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

 

 

6 September 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, 13TH SEPTEMBER 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 AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 9TH AUGUST, 2005.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Development Applications

 

5.1                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 3 EDGECLIFFE AVENUE, SOUTH COOGEE.

2

 

5.2                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 73 FERN STREET, RANDWICK.

41

 

5.3                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 55A IRVINE STREET, KINGSFORD.

50

5.4                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 28 WHITE AVENUE, MAROUBRA.

57

 

5.5                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 16 LENTHALL STREET, KENSINGTON.

63

 

5.6                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 11A PARK STREET, CLOVELLY.

123

 

5.7                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 43 CUZCO STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.

151

 

 

6           Miscellaneous

 

6.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 46/2005 - 90TH ANNIVERSARY- FORMATION OF 2ND DIVISION, AUSTRALIAN ARMY.

192

 

6.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES’ REPORT 101/2005 - OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED LENTHALL STREET CLOSURE.

194

6.3                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 56/2005 – DUAL OCCUPANCY AND SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS - DRAFT DCP AND DRAFT LEP (AMENDMENT NO. 36).

197

 

6.4                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 57/2005 - DRAFT ASBESTOS POLICY.

233

 

 

7           Motion Pursuant to Notice

 

7.1                        

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Sullivan and Tracey – Health, Building and Planning Committee Meeting, 9th August, 2005 – Item 5.5, Development Application Report – 9 The Causeway, Maroubra.

252

 

8           General Business

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

…………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

25 August, 2005

FILE NO:

0058/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 New attached dual occupancy, including swimming pools, balconies and basement car parking.

PROPERTY:

 3 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 C M Hairis Architects

OWNER:

 P S Benic

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Bradley Hughes, Murray Matson and Margaret Woodsmith.

 

The application was initially the subject of significant objection with particular reference to loss of privacy, bulk of the development and non-compliance with development standards. Planning concern was also raised with the application in relation to amenity impacts from roof top terraces, bulk of the development and non-compliance with objectives of the applicable controls. Mediation was arranged between affected parties to resolve objection raised by neighbouring properties. Based on this mediation process and ongoing discussion between planning staff and the applicant, amended plans were submitted which resolved the principal points of objection.

 

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

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing dwelling house and associated structures (garage and swimming pool) and erection of a new attached dual occupancy with basement garages, swimming pool and associated terraces. The built form of the attached dual occupancy is contemporary in form, covering a total of two floors of living areas and basement parking below. Generous terrace and deck areas are proposed to the front, rear and side boundaries. A swimming pool is proposed to the front of each dwelling to enjoy a northerly orientation and aspect to the ocean. 

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Edgecliffe Ave one property removed from the intersection with Malabar Rd. The irregularly shaped site has a total area of 773.8sqm with a frontage of 24.43m, a depth of 30.83m and 32.3m and a splayed rear boundary of 24.37m. The site is elevated from street level by some 1-1.5m. This elevated site has a fall to the street of some 2.5m. The site is currently occupied by a part-one part-two storey dwelling that was constructed some time after the second world war. The dwelling is of minimal architectural quality that is not worthy of retention. To the rear of the site is an existing in-ground swimming pool.

 

To the west of the site is a right of carriageway which provides street access to No. 1 Edgecliffe Ave. On the other side of the 4m wide driveway is a four storey multi unit development that addresses both Edgecliffe Ave and Malabar Rd. To the east of the subject site is a part one part two storey dwelling house of a similar age to the dwelling on the subject site. To the south of the site is No. 1 Edgecliffe Ave and beyond are single and two storey dwellings that address Liguria St. To the north of the subject site are single and two storey dwelling houses.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged with Council on the 1 February 2005. The application was notified to neighbouring properties and was the subject of some ten individual letters of objection. A number of points of objection were raised including loss of privacy, unreasonable bulk and scale of the development, loss of views and non-compliance with development standards. Based on this objection and assessment officer advice, the applicant and affected neighbours were encouraged to undertake formal mediation. Two mediation sessions were held at Council and out of this process most of the original points of objection were resolved by better clarification of the proposal by the architect and proposed amendments. No formal resolution eventuated from the mediation process however amended plans were submitted to Council based on the discourse as part of the mediation and were subsequently notified. As a result of this second notification process the original number of submissions was significantly reduced to only two. The main points of objection continue to relate to privacy which are either resolved through recommended conditions of consent or are not considered to be sustainable given current site conditions.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP- Public Notification. The following submissions were received as part of the original notification period:

 

5.1     Objections

 

S J & P M Costelloe (objection not renewed per second notification period)

8 Edgecliffe Ave

 

V Gouranis (objection not renewed per second notification period)

12 Edgecliffe Ave

 

T & M Andrews (objection not renewed per second notification period)

221 Malabar Rd

 

I F Merrells (objection not renewed per second notification period)

223 Malabar Rd

 

R Folk (later withdrawn)

1/217 Malabar Rd

 

H & D Allaous (further objection was received per second notification period)

5 Edgecliffe Ave

 

K Heussner & G Tomaszuk (objection not renewed per second notification period)

10 Edgecliffe Ave

 

T H Pham (objection not renewed per second notification period)

PO Box 397

Bankstown

Owner 6-8 Liguria St

 

Petition of 29 signatories (objection not renewed per second notification period)

J Merrells

223 Malabar Rd first signatory

 

C Bullen (further objection was received per second notification period)

1 Edgecliffe Ave

 

After mediation, of which 19 objectors attended, and notification of the amended plans only 2 objectors relodged submissions with Council:

 

C Bullen

1 Edgecliffe Ave

 

H & D Allaous

5 Edgecliffe Ave

 

As previously raised points of concern were satisfied through mediation and lodgement of amended plans, only the points of objection raised as part of the second notification period need be addressed as part of this report.

 

·        First floor bedrooms are higher than the existing dividing fence to the eastern boundary

 

Comment

 

This matter is discussed in greater detail under Privacy of the Environmental Assessment section of this report. However, in general bedrooms are considered to be low usage habitable rooms as such overlooking from these rooms is considered to be of secondary concern compared with high usage habitable rooms such as living/dining/kitchen areas. 

 

·        The second floor terrace will result in noise transfer and should be enclosed in glass

 

Comment

 

To require the enclosure of the terrace/balcony areas would result in additional bulk for this development and increase the area which would be included in gross floor area. It is further noted that enclosing this area to the side boundary would actually intensify the potential use in this location thereby having an increased impact to the adjacent neighbour. A further discussion on Privacy is provided subsequently within this report.

 

·        Proposed tree plantings along the eastern boundary are likely to impact on sewer pipes

 

Comment

 

It is considered that dwarf magnolia, are proposed to be planted along this eastern boundary and are unlikely to have invasive roots however a condition of consent will be included as part of the recommendation ensuring that only landscaping that has non- invasive root systems be planted in this section of the site.

·        Reduction in height is a token gesture only

 

Comment

 

The lowering in height was undertaken in an effort to resolve neighbour objection and Council concern that the objective of the standard be complied with. The lowering in height successfully resolved a number of objections and as such it is considered that the amendment is not tokenistic. A further discussion on height is provided under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·        Overlooking into bedrooms with insufficient separation between the two properties/windows

 

Comment

 

This matter is discussed in greater detail under Privacy within the Environmental Assessment section of this report. In general it is noted that 8.5m of separation exists between proposed first floor living room windows and existing bedroom windows to No. 1 Edgecliffe Ave. Privacy treatment to these windows should resolve ongoing objection as discussed under Privacy section of this report.

 

5.2     Support

 

P Elmowy

Elders Real Estate

679-685 Anzac Pde

Maroubra

 

C Cheng

19 Seaside Pde

South Coogee

 

L J King

9 Seaside Pde

South Coogee

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICER’S COMMENTS

 

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

 

Landscape Comments

There are two Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palms) of approximately 2 metres in height on Council’s nature strip. These were likely planted by the property owner, not Council, and are deemed inappropriate given their sharp, poisonous spines as well as their susceptibility to the water borne fungal disease, Fusarium sp. As such, these two palms should be removed during the course of site works, with replacement street trees in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Masterplan to be provided in their place.

 

In the front yard, along the northern boundary, there are three Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) of approximately 3-4 metres in height. Although covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, they are insignificant specimens, and as such, Council would not object to their removal subject to landscape treatment being provided along this frontage as part of this proposal.

 

In the rear yard of the adjoining property to the south, 1 Edgecliffe Avenue, close to the common boundary, there is one Washingtonia robusta (Washington Palm) of approximately 5 metres in height. The proposed works is sited a reasonable distance from this palm, and as such, it will remain unaffected by this application.

 

Drainage Comments

Onsite detention of stormwater is not required for this application.

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

30 - Min. Lot Size

450sqm

773.8sqm

Complies

31 - Landscape Area

40% landscaped and no more than 50% over podium level

44% and 28.6% permeable

Complies

32 - FSR

0.5:1

0.665:1

Does not comply- SEPP 1 objection provided.

33 - Building Height

7m external wall height, 9.5m overall maximum

8.91m and 9.35m

External wall height does not comply- SEPP 1 objection sought

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

No

Outside of the foreshore protection areas

 

Clause 32- Floor Space Ratio

What is the Clause sought to be varied and is it a Development Standard?

 

Clause 32(1) of Randwick LEP 1998 imposes a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1 at the site.

Clause 32(1) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 is a FSR (FSR) control. It is a numerical development standard and can therefore be varied with the consent of Council.

 

What is the Object or Purpose of the Standard?

 

The object of this development standard stated at Clause 32 of the LEP is as follows:

 

“To establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special use zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.”

 

Is Compliance with the Standard Unreasonable and Unnecessary in the Circumstances of the Case?

 

Clause 32(1) of Randwick LEP 1998 imposes a maximum FSR of 0.5:1 at the site.

 

The site has an area of 733sqm. This allows a maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 366.5sqm  at the site.

 

The development has a proposed FSR of 0.665:1 which fails to comply with the maximum 0.5:1 FSR requirement.

 

In considering the impact of this non-compliance, it should be noted that the additional floor space occurs at the rear of the site and will not affect the presentation of the building to Edgecliffe Ave. In addition, and most importantly, the proposal does not give rise to any unreasonable adverse environmental impacts in relation to adjoining properties, with particular regard to No 1 and 5 Edgecliffe Ave, in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

 

In conjunction with the discussion above, compliance with the FSR Development Standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance, for the following reasons:

 

·        The primary variation from the standard can be attributed to the topography of the site;

·        The attached dual occupancy has been designed to provide a form that is well articulated and modulated when viewed from all directions.

·        The proposal is well setback from the street and from neighbouring dwellings.

·        The development will have a reduced bulk and scale of the dwelling as seen from associated photo montages.

·        The proposal does not undermine the amenity of neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, privacy and loss of views.

·        Given that almost half of the excess floor area is below ground level external bulk is not affected.

 

Is Compliance with the Standard Consistent with the Aims of the Policy?

 

The aim of SEPP 1 is to provide flexibility in the application of planning controls where the merits of a proposal warrant such flexibility. It has been demonstrated above that strict compliance with the FSR development standard at Clause 32(1) of LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary and therefore it is considered appropriate to invoke the provisions of SEPP 1 to permit a variation to the clause.

 

In doing so, the proposal is not considered to hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act, which are to promote and coordinate the orderly and economic use and development of land while having consideration for the environmental, social and economic impacts of carrying out the development.

 

Therefore, supporting the proposed variation to the FSR control in Clause 32(1) of LEP 1998 is consistent with the aims of the policy.

 

Is the Objection Well Founded?

 

Having regard to the above, compliance with the Development Standard is considered both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case where the resultant development, subject to conditions of consent will have a minimal amenity impact to neighbouring properties. As such the objection is considered to be well founded. The sought variation to LEP 1998 Clause 32 floor space ratio can be supported.

 

Clause 33 Building heights- external wall

 

What is the Clause sought to be varied and is it a Development Standard?

 

Clause 33(3) of Randwick LEP 1998 imposes a maximum wall height of 7m in the 2A Zone.

 

Clause 33(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 is a wall height control. It is a numerical development standard and can therefore be varied with the consent of Council.

 

What is the Object or Purpose of the Standard?

 

The object of this development standard stated at Clause 33 of the LEP is as follows:

 

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

 

Is Compliance with the Standard Unreasonable and Unnecessary in the Circumstances of the Case?

 

The proposed building incorporates a skillion roof whose height matches that of the external walls.

 

The building will exceed external wall height at 8.91m from the permissible 7m however it should be noted that overall maximum height does comply with the permissible 9.5m and the variation is due to this roof form.

 

The plans which are submitted with the amended application have been amended in order to lower the height of the proposed additions by 350mm. It should be noted that the actual variation from external wall height is set back from side boundaries given the generous second level setbacks from the side boundaries.  As such, the additional bulk and variation to external wall height will be confined to the centre of the subject site.

 

The amended proposal performs satisfactorily in respect of environmental impacts in respect of adjoining properties.

 

Furthermore, the amended proposal incorporates a reduction in the depth of the proposed addition, as well as the provision of additional side setbacks to ensure that there is adequate separation between the proposed new structure, and the adjoining dwelling houses.

 

In conjunction with the discussion above, compliance with the wall height Development Standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance, as the proposed work:

 

·        The proposal incorporates a number of planes which are setback from each other to provide an articulated façade which visually reduces the bulk and scale of the proposal.

·        The wall height varies to the side elevations with the stated variation being a maximum only. Some section of the building is closer to compliance at some 7.3m.

·        Given the context of the site and its topography strict compliance with development standard in terms of maximum wall height is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

·        The design of the proposal considers the slope of the land and this is attributed to the variation to external wall height.

·        The excess wall height does not result in any significant impact to neighbouring properties particularly as there is extensive separation between these properties.

·        The bulk and scale of this proposed dual occupancy is considered to have a significantly reduced bulk to buildings recently approved in the immediate surrounds.

 

Having regard to the above, compliance with the Development Standard is considered both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Is Compliance with the Standard Consistent with the Aims of the Policy?

 

The aim of SEPP 1 is to provide flexibility in the application of planning controls where the merits of a proposal warrant such flexibility. It has been demonstrated above that strict compliance with the Wall Height development standard at Clause 33(3) of LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary and therefore it is considered appropriate to invoke the provisions of SEPP 1 to permit a variation to the clause.

 

In doing so, the proposal is not considered to hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act, which are to promote and coordinate the orderly and economic use and development of land while having consideration for the environmental, social and economic impacts of carrying out the development.

 

Therefore, supporting the proposed variation to the Wall Height control in Clause 33(3) of LEP 1998 is consistent with the aims of the policy.

 

Is the Objection Well Founded?

 

Having regard to the above, compliance with the Development Standard is considered both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case where the resultant development, subject to conditions of consent, will have a minimal amenity impact to neighbouring properties. As such the objection is considered to be well founded. The sought variation to LEP 1998 Clause 33 wall height can be supported.

 

(b)     Policy Controls

 

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.

 

Landscaping

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area.

44% of the site is landscaped area. Complies

S1

A minimum of 25m˛ of useable private open space is to be provided.

The rear yard has an area of 84sqm and 54sqm. Complies

S1

Each dwelling must provide an area of private open space capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

The above areas have dimensions of approx 7x12m and 4.5x12 metres. Complies.

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

28.6%% of the site is permeable. Complies.

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; indigenous species are used and existing vegetation is recycled where possible; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

The proposed landscaped areas are considered to be of sufficient dimension, area and quality to enable adequate external recreational areas for future occupants of the development.

 

Floor Area

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.665:1. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The floor area is exceeded with this proposal from that permissible under Clause 32 RLEP 1998 at 0.5:1. It is considered that in general the proposal is compliant with the general scale of development within the immediate locality and the additional area above the permissible has a minimal impact on the residential amenity of adjacent neighbours and the relationship of the development to its streetscape. A further discussion on floor area is provided under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m and overall maximum of 9.5m.

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 8.91 metres and  maximum overall height of 9.35m. External wall height does not comply – see assessment below

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

The proposal provides for excavation in excess of 1m with the provision of a basement garage however as this application seeks approval for an attached dual occupancy where additional parking will be generated this variation due to the addition of basement parking is considered acceptable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Complies minimum at 1100mm.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Complies.

S4

The length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

Not applicable where orientation of the site has the southern boundary to the rear with a compliant rear setback of 4.5m.

S5

The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

Not applicable.

 

The Objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality; to ensure impacts in terms of privacy, natural light and views are minimised; and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant Performance Requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and the topography; buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets; with respect to additions to semi-detached dwellings they integrate with the attached dwelling; and views are shared.

 

External wall height is exceeded with this proposal however a discussion on external wall height is provided under Building Height section of Environmental Assessment. External wall height is considered to be varied as a direct result of the chosen built form of the development where a contemporary skillion roof form will inevitably result in external wall height being varied without impacting on compliance with overall height of the development.

 

Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed dwelling is set on the front boundary but is generally consistent with the setbacks of adjoining dwellings where garages are located within the front alignment of this elevated section of Edgecliffe Ave.

S2

No part of the building is closer than 4.5m from rear boundary.

The proposed dwelling is 4.5 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

The proposed development is set back 1100mm from the side boundaries. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 4.5 metres from the side boundaries excluding terrace areas and 1.775metres including terrace areas. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

 

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

 

Setbacks are compliant with the DCP requirements as well as being consistent with the streetscape character and dominant pattern of siting of buildings within the street.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

The proposal will have habitable room windows in the south elevation located approximately 8.8m from windows in the adjoining dwelling at No. 1 Edgecliffe Avenue. To address this, a condition requiring the installation of fixed louvred privacy screens to the two kitchen and one dining room windows for both of the proposed dwellings to the southern elevation will be applied should approval be granted.

S1

Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle.

First floor balconies have been retained despite opportunities for overlooking as a compromise with deletion of roof top areas. See discussion below.

S1

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more or fixed obscure glazing below that height.

Privacy screens to be required where necessary.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

 

The original proposal sought roof top terraces and larger first floor terrace areas than provided as part of the current scheme. As a result of requiring the deletion of roof top terraces the rear balconies, which are oriented towards properties to the south, can be retained where these areas allow for view enjoyment and additional articulation to the form of the building. It should be noted that objection from the south typically relates to windows off living rooms not terrace and balcony areas. A further discussion on privacy is provide under Environmental Assessment however generally it is considered that loss of privacy can be reasonably resolved through the provision of privacy screens where there is minimal ability for overlooking due to generous building separation and lack of windows to affected elevations.

 

Safety & Security

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The proposed front door faces the street. Complies.

S1,3

Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street.

The proposed dwelling has windows that overlook the street. Complies.

S2

A Council-approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence.

Suitable condition included.

 

 

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

 

There is no concern raised for safety or security impacts as a result of this development.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Council’s Parking DCP requires 1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

The proposed dwellings have parking each for 2 cars. Complies.

S1

Car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 5.5x2.5metres. Complies.

S1

Driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary.

The proposed driveway is greater than 3 metres wide given it accommodates two dwellings and is set back at least 1 metre from the side boundary. Complies.

S1

Driveways have a maximum width of 3m at the property boundary.

The proposed driveway is 3 metres at the front boundary. Complies.

S1

Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 thereafter.

The proposed driveway gradient is less than 1 in 8. Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

Parking and access is provided from the rear of the allotment where possible.

Not applicable.

S2

Garages and carports located behind the building line where parking only available from the front of the site.

The proposed garage is located within the building line however this is consistent with other properties within the streetscape and will not have an adverse impact. Complies. Does not comply – see assessment below

S2

Driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment

The proposed garage occupies a visual 12 % of the width of the site frontage due to the location of the retaining wall to the street elevation. Complies.

 

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

 

The design of the double garages has been undertaken in accordance with advice provided by Council’s development engineer to restore the existing dilapidated retaining wall on Council land. The design of the garage will need to incorporate construction of a new retaining wall and, as such, strict compliance with the controls will not be achieved although a better outcome in terms of pedestrian accessibility will be attained. It should be noted that the proposal would be subject to a Section 94 contribution charge of $2732.00 for open space and $1208.00 for community facilities. Due to the significant cost to the applicant of restoring the affected section of the retaining wall, it is considered reasonable that the Section 94 contribution be waived for this development. 

 

 

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

Complies

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 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 private open space to less than 3 hours. Complies.

 

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

 

In terms of Performance Requirements, as a general guide new dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies must demonstrate that they have been designed to achieve energy efficiency; achieve a BASIX, for which a certificate was submitted; and buildings are orientated and internally configured to take advantage of and maximise solar access.

The amount of additional overshadowing as a result of this development will almost entirely fall over the existing right of way to the west of the site and will not impact on any adjoining properties.

 

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     Privacy

 

Loss of privacy has been raised by No. 1 and No. 5 Edgecliffe Ave, the two immediately adjoining neighbours.

 

No. 1 Edgecliffe Ave has two windows and a small section of balcony that is oriented towards the subject site. These windows are off bedrooms and are typically covered in window furnishings. The distance between these windows and the habitable room windows on the first floor south elevation of the proposed development will be approximately 8.8m. It is considered that overlooking between these windows will be minimal given the slightly reduced separation compared to the standard maximum 9m separation distance required. Notwithstanding this, louvred privacy screens will be required by condition of consent to be fitted to the two kitchen and one dining room windows for both of the dwellings to the southern elevation. The screens will be required to be fixed so that sightlines south-east to the Lurline Bay foreshore are retained but sightlines south to No. 1 Edgecliffe Ave are minimised.

 

In relation to No. 5 Edgecliffe Avenue, the objector’s claim of loss of privacy arising from the proposed first floor terrace on the eastern elevation of the proposed development is not considered sustainable for the following reasons:

 

·        The proposed terrace (at RL 55.05) will overlook the roof of No. 5 Edgecliffe Avenue (with roof ridge at RL 55.00) .

 

·        The proposed terrace is unlikely to become a primary recreation area as better views and solar aspect are achieved from the northern terrace.

 

·        Deletion of the proposed terrace will only result in a non-trafficable setback of the same area and form as that currently sought as an accessible terrace and would afford little additional amenity benefit for No. 5 Edgecliffe Avenue.

 

·        In the event of any future redevelopment of No. 5 Edgecliffe Avenue, any additional windows or openings on its western elevation will be unlikely as this elevation will experience greater heat loading and have no view enjoyment which is otherwise available from the northern, southern and eastern direction.

 

Furthermore, the objector’s request that the terrace area be enclosed in glass to eliminate noise transfer is considered inappropriate in that it would actually intensify the potential use in this location thereby having an increased impact on the objector’s amenity. Moreover, any enclosure of the terrace area will result in additional bulk for this development and increase the area of the proposal such that it would be required to be included as gross floor area. It is considered that loss of privacy is not a sustainable objection that would warrant further redesign or even refusal of the application.

 

8.2     Floor Space ratio

 

A discussion on floor space ratio has been provided under the submitted SEPP 1 objection. It is noted that the variation is reasonably minor being 0.665:1 as opposed to 0.5:1 however as this is a development standard, a SEPP 1 objection needs to be submitted to vary this standard. Within the context of the street an FSR of 0.665:1 is quite modest and not an unreasonable density. It is considered that the primary additional floor area above the permissible, which results in the variation, is largely contained below ground in the form of storerooms. The additional floor area above the permissible does not result in amenity impacts to neighbouring properties or the street and therefore is a preferred outcome.

 

8.3     External wall height

 

External wall height for an attached dual occupancy in the 2A zone is 7m. The proposal provides for a varied external wall height between 7.3m and 8.91m. The variation can be attributed to the architecture of the development where the external walls rise to meet the skillion roof. This result in additional external wall height yet achieves a compliant or reduced overall height. There is no particular concern for the additional height above the preferred 7m as a compliant height would be difficult to achieve given the slope of the land and the chosen architectural style. It should be noted that the maximum height and therefore external wall height was reduced by 350mm as part of the amended plans which resulted in a further reduction in overall height below the permissible of Clause 33 of RLEP 1998.

 

The additional height above the permissible does not have an adverse impact on adjoining neighbours in terms of loss of solar access, view sharing or apparent bulk. It should also be appreciated that the subject site and proposed building is viewed within the context of the street and there are a number of larger buildings including the four storey multi-unit development immediately to the west of the subject site. Further discussion on external wall height is provided as part of the discussion of the SEPP 1 objection above.

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposed attached dual occupancy is considered to achieve the objectives and performance requirements of the applicable development standards and assessment criteria; Points of objection raised, primarily in regard to amenity impacts, are either minor in nature or are adequately resolved through submitted design changes or conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 32(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988, relating to Floor Space Ratio, Clause 33 (3) relating to Building Height on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the objective of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Infrastructure Planning & Natural Resources be advised accordingly.

 

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. DA/58/2005 for permission demolish the existing dwelling house and associated structures and erect a new attached dual occupancy incorporating balconies, pools and garages, 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 City Planning:-

 

1.         Prior to the consent becoming operational the applicant shall submit amended plans to Council, for approval, showing the access to the eastern garage being accessed by its own vehicular crossing directly opposite the Edgecliffe Avenue frontage.

 

The applicant is advised that the alignment level for the garage entrance to this eastern garage is not to exceed 600mm above the Council kerb level opposite the garage entrance.

 

These conditions shall be satisfied within 12 months.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

REFERENCED PLANS:  

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 02 Issue A of 03/15 dated January 2005 and submitted to Council 1 February 2005, 03-07 Issue B, received by Council on 30/06/05, and additional detail submitted to satisfy deferred commencement conditions 1, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces of the addition are to be compatible with the submitted details and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the street scape, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

3.       Metal roof sheeting is to be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment.

 

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

 

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

 

6.       Plantings along the eastern boundary shall be a species with a non-invasive roots system to avoid damage to adjoining sewer pipes to No. 5 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

7.       Privacy screens shall be provided to the kitchen and dining windows to the southern elevation to minimise sightlines into the adjacent windows of No. 1 Edgecliffe Ave. These screens shall have a maximum height of 1600mm and be fixed louvres to minimise sightlines to these windows whilst preserving views down to the foreshore and Lurline bay to the south-east.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11.     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.

 

12.     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.

 

13.     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.

 

14.     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.

 

15.     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.

 

16.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

19.     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.

 

20.     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.

 

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

 

22.     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).

 

23.     Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical phase inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon shall be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

24.     Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by the Principal Certifying Authority ) is also required to ensure that the relevant site management, public safety and sediment and erosion requirements specified in Council’s consent are being satisfied.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)       Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being constructed at the approved levels.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

34.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

36.     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.

 

37.     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.

 

38.     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”.

 

39.     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.

 

40.     During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

41.     Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

42.     Dust control measures and practices may include:-

·           Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·           Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·           Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·           Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·           Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

          Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

43.     Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

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

 

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

 

          Details of the proposed temporary fences located upon the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority and the public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

          If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

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

 

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

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

          the slope of the land

          site access points and access control measures

          location and type of all sediment and erosion control measures

          location of existing vegetation, to be retained

          material stockpile or storage areas and methods of sediment control

          location of existing and proposed drainage systems

          proposed disposal of site water

          location of building operations and equipment

          proposed re-vegetation details

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

 

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

 

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

 

46.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

47.     The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

49.     The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.

 

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:

 

50.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance and there are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

 

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

 

51.     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)       $5000.00  -           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 or a Council approved subcontractor. 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.

 

Civil Works Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

a)       Reconstruct/extend the concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

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

 

c)       Construct concrete footpath and steps to serve the pedestrian gate entrance located in the middle of the site.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

53.     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.

 

54.     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.

 

55.     The applicant shall meet all costs associated with removing the Council nature strip and timber retaining wall west of the proposed pedestrian gate entrance to in line with the eastern edge of the pedestrian gate entrance and construction of a block retaining wall, with any necessary guardrails, to a qualified structural engineers details. This shall include the cost to relocate any public utility services.

 

          Note: plans submitted for the construction certificate are to show the location of the block retaining wall as mentioned above as well as its structural details.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

 

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

 

56.     The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must be as follows:

 

          Driveway Entrance – RL 47.80

 

          Pedestrian Gate Entrance – RL 48.90

 

57.     The design alignment levels issued by Council must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

58.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $806.00 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:

 

59.     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.

 

60.     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.

 

61.     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 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:

 

62.     Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to an infiltration area with a minimum 5 m2 base area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit that drains to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

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

 

 

          Notes:

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

b.       The infiltration/rubble pit shall:-

         

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

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

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

         Note:  other equivalent methods of infiltration may be adopted.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

d.       The overflow pipe/s from any rainwater tank/s shall be directed into the infiltration area.

 

63.     The infiltration areas/Absorption Trenches must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

Waste Management Conditions

 

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

 

64.     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 dual occupancy

 

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

65.     Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

66.     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.

67.     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.

 

68.     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.

 

69.     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.

 

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

 

Tree Management

 

71.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $319.00 to Council,

 

b.       Being the cost for Council to supply and install 2 x 45 litre street trees (Banksia integrifolia, Coastal Banksia’s) on the eastern side of the proposed driveway at the completion of all works ($290.00 + GST)

          The contribution shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

72.     The following trees shall be removed as part of the proposal, subject to the planting of 2 x 45 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the site, comprising one within each proposed dwelling. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a)       Two Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palms) on the nature strip

b)      Three Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) along the northern boundary

 

SWIMMING POOLS & SPAS: (Assessment Officer)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

75.     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

          The operation of swimming pool/spa pool pump and equipment is restricted, if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, the equipment shall not be operated during the following hours, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

          before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

          before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Architectural Plans

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

27 July, 2005

FILE NO:

DA597/2003A4 Plans “B”

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to increase the length of the approved ground and first floor addition and alter polycarbonate roof above the rear balcony to colorbond roof.

PROPERTY:

 73 Fern Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr A Van Dam

OWNER:

 Mr A Van Dam and Mrs S J Van Dam

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the owner/applicant is a relative of an employee of the Council.

 

The modification seeks consent to increase the length of the ground and upper floor addition and alter and reduce the roofline above the rear upper level balcony.

 

The main issues for consideration are the increased floor space ratio, resultant bulk and scale of the building and the potential loss of natural light and overshadowing to the adjoining premises.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for a Section 96 modification to the approved plans. The modifications will involve the following:

 

1.       Extending the first floor master bedroom by 2005mm towards the rear by reducing the depth of the first floor balcony by 2m.

2.       Extending the ground floor family room and laundry by 1525mm towards the rear.

3.       Replace the poly carbonate skillion roof above the rear balcony with colourbond custom orb skillion roof and redesign the first floor roofline by increasing the length of the skillion roof to reduce the height of the building and resultant impacts.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings. The subject premises is on the eastern side of Fern Street and contains a free standing single storey dwelling on an allotment of land with overall dimensions of 8.165m x 42.66m and an area of 343m2, the site is relatively level with a fall of up to 1.5m towards the rear of the premises.

 

Adjoining the site directly to the north is a substantial two storey dwelling on a site approximately 2m higher than the subject premises and to the south there is a two storey dwelling of similar bulk and scale as the proposed first floor addition to the dwelling. The premises to the rear of the dwelling are separated by Fern Lane.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

Approval was granted for ground floor alterations and first floor additions on 23 September 2003.

 

The application originally proposed to site the northern wall of the upper level in part upon the boundary, as does the existing ground floor level. Advice was provided to the applicant that this could not be supported due to the impact upon the adjoining premises, and as a result the plans were amended to have the whole upper level addition sited 900mm from the northern boundary.

A previous Section 96 application also sought to increase the floor area of the addition and length of the building towards the rear to the same extent and also increased the length of the hipped roof towards the rear. That Section 96 application was referred to Council on the 24th August 2004, for determination at the request of Councillor’s Bastic, Procopiadis and Tracey and was deferred for mediation which was unsuccessful. Notwithstanding the recommendation for approval, the application was refused at the subsequent Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting of 7th September 2004 for the following reasons.

 

1.       The proposed FSR for the development is excessive and does not meet the performance requirements of the DCP.

2.       The proposed upper level extension adds unreasonably to the visual bulk and scale of the building to the detriment of the visual amenity of the adjoining properties.

3.       The proposal will adversely impact on the adjoining property to the south in terms of overshadowing, and

4.       The proposal will result in the loss of views from the property at 71 Fern Street Clovelly.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1     Objections

 

Mr Thomas Morrow – 75 Fern Street, Clovelly

 

●       The Section 96 (2) application has the same FSR as the previous application which is over 21% greater than the DCP guidelines.

 

Comment

 

It is agreed that the preferred solution FSR of 0.6:1 is exceeded with the already approved FSR being 0.66:1 and the proposed modifications will increase this to 0.72:1 and that non compliance with the performance requirements of the DCP and the excessive bulk and scale of the building as altered were among the reasons for refusal of the previous Section 96 Application. Notwithstanding the above, and the fact that the preferred solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies are not complied with, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the building bulk will be compatible with the surrounding built forms, particularly the three level dwelling adjoining to the north. It should also be noted that the percentage increase in floor space of the proposed work over that floor space already existing is 9.3%.

 

●       The proposed modifications have the same building dimensions as those in the previous Section 96 application which was refused and result in the same detrimental visual bulk and scale impacts.

 

 

 

Comment

 

The overall building envelope is less than that proposed with the previous Section 96 application in that the extent of the hipped roof form remains as existing and the roof to the proposed extended building length is of a skillion nature, which will have less of an impact to adjoining premises in relation to overall visual bulk and scale.

 

●       The proposal will result in an adverse impact upon their property with respect to overshadowing and there will already be extensive overshadowing as a result of the approved plans.

 

Comment

 

In comparison with the approved proposal it is not considered that there will be any significant additional overshadowing to the objectors premises in that the overall roof form  as approved with the original application remains unaltered and the skillion roof to the proposed increased length of the building is the same height as the approved skillion roof over the rear balcony.

 

●       The proposed Section 96 application should be refused on the grounds that it does not meet the Council guidelines that were used to refuse the original Section 96 application.

 

Comment

 

This proposed Section 96 application has sought to address the reasons for the refusal of the previous Section 96 application by deleting the extension of the hipped roof towards the rear of the premises and maintaining the approved skillion roof above the rear balcony. This amendment has the effect of reducing the extent of potential overshadowing and visual bulk and scale and impact upon views at the adjoining premises at 71 Fern Street, Clovelly, which in turn indicates compliance with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

6.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-        Building Code of Australia.

-        Development Control Plan – Dwellings Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

 

 

6.1     Policy Controls

 

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

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements or preferred solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

 

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

 

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

S9 Solar access to solar collectors on adjacent buildings maintained between 9.00am and 3.00pm each day.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

The amount of additional overshadowing in comparison to the approved proposal is relatively minor and will not result in any significant degree of additional overshadowing that would warrant the refusal of this application on that basis alone.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1 Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

S1 40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

Currently, there is approx 41% of the site available as landscaped area therefore the preferred solutions of the DCP are met.

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

 

Original plans approved at 0.66:1. Proposed modification seeks increase to 0.72:1 – See Assessment Section

BUILDING SETBACKS

Rear Setback

 

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

Rear Setback

 

S2 No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

Rear setback is 10m and therefore complies with the DCP.

 

 

7.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

7.1     Substantially the same

 

The proposed modification represents a relatively small increase in the approved envelope and has not introduced any new elements. As such, the modifications to the development proposal are considered to represent substantially the same development as that originally approved.

 

7.2     Consideration of submissions

 

There will be no significant additional adverse impacts on adjoining neighbours by way of overshadowing, building bulk or loss of natural light due to the minor nature of the application. The submissions made as part of the notification period have been previously addressed under the “Community Consultation” section 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     Floor Space Ratio

 

The original application was approved with an FSR of 0.66:1. The proposed modification will increase the FSR to 0.72:1. The applicant has stated that the introduction of varying setbacks, wall articulation, varying heights and creating interest in roof design has minimised any adverse effect on neighbouring dwellings. The applicant has also stated that “the majority of lot sizes and building floor areas in Fern St, Clovelly, and the surrounding areas are similar in size and site area.”

 

The performance requirement in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies is that building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms and must minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours, streets and public open space. It is considered that whilst the preferred solution has been exceeded, the performance requirement has been met. The increased bulk cannot be seen from the street or public open space, the proposal is consistent with surrounding built forms and the addition represents a relative minor increase in terms of building bulk. Finally, neighbouring properties should not experience additional adverse impacts by way of overshadowing, loss of natural light and loss of views.

 

8.2     Solar Access

 

The amended shadow diagram submitted with the proposed modification, when compared to the shadow diagram submitted with the original plans, shows little change in overshadowing impacts as the adjoining dwelling to the south side will already be predominantly in shadow. As mentioned previously, the point from which the shadow is cast is from the roof of the first floor balcony which will not change under the proposed modification.

 

Whilst the proposal cannot meet the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, the performance requirement is met. The northern wall of the adjoining property to the south will not experience any additional overshadowing. The principle outdoor recreation area of the dwelling to the south will experience a slight increase in overshadowing although the shadow will be cast from the lower storey thus reducing the extent.

 

It should be acknowledged that the site is oriented east-west and slopes to the south, constraining development opportunities to some extent. The approved wall height is 6.5m on the northern elevation and 6.9m on the southern elevation thus complying with the preferred solution in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. Compliance with the height requirements will in turn reduce the impact of overshadowing to adjoining properties. Overall, the proposed modification will have minimal impacts in terms of additional overshadowing and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies have been achieved.

 

9.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications to the approved plans sought as part of this application are minor in nature relating to a minimal increase in FSR and subsequent building bulk located at the rear of the building. These modifications will have negligible impacts in terms of overshadowing and loss of light and views to adjoining properties. Overall, the proposal will not adversely affect the streetscape nor the amenity enjoyed by surrounding property owners.

 

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. 597/2003 on property 73 Fern Street, Clovelly in the following manner:

 

·           Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 03 310 Sheets 1a to 9a, dated 25 August 2003 and received by Council on the 4 September 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered 03 310 Sheets 1c to 9c, dated 20th October 2004. and received by Council on the 23rd 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 may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

29 July, 2005

FILE NO:

515/05A4 Configuration Plan

 

PROPOSAL:

 Hardstand carspace to front of dwelling

PROPERTY:

 55A Irvine Street, Kingsford

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Ms L H Brady

OWNER:

 Ms L H Brady

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application details the installation of a hard stand car space between the front of the dwelling and street alignment.

 

The application is referred to the Health Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillor’s Andrews, Nash & Seng.

 

The main issue is the impact of the installation of the car space upon the appearance of the dwelling and the local streetscape and non compliance with the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details the installation of a hard stand parking space to the front of the dwelling having overall dimensions of 3.5m x 4.863m sited 250mm from the southern side boundary and 3.325m from the northern side boundary.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Irvine Street and has a site frontage of 6.825m a depth of 44.655m and a site area of 342m˛. The site contains a single storey semi detached dwelling, which together with the adjoining semi detached dwelling is in original condition and represents a good intact example of this style of dwellings.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

There are no other relevant matters relating to this premise.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification and no response has been received.

 

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

 

 

 

6.1     Policy Controls

Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

 

CONTROLS

RELEVANT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

RELEVANT PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE WITH CONTROLS

Landscaping and open space

P1- the size and dimensions of landscaped areas suit the projected requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

P6-unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised and designed to facilitate infiltration of water.

S1- a minimum of 40% of the site area is provided as landscaped area.

 

S6-a minimum of 20% of the site has permeable, soft landscaped treatment

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies, 60% of site area soft landscaping.

Garages, carports and driveways

 

 

P1-conveniently and safely serve users.

 

P2-not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape.

 

P3-car parking areas are designed to facilitate stormwater infiltration on site.

 

P4-uncovered car parking areas are suitably landscaped to enhance amenity.

S1-car parking spaces have a minimum dimensions of 5.5m x 2.5m. Driveways have a minimum width of 3m and are setback at least 1m from the side boundary.

 

S2-driveways, car spaces and parking structures not occupy more than 35% of the width of the site.

Car parking dimensions do not satisfy minimum dimensions and car space is sited closer than 1m from the side boundary, see comment in Section 7.

 

Does not comply, 50% of the width of the site see comment in Section 7.

 

 

 

Does not comply, see comment in Section 7.

 

 

Development Control Plan - Parking

 

Part 3.1.3 of the DCP specifies that the minimum dimensions for a car space are 5.5m x 2.5m.

 

The proposed car space has a length of 4.863m which fails to comply with either of these controls of the DCP.

 

7.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The proposed hard stand car space to the front of the dwelling fails to satisfy either the performance requirements or preferred solutions of the DCP in the following circumstances. The removal of a portion of the existing masonry dwarf wall to the front boundary which extends across the pair of semis will detract from both the appearance of the pair of dwellings and the streetscape and the car space has no landscaping component and will not facilitate stormwater infiltration. The overall dimensions of the car space having a maximum depth of 4.863m is well below the minimum depth of 5.5m as stipulated in the preferred solution of the DCP and the width of the allotment that would be occupied by the car space is 50% which exceeds the preferred solution maximum of 35%.

 

Further, the installation of a car space to this premises will result in the loss of a public parking space in the street.

 

8.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal to construct a hardstand car space within the front building alignment is contrary to Council’s Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Section 4.7.2, in that the car space does not satisfy the performance requirements of this section and the minimum dimensions as detailed in the preferred solutions of the DCP, does not include any landscaping component or method of stormwater infiltration and occupies more than 35% of the width of the site. 

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.515/05 for permission to install a hard stand car space within the front yard of 55A Irvine Street Kingsford for the following reasons: -

 

1        The proposed car space does not comply with objectives of part 4.7.1 of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the car space will detract from the local streetscape.

 

2        The proposed car space does not comply with the performance requirements of part 4.7.2 of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that it will detract from the appearance of the development, and has no landscaping component to enhance visual amenity.

 

3        The proposed car space is sited closer than 1m from the side boundary and exceeds the maximum preferred width of 35% of the allotment.

 

4        The proposed car space has a depth of 4.863m and does not comply with the minimum dimensions of the controls of the Development Control Plan for Parking which is 5.5m.

 

5        The depth of the proposed car space is less than the minimum dimension length of 5.4m as specified in Australian Standard 2890.1.2004.

 

6        Approval of the car space would not be in the public interest in that it would set a poor precedent and the proposal will result in a loss of an on street parking space.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration plan.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING 

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

19 August, 2005

FILE NO:

119/2004A4 Plans

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2)  Application to modify development consent.

PROPERTY:

 28 White Avenue, Maroubra

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr T M Renford

OWNERS:

 Mr T M Renford; Ms C J Renford; Ms K P Renford;

 Mr C T Renford; Ms C F Briggs

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This application is a Section 96 (2) application which seeks consent to amend the original development consent to erect a blade wall to the southern elevation of the dwelling for a distance of 2.53m past the rear of the upper level.

 

The application is referred to the Health Building and Planning Committee meeting for determination as the original application was determined by Council.

 

The main issue is the impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises at No. 30 White Avenue by extending the blade wall past an upper level window in the northern elevation of that dwelling.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The original proposal detailed alterations and additions to the dwelling to provide for a new upper level, comprising a bedroom, study, bathroom and living area and providing an additional 62m˛ of habitable area to the dwelling. It also proposed to carry out internal alterations to the existing dwelling to open up the living areas, erect a new paved verandah to the front living room and renovate the existing rear balcony and patio at ground and lower ground level and remove the existing carport at the front of the dwelling and render and paint the entire dwelling. The original proposal was considered and approved at the Council meeting on the 25 th May 2004 and the building works which were the subject of this application are nearing completion.

 

This Section 96 application seeks consent to modify the approved plans to erect a 1.6m high blade wall a distance of 2.4m past the end of the rear upper level of the dwelling.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings which were erected as a group in the late 1960’s. The subject premises is on the western side of White Avenue and has a total site area of 265m˛. The site falls from the front to rear with a difference in level of up to 4m. To the rear of the premises there is an open public reserve.

 

4.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

4.1     Objections

 

J & G Ward of 30 White Avenue, Maroubra

 

-        the original consent deleted the proposed rear upper level balcony and roof and replaced it with a non trafficable roof which maintained sunlight and privacy to the rear bedroom in the upper level of their dwelling.

-        there will be a significant loss of sunlight which was the reason that the balcony and roof to the rear of the dwelling was refused originally.

-        why is it necessary to erect this privacy screen when it extends across a non trafficable roof and will only result in an impact upon their amenity by the loss of sunlight.

-        the erection of this privacy screen may lead to the next step of providing for a balcony in this location.

 

Comment:

 

During the consideration of the original proposal it was determined that the originally proposed rear upper level balcony with roof above would result in a significant loss of amenity to the adjoining property at No. 30 White Avenue by reducing the amount of sunlight to the upper level window in the northern elevation of that dwelling and potential loss of privacy. Accordingly, a condition was imposed in the consent requiring deletion of the subject balcony. The erection of the proposed blade wall for a distance of 2.53m across and beyond the extent of the upper level window in the northern elevation of the objector’s property will have a more significant impact than the refused balcony. By its very nature, a solid blank masonry wall across the extent/aspect of the objector’s upper level north-facing window will diminish the light, ventilation and outlook currently available to their bedroom. In addition, the proposed blade wall does not serve any practical purpose to the occupants of the subject premises in that the wall extends past a non-trafficable roof.

 

5.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

6.       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.

 

The salient point of this application to modify the original consent is the impact that the erection of a blade wall across the extent of the window to the adjoining premises will have upon the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining dwelling.

 

To the northern wall of the adjoining property at No. 30 White Avenue there is a rear upper level window which serves a bedroom and provides for light and ventilation to that room and the erection of the proposed blade wall for a distance of 2.53m past the end of the dwelling will block out light from that window which is considered unacceptable and will result in a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of those occupants.

 

It is also considered that the erection of the proposed blade wall would add to the visual bulk of the subject building which is in turn considered overbearing, in particular, to the outlook of No. 30 White Avenue.   

 

 

 

7.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification to the approved plans will result in a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining southern property and add to the bulk and scale of the subject building making it obtrusive and overbearing.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.119/04 for permission to modify the approved development consent to permit the erection of a blade wall to the rear upper level addition for a distance of 2.4m past the end of the dwelling for the following reason;

 

1.   The erection of the blade wall will result in a significant loss of amenity for the occupants of the No. 30 White Avenue, Maroubra by restricting light and ventilation to the window in its northern elevation.

 

2.   The erection of the blade wall will result in additional bulk and scale that will be obtrusive and overbearing.

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

A4 plans

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

12 August, 2005

FILE NO:

DA 311/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and new two storey rear addition to the existing dwelling including new internal courtyard, new pool, new entry stairway & extension of existing garage at front of property (Heritage Conservation Area)

PROPERTY:

 16 Lenthall Street, Kensington

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 JAF Design Pty Ltd

OWNER:

 Mr E Handaja

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors John Kenny, Scott Nash, Bruce Notley-Smith. The estimated cost of the works is $280,000.

 

The application proposes substantial alterations and additions to the existing single storey dwelling including extended garage, swimming pool, landscaping and a first floor addition at the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

The main issues for consideration are heritage impacts and concerns raised by neighbours with regard to solar access and outlook impacts to residents at 18 Lenthall Street. The proposal achieves a high degree of compliance with the preferred solutions within the applicable development control plans and therefore the recommendation is for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions.

 

A peer review of this assessment has been undertaken by Mr Tony Moody of Moody & Doyle Town Planning. The review (see Attachment B) advised that the assessment undertaken by Council staff was reasonable and the recommendation supportable. The review advice made some suggestions with regard to additional conditions and these have been included in the Recommendation section of this report.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant proposes to partially demolish the existing single storey addition at the rear of the existing dwelling house including the rear of the existing pitched roof structure, demolition of the existing rear outbuilding and construction of a two storey addition to the rear of the property.

 

The ground floor of the addition will comprise living areas, a new kitchen, laundry and a new conservatory/sun room and landscaping to external areas. Alterations to this level will be made to create a guest suite at the front of the house include ensuite and walk-in robe. The first floor level is comprised of a bedroom and  study area (partially contained in the existing roof space) and an addition comprised of a master bedroom with ensuite and walk-in wardrobe and separate bathroom. The total number of bedrooms in the dwelling after construction will be 5.

 

The applicant proposes to partially demolish the front retaining wall, extend the width of the existing garage to create space for an additional car (two cars in total) and construct a new front retaining wall, street entry and associated landscaping. A new inground swimming pool and hard and soft landscaping is proposed to the rear yard. A pond and 1.8m high shed are also proposed to the rear yard.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on southern side of Lenthall Street between Milroy Avenue and McDougall Streets in Kensington and is located within the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area. The site is a slightly irregular shaped block with a street frontage of 15.24 metres and a maximum depth of 52.525 metres. The site has a total area of 767.3m2. Currently the site contains a single storey dwelling house with a detached out building in the rear yard. The site is elevated from the street by approximately 2.3 metres and this change in level accommodates a face brickwork single car garage. A rendered masonry retaining wall takes up the change in level across the remainder of the street frontage.

 

Neighbouring the property to the south west is 18 Lenthall Street which contains a three storey residential flat building elevated above garages to the street. Neighbouring the property to the north western boundary is 14a Lenthall Street and 61a Milroy Avenue. Both sites contain two storey dwelling houses. Neighbouring the property to the south is 63 Milroy Avenue which contains a single storey dwelling house. There are no heritage items in the vicinity of the site, the closest being ‘Marathon’ at 55 Milroy Avenue over 70 metres from the subject site.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A development application (DA 473/2004) for alterations and additions to the rear of the property was previously lodged and considered by the Health Building and Planning Committee at its meeting of 9 November 2004. The planning officer’s recommendation was for approval due to the high level of compliance with the DCP despite objections from residents on the grounds of view loss, overshadowing, height and bulk and scale. The Health Building and Planning Committee deferred determination of the application to allow the applicant to submit amendments to reduce the height of the additions.

 

The applicant lodged amended plans which made the following changes:

 

1.       reduce the overall height of the rear addition by 500mm, from RL 40.70 to RL 40.18.

2.       lower the first floor level of the rear addition from RL 36.90 to RL 36.38.

3.       lower of the ground floor level of the dinning room from RL 33.26 to RL 32.62.

4.       lower of the ground floor level of the proposed family room and patio from RL 33.9 to RL 33.38.

5.       provide for new side and rear yard retaining walls.

6.       remove the balcony and west facing window from bedroom 1.

 

These plans were recommended for approval by the planning officer and were considered at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 14 December 2004. The Council determined the application by refusal for the following reasons:

 

1.       the proposal is excessive in height and bulk at the rear of the site and does not comply with Part 4.3 of Development Control Plan: Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as it proposes an external wall height of 5.4m, which is in excess of the 3.5m permitted for buildings or rear additions;

 

2.       the proposal has a partial nil north-eastern side setback which is insufficient and does not comply with Part 4.4 of Development Control Plan: Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies which requires a minimum of 1.5m;

 

3.       the proposal will result in visual and acoustic privacy impacts and does not comply with Part 4.5 of Development Control Plan: Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to the location and treatment of windows and the location of balconies;

 

4.       the proposal will result in adverse privacy impacts and does not comply with Part 4.5 of Development Control Plan: Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies which requires sill heights of a minimum of 1.5m;

 

5.       the proposal does not comply with Part 4.7 of Development Control Plan: Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as it proposes a double garage which extends across 37.7% of the width of the site, which is in excess of the maximum35% permitted;

 

6.       the proposal is contrary to Council’s view-sharing objectives and will result in unreasonable impacts in relation to the outlook and district views enjoyed by the resident of Unit 3/18 Lenthall Street, Kensington;

 

7.       the proposal will give rise to significant overshadowing due to the loss of morning sun to all of the windows on the northern elevation of Unit 1/18 Lenthall Street on 21 June;

 

8.       the proposal is contrary to Part 3.1 of the Draft Development Control Plan: West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area which states that a general height limit of one (1) level applies throughout the Conservation area;

 

9.       the proposal is contrary to Part 3.5 of the Draft Development Control Plan: West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area which states that second level additions will usually only be permitted where there is a fall of land away from the street; and

 

10.     the proposal is likely to adversely impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties (overshadowing, visual and acoustic privacy, outlook and general overbearing impacts) as a result of the excessive height and bulk of the proposed rear addition.

 

          The current application has made further amendments to reduce the impact to surrounding properties and was lodged on 28 April 2005. The delay in assessment of the application is due to a request by Councillor Procopiadis to erect height poles on the site. The applicant agreed to this request but had difficulty in finding a builder able to complete the works. Height poles were erected on 4 August 2005 and were inspected from 3/18 Lenthall Street. Photos of the height poles and likely visual impact of the development are included in this report.

 

Council’s records also show that the owner of 16 Lenthall Street applied to prune overhanging branches of the large olive tree in the front yard in 2004. Tree application TA 62/2004 was approved on 5/2/04 and it appears the tree has been pruned in accordance with this approval. Neighbours at 18 Lenthall Street were concerned the tree had been pruned without consent.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1     Objections

 

1.       J and M Nagib, 1/18 Lenthall Street, Kensington

 

§  Overshadowing

 

Comment: Solar access has been discussed in detail in Section 8.1a i)

 

§  Non-compliance with maximum height of 3.5m for a rear extension

 

Comment: This non-compliance and its impact has been discussed in detail in Section 8.1a c)

 

2.       B Sharah, 20 Lenthall Street, Kensington

 

§  Nothing has really changed since previous application refused by Council, scale has not been reduced, application should be refused

 

Comment: The proposal has been substantially reduced from the original application. The applicant has made modifications to the planning and design of the additions that maximise amenity to surrounding properties and minimise bulk and scale.

 

§  Dubious conservation report states the existing house has no heritage value due to its location between the flats and a modern house.

 

Comment: Conservation objectives and heritage considerations have been independently assessed by Council’s Heritage Planner and the proposal is considered to have minimal impact on the heritage status of the area.

 

§  Greater bulk than previously presented and now links in completely with the existing roof structure.

 

Comment: Bulk will not be apparent from the street or 20 Lenthall Street which is separated from the subject site by a 3 storey residential flat building (18 Lenthall Street). The FSR is well below the DCP requirements and the bulk of the proposal has been further reduced from the previous scheme (which was assessed to have negligible impact in terms of bulk and scale).

 

§  Addition uses different wall and window finishes and a different roof profile rather than integrating into the existing roof.

 

Comment: Refer to comment by Council’s heritage planner. Current principles with regard to alterations to heritage buildings require new work to be clearly distinguishable from the existing dwelling. The proposal is consistent with this approach.

 

§  Question whether the design is by a registered architect or a draftsman.

 

Comment: This is not a relevant planning consideration. There is no requirement for a registered architect to design dwellings in this area. The proposal has been assessed by several professionals who agree that the design is suitable to the site.

 

§  Loss of views from 18 Lenthall Street

 

Comment: View loss has been discussed in detail in Section 9.1.

 

§  Addition will still be clearly visible from street level.

 

Comment: Addition will not be highly visible from street level. Refer to heritage discussion, above.

 

§  Street tree at the front of the site should be retained despite driveway widening – Council must ensure this.

 

Comment: Tree is to be retained. This has been reinforced via condition of consent (see Condition 58).

 

§  Insufficient parking due to increase in number of bedrooms to 5.

 

Comment: The development complies with the DCP – Parking and has minimised the loss of on-street spaces due to driveways.

 

§  Proposal is not energy efficient due to high degree of glazing and minimal eave overhangs.

 

Comment: The proposal has an improved northerly aspect and minimises west facing glazing. Standard conditions for energy efficiency have been imposed and the proposal has been sited and planned to take advantage of the site’s orientation.

 

3.       SPD Town Planners, Level 5, 110-114 Kippax Street, Surry Hills on behalf of V Paltoglou, 3/18 Lenthall Street, Kensington

 

§  Acknowledges improvements have been made to the plans when compared with previous DA, particularly with regard to reduced floor area and increased setbacks, however concerns remain

§  View loss of district views and outlook from the north-east facing dining room, lounge room and bedroom

 

Comment: View loss has been discussed in detail in Section 9.1

 

§  Two storey addition at the rear does not comply with the maximum 3.5m height limit for additions to the rear of existing dwellings

 

Comment: This non-compliance and its impact has been discussed in detail in Section 8.1ac)

 

§  Overshadowing to 1/18 Lenthall Street

 

Comment: Solar access has been discussed in detail in Section 8.1a i)

 

§  Council should seek amendment of the application to:

-        confine the additional to the rear plane of the existing roof form comprising the bedroom and study, deleting the bathroom, master bedroom, walk-in-robe, ensuite and two storey link structure

-        Rear addition to be a single storey only with a flat roof

-        Floor level of the rear addition be lowered through further excavation in order to match the floor level of the existing dwelling at RL32.62.

-        Proposal should comply with 3.5m height to the rear.

 

The above recommendations constitute a compromise by our clients as view loss will still occur from the dining and lounge room.

 

Comment: The further reduction of the development is considered to be unreasonable given the high degree of compliance the proposal achieves with the preferred solutions under relevant DCPs and the minimal impact of the development on adjoining properties. Further excavation is contrary to Council’s preferred solutions to maintain topography and would result in poor amenity for the proposal. Condition 2 has been applied to minimise the floor to ceiling height of the rooms in front of the lounge room at 3/18 Lenthall Street and maximise outlook opportunities. There are no further modifications that could be reasonably imposed.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Director, City Services

 

The application has been referred to the Director City Services. The following comments have been received in response to this referral:

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is one Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig) of approximately 10 metres in height and 5 metres in width growing within Council’s Lenthall Street road reserve at the front of the site, to the north of the existing driveway.

 

It appears in reasonable condition and as it is located on public property, it falls under the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Although this species is noted for its large size and aggressive and invasive root system, it does contribute to the amenity and character of this street and the surrounding area due to the prominence of its canopy which extends out across the roadway and can be seen for some distance.

 

The plans propose the construction of new retaining walls associated with the garage within the front portion of the site beneath the dripline of this tree, as well as splaying the existing driveway closer towards the trunk than the existing crossover; however, minimal impact on this tree is expected given the presence of the existing structures in the same area as the proposed ones, and providing the protection measures prescribed in this report are adhered to, minimal impact is expected.

 

In the front yard of the site, against the southern boundary, near the southwest corner of the existing garage, there is one Olea europaea (Olive tree) of approximately 6 metres in height. Although covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, it appears in average condition as the northern side of the canopy has been almost completely pruned off.

 

It will not be possible to retain this tree and proceed with the terracing/levelling of this area as shown, as the changes in level will severely restrict air and moisture exchange rates to the rootzone of this tree, and in addition, the construction of a retaining wall at the eastern end of the proposed garage will be undertaken within 1 metre from the trunk, which poses the threat of de-stabilising the tree by the severing of roots.

 

For the reasons outlined above, a condition has been included in this report requiring that this tree be removed, with a replacement not deemed necessary given the presence of other established trees within the front yard which are to be retained as part of this proposal

 

Still in the front yard, against the northern boundary, there is one large and very significant Livistona australis (Cabbage Palm) of approximately 20 metres in height, and immediately to the east, one Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) of approximately 10 metres in height.

 

Both palms appear in good to excellent health, are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and are deemed worthy of retention as existing site elements due to their age, size and associated amenity values.

 

Providing the temporary sediment barrier is installed in the area shown on the site analysis/sediment control plan, minimal impact is anticipated on either palm. The “new 1800H solid fence” proposed for along the northern boundary should also have minimal impact on the Date Palm, providing it finishes adjacent to the pedestrian gate/fence/path as indicated on the site plan.

 

Given the significance of both palms, protection measures will need to be implemented in order to ensure their retention; however, a refundable deposit will not be necessary.

 

In the rear yard, toward the eastern boundary, there is one Pinus species (Pine tree) of approximately 6 metres in height, which 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 should therefore remain largely unaffected by the proposed works. The implementation of minor protection measures will still be necessary to ensure the retention of this tree.

 

In the adjoining property to the south, 18 Lenthall Street, close to the common boundary, there is one Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak) of approximately 10 metres in height which appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

As it is located on an adjoining property, the applicant has a responsibility to ensure its retention as part of their application, with a free standing metal shed and concrete slab proposed for the southwest corner of the site the only work to be undertaken within the dripline of this tree. However, this is considered relatively minor, and as such, protection measures and refundable deposits have not been included in this report.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

Conditions proposed by the Director, City Services have been included in the Recommendation section of this report.

 

6.2     Heritage Planner

 

As the site is located in the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area, the following comments have been received from Council’s Heritage Planner:

 

The subject site is located within the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area.  It is a typical double fronted late Federation Early Inter War transitional Bungalow.  The dwelling is face brick construction with a hipped terracotta tile roof featuring a projecting gabled bay and an integrated verandah roof.  The gable end is half timbered and bracketed projecting over a curved bay window.  The verandah is supported on tapered roughcast rendered piers with arched fretwork valance on a face brick balustrade.  The verandah side features a horseshoe shaped arched opening.  The dwelling is setback high off the street behind a terrace garden.  The medium height front fence is rendered and an early and possibly original single brick garage with a parapet roof line is located on the street edge.  The dwelling is substantially intact although the roof tiles have been replaced, the verandah has been enclosed and some windows have been reglazed.  The terraced front garden, front fence and garage are possibly slightly later modifications to the site.  The streetscape features a mixture of Federation and Inter War bungalows dispersed by some modified Inter War flat buildings and a two storey 1960’s dwelling adjacent to the subject site.

 

The significance of the conservation area is described in the Draft West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area DCP by noting that “The heritage character of the area largely derives from its Federation and Inter War housing, its predominantly single level scale, the originally consistent face brick construction and the highly visible tiled and slated roofs…most buildings and streetscapes still retain their essential period character.”  The subject dwelling is a good representative example of late Federation residential development in the area and demonstrates some interesting Bungalow style detailing in the verandah, bay window and use of materials.  The subject dwelling is considered to be a contributory item in the conservation area through its form, scale, materials and fenestration.

 

A previous application for larger alterations and additions to the subject dwelling was refused.  The proposal seeks to retain the existing front section of the dwelling and demolish the existing rear skillion wing.  The existing front section of the dwelling is to be retained with minor alterations to some walls.  Two new rooms are to be included in an extension of the existing roof with eyelid dormers opening to the side elevations.  The rear additions are principally single storey with a first floor connecting walkway and pavilion bedroom.  The ground level features open plan living, dining and kitchen spaces around a courtyard.  The additions feature shallow pitched metal deck hipped roofs.  The rear addition is to be contemporary is style and will feature a painted render finish to the external walls, largely glazed sliding and bi-fold doors and louvred window openings.  The existing garage is to be extended to the north with an additional car space and entry and new retaining walls are to be added to the front yard gardens.  The re-opening of the front verandah has not been proposed.

 

An amended Heritage Impact Statement was prepared by Susan O’Neill and submitted with the Development Application.  The report concludes that the proposal is sympathetic to the existing dwelling in bulk, scale and appearance and will not be visible from the street.

 

The proposed additions are considered appropriate to the existing dwelling, the conservation area and the streetscape.  As the dwelling is set very high above the street any additions to the rear will be predominantly obscured and will not dominate the existing dwelling form.  There will be some loss of roof fabric as the side gable will be removed although this is not an important element in the streetscape and its loss is reasonable in order to reduce the impact of the additions.  The rear additions are sympathetic to the dwelling and the streetscape as they do not dominate the original and significant form.  The additions are largely single storey in scale as rooms are included in the roof.  The only true two storey section is the bedroom set well to the rear of the site and will not be detrimentally visible from the street.  The dormer windows to roof are set well back from the façade and their ‘eyelid’ form is relatively traditional.  The proposed alterations to the garage are considered appropriate given the streetscape and topographic context.  The various roof forms on the additions to the rear are appropriate as they reduce the bulk of the additions and delineate it as a new and sympathetic element.  Garages are not uncommon in this section of the street and a number of other buildings feature garages at street level with the buildings situated above and views to the dwellings retained.

 

Recommendations:

 

·        Consideration should be given to the restoration and re-opening of the front verandah to enhance the character of the dwelling.

 

          The following condition should be included with any consent:

 

The condition proposed by Council’s Heritage Planner (relating to submission of a sample board) has been included as a deferred commencement condition in the Recommendation section of this report (see Deferred Commencement Condition 1).

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site is less than 4,000m2 in area, there are no master planning requirements.

 

8.       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

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

-        Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP

-        Draft DCP West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)

-        Building Code of Australia

 

a)      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

43

Heritage Item or Conservation Area

Yes

See below

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

No

N/A

 

Clause 43 - Development within a Heritage Conservation Area

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner. The application is considered satisfactory with regard to its impacts on the West Kensington HCA (see comments in section 6.2).

 

b)      SEPP 55

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibility of contamination.

 

It is considered reasonable to assume that the site would not be contaminated, or in need of remediation pursuant to SEPP 55 and that the site is suitable for continued residential use.

 

8.1     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.

 

a)      Landscaping

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area.

65% (501m2) of the site is landscaped area. Complies.

S1

A minimum of 25m˛ of useable private open space is to be provided.

The rear yard has an area of 195m2. Complies.

S1

Each dwelling must provide an area of private open space capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

The above area has dimensions of 13 x 15 metres. Complies

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

24% of the site is permeable. Complies.

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; indigenous species are used and existing vegetation is recycled where possible; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

The proposal satisfies all of Council’s preferred solutions with regard to landscaping. Compliance will ensure the objectives of the landscaping controls are achieved.

 

b)      Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies.

The proposed FSR is 0.44:1. Complies.

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The proposal complies with the FSR for a dwelling on this site, being 0.5:1. This is also consistent with the FSR for the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) under the Draft West Kensington HCA DCP (also 0.5:1). The additions are well set back from the street, minimising their visibility and any impact on the character of the site. The form of the addition to the rear is broken down into several elements, minimising any potential for visual bulk impacts on adjoining properties. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to floor space and bulk and scale.

 

c)       Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 4.8 metres. Complies.

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.

Generally complies. See detailed assessment below.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Complies cut and fill maximum 1 metre

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Complies, minimal changes to existing levels near side boundaries.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Complies, minimal changes to level near rear boundary.

S4

The length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

The entire southwestern elevation of the proposed dwelling is 3.5-6.6 metres from the southwestern side boundary at first floor level. Complies.

S5

The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

Freestanding dwelling. Not applicable.

 

 

The Objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality; to ensure impacts in terms of privacy, natural light and views are minimised; and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant Performance Requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and the topography; buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets; with respect to additions to semi-detached dwellings they integrate with the attached dwelling; and views are shared.

 

The proposal generally complies with all of Council’s preferred solutions with regard to height, including the wall height control of 7 metres. Adjoining residents to the southwest have raised non-compliance with Preferred Solution S1 of the DCP which reads as follows:

 

The external wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5m.

 

This control is generally applied to outbuildings and additions to semi-detached dwellings where setbacks are not achieved. The 7 metre wall height control takes precedence in assessment of applications such as the subject application. Notwithstanding this, an assessment of the proposal against this preferred solution has been undertaken in order to address the concerns of adjoining neighbours.

 

The objectors have considered the “rear” referred to by the preferred solution to be any structure proposed behind rear elevation of the existing dwelling. If this interpretation is used, then all external walls of the addition to the rear should not exceed 3.5 metres in height. As the non-compliance has been raised as an issue by 18 Lenthall Street to the southwest, the following assessment focuses on the compliance of the southwestern elevation with the preferred solution.

 

External Wall Height is defined in the DCP as follows:

 

External Wall Height – means the vertical distance from the topmost point on an external wall, other than a gable wall or the wall of a dormer window, to the ground level.

 

The proposal is well articulated and there are several external wall heights that can be measured using this definition. It is important to note that a portion of the southwestern elevation (in the area of the existing roof) at first floor level is comprised of dormer windows and this area has not been calculated as comprising external wall height as per the DCP definition.

 

The ground floor southwestern elevation to the rear is setback 1.2m from the southwestern side boundary and has a maximum external wall height of 3.5m measured from existing ground level. This complies with the preferred solution under the DCP. Furthermore, the maximum external wall height of the rear addition measured from the site level at 18 Lenthall Street is 2.7m and more than complies Council’s preferred solution.

 

At first floor level the external wall height of the development is 4.9m for a length of 7 metres. This does not comply with the preferred solution by 1.4m. However, the setback of this portion of the building, which is 3.6 metres greater than the preferred solution has minimised and offset any potential impacts on the adjoining property to the southwest (18 Lenthall Street). The cladding proposed to this portion of the walls distinguishes it from the main part of the external walls and it appears as a roof structure, further reducing the visual bulk of this element. In addition, the area of the wall visible from 18 Lenthall Street above the ridge of the roofing to the ground floor portion of the development is only 800mm high. The setback (this portion of the external walls is setback 5.1m from southwestern side boundary) ensures that the non-compliance does not result in any substantial additional overshadowing impacts to 18 Lenthall Street. This area has been made lower than the remainder of the first floor specifically to minimise impact on the outlook from first floor living areas at 3/18 Lenthall Street. Condition 2 will further reduce the height of this element by minimising internal floor to ceiling heights.

 

The external wall height to the master bedroom is 4.8 metres measured from existing ground level. This wall is 6.5m from the southwestern side boundary (to 18 Lenthall Street). This wall does not achieve compliance with the preferred solution of 3.5 metres. However, the area of non-compliance is obscured from the property at 18 Lenthall Street by the roofing to the ground floor level, with the visible area of non-compliance being a maximum of 1.5 metres. The additional wall height does not contribute to substantial overshadowing of the adjoining property to the southwest as the shadow cast is largely the result of the orientation of the sites and the increased length of the development on the subject site (even the compliant areas of the development) and not as a result of the height of the development. This portion of the development will be directly visible from a bedroom at 3/18 Lenthall Street but will not affect outlook from living areas, the rear bedroom or oblique views of Centrepoint Tower from this room. This bedroom already has an obscured outlook due to the first floor of 61a Milroy Avenue which is built very close to the common boundary with 16 Lenthall Street.

 

The master bedroom has an external wall height of 5.7 metres to the northeastern side boundary. This does not comply with Council’s preferred solution, however it does not substantially affect the adjoining properties on either side in terms of bulk and scale or overshadowing impacts.

 

The development could achieve technical compliance with the preferred solution for external wall height to the rear by increasing the roof pitch and locating first floor areas within a roof form. This solution would achieve compliance with the preferred solutions of the DCP but would increase the potential for impacts on outlook and visual bulk and scale when viewed from 18 Lenthall Street. It is considered that the design of the proposal has minimised impacts from the minor non-compliance with external wall height through increased setbacks, use of materials and careful design.

 

The proposal is generally compliant with Council’s preferred solutions for height. The non-compliances with preferred solutions will not hinder the objectives of the height controls being met, predominantly to minimise amenity impacts and visual bulk and scale of the development from the street and surrounding properties.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to height.

 

d)      Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The existing street (front) setback is maintained by the proposal. Complies.

S2

No part of the building is closer than 4.5m from rear boundary.

The proposed dwelling is setback 11.4-16.4 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

The proposed development is set back 1.19 metres from the southwestern side boundary and 1.5-3.5 from the northeastern side boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 3.6-6.6 metres from the southwestern side boundary and 3.6-4.7 metres from the northeastern side boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

 

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

 

The development achieves compliance with Council’s preferred solutions for setbacks to all boundaries. The development provides increased setbacks of up to 12m over Council’s minimum requirements. These setbacks have ensured the development minimises its impact in terms of visual bulk and scale, privacy and overshadowing to adjoining properties. The setbacks are consistent with surrounding small scale residential development and will not affect the amenity of the area or the visual quality of the street and Heritage Conservation Area.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to building setbacks.

 

e)     Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

Southwestern side: First floor windows to the bedroom have a sill height of 1.78m above finished floor level. Ground floor kitchen windows are to be treated with white glass, this has been reinforced via condition of consent (see Condition 4). Complies.

Northeastern side:

First floor windows to the study have a sill height of 1.55m above finished floor level. First floor bedroom windows have a sill height of 1.35m (conditioned to comply see condition 4).Complies

S1

Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle.

The first floor rear balcony to the master bedroom may provide some opportunities for overlooking of properties to the southeast of the site. Although this room is not a primary living area, a privacy screen on the southeastern side of the balcony will ensure compliance with the DCP (see Condition 5).

The distance to the southwestern boundary from this balcony is over 9 metres and complies with the preferred solution.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

 

The proposal has minimised visual and acoustic privacy impacts by minimising the windows oriented to the northeastern and southwestern side elevations, with the majority of new windows facing the front and rear of the site. The applicant has also considered the relative levels of the property and by sinking the addition has achieved a greater degree of privacy between ground level windows. At first floor level sill heights have been increased to generally comply with the preferred solutions under the DCP. Conditions have been applied to reinforce the annotations on the plan and a specific condition included regarding the balcony to the first floor master bedroom (see Conditions 4 and 5).

 

The additions will provide greater privacy to the dwelling at 16 Lenthall Street. It should be noted that currently the upper levels of the adjoining three storey residential flat building at 18 Lenthall Street, which is setback approximately 1 metre from the common boundary, has full view to the rear yard of 16 Lenthall Street.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

f)       Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The proposed front door faces the street. Complies.

S1,3

Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street.

The proposed dwelling has windows that overlook the street. Complies.

S2

A Council-approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence.

Suitable condition included (see Condition 6).

 

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

 

The proposal meets the preferred solutions under the DCP for safety and security. The development is satisfactory with regard to these requirements.

 

g)     Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Council’s Parking DCP requires 1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

The proposed dwelling has parking for 2 cars. Complies.

S1

Car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 2.5 x 6.0. Complies.

S1

Driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary.

Existing driveway to be widened. New work complies.

S1

Driveways have a maximum width of 3m at the property boundary.

The proposed driveway is 5.4 metres wide at the front boundary. Does not Comply.

S1

Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 thereafter.

The proposed driveway gradient is less than 1 in 8. Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

Parking and access is provided from the rear of the allotment where possible.

Not applicable.

S2

Garages and carports located behind the building line where parking only available from the front of the site.

Does not comply – see assessment below

S2

Driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment

The proposed garage occupies about 36% of the width of the site frontage. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

 

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

 

The proposal provides the required number of parking spaces (2) for a development of this size. Neighbours have objected to the proposal on the grounds of insufficient parking. This objection is difficult to sustain given the proposal meets the DCP requirement. The retention of the existing driveway ensures at least two on-street spaces will be maintained on Lenthall Street in front of the subject site. The development has minimised its impact on the availability of on-street parking. This is significant, given that some of the older style development in the locality (such as the building at 18 Lenthall Street) does not comply with current parking codes (apparently having 3 spaces for 6 units, a shortfall of 6 spaces). The proposed parking is satisfactory.

 

The width of the driveway at the front boundary does not comply with Council’s preferred solution by 2.4 metres. Likewise, the proposal provides parking to the front of the site and the parking occupies approximately 36% of the site frontage (resulting in a non-compliance with Council’s control of approximately 160mm). These non-compliances are not considered significant in terms of the streetscape presentation of the development. The location of the existing garage on the property boundary has minimised opportunities to design a narrower driveway at the property boundary, increasing in width within the subject site as per the preferred solution. The non-compliance with the 35% frontage requirement is minor in degree (approximately 160mm) and will not be discernible from a complying development. Council’s Heritage Planner has advised the proposal will not have a significant impact on streetscape or the Conservation Area.

 

Despite the non-compliances with the parking width controls, the overall setting of the dwelling and the heritage conservation area will not be disturbed as the house is set above street (and garage) level by approximately 3.7 metres. The applicant has designed the garage as two single garages rather than one large double garage in accordance with previous heritage advice. The parking is considered to be an appropriate compromise between achieving adequate parking, retaining existing on-street provision and minimising impacts to the street and Heritage Conservation Area. The development is satisfactory with regard to parking.

h)     Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

Solid front fences or on street frontages in front of the building line are no higher than 1.2m.

Existing 1.2m high rendered masonry retaining walls maintained as front fencing. Complies

S1

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages may be up to 1.8m provided that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

The existing solid front fencing has a height of 1.2 metres with open metal fencing above to a height of 1.5 metres. Complies.

 

 

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

 

The development complies with the objectives and preferred solutions for front fencing. The existing dwelling is raised from street level with retaining walls and landscaped terraces forming the street frontage of the site. The proposal will continue this treatment and this is consistent with adjoining sites and the treatment of the surrounding sites.

 

Side and rear boundary fencing has been indicated on the plans as being 1.8m high. This is standard height. Materials have not been indicated, only that the fencing is to be solid. A condition has been imposed to ensure lightweight (timber palings or colorbond) materials are used in the fencing (see Condition 6).

 

Neighbours at 18 Lenthall Street have requested the existing lattice fence be retained on the southwestern boundary of the site. It is likely construction will require removal of this fencing. A new fence of 1.8m in height could be constructed under Council’s Exempt & Complying Development Control Plan and further restrictions on fencing are considered unreasonable in this context.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to fencing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i)      Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

Not Applicable

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 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 private open space to less than 3 hours. Complies.

 

 

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

 

The applicant has provided shadow diagrams which indicate the shadows cast by the proposal in plan and elevational form. The elevational shadow diagrams compare the shadows cast by the proposal to those cast by the existing single storey dwelling on the site. These diagrams indicate that there will be an increased shadow to the ground floor windows of the northeastern elevation of 18 Lenthall Street. The existing development on the subject site casts shadows onto one ground floor window on the northeastern elevation at 9am with no further shadows being cast onto windows for the rest of the day midwinter.

 

18 Lenthall Street is comprised of 6 units, with two units per floor running lengthways on the northeastern and southwestern sides of the building. The layout of the units is such that kitchens occupy the front of the building (northwest), bedrooms comprise the rear of the building (southeast) with living rooms and bedrooms in between having access to windows on the side elevations. Living room windows are located offcentre on the southeastern elevation towards the Lenthall Street (northern) end of the building.

 

Preferred Solution S9 of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP provides the following with regard to solar access:

S9  North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less than 3 hours is available under current conditions, access to sunlight is not reduced.

 

The proposal will result in additional shadow being cast on the ground level northeastern elevation of the adjoining building to the west (18 Lenthall Street) at 9am midwinter. By 10am these windows have a portion of their surface in sunlight and this continues until approximately 2pm, midwinter. Solar access to these windows, while reduced by the proposal, complies with the preferred solution under the DCP.

 

The proposal will cast some additional shadow on the ground floor northwestern (front) elevation of the adjoining property at 9am, however by 10am this has moved off the windows on this elevation and the northwestern elevation enjoys full solar access for the rest of the day. This also complies with the preferred solution under the DCP.

 

The development, being for alterations and additions, is not subject to the requirements of the SEPP:BASIX and do not require a NatHERs assessment. However, the proposal is considered to be well-designed with regard to environmental considerations. The development includes a glazed, louvred courtyard area providing a winter garden to the northern side of the dwelling which allows ventilation throughout the summer months. The new roof forms, particularly to the master bedroom, provide areas where solar collectors could be installed. Standard conditions of consent requiring installation of water saving hardware have been proposed in the recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 12-14). The development complies with the soft landscaping provisions and the objectives for stormwater infiltration.

 

The proposal, subject to conditions, is satisfactory with regard to ESD principles.

 

b.       Development Control Plan – West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area

 

The application has satisfied the information requirements for development proposals in the Heritage Conservation Area under the DCP.

 

Part 2 – Maintaining and Altering Existing Buildings

 

The proposal will not modify the existing wall treatments, verandah or roofing of the existing dwelling at the front of the site. This meets the requirements of sections 2.4-2.6 of the DCP.

 

The changes to the fencing to the front boundary will not affect the overall appearance of the site from the street. The minor modifications to provide access from the garages are appropriate and consistent with the dwelling and streetscape in general. The proposal meets the objectives under section 2.7 of the DCP.

 

Part 3 – New Building Work and Demolition

 

The proposal does not comply with Section 3.5 of the Draft DCP which generally discourages second storey additions within the HCA. Council’s Heritage Planner has advised that the building form in this instance will not have a significant impact on the streetscape or HCA in general. The proposal is directly adjacent a three storey residential flat building and two storey dwellings.

 

The building has a site coverage of 35% and an FSR of 0.44:1 and meet the respective DCP controls of 66% and 50% of site area.

 

The proposed additions generally maintain or improve upon existing side setbacks and have been located to the rear of the existing dwelling. Council’s Heritage Planner has advised the additions are appropriate and this advice is reproduced in Section 6.2 of this report.

 

The proposed garage is located on the street frontage and although this is contrary to the general requirements of section 3.9 of the DCP, the specific site circumstances and existing garage to the subject site, 14a and 18 Lenthall Street provide a strong case for variation to this requirement. The applicant has amended the design to appear as two single garages, rather than one large double garage in response to the heritage comments and reasons for refusal of the previous DA.

 

9.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Environmental impacts of the proposal have generally been discussed in Section 8, above. The DCP does not contain specific provisions in relation to loss of views. As view loss has been raised by neighbours as a concern, specific discussion of the impact of the development on view opportunities from surrounding properties is warranted.

 

9.1     View & Outlook Impacts

 

The upper floors of the property immediately to the southwest of 16 Lenthall Street (Number 18 Lenthall Street) enjoy northerly views of the CBD (Centrepoint), the Raleigh Park Development and Kensington district from second and third floor windows. North easterly outlook across 16 Lenthall Street is also achieved. This outlook is comprised of development fronting Milroy Avenue, including advanced tree canopy, adjacent roof tops and interrupted district views of Kensington and Kensington ridgeline. The views from both these aspects are distant and as a result are largely interrupted by buildings and vegetation located on properties to the north and north east of 18 Lenthall Street. The outlook to the tree canopy in the rear yard of properties in Milroy Avenue is achieved from lounge room windows across the existing metal deck roof at the rear of 16 Lenthall Street.

 

Outlook from the top floor of 18 Lenthall Street will not be affected by the proposal due to the two storey scale of the proposal. The only dwelling which could potentially have outlook impacts is 3/18 Lenthall Street.

 

Performance Requirement P6 under section 4.3 Height, Form and Materials of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP requires that “P6 Buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”. The concept of ‘view sharing’ was further defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004). The Senior Commissioner’s discussion of the notion of view sharing is provided below as background:

 

25      The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.) To decide whether or not view sharing is reasonable, I have adopted a four-step assessment.

 

Comment: 16 Lenthall Street is not trying to achieve “views” with this proposal but to reasonably develop land in accordance with the DCP.

 

26      The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

Comment: The “views” that will be lost from the lounge room of 3/18 Lenthall Street as a result of the development is outlook to the northeast of the tree canopy and greater Kensington district views across the existing roof. Oblique views to Centerpoint, the Raleigh Park development and two large palm trees on the subject site will be retained as demonstrated below. The outlook to the northeast can not be categorised as a highly iconic or valuable “view”, but is recognised as an important outlook to the residents of 3/18 Lenthall Street given the single aspect of the apartment. The applicant has minimised the height of the development in the area of view to try and maximise this outlook for the neighbours. Condition 2 requires a further reduction of 200mm to ensure maximum outlook is retained.

 

Above: Seated outlook from the lounge room of 3/18 Lenthall Street will largely be retained. String lines indicate outline of proposal at 16 Lenthall Street.

 

Above: Standing outlook from the lounge room of 3/18 Lenthall Street will largely be retained. String lines indicate outline of proposal at 16 Lenthall Street.

 

Above: Oblique view of Centrepoint and large palm trees from bedrooms will be retained by the proposal.

Above: Dining room and kitchen will retain sky outlook and top of tree in background.

 

27      The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

Comment: The outlook that will be lost from 3/18 Lenthall Street as a result of the development is available across the common side boundary. The outlook is available from a seated and standing position, however the location of the windows facing the side boundary means fully maintaining this outlook is difficult. This is clear from the amount of interruption to the existing district outlook as a result of vegetation and existing development. The proposal has minimised its impact by lowering the roof over the first floor ensuite of the proposal to maintain as much as possible of the existing seated and standing outlook from the lounge room of 3/18 Lenthall Street. The generous setbacks to the boundary also maintain a large area of sky outlook to the apartment, maximising the openness of the outlook from the lounge room window.

 

28      The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

Comment: Views from the front of the building at 18 Lenthall Street to Kensington district and Centrepoint will be retained. Views from the rear of the building of Kensington Golf Course will be preserved by the development. Outlook from the living room to the sky and advanced tree canopy will be retained. The openess of the outlook will be retained by the generous side setbacks. The loss of district view including the Kensington ridge line and large developments is considered reasonable when measured against the compliance of the proposal with the DCP and the overall maintenance of outlook and amenity to 3/18 Lenthall Street. Given the existing view opportunities from the front and rear of the site and the superior quality of these views when compared with the views across the subject site, the extent of the loss of outlook is considered to be minor.

 

29      The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

Comment: The proposal achieves compliance with all of Council’s controls except for the secondary external wall height control for development to the rear of sites of 3.5 metres. A development complying with this requirement would most likely still result in loss of outlook because this would entail a pitched roof design to contain the first floor addition within ‘roof space’ as required by the DCP. The FSR of the proposal is well below that allowed under the DCP and therefore further reduction of the proposal to maintain views is considered unreasonable.

 

The development results in the same impact as a complying development would and will not result in loss of substantial or iconic views. In addition, there are several other view aspects available from 18 Lenthall Street which will be retained by the development. The views that will be obscured by the proposal are available currently over a side boundary and these types of views are always difficult to retain without unreasonably constraining development on adjoining sites, as discussed above.

 

Planning consultants for the objector requested that Council have regard to a recent judgement of the Land and Environment Court regarding view loss. While the case does not contain a planning principle and previous Court cases are not a matter for consideration under section 79C of the Act, due to the specific request a brief discussion has been included below.

 

In Abel-Sayed V Gosford City Council (LEC 11447 of 2004) Commissioner Brown considered the principles of Tenacity v Warringah Council and the applicable local planning policies. This case centred around view loss from a coastal site as a result of a first floor addition on a neighbouring property. The affected views in the case were views to Mc Masters Beach, the ocean interface with the beach and the headland across a side boundary. Views to a northern headland and beach glimpses would be retained from a different aspect. Commissioner Brown dismissed an appeal against the Council’s determination of refusal due to the high degree of view loss experienced by the neighbour and the potential for a more skilful design to minimise impacts.

 

The comparison of the “view” loss in Abel-Sayed V Gosford City Council with the loss of outlook in the subject application is considered inappropriate. This Court case dealt with primary views whereas the current application may be described as having outlook impacts rather than view impacts. The Gosford City Council planning documents contain specific objectives relating to maintaining “primary views and outlook for existing dwellings”. A key issue in the judgement was that the views that would be lost were considered the primary views for the dwelling with other available views being considered of lesser quality. Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP has no such requirement. The owner of 3/18 Lenthall Street has argued that the single aspect at 3/18 Lenthall Street requires greater consideration of outlook. This request has been adequately considered and balanced against the reasonableness of the proposal and the retention of outlook as demonstrated by the erection of height poles. The height poles indicate a built form that meets all relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and a design that consciously attempts to reduce impacts on outlooks for 3/18 Lenthall Street. Accordingly, the impact of the proposal on views and the amenity of living areas at 3/18 Lenthall Street is satisfactory.

 

 

 

10.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and Draft DCP for the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and will not result in any substantial adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

The application is therefore recommended for deferred commencement approval, subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 311/2005 for Alterations and new two storey rear addition to the existing dwelling including new internal courtyard, new pool, new entry stairway & extension of existing garage at front of property (Heritage Conservation Area) at 16 Lenthall Street, Kensington subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Condition

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with Revision A of the plans drawn by JAF Design Pty Ltd numbered DA-01 to DA-10 , dated Mar 2005 and stamped received by Council on 28 April 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the information submitted to satisfy the deferred commencement conditions and except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       The floor to ceiling height of the first floor ensuite, walk in robe and hallway is to be a maximum of 2.2 metres and the roof over this area is to be adjusted accordingly, to have a maximum RL38.28. This condition is imposed to maintain maximum outlook to 3/18 Lenthall Street without compromising the amenity of 16 Lenthall Street. Details are to be included in the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

3.       Satellite dishes are not to be installed on the roof except as provided for by Council’s Exempt and Complying Development Control Plan.

 

4.       The following windows to the south western elevation are to be constructed with the following privacy treatments:

 

§  First floor windows to Bed 4 are to have a minimum sill height of 1.7m above finished floor level.

§  Ground floor kitchen windows are to be treated with white glass

 

          The following windows to the north eastern elevation are to be constructed with the following privacy treatments:

 

§  First floor windows to the study are to have a minimum sill height of 1.5m above finished floor level.

§  First floor bedroom windows are to have a minimum sill height of 1.5m

 

          This condition is imposed to reinforce the privacy measures shown on the plans and minimise impacts from the northeastern elevation. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

 

5.       A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above finished floor level is to be provided to southeastern edge of the first floor balcony to the master bedroom. Details are to be provided on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

6.       Fences located on the side or rear boundaries of the premises shall not exceed a maximum height of 1800 mm* and shall be constructed of lightweight materials, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining premises. Replacement of existing side and rear fencing proposed as part of the works shall be at the applicant’s cost.

 

*An allowance of up to 150mm is permitted at required ‘step-downs’ or changes in level.

 

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

 

8.       Metal roof sheeting is to be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment.

 

9.       Eaves, gutters, hoods and similar structures or attachments are required to be setback from the side boundaries of the allotment a minimum distance of 500mm and details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate details.

 

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

 

11.     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.

 

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

 

12.     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.

 

13.     New 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.

 

14.     New 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.

 

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, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

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

          Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.     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.

 

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

 

20.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must: -

 

i)        appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work; and

 

ii)       appoint a principal contractor for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing; and

              

iii)      unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

iv)      give at least two days notice to the Council, in writing, of the persons intention to commence building works.

 

          In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

21.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

          The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

          Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

          The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

22.     A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site, which contains the following details:

 

       name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable);

       name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority; and

       a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

23.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

          An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

24.     Prior to the issuing of an interim or final occupation certificate, a statement is required to be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority, which confirms that the development is not inconsistent with the development consent and the relevant conditions of development consent have been satisfied.

 

          Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority together with any other certification relied upon and must also be provided to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

25.     In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the provisions 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 principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

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

 

          At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.2% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

28.     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.

 

29.     Any building/demolition works involving asbestos products are to be carried out in accordance with WorkCover New South Wales requirements, guidelines and codes of practice.

 

30.     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 made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

35.     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, soil and debris at all times.

 

36.     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval 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 Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

37.     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

 

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

 

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

 

          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.

 

39.     Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

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

 

          Temporary site fences are to be structurally adequate, safe and be constructed in a professional manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

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

 

          If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings 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.

 

40.     A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

       Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

       Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

       Placement of a waste skip (grater than 3m in length) or any container or other article.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

43.     Spa pools are to be provided with a child resistant barrier, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

45.     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

          The operation of swimming pool/spa pool pump and equipment is restricted, if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, the equipment shall not be operated during the following hours, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations: -

 

       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

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

 

46.     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 Council or a Council approved subcontractor to carry civil works such as construction of a new vehicular crossing to the subject site.

 

a)       $700.00    -           Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

          The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the required civil works by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

48.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

50.     The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be 20mm above the back of the footpath along the full site frontage.

 

51.     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.

 

52.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $110.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

53.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

56.     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.

 

57.     The following tree may be removed if necessary as part of this application with no replacement required given the presence of other more significant trees which are to be retained within the site.

 

a)       One Olea europaea (Olive Tree) in the front yard, against the southern boundary.

 

          Prior to removal of the tree, a survey plan is to be provided to the certifying authority and to Council if Council is not the certifying authority, clarifying the tree is located within the boundaries of the subject site. If the tree trunk is not located wholly within the subject site then the owner’s consent from the adjoining property to remove the tree is to be procured prior to any works being undertaken on the tree.

 

58.     In order to ensure the retention of the Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig) located on the Lenthall Street road reserve 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 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 1 metre around the perimeter 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 in the area, no stockpiling of soil or rubble, or any works listed in Point b.

 

d.       Should pruning of any branches be required in order to accommodate site access, machinery etc during the course of demolition/construction, the applicant will be required to contact Council’s Landscape Technician on 9399-0613 to arrange for Council or a Council approved contractor to arrange a quotation for such work. The applicant will be required to lodge the prescribed amount with Council prior to undertaking such work.

 

e.       Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls etc within 5 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 erection of signage on the fence with the following words clearly displayed: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER".

 

59.     In order to ensure the retention of the Livistona australis Cabbage Palm) and Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) located within the front yard, against the northern property boundary 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 specimens with the position of the trunks and full diameter of the canopies 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, cutting or battering of the existing soil profile within a radius of  2.5 metres from the outside edge of either of the trunks.

 

c.       The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum distance of 1.5 metres from the western edge of the Cabbage Palm, a distance of 1 metre from the southern edge of both trunks and a distance of 1 metre from the eastern edge of the trunk of the Canary Island Date Palm.

 

                   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 in the area, no stockpiling of soil or rubble, or any works listed in Point b.

 

          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, retaining walls, paving etc within 3 metres of either 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 erection of signage on the fence with the following words clearly displayed: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER".

 

60.     In order to ensure the retention of the Pinus species (Pine Tree) located in the rear yard, towards the eastern boundary 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 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.

 

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 in the area 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.

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1     The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A) A4 Drawings

B) Peer Review Advice prepared by Tony Moody of Moody & Doyle Town Planning 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OUR REF:     TM: OB: MISC92/2

YOUR REF:      DJO (D/0311/2005)

 

29 August, 2005

 

 

 

Mr D. Ongkili

Acting Manager Development Assessment

Randwick City Council

Administrative Centre

30 Frances Street

RANDWICK  NSW  2031

 

 

FAX:  (02) 9319 9510

 

Email:  david.ongkili@randwick.nsw.gov.au

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

 

RE:       REQUEST FOR A PEER REVIEW OF DA NO. D/0311/2005,

            PPTY:   16 LENTHALL STREET, KENSINGTON.

 

I refer to your letter dated 17 August, 2005 confirming my appointment to undertake a Peer Review of the abovementioned Development Application.  I acknowledge receipt of relevant documents and plans relating to the application including, but not limited to, the file of Randwick City Council relating to the application, the letters of objection and the report of the Director, City Planning to the meeting of Council’s Health, Building and Planning Committee of 13 September, 2005.

 

Prior to providing my Peer Review of the abovementioned report, I wish to make the following brief comments:-

 

1.   During my recent meeting with one of the objectors (Mrs V. Paltoglou of Unit 3/18 Lenthall Street), it came to my attention that her Solicitor was, in fact, a previous client of mine in relation to a development at Mooramie Avenue, Kensington.  I acted for the objector’s Solicitor in only one matter approximately 2 years ago.  I raise this issue with Council should it decide that there is a conflict of interest arising from this matter.  If Council decides that there is a conflict of interest and seeks the services of another independent Planning Consultant, then I will not render an account for my work to date.  I should note that I have only worked for the objector’s Solicitor on one matter in 2003 and had no contact prior to or after the 2003 matter.

 

2.   I make the following review based on my 15 years experience in 3 Local Government Councils including 9 years as Senior Development Control Planner.  I also hold a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) from the University of Technology, Sydney.  I have appeared for 6 Councils in the Land and Environment Court as an Expert Witness and I have also appeared in numerous appeals as a Court Appointed Expert.

 

3.   The following Peer Review is a brief summary of my assessment of the proposed development particularly my observations relating to the above report of the Director, City Planning of Randwick City Council.

 

4.   I confirm that I have examined all relevant documents and carried out on-site inspection.  On this point, I viewed the subject site from the street and also from the unit of Mrs Paltoglou.  I had an extensive conference with Mrs Paltoglou which was also attended by her daughter, Ms D. Paltoglou.

 

5.   I note that there were shadow plans submitted by the Applicant for the proposed development.  For the purposes of this advice, I have assumed that the shadow plans are correct.

6.   There were also height poles erected on the subject site and photographs of the likely loss of view/ aspect from the unit of Mrs Paltoglou.  I have assumed that the height poles were erected at the correct heights and location and that a Surveyor’s Certificate was provided by the Applicant.

 

7.   I note that there was a previous Development Application rejected by Randwick City Council for the subject site.  Furthermore, I note that the Applicant has lodged a number of amended schemes under the current application.  I have not given any weight or “credit” to the Applicant for making these amendments as my role is merely to assess the current proposal.   

 

8.   There appears to have been a total of 4 objectors to the proposed development from 3 individual properties.  Two (2) of the objectors reside in the immediately adjoining residential flat building at No. 18 Lenthall Street whilst the third objector resides in No. 20 Lenthall Street which is one property removed from the subject site.  Whilst I did attend the unit of Mrs Paltoglou at Unit 3/18 Lenthall Street, I did not consider it necessary to attend the unit of Mr & Mrs Nagib at  Unit 1/18 Lenthall Street due to the fact that their concern was primarily relating to the issue of overshadowing.  On this point, I had the benefit of photographs taken by Council Officers, the shadow plans submitted by the Applicant and the letter of objection from Mr & Mrs Nagib.

 

Whilst I do not agree with all the comments contained in the report of Council Officers referred to above, I consider that the report is a fair and balanced one and I would support the ultimate recommendation for approval of the application.  I wish to make the following brief observations to assist Council.  I stress again that the following observations are not exhaustive:-

 

§  I note in Section 4 of the report titled “Site History”, that there have been a number of amended schemes under the current application.  As previously advised, I have given no weight or credit to the Applicant for making these amendments.

 

§  I note the comment in the “Executive Summary”, that the “main issues for consideration are Heritage Impacts and concerns raised by neighbours with regard to solar access and outlook impacts to residents at 18 Lenthall Street”.

 

§  I agree with the Council Officers’ report that “the bulk will not be apparent from the street or 20 Lenthall Street which is separated from the subject site by a 3-storey residential flat building”.

 

§  I note the advice of Council Officers that the proposal complies with the Parking Development Control Plan of Council.

 

§  I generally agree with the comments of Council Officers in response to the points of objection raised in Section 5 “Community Consultation” of the report.

 

§  I note Council’s Director of City Services raised no objections in terms of landscaping and existing trees subject to appropriate conditions.

 

§  As the subject site is located in the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and the subject dwelling is considered to be a Contributory Item in the Conservation Area, the advice of Council’s Heritage Planner was sought.  I particularly note the advice of Council’s Heritage Planner that “the proposed additions are considered appropriate to the existing dwelling, the Conservation Area and the streetscape... The rear additions are sympathetic to the dwelling and the streetscape as they do not dominate the original and significant forms.  The additions are largely single storey in scale as rooms are included in the roof.  The only true 2-storey section is the bedroom set well to the rear of the site and will not be detrimentally visible from the street...  The various roof forms on the additions to the rear are appropriate as they reduce the bulk of the additions and delineated as a new and sympathetic element”.  It is obviously important that the recommended conditions of Council’s Heritage Planner be incorporated in any final Conditions of Consent should Council approve the application.  The report of Council Officers at page 11 refers to “Condition X”, but this appears to be in error.

 

§  It is noted that the proposal complies with the majority of Council’s numerical controls under its DCP for “Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies” including, but not limited to, landscaped area, usable private open space, floor space ratio, area and dimensions of private open space, setbacks and the 7.0 metre external wall height.  However, whilst numerical compliance with the above Planning Controls is a point in support of the proposed development there is also need for any assessment to be made on the qualitative aspects of the proposed development.

 

§  On the issue of “external wall height”, I wish to raise a possible contradiction in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.  At page 34 of the relevant DCP, the first Preferred Solution S1 states that “the external wall height of a dwelling house or attached dual occupancy does not exceed 7 metres”, whilst the second Preferred S1 Solution states that “the external wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 metres”.  The DCP is not clear as to the circumstances in which each of the above provisions apply.  At page 14 of their report, Council Officers state that the 3.5 metre requirement is “generally applied to outbuildings and additions to semi-detached dwelling where setbacks are not achieved.  The 7 metre wall height control takes precedence in assessment of application such as the subject application”.  The advice of Council Officers as to the circumstances in which the 3.5 metre control applies in contrast to 7.0 metre may well be correct based on Council’s practice but there is no specific reference in the DCP to support the advice of Council Officers.  I would strongly suggest that in any review of Council’s DCP, this apparent contradiction should be remedied.  Whilst Council Officers state that the 7 metre requirement should be applied to the proposed addition, the Consultant Planner for the objectors claims that the 3.5 metre requirement should apply.  Based on Figures 4.1 and 5.1 of Council’s DCP, the 7.0 metre external wall height requirement appears to apply to dwellings and additions.  However, given this doubt as to the circumstances where the 7 metre requirement applies as opposed to  the 3.5 metre requirement, it was prudent of  Council Officers to undertake a qualitative assessment of the proposal irrespective of the direct application of the 7 metre requirement vs the 3.5 metre requirement.

 

§  For the reasons outlined in the Officers’ report, I consider that the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is reasonable.  Of particular importance, in my view, is the fact that the proposed development is strongly articulated with setbacks significantly in excess of Council’s Controls.  In particular, the setbacks from the objectors’ units at 18 Lenthall Street are well in excess of Council’s requirements.  Furthermore, the building is strongly articulated with a lower roof form in the middle portion.  All of these elements, in my view, will ensure there is no unreasonable “sense of enclosure” experienced by the adjoining objectors.  This is not to say that their present aspect/outlook will be retained as existing.  However, one must expect in a residential environment to see changes in building bulk particularly on a site which is presently underdeveloped given Council’s Planning Controls.

 

§  As noted above, I take particular recognition of the fact that the proposed “building setbacks” are significantly in excess of Council’s Planning Controls, particularly from the adjoining residential flat building at 18 Lenthall Street.

 

§  I also consider that the proposal will not have an adverse acoustic privacy impact on adjoining properties for the reasons outlined in the report of Council Officers.

 

§  The provision of a double garage on the front boundary normally creates concerns on the issue of streetscape.  However, I particularly note the comments of Council’s Heritage Planner who advises that “the proposed alterations to the garage are considered appropriate given the streetscape and topographic context despite the breaches of Council’s Planning Controls”.  Particular attention should be given to the colour and finishes of the new roller doors.  A condition should be imposed requiring such details to be provided for the consideration of Council’s Heritage Planner.

 

§  I note that the adjoining objector at Unit 3/18 Lenthall Street was concerned about side and rear boundary fencing.  A condition should be imposed to the effect that if the Applicant decides to replace existing fencing then the Applicant should be responsible solely for the costs of such replacement.

 

§  In terms of overshadowing, the shadow plans indicate that there will be increased overshadowing to the eastern ground floor windows of the adjoining residential flat building at 18 Lenthall Street.   But whilst solar access to these adjoining ground floor windows is reduced, Council Officers advise that the level of sun still complies with the preferred solution under Council’s DCP.  Furthermore, the north facing windows of the adjoining units will be largely unaffected.  On the issue of overshadowing, it should be noted that the proposal provides setbacks well in excess of Council’s DCP.

 

§  I note the advice of Council Officers that the proposal “does not comply with the general prohibition on 2-storey buildings in the HCA”.  The objective of this limit is to “ensure that new building work is compatible in scale, siting and proportion”  I note the support of Council’s Heritage Planner and the other reasons for variation of this control set out at page 23 of the Council Officers’ report.  I generally agree with those comments.

 

§  The major concern pressed by the adjoining objector at Unit 3/18 Lenthall Street is that of loss of view/outlook/aspect from her unit.  Height poles were erected (presumably confirmed by Surveyor’s Certificate) which indicates the extent of outlook and view.  Council Officers have correctly referred to the principles put forward by the Land and Environment Court in the case of Tenacity v Warringah Council.  Whilst I do not agree with all the comments of Council Officers in their report on this issue, I generally concur with their final assessment that the impact on the views and amenity of Unit 3/18 Lenthall Street is “satisfactory”.  I refer to pages 24-29 of the Officers’ Report.  This is not say that the objector at Unit 3 will not suffer a loss.  Clearly, there will be a varying degree of loss from a number of windows but this has to also be counterbalanced with the reasonable expectations of the Applicant and the general planning merits of the proposed development.  There are various elements in the current proposal which have sought to reduce the loss of view/outlook including, but not limited to, the significant side boundary setbacks, the articulation in the roof forms and the lowering in the height of the development in the middle portion of the development.  I should add that the 2-storey pavilion at the rear of the proposal will not, in my view, result in an adverse loss of view/outlook given that the 2-storey pavilion will be adjacent to an existing 2-storey dwelling on an adjoining property.  The very generous setbacks to the boundaries  and the slight lowering of part of the development by way of Condition 2 will also assist to minimise a sense of enclosure.  On the issue of view/outlook, I also note Condition 4 which requires that “satellite dishes are not to be installed on the roof except that is provided for by Council’s Exempt and Complying and Development Control Plan”.  This is a matter of concern to the adjoining objector in Unit 3.  In some cases, elements such as satellite dishes can have a very significant impact and Council should ensure that such elements do not have an adverse impact on the view/outlook enjoyed by adjoining owners.  The issue of loss of view/aspect has obviously caused much distress to the adjoining objector at Unit 3 but I consider that the points raised by Council Officers are fair and balanced.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

 

Overall, I consider that the report of Council Officers is a reasonable one and I support the recommendation for approval subject to appropriate conditions.  It is a difficult decision by Council particularly in light of the concerns expressed by the adjoining owner at Unit 3/18 Lenthall Street.  However, the concerns of the adjoining objector must also be balanced by the reasonable expectations of the Applicant and the planning merits of the proposal.  It is my view that the proposal is a reasonable one.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this letter of advice for the consideration of Randwick City Council.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

TONY MOODY

 

M&D/MISC92-2/AUGUST 29  -LTR

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

15 August, 2005

FILE NO:

D0309/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Internal alterations and new two storey rear extension including new balcony and rear terrace above the new garage (having access off rear lane) including new rear fencing.

PROPERTY:

 11A Park Street, Clovelly

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr G A Sneddon

OWNER:

 Ms L J Cowan and Mr G A Sneddon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors John Kenny, Paul Tracey, Margaret Woodsmith.

 

The proposed development is for internal alterations and new two storey rear extension including new balcony and rear terrace above the new garage (having access off rear lane) including new rear fencing.  The issues relate to overshadowing, visual bulk loss of privacy.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to make alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling house.  It is proposed to construct a new garage at lower ground floor level at the rear of the site and provide access from Eastbourne Avenue, at the rear.  A ground floor addition is proposed that will also involve internal alterations to accommodate for new living areas and a kitchen and bathroom.  The new living areas will have direct access to a terrace located over the garage.  A new first floor level addition is proposed that is to accommodate the master bedroom, en-suite bathroom and walk-in-robe.  That bedroom will have direct access to a balcony at the rear.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Park Street to the south of Surfside Avenue, Clovelly.  It has a 6.8 metre frontage to Park Street, a rear alignment to Eastbourne Avenue, a maximum depth of 36.6 metres and a total site area of 243.4 sqm.  It is currently occupied by a single-storey semi-detached dwelling house.  The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses and some residential flat buildings.  The adjoining site to the north is improved with the other half of the semi-detached dwelling, which has had a first floor and rear addition.  The adjoining site to the south is improved with a two-storey semi-detached dwelling house.  Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

The proposal is shown on the amended plans received by Council on 20 June 2005.  The amendments were made at the request of Council and include reduction in the size of the rear ground floor level terrace and the installation of privacy screens at ground and first floor levels.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and its surroundings

 

4.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 6 May 2005.  As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

D & L Mead – 11 Park St

Issue

Comment

The proposed development will have overshadowing impacts on the rear yard of the objector’s property.

The proposed development complies with the solar access Preferred Solutions of Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.  See below for details.

The location of the first floor balcony will result in overlooking.

The location of the balcony will result in some overlooking of properties to the south.  However, it is noted that many properties along this part of Park Street have first floor balconies all of which overlook each others yards.  In any case, conditions will be imposed with any approval that require proper privacy screen provisions to minimise overlooking opportunities.

The proposed metal roof at first floor addition will result in noise from rain. It should be tiled.

The proposed roof in unlikely to cause any considerable noise in wet weather unless hail is falling.  Furthermore, tiles cannot be applied to a roof with the grade that is proposed.

Too much built on area resulting in excess stormwater run-off.

The proposed development complies with the permeable area Preferred Solution of Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.  See below for details.

H & K Lekeu – 9 Park St

Issue

Comment

The proposed development will result in overlooking of the objector’s property.

The proposed development has the potential for overlooking from the first floor balcony and ground floor rear terrace.  To minimise opportunities for overlooking and resultant loss of privacy, conditions will be imposed with any approval that require proper privacy screen provisions.

The proposed development should not extend past the rear building line and should instead build more at first floor level.

The objector’s request to add to the bulk and floor area of the first floor level is inappropriate as the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies requiries the second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined within the existing roof space or setback from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design to respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.  The proposed extension of the ground floor level beyond the 4.5m rear setback requirement is acceptable as it satisfies the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP primarily in that the adjoining dwellings will still have adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air, and the environmental amenity of the streetscape along Eastbourne Avenue is maintained.  

The proposed development will result in overshadowing of the objector’s rear yard.

The proposed development complies with the solar access Preferred Solutions of Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.  See below for details.

The Banksia tree at the rear of the site should be retained.

The comments received by City Services state that the Banksia tree that is located on the nature strip to the rear of the site has permission to be removed, but there is another that is located immediately to the north of the former one that is to be retained.  Conditions will be imposed with any approval.

Too much built on area resulting in excess stormwater run-off.

The proposed development complies with the permeable area Preferred Solution of Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.  See below for details.

C Blake – 15 Park St

Issue

Comment

The proposed terrace extends too far back and is in close proximity to the rear yard of the objector’s property.

The location of the proposed rear terrace and its relationship to the rear yard of the objector’s property will not result in any adverse impacts given that appropriate privacy screening is proposed.  Notwithstanding this, the proposal has been amended to show a reduction in depth of the rear terrace.

The high privacy screen will create a sense of enclosure.

The amended plans show a reduction in depth of the rear terrace and an associated reduction in length of the privacy screen.  This will reduce the sense of enclosure.

 

T Lowe – 7 Park St

Issue

Comment

The proposed development may result in overlooking of the objector’s property.

The proposed development has the potential for overlooking from the first floor balcony and ground floor rear terrace.  To minimise opportunities for overlooking and resultant loss of privacy, conditions will be imposed with any approval that require proper privacy screen provisions.

 

Following a review of the above objections raised by objectors, the applicant was requested to provide amended plans addressing these objections. After the submission of amended plans, a site inspection was undertaken which indicated that the proposed amendments generally addressed the concerns raised in the first round of submissions. Accordingly, the development proposed in the amended plans was considered to be acceptable.

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the amended plans on the 13 July 2005.  As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

D & L Mead – 11 Park St

Issue

Comment

The objector states that the concerns remain the same and that the amended plans do not address any of the concerns raised and, in fact, make them worse in some respects.

The concerns raised by the objector in the first round of submissions are addressed above.  It is considered that the amended plans have further addressed the main issues raised in the first round of submissions (as detailed in the relevant assessment section of this report).   

H & K Lekeu – 9 Park St

Issue

Comment

The amended plans have introduced more privacy screens that will increase overshadowing of the rear yard.

The only additional privacy screens that were added to the amended plans are those along the side of the stair from the rear terrace.  However, these screens will have minimal or no impact in terms of overshadowing on the objector’s property.

The proposed development does not comply with the requirement of building footprint and rear building alignment.

The proposed extension of the ground floor level beyond the 4.5m rear setback requirement is acceptable as it satisfies the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP primarily in that the adjoining dwellings will still have adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air, and the environmental amenity of the streetscape along Eastbourne Avenue is maintained.

The amended terrace will still allow for overlooking.

The proposed development has the potential for overlooking from the first floor balcony and ground floor rear terrace.  To minimise opportunities for overlooking and resultant loss of privacy, conditions will be imposed with any approval that require proper privacy screen provisions.

There is opportunity to build a bigger first floor addition rather than extend to the rear as proposed.

The objector’s request to add to the bulk and floor area of the first floor level is inappropriate as the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies requires the second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined within the existing roof space or setback from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design to respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.  The proposed extension of the ground floor level beyond the 4.5m rear setback requirement is acceptable as it satisfies the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP primarily in that the adjoining dwellings will still have adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air, and the environmental amenity of the streetscape along Eastbourne Avenue is maintained.  

C Blake – 15 Park St

Issue

Comment

The proposed planter box is 600mm high but does not say how wide it is.

The planter box is 1.0 metre wide.

Vegetation in the planter boxes will cause visual bulk.

The proposed planter box is considerably lower in height than the previous privacy screen that ran along the side boundary.  Furthermore, vegetation does not result in visual bulk and, in fact, acts to soften the visual impact of the proposed development.  The amended development will not have adverse impacts in respect of visual bulk, as it is only marginally higher than the top of the boundary fence.

Alterations can be made at any time to extend the terrace or remove the planter boxes.

Any changes that are proposed for the dwelling in the future will be required to follow the relevant application process through Council.

The elevation shows the glass screen alongside the boundary with the objector’s property to be 1600 mm high but on the plan it is shown as 1000high.

The privacy screen should be 1600mm from the terrace floor.  An appropriate condition will be imposed with any consent.

 

 

5.       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:-

 

5.1     Engineering Issues

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

 

There is one Metrosideros excelsa (NZ Xmas Tree) of approximately 2 metres in height on the Park Street nature strip. Although covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, it appears in poor condition, and would remain largely unaffected by such a proposal given that the proposed work is restricted the rear of the site.

 

There is one Plumeria acutifolia (Frangipani) of approximately 4 metres in height in the rear yard, towards the southeast corner of the site. The plans show this tree as being retained, however, it is too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and as such, conditions have not been included in this report.

 

There is one Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) of approximately 4-5 metres in height, growing within the narrow nature strip at the rear of the property (Eastbourne Avenue), against the northern boundary. Although it was likely planted by the property owner for screening purposes, rather than Council given the restricted area it is growing within, as it is located on public property, it falls under the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

This tree is poorly sited given the lack of suitable space, and as it would not be possible to retain this tree and proceed with construction of the vehicle crossing as shown, approval is granted for its removal as indicated; however, the applicant will not be charged for removal, loss of amenity or replacement costs for the reasons outlined above.

 

Immediately to the north of this tree, beyond the northern property boundary, off the rear of 15 Park Street, there is another Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) of approximately 6-7 metres in height, which is also covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

This is a more significant specimen given its larger size and canopy cover; however, it is exhibiting a pronounced lean to the east, over the roadway towards 8 Shackel Avenue. This tree was also likely planted by one of the property owners, and as it is located beyond the boundary of the subject site, on public land, the applicant will be required ensure the protection and retention of this tree as part of the proposed vehicle crossing, garage slab and northern boundary wall.

 

Given the factors outlined above, combined with the proximity of the proposed works to the trunk of this tree, protection measures will need to be implemented in order to ensure the stability of this tree is not compromised.

 

6.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Not required as the site is less than 4,000 sqm.

 

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.

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

§  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

§  Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Foreshore scenic protection area

 

Clause 29(3) of LEP 1998 provides the following in respect of Foreshore Scenic Protection Area:

 

The Council may only grant consent referred to in subclause (2) after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

It is considered that the proposed development is minor and will not adversely affect the significance of the Foreshore.  The development will be compatible with surrounding development in respect of scale and bulk.  Therefore, the development is considered to satisfy the requirements of clause 29.

 

7.1     Policy Controls

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.

 

Landscaping

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area.

31 % of the site is landscaped area. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

A minimum of 25m˛ of useable private open space is to be provided.

The rear yard has an area of 25 sqm. Complies.

S1

Each dwelling must provide an area of private open space capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

The above area has dimensions of 4 x 4 metres. Complies.

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The open space is located in the rear yard. Complies.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

20 % of the site is permeable. Complies.

 

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; indigenous species are used and existing vegetation is recycled where possible; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the minimum landscaped area when calculated strictly in accordance with the definition of the DCP.  However, when the raised terrace area at the rear of the site is included in the calculation, the resultant total landscaped area is 46% of the site.  Notwithstanding this, the proposal satisfies the Landscaping Performance Requirements in that the size and dimensions of the landscaped area will meet the requirements of the dwelling occupants and adequately accommodate their outdoor recreation.

 

The proposed landscaping (including the raised terrace) is considered to provide adequate private open space for the occupants of the dwelling.  It is also noted that the site complies with respect of the minimum amount of permeable treatment.  In these respects, despite non-compliance with the Preferred Solution, the proposal satisfies the Objectives and the Performance Requirements of the DCP and is, therefore, acceptable

 

Floor Area

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed FSR is 0.71:1. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the Preferred Solution for FSR.  It exceeds the maximum permissible by 15 sqm.  It is noted that the excess floor area occurs mainly in the garage floor at the rear and lowest part of the site (amounting to 10 sqm) so that effectively only 5 sqm of the excess floor area is habitable floor area.

 

The proposed additions will not be visible from the street and so the development cannot be considered as bulky from that perspective.  From the rear, the development is also not considered to be bulky given that the adjoining site to the north contains a large building that will continue to visually overwhelm the proposed additions if they are to be approved and completed.  It is also noted that the proposed development provides acceptable side setbacks and is proposed to use materials that will have a lightweight appearance. 

 

On the basis of the above considerations, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 7.6 metres. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.

The proposed garage has a maximum wall height of 3.4 metres. Complies.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

There will be minor excavation to accommodate the garage floor slab.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Not applicable, as no excavation is proposed.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable, as no excavation is proposed.

S4

The length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

A 7.6 metre section of the southern elevation of the proposed dwelling is 1.2 metres from the southern side boundary at first floor level. Complies.

S5

The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

The proposed first floor addition is set back about 6.5 metres from the ridge of the existing dwelling.  This is considered to be generous and will ensure that the integrity of the semi-detached dwelling and its twin remains intact.  Complies.

 

The Objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality; to ensure impacts in terms of privacy, natural light and views are minimised; and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant Performance Requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and the topography; buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets; with respect to additions to semi-detached dwellings they integrate with the attached dwelling; and views are shared.

The proposed development does not comply with the external wall height Preferred Solution above.  However, it is noted that this is largely due to the fact that the site slopes from its northern side to its southern side by about 0.9 metres, which results in a large subfloor/footings area for the dwelling.  It is also noted that the applicant has attempted to minimise the overall height of the building by using a skillion roof and designing the addition so that it has reduced floor to ceiling heights. Furthermore, the proposal achieves the Performance Requirement in that it will have a height, bulk and scale that will be compatible in the streetscape.  In any case, the extent of non-compliance is considered to be minimal and will not result in adverse impacts on adjoining properties or the amenity of the streetscape. 

 

On the basis of the above, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP.

 

Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed additions are setback behind the building line.  Complies.

S2

No part of the building is closer than 4.5m from rear boundary.

The proposed dwelling is 8 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

The proposed development is set back 1.2 metres from the southern side boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 1.2 metres from the southern side boundary. Does not comply – assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable, as no third floor level is proposed.

 

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

 

The proposed development does not comply with the Preferred Solution above.  However, the proposed setback of the first floor level is consistent with the side setback of other first floor additions in the area.  Compliance can be difficult to achieve due to the width of the sites in the area.  The proposed development will allow adequate light and ventilation to the adjoining dwelling to the south, thus achieving the Performance Requirements.

 

On the basis of the above, the development is considered to satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP and, therefore, non-compliance with the Preferred Solution is considered to be acceptable.

 

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

The proposal does not have any habitable room windows that overlook those of adjoining dwellings within 9 metres. Complies.

S1

Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle.

The rear terrace and first floor balcony will cause overlooking to the private open space of the properties to the south. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the above Preferred Solution.  However, it is considered that this may be addressed by imposing conditions that will limit opportunities for overlooking. These would include ensuring that sections of the proposed louvres on the ground and first floor level are fixed below 1.5 metres from the floors, and raising the balustrade height along the southern side of the deck from 1.0 metre to 1.2 metres.  These measures will ensure that the occupant of the dwelling will be able to enjoy views of the Ocean in the distance whilst preventing overlooking of the adjoining rear yard areas.

 

On the basis of the above, the development is considered to satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP and, therefore, non-compliance with the Preferred Solution is considered to be acceptable.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Council’s Parking DCP requires 1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

The proposed dwelling has parking for 2 cars. Complies.

S1

Car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 2.5 x 5.5 metres each. Complies.

S1

Driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary.

The proposed driveway is 3.2 metres wide and is set back about 0.8 metres from the side boundary. Does not comply – assessment below.

S1

Driveways have a maximum width of 3m at the property boundary.

The proposed driveway is 3.2 metres at the front boundary. Does not comply – assessment below.

S1

Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 thereafter.

The proposed driveway gradient is less than 1 in 8. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed garage is set back 1.0 metre from the rear boundary. Complies.

S2

Parking and access is provided from the rear of the allotment where possible.

The proposed development involves parking from the rear. Complies.

S2

Garages and carports located behind the building line where parking only available from the front of the site.

Not applicable, as parking provided from the rear.

S2

Driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment

Not applicable, as parking provided from the rear.

 

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

 

The proposed development does not comply with the Preferred Solutions above.  The proposed driveway is non-compliant in terms of its width and setback from the side boundary.  However, these degrees of non-compliance are minimal and will have no adverse impacts.  The proposal satisfies the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP.

 

Foreshore Development

 

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

The subject site is not an identified property.

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

This will be addressed by condition.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

The proposed development is considered to have adequate articulation.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

The proposed development does not affect views.

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

The proposed garage is an ancillary structure.  However, it is integrated into the design of the dwelling and will not detract from the appearance of the development or the foreshore area.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

Not applicable, as the proposal involves additions only.

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 further reduce existing solar access on north-facing habitable room windows. Complies.

S9

Principal outdoor recreation space 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 further reduce existing solar access to private open space to less than 3 hours. Complies.

 

 

7.2     Council Policies

No other policies applicable.

 

 

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.

 

Having regard to all relevant matters for consideration, with imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal will not result in any adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposal satisfies all relevant assessment criteria and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 0309/05 for Internal alterations and new two storey rear extension including new balcony and rear terrace above the new garage (having access off rear lane) including new rear fencing. at 11A Park Street, Clovelly subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 1/3 to 3/3, Issue A, dated April 2005 and received by Council on 30 June 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.       The 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, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

3.       Metal roof sheeting is to be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment.

 

4.       A 4.8 metre length (as measured from the where the terrace meets the planter box) of the southern balustrade of the ground floor rear terrace is not to be masonry but is to be obscure glazed and is to have a minimum height of 1.2 metres from the floor of that terrace.

 

5.       The proposed privacy screen that is to be affixed to the external stairs alongside the southern boundary of the site is to be constructed using obscure glazing and is to achieve a minimum height of 1.5 metres from the internal level of the ground floor level.

 

6.       Any part of the proposed glass louvres at both ground and first floor levels (located on the southern elevation as measured 2.0 metres from the southeastern-most corner of the external enclosing wall) that are located lower than 1.5 metres from the respective floor levels are to be deleted and replaced with fixed obscure glazing.

 

7.       The privacy screen along the northern side of the proposed ground floor rear terrace is to have a height of 1.6 metres as measured from the floor of that terrace.

 

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

 

8.       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.

 

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

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

 

10.     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.

 

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:

 

11.     Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

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

 

          Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

14.     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.

 

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

 

16.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must: -

 

i)        appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work; and

 

ii)       appoint a principal contractor for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing; and

              

iii)      unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

iv)      give at least two days notice to the Council, in writing, of the person’s intention to commence building works.

 

          In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

 

17.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

          The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

          The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

18.     A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site, which contains the following details:

 

       name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable);

       name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority; and

       a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

19.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

          The relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and relevant conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

20.     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 provisions 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 principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

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

 

          At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.2% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

23.     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.

 

24.     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”.

 

25.     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 made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

28.     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.

 

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

         

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

32.     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval 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 Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

33.     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

 

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

 

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

 

35.     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.

 

36.     Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

38.     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 Council or a Council approved subcontractor to carry civil works such as construction of a new vehicular crossing to the subject site.

 

a)       $700.00    -           Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

          The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the required civil works by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

40.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

42.     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 rear of the property in the rear lane shall be as follows:

 

§  Garage Entrance - 100m below the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

§  Pedestrian Entrance – 20mm above the top of the kerb.

 

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

 

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

 

44.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $110.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

45.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

47.     That part of the naturestrip upon Council's Park Street footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicant’s expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

48.     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.

 

Tree Management

 

49.     Approval is granted for the removal of the following tree, subject to the provision of a continuous planted screen being provided for the length of the proposed planter at the eastern end of the garage terrace. The species selected shall be suitable for the coastal location, and one that is capable of being clipped to a minimum and uniform height of 1 metre.

 

a)       One Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) on the nature strip in the rear lane, against the northern property boundary.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

50.     In order to ensure the retention of the Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) growing within the Eastbourne Avenue nature strip, beyond the northern property boundary, off the rear of 15 Park Street 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.       There is to be no storage of materials, machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble within the dripline of this tree.

          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.

 

c.       Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, 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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1     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.

 

          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.

 

          You are therefore advised to consult with Council’s Building Certification Services or an accredited certifier prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

A2     The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

TOM HUTCHISON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

24 August, 2005

FILE NO:

DA/878/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions, including construction of an additional floor level to the existing dwelling house, including extension of the existing semi-basement garage.

PROPERTY:

 43 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Zaia Design Architects

OWNER:

 Mrs Kelly Bekiaris

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.             EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Council for determination at the request of Councillors John Kenny, Scott Nash, Bruce Notley-Smith. The estimated cost of the works is $650,000.

 

The application proposes substantial alterations and additions to the existing 2 storey dwelling including extended semi basement garage, landscaping and an additional level towards the rear of the dwelling. New terraces are proposed ground and first floor level to the front and rear of the property.

 

The main issue for consideration is the non-compliance of the proposal with the preferred solutions under the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and in particular its height, bulk and scale.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.             THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking approval to make substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling on the site.

 

The existing semi-basement garage to the front of the site will be extended to provide for two car spaces side by side (the existing garage provides parking in a tandem arrangement).

 

The existing ground floor level will be extended to the north and south (front and rear) and reconfigured to provide three bedrooms, three bathrooms a laundry, lounge area and large terrace to the front of the property (Cuzco Street). Small decks are proposed to the rear of the building at this level.

 

The existing first floor level will be extended and reconfigured to accommodate a living room, powder room, dining and kitchen areas and rumpus room. Decks will be provided to the rear and front of the dwelling at this level. The rear balcony will also have an external stair on its western side providing direct access to the rear yard, which is approximately 3 metres below first floor level.

 

A new second floor level will be added to the dwelling close to the rear of the extended first floor level. This level will comprise a bedroom, ensuite and balcony to the north.

 

The extended garaging to the property will require civil works within the road verge to adjust levels and existing retaining walls including removal of stairs running west to east across the front of the subject site and construction of a new footpath near the kerb to improve pedestrian access to the southern side of Cuzco Street.

 

Hard and soft landscaping to the perimeter of the site is also proposed. A new pool was originally included in the application, however this has now been removed from the proposed works. The dwelling has is contemporary in style.

 

 

3.             THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the southern side of Cuzco Street in South Coogee. The site is a regular shaped allotment having a front (northern) boundary to Cuzco Street of 9.145 metres. The eastern and western boundaries measure 39.775 metres. The rear (southern) boundary measures 9.145 metres. The site has an area of 363.7m2 and slopes from south to north (rear to front) resulting in a change of level of approximately 2.5 metres between these boundaries.

 

Existing on the site is a 2 storey face brickwork and weatherboard dwelling above a single garage structure with pitched roof profile. An inground swimming pool exists to the rear of the site.

 

To the east (45 Cuzco Street) of the site is a 2 storey dwelling house. To the west (41 Cuzco Street) of the site is a 2 storey dwelling house. Both adjoining dwellings have garage structures at street level with the two storey portion of the house located above. The southern (rear) boundary adjoins the northern side boundary of 2 Seaside Parade a two storey dwelling house.

 

Primary view opportunities from sites on the southern side of Cuzco Street are to the northeast with secondary view aspect to the southeast. Views are interrupted by existing development and vegetation and are distant views rather than direct views of the land water interface. Development in the area is residential in scale and character with the dwellings that are 1-2 storeys in height above garage structures at street level.

 

The site is located in a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA).

 

4.             SITE HISTORY

 

a.             APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A prelodgement meeting was held on 19 March 2004 to discuss the proposal to make substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including construction of an additional floor level and extension of the garage to accommodate 4 cars. Significant issues were raised with the development concept and the applicant was advised that the proposal would not be supported in the form submitted with the prelodgement application. Follow up advice on further plans was provided indicating that the additional storey would be difficult to justify given non-compliances and impacts on the streetscape.

 

The development application was lodged on 20 October 2004. Council raised concerns with the applicant in relation to the wall height, bulk and scale of the development, inadequate landscaping and excessive garage width.

 

As a result of these discussions, the applicant submitted amended plans on 8 June 2005 that reduced the size of the top floor and increased the setback of this element from the street to minimise its visual impact on the street. Improvements originally proposed to the rear of the site including numerous elevated decks and the new swimming pool were deleted. The overall size of the addition to the rear of the site was reduced and the design of the roofs were rationalised to a pitched roof form surmounted by a similar pitch on the top floor level. The garage was reduced in size to accommodate two vehicles only. As a result of the amendments the FSR reduced from 0.997:1 to 0.79:1. These plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

5.             COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received in relation to the originally submitted scheme:

 

5.1         Objections

 

1.             J. Nobbs & A. France, 31 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

 

§                FSR of 0.8:1 is 33% above allowable

 

Comment: The FSR non-compliance has been reduced by the amendments and is considered to be acceptable as discussed in section 8.1(b).

 

§                Proposed structure is excessive for the site

 

Comment: The site can accommodate the scale of development proposed without significant adverse impacts as discussed throughout this report.

 

§                Visual impact of building due to height, particularly from surrounding properties

 

Comment: The proposal will not be highly visible from 31 Edgecliffe Avenue due to the existing topography and development in the area. The development will appear as 2.5 storeys (two storeys plus a roof element) from the rear and will not be excessively bulky in appearance.

 

§                Three storeys above garage level is unacceptable as there are no houses in Cuzco Street which are built to this scale. Proposal would set a dangerous precedent in the area where views are so highly prized.

 

Comment: Amendments have resulted in a top floor that is not highly visible from the street.

 

§                Concern regarding lack of soft landscaping, increased runoff and no provision for rainwater catchment.

 

Comment: Landscaping remains as per the existing situation and complies with Council’s requirements.

 

2.             DRE Design, 38 Rawson Avenue, Queens Park (on behalf of D & L Muddle, 41 Cuzco Street, South Coogee)

 

§                Proposal exceeds height, FSR, setbacks to upper level preferred solutions of DCP

§                Proposal does not respect average height of adjacent buildings

§                Overshadowing to eastern elevation of 41 and rear patio

§                Excavation within 900mm of boundary

§                Overlooking of rear courtyard to 41 Cuzco Street

§                View loss due to timber balcony screen wall and setbacks

§                Cut and fill – compliance with DCP cannot be established.

§                Third level should be deleted and setbacks increased to maintain amenity.

 

Comment: A further submission was received from L Muddle on 9 August 2005 advising satisfaction with the amendments made to the proposal.

 

3.             Back, Schwartz, Vaughan Solicitors, Suite 69B, Level 1, Royal Randwick Shopping Centre, 73 Belmore Road, Randwick (on behalf of D & L Muddle, 41 Cuzco Street, South Coogee)

 

§                Height, size and design of proposal is objected to

§                Concerned that amenity will be reduced by proposal

§                Loss of privacy, loss of sunlight

§                Noise from construction and future occupation of proposal

§                View loss

§                Insufficient setbacks

§                Visually obtrusive

 

Comment: A further submission was received from L Muddle on 9 August 2005 advising satisfaction with the amendments made to the proposal.

 

4.             C. Sewell, 36 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

 

§                Proposal doesn’t comply with DCP

§                Excessive bulk and scale

§                Exceeds FSR and height

§                Application is not clear as to natural ground and this may increase the apparent height of the development

§                Landscaping appears short of requirements

§                Detrimental impact on views, purchased property with comfort from the DCP’s preferred solutions

 

Comment: Refer comments made in response to the more recent submission made by C.Sewell (below), which raised similar issues.

 

5.             W.B & K.A Lee, 47 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

 

§                Three storey approval will set a precedent for future development in the street, residents will have to construct additional levels to maintain views

 

Comment:  Each development application is assessed on its individual merits.

 

§                Approval will devalue properties that currently enjoy ocean views

 

Comment:  The impacts on views have been assessed and provided below.

 

§                Submitted plans are unclear as to FSR, existing floor plan and height or levels above existing ground

§                Storage in basement should not be converted to a flat as has occurred elsewhere

 

Comment: The amended plans have removed the storage in the basement and plans are accurate.

 

§                Applicant has misled with their photographs of the subject site and other houses to demonstrate commensurate bulk and scale

 

Comment: Proposal has been reduced to have a bulk and scale commensurate with existing houses in Cuzco Street.

 

§                Top floor bedroom and ensuite is excessive given accommodation on two lower levels.

 

Comment: The amenity impacts of the top floor have been assessed and are considered reasonable.

 

6.             C. Cantarella, 37 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

 

§                Exceeds the FSR excessively

 

Comment: The FSR non-compliance has been reduced by the amendments and is considered to be acceptable as discussed in section 8.1(b).

 

§                Exceeds height and will set a bad precedent, rest of the street would want to build 3 storey houses.

 

Comment: Each development application is assessed on its individual merits.

 

§                3 levels on top of garage

§                Inconsistency with streetscape

 

Comment: Amendments have resulted in a top floor (3rd level) that is not highly visible from the street.

 

§                View loss, other examples of 3 level houses in other streets do not result in view loss

 

Comment: View impacts of the proposal have been considered in section 9 of this report. The proposal will not result in loss of views or view opportunities.

 

7.             KBL Planning, 7, 58 Pitt Street, Mortdale (on behalf of 45 Cuzco Street, South Coogee)

 

§                Form and scale is inconsistent with residential character of locality and will compromise amenity

 

Comment: Amendments have resulted in a top floor (3rd level) that is not highly visible from the street.

 

§                FSR is excessive

 

Comment: The FSR non-compliance has been reduced by the amendments and is considered to be acceptable as discussed in section 8.1(b).

 

§                Applicant has provided photos which are not representative of the immediate locality of the proposal but development in a much wider area

 

Comment: Information supplied by the applicant with regard to the character of the immediate locality has not been relied upon and Council has undertaken a full assessment. The amended plans have setback the top floor to minimise its visibility consistent with the existing streetscape in Cuzco Street.

 

§                Excessive bulk to the street

§                Void areas and composition of solid elements in elevation unnecessarily add to the building bulk

 

Comment: Voids have been largely deleted from the plans and elevations improved.

 

§                Appearance of 3 storey dwelling is out of character with locality

 

Comment: Three storeys will not be apparent from the street due to the increased setback of the top floor.

 

§                Excessive external wall height, particularly to the rear

§                Setbacks should be provided in accordance with the DCP

 

Comment: Wall height and setbacks are discussed in detail in Sections 8.1(c) and 8.1(d).

 

§                Deck area at front will project forward of adjoining dwellings and will interrupt the streetscape, should be reduced in area

 

Comment: Existing balcony alignment has been maintained on the amended plans.

 

§                Carparking does not meet the DCP requirements and will be intrusive in the streetscape and reduce on-street parking. Concern regarding storage at the rear of the garage being used for carparking.

 

Comment: Basement storage area has been deleted from the amended plans. Conditions requiring minimising of driveway areas have been recommended to ensure proposal is not intrusive in the streetscape.

 

§                Visual privacy impacts as a result of decks to the rear of the site, inadequate screening provided

 

Comment: This has been addressed via the amended plans and recommended conditions of consent.

 

§                Overlooking from front terrace to master bedroom at 45 Cuzco Street

 

Comment: Existing balcony alignment has been maintained on the amended plans. The proposal is therefore not considered to result in increased overlooking.

 

§                Insufficient information to determine compliance with landscaped area requirements

§                Insufficient planting to ‘soften’ the appearance of the development

 

Comment: Previous landscape proposal has been removed from the amended plans. Plans now indicate existing planting which complies with the preferred solutions.

 

§                Terrace to guest bedroom breaches setback requirement and creates unnecessary sense of enclosure to 45 Cuzco

 

Comment: This has been deleted from the plans.

 

§                Concern regarding structural integrity as a result of the works

 

Comment: Condition 82 requires a dilapidation report be submitted and standard conditions requiring works to take place in accordance with correct procedures and safegurards have been recommended.

 

§                Request opportunity to review amended plans and make representation to Council meeting

 

Comment: Objector has been advised of amendments and Council meeting.

 

8.             J. Lehm & P. Palasanthrian, 45 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

 

§                Scale is excessive and will impact on streetscape

 

Comment: Amendments have resulted in a top floor that is not highly visible from the street.

 

§                Overshadowing

 

Comment: 45 Cuzco Street largely overshadows itself. A minor additional shadow is cast at 12 noon midwinter to the rear yard of 45 Cuzco Street. The shadow is the result of topography and orientation, not the non-compliance of the proposal with the preferred solution for wall height. A usable portion of the rear yard at 45 Cuzco Street will remain in full sun at 12 noon, midwinter.

 

§                Overlooking

 

Comment: Visual privacy is considered in section 8.1 and where necessary conditions have been imposed.

 

§                Dominating appearance from the rear extension

 

Comment: The rear extension has been reduced to be in line with the existing dwelling at 45 Cuzco Street. The height at the rear elevation complies with the DCP requirements.

 

§                Wish to make representation to Council meeting

 

Comment: The objector has been notified of the meeting.

 

The plans submitted on 8 June were notified to surrounding properties for 14 days concluding on 4 July 2005. As a result the following submissions were received:

 

1.             W.B & K.A Lee, 47 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

 

§                Concerned regarding conflicting statements and plans

 

Comment: Plans have been checked and are considered accurate. The applicant’s statements have not been relied and Council has undertaken full assessment.

 

§                Compliance with height and FSR controls should be achieved.  Council’s DCP is a performance based plan.  The application is assessed against the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

Comment: Non-compliance with the preferred solution is not a reason for refusal.

 

§                Garage appears to be 3 car not 2 car (2 tandem spaces plus a third space).

 

Comment: The garage does not have sufficient length (11m) to accommodate 2 tandem spaces and a third space.

 

§                Out of character with streetscape

 

Comment: The top floor has been moved back so that the dwelling will appear as a two storey house above a street level garage. This is consistent with existing development in the street and the established streetscape.

 

§                Request mediation

 

Comment: The issues raised in previous submissions have generally been incorporated in the amended plans.

 

§                Original concerns raised with the proposal remain (above)

 

2.             J. Lehm & P. Palasanthrian, 45 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

 

§                Concern regarding incorrect statements by the applicants that owners of 45 Cuzco Street have “signed and endorsed the amended plans”

 

Comment: The proposal has been assessed on its merits and consideration of the endorsement of the plans has not been relied upon. The plans have been renotified in accordance with the DCP requirements.

 

§                Overdevelopment of the site despite slight scaling back of proposal

 

Comment: The proposal is considered reasonable given the lack of impacts to surrounding properties and the street and is not overdevelopment.

 

§                Development will set inappropriate precedent

 

Comment: Each development application is assessed on its individual merits.

 

§                Original concerns raised with the proposal remain (above)

§                Predominant concerns are FSR, Height and non-compliance with garage size

 

Comment: These concerns have been addressed in Section 8.1, below.

 

3.             C. Sewell, 36 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

 

§                Exceeds floor space ratio, existing dwelling is already at maximum FSR

§                Exceeds wall height by a full storey on eastern side and just under a full storey on western side

 

Comment: Non-compliance is discussed throughout this report and is not in itself a reason for refusal.

 

§                Survey information does not clearly state natural ground level, it seems high exacerbating the excess height

 

Comment: Levels shown on the plans have been checked against the survey information and are considered accurate.

 

§                Landscaping appears less than 40% required

 

Comment: Landscaping remains as per the existing situation and complies with Council’s requirements.

 

§                Detrimental impact on views, purchased property with comfort from the DCP’s preferred solutions

 

Comment: Photos taken by the applicant from the subject site indicate that the views from 36 Edgecliffe are obscured by existing development due to the topography of the area.  Council’s DCP specifically states that the document is performance based.  There is no preferred solution in the DCP with respect to view sharing.  The application has been assessed on the basis of the performance requirements of the plan.

 

A further submission was received from L. Muddle of 41 Cuzco Street on 9 August 2005. The submission noted that the elevated nature strip outside 41 Cuzco Street is dangerous as it restricts sightlines and does not have balustrading – resulting in Ms Muddle’s son falling from the nature strip. The submission supports removal of this element. The plans do not propose to remove the nature strip as it is largely outside 41 Cuzco Street and modification is not required for the new driveway. Ms Muddle’s comments have been forwarded to the Director, City Services for consideration with regard to the safety issues raised.

 

The submission also made the following comment with regard to the amended plans:

 

“We have been in discussion with the owners of No 43 and are now happy with the amendments to their Development Application.”

 

It is considered that the issues raised above by 41 Cuzco Street have now been resolved.

 

6.             TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Director, City Services

 

The Director, City Services has reviewed the plans, including the amendments and notes that there are not trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order that will be affected by the proposal. The following comment has been made with regard to the amended plans:

 

Amended plans have been received for the alterations and additions at the above site.

 

It is noted that the amended plans, 8th June 2005, do not show compliance with Condition No 2 of the AIS Dept report as shown on the previous plans received by Council on the 20th Oct 2004, amended plans are not required but the applicant should be made aware of this condition when issuing any form of development consent.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

Conditions suggested by the Director, City Services have been included in the Recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 102-112).

 

7.             MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site has an area of less than 4,000m2 there are no master planning provisions applicable to the site.

 

8.             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

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

-        Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)

-        Building Code of Australia

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. There are no relevant statutory standards with which the proposed development should achieve compliance. The following clauses of the LEP require consideration:

 

Clause 29 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA)

 

The proposal is located some distance from the foreshore and will not be highly visible from coastal areas. The bulk and scale of the dwelling and the proposed materials and colours are appropriate and will not be prominent, forming part of the district ‘backdrop’ to the coast. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to aesthetics and the character of the locality and meets the requirements of Clause 29 of the LEP.

 

The proposal will not detract from the foreshore location. The proposal will improve the current aesthetics of the site and provide a higher quality finish. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to aesthetics and the desired future character of the locality and meets the requirements of Clause 29 of the LEP.

 

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibility of contamination.

 

It is considered reasonable to assume that the site would not be contaminated, or in need of remediation pursuant to SEPP 55 and that the site is suitable for continued residential use.

 

8.1         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.

 

(a)               Landscaping

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area.

41% of the site is landscaped area. Complies

S1

A minimum of 25m˛ of useable private open space is to be provided.

The rear yard has an area of 150 sqm. Complies

S1

Each dwelling must provide an area of private open space capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

The above area has dimensions of 9 x 14 metres. Complies

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

37 % of the site is permeable. Complies

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; indigenous species are used and existing vegetation is recycled where possible; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

The applicant originally proposed a new swimming pool and landscaped treatment to the rear of the site. The amended plans, subject of this assessment have indicated the landscaped treatment is to remain as per the existing situation with a new swimming pool being the subject of a further application to Council. This has been reinforced through a condition of consent (see Condition 66).

 

The existing landscape provision on the site complies with the preferred solution under the DCP. Council’s landscape technician has reviewed the plans and indicated that there are no trees covered by Council’s TPO that will be affected by the works.

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to landscaping.

 

(b)          Floor Area

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 (218.22m2) applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.79:1 (289m2). Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The development exceeds the preferred solution for FSR by 70.78m2. The proposal is considered satisfactory despite the non-compliance as it will not result in substantial view loss, additional overshadowing to neighbouring properties or privacy impacts as a result of the non-compliance.

 

The bulk and scale of the development as viewed from the street is consistent with surrounding properties due to the significant setback of the top floor level from the street and the topography of the site. The top floor of the proposal is partly contained within the area occupied by the roof of the existing dwelling which has minimised bulk and scale and view loss impacts from properties to the rear and adjacent to the site.

 

The adjoining property to the west at 41 Cuzco Street was approved with an FSR of 0.81:1 and has a similar bulk to the proposal. The development has been modified to ensure the appearance of the dwelling from the street is consistent with the 2 storey above garage form that is predominant in the streetscape.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to bulk and scale impacts on adjoining properties and its location in a foreshore area despite non-compliance with the preferred solution for FSR under the DCP.

 

The density of the development is satisfactory.

 

(c)                Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has an external wall height of 6.8-9.4 metres. Does not comply – see assessment below

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Up to 900mm. Complies

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Generally complies, small area on western boundary excavated to boundary to achieve pedestrian entry, does not comply – see discussion below.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Complies

S4

The length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

The entire southern elevation of the proposed dwelling is 15.5(+) metres from the southern (rear) boundary at first floor level.  The length is 7.5m.  Complies.

S5

The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

Not applicable.

 

The Objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality; to ensure impacts in terms of privacy, natural light and views are minimised; and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant Performance Requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and the topography; buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets; with respect to additions to semi-detached dwellings they integrate with the attached dwelling; and views are shared.

 

The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height by up to 2.4 metres. The area of non-compliance occurs across the top floor level and varies from 8.3 to 9.4 (1.3 to 2.4) metres south to north on the eastern elevation. The non-compliance varies from 7.8-8.6 (800mm to 1.6 metres) south to north on the western elevation. The first floor is compliant to the rear of the site but exceeds the control by 500mm at the front (north) of the site. The top floor has been reduced both in wall height and extent from the originally submitted scheme which has reduced impacts in terms of visual bulk and scale to the street and surrounding properties and overshadowing to an acceptable level.  Refer to Section 9 (a) view loss.

 

It is considered the design of the top floor has minimised its impact on the amenity of surrounding properties despite non-compliance with the preferred solution. The top floor will not be visible from the street or the foreshore. The apparent scale of the proposal (2 storeys above a garage structure) is consistent in scale with adjoining properties. It is considered that the proposal meets the objectives of the height control.

 

The proposal will modify ground levels up to the common boundaries on both sides and to the rear of the site. The modification is a maximum of approximately 900mm and will not result in significant amenity impacts or a significant change in the topography of the area. Standard conditions requiring structural adequacy of any retaining walls have been applied to ensure the modifications do not affect the structure of adjoining properties. Fence heights have been limited via condition to ensure they will not have to be raised substantially above the level of adjoining properties as a result of the modifications to the topography.

 

A sample board has been supplied indicating the colours and materials proposed to the building. The board indicates colours that are appropriate to the foreshore location of the proposal.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to height, form and materials.

 

(d)               Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed dwelling is set back 4.475 metres from the front boundary and is generally consistent with the setbacks of adjoining dwellings. Complies.

S2

No part of the building is closer than 4.5m from rear boundary.

The proposed dwelling is 15.5 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

The proposed development is set back 0.9 metres from the side boundaries at ground level. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 900mm from the side boundaries at first floor level. Does not comply.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

The proposed development is set back 2 metres from the side boundaries at second floor level. Does not comply.

 

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

 

The proposal complies with the preferred solutions for front, rear and ground level side setbacks under the DCP.

 

The proposal does not comply with the preferred solutions for side setbacks on the eastern and western sides, being setback 900mm instead of 1.5 metres on the first floor level; however this is largely an existing situation. The new rear deck to the rumpus room is not setback the required 1.5 metres from side setbacks. To the east a planter box has been provided to increase the effective setback to 1.5 metres. On the western side the proposal does not comply and impacts in terms of privacy are increased due to the external stair proposed 900mm from the side boundary. Condition 52 requires changes to the deck design to ensure that the preferred solutions for side setbacks are met by the new work and where this is not possible, the objectives of the preferred solutions for side setbacks are met.

 

At second floor level the proposal does not comply with the setbacks preferred solution to the eastern and western sides by 1 metre. The objectives of the preferred solutions for setbacks are as follows:

 

§               To integrate new development with the established setbacks of the street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 

The top floor will not be visible from the street due to the setback and raised topography of the site. The proposal complies with the established front setback in the street and has existing side setbacks which are less generous than the current preferred solutions under the DCP.

 

§               To ensure dwellings have adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air

 

The proposal will result in minor additional overshadowing to adjoining neighbours, however this is not contributed to by the non-compliance with second floor side setback requirements. Despite the additional shadow cast, the adjoining properties maintain 3 hours minimum of solar access midwinter or (for 45 Cuzco) generally maintain their existing level of solar access.

 

The 2 metre setback to the top floor is considered adequate to allow airflow between the dwellings. The existing setbacks to lower levels which contain the majority of habitable rooms for adjoining dwellings are less than 2 metres and provide adequate amenity to the dwellings in terms of fresh air.

 

§               To maintain and enhance established trees and vegetation.

 

No trees will be lost or affected by the proposed works including the non-compliance with second floor side setbacks.

 

The use of a pitched roof form has minimised the impact of the top floor addition on adjoining properties in terms of bulk and scale.  Overall, the proposal (subject to compliance with conditions of consent) meets the objectives of the preferred solutions despite non-compliance with the controls for side setbacks.

 

(e)               Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

The proposal generally does not have any habitable room windows that overlook those of adjoining dwellings within 9 metres. The guest bedroom on the eastern elevation provides opportunities to look into two windows at 45 Cuzco Street and therefore has been conditioned to minimise any impact (see Condition 56). Complies.

S1

Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle.

The first floor rear deck will overlook the rear yard areas of the adjoining properties. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more or fixed obscure glazing below that height.

The proposal generally provides highlight windows to eastern and western elevations, where there are privacy impacts conditions have been applied. Complies.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

 

The proposal has generally been well designed to minimise privacy impacts to surrounding properties by orienting windows to living areas and balconies to the north (front of the site). However, there is a potential for impacts from the guest bedroom at ground floor level (refer to discussion in table above). This can be resolved via condition of consent requiring translucent fixed glazing below 1.7 metres above finished floor level (see Condition 56).

 

To the rear of the property, the new deck at first floor level presents opportunities for overlooking of the rear yards of adjoining sites (41 and 45 Cuzco Street). A planter box has been incorporated along the eastern edge of the balcony to try and minimise overlooking, however this does not result in a 9 metre setback when viewed up to 45 degrees. In order to achieve the preferred solution and minimise privacy impacts to the rear yard of 45 Cuzco Street, the planter or a 1.8m privacy screen should return along the southern edge of the balcony for a distance of 2 metres from the edge of the balcony (an additional metre along from the planter already shown on the plans).

 

On the western side, the deck and uncovered external stair are located only 900mm from the western boundary. The elevation of these elements will allow unobstructed views across the side boundary to 41 Cuzco Street. As the external stair provides the only access to from the living areas of the dwelling to the rear yard, it’s deletion would be contrary to Council’s objectives for private open space and access to living areas. Notwithstanding that the applicant has made a design decision to provide first floor living areas, creating a problem with access, it is considered that the privacy issues can be dealt with by modification of the design. The stair is to be moved so that it is 1.5 metres from the western boundary and is to be moved northwards 1.5 metres so that is incorporated into the overall area of the deck shown on the submitted plans. A 1.8 metre high privacy screen is to be provided along the western edge of the stair and deck extending 2.5m southwards from the external wall of the dwelling. These changes have been included in the recommendation as a condition of consent (see condition 52).

 

Subject to compliance with conditions of consent the proposal is satisfactory with regard to visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

 

(f)                 Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The proposed front door faces the street. Complies.

S1,3

Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street.

The proposed dwelling has windows that overlook the street. Complies.

S2

A Council-approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence.

Suitable condition included.

 

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

 

The proposal complies with the preferred solutions for safety and security under the DCP. Standard conditions have been applied where compliance is not explicitly stated in the plans (see Condition 63).

 

(g)               Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Council’s Parking DCP requires 1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

The proposed dwelling has parking for 2 cars. Complies.

S1

Car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 5.5 x 2.5 metres. Complies.

S1

Driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary.

The proposed driveway is 4 metres wide and is set back at least 1 metre from the side boundary. Complies.

S1

Driveways have a maximum width of 3m at the property boundary.

The proposed driveway is 4 metres at the front boundary. Does not comply - see assessment below

S1

Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 thereafter.

The proposed driveway gradient is less than 1 in 8. Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

Parking and access is provided from the rear of the allotment where possible.

Not possible.

S2

Garages and carports located behind the building line where parking only available from the front of the site.

The proposed garage is located behind the building line. Complies.

S2

Driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment

The proposed garage occupies about 44% of the width of the site frontage. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

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

 

The garage does not comply with the DCP requirements for percentage of the front boundary occupied and width of the driveway at the property boundary. The existing garage at the front of the property occupies approximately 44% of the front boundary. The proposal will upgrade the garage to have a more contemporary appearance. The use of stone facing to the garage wall will present the garage as a plinth with a dwelling on top. This is consistent with the existing pattern of development in Cuzco Street, particularly to the eastern end where the topography slopes more steeply.

 

Condition 53 requires that the driveway crossover be reduced in width to 3 metres to minimise the impact on the on-street parking provision in the area and minimise the visual impact of the driveway on the street.

 

The proposal requires removal of the existing stair access to the property in Council’s naturestrip, reconstruction of sandstone retaining walls and construction of a new footpath. Conditions of consent relating to these works have been included in the recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 102-105).

 

The proposal (subject to compliance with conditions of consent) is satisfactory with regard to parking provision.

 

(h)               Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

Solid front fences or on street frontages in front of the building line are no higher than 1.2m.

Not applicable.

S1

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages may be up to 1.8m provided that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

Front fencing is comprised of the garage wall. This is consistent with existing development on Cuzco Street that is elevated above street level garages. An open style gate provides pedestrian access to the house from the street. Complies.

 

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

 

The fencing proposed generally meets Council’s preferred solutions. The eastern side boundary fencing to the northern end of the site is indicated to be up to 2.8 metres in height. This fencing is considered to be excessive in height and is to be reduced to be a maximum of 1.8 metres from existing ground levels. The existing high brick fence along the eastern side boundary to the rear of the property may remain. The plans indicate the existing 1.8 metre high brushwood fencing to the western boundary will remain.

 

Rear boundary fencing has not been indicated, it is likely that the works will not require removal and replacement of this fencing, however Condition 59 has been included to ensure that any new fencing to this boundary meets the general residential height of 1.8 metres maximum.

 

The proposal (subject to compliance with conditions of consent) is satisfactory with regard to fencing.

 

(i)                 Foreshore Development

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

Not applicable – no building line identified for this property.

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

Colour board indicating generally neutral ‘coastal’ colours and materials has been provided. Complies

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

The top floor has been well setback to reflect the sloping topography. Articulation in the form of balconies and change of materials is provided to street elevation.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

Complies. The proposal will not result in significant view loss from any property.

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

Complies. Garage has been integrated into overall design and finished with stone facing to ensure it doesn’t detract from the appearance of the dwelling.

The development is not highly visible from the foreshore and will not result in bulk and scale impacts on the foreshore or views from surrounding properties.

 

The applicant has provided a sample board which indicates predominantly light colouring to the building reflecting the coastal location of the proposal. The colours and materials depart from the existing brick architecture of older style dwellings in the area but are consistent with more recently approved dwellings in the street. The details provided in the sample board have been incorporated into the consent via Condition 51. Condition 54 clarifies the sample board by requiring that the first floor balcony is glass with a stainless steel balustrade to match the treatment of the lower level balcony, not timber as shown on the sample board. Condition 57 requires a sample of the roofing material to be submitted to Council’s Director City Planning and that it be a non-reflective colour.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to Council’s objectives for foreshore development.

 

(j)                 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

Not applicable

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 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 private open space to less than 3 hours or less than currently available. Complies.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal complies with all preferred solutions for solar access.

 

The proposal will not result in substantial overshadowing to adjoining properties. Three hours of solar access will be maintained to the adjoining property to the west (41 Cuzco Street) with additional midwinter shadow only falling on a part of the rear yard of this property at 9am. The site to the east (45 Cuzco) is already substantially overshadowed by itself and is disadvantaged by the sloping topography of the area. The proposal will result in a small area of additional shadow being cast adjacent to the boundary fencing of this property at 12 noon midwinter. This shadow will not affect windows or the usable portion of the rear yard. The existing development at 45 Cuzco Street completely overshadows the rear yard at 9am and at 3pm and the development will not contribute to this overshadowing.

 

The plans indicate installation of a fireplace in the ground floor living room. Solid fuel heaters and open fires are generally not encouraged by Council, as they are an inefficient heating system and are a source of environmental degradation, however there is no written policy prohibiting their installation at this time. Condition 72 has been recommended to ensure use of the fireplace does not result in amenity impacts.

 

Standard energy efficiency conditions have been applied (see Conditions 68-71).

 

The proposal (subject to compliance with conditions of consent) is satisfactory with regard to energy efficiency.

 

9.             ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Environmental impacts of the proposal have generally been discussed in Section 8, above. The DCP does not contain specific provisions in relation to loss of views. Due to the foreshore location of the site, specific discussion of the impact of the development on view opportunities from surrounding properties is warranted.

 

(a)     View Loss

 

Properties adjoining the site to the east and west (45 and 41 Cuzco Street respectively) will not have their existing views (to the north, front of these sites) significantly interrupted by the proposal. Balconies have been pulled back in line with the existing structures on the site to minimise impacts on these primary views. Secondary easterly views are available from 41 Cuzco Street across the rear yards of properties to the east, including the subject site. The proposal has limited extension to the rear to preserve this outlook to 41 Cuzco Street.

 

The applicant has provided a view loss analysis which assists the assessment of existing views from properties in Seaside Parade and Edgecliffe Avenue (to the south of the site). Properties in Seaside Parade have a primary view aspect due east and properties on Edgecliffe Avenue have a primary view aspect to the southeast. These properties do not currently enjoy northerly view aspect due to the topography which is not conducive to view opportunities across the subject site and existing development which prevents ocean views from properties to the south of the site. Single storey properties in Edgecliffe Avenue will not have future view opportunities reduced as a result of the proposal as existing levels would not allow a northeastern view from any future first floor addition. The increased height of the development will therefore not restrict views from these properties or result in unreasonable impacts on outlook.

 

The view impacts of the development are considered to be satisfactory.

 

10.         FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.         CONCLUSION

 

The height and form of the building are considered to be acceptable given existing development on the site and adjoining sites. The non-compliance of the proposal with the preferred solution for floor space ratio and height under the DCP will not result in substantial impact on the foreshore, streetscape or surrounding properties.

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 43 Cuzco Street, South Coogee generally comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The proposal may be approved subject to compliance with conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.            THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 878/2004 for Alterations and additions including construction of an additional floor level to the existing dwelling house, including extension of the existing semi-basement garage at 43 Cuzco Street, South Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

51.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with Revision B of the plans numbered BEK-01 to BEK-04 dated 30/03/05 in the amendments box and stamped received by Council on 8 June 2005, the sample board undated and untitled showing samples on its right hand side and coloured perspective images on its left hand side, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

52.         The stair from the first floor rear (southern) deck is to be moved so that it is setback a minimum 1.5 metres from the western boundary and is to be relocated northwards 1.5 metres so that is incorporated into the overall area of the deck shown on the submitted plans. A 1.8 metre high privacy screen (measured from deck level) is to be provided along the western edge of the stair and deck extending 2.5m southwards from the external wall of the dwelling. This condition is imposed to minimise overlooking of 41 Cuzco Street. Details are to be provided on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

53.         The driveway is to be a maximum of 3 metres wide at the kerb. The width of the driveway at the property boundary is to be a maximum of 4 metres. The hardstand areas within the road verge are to be minimised and the driveway is to be splayed in plan from the kerb to the property boundary to maximise unpaved areas. This condition is imposed to minimise interruption to the footpath, maximise onstreet parking and reduce the dominance of driveways on the street. Details required by this condition are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

54.         The first floor balcony to the northern elevation is to be constructed as glass spandrels with a stainless steel balustrade to match the treatment of the lower level balcony, as shown on approved drawing BEK-03, not timber as shown on the sample board. This condition is imposed to clarify the approved plans. Details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

55.         A planter at least 1 metre wide or a 1.8m high privacy screen is to be provided along the southern edge of the balcony for a distance of 2 metres from the edge of the balcony (an additional metre along from the planter already shown on the plans). This condition is imposed to maintain privacy to the rear yard of 45 Cuzco Street.

 

          Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

56.         The sill height of the central window to the guest bedroom on the eastern elevation at ground floor level is to be increased to be a minimum height of 1.7m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below 1.7m above finished floor level. The narrow sidelights may remain operable and clear glazed. This condition is imposed to maintain privacy to 45 Cuzco Street. Details are to be provided on the drawings submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

57.         Metal roof sheeting is to be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment.

 

          Details of the proposed colour of the roof are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of City Planning, in accordance with the section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the roofing being installed.

 

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

 

59.         New fences located on the side or rear boundaries of the premises shall not exceed a maximum height of 1800mm* from existing ground levels, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining premises.

 

          An allowance of up to 150mm is permitted at required ‘step-downs’ or changes in level.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

64.         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.

 

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

 

66.         The swimming pool shown on the plans is not approved and a separate development application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or a complying development certificate obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier (as applicable) for any changes or new swimming pool before any work is carried out on the construction of the pool, as insufficient information is provided with this application to enable a full and proper evaluation of the pool.

 

67.         Solar hot water heaters or other structures are not permitted to be installed on the roof of the building unless the prior written approval of Council’s Director of Planning has been obtained beforehand.

 

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

 

68.         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.

 

69.         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.

 

70.         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.

 

71.         Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

          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 should 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.

 

72.         The solid fuel heating appliance must be designed and installed in accordance with:

§               The Environmental Protection Authority’s Guidelines on Selecting, Installing and Operating Domestic Solid Fuel Heaters, and Australian Standards AS4013:1999 – Domestic solid fuel burning appliances – Method for determination of flue gas emission

§               Section G2 of the Building Code of Australia, and

§               Clean Air (Domestic Solid Fuel Heaters) Regulation 1997, and

§               Australian Standards 2918:2001, Domestic Fuel Burning Appliances – Installation, and

§               The manufacturer’s specification.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

74.         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.

 

75.         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.

 

76.         Prior to the commencement of any building works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must:-

 

i)        appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work, and

 

ii)       appoint a principal contractor for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing, and

 

iii)      unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority, and

 

iv)      give at least two days notice to the Council, in writing, of the persons intention to commence building works.

 

          In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

77.         The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

          The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority,  prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

          Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

          The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

78.         A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site, which contains the following details:

§                name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

§                name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

§                a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

79.         An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

          An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

          Prior to the issuing of an interim or final occupation certificate, a statement is required to be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority, which confirms that the development is not inconsistent with the development consent and the relevant conditions of development consent have been satisfied.

 

          Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority together with any other certification relied upon and must also be provided to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

80.         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 provisions 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 principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

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

 

          At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.2% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

82.         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, verandah’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon:

 

§                41 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

§                45 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

84.         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.

 

85.         Any building/demolition works involving asbestos products are to be carried out in accordance with WorkCover New South Wales requirements, guidelines and codes of practice.

 

86.         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 made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

89.         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.

 

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

 

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

 

92.         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:

 

§                Prior to construction of the second floor level showing the land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being constructed at the approved levels.

 

93.         Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, to the satisfaction of WorkCover NSW and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

95.         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, soil and debris at all times.

 

96.         Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval 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 Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

97.         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.

 

98.         Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line or any public place and the