controls can still be met.

 

It is clear that both the minimum frontage together with minimum allotment size, are key elements for the subdivision of land.  The minimum frontage resulting from subdivision is a key element in maintaining or changing the subdivision pattern and thus the streetscapes of Randwick.  The 12 metre minimum frontage is based on the minimum required to enable a well designed building to present to the street while meeting the required side setbacks, car parking, windows, building entries and other DCP controls and thus, to achieve a quality design outcome.  Any larger minimum frontage would create an unreasonable restriction on the subdivision of land for a single dwelling house whilst any smaller frontage could be incompatible with the existing subdivision patterns and quality building design.  The median frontages are 11.0m in the north, 11.5m in Maroubra and 15.0m in the southern suburbs.  A minimum of 12m provides a reasonable measure for all areas.  A reduction in frontage may also result in a dominance of garages on street frontages in order to meet car parking requirements and thereby, adversely impacting on streetscapes (see Issues Paper Section 3).  Reducing this minimum frontage requirement is not considered appropriate.

 

While a reduction in frontage is not recommended, there would appear to be some flexibility in reducing the minimum land size required from 900sqm.  This was examined in the issues paper for minimum allotments of 700, 750 and 800sqm (see issues paper section 2). 

 

A reduction to 800sqm would potentially provide for approximately 100 allotments to be subdivided (of approximately 14,200 allotments with dwelling houses in the 2A zone), 18% smaller than the Randwick median allotment size. 

 

A reduction to 700sqm would enable approximately 211 (meeting the frontage requirement) to subdivide (1.5 % of residential 2A properties) while a reduction to 750sqm would enable approximately 152 allotments to subdivide (1.1% of residential 2A properties).  A reduction to either 700 or 750sqm, would result in allotments (at 350-375sqm) averaging up to 28% smaller than the Randwick median allotment size and with only a small increase in potential subdivision and dwelling house opportunities in the 2A zoned land. It is noted that between 600 and 700sqm (less than 350sqm) the number of potential subdivision properties increases substantially as the size decreases to 2,965, however this is limited to 445 properties where the frontage can be met.  A reduction of allotments to this size would be particularly incongruous in the southern suburbs where allotments are larger and the majority of subdivision is likely to occur (See figure G, Section 2.2 and Figure J Section 3.3 in the Issues Paper. 

 

Thus overall, the potential for additional allotments increases only slightly with large reductions in the subdivision minimum. It is noted that these figures are based on a minimum (10%) sample of residential 2A zoned land.  They may therefore, be a conservative estimate only of potential subdivision opportunities. 

 

Investigation was carried out on the capability of the ensuing 450, 400 and 350sqm allotments (from 900, 800 and 700 respectively) for accommodating a single dwelling of appropriate modern standard (see Figure J in the Issues Paper).   This shows that as the land size decreases it becomes harder to achieve two dwellings on 350sqm allotments with good design outcomes (for example, providing for the parking in the design, & the percentage of hard paved surfaces increase). The 400sqm allotment achieves two dwellings that are more acceptable.  This scale of subdivision would be on average 10% smaller than the average subdivision patterns, thus generally not likely to adversely affect these patterns. Assessment indicates that the 400sqm allotments can accommodate a single dwelling closer to modern proportions whilst meeting the general requirements of good design, including streetscape impact and sufficient parking provision, whilst providing a slightly higher opportunity for subdivision in the low density residential areas.  A reduction to 800sqm is also consistent with the original recommendations in the draft LEP 1998 report.  Altering the minimum subdivision allotment size requires amendment to the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

Recommendation 2:  That the current LEP provisions, which require a minimum frontage of 24m to subdivide, be maintained.

 

Recommendation 3:  That the LEP minimum subdivision requirement for the residential 2A zone of 900sqm be reduced to 800sqm.

 

Attached dual occupancy – allotment size and frontage requirements

 

Lot Size

Council’s LEP provides for the development of attached dual occupancy on 450sqm allotments with a frontage of 12 metres but does not provide for torrens or strata subdivision to allotments less than 900sqm.

 

Reducing the attached dual occupancy minimum requirements to from 450 to 400sqm or 350 sq m was investigated.  This review found that the current 450sqm allotment can accommodate a well-designed attached dual occupancy, moving toward the scale of modern housing proportions (approximately 225 sq m or 113 sq m for each dwelling) (average houses are now approximately 255sqm – Housing Industry Association – see issues paper Section 3.3). 

 

A reduction to 400sqm makes it difficult for two dwellings to achieve planning requirements for good design and further so for the 350 sqm (see Figure J in the Issues Paper). For example percent of hard paved area is likely increase and good design to accommodate cars is more difficult to achieve. 

 

At 450 sq m the dwellings would be approximately 113 sqm in floor space. At 400 sq m they would be approx. 100 sm, while at 350sqm all dwellings would be less than 90sqm.  This does not provide for the most commonly demanded dual occupancy development in Randwick City.  Review of recent dual occupancy DAs showed that most are 3 bedrooms, with some 2 and 4 bedrooms. The resulting attached dual occupancy dwelling then moves towards the size and form of a townhouse or apartment and good design and streetscape appearance is more difficult to achieve.  The NSW Residential Flat Code notes that a rule of thumb for good design of 3 bedroom apartments is a minimum of 124 sq m in floor space.

 

Retaining an allotment size of 450sqm for attached dual occupancy that is slightly larger than the minimum required for a single dwelling gives recognition to the pressure for modern scale of housing and thus slightly higher bulk and scale impacts arising from an attached dual occupancy, and the intensity of two households on the allotment, as discussed in Section 4 of the Issues Paper.

 

Frontage

A minimum frontage of 12 metres for a single dwelling house allows for achieving a quality building design and streetscape outcome.  However, the same 12 metre frontage, as currently required for an attached dual occupancy, has greater design restrictions and difficulty achieving a quality design outcome, as indicated in the dual occupancy examples in the attached issues paper (see Section 3.4 and Section 4).

 

The majority of attached dual occupancy developments in Randwick City over the past 2 years are for mostly 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings.  The majority are two storey, mirror image style dual occupancy developments, however there is no restriction on the ground floor and first floor vertical style of dual occupancy. Council’s Parking DCP requires two parking spaces per dwelling house for dwellings of 3 or more bedrooms.  This means that most attached dual occupancies will have to provide up to four car parking spaces within the allotment.  This creates difficulty for a horizontally attached dual occupancy with a frontage of 12m to meet the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP requirement that “car parking structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the site”, in fact most designs (with a single garage only for each dwelling) will be closer to 50%.  The objective of this development control is to ensure garages do not dominate the building or streetscape.

 

The dual occupancy frontage requirement at 12 metres, typically creates difficulty in achieving building and streetscape amenity, reduces safety by limiting surveillance (as the opportunity for a living room window to overlook the street is limited on the narrow dwelling frontage) and results in a garage dominated streetscape, as indicated in the dual occupancy examples in the attached issues paper (see Section 4.2).

 

These design issues are supported by an analysis of compliance with some key LEP / DCP requirements, being floor space ratio, and landscaping requirements was undertaken.  In total 73 attached dual occupancy development applications were investigated.  This assessment found that most attached dual occupancy development is being built on allotments of between 500-700sqm and with frontages closer to 15 metres. 

 

To address the design issues, a frontage of 15m is considered the minimum appropriate frontage for a quality attached dual occupancy dwelling, which could meet this and other DCP objectives.  With a 15m frontage, two single garages would be accommodated within 40% of the frontage.  A 15m minimum frontage also permits enough room for a habitable (living, bedroom, study) room to front the street at ground level, in each dwelling, which would improve the streetscape and increase amenity of the street as well as improving safety by increasing street surveillance (see Section 4.2).  The median frontage in the southern suburbs, where the majority of dual occupancy is likely to occur, due to the larger allotments, is 15.0m and thus this requirement would be consistent with the existing streetscape.  Properties with rear lane access would not face the design difficulties, described above, and therefore a 12m frontage for attached dual occupancies with laneway access is considered to remain appropriate.

 

Recommendation 4:  That the current LEP minimum allotment size for an attached dual occupancy of 450sqm be retained.

 

Recommendation 5:  That the LEP and DCP minimum frontage for an attached dual occupancy is increased from 12m to 15m, except for properties with laneway access.

 

Attached dual occupancy - subdivision

 

Approximately 7,000 properties are able to develop attached dual occupancies under the current provisions.  Increasing the minimum frontage requirement, as recommended above, would still permit approximately 4,500 properties to develop an attached dual occupancy.  This represents approximately one third of all Residential 2A zoned properties in Randwick City.  The restriction on strata subdivision, however, has limited the demand for this form of housing, with only 114 applications being considered in the previous five years.  Other planning considerations also affect the attached dual occupancy development potential for these properties, for example heritage items and contributory buildings in heritage conservation areas are less likely to be suitable for conversion or demolition.  Given that attached dual occupancy development makes up only a small percentage of applications and that most applications currently being received would meet the 15 metre frontage (due to the design difficulty experienced with a 12 metre frontage) the level of opportunity is considered to remain adequate.

 

The subdivision (including strata subdivision) of attached dual occupancies is not permitted under LEP.  Any variation that permits strata subdivision of attached dual occupancy is likely to increase the number of attached dual occupancy development applications substantially, that is subdivision would encourage a greater proportion of these 4,500 properties to be developed (almost 30% of 2A properties), as each dwelling can be sold separately in addition to renting or use by an extended family.  The focus of this review is to provide reasonable opportunities for this housing type, where a high standard of design can be met and to continue the current focus on increasing density in areas that are most accessible to services and transport.  In Randwick City the majority of attached dual occupancy is occurring in the southern suburbs.  Any significant increase in attached dual occupancy is likely to continue to occur primarily in the southern suburbs (over half of the 4,500).

 

Given the potential numbers, focus on the southern suburbs and the benefit of focusing significant housing increases in highly accessible areas, it is considered inappropriate to allow strata subdivision and thus provide an incentive to develop significant numbers of attached dual occupancies (see Sections 4.3 and 4.4).

 

Recommendation 6:   That the LEP 1998 controls, which do not provide for the subdivision (including strata) of attached dual occupancy development, remain.

 

Granny Flat Development

 

Granny flats are generally defined as being a secondary dwelling to the principle house where subdivision is usually prohibited (that is, two separate dwellings or a detached dual occupancy).  The intention is to provide affordable accommodation for a family member or a rental property.

 

Randwick City effectively permits an attached granny flat style of development in its attached dual occupancy provisions because the two dwellings do not have to be of equal status.  Granny flats as a detached development are prohibited in Randwick City.  Amenity issues often make them less desired forms of development.  When granny flats are detached and located in the backyard, amenity issues arise for the neighbours including overlooking to private open space, overshadowing and privacy loss.  There is usually a significant loss of backyard vegetation and green links across properties, as well as issues with car parking provision, mail and garbage services.

 

For these reasons it is considered that separately defined granny flat development is not appropriate, or required, as the attached dual occupancy provisions effectively can be used with less impact on the adjoining properties (see Section 5.1).

 

Battleaxe Development

 

Battleaxe allotments are where two separate subdivided dwellings are located such that one property fronts the street whilst the other property is located behind the first and has access to the street via an access handle along the side boundary.  The minimum frontage requirements do not apply to battleaxe development in Randwick LEP 1998 Clause 30(2).  Battleaxe development is not very common in Randwick City due to the existing subdivision patterns, although a few are located in the south around Stewart Street and Poulet Street, Matraville, where allotments are deeper.

 

Battleaxe dual occupancy results in a loss of street address for the rear dwelling. The front dwelling in a battleaxe subdivision frequently relies on a small rear yard and/or enclosing the traditional front yard space as the only source of their private open space, often resulting in high fenced front yards.  Both situations reduce safety and security, as the natural surveillance to and from the street is reduced.  There is usually a significant loss of backyard vegetation and the additional driveways created increase the area of hard paving and reduce the amount of on street parking available.  The potential for overlooking and the loss of privacy for neighbouring dwellings and their associated private open space areas is also increased.  Thus it is considered that battleaxe allotments should not be encouraged.

 

The current LEP provisions should be changed to prohibit battleaxe allotments by requiring all newly created allotments in the 2A zone to have a minimum frontage of 12m.  It is noted that this would not limit development of a house on existing, vacant battleaxe blocks (see Section 5.2).

 

Altering the battleaxe provisions requires amendment to the Randwick LEP 1998, and thus resolution of Council under Section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Recommendation 8:   That the LEP be amended to delete clause 30(2) and thus prohibit battleaxe allotments.

 

Corner Allotments and Subdivision Controls

 

Subdivision provisions for corner allotments were investigated, on the rationale that dual frontages and dual access make them potentially more conducive to dual occupancy development.  Investigations revealed that corner blocks benefit under the current dual occupancy controls in that they have little trouble in reaching the required frontage and dwellings may each be oriented to a street frontage (see  Section 5.3).

 

Notwithstanding, dual occupancy development on corner allotments has a similar impact to battleaxe development of potential loss of privacy for neighbouring dwellings and their associated private open space areas and a loss of back yard vegetation and design challenges to address aspect (eg northern orientation).  Good design can limit these impacts by focussing on the advantage of the dual street frontage, however, given these additional design challenges, a further reduction in site area beyond that of the other attached dual occupancies is not considered warranted.

 

Recommendation 9:   That the current LEP and DCP provisions that apply to dual occupancy on corner allotments, which are the same as for non-corner allotments, are not altered.

 

Draft Single Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP

 

Revision of the Single Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP is substantially completed, based on the analysis and recommendations in the Issues Paper and this report. 

 

As discussed above, the review has included the provisions for single dwellings as well as dual occupancy development.  The benefit of reviewing all elements of the ‘Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancies’ Development Control Plan arose for a number of reasons.  Firstly, the introduction of BASIX by the State Government now overrides many of Council’s sustainability controls contained in the DCP and as such has made some sections obsolete.  BASIX is a tool design to assess the potential performance of residential development against a range of sustainability measures.  The first stage of BASIX focuses on energy efficiency and water conservation targets. Secondly, Council’s resolution (April 11 2003) to review the allotment sizes for dual occupancy development affects many of the controls also used for dwelling houses.  Thirdly, the current DCP was approved in early 2000, with minor amendments being made in 2002, and so an update is timely to maintain best planning practices and relevance of the DCP.

 

A summary of the proposed changes to the Single dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP includes:

General Structure

1.   Updating the structure of the DCP to follow other recently adopted DCPs, such as Maroubra Junction, to provide for each issue an ‘Explanation’ of the key issue, a range of ‘Objectives’ and ‘Performance Criteria” to be met.

2.   Replacing the ‘Desired Future Character’ section with a ‘Streetscape Character Assessment’ and guidelines.  Rather than describing a future character, this current section describes four types of housing, which currently exist in Randwick City.  These reflect a minor proportion of the existing housing types and are now largely being covered in the Draft Heritage DCP.  The streetscape character assessment is a guide to how to analyse the character of the street.  This is already required to be undertaken in the site analysis provided by the applicant, however, this vital part of DAs is often poorly prepared.  Assessing the consistency and value of the streetscape will determine the need to be consistent with that character or permit change where areas are changing or have a mixed character of styles.

 

Specific Controls

3.   Inclusion of the BASIX requirements

4.   Increasing the attached dual occupancy frontage requirement from 12 metres to 15 metres where no rear access is available.

5.   A review of rear and side setbacks and minor changes will be introduced.

6.   Increasing the landscaping provision from 40% to 50% and soft soil landscaping from 20% to 25%.  Assessment shows that most applications easily meet the landscaping requirements whilst maintaining the FSR.  The environmental impact of increased permeability is considered a positive outcome.

7.   A section on alterations and additions is to be included with the general controls under ‘Building Design and Streetscape’ as these form a major percentage of development applications.

8.   Inclusion of a new section on “Drainage and Stormwater Management” to address the urban development impacts on stormwater systems.

9.   Inclusion of a “Views” section to more specifically address assessment of view loss.

10. Inclusion of ‘Access and Adaptability’ suggestions to more specifically address requirements of an aging population.

11. Updating and clarifying the ‘Foreshore Building Line’ maps.

12. Inclusion of a section on ‘Laneway Development’.

13. Inclusion of a section on ‘Outbuildings’, where not covered by Council’s Exempt and Complying Development DCP.

 

Amendment to the Randwick LEP 1998

 

Arising from the review and analysis is the need to prepare an amendment to the Randwick LEP.  The amendment will be based on the analysis and recommendations in the Issues Paper and this report.

 

LEP Statutory Requirements

When proposing to commence preparation of a draft LEP, sections 54, 57, 61, 62 and 63 of the Act must be addressed as follows.

 

Under S54 of the Act, Council must resolve to prepare a draft LEP.  Details of this report and the draft LEP will be provided to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR).

 

Under S57 and 61 of the Act, a Local Environmental Study (LES) is not required as this draft LEP will be an amendment to the main LEP for Randwick City, LEP 1998.  Nevertheless, the draft LEP will be supported by the analyses in the issues paper discussed above, which is considered appropriate research and background for a draft amendment.

 

Under S62 and 63 of the Act, when preparing a draft LEP, Council is required to consult such public authorities or bodies that will or may be affected by the draft LEP.

 

In this case it is proposed to consult with DIPNR and the adjoining Councils, Botany Bay, City of Sydney and Waverley.  DIPNR have provided preliminary verbal advice that the proposed amendment to the LEP fits within the State Government objectives.

A proposed consultation strategy is provided in Attachment 2 to this report.

 

Council’s Subdivision code (policy 6.01.22)

 

A review of the 10 laneways affected by Council’s Subdivision Code, dated late 1970’s, (Policy 6.01.22) has been undertaken.  Widening of a number of laneways has been substantially achieved.  Land was required to be dedicated for the laneway widening with any subdivision of the property.  Remaining properties generally fall short of the subdivision requirements and thus the current road widening is difficult to complete.  In these instances, the remaining land required for dedication for laneway widening should be identified in an amendment to the Section 94 Plan and the draft LEP, where despite being below the minimum subdivision size, subdivision is considered appropriate.  The provisions for dedication of land for laneway widening are proposed to be included in the LEP amendment in Schedule 2 - Development of Land for Certain Additional Purposes.   This is an appropriate approach for subdivision dedication and for repealing the outdated subdivision policy.

 

The laneways to be retained for widening will be reported to Council as part of the draft LEP amendment and draft DCP as discussed above.

 

Next steps:

 

Following the required public authority consultation under S62 and 63 of the Act, a draft Single Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP and draft LEP amendment to the Randwick LEP 1998 will be reported Council in Aug / Sept seeking Council resolution for public exhibition. 

 

Financial impacts statement:

 

The preparation of the Draft DCP and LEP amendment has a budget of $20,000.  This budget is to be used for community consultation, notification, advertising and printing /  design and is considered to be sufficient to complete the required work and plans.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The analysis in the issues paper, as attached to this report, provides a comprehensive review of the current dual occupancy provisions.  These analysis and the recommendations of this report provide the basis of the preparation of a revised Single Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancy DCP and amendment to the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)         That Council endorse the analysis of the issues paper and recommendations of this report;

b)         That Council resolve under Section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to prepare a draft Local Environmental Plan amendment to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998; and

c)         That Council resolve to prepare an amendment to the Section 94 Contributions Plan to incorporate the intentions of Council’s Subdivision Code (Policy 6.01.22) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Dual Occupancy Review Issues Paper

Proposed Consultation Strategy - UNDER SEPARATE COVER  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ROBYN EISERMANN

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR STRATEGIC PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 


 

ATTACHMENT 2

 

DUAL OCCUPANCY DCP / LEP - CONSULTATION STRATEGY

 

 

Section 54 consultation with DIPNR

June 2005

Section 62 consultation with Botany Bay City Council, Waverley City Council,

and  Sydney City Council

June 2005

Report to Council the Draft DCP and Draft LEP and seeking resolution to exhibit

Aug / Sept 2005

Newspaper advertising of exhibition and project

Aug / Sept2005

Public exhibition of Draft LEP and Draft DCP

Aug / Sept 2005

Review by Design Review Panel

Aug / Sept 2005

Briefing with Precinct Committees

Aug / Sept 2005

Update information on website

Aug / Sept 2005

Staff briefings / consultation of the Draft LEP and Draft DCP

May – Aug 2005

Assessment of submissions

Sept / Oct 2005

Revise LEP amendment  / DCP – comments for community consultation

Sept / Oct 2005

Report to HBP (for finalising or if required, further exhibition)

Oct  / Nov 2005

Section 69 report to Minister

Nov 2005

LEP / DCP to become operational

Early 2006

Notification to newspapers and additional newsletter if required

Early 2006

Update website

Early 2006

 


 Acting Director, City Planning Report 43/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Gross Floor Area Definition and Floor Space Ratio

 

 

DATE:

27 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08103

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

Introduction:

 

Arising from a Mayoral Minute presented to the Health, Building and Planning Committee Meeting of 8 March 2005, Council resolved that a report be prepared on:

 

a)         Various definitions for gross floor area;

b)         Implications of any changes on Council’s DCPs;

c)         Implications and proposed timing related with the introduction of the State Government’s ‘Model LEP’ and;

d)         Process and resources required should Council decide to change the current definition in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

This report considers the various definitions of gross floor area and their implications, makes recommendations on any potential amendments to the current definition of gross floor area, and considers the process and resources for Council of making any amendment to the current definition.

 

ISSUES:

 

Randwick lep 1998 floor area Definition and Purpose

 

Gross floor area (GFA)

 

Gross floor area defines what elements and areas of a development are included in the calculation of a development’s total built area. 

 

The Randwick LEP 1998 defines ‘gross floor area’ as:

 

“the sum of the areas of each level of a building where the area of each level is taken to be the area within the inner face of the external enclosing walls and that the area of any attic measured at 2.1 metres above floor level of the attic excluding:

 

a)         columns, fin walls, shading devices, awnings, balconies and any other element, projections or works outside the general lines of the outer face of the external wall,

b)         lift towers, cooling towers, machinery and plant rooms, and air conditioning ducts,

c)         associated car parking and any internal vehicular or pedestrian access to that parking (to ground level), and

d)         space for the loading and unloading of goods”

 

The elements contained in the exclusions above provide a number of desirable attributes to a building that may not otherwise be included if calculated in the GFA, such as articulation, window shading, private open space balconies and the like in a) above.  Each of the elements potentially has minimal impact on the bulk and scale.  The elements contained in b), c) and d) provide essential space for the operation of the building.

 

The definition of gross floor area applies to all buildings, including residential dwellings, commercial and retail premises and industrial development (with the exception of the consistently applied GFA definition for single dwelling houses within the Single Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP as discussed later in this report).  Not all buildings will contain all elements.  For example lifts are only likely to be provided in multi unit housing or commercial/retail development and loading and unloading is likely to only apply to industrial, commercial and retail buildings.

 

Floor space ratio (FSR)

 

Regardless of the type of building or its use, the gross floor area calculation is used as the basis for applying the ‘floor space ratio’ as this is defined under LEP 1998 as the ratio of the total gross floor area of all buildings (existing and proposed) to the site area.

 

Purpose of the floor space ratio

 

The floor space ratio is one of the key elements of managing or controlling the bulk and scale of development and sets the maximum developable floor area.  There are a number of other elements which work in conjunction and complimentary to the floor space ratio to manage the impacts of bulk and scale of a building.  These include setbacks, building heights, landscape requirements, and the like.  Together these controls effectively create a development ‘envelope’ which forms a three dimensional, maximum acceptable developable area. 

 

Floor space ratio alternative

 

Within the more recent town centre DCPs, such as Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP and Kensington Town Centre DCP an FSR does not apply.  Instead the developable area is determined through a specific maximum three dimensional building envelope, provided other specified criteria, such as setbacks and landscaping, are satisfied.  These building envelopes are generally block-by-block and are related to a maximum fill percentage (a percentage of the envelope that may be filled with development floor space), which provides for architectural detail, articulation and other elements such as balconies and awnings.

 

The building envelope approach is an alterative to an FSR control and is tailored to creating a detailed three-dimensional vision for the future bulk, scale and development form of an area.  The method works particularly well in the town centres as it provides a clearer direction for the future built form of a town centre.  However, the process of developing building envelopes is more in-depth and resource intensive.

 

Density

 

Density is generally considered in terms of dwellings and people.  Floor space ratio is not a measure of density but rather is a method of managing the bulk and scale of development.  The subdivision sizes and patterns in conjunction with the land uses and controls including FSR determine the density of dwellings.

 

Population density is a relationship between the permitted uses, such as single detached dwellings or residential apartments and the occupancy rate of those dwellings.  Currently the average occupancy rate in Randwick City is 2.4 people per household.  This rate is declining and reflects demographic trends that are common to all western countries, such as an increase in single person households, smaller and varied family structures and the general ageing population.  The implication of a declining occupancy rate is, as being experienced in all western countries, despite increases in total population, is the increasing need to provide more dwellings for people.

 

Various definitions of Gross floor area

Gross floor area (GFA) is defined in the Randwick LEP 1998, broadly as the sum of each level of a building within the inner face of the external walls, with a number of exclusions.  A number of varying definitions of GFA and the listed exclusions are currently in use in the Randwick Development Control Plans (DCPs).

These differences in the various DCP definitions of GFA are generally due to the different timeframes in which these DCPs were prepared.  The key differences are:

·    Measurement of gross floor area from inner face of external walls (rather than the outer face)

·    For single dwellings the exclusions of up to 40sqm of car parking space

·    For single dwellings the exclusion of void levels up to 10% of the total floor area

·    Exclusion of the area of any attic space

It is noted that the Randwick LEP takes precedence over the definitions included in the DCPs.  The LEP definition was amended by the LEP Amendment 23, Gazetted 9 May 2003, with minor changes, including the attic and inner wall measurement as noted above and discussed in detail below.

GFA comparison with State Government provisions and other LGA instruments

The following table provides a comparison of the NSW Government’s Model Provisions definition, the draft ‘Standard LEP Template’ proposed definition, and a number of surrounding, and similar sized Local Council definitions for GFA: 

Model Provisions

Means the sum of the areas of each floor of a building where the area of each floor is taken to be the area within the outer face of the external enclosing walls as measured at a height of 1400mm above each floor level, excluding:

a) columns, fin walls, sun control devices, awnings and any elements projections or works outside the general lines of the outer face of the external wall, and

b) lift towers , cooling towers, machinery and plant rooms, ancillary storage space and air conditioning ducts, and

c) car parking needed to meet any requirements of the Council and any internal designated vehicular or pedestrian access thereto, and

d) space for the loading and unloading of goods, and

e) internal public arcades and thoroughfares, terraces and balconies with outer walls less than 1400mm high.

 

Draft Standard LEP Template definition as in discussion paper September 2004

The total floor area of the building measured from the outside of the external walls or the centre of a common wall.  (Note: Definition derived from the development assessment forum)

Randwick City Council

Means the sum of the areas of each level of a building where the area of each level is taken to be the area within the inner face of the external enclosing walls and that the area of any attic measured at 2.1 metres above floor level of the attic excluding:

a) columns, fin walls, shading devices, awnings, balconies and any other element, projections or works outside the general lines of the outer face of the external wall,

b) lift towers, cooling towers, machinery and plant rooms, and air conditioning ducts,

c) associated car parking and any internal vehicular or pedestrian access to that parking (to ground level), and

d) space for the loading and unloading of goods

City of Sydney

This definition is based on the inner face of the external walls.  It has additional exclusions including grocery, convenience, residential storage, cinemas and communal recreation.  The intention being that these are uses to be encouraged in the city.

Waverly City Council

Adopted the model provisions

Woollahra City Council

This definition is based on the outer face of the external walls and lists specific inclusions

Botany City Council

Adopted the model provisions

Rockdale City Council

This definition is based on the outer face of the external walls and has a range of  similar exclusions

Willoughby City Council

Adopts the model provisions with the exclusion of item e)

 

Key considerations of the Randwick LEP definition

 

The current Randwick LEP definition of GFA differs from these other definitions in five key aspects, being:

1.      Inner or ‘outer’ wall measurement - The definition is based on the inner face of the external enclosing walls.  GFA based on the inner face of the external walls does not penalise an applicant for providing thicker internal walls, particularly in multi unit housing, to provide a good sound barrier and insulation.  Where the calculation is based on the external face of enclosing walls, there may be a propensity to maximize inner space through cutting back on appropriate wall width and thus amenity and livability of the building.  However, the model provisions and many other definitions are based on the outer face of the external enclosing walls.  The inner face approach was adopted in Randwick City, in LEP Amendment 23, to encourage adequate wall width and insulation, particularly in multi unit housing.  Nevertheless, developments must comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) requirements for these issues.  The BCA is undergoing review that is strengthening controls to address these acoustic issues.  Similarly, the introduction of the second stage of BASIX should address these concerns.

2.      Car parking exclusions - The current exclusion of associated car parking and internal vehicular and pedestrian access to that parking to ground level interpretation and intention has been exclusion of car parking required as part of the development and at ground level whilst not encouraging additional car parking.  Where there are particular requirements of Council, such as 2 car parking spaces per 3 or more bedrooms, it is beneficial that these requirements be included in the GFA.  Any review of the current definition could further clarify the definition by stating the exclusion of the required car parking rather than using the broader term ‘associated parking’.

The current definition also penalises storage and garbage areas located in a basement area, as this has been excluded, despite there being no visible change to the bulk and scale of the building.

3.      Voids - The Single Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP definition includes voids up to 10% of the total floor area.  This incentive is provided for single dwelling houses and enables flexibility and open planned design.  The space can, however, contribute to the overall bulk and scale of the dwelling, and given the increasing size of the new houses today, this additional exclusion could be considered for deletion in any review of the definition.

4.      Decks and terraces – In the Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP decks and terraces up to a total of 40sqm are excluded for single dwellings.  This provides incentive to include private open space areas without penalty.  Should these be open walled structures, there appears to be limited benefit in this exclusion (or relevance) as the LEP definition is based only on the external enclosing walls.

5.      Attics - Attic space in the Randwick LEP GFA definition is calculated only where the height of the space exceeds 2.1 metres.  The current model provisions calculate where the height of the space exceeds 1.4 metres.  The Randwick calculation, based on 2.1 metres, reflects usable attic space of sufficient head height and does not penalise the provisions of lower height storage space (also introduced via LEP Amendment 23).

As can be seen above, there is scope for the GFA definition to be amended, standardised and clarified.  The definition has some variations to the Model Provisions definition.  This definition is however, substantially different to the draft template definition, which is a simple definition with no exclusions.  Bringing Council’s current GFA calculation in line with the draft standard template would require an alteration of floor space calculation from the inner enclosing walls to the outer enclosing walls and removing all exclusions.  When applied with the current FSR requirements it would reduce the development potential.  Council’s FSR would thus require revision to provide the same floor space currently permitted.

The practice of managing bulk and scale through generic FSR is acknowledged as a crude and numeric planning tool and is improved where other measures such, as minimum landscape area, also apply.  Design is enhanced when FSR is used in conjunction with SEPP 65.  Planning zones with clear objectives may allow flexibility to demonstrate how a proposal provides a better planning outcome, including the impact on and responsibility to the community. Any alternative, more specific method of managing bulk and scale would require significant resources to prepare future character statements and/or envelope controls for the entire LGA.

Design Review Panel

The draft report was referred to the design review panel for their consideration and comment on the potential implications for development.  Essentially the design review panel (DRP) supports the current definition of GFA and suggests that the proposed DIPNR definition does not encourage environmentally or architecturally sensitive design.  The DRP generally supports the reports summary.  Comments received will be considered in any future review of the GFA definition.

 

consideration of the Standard LEP Template

As can be seen, the GFA definitions vary across local government areas and also within Randwick City Council’s planning instruments, this being the very reason for DIPNR’s preparation of the draft Standard LEP Template.  It is acknowledged that the various definitions create some confusion and thus could be standardised.  Notwithstanding this, Council is consistent in its application and thus its transparency and equity in assessing applications.  Changes to the GFA definition directly affect the spaces calculated in the total floor area and would require a review of FSR across the city to ensure no potential penalty is inappropriately created.  This is likely to be a resource intensive project.

The draft Standard LEP Template definition is simple and clear with no exclusions.  This simple approach is characteristic of the State Government’s planning reform.  As can be seen in the comparison with other planning instruments, this issue of exclusions is not unique to Randwick City. 

The draft Standard LEP Template is currently being reviewed by DIPNR and finalised for exhibition.  DIPNR have advised that the exhibition is intended in mid 2005.  It is understood that the GFA definition has been queried in earlier consultations on the draft template and no position has been reached on whether the exhibited definition will change.

Conclusion

Given that DIPNR’s draft LEP template will be exhibited shortly, the uncertainty of the GFA definition and whether changes are likely to be required through the planning reforms and under the Standard LEP Template, changing the GFA definition at this time would appear to be premature.  A comprehensive review of the Randwick LEP is planned to commence next year following the finalisation of the Randwick City Plan.    This timing should also correlate with the finalisation of the Standard LEP Template and thus provide the format for amending LEP definitions. 

The State Government’s Planning Reforms, announced in September of last year, will require all Councils to prepare a new comprehensive LEP within five years.  As part of the reforms, this LEP would then be reviewed on a five year basis.  To maintain this strategic planning focus, DIPNR advised Councils on 20 April 2005 that minor LEP amendments will not be processed by DIPNR, unless Council can ‘demonstrate a compelling case’.  The Department acknowledges that Council will not begin the preparation of a new comprehensive LEP until the Randwick City Plan is finalised later this year.  It has also acknowledged the draft LEPs for Randwick City, including the dual occupancy review, may proceed (reported in the Councillor Bulletin of 13 May 2005).  A revised GFA definition may be included in the Dual Occupancy LEP also being reported to Council, however, if implemented, any new definition for GFA will affect the FSR calculations.  The GFA definition may then require further amendment if the definition differs from DIPNR’s final LEP template.  This would create confusion, additional difficulty for applicants and for assessing development applications.

Amending the GFA definition at this time may, in any case not be supported by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) given the imminence of the draft Standard Template and would most likely be a short term amendment prior to the comprehensive review.  Given that Council is consistent in application of its definition it is not considered appropriate to amend the definition at this time.

 

Financial impact statement:

 

There is no immediate financial impact for Council.  Resources for commencing the comprehensive LEP review are planned for 2005/06.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note the above report and resolve that the Gross Floor Area definition should only be reviewed upon finalisation of the State Government’s Standard LEP Template.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

ROBYN EISERMANN

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR STRATEGIC PLANNER

 

 

 



[1] Fodor Investments V Hornsby Shire Council (2005) NSWLEC