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

 

14th October, 2005

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 18TH OCTOBER, 2005 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2005.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 127/2005 - SURFING NSW - SEEKING WAIVING OF FEES FOR USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH.

2

 

6.2                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 128/2005 - USE OF CORAL SEA PARK BY MAROUBRA UNITED SOCCER CLUB.

4

 

 

7           General Manager's Report

 

7.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 51/2005 - DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST RETURNS.

6

 

 

8           Director City Services' Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 120/2005 - RANDWICK JUNIOR RUGBY CLUB - GROUND FEE RENTALS

8

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 121/2005 - NAMING OF STREET NAMES - BAYBROOK PROJECT 1 - 81 LITTLE BAY ROAD, LITTLE BAY.

13

 


 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 122/2005 - NATIONAL RECOGNITION OF MAROUBRA BEACH AS ONE OF AUSTRALIA'S CULTURAL SIGNIFICANT SURFING RESERVES - CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

17

 

8.4                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 123/2005 - NAMING AREA IN CLOVELLY AFTER THE LATE TOM CADDY.

20

 

8.5                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 124/2005 - ESTABLISHMENT OF ALCOHOL FREE ZONES

24

 

 

9           Director City Planning Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 72/2005 –

3 WISDOM STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.

33

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 73/2005 –

50 DOLPHIN STREET, COOGEE.

68

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 74/2005 –

85 BREAM STREET, COOGEE.

117

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 75/2005 –

12 BELLEVUE STREET, MAROUBRA.

150

 

9.5                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 76/2005 –

THE DOLINA SITE - STAGE 1 INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE LAND LOCATED AT 89-103 EPSOM ROAD, ROSEBERY (WITHIN THE CITY OF SYDNEY)

169

 

9.6                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 77/2005 –

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

179

 

9.7                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 78/2005 –

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PRINCE HENRY MASTERPLAN/DCP

181

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                        

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Bastic & White – Ordinary Council Meeting, Tuesday, 27th September, 2005 – Confidential General Manager’s Report 48/2005 – Maroubra Beach Pavilion - Cafe & Kiosk - Lease Tender Evaluation

211

11.2

By Councillor Scott Nash – Leases – Council as Landlord.

211

11.3

By Councillor Andrews – Installation of roundabout at Malabar Road/Mons Avenue, Maroubra. 

211

11.4

By Councillor Andrews – Installation of pedestrian crossing at Fenton Street, Maroubra.

211

11.5

By Councillor Andrews – Kerb & Guttering at 31-35 Mason Street, Maroubra. 

212

11.6

By Councillor Matson – Kashmir, Pakistan & India Earthquake Relief. 

212

11.7

By Councillor Matson – Alcohol Free Zones in Coogee. 

212

 

 

12         Urgent Business


13        Confidential Report

 

13.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 52/2005 - SALE OF LAND ADJACENT TO 276 DONCASTER AVENUE & EDWARD AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

213

 

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 127/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

SURFING NSW  - SEEKING WAIVING OF FEES FOR USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH.

 

 

DATE:

6 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07550

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a request from Surfing NSW, the organisers of a dedication day at Maroubra Beach to declare the beach a Surfing Reserve. The dedication is to be held at Maroubra Beach on Ocean Care Day, Sunday 4 December, 2005 from 9am to 2pm and Surfing NSW seeks assistance with the waiving of associated fees.

 

Associated fees are as follows:

 

Application Fee                                                $130.00

Beach hire                                                        $305.90 

TOTAL                                                           $435.90

 

ISSUES:

 

Surfing NSW has had a long association with Maroubra Beach and it is on honour that Maroubra has been declared a Surfing Reserve and it seems appropriate for Council to support the dedication day on Sunday 4 December.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $435.90 and currently there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2005/2006 to cover this contribution.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that Council should support Maroubra Beach’s dedication day as a Surfing Reserve and this event be supported through ‘in kind’ sponsorship with the waiving of fees.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1)       Council vote $435.90 to cover the fees associated with the Dedication Day on Sunday 4 December, 2005 at Maroubra Beach and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2005/06; and

 

2)       the event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 128/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF CORAL SEA PARK BY MAROUBRA UNITED SOCCER CLUB

 

 

DATE:

6 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07842

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A request has been received from the Maroubra United Soccer Club for assistance with approval to use Coral Sea Park and for the waiving of associated fees to run a fitness and skills program organised for the children.

 

The fitness and skills program is to be conducted on Saturday afternoons between 4.00pm and 6.00pm from 15 October to 17 December, 2005, and between 4pm and 6pm from 4 February to 25 March, 2006.

 

ISSUES:

 

This initiative by the Maroubra United Soccer Club is aimed to help maintain the fitness level of local children and to provide a pleasant venue close to their homes.  Coral Sea Park is available for use during this period.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report’s recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $755.00 and there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2005/2006 to cover this contribution.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Maroubra United Soccer Club is a community based non-profit organisation and its request to grant the use of Coral Sea Park at no cost seems worthy of Council support  through ‘in kind’ sponsorship via waiving of fees otherwise payable to Council.  Maroubra United Soccer Club is a well established Club within the City, well known for benefiting and supporting sporting activities amongst local children, their families and the community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That: 

 

1.       Council vote $755.00 to cover the fees associated with the Maroubra United Soccer Club and that these funds be allocated from the 2005/06 Contingency Fund budget.

 

2.       The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the program.

 

3.       The Mayor’s representative be given the opportunity to address the activity on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 51/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST RETURNS

 

 

DATE:

11 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00800

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report draws to the attention of the Council the provisions of the Local Government Act relating to requirements for General Managers with respect to the lodgement and tabling of Disclosure of Interest Returns.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Local Government Act requires Councillors and designated staff to lodge Disclosure of Interest Returns in accordance with Section 449 and Schedule 2 of the Local Government (General) Regulation. Section 450(A) of the Act requires General Managers to keep a Register of Returns and to table Returns at the first Council meeting after the last date for lodgement (30 September, 2005).

 

In tabling the Register of Disclosure of Interests, I report that all Councillors and staff have submitted their duly completed returns within the prescribed time, with the exception of D. Mann, Purchasing & Contracts Co-ordinator, who is on extended annual leave, D. Cotsios, Ranger & R. Lewenkopf, Co-ordinator Community Development, who have been on extended sick leave.  These staff will be requested to complete their Returns as soon as they return to work.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is now necessary for the Disclosure of Interests Register to be tabled at this Council Meeting and the Council has discharged its duty in relation to the past disclosure year.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        the contents of the General Manager’s Report 51/2005 dated 11 October, 2005 be received and noted; and

 

(b)        it be noted that the Disclosure of Interests Register has been tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 18 October, 2005.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 120/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

RANDWICK JUNIOR RUGBY CLUB - GROUND FEE RENTALS

 

 

DATE:

7 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06890

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter dated 5 October, 2005, has been received from the Hon Secretary, Mr Les Church of the Randwick Junior Rugby seeking assistance in the reduction of ground fee rentals in 2005.

 

Copy the letter is attached for information.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Randwick Junior Rugby writes seeking assistance by waiving part of the 2005 fees for the use of grounds to reflect the actual usage, being substantially less than the dates and times originally nominated by the Club.

 

As stated in its letter, Randwick Junior Rugby seeks a reduction because inadvertently it booked more time than required, believing that the parks concerned were available just for rugby and so nominated a broad spread of times to cover various possible competition schedules.

 

Randwick Junior Rugby was not aware that rentals were calculated on an hourly rate and did not realise that there may be other potential users.

 

Randwick Junior Rugby also seeks a reduction because it is a long standing community based organisation providing a team sport for many children each winter and has been using Nagle Park for over 30 years. The Club receives no financial support from the rugby hierarchy for competitions and rely heavily on the voluntary commitment and fundraising efforts of parents and supporters.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total rentals came to an amount of $15,280.00 and the rental fees are currently overdue.  Randwick Junior Rugby is offering $6,867.30 to reflect the actual usage of the grounds.  Therefore if Council accepted this reduction of fees it would result in a cost in kinds to Council of $8,412.70 which could be funded from Council’s Contingency Fund.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This year there was a change of personnel at the Senior Rugby Club and the Juniors took on the task of renting the grounds which took time in familiarising on how rentals are calculated.  Apparently Council’s invoices were not passed on because of the heavy demands on voluntary committee’s time running competitions and raising funds.  These issues have been addressed and every effort is being taken to ensure a smooth operation in the next season by Randwick Junior Rugby.   Randwick Junior Rugby will reduce bookings for the 2006 season.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council accept the request for a discount in rates for Randwick Junior Rugby for the 2005 rugby season and therefore invoice Randwick Junior Rugby the remainder of the $6,867.30 to reflect the actual park usage.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letter from Randwick Junior Rugby.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 




 

Director, City Services' Report 121/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

NAMING OF STREET NAMES - BAYBROOK PROJECT 1 - 81 LITTLE BAY ROAD, LITTLE BAY.

 

 

DATE:

7 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07140

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Mr Mark Dibben, Development Manager, Clarendon Property Group Developments Pty Ltd, (known as CPG Developments Pty Ltd) which read as follows:-

 

“We are writing to you to request Council’s approval of the street names for the Baybrook development at Little Bay.

 

The submitted street names for approval are as follows –

 

1)   Clonard Way

2)   Esperance Close

3)   Cove Circuit.

 

The majority of the proposed names were derived in consultation with the La Perouse Precinct Committee. For your reference I have attached a copy of an email from the La Perouse Precinct Committee outlining the full list of suggested names.  Also attached is a copy of the Master Plan indicating the location and extent of each street name for the development.

 

ISSUES:

 

The guidelines of the Geographical Names Board require Council to consider any submissions received and if considered appropriate that other written submissions be invited from interested parties, by placing an advertisement in the local paper and also seeking opinion of the names recommended by Clarendon Property Group Developments Pty Ltd, and after the closing date, a further report be submitted for Council’s consideration for determination.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The process of naming streets undoubtedly provides an opportunity to commemorate and associate the local history and culture of an area.  The heritage significance of this area should be well reflected through the naming of the roads within the site, and the area has an abundant heritage encompassing its past and present Aboriginal association, its European history and its relationship to the local community.  Hence it is ideal that the recommended names be derived from these sources.

 

All of the submissions should aim to commemorate either particular historical figures and/or the historical cultural significance of the area.  It is emphasised that there is a multitude of road names that could be applicable to this site, provided they fit within the guidelines of the Geographical Names Board

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1)      Council advertise in the local paper the proposal to name the streets -   

a)            Clonard Way

b)           Esperance Close

c)            Cove Circuit

           

and invite interested parties to make written submissions with their views of the suggested names or other names in keeping with the history of the area

 

2)      Council notify the Geographical Names Board of the proposal.

 

3)      Council notify Clarendon Property Group Developments Pty Ltd of its intention to call for submissions from interested parties.

 

4)      A report be brought back to Council after the closing date of all submissions.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment 1

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER - TECHNICAL SERVICES

 




 

 

Director, City Services' Report 122/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

NATIONAL RECOGNITION OF MAROUBRA BEACH AS ONE OF AUSTRALIA'S CULTURAL SIGNIFICANT SURFING RESERVES - CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

 

 

DATE:

7 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00603

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 23 August, 2005, considered Mayoral Minute No 120/2005

when it was resolved that Council -

 

(a)     agree to the proposal by Surfriders Foundation Australia, for recognition of Maroubra Beach as Australia’s first culturally and historically significant Surfing Reserve since 1973;

 

(b)     support the dedication and laying of a plaque at Maroubra Beach at a ceremony to be organised by Surfriders Foundation for Ocean Care Day, on December 4, 2005; and

 

(c)     agree in-principle to providing additional financial support subject to further details and costing of activities planned at Maroubra Beach and a further report to Council.

 

The program, events and activities are to include -

 

·        Local Aboriginal dancers for welcome to country  (adults and children).

·        PA system hire.

·        Printing of brochures/booklets covering history of Maroubra Surf Reserve. (Council to receive acknowledgement as supporter.)

·        Surfing exhibition and demonstration by surfers, including long boarders

·        Special performance by Little Patti with specific Maroubra Beach songs of the past.

 

ISSUES:

 

A letter dated 19 September, 2005, has been received from Mr Mark Windon, CEO, Surfing NSW, seeking financial support,  which reads ‘inter alia’ -

 

“On behalf of the National Surfing Reserves Reference Group, I am delighted to advise you that Maroubra Beach has been nominated and selected as a National Suring Reserve.  Group Chairman, Brad Farmer addressed Council on this matter in early September.

 

Currently there is only one other reserve, Bells Beach, Victoria, which was nominated in 1973. Maroubra’s nomination is a significant milestone acknowledgement of our national cultural identity. Maroubra is now the official home of surfing in NSW with Surfing NSW having relocated to the Pavilion in 2003.

 

With an estimated 20% of the Australian population actively participating in the sport of surfing (2004/2005 Sweeney Report) and 70% residing in NSW, Maroubra Beach has an iconic position in Australian surfing culture.

 

The dedication of the Surfing Reserve will coincide with National Ocean Care Day and the launch of Randwick Council’s Summer Activities Program.

 

Surfing NSW with Maroubra and South Maroubra SLSC plus other key stakeholders are preparing what should be a great fun day for the entire community. Commencing at 10am with local Aboriginal dancers, the day will have surfing exhibitions from past and present stars, a booklet on the history of Maroubra with a tide chart for the coming summer as a  give-away, a surf craft, mini museum with live music and entertainment.

 

Financial support is required by Council to make the day a success. We are seeking a $10,000 contribution to the operational costs of the day. This does not include the cost of the plaque/monument or installation.  All financial contributions will be under the auspices of Surfing NSW.”

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The $10,000 contribution could be funded from the 2005/2006 Councillors’ Contingency Fund.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 23 August, 2005, resolved to -

 

“agree in principle to providing additional financial support subject to further details and costing of activities planned at Maroubra Beach and a further report to Council.”

 

The Surfriders Foundation is eager to make Ocean Care Day at Maroubra Beach on December 4 a family fun day and Council’s involvement provides the opportunity to showcase Maroubra Beach in a positive light with the likely national media interest and also to use this opportunity to launch other Council initiatives, especially Council’s summer activities program to be held over January 2006.

 

It seems appropriate for Council to support this significant day by contributing $10,000 towards the costs in making the day very memorable and well worthwhile.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider this request and the cost of the plaque and plinth be also paid from these funds.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 123/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

NAMING AREA IN CLOVELLY AFTER THE LATE TOM CADDY

 

 

DATE:

4 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 26 July, 2005, on the Motion of Councillor Kenny and Councillor Nash, resolved that –

 

“for sixty to seventy years local identity Tom Caddy has taught people of all ages and disabilities to swim, such people he has taught include Terry Buck, Barry Rogers the first iron man, Des Renford and many local children. With the passing of Tom Caddy I would like to put forward that Council resolve to name one of the following areas of Clovelly after Tom Caddy in honour of his long service to the community in teaching children and adults how to swim.-

 

Proposed areas -

 

1)   Northern promenade  - Tom Caddy Promenade

2)   Park at Southern end of Clovelly - Tom Caddy Reserve

3)   Southern Point of Clovelly - Tom Caddy Point.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Accordingly, an advertisement was placed in the local paper inviting written submissions and comments from interested parties on the above proposal.

 

Three written submissions have been received as follows:

 

1        Ms Anne Maree Mitford of 321 Alison Road, Coogee

 

“supporting the proposal and also supporting the southern point of Clovelly being the dedicated area as Tom Caddy Point as this was the area closest to where most of us remember him teaching swimming off the southern promenade.  In that regard is there any reason why the southern promenade could not be named as opposed to the northern promenade?  This would be my preferred option, however, does not presently seem to be available.”

 

2        Clovelly Surf Life Saving Club Inc.

 

“We believe the southern point option the best option ie Tom Caddy Point. Tom was always associated with the southern side promenade and therefore do not believe the northern side option is appropriate, nor do we believe that the park option is a sufficient recognition. We hope you will agree with our recommendation for the southern point of Clovelly Bay to be named Tom Caddy Point.”

 

3        Mrs Eve Trefely 9 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly.

 

“I write to propose the naming of the southern promenade from Caddy steps down the pool after Tom Caddy.  This was to Tom’s home turf. This was where he did all his teaching over many years and where he wore a path back and forward from pool to steps.

 

Tom was very proud of his plaque and steps named in honour of him. This part of the southern promenade is appropriate to be named after him. Tom rarely went to the northern promenade or to the children’s park playground. He only went up to the point at the south promenade in the middle of winter if he wanted to swim his students in warmer water near the breakwater.

 

I have talked with numerous people about this and they all agree with me on where Tom Caddy should be remembered. Generations of people will come to Clovelly and show their children and grandchildren where they leant to swim taught by Tom. It is appropriate that he be honoured here where he was and not at those other locations (where he wasn’t).”

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The financial impact would be in the order of $2,500.00 covering manufacturing and installation of signage.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council received a number of submissions in support of the naming of part of Clovelly Bay in honour of Tom Caddy with the southern end being the most favoured option.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.       The proposal to name the southern point of Clovelly Bay ‘Tom Caddy Point’ be accepted in recognition of Tom Caddy’s many years of dedication to the local community.

2.       The proposal be advertised and gazetted, in accordance with the guidelines of the Geographical Names Board.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Aerial photo showing proposed location of naming of Tom Caddy Point.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 



 

Director, City Services' Report 124/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

ESTABLISHMENT OF ALCOHOL FREE ZONES

 

 

DATE:

12 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07231

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES        

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council’s established alcohol free zones expire on 18 October, 2005. In accordance with the Department of Local Government Ministerial Guidelines, a Council may re-establish Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ), subject to the following being undertaken:

 

·        Publish Notice of the proposal in a newspaper circulating in the area, allow inspection of the proposal and invite representations or objections within 14 days from the date of publication. The notice should state the exact location of the proposed AFZ and the place and time at which the proposal may be inspected; 

 

·        Copy of the proposal sent to Officer-In-Charge of the Police Station;

 

·        Letters to liquor licensees and secretaries of registered clubs whose premises border on or adjoin or are adjacent to the proposed zone and invite representations or objections within 30 days from the date of sending the copy of the proposal;

 

·        Send a copy of the proposal to the NSW Anti Discrimination Board if the local area is listed in Appendix 2 to the guidelines and invite representations or objections within 40 days from the date of sending the copy of the proposal;

 

·        Send a copy of the proposal to any known organization representing or able to speak on behalf of an identifiable aboriginal or ethnic group within the local area and invite representations or objections within 30 days from the date of sending the copy of the proposal.

 

ISSUES:

 

An advertisement outlining the proposal to establish AFZ’s and seeking submissions from interested persons was placed in the local papers. Responses were received from:

 

 

Ø General Manager, Mr Peter Reid, Maroubra Seals Sports and Community Club advising the only recommendation “I feel necessary would be to extend the AFZ on Marine Parade north to Bond Street as it has been a regular meeting place for the local ‘bra boys’ to have a drink on Saturday or Sunday on the face immediately north of Maroubra Road;

 

Ø Anti-Discrimination Board advising that all guidelines need to be adhered to and bearing in mind all comments received, provided Council follows the guidelines in all respects the Board has no objection to the re-establishment of alcohol free zones in Randwick City;

 

Ø NSW Police Sergeant Brad Gray has advised that police request that all the established zones remain. At this point in time there are no new areas that police would recommend be added to the list. Eastern Beaches licensing police are more than happy to support council in any way in regards to retaining these AFZ;

 

Ø R F Leoni of Lexington Place advises that AFZ on both ends of the shops and the shopside of Lexington Place will need updating as they expire in October 2005. Is there a possibility on the other side of Lexington Place (residential side) can also be AFZ of the street;

 

Ø Coogee Precinct Committee Resolution 40/05. Resolved that the Precinct write to Council outlining its support for the extension of the existing AFZ’s in Coogee and requesting that further streets and footpaths be designated AFZ's including the beach promenade which was the original footpath along Beach Street and is still a continuation of the footpath at both ends, and further that Council train and encourage Council rangers to properly enforce the AFZ’s and that Council impress upon the police the importance of enforcing AFZ’s as one of the very few means at their disposal to deal with anti social behaviour to protect the interests of the local community and before it escalates to crime;

 

Ø Mrs D Buchanan of 83 Beach Street advises by letter that keeping the present AFZ in plan in the Coogee parkland areas, the beach, the beach front, the eastern end of Dolphin Street paved plaza areas, the parking lot etc would keep alive the hope that someone cares about what takes place in these areas.  Strong approval of AFZ;

 

Ø E White, General Manager, Maroubra RSL Club Limited wishing to request that consideration be given to extending the AFZ which commences at the carpark and footpath areas in Anzac Parade median from Maroubra Road to past Haig Street and finishing at Fitzgerald Avenue.  Consideration appreciated and would also assist the above Club with the responsible service to alcohol;

 

Ø Maroubra Beach Precinct Committee. AFZ Resolution (Dunstan/Kafka) the MBPC would like to see the inclusion of Coral Sea Park in the designated areas and the established areas continued.

 

An AFZ may be established in public places that are public roads or carparks under the care and control of Council. This legislation does not encompass parklands. (Council has  separate powers to limit or ban the consumption of alcohol.)

 

It would also appear from the submissions that consumption of alcohol in public areas remains a significant community concern. A number of the submissions that were received requested the extension of the local AFZ to encompass adjoining streets.

 

The Coogee Precinct also requested that enforcement of the AFZ’s be more rigorously enforced by both Council and the police.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

All submissions received by Council from community groups, registered clubs and residents in or near to the proposed AFZ’s have supported the proposal. It is considered that the proposed extension of the AFZ to some of the adjoining streets is reasonable and should be adopted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council resolve to re-establish the following Alcohol Fee Zones for a period of three years, expiring on the 18 October, 2008 -

 

MAROUBRA BEACH

 

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of Marine Parade from Bond Street to Fitzgerald Avenue.

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of McKeon Street from Marine Parade to Duncan Street.

·    Carpark and footpath areas in the carpark behind the Maroubra Beach Pavilion.

·    In and around Fenton Avenue from McKeon Street to Mons Avenue and the extension at Maroubra Beach to include Mons Avenue between Marine Parade and Fenton Avenue.

 

The zone excludes adjacent parks and reserves and areas licensed by Council as outdoor eating area. (Refer to Map 1).

 

MAROUBRA JUNCTION

 

·    Carpark and footpath areas in the Anzac Parade median from Boyce Road to Maroubra Road.

·    Carpark and footpath areas in the Anzac Parade median from Maroubra Road to Fitzgerald Avenue (Refer to Map 2).

 

COOGEE

 

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of Arden Street from Carr Street to Dolphin Street.

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of Coogee Bay Road from Arden Street to Brook Street.

·    Carpark and footpath areas in the carpark on the eastern side of Coogee Oval.

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of Brook Street between Dolphin Street and Coogee Bay Road.

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of Dolphin and Alfreda Streets between Brook and Arden Streets.

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of Beach Street from Dudley to Carr Streets.

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of Beach Street from the eastern extension of Dolphin to Baden Streets.

 

The zone excludes adjacent parks and reserves and area licensed by Council as outdoor easting areas (Refer to Map 3).

 

SOUTH COOGEE

·    Road and footpath areas son both sides of Elphinstone Road from Moverly Road to Bundock Street (Refer to Map 4).

 

LEXINGTON PLACE, MAROUBRA

 

·    Road and footpath areas on the northern side of New Orleans Crescent from Morris Way to Neosho Way.

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of Lexington Place from New Orleans Crescent to Minneapolis Way

·    Road and footpath areas on the southern side of Minneapolis Crescent for Lexington Place to Neosho Way. (Refer to Map 5).

 

LITTLE BAY

 

·    Road and footpath areas on both sides of Anzac Parade from Little Bay Road to Jennifer Street. (Refer to Map 6).

 

RANDWICK

 

·    Short Street, Randwick both sides from Belmore Road to Avoca Street and Avoca Street west side from the intersection of Belmore Road to pedestrian’s entrance to Randwick Village.(Refer to Map 7).

 

The zone excludes areas licensed by Council as outdoor eating area;

 

and that all parties who submitted comments on the proposal be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Maps 1 to 7 depicting proposed Alcohol Free Zones for the Randwick LGA.

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

.

 

Map 1 – Proposed Alcohol Free Zone at Maroubra Beach

 

 

Map 2 – Proposed Alcohol Free Zone at Maroubra Junction


 

Map 3 – Proposed Alcohol Free Zone at Coogee
 

 

Map 4 – Proposed Alcohol Free Zone at South Coogee

 

 

Map 5 – Proposed Alcohol Free Zone at Lexington Place

 

Map 6 – Proposed Alcohol Free Zone at Little Bay

 

 

Map 7 – Proposed Alcohol Free Zone at Randwick

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 72/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

3 Wisdom Street, South Coogee

 

 

DATE:

5 October, 2005

FILE NO:

DA401/2005

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No 401/2005 for demolition of existing structure (excluding western retaining wall and garage slab) and erection of a new dwelling.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 5 August 2005 .

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

5 August 2005

FILE NO:

DA 401/05

 

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing structure (excluding western retaining wall and garage slab) and erection of a new dwelling.

PROPERTY:

3 Wisdom Street, South Coogee.

WARD:

East Ward

APPLICANT:

Mr M and Mrs N Rugless

OWNER:

Mr M and Mrs N Rugless

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

Ù

East

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The subject application involves the demolition of the existing dwelling (excluding the western retaining wall and garage slab) and the erection of a new dwelling on the site at No. 3 Wisdom Street, South Coogee.  Council has referred the development proposal to external consultants Willana Associates, to undertake an assessment of the proposal against the relevant planning criteria, as an objector to the proposal is a Council employee.

 

The proposal involves construction of a three storey, contemporary design, with an angled skillion roof.  The north-west corner of the dwelling has been recessed and an angled blade wall proposed to retain an open ocean view corridor. Significant landscaping treatment to the front and rear of the dwelling is also proposed.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan (DHDCP).  The proposal has an FSR of 0.66:1, which exceeds the preferred FSR of 0.6:1 by 26m2.  The proposal also exceeds the external wall height preferred solution, with maximum non-compliance at 9.3m.  Existing non-complying setbacks have been retained.  The proposed garage occupies 50% of the site width, exceeding the preferred maximum width by 1.7m.

 

Three objections to the initial design were received during the neighbour notification period.  One objection raised concern over view loss impacts to the neighbouring property No. 1 Wisdom Street, resulting from the length of the blade walls and entry awning at the front of the property.  Two objections were received concerning the light coloured roofing material selected.  Following the notification period, amended plans were submitted to Council, reducing the extension of the front blade wall and entry awning to address view loss concerns raised by adjacent property No. 1 Wisdom as well as addressing privacy concerns to Crana Street properties raised in initial assessment.

 

An assessment of the amended proposal has identified that the dwelling design and character is appropriate to the coastal location and provides sufficient amenity to dwelling occupants and neighbours of the development.  Notwithstanding some minor areas of non-compliance including side setbacks, height, floor area and garage width, the proposal provides an appropriate level of development for the small subject site, an environmentally sustainable design and succeeds in achieving the objectives of the relevant planning controls.

 

The recommendation is for approval.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site, excluding the western retaining wall and garage slab, and the erection of a new dwelling on the site.  The proposed FSR of the dwelling is 0.66:1.  A detailed list of what is proposed under the new development is provided below:

 

Basement Level:

 

§  A new double garage.

§  Laundry facility.

§  4 storage areas, including storage under stairs.

§  Rainwater tank.

 

Ground Level

 

§  Entry stairs ascending to ground floor front entrance.

§  Main bedroom with walk in robe and ensuite.

§  3 secondary bedrooms.

§  Bathroom and toilet.

§  Internal stairs connecting to basement level and first floor.

§  Living area at rear of dwelling, opening to deck area and rear yard.

§  Pool shown indicatively, not assessed as part of this DA.

 

First Level

 

§  Open plan living, dining and kitchen area.

§  Toilet facility.

§  Front deck with blade wall on western side, overlooking Wisdom Street and providing views to the ocean.

§  Rear deck, also with blade wall to western side, overlooking rear yard and pool area.

§  Significant glazing on the eastern wall, providing horizon ocean views.  A sliding timber panel runs along this façade, providing shading and privacy to internal living space.

 

Following concerns raised by the assessing officer, amended plans were submitted to Council on 21 September 2005, which proposed a number of changes to the initial scheme including:

 

§  Reducing the length of the northern facade blade wall, with the blade wall now ending behind the front balcony balustrades.  This reduction in the length of the blade wall extension protects the ocean view from the ground floor (living area) front balcony of No. 1 Wisdom Street.

§  Reducing the length of the entry awning to protect the ocean views from the ground floor front balcony of No. 1 Wisdom Street.

§  Raising the proposed first floor, eastern wall, glazed area sill height, to comply with BCA requirements and limit overlooking of Crana Street properties from a seated position in the first floor living area.

§  Relocating the barbeque area to the rear of the dwelling.

§  Replacing proposed the front tree planting with low scale, shrub plantings to prevent obstruction of No. 1 Wisdom Street’s views at plant maturity.

 

The amended plans form the basis of this assessment.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is described as Lot 9 in DP 77967 and is located on the south side of Wisdom Street, South Coogee.  The site is rectangular in shape and has an area of 404.7m2.  The street has a significant slope from west to east.  The existing dwelling on the site is an older style cottage.

 

The subject site is adjoined to the west by the property known as No. 1 Wisdom Street. No. 1 Wisdom Street is currently a construction site, with development approval to erect a contemporary three storey dwelling on the site, with an FSR of 0.73:1.  Adjoining the subject site to the east are a number of dwellings with east-west allotments facing onto Crana Avenue.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

Council staff initially considered the application at a Pre Development Application meeting.  This meeting was followed by a detailed written response regarding issues that required further consideration by the applicant. 

 

The development application was submitted to Council on 24 May 2005.  Amended plans were submitted to Council on 21 September 2005 addressing issues raised in objections during the exhibition period.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP-Public Notification, from 13/6/05 to 27/06/05. The following submissions were received:

 

Objections

 

1.       Mr R & Mrs J Felling

          53 Denning Street, South Coogee NSW 2034

 

The Felling’s submission expressed concern regarding the light coloured roofing material selected for the proposed dwelling.  The objectors are concerned that the light colour will reflect light to their living area on the eastern side of their dwelling.

 

Comment: It is not considered that a light roof surface will have a noticeable reflective impact on the comfort and amenity at No. 53 Denning Street.

 

2.       Mr Brian Johnston and Ms Larissa Ozog

          18 McIver Place, Maroubra NSW 2035

 

Mr Johnston is currently in the process of constructing a new dwelling at No. 1 Wisdom Street.  While the objectors stated their support for the construction of a contemporary dwelling at No. 3 Wisdom Street, they expressed concerns over the following aspects of the proposed design:

 

§  The solid blade wall along the western side of the ground floor balcony.  The objectors highlight that the blade wall is not a core component of the dwelling design and is not necessary to protect the privacy of the dwelling occupants as the front balcony of No.1 Wisdom Street does not overlook the ground floor balcony of No.3.  View lines have been annotated on the plans by the objectors.

§  First floor balcony rails.  The objector has suggested that the first floor balcony rail be of a transparent material and clear glass balustrades be considered to provide greater transparency to protect views to the east from No. 1 Wisdom Street.

§  Entry awning.  The objectors are concerned that the entry awning will block view lines from the internal lounge room and ground floor balcony of No. 1 Wisdom Street.  The objectors suggest that the awning does not extend beyond the entry staircase.

§  North western boundary tree planting.  The objectors are concerned that this planting will mature to inhibit the views from No. 1 Wisdom Street and suggest low scale plantings and shrubs.

§  Relocation of the first floor, front balcony barbeque to the rear first floor deck where there is a solid wall for the barbeque to sit against.

 

Comment:  The applicant submitted an amended scheme to Council on 21 September 2005, which proposed a number of changes to the initial scheme.  The amendments made under the revised plans adequately address the view loss concerns raised by the owners of No. 1 Wisdom Street, whilst protecting the privacy and comfort of No. 3 Wisdom Street residents.  The length of the blade wall has been reduced and now ends before the balcony balustrade, rather than extending beyond it, which occurred in the initial scheme.  The length of the entry awning has also been reduced to improve the view corridor from the ground floor balcony of No. 1 Wisdom Street.

 

3.       Mrs Enid Turner

          51 Denning Street, South Coogee NSW 2034

 

Mrs Turner’s submission expressed concern regarding the light coloured roofing material selected for the proposed dwelling.  The objector is concerned that the light material will reflect sunlight into her kitchen, lounge room and balcony, as her property is located at a higher elevation than the proposal.  The objector suggests a darker coloured roof material.

 

Comment: It is not considered that a light roof surface will have a noticeable reflective impact on the comfort and amenity at No. 51 Denning Street.

 

5.1  Support

 

No letters of support were received during the exhibition period.

 

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 provided the following comments in relation to the application:

 

An application has been received for construction of a new dwelling at the above site.

 

Landscape Comments

There is one dead street tree on the Wisdom Street nature strip that will need to be removed (at no cost to the applicant) as part of their site works, with the only cost to be borne by the applicant being one to cover Council’s costs in providing a new street tree at the completion of works.

 

In the rear yard, close to the western boundary, there is one Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm), of approximately 5 metres in height growing through the existing timber decking boards. It appears in good condition, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and is deemed worthy of retention, as has been shown on the plans, as it is the only existing landscape element on the site.

 

The plans show a new deck being constructed off the rear of the proposed dwelling, which will result in this palm being retained in a new area of turf. Palms are particularly resilient to the impacts of excavation/construction, and providing the minimal protection measures listed in this report are adhered to, this work would have little effect on this palm.

 

There are several other shrubs/small trees within the rear yard; however, all are too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and are considered insignificant and largely undesirable. Therefore, a condition has been included requiring the applicant to remove all remaining site vegetation and provide appropriate replacement plantings which will be in keeping with the style and scale of the proposed dwelling.

 

In the rear yard of the adjoining property to the east, 4 Crana Avenue, close to the common boundary, there is one Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) of approximately 6 metres in height, which appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

The canopy of this tree slightly encroaches over the common boundary, with the plans proposing screen planting along the length of the eastern boundary, as well as a new in-ground pool, setback 1.2 metres off the boundary.

 

Given the terraced nature of this area of the rear yard, it appears that minimal excavation of the natural ground level will actually be undertaken; however, the applicant still has a responsibility to ensure the retention of this tree as part of their site works, and as such, protection measures have been included.

 

Drainage Comments

 

Should seepage water be encountered during excavations for the proposed basement level, the basement shall be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

Stormwater runoff shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrestor pit that drains to a 5 m2 base infiltration area/rubble pit. An over flow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit that drains to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system).

The requirement for an infiltration/rubble pit will not be enforced should the ground conditions preclude the construction of the infiltration pit (i.e. rock and/or the water table is near the surface). If the infiltration area is not constructed (due to demonstrated unsuitable ground conditions), all site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter via a sediment/silt arrestor pit.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

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

 

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

 

There are no specific development standards in the RLEP that apply to dwelling houses.  The relevant planning controls are contained within the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan (DHDCP).

 

(b)     Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan (DHDCP)

 

The DHDCP contains detailed objectives and performance requirements for the design of dwelling houses.  The proposal’s compliance with the relevant provisions of the DHDCP is discussed in detail below.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

The solar access and energy efficiency objectives and performance criteria within the DHDCP pertain to promoting energy efficient dwellings, encouraging passive solar design, protecting solar access to neighbouring properties and reducing waste during construction and demolition.

 

The dwelling provides a high quality environmental design, achieved through implementation of passive solar principles, including high thermal mass, locating living areas to the northern side of the dwelling to maximise natural light and solar access, including eaves and overhangs for solar protection during summer months and providing ample opportunity for natural cross ventilation rather than mechanical cooling. 

 

The overshadowing impact of the proposal, compared with the existing dwelling is minor, having a marginal increase at 12pm to western neighbour No. 1 Wisdom Street due to the new front balconies.  The 3pm shadows to the east are longer than the existing dwelling’s, however the breadth of the 3pm shadows are less than the existing dwelling, thereby offsetting the longer shadows.  Some afternoon overshadowing to the rear of Crana Street properties by the proposal is inevitable due to the steep slope of the land and orientation of the Crana Street allotments.  However, the overshadowing impact to these properties is reduced by the 11m separation between No. 3 Wisdom Street and the adjoining Crana Street properties. 

 

The proposal complies with DHDCP requirements by permitting 3 hours of sunlight the principle outdoor recreation spaces of neighbouring dwellings between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  The subject site’s private open space receives at least 3 hours sunlight to part of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June as required by the DHDCP.

 

Landscaping and Open Space

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced, dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation area, stormwater management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design, and native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.  Preferred solutions include that a minimum of 25m² of useable private open space be provided, a minimum of 40% of the total site area is provided as landscape area, half of which should be soft permeable landscaping, and each dwellings private open space shall be capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

 

The proposal dedicates 60% of the subject site to landscaped area, which more than complies with the requirements of the DHDCP.  The proposal also achieves the necessary 20% soft soil requirement, therefore meeting the objectives relating to retention of established vegetation and providing useable outdoor recreation space as the existing palm is retained, new deep soil plantings are provided and an attractive grassed area and pool are proposed, providing a quality outdoor recreation area. 

 

Floor Area

 

The floor area objective of the DHDCP exists to prevent the occurrence of developments that are excessive in bulk and scale and are incompatible with the existing character of the locality.  The DHDCP provides for a preferred FSR of 0.6:1 for the site.

 

The proposal provides an FSR of 0.66:1 (268.7m2), exceeding the preferred FSR for the site.  Despite this non-compliance, the proposal succeeds in achieving the objectives of the FSR control by providing a well finished and articulated exterior, with an attractive skillion roof design that succeeds in breaking up the visual appearance of the dwelling when viewed from the street, rear yard and neighbouring properties, reducing the appearance of bulk. 

 

The variance of the proposal from the DHDCP prescribed FSR is minor, being only 26m2 greater than the complying floor area.  The proposal is located on a small site and provides modest size dwelling in context with the surrounding built form of South Coogee.  Additionally, the proposed FSR is significantly below that of adjoining dwelling No. 1 Wisdom Street, which is a three-storey dwelling, on a similar sized allotment, with an approved FSR of 0.73:1.  The proposal therefore provides a transition between the larger western neighbour No. 1 Wisdom Street, and the eastern neighbour, an older style cottage facing onto Crana Avenue.

 

Height, Form and Materials

 

The relevant objectives of this section of the DHDCP pertain to ensuring that the height and scale of development relates to the topography with minimum cut and fill, that development is not excessive in height and scale and is compatible with the existing character of the locality.  Buildings should maintain privacy and natural light access for neighbours, as well as enhance the predominant neighbourhood and street character.

 

The proposal is consistent with these objectives, despite some areas of non-compliance.  Due to the steep west to east slope on the site, the eastern façade external wall height exceeds the 7m wall height preferred solution.  Non-compliance with the external wall height is common in Randwick LGA locations that have steeply sloping streets.  The proposal’s maximum non-compliance occurs at 9.3m, which is the result of the reverse slant of the skillion roof against the natural slope of the site, a design feature of the proposal.  The extended roofline eave also provides necessary solar protection during summer months, contributing to the thermal comfort of the dwelling.

 

The wall height non-compliance will not impact on the easterly view from the upper level window and deck of No. 1 Wisdom Street, whose elevation is high enough to see over the roof to the ocean beyond.  The proposed RL of the upper level parapet of No. 3 Wisdom is well below the upper level parapet of No. 1 Wisdom Street, which demonstrates an appropriate context to roof heights in the street and fall of the land down to the ocean. Given these factors, it is considered that the non-complying wall height is appropriate in this circumstance.  The proposal is consistent with the character of No. 1 Wisdom Street and the emerging contemporary character of the locality.

 

Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DHDCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks, that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.  Preferred solutions include that side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level and 1.5m at first floor level, 3m at any part of the building greater than two levels and that no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The proposal complies with the front and rear setback requirements of the DHDCP.  The front alignment is recessed at the north-west corner of the dwelling to increase No. 1 Wisdom Street’s view corridor to the east.

 

The western wall side setbacks do not comply, being set back 830mm at garage level and only 800mm at ground and first levels.  These setbacks fall short of the 900mm, 1.5m and 3m setback requirements for first, second and third storeys.  As the roofline of No. 3 Wisdom Street is well below that of No. 1 Wisdom Street, acoustic and visual amenity is not affected and impacts on views are minimal, therefore the objectives pertaining to neighbours’ solar access, natural light and fresh air are still achieved.

 

Along the eastern elevation there are also a number of setback non-compliances, with an 850mm basement level setback, 900mm ground and 1.2m first floor setback.  While these setbacks also fall short of the DHDCP requirements, the dwelling orientation and coastal location provide ample opportunity for access to natural light and ventilation.  The desired separation between dwellings is also achieved through the layout of the allotments, with the neighbouring property to the east, which faces onto Crana Avenue, being located 11m from the side boundary of No. 3 Wisdom Street.

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

The objectives of the visual and acoustic privacy controls are to ensure that new buildings and additions meet occupant and neighbour requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Visual privacy issues have been addressed in the design by reducing opportunities for overlooking into neighbouring property No. 1 Wisdom Street by offsetting windows and providing obscure glass.  Overlooking into the rear yard of No. 1 Wisdom Street from the first floor rear balcony is prevented by the existence of a blade wall.

 

Due to the steep slope of the site, some overlooking of the rear yards of Crana Street properties is likely to occur.  The proponent has selected a sill height for the upper level, eastern façade glazed area that prevents overlooking of the rear yards of Crana Street properties from a seated position within the proposed upper level living area.  The eastern view from a standing position generally looks over the rooflines of the Crana Street properties to the horizon.  Additionally, a moveable, insulated timber panel will sit on the exterior of part of the eastern façade glazed surface, allowing residents to move the timber panel to suit their privacy requirements.

 

Garages, Carports and Driveways

 

The objectives of the garage and driveway control are to ensure that car parking structures and driveways provide convenient and safe car parking and access without being visually intrusive or detracting from dwelling appearance or the streetscape. 

 

The proposal complies with the requirements of the DHDCP by providing 2 onsite car parking spaces.  The dimensions of the parking spaces also comply with the DHDCP.  The width of the garage opening occupies approximately 50% of the site width, and is 1.7m wider than the DHDCP preferred width at the property boundary, however, these non-compliances are considered acceptable due to the narrow nature of the site and compatibility with the garage design of No. 1 Wisdom Street.  The garage door will be constructed of a light colorbond material, which is appropriate to the coastal location and the street context.

 

Fences

 

No new fences are to be constructed under the proposal.

 

Foreshore Development

 

The foreshore development control exists to protect the aesthetic appearance of the coastal landscape and to conserve the natural land and water interface and original character of the foreshore.

 

The proposal’s design complements the topography of the coastal location and is appropriate to the emerging character of the South Coogee locality.  The building materials selected are of natural colours, sensitive to the coastal location.  Given these factors, the proposal is considered appropriate coastal development.

 

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.  The proposal has been found to be satisfactory in meeting the planning guidelines for such development as outlined in the above assessment.

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the proposal is appropriate to the coastal foreshore location and the diverse character of the South Coogee locality.  The proposed scheme succeeds in providing satisfactory amenity to dwelling occupants without unreasonably affecting the amenity or privacy of neighbouring dwellings.  As the proposal succeeds in achieving the objectives of the relevant planning criteria, the application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A       THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent to Development Application No. 401/05 for demolition of existing structure (excluding western retaining wall and garage slab) and erection of a new dwelling at No.3 Wisdom Street, South Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA00, DA 01/A, DA 02.1/A, DA 02.2/A, DA 03/A, DA 04/A, DA05/A, DA 06/A, DA 07/A and DA 08/A dated May 2005 and received by Council on 7 October 2005.

 

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.       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.

 

5.       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.

 

6.       The development must implement all BASIX Commitments scheduled within the BASIX Certificate, including the provision of a kitchen window to permit natural lighting.  The window should be of obscure glass to protect privacy between adjoining dwellings

 

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

 

7.       Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or 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.

 

8.       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:

 

9.       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.

 

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 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.

 

13.     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.

 

14.     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”.

 

15.     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.

 

16.     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.

 

17.     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.

 

18.     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.

 

19.     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:

 

20.     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.

 

21.     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.

 

22.     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.

 

23.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and 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.

 

24.     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.

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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

 

30.     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.

 

31.     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.

 

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

 

33.     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:

 

34.     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 provisions for access, transport and infrastructure:

 

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

 

a)       Reconstruct the existing concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site, if required.

 

36.     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.

 

37.     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:

 

38.     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 driveway access, shall be:

 

·        West edge of driveway opening to be at RL 28.45

·        East edge of driveway opening to be at RL 28.15

 

39.     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.

 

40.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $332.00 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.

 

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

 

41.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

43.     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 to drain to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

          The location and details of the proposed internal stormwater pipelines, silt arrestor pit and the infiltration area shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the plans 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 the rainwater tank/s shall be directed into the infiltration area.

 

44.     Should seepage water be encountered during excavations for the proposed basement level, the basement shall be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

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

 

45.     Landscaping at the site shall be installed substantially in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Monique Carah, drawing number DA.01, dated May 2005 subject to the following additional requirements being shown on an amended plan prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

          a)       All existing vegetation (except the Kentia Palm in the rear yard) shall be removed from the site, with two 25 litre sized replacement trees to be provided within the site. The species selected will be those which will attain a minimum height at maturity of between 4-7 metres.

 

46.     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.

 

47.     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.

 

48.     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.

 

49.     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.

 

50.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $94.60 to Council,

 

a.       Being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre street tree (Banksia integrifolia, Coastal Banksia) on the western side of the proposed driveway at the completion of all works ($86.00 + 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.

 

51.     In order to ensure the retention of the Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) in the rear yard, close to the western 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 specimen with the position of the trunk and full diameter of the canopy clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.       The palm is to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which is to be located a minimum radius of 1.5 metres from the outside edge of the 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.       Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, paving etc within 2.5 metres of the trunk shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

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

 

f.        A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $990.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the preservation of the tree in accordance with the requirements described in this condition.

 

 

 

 

   QUANTITY

 

        SPECIES       

 

   AMOUNT

 

1

 

Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm)

 

$990.00

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

$990.00

 

       The refundable deposit is placed to ensure that the tree protection measures as described in this condition are undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period. The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months from the time of issue of a final occupation certificate by the certifying authority providing the tree protection measures (including amendments to the plans) have been undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period and the palm has been retained in good health.

 

          Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the palm at any time during the demolition and construction period or prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate will result in the Council claiming all of the lodged security.

 

52.     In order to ensure the retention of the Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) tree located in the rear yard of the adjoining property to the east, 4 Crana Avenue, close to the common 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 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 or 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.

 

c.       Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, pipes, stormwater infiltration systems 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.

 

Advisings

 

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:

 

A4 Reductions

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 73/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

50 Dolphin Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

6 October, 2005

FILE NO:

DA/0193/2005

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No 193/2005 for Section 82A review of the decision to refuse the Development Application No 193/2005 seeking to make alterations and additions to the existing multi unit housing development by adding a new upper level to Unit 3.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 21 September 2005 .

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

21 September, 2005

FILE NO:

D0193/2005   

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A review of the decision to refuse the Development Application No. 193/2005 seeking to make alterations and additions to the existing multi unit housing development by adding a new upper level to Unit 3.

PROPERTY:

 50 Dolphin Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr V A Galati

OWNER:

Mr V A Galati

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Council meeting for consideration as the original Development Application (DA) was determined by Council at its Ordinary Council meeting of 24 May 2005 by way of refusal.

 

The original proposal was for the alterations and additions to the existing part two part three storey multi unit housing development by adding a new upper level to Unit 3 which consists of a living/kitchen area, a bathroom and a deck.

 

The subject application constitutes a request under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, to review the decision by Council to refuse the original DA.

 

No amendments to the original DA are proposed.

 

The subject site is located in a Residential 2B zone and contains a part two part three storey brick multi-unit housing development with a garage at a lower level fronting Dolphin Street. The surrounding area exhibits a variety of residential uses ranging from single to three storey buildings. The site slopes steeply from the rear of the property to the front and has a fall in land height of 8m. There is also a fall in height of approximately 500mm from west to east across the site.

 

The original proposal does not comply with the numerical floor space ratio, height and external wall height requirements of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objections were submitted arguing that the proposal is consistent with the general height, bulk and scale of adjacent and surrounding developments given the awkward and relatively steep topography of the site, the proposal will not have any significant adverse amenity impacts on the amenity of adjoining dwellings in terms of privacy, view loss, overshadowing and solar access.

 

The application has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification. As a result of this notification, four submissions were received including a petition from four adjacent property owners. The issues are privacy, noise, safety, overshadowing, aesthetics, visual bulk & scale and excessive height.

 

The assessment of the application reveals that whilst the development does not comply with the numerical building height, external wall height and floor space ratio standards, the proposal is consistent with the scale and bulk of adjacent developments, does not adversely impact on the streetscape and does not generate unreasonable impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy or view loss. The proposal generally complies with the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Multi-Unit Housing. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the visual bulk of the proposal could be reduced by replacing the proposed pitched roof with a flat roof to minimise the visual dominance of the proposed roof when viewed from the adjoining properties and the street.

 

It is recommended that Council’s determination of the original DA should be rescinded and the application should be approved subject to deferred commencement conditions.

 

2.       HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION:

 

A report recommending approval of the original DA was considered at Council’s Ordinary meeting on 24 May 2005 where Council resolved to refuse the DA for the following reasons:

 

(1)     “The proposal does not comply with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1 and results in adverse impacts in terms of bulk and scale;

(2)     The proposal is excessive in height and does not comply with the wall height and overall height requirements of RLEP 1998;

(3)     The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site given the significant departures from the FSR and height requirements of RLEP 1998;

(4)     The proposal will adversely impact upon the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual bulk and scale; and

(5)     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Multi-Unit Housing in relation to side setbacks.”

 

3.       THE REVIEW:

 

The application for a review of determination of the original DA is made under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

No amendments to the original DA are proposed.

 

The original proposal is to carry out alterations and additions to the existing multi unit housing development by adding a new upper level to Unit 3. The additional floor area is to be contained at the rear of the building and comprises a living/ kitchen area, a bathroom and a deck. The additional level has a pitched roof that reuses the existing tiles, and walls are proposed to be rendered and painted. Unit 3 is expanded from a two bedroom unit to a three bedroom unit. The proposed upper level is setback 7m from the front elevation and is setback 1.5m from the western side boundary and 2.3m from the eastern side boundary.

 

4.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Dolphin Street between Carrington Road and Melody Street in Coogee and is presently occupied by an existing part two part three storey multi unit housing development.  The site has a frontage width of 10.515m, a side boundary depth of 30.785/31.405m and has an overall site area of 353.91m².  The site slopes steeply from the rear of the property to the front and has a fall in land height of 8m. There is also a fall in height of approximately 500mm from west to east across the site.

 

Neighbouring the site to the west is a row of residential buildings including single storey dwellings and two storey units. These buildings are all setback at least 10m from their rear boundary and are screened from the site by trees. To the south of the site is the rear of two blocks that face Carrington Road and across Brighton Road is a four storey multi-unit housing development. To the east of the site is a two storey dwelling sited at the front of the block towards Dolphin Street. To the north of the site across Dolphin Street is a public park with many large trees. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of one to three storey residential dwellings and multi-unit housing.

 

  

 

Subject site from Dolphin Street.                       Adjacent site to the west, note the trees.

 

      

 

Dolphin St streetscape looking east.                  Dwellings on Carrington Rd which back

                                                                        on to the site.

 

      

 

Unit building on Brighton Rd to south                From Brighton Rd looking Nth towards

of site.                                                              site.

 

  

 

Photos of site taken from the adjacent property to the west at 225 Carrington Rd.

 

  

 

View from 1st Floor, 225 Carrington Rd.           View of the site from property to west at

                                                                        223B Carrington Rd.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

The application for the Section 82A Review has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposal and Council Plans. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

5.1     Objections

 

Stuart Murray of Unit 1/225 Carrington Road, Coogee

Mercina Simos of Unit 2/225 Carrington Road, Coogee

Sandy Sadleir of 223B Carrington Road, Coogee

Sandra Bassin of 52 Dolphin Street, Coogee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy – The proposed development will infringe on the privacy of the adjoining neighbours.

The proposed outdoor deck has screens that are 1.8m high and have frosted glass on both sides, which will minimise privacy loss to neighbours. The development proposes an array of windows to each side with windows facing the adjacent properties being generally small. However, the windows facing the rear, east and west would enable overlooking into the adjacent yards and therefore should be obscure glazed.

Noise – with more people living in the block it will create more noise in our vicinity both during construction and post completion.

The proposed additional level is of masonry construction and the outdoor deck is well shielded from adjacent yards with brick and frosted glass. A condition will be imposed requiring that construction noise does not create an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and complies with relevant noise legislation.

Safety – Our safety will be affected while the proposed development is under construction.

A condition will imposed requiring that all development is contained within the site and that at no time shall any scaffolding, building works, waste material or the like be placed or left on the adjacent properties.

Blocking Sunlight – Contrary to Planners belief, the development will generate unreasonable overshadowing impacts at several times throughout the day. Sunlight will be lost to all adjacent properties.

Shadow diagrams indicate minimal additional overshadowing and that the proposal complies with Council requirements.

The new addition will close in the entire backyard area of each property, taking away the feeling of openness with the huge structure looking down over us all.

The two yards immediately to the west of the existing building envelope on the southern side back onto the subject building which forms a continuous two storey wall near the boundary, already closing the backyards in from that side. There are no other adjacent buildings which have this situation. These adjacent yards have an open space north/south corridor which receives light and ventilation. The proposed development does not affect this corridor (i.e. there is no enclosure of building to the south and north of the adjacent yards to the west). The additional bulk proposed is sited at the rear where the existing RL is 27.36. The proposed development has a maximum RL of 29.75 however this height occurs for a length of 4.8m only. Therefore the proposal will add bulk however the sense of enclosure will remain largely the same and the important north/south open space corridor is maintained.

Height Limitations – The proposed development does not comply with strict Council height limitations, with the report actually stating there is departure from the Council height standards. Why have these limits if they are going to be continually broken?

It should be noted that the original DA was submitted with a SEPP 1 objection which argued the non-compliances with the building height and external wall height standards were unreasonable and unnecessary. Whilst the original proposal results in a numerical exceedance of the height controls, it is considered that the height is consistent with the adjoining dwellings. Notwithstanding, it is considered appropriate that the proposed pitched roof should be replaced with a flat roof to minimise the visual bulk of the proposed addition.

The proposed new addition will be an eyesore to the community. The proposal will be the dominant element in our immediate environment.

The proposed addition is setback from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and can only be seen from an angle from Dolphin Street or through the side setbacks of dwellings in Carrington Road at ground level. The proposed addition will be less visible from the street if the pitched roof is replaced with flat roof. 

 

Brad Perks of 223A Carrington Road, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal does not comply with permissible FSR of 0.65:1 and will have an adverse impact in terms of bulk and scale.

Whilst the proposal exceeds the maximum permissible FSR standard, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the bulk and scale of the surrounding built form.

The proposal does not comply with the height requirements of LEP 1998 and will overshadow his property in the morning, especially in winter when it is most useful.

The proposal fails to comply with the height requirements of the LEP and a SEPP 1 objection was submitted with the original DA. It is recommended that the proposed pitched roof to be replaced with a flat roof to enable the proposal to comply with the maximum building height requirement.

The additional overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties have been addressed in Section 9.3 of this report.

 

Sandra and David Bassin of 52 Dolphin Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed development would be totally out of character with the adjoining development and is not in keeping with Council’s regulations which seek to prevent overdevelopment of small suburban sites.

As noted above, the scale of the proposal is considered to be consistent with the existing adjoining dwellings.

The proposed development will significantly overshadow the skylight and windows of the adjoining dwelling.

The skylight window at the rear of 52 Dolphin Street will receive at least 3 hours sunlight on 21 June. The additional shadow impacts have been addressed in Section 8 of this report.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICER’S COMMENTS

 

The application for the Section 82A review has not been referred to the relevant technical officers, as the original comments received remains applicable.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)

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

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-        Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

-        Building Code of Australia

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscape Area

Minimum 50% of the total site area is landscaped

178 sqm or 50.2%

Complies. The proposed development results in no alteration to the existing landscaped area.

32 - FSR

0.65:1

0.92:1

Does not comply. The proposal exceeds control by 0.27:1. See Section 9.2.1 in this report.

33(1) - Building Height

Maximum 9.5 metres

Maximum 11 metres

Does not comply. The proposal exceeds control by 1.5 metres. See Section 9.2.2 in this report.

33(3) – External Wall Height

Maximum 7 metres

9.5 metres

Does not comply. The proposal exceeds control by 2.5 metres. See Section 9.2.2 in this report.

 

(b)     Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

(c)    Policy Controls

·        Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

 

The DCP for Multi-Unit Housing states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the Objectives and Performance requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding Preferred Solutions. 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.

 

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

Height

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

 

Does not comply with height requirements but is consistent with intent of objectives and purpose of height limits. See Section 9.2.2 in this report.

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

 

The proposal responds well to this requirement by shifting the bulk to the rear which minimises impacts to the streetscape and adjoining dwellings through appropriate design. However, the visual bulk of the addition can be further reduced by replacing the pitched roof with a flat roof.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

The proposed development maintains the existing front setback. The alterations proposed are to the centre and rear of the building.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

The proposed upper level is setback 1.5m from the western boundary and 2.3m from the eastern boundary.  Does not comply – See Sections 8 and 9.3 in this report.

 

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

§ Landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces provided.

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

No part closer than 4.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

The rear boundary setback of 9.5m is maintained and complies with the preferred solution.

P4  General

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

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

Complies. The proposed eaves protrude 500mm from the walls.

Density

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

 

The proposed bulk is consistent with other two and three storey buildings in the area which contain pitched roofs. By setting back the upper level at the rear, there is minimal impact to the streetscape and adjacent properties.

 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

A large rear outdoor area of approximately 70sqm is to be retained.

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

 

Complies

P6  Flats and apartments

Each dwelling has direct access to an area of private open space.

S6 Minimum of 8 m2 and minimum dimension of 2 metres.

The proposal introduces a 6.5m x 2.8m (18.2sqm) wide deck for Unit 3. Complies.

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

The proposed development has a separation of 10m or more from all adjacent properties and their windows except for the adjacent property to the east on Dolphin Street. There are three windows to the eastern side and frosted glazing to the upper level deck of the subject development. This eliminates opportunities to overlook but enables light penetration. Complies.

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

The proposed deck is placed in the middle of the building within the roof pitch and has frosted glazing. These design elements prevent privacy loss to neighbours.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

The size of the proposed deck is considered to be reasonable and is contained by the roof, the building and the glazing to the sides. The proposed deck will have a lesser impact than an open balcony or rear yard would to adjacent neighbours and is therefore supported.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

A condition will be imposed ensuring that noise during construction complies with relevant legislation.

 

 

 

 

View Sharing

P1 Design and location of buildings considers surroundings for assessing impact on views.

 

The adjacent units to the east that overlook the property do not have views to the ocean or the surrounding district. There are no view losses to adjoining dwellings as a result of the proposal.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

The proposed addition is located to the rear to minimise impacts to the streetscape. The proposal at the same time has a minimal impact on overshadowing of adjoining properties.

P1.2 Living areas of neighbours’ dwellings receive 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface throughout the year. If less currently available, the amount is not reduced.

 

Shadow diagrams show that the adjacent dwellings to the south west will receive minor overshadowing at 9.00am however by 10.00am and onwards there is no overshadowing to the dwellings. The proposal overshadows the adjacent dwelling to the east currently from 2.00pm onwards. The proposed development does not result in additional overshadowing to living room windows of adjoining dwellings.

P1.3 Neighbour’s principal private outdoor open space receives 3 hours of sunlight over at least 50% of its area throughout the year. If less currently available, the amount is not reduced.

 

Complies.

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

S5  Adequate area of roof between 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west or north, and a slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal for installation of solar collectors.

 

Complies

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

The existing building contains 4 x 2br units. This generates a requirement for 4.8 spaces. The existing building contains two internal spaces and a driveway strip. The proposed development increases the parking requirement to 5.1 spaces. The additional bedroom therefore does not generate the requirement for an additional space.

 

8.       REASONS FOR REVIEW

 

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

 

1.       “Reason for refusal 1 states that the proposal does not comply with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1 and results in adverse impacts in terms of bulk and scale. The subject application was submitted with a SEPP 1 Objection that argued that non-compliance with the FSR standard was unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of this case.

 

Without repeating here in this submission the detailed justification provided in the original submission for the variation to the maximum FSR standard, it is important to note that the report prepared for Council’s consideration carefully considered the arguments put forward and concluded that despite the variation, the proposal represented an acceptable development consistent in scale with the mixed scale of the area that generated minimal impact on adjoining properties.

 

The officer’s report agreed that the proposal would have minimal impacts in terms of bulk and scale and therefore satisfies the objectives of the FSR standard as contained in LEP 1998.”

 

Comment

 

The original proposal has a FSR of 0.92:1 and exceeds the maximum permissible FSR by 0.27:1 or 95 sqm. The existing building has an FSR of 0.734:1 and exceeds the maximum permissible FSR by 0.084:1 or 29.6 sqm. The additional floor area is 0.186:1 or 66 sqm over the existing building. 

 

The FSR of surrounding buildings varies from 0.48:1 (adjacent to the site to the east on Dolphin Street) to 1.2:1 (at the rear of the site across Brighton Road). The dwellings to the west range in FSR from 0.55:1 to 0.933:1 (225 Carrington Road is 0.933:1 and 227 Carrington Road is 0.82:1). The proposed scale is therefore consistent with the surrounding development and is not considered to be excessive. Notwithstanding, it is considered appropriate that the proposed pitched roof should be replaced with a flat roof to further reduce the impact of the building bulk on nearby properties and the streetscape.

 

2.       “Reason for refusal 2 claims that the proposal is excessive in height and does not comply with the wall height and overall height requirements of LEP 1998. Although the proposal exceeds the wall and overall height limits specified in the LEP, a SEPP 1 objection argued that strict compliance with the standards was considered unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. In assessing the proposal, the officer’s report accepted that the SEPP 1 objection to the variations to the height standard had been well argued and that those variations would not result in any significant adverse impact on adjoining and surrounding properties and therefore satisfies the relevant objective of the height standards. Council’s original assessment deals in significant detail with the issue of height and the variations proposed. Once again, without repeating here the detailed assessment carried out in that report, it is important to note that it concluded that the additional height does not result in unreasonable overshadowing or privacy impacts and therefore raised no objection to the variations being sought.”

 

Comment

 

The original proposal has external wall heights varying between 8.4m and 9.5m and a maximum building height of 11m, which does not comply with Clauses 33 (1) and (3) of the LEP 1998. The exceedance in the height control occurs over a depth of 11.4m with the greatest exceedance occurring in the middle of the building. The additional height and bulk is located at the rear of the site and as noted above is generally consistent with surrounding buildings due to the very hilly nature of the topography in the area.

 

The original proposal with the pitched roof will be higher than the roof ridges of the adjacent dwellings at 52 Dolphin Street, 225 and 227 Carrington Road (i.e. 1.67m, 0.55m & 0.06m respectively). However, if the proposed pitched roof is replaced with a flat roof, the proposed extension will be lower than the adjoining development and will also be less dominant when viewed from Dolphin Street, Carrington Road and the adjoining properties.

 

3.       “The third reason for refusal argues that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site given the significant departures from the FSR and height standards in LEP 1998. I would argue that the variation being sought to both the FSR and height standards should not be deemed as significant departures given that the variations do not result in any significant adverse impacts on adjoining properties. The proposed addition represents a modest addition to the existing development that does significantly increase the intensity of the total development. The proposal incorporates significant design measures to minimise the additional bulk and scale of the development while still allowing for improved amenity within the development.”

 

Comment

 

Whilst the original proposal results in the numerical exceedance of the FSR, external wall height and building height controls, it is considered that the scale is generally consistent with the mixed scale of the area and is unlikely to result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

 

4.       “The fourth reason for refusal claims that the development will adversely impact upon the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual bulk and scale. All of these matters were discussed in detail in the officer’s report. It explored all of the additional shadowing that would be cast by the proposed additions. In addition to carrying out an assessment of the various impacts, it concluded that the proposal would have some shadowing impact and that those impacts were minimal.

 

In terms of privacy, every effort has been made to ensure that the proposal will not result in adverse levels of overlooking to adjoining properties. Sufficient design measures have been included and the design has been oriented to ensure all outlook is towards Dolphin Street to the north rather than to adjoining properties to the east, west and south. Those measures satisfy Council’s requirements to the extent that the report concludes that the development will have no additional privacy impacts.

 

The proposed visual bulk and scale has also been minimised and should be considered consistent with the general bulk and scale of other surrounding development. Together with its setback from Dolphin Street, the additional level will not be visually dominant when viewed from adjoining properties nor will it have any significant impact on the existing streetscape.”

 

Comment

 

The issues raised above have been addressed in this report. It is agreed that the proposal will not generate unreasonable overshadowing impacts and does not generate additional privacy concerns nor does it affect views. However, the proposed visual bulk of the building could be reduced by replacing the proposed pitched roof with a flat roof.

 

5.       “The fifth reason for refusal claims that the proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Council’s Multi Unit Housing DCP in relation to side setbacks. Notwithstanding non-compliance with the Preferred Solution requirements in the DCP, I contend that the proposal clearly satisfies the Performance Requirements relating to side setbacks. Those requirements relate to maintaining solar access, minimising privacy loss, providing landscaping and open space and maintaining streetscape amenity.

 

The impacts of solar access and privacy have already been addressed in this submission and in significant detail in the officer’s report. It has been argued that the proposal results in minimal shadowing impacts and no privacy impacts. In terms of landscaping and open space, the proposed setbacks are located above the existing building footprint and therefore limit the ability to provide increased landscaping and open space on those side setbacks. Given the existing side setback and increased front setback, street amenity is not compromised in any way by the proposed side setbacks.”

 

Comment

 

The original proposal is setback 1.5 metres from the western side boundary and 2.3 metres from the eastern side boundary, which does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP. The existing building is part two part three storey containing walls that are not setback on the upper levels. This is a common feature of the design of multi unit developments built in the 1950s and 1960s such as the subject building. The non-compliance with the setback requirement is considered to be acceptable and is consistent with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. The impacts of overshadowing and privacy loss to the adjoining dwellings have been addressed in this report.

 

9.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

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

 

SEPP 65 applies to development being:

 

(a)     The erection of a new residential flat building, and

 

(b)     The substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing residential flat building, and

 

(c)     The conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building.

 

(d)     If particular development comprises development to which subclause (1) applies and other development, this Policy applies to the part of the development that is development to which subclause (1) applies and does not apply to the other part.

 

The guide stipulates that the SEPP 65 is to be applied in accordance with the following paragraph:

 

 

The existing building is a part two part three storey building containing four dwelling units. The proposed development results in an additional storey at the rear.  An assessment of the proposal in accordance with the ten design quality principles is included below.

 

General Approach

 

The proposed development provides an appropriate streetscape presentation to Dolphin Street and Carrington Road. It will result in a quality environment for the future residents and for passers-by. A contemporary design is achieved to the rear of the proposed building through the incorporation of materials and colours. The proposal incorporates ESD principles of northern orientation, outlook and cross ventilation of the apartment through an appropriate unit layout which provides north facing deck and adjoining open plan living areas thereby maximising northern solar access. The development is consistent with SEPP 65 in terms of its general approach to the site and uses contained within the building.

 

Principle 1: Context

 

The proposed development provides a balance in building bulk and scale between the adjoining western two storey multi unit development and the two storey dwelling to the east. The subject site is located on a steep slope rising in height from north to south by 8m. The proposed building marries the visual height line between the two storey dwelling to the east (which has a high roof pitch) and the two storey multi unit building to the west. The proposed building is to comprise residential accommodation only, which is considered appropriate given the site’s surrounding residential context. The building bulk is in a rectangular form with a three storey appearance to the street which remains unaltered and is consistent with the other dwellings in the street and surrounds. The proposed deck is orientated to the north and will be screened by the roof pitch, thereby preventing the potential for overlooking and loss of visual and aural privacy to neighbouring development.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 1 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 2: Scale

 

The proposed building is three storeys. The proposed FSR is significantly higher than that prescribed by Council (i.e. 0.27:1 above maximum FSR). The proposed scale is consistent with the mixed scale of development in the area which exhibits one to three storey residential development in a variety of forms. The scale of the development is not excessive with respect to the site area and the building is set back from its boundaries. The proposal appears as the same development from Dolphin Street. The proposal respects the two storey scale of development to the west and east as the additional bulk is contained at the rear and is similar in visual scale due to the rise in land height at the rear. Whilst it is a larger numerical scale than the immediately adjacent buildings, it does not overpower or dominate the scale of the buildings.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 2 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 3: Built Form

 

The proposed built form has been designed principally to maximize solar access through orientation to the north. The deck is sited to the north side of the proposed building and the unit runs nearly the width of the building with an open plan design to maximize cross ventilation and solar penetration. The proposed combination of rendered panel work, retention of roof tiles, timber framed windows and thin vertical windows serve to create visual interest in the built form at the rear and separate the old from the new whilst preserving the streetscape.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 3 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 4: Density

 

The expected number of residents and mix of unit sizes is appropriate for the site area and its location close to local shopping amenities and public transport. The proposal offers additional housing choice, and does not increase demand for on site parking thereby minimising its impact on the availability of on street parking in Dolphin Street, which notwithstanding contains plenty of parking adjacent to the park. The proposal does not comply with the allowable maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 under the Randwick LEP 1998 however it is consistent with the objectives of the density control, the general scale of development in the area and the submitted SEPP 1 objection justifies the non-compliance.  Whilst there is a significant exceedance in FSR the building will appear consistent with the scale of adjacent development and the marginal increased residential content of the development is considered to be acceptable.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 4 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

 

The proposed development has been designed with these principles in mind. The primary living area of the unit will have direct access to a north facing deck. The deck to the proposed unit will have direct access to northern sunlight. Window openings and the depth of the deck is suitably proportioned to allow good daylight penetration into the primary living space of the unit. The configuration and open plan design of the proposed unit ensures that good levels of natural cross-ventilation for the unit will be achieved.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 5 of SEPP 65.

 

 

Principle 6: Landscape

 

The site is located within a residential context where the proposed building is to be constructed with a significant set back to the street edge and a roof design that conceals the upper level. The existing landscaping to the site is proposed to be retained. This consists primarily of large trees at the rear of the site. Existing plantings of trees are also prominent along both boundaries, particularly the western boundary. These trees are predominantly located in the adjacent properties and this existing thick vegetation acts as a visual and aural buffer providing privacy and an aesthetically pleasant and natural environment.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 6 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 7: Amenity

 

The development provides indoor and outdoor spaces that will be comfortable and practical to use. Dimensions and layout will appropriately control sunlight to the living area and provide natural ventilation to the unit.  The outdoor open space area in the form of a deck adjoins the main living area of the unit. Pedestrian access to the site is available off Dolphin Street. Internally, the living room proposed has of significant proportion, with the living area being of a convenient, practical open plan design opening onto a north facing deck which forms one unified space if the doors are entirely opened.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 7 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 8: Safety and Security

 

The proposed development retains the existing high level of surveillance and safety available to the site whilst not compromising the privacy of adjacent neighbours.

 

The proposal is consistent with principle 8 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 9: Social dimensions

 

The proposed expanded unit would complement the existing housing stock in the area and would not significantly affect existing amenity for surrounding residents.

The development provides a mix of units that will meet the existing and future needs of the community. The mix of units provides choice for singles, couples and small families and is not prejudiced with respect to age groups.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 9 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 10: Aesthetics

 

The overall form and detailing of the building are appropriate and suitable for the site and complement the existing roof pitch and roof materials of the building. The proposed treatment and architectural composition of the proposal achieves a suitable design which is sympathetic to adjacent designs. The external finishes and colour scheme proposed for the development are satisfactory.

Conclusion:

 

The proposal has been reviewed with regard to the above design principles and is considered satisfactory with regard to the provisions of SEPP 65.

 

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

 

SEPP 1 objections were submitted with the original DA in respect to the non-compliances with the floor space ratio, building height and external wall height standards.

 

9.2.1  Clause 32 of LEP 1998 - Floor Space Ratios

 

The following reasons were provided with the original DA to justify the non-compliance with Clause 32 of the LEP 1998:

 

LEP Control clause 32 Indicates that the maximum floor space ratio for the development in this zone 2B is 0.65: 1.  The existing building as it stands is over the maximum floor ratio.

 

The site is occupied by a residential unit building that is, three levels high at the northern side and two levels at the southern side .The foot print of this building is 140 square metres. This equates to 39.5 percent of the site area. The drive way covers 9 per cent of the site area (31.85 square metres) while the private open space with land scaping occupies 51.5  per cent of the site (182.26 square metres).

 

Site area is                              353.91 sq.m.

Level  1 garage                      36.00 sq.m. existing

Level 2 unit 1 & 2                   128.10 sq.m. existing 

Level 3 unit 1 & Part 3          128.10 sq.m. existing

Level 4 part unit 3                  70.68 sqm. Proposed addition  without  proposed deck

 

Therefore the floor ratio is the sum of all floor areas, divided by site area

 

36+ 128.10+ 128.10 + 70.68 = 362.88sq.m.

362. 88 sq.m / 353.91sq.m = 1.02 : 1

 

The building in its current form is already over the stipulated maximum floor ratio (existing floor ratio is already 0.83:1). It is unreasonable for the maximum floor area to strictly apply to this site.

 

Considering its floor ratio, the existing structure does not impose a dominant presence onto the surrounding neighbours but rather it blends with the surrounding buildings creating the current character of the zone.

 

The proposed addition of 70.68 square metres integrates with the existing structure and does not change the character of the building.

 

The architectural design of the proposed project is sympathetic with the predominant style of the zone. The form and bulk of the building fuses together with the existing dwelling creating harmony with the streetscape and surrounding buildings that does not detract from the character of the zone.

 

The design takes into consideration the amount of open space around the building paying attention to distances between 50 Dolphin Street and existing adjoining buildings, creating good open space around the building that provides the neighbours and tenants of the building the enjoyment of blue sky. The proposed additions and alteration is to be mostly built in what is now the roof space.

 

The proposed project is not designed to create a new unit thus increasing the density of the existing building,, but to provide a better living environment for the existing occupancy. The proposed addition has its own private space reducing the impact on the communal open space.

 

The increase in floor space will not have a significant affect on the neighbours and streetscape. The performance of the project provides an improved built environment that increases the value of the property whilst not being in conflict with its surroundings.

 

Comment

 

Clause 32 - Floor Space Ratios of LEP 1998 states that a maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 2B is 0.65:1. The purpose of this is to establish reasonable upper limits for development through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This helps to reduce the potential for adverse impacts on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.92:1 (calculated by planning officer – applicant included garage and made calculation from outer rather than inner walls) and, therefore, does not comply with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1. The exceedance in FSR is 0.27:1 or 95 sqm. The existing building has an FSR of 0.734:1 and exceeds the maximum permissible FSR by 0.084:1 or 29.6sq.m. The additional floor area proposed above the existing building is 0.186:1 or 66 sq.m.

 

The additional floor area is provided to facilitate greater amenity to existing unit 3 which, like all the other units on the building, is relatively small. The amenity of the unit will be greatly improved by providing a large open living area which will receive good solar penetration throughout the day and a high degree of ventilation. The unit has its own private deck which is screened from neighbours and partly contained within a roof space. The upper level is set to the rear of the site where the land height greatly increases. This setback and the design of the roof to the front ensure that the addition will not be visible in the streetscape from Dolphin Street. The adjacent and surrounding dwellings and units vary in height, scale and bulk. The FSR of surrounding buildings varies from 0.48:1 (adjacent to the site to the east on Dolphin Street) to 1.2:1 (at the rear of the site across Brighton Road). The dwellings and units to the west range in FSR from 0.55:1 to 0.933:1 (225 Carrington Rd is 0.933:1 and 227 Carrington Rd is 0.82:1). The proposed scale is therefore consistent with the mix in the area and is not unreasonably excessive. The land height rises by approximately 8m from the front to the rear of the site. The dwellings and multi unit housing developments on all of the adjacent sites are two storeys in height with pitched roofs.  Because of the increase in land height from front to rear, the dwellings at the rear on the western side are considerably higher than the roof pitch of the existing building. The proposed development will be slightly higher than the roof ridge of the two adjacent dwellings to the west at 225 and 227 Carrington Rd (i.e. 0.06m – 0.55m) and the proposed floor is basically on the same level as the second floor in these buildings.

 

The separation distance to adjacent residents is at least 10m (except for the dwelling to the east which is 3.5m) and the upper level is well screened and utilises treatments to the glazing to prevent overlooking. The proposal increases the visual bulk of the building as viewed from the rear yards of the adjacent properties, however this is not out of character with the area and the shadow diagrams submitted show only slight additional shadowing which does not greatly affect the adjacent neighbours.

 

Whilst the proposal results in a numerical exceedance of the FSR control, it is considered that the scale is consistent with the mixed scale of the area, the impacts generated by the proposal are minimal and there is a much greater increase in amenity and usability for unit 3.

 

The floor space exceedance is therefore considered acceptable and the SEPP 1 objection is supported.

 

9.2.2  Clauses 33(1) & (3) of LEP 1998 – Building Height & External Wall Height

 

The following reasons were provided with the original DA to justify the non-compliance with Clauses 33(1) and (3) of the LEP 1998:

 

Height

 

LEP control clause 33 (1) states that the maximum height for development in Zone No. 2b is 9.5 metres. 

 

The northern section of the addition has a height of 10.5 metres above the natural ground line.(1.0 metres max above the recommended height line)

 

Regardless of the building in a minor part, being higher than the 9.5 metre of the recommended envelope,  Its architectural style reflects the surrounding buildings. The roof design, is hipped at both ends not different from the roofs of the surrounding buildings. Therefore the roof is not competing with the surrounding buildings, but blends in with the surrounding urban scape.

 

The orientation of the proposed additions (north, south) provides a shadow that will not deprive the neighbours of reasonable direct sun light to their adjoining properties as sun shadow diagrams clearly indicates this.

 

The new addition is occupying as much of the existing roof space there fore its impact is of the new  addition is minimal.

 

Further to this, the placement of the addition ( at the rear of the building ) is visually  obstructed by the existing roof at the front of the building reducing  the visual  impact  from Dolphin street. Overall the impact of No. 50 Dolphin street will not be any greater than the dwellings of its immediate neighbours.

 

The adjoining neighbours will not experience any loss of views  by this extra height.

Even though the addition does go over slightly the 9.5 metre line the net affect of its encroachment will not be noticed thus making  it  an appropriate development.

 

Considering the site and the surrounding buildings the LEP controls clause 33 should not strictly apply to this project. The proposed project is still in keeping with the principles of the development controls as the proposal will not be out of character with the current architectural style of Zone 2B and that the additions are not of a dominant nature but compliment the surrounding buildings. They do not detract from the current amenities enjoyed by neighbours.

 

External Wall Height

 

LEP Controls clause 33 (3) The maximum height for any external wall of a building in Zone No.2B is 7 metres.

 

The land slope presents the problem of the wall height of the addition to vary from 7 metres above natural ground line to 9 metres.

 

The impact of the external wall to the adjoining neighbours is reduced  by braking down the mass of the walls with placement of windows and by providing  a roof  apron where the existing building joins on to the proposed addition.

 

The impact of the height of the building is broken down by use of different materials and the proposed addition will have its walls rendered to match the existing ground floor plinth. The existing building has exposed dark brown brick work for its cladding. This allows for the mass of the wall to be broken down into smaller elements. The proposed east wall is setback from the existing façade providing a split in the wall. All of these factors contribute to reducing the impact of the walls.

 

The proposed walls are going to built in what now is the roof space, the orientation (north, south) of the walls cause minimal impact on overshadowing the adjoining properties. The  shadows caused by the  proposed  will not deprive the neighbours of reasonable direct sunlight.  The existing landscape provides a visual buffer covering  most of the proposed north and east elevation of the  external wall.

 

Therefore regardless of the height of the walls the proposed additions will not be imposing  in scale but will blend with the adjoining buildings.

 

Comment

 

Clause 33 – Building Heights – of the LEP specifies that (1) the maximum height for a building within zone 2B is 9.5m measured vertically from any point on ground level, and (3) that the maximum height for any external wall of a building within Zone 2B is 7 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level. The purpose of this is to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential areas that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of the land in those zones given other development restrictions and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

The proposed development has external wall heights varying between 7m and 9.5m and an overall height of up to 11m. The proposal therefore results in an external wall height non-compliance of up to 2.5m and an overall height exceedance of up to 1.5m. The exceedance in the height control occurs over a depth of 11.4m with the greatest exceedance occurring on the northern side of the proposed extension or in the middle of the building. The additional height and bulk is located at the rear of the site and is generally consistent with surrounding buildings due to the very hilly nature of the topography in the area. The proposed development will be slightly higher than the roof ridge of the two adjacent dwellings to the west and southwest at 225 and 227 Carrington Rd (i.e. 0.55m – 0.06m respectively) and the proposed new floor is on a similar level as the second floor in these buildings. The proposed development is slightly higher than the adjacent building to the east with the roof ridges having a 1.67m height difference. The proposed development marries the heights between the buildings to the east and the west which it currently does not as it sits lower than the dwelling to the east (i.e. at the rear). Because of this, the proposed height will not appear excessive or dominant nor particularly visible from Dolphin Street or Carrington Road. The large trees at the rear of the site will obscure the view of the proposed level from Brighton Road.

 

The height exceedance in the mid section of the building would not be visible from the properties to the west which is heavily planted with screen trees along the boundary that would obscure the additional level. Redesigning the proposal to provide strict compliance would be difficult given the steep topography of the site. However, it is considered appropriate that the proposed pitched roof should be replaced with a flat roof to further reduce the visual bulk of the proposed addition when viewed from the adjoining dwellings.

 

There is concern from residents at Nos 225 and 223B Carrington Road that the additional height would accentuate the sense of enclosure.  A complying development with an external wall height of 7m and an overall height of 9.5m would have a similar effect. A complying development could also be built further to the rear of the site over two levels. The proposed development only slightly exceeds the height requirements at the rear. Reducing the height of the proposal to achieve compliance would require reducing the internal floor to ceiling heights which is not considered reasonable. However, as noted earlier, replacing the proposed pitched roof with a flat roof will reduce the visual bulk of the addition and will also improve the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

 

The height does not generate unreasonable amenity impacts by way of privacy or overshadowing to adjacent properties (as described in later sections). The proposal will appear larger than the current form from the two rear yards of the adjacent properties to the west, however one of these is very well screened with an array of large/mature trees. Both yards will still receive good levels of light and ventilation which is facilitated by an open space corridor of yards to the properties fronting Carrington Rd that runs north/south. The height and bulk are consistent with at least two adjacent dwellings at 225 and 227 Carrington Road.

 

Therefore, whilst the additional level exceeds the height controls, it is located at the rear of the site and is not inconsistent with the height of other buildings nearby. It is surrounded by hilly topography which ensures the design will not become the dominant element in the landscape as buildings further to the south are sited on higher ground and are much higher than the proposal. The minor additional height does not result in unreasonable overshadowing or privacy impacts and no objections are raised with respect to the height.  The SEPP1 objection is therefore considered well founded.

 

9.3     Overshadowing

 

A complying development in terms of height would not result in significantly less shadow impacts at the winter solstice to adjacent properties than that proposed.  For the adjacent properties to the east at 223A & 223B Carrington Road, the proposed development would have the same impact as a complying development in terms of shadowing. The additional shadowing impact to 225 Carrington Road to the west is over a very small area at the south-western side of the yard (yard area approx 80sq.m) during the morning only (i.e. additional shadowing of approx 8sq.m of yard at 9.00am, 5sqm of yard at 10.00am and 2sqm of yard at11.00am and no additional impact at other times). Between 10.00am and 1.00pm the yard to 225 Carrington Road will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over a large section of yard space.  The rear yards to 227 and 229 Carrington Road will receive additional shadowing impacts above a complying scheme in the morning only. The additional shadowing impact at 9.00am compared to a complying scheme would absorb most of the yards and the eastern face of the ground floors. By 10.00am however, the additional impact is approx 6 sq.m of yard space above a complying scheme and nearly half of the yards receive full sunlight. By 11.00am the difference is nearly the same as a complying scheme (minor increase of approx 3sq.m). By midday there is no difference. The rear yards of these dwellings will receive good levels of sunlight over the larger portion of their yard space between 10.00am and 1.00pm.The property to the east at 52 Dolphin Street has a very large rear yard with an area of approx 250sq.m and it contains mature trees. The proposed development results in additional shadows to this property above a complying scheme in the afternoon only. The additional impact at 1.00pm is for a small area of the yard and the side passage to a depth of approx 1m. By 2.00pm the additional impact is approximately 8 sqm of yard. By 3pm the impact is greater and more significant to the south eastern side of the yard. However as this yard has a large area, the impact is not significant. Overall the impact to this property in terms of shadowing is very minor given its large size.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The application has been reviewed taking into account the reasons and arguments submitted by the applicant. Whilst the proposal does not comply with the numerical requirements of height and floor space standards, it has been demonstrated in this report that the objectives of the relevant requirements are satisfied in each instance. The proposal has also been assessed against the design quality principles contained within SEPP 65 and is considered to be satisfactory.  Subject to the replacement of the proposed pitched roof with a flat roof, the proposal should not result in any unacceptable adverse amenity impacts to adjacent properties and is considered to be consistent with the character of development in the area.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      That Council's original determination of Development Application No. 193/2005 dated 8 June 2005 for the alterations and additions to the existing multi unit housing development by adding a new upper level to Unit 3 at 50 Dolphin Street, Coogee, be rescinded.

 

B.      That Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 in respect to non-compliances with Clauses 32(1), 33(1), 33(3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998  (relating to height and floor space ratio) on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality, and that Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources be advised accordingly:

 

C.      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 193/2005 for the alterations and additions to the existing multi unit housing development by adding a new upper level to Unit 3 at 50 Dolphin Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

 

The consent is not to operate until the following conditions and details have been submitted to and approved by the Director of City Planning:

 

1.       The proposed pitched roof of the new upper level addition is to be replaced with a flat roof to minimise the visual bulk of the proposed addition when viewed from the rear yard areas of the adjoining properties.

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the proposed upper level addition are to be compatible with the existing building and 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 City Planning.

 

3.       Glazing to the eastern and western side screens on the proposed deck is to be frosted to prevent overlooking to adjacent properties.

 

4.       The windows to the east, west and south elevations of the proposed upper level addition are to contain frosted or obscure glazing to prevent overlooking to adjacent properties.

 

Evidence required to stratify the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent in accordance with Clause 95(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with drawings numbered 04035 D01 and titled Section AA, South Elevation, West Elevation, East Elevation, North Elevation, Site Plans, Existing Floor Plan Unit 4, Location Plan, New Floor Unit 4,  all dated 10 October 2004, all designed by North is up Design, and received by Council on 17 March 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 colour and texture of the brickwork is required to match, as closely as possible, the existing external walls of the building.

 

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

 

3.       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.

 

4.       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.

 

5.       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 conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations and to provide for reasonable levels of fire safety:

 

6.       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.

 

7.       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.

 

8.       Prior to the commencement of any building works (including necessary upgrading works specified in the conditions of this consent), 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.

 

9.       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.

 

10.     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.

 

11.     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”.

 

12.     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.

 

13.     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 must also be provided to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

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 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.

 

15.     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.

 

16.     The existing levels of fire safety and amenity within the building are to be upgraded in accordance with the following requirements and the fire safety certificate provisions of Part 9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 must be complied with, prior to issuing an occupation certificate:

 

a)       The electricity meter box and switchboard located in the required exit or in any corridor, hallway lobby or like leading to a required exit are to be enclosed in non-combustible construction or fire protective covering, with doorways or openings suitably sealed against smoke spreading from the enclosure, in accordance with Clause D2.7 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

b)      The balustrades along the side of the stairways are to be upgraded.

 

          The balustrade height shall be not less than 1000mm above the floor of any access path, balcony, landing or the like and 865mm above the nosing of the stair treads or floor of a ramp and the balustrade is to be constructed in accordance with Clause D2.16 of the Building Code of Australia. Openings within balustrades shall not exceed 125mm, so as to not permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it and for stairs, the space is tested above the nosings, in accordance with Clause D2.16 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

c)       The main entry/exit doors are to be altered so as to swing in the direction of egress or alternatively the main entry/exit doors are to be provided with an automatic hold open device, to assist persons seeking egress in the event of an emergency.

 

d)      Doors in a required exit, forming part of a required exit or in the path of travel to a required exit is required to be readily openable without a key from the side that faces a person seeking egress, by a single hand downward action or pushing action on a single device which is located between 900mm and 1200mm from the floor in accordance with Clause D2.21 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

e)       The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units.

 

          A smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia is required to be installed in accordance with the following requirements:

 

1.      smoke alarms are required to comply with AS 3786 - Smoke Alarms, and be powered from the mains electric power source, and provided with a battery back-up.

 

2.      in kitchens and other areas where the use of the area is likely to result in smoke alarms causing spurious signals, heat alarms may be installed in lieu of smoke alarms.

 

3.      smoke alarms must be installed within each sole-occupancy unit, located on or near the ceiling in:

i)        any storey containing bedrooms, located between each part of the sole-occupancy unit containing bedrooms and the remainder of the sole-occupancy unit; and where bedrooms are served by a hallway, located in that hallway; and

ii)       any storey not containing any bedrooms, located in egress paths; and

 

4.      in a building not protected with a sprinkler system, smoke alarms are to be provided in public corridors and other internal public spaces, located in accordance with the requirements for smoke detectors in AS 1670.1 and the smoke alarms located within the public corridor/stairway must be interconnected to activate a building occupant warning system in accordance with Clause 6 of Specification E2.2.a.

         [Clause 6 requires that the system to comply with Clause 8.7 of AS 1670.1 to sound throughout all occupied areas, except that the sound pressure level need not be measured within a sole-occupancy unit if a level of not less than 85dB(A) is provided at the door providing access to the sole-occupancy unit and the inbuilt sounders of the smoke alarms may be used wholly or partially to meet the requirements].

 

         Additional requirements regarding the design and installation of the smoke detection and alarm system may be specified in the construction certificate for the development.

 

f)       Provide emergency lighting to the stairways and corridors, in accordance with the provisions of Clauses E4.2 and E4.4 of the Building Code of Australia and AS/NZS 2293.1 (1998).

 

g)       Provide exit signs to the Building, to satisfy the provisions of Clause E4.7 of the Building Code of Australia. Exit signs must be visible at all times to indicate the way to a position of egress from the building, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

h)       Provide a portable fire extinguisher next to the electrical meter cupboard, to satisfy the provisions of Clause E1.6 of the Building Code of Australia of Australia and AS 2444 (1995).

 

i)        Provide a self-closing, -/60/30 fire door to the front entry doorway of each sole-occupancy unit, in accordance with Clause C3.11 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

j)       Prior to commencing the abovementioned fire safety works, a Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council’s Building Certification Services or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

17.     Upon completion of the fire safety upgrading works and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, a final fire safety certificate is to be submitted to Council and a copy of the fire safety certificate and fire safety schedule are to be displayed in a prominent position within the building (ie entrance area), in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

18.     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 proposed building works.

 

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

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.

 

20.     All building and development works are to be contained wholly within the site, including scaffolding, building materials, sediment control and waste material and at no time shall any such works, materials or the like be placed, left or dropped onto the adjacent properties without the permission of the owners of such properties.

 

21.     A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

22.     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.

 

23.     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.

 

24.     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.

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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.

 

27.     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. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

Temporary fences or hoardings 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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

1.       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

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

 

a)       Part B1     -           Structural provisions

b)      Part E1      -           Fire fighting equipment

c)       Part E2      -           Smoke Hazard Management

d)      Part E4      -           Emergency lighting, exit signs & warning systems

 

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 advised to ensure that the development is not inconsistent with Council's consent and if necessary consult with Council’s Building Certification Services or your accredited certifier prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 configuration plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 74/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

85 Bream Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

6 October, 2005

FILE NO:

D/0656/2003

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No D/0656/2003 for Section 96 modification to amend the approved plans, including extending the carpark, increasing the building height and floor area, and extending the rear balconies.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 16 September 2005 .

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

16 September, 2005

FILE NO:

D/0656/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to amend the approved plans including extending the carpark, increasing the building height and floor area and extending the rear balconies

PROPERTY:

 85 Bream Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Drulara Pty Ltd

OWNER:

 Drulara Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The application is for a Section 96 (2) modification to amend the approved plans and the deletion of Condition Nos. 2 and 3 of the consent to Development Application No. 03/00656/GE.  The approval for DA 656/2003 was for a multi-unit housing development containing three (3) residential dwellings and ground level parking (Level 1) for four (4) vehicles.  This approval was the subject of amended plans submitted by the applicant to address Council’s concerns in relation to the envelope of the proposal and extent of landscaping.  The Section 96 modifications, as listed below, basically revert to the design as originally lodged prior to amendments submitted by the applicant.

 

The Section 96 application proposes the following:-

 

·        Extending the excavation at the rear of the site on Level 1 of the building by approximately 4.6m to accommodate an additional car space (giving a total of five car spaces), one more than required by Council’s Development Control Plan- Parking.  As a result all landscaping at the rear is to be provided by way of a raised planter, 1.36m wide, above the carpark level.

·        Increasing the depth of the Juliet balconies at the rear of the building, on Levels 3 and 4, by 470mm, to give a total trafficable depth of 870mm and extending them across the full width of the building to form a single balcony.  As well, the balcony on Level 4 is to have 900mm pergola/sun shade structure/ over it for its full width. 

·        Extending the Master Bedroom on Level 5 to the south (front of the site) by 2.23m thus resulting in a FSR of 1.46:1.

·        Increasing the floor to ceiling height on Level 5 by 100mm, thus raising the overall height of this portion of the building by 100mm to RL 30.31.

·        Deletion of Condition Nos. 2 and 3 of the consent.  Condition No. 2 requires the deletion of a rear balcony for the full width of the building at the rear and incorrectly left on the site plan following the amendments to the approved plans.  This condition was to ensure consistency with the other approved architectural drawings.  Condition No. 3 requires the reduction in depth of the paved section of the rear courtyard to Unit 1 to 2m with remaining area of courtyard terraced and landscaped.

 

Objections have been received from two (2) adjoining properties, the owner of the multi-unit building at No. 83 Bream Street on the western side of the subject site and the owners of No. 4/174 Arden Street, Coogee to the rear (north) of the site. 

 

The objection from No. 83 Bream Street relates to the approved development’s non compliance with Council’s floor space ratio (FSR), building setbacks, landscaped area controls and the increased amount and extent of excavation now proposed in the Section 96 application for the extension to the carparking level and its potential to cause damage to No. 83 Bream Street. 

 

The objection from No. 4/174 Arden Street relates to the cumulative impacts to, what is considered by the owners of 4/174 Arden Street, a development which will already impinge on their views, privacy and sunlight, as well as potentially affecting their building structurally during excavation and construction.  The owner’s of No. 4/174 Arden Street, consider that the changes proposed in the Section 96 application will compound the detrimental effects the development will have on their amenity and subsequently the property value of No. 4/174 Arden Street.

 

In order to achieve the original approval for the development, the applicant made changes to the original design which reduced the extent of variation to the building envelope previously approved by another development application for the site (DA 887/99).  The amendments approved were considered to set an upper limit for floor space (1.42:1) and a minimum level of acceptable landscaping (37.8%) on the site, while minimising the impact to the multi-unit housing building at the rear of the site (No. 174 Arden Street).

 

The subject Section 96 modification now seeks approval for the design of the development fundamentally the same as originally proposed before it was amended for approval.  As such, the original considerations that gave rise to the amended proposal, as approved, still apply with regard to the increased floor space and site excavation and consequent reduction in deep soil landscaped area and are not recommended for approval.  Similarly, the increase in size to rear balconies will exacerbate privacy impacts to the property to the rear (No. 174 Arden Street) and the increase in size is not necessary as these are secondary balconies only with primary balconies provided at the front of the building adjacent to living areas. 

 

Approval may be granted however, to the increase in building height as proposed for roof insulation purposes, addition of sun awning/canopies at the rear of the building and a re-configuration of the rear Level 2 courtyard as these changes provide benefits to the building design with no significant adverse amenity impacts.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application is made pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended (EPA Act) to modify Condition No.1 of the consent to Development Application No. 03/00656/GE relating to the approved plans.  Amended plans have been submitted modifying the approved scheme by way of the following changes:-

 

Level 1 (Entry lobby and parking)

 

·        Extension of the basement to the rear of the site by approximately 4.6m to accommodate an additional car space (giving a total of five car spaces).

 

Level 2 (Unit 1)

 

·        Location of shoring for excavation closer to the rear (northern) boundary by approximately 400mm to 500mm with the rear planter raised totally above the excavated carpark level (Level 1), with the width of the planter increased from approximately 1m to 1.36m.

 

Level 3 (Unit 2)

 

·        Increased depth of the two (2) Juliet balconies at the rear by 470mm to give a total trafficable depth of 870mm and their extension along the full width of the Master Bedroom and Bedroom 2 to form one single balcony.

 

Level 4 (Unit 3)

 

·        Increased depth of the two (2) Juliet balconies at rear by 470mm to give a total trafficable depth of 870mm and their extension along the full width of Bedroom 2 and Bedroom 3 to form a single balcony.  As well, a 900mm pergola/sun shade structure/ is provided above the balconies for the full width of the building at the rear.

 

Level 5 (Unit 3)

 

·        Extension of Master Bedroom to the south (front of the site) by 2.23m.

·        Increased floor to ceiling height of the Master Bedroom, ensuite and stairwell by 100mm and an increased overall height of this portion of the building by 100mm to RL 30.31 and a floor to ceiling height in the bedroom of 2.4m.

 

As a result of the above changes, modifying Condition No. 1 to reflect the revised architectural plans, the Section 96 also application also requests deletion of the following conditions:-

 

Deletion

 

·        Condition No. 2 ( requiring deletion of rear balcony as shown on the site plan)

·        Condition No. 3 (requiring reduction in depth of rear courtyard to 2m with remaining area of courtyard terraced and landscaped)

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

Figure 1: subject site and locality

The subject site is located on the northern side of Bream Street, Coogee and is identified as Lot 201 in DP 1015216 and is slightly irregular in shape, having a total site area of 274.9m2.  Existing on the site is a three level dwelling house with single garage facing Bream Street (see Figure 1).  The site falls steeply from the rear to Bream Street at the front.  Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 2 – subject site from Bream Street

 

Located on the adjoining site to the east on the north-west corner of Bream and Arden Street (85A Bream Street) is a recently completed four storey multi-unit housing development (its relationship with the subject site can be seen in Figure 2).

 

Figure 3 – No. 85A Bream Street adjoining the subject site to the east

 

Located on the adjoining the site to the west is a multi-unit housing development (83 Bream Street) consisting of three (3) residential levels (see Figure 3).

 

Figure 4: – No. 83 Bream Street adjoining the subject site to the west (right of photo)

 

4.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

On 29 April, 2004, deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 03/00656/GE was granted under delegated authority for the demolition of the existing building and the construction and strata subdivision of a multi-unit housing development containing three (3) residential dwellings and above ground parking for four (4) vehicles. 

 

The deferred commencement condition related to the submission of details of external colours, materials and finishes for approval.  These were subsequently submitted and the consent became operable on 15 June, 2004.

 

This approval was granted after the applicant submitted an amended design which reduced the amount of on-site excavation and the provision of some deep soil landscaping at the rear of the development, a reduction in the floor space as originally proposed to reduce the visual bulk of the building on the topmost level (Level 5), a reduction in the size of the rear balconies on Levels 3 and 4 of the development to reduce privacy impacts and a decrease in the overall building height in order to minimise the amenity impacts to the multi-unit housing building at the rear, particularly loss of outlook. 

 

The subject Section 96 application seeks approval for the Level 1 car parking design as originally proposed, prior to the approval of agreed amended design.  Similarly the proposed rear balcony extension and increased size of the Master Bedroom on Level 5 of the development is the same as the application as originally lodged with Council and prior to the applicant’s submission of amended plans to achieve an approval.

 

It should be noted, as it was during the original approval process to the subject development application, which this application seeks to modify, that there is currently another approval under Development Application No. 99/00887/GE, for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling on the site to create two (2) by two bedroom dwellings.

 

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans, until 3 August, 2005.  As a result, two (2) submissions were received from the following:

 

Siet Fong Ng

(owner of 83 Bream Street, Coogee)

10 Princes Avenue

Vaucluse

 

·        The proposed floor space ratio of 1.42:1 far exceeds Council’s regulation of 0.65:1.

·        The proposed building is setback only 200mm from the western boundary which is well outside current regulations.

·        The DA proposes a basement excavation of more than 50% of the area of the block which is contrary to Clause 31(3) of Council’s regulations and will be only 200mm from the boundary with No. 83 Bream Street, Coogee, which may damage the foundations of the two small buildings at the rear of this property, with possible risk to the residents.

 

Jane McMillan and Sian Welch

4/174 Arden Street

Coogee

 

·        Changes to the approved development will compound the detrimental effects the development will have on the amenity and subsequently property value of No. 4/174 Bream Street.

·        The building will block any view from the lounge room and kitchen and restrict sunlight.  Increasing the building height by any increment will compound the detrimental effects of the new structure. 

·        The extension to the length of the balconies and the addition of sunshades will increase the intrusion into the privacy of No. 4/174 Arden Street

·        The construction of No. 85 Bream Street will be noisy, dirty and have potential side effects for the foundations of No. 174 Arden Street.   

 

6.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (274.9m2) is less than required for the submission of a master plan.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

·        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

·        Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

·        Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

·        Building Code of Australia.

 

8.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing development consent if the following criteria have been complied with:-

 

8.1     Substantially the same development

 

Council must be satisfied, in the first instance, that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent was originally granted was modified.

 

In respect to the above requirement, it is considered that the development, the subject of the Section 96 (2) application, is fundamentally and materially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.  The proposed modifications, essentially revert to the design for the development as originally lodged with Council, prior to amended plans submitted by the applicant to reduce the floor space and visual bulk of the building on the topmost level, to increase the amount of deep soil landscaping on the site and reduce the privacy impacts from the balconies at the rear of the development. 

 

The modifications neither increase the number of dwellings within the development nor substantially alter the approved building’s external appearance of the development as manifested by the external materials, finishes, colours and design of the building facades above ground level, including window openings, except for the extension of the balustrade across the building width on Levels 3 and 4 and the addition of a sunshade/pergola 900mm in width at the rear above the Level 3 balcony.  They will however, increase the prominence of the topmost level to Bream Street. 

 

8.2     Consideration of submissions

 

The Section 96 (2) application was notified and advertised in accordance with the provisions of Council’s Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans until 3 August, 2005.  The issues raised in the submissions are considered below.

 

Non compliance with the Council controls

 

The owner of No. 83 Bream Street has lodged an objection regarding the proposal’s non compliance with Council’s controls contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998, with respect to floor space ratios, landscaped area, as well as Council’s controls as contained within the Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing with respect to building setbacks. 

 

These are further discussed in Section 8.3 of the report, however, it should be noted that the application as originally proposed was subject to objections with regard to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 with regard to its non compliance with the statutory standards for landscaped area, floor space ratios and building height.  These objections were only supported on the basis of the amendments to reduce the extent of the topmost floor of the development, to lower the overall building height, to reduce the size and the balconies at the rear, to reduce the amount of excavation and to provide deep soil landscaping to the rear of the development. 

 

Accordingly, the applicant lodged amended plans in these regards and for which consent was granted under delegated authority.  The subject Section 96 application now seeks to reinstate the floor area on the topmost floor, reinstate the rear balconies to their original configuration and size and to increase the amount of excavation to the same amount as originally proposed, as well as increase the building height.  As such, further SEPP 1 objections are not required, however, it is noted that the application was not supported as originally proposed and was only approved after the applicant submitted amended plans.  In this regard it is considered that the proposal as modified represents an overdevelopment of the site as it would not have been approved in its original form.

 

Extent of excavation

 

The owner of No. 83 Bream Street has raised concerns that the additional amount of excavation may cause damage to the foundations to the buildings on her property as well as posing a risk of injury to residents at this property. 

The proposed modifications increase the extent of excavation on the eastern side of the subject property rather than on the western side of the property which is adjacent to No. 83 Bream Street.  As such, the proposal does not increase the risk of potential damage or safety concerns to No. 83 Bream Street.  Notwithstanding the original consent contained standard conditions of consent to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of both the proposed building and adjacent premises, including both No. 83 Bream Street and No. 174 Arden Street.

 

Amenity impacts

 

The original proposal was the subject of agreed amendments with the applicant (as approved) in order to minimise the potential amenity impacts to adjoining properties, particularly with regard to view loss and privacy.  As such, the proposal to increase the width of the rear balconies is not supported as they will further increase the amenity impacts to No. 174 Arden Street. 

 

With respect to the rear balconies, it should be noted that the primary areas of private open space are to balconies at the front of the building, orientated to the view and adjacent to the living areas of the dwellings rather than the balconies proposed to be extended by way of the modifications proposed, which are located off bedrooms. 

 

It is considered that the extent of the projection of the sunscreen/pergola structure for solar screening of the windows to the Level 4 bedrooms will not have any significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties as it is below the top most level and will not result in any view loss or significant increase in shadow.  In fact, approval may be granted for awning canopies for Levels, 2 and 3 as well, with the same projection as proposed for the Juliet balconies as long as they are non trafficable in the form of metal louvres as proposed on the top most level.  Accordingly a condition is contained in the Recommendation of the report to this effect.

 

8.3     Section 79C Assessment

 

Council, in determining a Section 96(2) modification, must take into consideration relevant matters referred to in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended (EP & A Act).

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the EP & A Act, including the following relevant environmental planning instruments and policies:-

 

8.3.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Landscaped area

 

The development as approved provided 37.8% of the site area as statutorily defined landscaped area under Clause 31 (2) of the LEP, with 21.1% provided over the excavated carparking level.  This failed to comply with the requirement for 50% of the total site area being provided as landscaped area and was subject to the submission of a SEPP 1 objection.  The proposal as originally submitted, similar to the subject modified proposal, provided only 37% landscaped area, however, the majority of which was provided as a podium above the basement carpark (31%), with only 6% having limited capacity for deep soil landscaping.

 

In addition, due to the height of the retaining wall proposed at the rear of the courtyard of Unit 1 (approximately 4.2m) and as the primary area of private open space was provided by the balcony at the front off the living area, a condition of consent (Condition No. 3) was included as part of the consent.  This condition limits the size of the courtyard to 2m in depth so as to be used only as a break-out space, with the remaining area at the rear of the site terraced and landscaped to reduce the visual dominance of the rear retaining wall. 

 

As well, by limiting the extent of excavation for the basement carpark, it also provides a deep soil zone, with the capacity to support plant growth to a sufficient height at maturity to break down the apparent height and scale of the development as seen from the multi-unit housing building at the rear (No. 174 Arden Street), as well as privacy screening. 

 

As long as the extent of the basement carpark excavation is not increased, thus allowing the same level of deep soil for root growth, it is considered that the area of Level 2 courtyard which is currently approved over the basement carpark may be extended out to the extent as proposed in the subject Section 96 application, while the area of courtyard over deep soil area remaining as approved with permeable paving used in this section of courtyard. 

 

This allows an area of paved courtyard on the western side of the site at the rear of the Master Bedroom with dimensions of 3m x 3.8m approximately and an area of courtyard, paved predominantly with permeable pavers, to the rear of Bedroom 2 m x 4.6m., with an area for deep soil planting of 2.5m x 5.5m approximately.  It is considered that this compromise position still achieves the objective of providing sufficient deep soil planting area for landscape amenity and visual softening.  Accordingly Condition No. 3, as contained in the Recommendation of the report has been amended to reflect these requirements.

 

Floor space

 

Under Clause 32 (2) of the LEP a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.65:1 is applicable to the site (as shown on the zoning map).  The development as originally approved had a FSR of 1.42:1 or a gross floor area of approximately 392.6m2, which was the subject of a SEPP 1 objection.  The FSR as approved was a function of the small site area and basically an increment of the fifth upper level to what was then a current approval to Development Application No. 887/99.

 

The proposed modified development provides additional gross floor area of approximately 9m2 or a FSR of 1.46:1 and reflects the design as originally lodged.  This provides the additional floor space on the Level 5 (the top most level) of the building as a larger master bedroom (approximately 7.8m x 3.8m excluding the wardrobe and ensuite). 

 

This area was deleted in the amended plans, as approved, in order to reduce the visual bulk of the building to the street by stepping the topmost level further away from Bream Street.  This amendment was introduced so that the building would read as four storeys to Bream Street rather than five storeys and thus would be consistent with the appearance of the adjoining multi-unit housing development at No. 85A Bream Street.  There is no sound planning argument put forward in the Section 96 modification to alter the original basis of assessment and as such the increased FSR is not supported.

 

Building Heights

 

A 12m maximum height limit is applicable to the subject site within the 2C Residential Zone under Clause 33 (2) of the LEP, while a maximum external wall height of 10m is applicable under Clause 33 (4).  Both are height limits are measured vertically from any point on ground level. 

 

The original approved development has a maximum RL of 30.21 above the Master Bedroom, associated ensuite and stairwell and was subject to an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1).  The approved maximum overall height and external wall height of 10.5m was the same due to the parapet walls on the building.  This occurred on the western elevation of the building, while the building complied with the height limits on its eastern elevation with a height of 9.4m.

 

The Section 96 application proposes a 100mm increase in the overall height to RL 30.31 in order to facilitate a floor to ceiling height of 2.4m for the Master Bedroom on Level 5 with an allowance for roof insulation.  It is considered that the increase in the overall height is only minor and will not result in a significant reduction in district views from the objector’s residence to the rear at No. 4/174 Arden Street.  As such this modification to the approved plans is supported on the basis of building sustainability and thermal comfort of the bedroom at the topmost level of the approved building, while maintaining a minimum floor to ceiling height for a habitable room as required by the Building Code of Australia.

 

8.3.2  Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

 

The proposed modifications result in an increase in the extent of the building’s non compliance with the preferred solutions for building setbacks in particular the extent of the topmost level (Level 5) in relation to the western boundary and the Juliet balconies to the rear (northern) boundary.  Neither variation to the approved plans as the increase in the topmost level will result in an increase in the building bulk to the western elevation and the street, while the increased size of the balconies to the rear is not supported on privacy grounds.

 

8.3.3  Development Control Plan -Parking

 

The approved development complies with the numerical car parking requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking (refer Figure 5 below).  The Section 96 application seeks to extend the excavation into the rear of the site to provide an additional car parking space on site to accommodate a total of five (5) cars on Level 1 of the development as originally proposed prior to the approval of the amended plans.  The original plans were amended in order to provide a minimal level of deep soil landscaping on the site and allow some landscaping capable of providing visual screening and privacy to the rear of the building, whilst still providing car parking in accordance with Council’s parking requirements. As such, the provision of an additional car parking space by extending the on-site excavation is not supported.

 

Figure 5 – Parking Requirements

 

Type of land use

Parking Requirements

Provided

Compliance

Multi-unit housing

 

 

 

    Residential

3.9 residential car spaces

4  

Yes

    Visitor

None required

None provided  

Yes

    Bicycle (residential)

1 residential bicycle spaces

0 (not specified)

Yes by condition

    Bicycle (residential visitor)

NA

NA

NA

    Car wash bays

0

0

NA

Service and delivery

NA

NA

NA

Parking for people with a disability

NA

NA

NA

8.3.4  Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The modified proposal does not give rise to any change in the contributions for the additional residential dwellings as originally levied.

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The modifications, as proposed, fundamentally seek to revert to the original design, which was amended by the applicant in order to address issues of visual bulk and scale.  It is considered that the floor space ratio and landscaped area, as approved, reflect the upper limit for development on the site and the increase in size of balconies to the rear will exacerbate privacy impacts to the multi-unit housing building at the rear (north) of the site. As such, the modifications for an increase in size of the topmost level of the building and increased area of basement excavation are not supported.

 

The minor increase in height of the building by 100mm to achieve a more sustainable building is supported, while the re-configuration to the rear courtyard to provide more paved area may be approved, however, in a different form as proposed so as to maintain the area of deep soil landscaping at the rear of the site for visual softening and amenity.   Accordingly the Section 96 (2) application is recommended for approval with the changes to the building design, as identified above to be acceptable, either included as additional conditions or as modified conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), to modify Development Consent No. 00656/2003/A on property at No. 85 Bream Street, Coogee in the following manner:-

 

Amend Condition No. 3 to read:

 

3.       The rear courtyard for Unit 1 on Level 2 of the building shall be reconfigured such that the area of paved courtyard over the Level 1 carpark at the rear of the Master Bedroom shall be limited to a maximum of 3m in depth and 3.8m in width and the area of courtyard to the rear Bedroom 2 shall be limited to 2m in depth and 4.7m in width, with the remaining area at the rear of the site terraced and landscaped to reduce the visual dominance of the rear retaining wall and provide a maximum area of deep soil planting.  Details shall be provided on an amended landscape plan to be submitted and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

Additional conditions

 

123.   The overall height of the building over the Master Bedroom and ensuite on Level 5 shall be increased to RL 30.31 so as to allow roof insulation and shall be shown as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

124.   Awning/canopies consisting of metal louvres with a maximum projection of 900mm shall be installed at the rear of the building on Levels 2, 3 and 4 to provide solar screening to bedrooms and shall be shown as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 75/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

12 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

4 October, 2005

FILE NO:

DA/257/1999/B

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No. DA/257/1999/B for Section 96(2) Extend the ground and first floor front balconies, new satellite dish on the roof, extend basement 620mm to the front of the building including relocation of the wine cellar, split laundry and bathroom on ground floor and some window changes.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 4 October 2005.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

4 October, 2005

FILE NO:

DA/257/1999/B

 

PROPOSAL:

  Section 96(2) - Extend the ground and first floor front balconies, new satellite dish on the roof, extend basement by 620mm to the front of the building including relocation of the wine cellar, split laundry and bathroom on ground floor and some window changes.

PROPERTY:

 12 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr X M Jiang and Mrs X Z Bao

OWNER:

Mr X M Jiang and Mrs X Z Bao

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The original Development Application for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of a new two storey dwelling house with semi basement garage was approved by Council at its Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 5 December 2000 subject to 47 conditions. The Condition No. 6 of the consent requires the study/rumpus room window at first floor level to have a minimum sill height of 1.5m.

 

A Section 96(2) application to modify Condition 2 of the consent by reducing the overall height of the dwelling house by 370mm rather than 1030mm and other minor internal and external changes to the dwelling house was approved at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 12 July 2005.

 

The subject application seeks consent to carry out alterations and additions to the approved dwelling house including the extension of the subfloor space, ground and first floor front balconies, relocation of wine cellar at basement level, split laundry and powder room on ground floor and window changes including modification to condition 6 of the consent by reducing the sill height of the rumpus room window from 1.5m to 1.2m and installation of a new satellite dish on the roof.

 

The applicant was advised that the satellite dish is not part of the original application and therefore can not be considered under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The satellite dish was deleted by the applicant on 16 September 2005.

 

The application has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification. As a result of this notification, four (4) submissions were received and the majority of the issues raised by the objectors are not relevant to the subject Section 96 application as they relate to matters previously addressed in the assessment of the original application.

 

Apart from the amendment to condition 6 of the consent in relation to the sill height of the rumpus room window at first floor level, the proposed modifications are considered to be minor and should not result in any significant additional adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours and the streetscape.

 

It is recommended that the application should be approved except amendment to condition 6 of the consent.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent for the following modifications:-

 

Basement Level

 

§  Relocation of the approved wine cellar.

§  Extend the subfloor space by 620mm towards the front of the building.

§  New window opening on the north-eastern elevation.

 

Ground Floor Level

 

§  Relocation of the powder room from laundry to north-eastern corner of the buidling with a new window facing the rear yard.

§  Extend the depth of the front balcony by 620mm, from 1.85m to 2.47m.

§  Reduce the height of the dining room window on south-western elevation from 1.8m to 1.5m.

 

First Floor Level

 

§  Extend the depth of the front balcony by 620mm, from 1.85m to 2.47m.

§  Modification to condition 6 of consent by reducing the sill height of the rumpus room window on the south-western elevation from 1.5m to 1.2m.

§  Reduce the width of Bedroom 1 window on the north-eastern elevation from 1.9m to 1.8m.

§  Relocate Bedroom 2 window on the north-eastern elevation.

§  Increase the height of the rumpus room windows on the front elevation from 1.2m to 1.5m.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

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

 

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

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.      APPLICATION HISTORY

 

As indicated above, part of the proposed modifications includes the installation of a new satellite dish on the roof at the rear of the dwelling. The applicant was advised that the satellite dish was not part of the original application and can not be considered under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. For that reason, the satellite dish was deleted by the applicant on 16 September 2005.

 

b.      HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A Section 96(2) to modify Condition 2 of the consent by reducing the overall height of the dwelling house by 370mm rather than 1030mm and other minor internal and external changes to the dwelling house was approved at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 12 July 2005.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

5.1     Objections

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. As a result of this notification, four (4) submissions were received. The reasons for objection are as follows:

 

Richard Hrovat, Strata Manager of 14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

By precedent, Randwick City Council does not encourage 3 storey developments in the area.

These issues are not relevant to the subject application.

Proposed balconies will impede the coastal view to the northeast.

Concerned that the subject application was not lodged as a new DA as the age of original proposal is approximately 7 years.

The DA proposed by Mr Jiang, is an inaccurate representation of the adjoining building at No. 14, and as such minimise the detriment of the privacy impact to units 1 and 3. The effects of privacy are a real concern to the residents at No. 14.

Concerned that the new dwelling will be to close to our building and hence affecting both natural light and potentially form a wind tunnel.

The satellite dish will affect the aspect of units 5 and 6.

As indicated above, the satellite dish has been deleted by the applicant.

 

Sue Purcell of Unit 6, 14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed amendments will make the dwelling even more imposing to the streetscape and impede on the privacy, sunlight and natural light of the front units of No. 14.

The majority of the proposed modifications are considered to be minor except the amendment to condition 6 of the consent which will adversely affect the privacy of the residents at 14 Bellevue Street.

 

Steve Morgan and Rachel Cornford of Unit 5, 14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed 3 storey development is not encouraged by Council’s guidelines.

These issues are not relevant to the subject application.

The balconies proposed impinge on privacy of neighbouring residents and again reduce the sunlight for units 1 and 3.

The balconies will impede the coastal view to the northeast, when viewed from units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

The new dwelling should be built further from neighbour’s boundary, allowing solar access and reduce wind tunnel effect.

The laundry/bathroom plans suggest eventual DA amendments to allow dual occupancy.

The satellite dish on the roof further worsens the impact of reduction of solar access by this structure, and is aesthetically ugly for units 5 and 6, which have views across the roof of 12 Bellevue Street.

As indicated above, the satellite dish has been deleted by the applicant.

Window changes must maintain privacy of neighbouring residents. The applicant’s shadow diagrams are inaccurate.

The majority of the proposed window changes are considered to be minor except the amendment to the sill height of the rumpus room window in relation to condition 6 of the consent. See Section 9 in this report.

 

Mr G V Buhagiar of 10 Bellevue Street

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed amendments are to comply with Council’s guidelines.

See Section 9 in this report.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

§  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

§  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

(b)     Development Control Plan – Dwelling houses and Attached Dual Occupancies (DCP)

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed against relevant provisions of the DCP and are considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP.

 

8.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENTS

 

8.1     Substantially the same

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

 

8.2     Consideration of submissions

 

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

 

9.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The majority of the proposed modifications are considered to be minor and should not result in any additional adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the streetscape. Further, the proposal will not alter the overall bulk and scale of the dwelling.

 

The proposal to reduce the sill height of the rumpus room window at first floor level from 1.5m (as required by Condition 6 of the consent) to 1.2m is considered to be inappropriate as it will not achieve the purpose of Condition 6 of the consent. The rumpus room window is located directly opposite the kitchen and bathroom windows of the units of 14 Bellevue Street and therefore the requirement for a minimum sill height of 1.5 metres is required to maintain reasonable levels of privacy for the residents at 14 Bellevue Street. It is considered appropriate that Condition 6 of the consent should not be altered.

 

8.       CONCLUSION

 

Apart from the modification to the sill height of the rumpus room window opening on the south-eastern elevation of the building at first floor level, the proposed modifications to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development and will not result in any additional adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

 

The application is recommended for approval, except the modification to condition 6 of the consent.

 

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. 257/99 by carrying out alterations and additions to the approved dwelling house including extension of the subfloor space, ground and first floor front balconies by 620mm, relocation of wine cellar at basement level, split laundry and bathroom on ground floor and some window changes for property at 12 Bellevue Street, Maroubra, in the following manner:

 

§  Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans designated Project No 312 NB/99 sheets 1 and 2 dated March 1999, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, and unless modified by the Section 96 application ‘A’ plans received by Council on 18 May 2005, and as amended by the Section 96 application ‘B’ plans numbered 0511-01 to 0511-06, dated 12/09/05 and received by Council on 13 September 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:

 

§  Condition No. 6 of Development Consent No. 257/1999, dated 12 December 2000 is not altered.

 

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

A4 Configuration Plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 76/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

The Dolina Site - Stage 1 Integrated Development Application for the land located at 89-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery (within the City of Sydney)

 

 

DATE:

11 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07970

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING          

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

On the 19th of September 2005 Council received notification of an integrated development proposal for the land located at 87-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery, 5 Link Road, Zetland, 132-142 Epsom Road, Zetland, 947 South Dowling Street, Zetland (also known as the Dolina site).  Council has been invited to lodge a submission by the 20 th of October 2005.

 

Preceding the lodgement of this development application, a Masterplan was lodged for the same site in June 2004.  At that time both City of Sydney and Randwick Councils notified affected residents in the West Kensington area.  A submission opposing the Masterplan was made by Randwick following the Council meeting on the 24th of August 2004.  The Masterplan was subsequently refused by the Central Sydney Planning Committee on the 5th of May 2005.

 

After being notified about the integrated development application for the site in September, Council notified over 600 property owners from the West Kensington area due to the significance of this proposal and its potential impacts on Randwick City residents (see Attachment 1).  Council received 34 submissions objecting to the development application.  25 of these submissions were from residents of Lenthall Street.  The most common concerns raised were traffic, the size of the 22 storey building and the scale/density of development.

 

This report recommends that Council advise Sydney City Council that it raises objection to the development proposal, and that, Council note this report and endorse the attached submission to Sydney City Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

The proposal is an integrated development proposal, which requires consent from the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW (RTA) under the Road Act 1993 and approval from the Department of Planning under the Water Management Act 2000, as well as the City of Sydney.  The proposal includes:

·    demolition of buildings;

·    modification of public roads (Epsom and Link Roads);

·    construction of public open space, landscaping and a stormwater system;

·    land use approval for mixed commercial and residential use over the whole site; and,

·    12 building envelopes which vary in height from 2 to 22 storeys with an expected yield of approximately 825 future residential units and 949 car spaces.

 

It should be noted that the height of the development and the amount of residential units proposed in the development application has been reduced from the refused Masterplan.  Among other things the earlier Masterplan proposed a 30 storey building, compared to the current application for 22 storeys, and proposed 927 residential apartments which has been reduced to 825.

 

In spite of these changes the development is still considered to be excessive and the main issues which concerned Council relating to the Masterplan are still pertinent to the current development application.  The main issues of concern for Council are, in summary, the increased traffic passing into and through the Randwick LGA, the capacity of the road intersections on the Eastern Distributor and the lack of compatibility between the proposed 22 storey landmark tower on South Dowling Street and the adjoining residential area in Kensington.

 

The traffic study, attached to the development application, indicates that there will be a potentially substantial increase in traffic flows into Randwick City, primarily via Lenthall Street.  This will result in significant additional traffic movements in both AM and PM peak hours.  This causes serious concern as Lenthall Street, which is a local street running through a Heritage Conservation Area, is already experiencing very high traffic volumes which are already well above the pavement design levels.

 

Council’s traffic engineers have identified a couple of technical issues which are detailed in Council’s submission to the City of Sydney (see attached).

 

The future cumulative impacts of development in the City of Sydney CBD – Airport corridor, which include the proposed Dolina development, as well as Victoria Park and Green Square, is a matter of serious concern, as the future cumulative traffic impacts on the adjacent areas in Randwick City are as yet undetermined.

 

The impact of the proposed 22 storey tower is also a concern.  The need for a 22 storey building is questionable and it could potentially encourage further development of a similar scale along South Dowling Street.  The height and scale of the proposed tower is considered excessive for this location and the potential overshadowing and visual amenity impacts on the West Kensington Conservation Area is also a concern.  Although the size of the development has been reduced since the Masterplan, it is still considered to be an excessive overdevelopment of the site, with unjustifiable impacts on Randwick City residents.

 

 

Resident Concerns

 

Council received 34 submissions objecting to the development application.  25 of these submissions were from residents of Lenthall Street.  Issues raised included:

·    Traffic concerns, including congestion, parking and safety issues;

·    The height of the 22 storey tower and its impact on the visual amenity of the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area as well as potential impact on overshadowing and privacy;

·    The density of the development and the impact new residents will have on existing services and facilities;

·    Structural damage to homes from construction;

·    Asbestos from the existing buildings on the Dolina site;

·    Trucks using Lenthall Street during construction;

·    Increased crime levels;

·    The effect on views;

·    That the proposed site is more part of West Kensington than Zetlands, and so should fit in with the heritage character of West Kensington;

·    The effect of property values; and,

·    Concern about high-rise buildings close to the flight paths.

 

The most common concern raised in the submission regarded traffic and the impact of the size of the development.  Traffic was the major concern in most of the submissions.  Residents were concerned about the traffic and congestion that would be created, particularly on Lenthall Street which is classified as a ‘local street’, as well as being concerned about an increase in the pressure on on-street parking, the potential reduction in safety and increase in noise and pollution associated with an increase in traffic.

 

There was also significant concern regarding the scale and size of the development.  Many submissions objected to the height of the 22 storey tower on the grounds that the modern designed building would dominate the skyline and be incompatible with the heritage character of the West Kensington Heritage area, and the potential for a reduction in privacy and an increase in overshadowing.  There was general concern about the high density nature of the proposed development and the rapid increase in population that would result.

 

Resident’s submissions will be forwarded to the City of Sydney as part of Randwick City’s submission to the proposed application.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Stage 1 development application is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.  The proposed 22 storey tower is adjacent to the West Kensington Heritage area, which is mostly composed of one and two storey residential dwellings, and as such would impose an urban form totally out of character with the adjoining neighbourhood.  A significant reduction or elimination of the proposed tower would alleviate these concerns and reduce the traffic impact on the local road network.

1.  Randwick City Notification Letter to Wet Kensington Residents

2.  Submission to the City of Sydney

3.  Table of Residents Submissions to Council

Randwick Council local roads, such as Lenthall Street, are already experiencing problems with traffic congestion.  The proposed overdevelopment of the Dolina site would further contribute to these problems.  The cumulative impact of development in the City of Sydney CBD – Airport corridor is having significant impacts on the adjacent areas in Randwick City and must be immediately addressed by the City of Sydney.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that:

 

1.       Council advise Sydney City Council that it strongly objects to the development for 89-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery.

2.       Council endorse the attached submission be forwarded to the City of Sydney.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.       Randwick City Notification Letter to Wet Kensington Residents

2.       Submission to the City of Sydney

3.       Table of Residents Submissions to Council

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SARAH HUDSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 

 


 

ATTACHMENT 1

 

SH5     (98/S/0821)

(Contact Officer: Sarah Hudson - 9399.0524)

 

21 September 2005

 

<<NAME>>

<<ADDRESS>>

<<ADDRESS>>

 

Dear <<SALUTATION>>,

 

RE:      Stage 1 Integrated Development Application for the land located at 87-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery (within the City of Sydney)

 

I am writing to inform you of the integrated development proposal at 87-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery, currently being considered by the City of Sydney Council.  You may have already received correspondence from the City of Sydney regarding this matter.

 

Randwick City Council received notification of the integrated development proposal on the 19th of September 2005 and was invited to comment by the 20th of October.  The proposal includes the demolition of buildings, the modification of public roads (Epsom and Link Roads), the construction of public open space, landscaping and a stormwater system.  The application also proposes the approval of 12 building envelopes which vary in height from 2 to 22 storeys and are expected to yield approximately 825 future residential units and 949 car spaces.

 

Randwick City Council will be making a submission on the proposal and is interested to receive your views to incorporate into Council’s submission.  As the matter will be reported to Randwick City’s Ordinary Council Meeting on the 18th of October 2005 we require any submissions be made to us by the close of business on Monday the 10th of October.  All written submissions should be addressed to the General Manager, Randwick City Council, 30 Frances Street, Randwick NSW 2031 and titled “87-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery”.  You can be assured that Randwick City Council will bring the issues you have raised to the attention of the City of Sydney with the aim of ensuring that the amenity of West Kensington is not adversely affected as a result of this development.

 

You can also make a submission in relation to this matter directly to the City of Sydney by the 20th of October 2005.

 

If you have any queries regarding this matter please contact Robyn Eisermann on 9399 0994, or Sarah Hudson on 9399-0524, in Council’s Strategic Planning Team.

 

Yours faithfully,

Text Box:

 

 

Sima Truuvert

DIRECTOR – CITY PLANNING

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT 2

 

SH5     (F2004/07907)

(Contact Officer: Sarah Hudson - 9399.0524)

 

11 October 2005

 

General Manager

City of Sydney

GPO Box 1591

SYDNEY   NSW   2001

 

Attention: Louise Evans

 

 

Dear Ms Evans,

 

RE:      ‘The Dolina Site’ - Stage 1 Integrated Development Application for the land located at 89-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery

 

Thank you for notifying Randwick City Council and providing us with the opportunity to make a submission in regards to the aforementioned development application.  This matter was considered by Council, at its meeting on the 18th of October 2005, where it resolved to endorse this submission.  The main issues of concern for Council relating to the proposed development relates to the scale of development, traffic impacts and the effect on residential amenity, created by the potential 825 new dwellings,  as well as the cumulative impacts from development in this area generally.

 

During the preparation of this submission Council has received 34 submissions from local residents raising the following issues:

·     Traffic concerns, including congestion, parking and safety issues;

·     The height of the 22 storey tower and its impact on the visual amenity of the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area as well as potential impact on overshadowing and privacy;

·     The density of the development and the impact new residents will have on existing services and facilities;

·     Structural damage to homes from construction;

·     Asbestos from the existing buildings on the Dolina site;

·     Trucks using Lenthall Street during construction;

·     Increased crime levels;

·     The effect on views;

·     That the proposed site is more part of West Kensington than Zetlands, and so should fit in with the heritage character of West Kensington;

·     The effect of property values; and,

·     Concern about high-rise buildings close to the flight paths.

 

In relation to traffic, Council is highly concerned about the significant increase in levels of traffic passing into and through the Randwick LGA, the capacity of the road intersections on the Eastern Distributor.  The applicants traffic study, attached to the development application, indicates that there will be potentially a substantial increase in traffic flows into Randwick City, primarily via Lenthall Street.  This will result in significant additional traffic movements in both AM and PM peak hours.  This causes serious concern as Lenthall Street, which is a local street running through a Heritage Conservation Area.  This street is already experiencing very high traffic volumes which are already well above the pavement design levels.  Council urges the City of Sydney to discuss suitable measures which will mitigate any further traffic increases along Lenthall Street with us.

 

Council suggests that a full grade separated interchange at the intersection of Epsom Road and the Eastern Distributor in necessary and would like to confirm that any new buildings or structures proposed on the site are erected clear of the land required for the future construction of the interchange.

 

The need for ‘landmark’ status of the proposed tower, given its potential negative impacts on West Kensington, is highly questionable. There is no reason provided as to why this site has been identified for a landmark building. The height and overall scale of the proposed landmark building is considered excessive for this location when compared with neighbouring buildings in Zetland, the 13 storey residential apartments in the Raleigh Park development and the low density Heritage Conservation Area opposite in Kensington. The impact upon the visual amenity and the potential likely overshadowing of the West Kensington Conservation Area is a major concern to Randwick residents. The above issues, of traffic and scale, were raised in the submission for the Masterplan for the site and it is considered that the current development application does not adequately address these issues.

 

The cumulative impacts of development in the City of Sydney CBD – Airport corridor, which include the proposed Dolina development, as well as Victoria Park and Green Square, is a matter of serious concern for Council and the community.  The future cumulative traffic impacts on the adjacent areas in Randwick City are as yet undetermined.  Council urges the City of Sydney to consider the impacts of this development application in the context of the development that is likely occur in this area.

 

Randwick City Council urges the City of Sydney to refuse the development application because of its significant traffic impacts on the road network, the bulk and scale of the development and the lack of compatibility with the surrounding area as well as the significant negative impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential development, particularly the West Kensington Conservation Area.

 

If you have any queries regarding this letter please contact Sarah Hudson, Strategic Planning, on 9399-0524.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Ray Brownlee

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

Per: ……………………………………

 

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 3

Name

West Kensington Property Address

Traffic

-congestion

-safety

-parking

-pollution

Visual Incompatibility of Development

Density & pressure on local facilities

Privacy

Overshadowing

View Loss

Site is more part of West Kensington than Zetland OR Rosebery

Problems During Construction

-Asbestos

-Truck Movements

-Structural Damage

 

Other (Specify)

Maria Siozos

2 Lenthall Street

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Parker

3 Lenthall Street

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

 

Fred & Eva Otto

4 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

John & Grammatiki Audelas

9 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

Louise Wood

12 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noula & George Georgiakakis

13 Lenthall Street

X

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

Agus Kurniawan

15 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

V. Paltoglou

3/18 Lenthall Street

X

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

Robyn Linworth

19 Lenthall Street

X

X

 

X

X

 

 

X

 

David Gaio

24 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

Blanche Condon

28 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

 

Fedelis DuPont

31 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

Bill & Rona Choy

35 Lenthall Street

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ishak Kusumo

37 Lenthall Street

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

S. Lim & Household

42 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

George & Christine Siozos

48 Lenthall Street

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Greenaway

50 Lenthall Street

X

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

G A Greenaway

50 Lenthall Street

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Stan & Sandra Mihalordis

54 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

N. Naubell

62 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

 

 

X

X

 

 

Angela Garofano

68 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

Jessica & Steve Whyte

70 Lenthall Street

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

 

 

John Sapannakis

74 Lenthall Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agnes Gonzalez

23/76 Lenthall Street

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

Stephen Klugman

17 Winkurra Street

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

Joy Brown

62/1 Glouster Place

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rosemary Brown & Simon Hennessy

19 Virginia Street

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robyn McMillan & Jim Haynes

Unknown

(Postal Address: PO Box 183, Kingsford, NSW 2032)

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

X

Property Values & High-rise too close to flight path

P & G Vogel

1b Ingram Street

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

Crime

Marion Casey

Unknown

(Postal Address: 20 Coulon St, Woollamia, NSW, 2540)

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

Shimon Parker

21 Ingram Street

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wing Li

1 Carminya Street

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adrian Menier

Unknown

(Postal Address:

5 Bolwarra Road, Elanora, NSW, 2101)

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

Olga Fuccilli

Unknown

(Postal Address: 71 Bonnefin Rd, Hunters Hill, NSW 2110)

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 77/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Affixing of the Council Seal

 

 

DATE:

10 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06282

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 48 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1993 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Council currently receives funding from the Department of Community Services for the following Council positions:

 

·    Community Development Officer Youth Services - $11,580

·    Community Development Officer Multicultural & Special Projects - $11,580

·    Generalist Community Development Officer La Perouse & Surrounding Areas

- $35,067

·    Coordinator / Team Leader Community Development $11,579

 

Each year, as per the service funding agreement between Council and the Department of Community Services, Council is required to submit a completed Report on Achievements and Remuneration Payment Certificate, for the previous financial year.

 

It is necessary for Council’s Seal to be affixed to the above documents completed for the 2004/05 period.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no financial impact arising from the affixing of the Council’s Seal to the Department of Community Services Generic Report on Achievements & Remuneration Payment Certificate for the 2004/05 period.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 48 of the Meetings Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate Council’s compliance with the Department of Community Services service funding agreement.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the Department of Community Services Generic Report on Achievements & Remuneration Payment Certificate for the 2004 – 2005 financial year period.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRIZIA FAVORITO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

TEAM LEADER

 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 78/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Proposed Amendment to Prince Henry Masterplan/DCP

 

 

DATE:

11 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00566

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING    

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

On 5 September 2005, Landcom lodged an amended Masterplan which proposes to:

 

·      rezone a portion of the site (Lot 50 - currently bushland containing Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub) from Environmental Protection to 2D Residential – Comprehensive Development, and to build 8 x 2 storey townhouses in this location;

·      change the mix of housing types from apartments to detached and semi-attached dwellings (town- and courtyard houses);

·      change the maximum height of a building at the south eastern part of the site from 5 storeys to 8 storeys;

·      change the western end of the new road Harvey Street from a two-way through road connecting to Jennifer Street to a cul de sac;

·      enlarge Pine Avenue Park;

·      alter parking, driveway and internal circulation arrangements, particularly around the Flowers Wards; and

·      make a number of minor lot boundary and building footprint adjustments;

 

These proposed amendments are all located in the southern part of the Prince Henry Site, south of Pine Avenue.

 

The amended Masterplan was submitted on 5 September and was placed on public exhibition from 22 September to 6 October 2005. A total of 4 submissions were received. Key issues raised included support for the proposed closure of new road Harvey Street via a cul de sac (2 submissions), support for the lower scale of development adjacent to Jennifer Street (1 submission), and opposition to the removal of the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (an endangered  ecological community of state and national significance) (2 submissions). Council also consulted with 15 State and Federal Government Authorities.

 

This report recommends that the following master plan amendments not be supported:

·      Amendment A - the proposed rezoning of Lot 50 from Environmental Significance to 2D Residential – Comprehensive Development

·      Amendment K – the proposed cul de sac at the western end of Harvey Street

·      Amendment 1 – the proposed boundary change between Lot 47 (Henry’s Trading Post) and Lot 48 (aged care facility)

 

This report also recommends that:

·      the adopted master plan be amended to reflect other proposed changes, in accordance with the variations contained in Attachment 1

·      Subsequent LEP/DCP amendments be prepared as appropriate.

 

1.         BACKGROUND:

 

A summary of key stages in the planning for the redevelopment of the site, including the Masterplan and LEP/DCP process to date is provided below.

 

March 2003                 Revised master plan for the Prince Henry Site lodged with Council.

 

May 2003                    Council adopted that master plan with variations and reaffirmed its resolution to prepare a draft LEP/DCP for the site.

 

December 2003           Council endorsed the exhibition of the draft LEP/DCP.

 

Jan-Feb 2004               Public exhibition of draft LEP/DCP.

 

July 2004                     Draft LEP/DCP reported to Council

 

November 2004           Randwick LEP Amendment No 28 – Prince Henry Site gazetted (26 November), rezoning the site to a mix of 2D Residential Comprehensive Development, Open Space and Environmental Protection.

 

December 2004           Prince Henry Site DCP became effective (8 December).

 

September 2005           Proposed Masterplan Amendment lodged with Council.

 

In the past two years, a number of development applications, mainly relating to remediation, infrastructure, subdivision and community facilities have been determined.

 

The draft master plan amendment proposes to amend the master plan as adopted (with variations) by Council in 2003.

 

2.           THE SUBJECT SITE

 

The draft Masterplan Amendment relates to most of the southern part of the Prince Henry Site, that is, south of Pine Avenue (refer to Attachment 2). In particular, the residential components in the Prince Henry Development Contol Plan (DCP) Precincts P3 and P4 and the Historic Precinct are subject to the proposed changes. The proposed Masterplan amendment does not affect Precinct P2, the neighbourhood centre, part of Precinct 3, namely Jarrah House and the Former Nurses Dining Room and Pine Cottage in the Historic Precinct.

 

The subject site has a predominantly easterly aspect and is characterised by gently sloping land with the exception of the rock cutting and sandstone outcrops to the west of Brodie Avenue. The topography of the subject site and the proposed built form generally enables views to the coast from much of the site and its surrounds.

 

The proposed Masterplan Amendments relates to the following portion of the Prince Henry Site:

·      an area of remnant bushland (Lot 50) that contains ESBS, an endangered ecological community;

·      a number of significant trees located within Lots 47, 48 and 51, and a rock cutting and sandstone outcrops identified as landscape heritage in the Conversation Management Plan (CMP) for the Prince Henry Site;

·      a number of views, to Little Bay, from Flowers Ward 3 and along many of the streets within the Historic Precinct as having “exceptional” significance;

·      a number of buildings of heritage significance. The Flowers Wards Group is identified as having “exceptional” significance in the CMP. The Heffron Building, the Delaney Building and Henry’s Trading Post are identified as having “high” significance in the CMP. The former tram loop is identified in the AMP as a historical archaeological item with some potential for Aboriginal heritage significance, although its exact location has yet to be determined.

 

There are also a number of buildings of heritage significance located adjacent or close to areas affected by the proposed Masterplan Amendments. These include the Pathology Department, the Former Nurses Dining Room, and Pine Cottage.

 

The Masterplan Amendment proposes minor adjustments to boundaries in Precinct P3, between Henry’s Trading Post, the aged care facility and the residential development to the south. It also proposes boundary adjustments between Precinct P3 (Lot 75) and the Historic Precinct adjacent to the Delaney Building. None of these boundary adjustments alter the developable area of the site.

 

3.         THE PROPOSED MASTERPLAN AMENDMENT

 

Since the Masterplan was adopted with variations in May 2003, a number of development applications have been lodged and approved, and work has commenced on site. However, Landcom seeks to further amend the Masterplan for the following reasons:

 

-     to promote a better mix of dwelling types that responds to market changes, which are reflected in a documented decline in the demand for residential flats in Sydney;

-     to retain an appropriate density of residential development of the Prince Henry site in order to contribute to Sydney’s housing demands and a sustainable approach to housing the people of Sydney; and

-     to improve the urban design outcomes in the southern part of the site, which are reflected in a review of the interface with the Coast Golf Course and to strengthen the built form at the gateway to the southern part of the site.

 

The proposed Masterplan Amendment planning report is supported by a number of supplementary reports addressing various issues including:

·      traffic,

·      heritage,

·      bushland impacts,

·      overshading (including shadow diagrams),

·      Water Sensitive Urban Design

·      site remediation,

·      a revised draft subdivision plan,

·      indicative sketches of proposed car parking amendments and

·      a visual analysis.

 

3.1       SUMMARY of Proposed Masterplan Amendments

 

The proposed Masterplan Amendment comprises the changes listed below. These proposed amendments are identified as “A”, “B”, “C” etc on Map 2 in Attachment 2 of this report.

 

A   Proposed rezoning of Lot 50 from Environmental Protection to 2D Residential – Comprehensive Development to allow for residential development (8 x two storey townhouses).

B    Changes to the built form and layout within Lot 51 from residential flat buildings to attached dwellings, and removal of group of existing trees.

C   Partial demolition and new additions to the rear wings of the Heffron Building (Lot 54).

D   Enlargement and relocation further south of the building footprint within Lot 55.

E    Relocation further south of the rear addition to the Delaney Building, Lot 56.

F    Increase in the maximum height of part of the building within Lot 65 from 5 storeys to 8 storeys.

G   Replacement of the residential flat buildings with single dwellings on Lot 75.

H   Addition of a small residential building with 2 apartments on Lot 43.

I     Changes to the boundaries between Lot 47 (Henry’s Trading Post) and Lot 48 (aged care facility), between Lots 48 and 51 (Amendment B) and amalgamation of Lots 55 and 56 (Amendments D and E).

J     Boundary changes between the Coast Golf Course, and the Southern Golf Course Buffer, to allow for the extension of Pine Avenue Park.

K   Introduction of a cul-de-sac at the western end of Harvey Street,

L    Relocation of the driveway entry into Lot 48 (aged care facility) from Brodie Avenue as a result of Amendment B.

M   Changes to the public parking within the Flowers Wards Group as a result of Amendment H.

N   New garages (and associated driveways) under the eastern sides of Flowers Wards 2, 4, 5 and 6.

 

The amendment results in a decrease in the number of dwellings by 104, and a decrease in car parking spaces of 137.

 

The proposed amendments are described in more detail in Section 3.2 below. Maps showing the location of the proposed amendments are included as Attachment 2 to this report. A discussion of the potential impacts of the amendments is at Section 8.

 

 

3.2       Details of Proposed Master pLan Amendments

A       Rezoning of Lot 50 from Environmental Protection to 2D Residential – Comprehensive Development

The proposed Masterplan Amendment seeks to rezone Lot 50 from Environmental Protection to 2D Residential – Comprehensive Development. This lot has an area of 3,490m2, and contains remnant bushland which includes Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub, an endangered ecological community of state and national significance. Lot 50 is bounded by Jennifer Street to the west, Harvey Street to the south, residential development to the east (see proposed Amendment B), and Jarrah House to the north.

 

Importantly, immediately south of this lot and Harvey Street, lies Lot 66 (also known as the Jennifer Street Bushland), an area of some 32,000m2. The Bushland Plan of Management acknowledges this Jennifer Street bushland as the best example of ESBS on site. Lot 50 itself is identified as a good example of ESBS with high floristic diversity and low weed infestations.

 

It is proposed to develop Lot 50 for 8 x 2 storey townhouses with a single basement car park accessed from Harvey Street. The estimated gross floor area (GFA) is 1,440m2 with a proposed floor space ration (FSR) of 0.75:1. A 10m landscaped buffer is proposed along Jennifer Street/Anzac Parade with a 4.7m landscaped band to Jarrah House.

 

B         Changes to Built Form and Layout of Lot 51

Lot 51 lies immediately east of Lot 50. It is bounded by the proposed aged care facility to the north, Brodie Avenue to the east, and by Harvey Street to the south. It has an area of 10,108m2 that is to be enlarged to 10,816m2 as a result of the boundary adjustments proposed in Amendment I. The 2003 Masterplan/DCP allows 2 x 4 storey and 1 x 4/5 storey residential flat buildings with lofts on this lot (before boundary adjustments) with a total of 97 apartments. The buildings require setbacks of 13.5m from Harvey Street and 7m from Brodie Avenue. The current shape of the lot (22-30 in the DCP) avoids the rock cutting and sandstone outcrop landscape elements along Brodie Avenue.

 

It is proposed to replace the 3 residential flat buildings with 40 x 2-and-3 storey attached dwellings in three blocks with a single basement car park accessed from Brodie Avenue. The blocks would be defined by a one way internal private road (with a parking lane) that would extend the existing Fleming and Gull Street alignments (PD5 and PD7) onto the lot and connect them along the western boundary to Harvey Street.

 

Amendment B proposes 2 storey town- and courtyard houses on the northern and central blocks, and proposes 3 storey townhouses on the southern block with setbacks to reduce overshadowing. Proposed lot sizes are 6.45-6.5m x 26m on the northern and southern blocks with 10-13m x 20m on the central block. The estimated GFA is 8,110m2 with an FSR of 0.75:1 (down from the allowable 1.2:1 in LEP Amendment No. 28). A landscaped band of 3m would define the Brodie Avenue streetscape to the southern-most blocks while a 9m setback is proposed to the northern block, due to its proximity to Flowers Ward 2. The eastern end of the northern block impinges on the rock cutting and sandstone outcrop along Brodie Avenue.

 

C       Partial Demolition and New Additions to the Heffron building (Lot 54)

The Heffron building is a heritage building of high significance located at the southern end of Curie Street, immediately south of the Flowers Wards and east of Brodie Avenue. The 2003 Masterplan indicates 28 apartments can be accommodated within the existing envelope. Car parking for this building is provided on Lot 51.

 

In order to increase the yield of the southern part of the Prince Henry site, it is proposed to retain only the central rear wing and “re-work” the side wings to create new, larger wings. The proposed extensions, which in fact decrease the apartment yield by 1 to 27, are to be designed as contemporary wings with distinctively new pavilions. Car parking would be provided under Lots 55 and 56, and partially under Lot 51.

 

D         Enlargement and Relocation of Building Footprint within Lot 55

Lot 55, located south of the Heffron building. It is bounded by Gull Street to the north, the Delaney Building to the east, Harvey Street to the south and Brodie Avenue to the west. The 2003 Masterplan/DCP allows a 5 storey residential flat building with a total of 21 apartments and a single basement parking level with access from Lot 56. The building is to be setback 13.5m from Harvey Street and generally align with the western façade of  the Heffron building and the northern façade of the Delaney Building.

 

It is proposed to alter to building footprint to an L-shape that concentrates the development along Brodie Avenue and Harvey Street by reducing the latter setback to 3m while retaining the other alignment controls. The apartment yield would increase to 25, with an estimated GFA of 2,720m2 and an FSR of 1.3:1 (up from 1.1:1). Parking would be separated from Lot 56 with a dedicated access under the building from Harvey Street.

 

E          Relocation of Rear Addition to Delaney Building (Lot 56)

The Delaney Building, is a heritage building of high significance. It is located north of Harvey Street and west of the Southern Local Park. The 2003 Masterplan/DCP allows a 5 storey residential flat building addition to the rear of the existing building with a total of 52 apartments (in both buildings) and a single basement parking level with access from Harvey Street. The addition is to be setback 13.5m from Harvey Street and generally align with the eastern and western façade of the existing Delaney Building.

 

Consistent with the proposed change to the setback from Harvey Street for Lot 55 (Amendment D), it is proposed to reduce the setback of the addition to the Delaney Building to 3m from the Harvey Street frontage. The apartment yield, FSR and parking requirements would remain unaltered.

 

F       Proposed increase in maximum height of building from 5 to 8 storeys (Lot 65)

Lot 65, located south of Harvey Street and immediately east of the Jennifer Street bushland (Lot 66). The adopted Masterplan/DCP indicates a 5 storey residential flat building with 31 apartments and two basement parking levels with access from Harvey Street.

 

It is proposed to increase the height of part of this building from 5 storeys to 8 storeys to accommodate 43 additional apartments. The building will be 3-5 storeys along the Harvey Street frontage, stepping up to 8 storeys at the rear of this lot, adjacent to the Jennifer Street bushland (Lot 66). The increase in apartments would lead to an estimated total GFA of 4,820m2 and an FSR of 1.65:1 (up from 1.1:1). Parking requirements would remain unchanged.

 

G       Replacement of Residential Flat Buildings with Single Dwellings on Lot 75

Lot 75 lies to the west of Ewing Avenue. It is bounded by Southern Local Park to the south, Southern Golf Course Buffer to the east, and Pine Avenue Park to the north. The adopted Masterplan/DCP allows 4 x 2 and 3 storey residential flat buildings on three lots, with a total of 95 apartments and basement parking with access from Ewing Avenue.

 

It is proposed to subdivide Lot 75 into 23 single dwelling allotments with lot sizes ranging between 458m2 and 883m2. The total area of Lot 75 remains unchanged, but it is proposed to decrease the allowable FSR on this lot from 0.75:1 to 0.5:1, to be consistent with the controls for detached dwellings. It is also proposed to limit the height of the proposed single dwellings to 2 storeys, to allow for view sharing.

 

A proposed one-way loop road will provide vehicular access to the 23 dwelling lots. Driveway locations would be limited to reduce their visual impact on the streetscape opposite the Flowers Wards. The lot created in the south-east corner would have access via a battle-axe configuration.

 

The one-way loop road proposes to retain the two key view corridors identified in the Prince Henry DCP (which provide views of the Flowers Wards 5 and 6 and views to the coast). Footpaths beside the east-west parts of the proposed one-way loop road will retain public pedestrian access from Ewing Avenue to the shared pedestrian-cycle path located in the southern golf course buffer.  

 

Street tree planting along the one-way road loop would complement the proposal but not interrupt view lines.

 

H       Replacement of 16-space public carpark north of the Flowers Ward 5 with 2 apartments (Lot 43)

Lot 43 is located immediately north of Flowers Ward 5. It is bound by Ewing Avenue to the north and east, and Flowers Ward 3 to the west. Flowers Ward 3 will be occupied by a community group (Coast Centre for Seniors) while Flowers Ward 5 is to be converted to housing. Under the 2003 Masterplan/DCP this lot accommodates public surface parking for 16 vehicles.

 

It is proposed to relocate this car parking (see Amendment M) and add 2 x 1.5 storey apartments on this lot. A maximum FSR of 0.5:1 is proposed for these 2 new dwellings, and semi-basement parking would be provided. Due to the exceptional heritage significance of the adjacent Flowers Wards, the height, floor levels, setbacks and materials and finishes of these proposed dwellings would match those of the adjacent Flowers Wards.

 

I           Changes to Boundaries between Lots 47-48, 48-51; and 55-56

 

Lots 47, 48 and 51 are on the western side on Brodie Avenue:

·      Lot 47 includes Henry’s Trading Post, which is an item of high heritage significance;

·      Lot 48 comprises the aged care facility south of Henry’s Trading Post; and

·      Lot 51 comprises the revised housing outlined in Amendment B.

The proposed boundary adjustments to Lots 47, 48 and 51 appear to be as a consequence of Amendment B. Lot 47 is to be decreased in favour of Lots 48 and 51 to result in a better use of the permissible floor space. The only physical consequences of this amendment are to decrease the curtilage around the heritage item (Henry’s Trading Post) on Lot 47.

 

Lots 55 (Amendment D) and 56 (Amendment E – Delaney Building) occupy the block bounded by Brodie Avenue, Gull Street, Ewing Avenue and Harvey Street.

 

The amalgamation of Lots 55 and 56 is proposed to avoid the need for any additional FSR control on Lot 55 due to the increased building footprint and to recognise the shared parking arrangement.

 

J        Extension of Pine Avenue Park (boundary changes between Coast Golf Course and Southern Golf Course Buffer)

Pine Avenue Park is located south of Pine Avenue (refer to Attachment 2). Under the 2003 adopted Masterplan, Pine Avenue Park is bound by the Southern Golf Course Buffer to the east, with the 7th Green of the Coast Gold Course beyond. The 7th Green of the Golf Course also adjoins Pine Avenue. The layout of this green and its proximity to Pine Avenue means that a safety screen is required to protect people outside the golf course. This safety screen will obscure some views to the coast and the arrangement would isolate the future community centre.

 

The Masterplan amendment proposes to resolve this issue by shortening the 7th hole and extending the Pine Avenue Park eastwards to both allow a direct connection to the future community facility and eliminate the need for a safety fence.

 

K         Cul-de-sac at western end of Harvey Street (NR4)

Harvey Street lies at the southern end of the subject site. In the adopted 2003 Masterplan/DCP the western end of Harvey Street connects with Jennifer Street, providing two-way vehicular access from the site onto Jennifer Street. Pedestrian and cycle access between Jennifer Street and the Prince Henry site are also provided. Harvey Street extends from Jennifer Street (in the west) to the Southern Local Park (in the east), and provides the only vehicular connection between the Prince Henry site and its surrounds, located south of Pine Avenue.

 

The proposed Masterplan amendments remove the connection between Harvey Street and Jennifer Street, and propose that the western end of Harvey Street terminate in a cul-de-sac (approximately10m from Jennifer Street). Despite this proposed removal of vehicular access, it is intended that access to Jennifer Street be provided for pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles.

 

L       Relocation of Driveway into Lot 48 from Brodie Avenue (due to Amendment B)

Another consequence of Amendment B is the need to relocate the driveway to Lot 48 (the proposed aged car facility) from its approved alignment on the Fleming Street alignment, northwards to opposite the western entry to Flowers Ward 2. The relocated driveway would further impinge on the rock cutting and sandstone outcrop in the western side of Brodie Avenue, which is approved in the adopted Masterplan to be cut back to allow the widening of Brodie Avenue.

 

M      Changes to Public Parking within Flowers Wards Group (due to Amendment H)

Of the 16 car spaces to be lost as a result of Amendment H, 8 parking spaces would be relocated within Lot 43 with access from Darwin Avenue, east of Flowers Ward 3, 4 parking spaces would be relocated to the south of Flowers Ward 1, and 4 parking spaces would be relocated east of the Hills Theatre 1.

 

N         New Garages under Flowers Wards 2, 4, 5 and 6

The Flowers Wards Group is identified as having “exceptional” significance in the CMP. However, it is proposed to add undercroft parking spaces on the eastern sides of Flowers Wards 2, 4, 5 and 6, and include internal connections into the apartments above. This amendment will eliminate the need for 8 spaces surface parking to the south of Wards 2 and 4. Retaining walls required for the driveways would match the external walls around each Flowers Ward.

 

4.         STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

4.1.      COMMONWEALTH

 

Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999

This Act aims to protect aspects of the environment that are of national environmental significance. This Act applies to parts of the Prince Henry site, because of the presence of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS), a threatened species of national significance. It applies to the subject site to which the proposed Masterplan Amendments relate. Accordingly any proposal to remove ESBS in addition to that already approved would require referral to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for assessment.

 

4.2       STATE

 

Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act 1995

This Act aims to protect biodiversity and to protect threatened species, endangered populations or communities and their habitats. In terms of fauna, no threatened species were recorded on the Masterplan site. Additional studies as part of the proposed rezoning indicate that this is also the case for the land that is the subject of the proposed amendment.

 

In terms of flora, as additional ESBS is proposed to be removed from the subject site this Act applies both to the Prince Henry Site as a whole, and to the subject site. The proponent states that a species impact statement will be required at development application stage. This matter, however, needs to be resolved before any further rezoning of the site is contemplated.

 

SEPP 11 – Traffic Generating Developments

Although in traffic terms the proposed Masterplan Amendment is considered minor, the proponent has consulted with the Roads and Traffic Authority (refer Section 5.1).

 

SEPP 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

The aim of SEPP 19 is to protect and preserve bushland located within urban areas. This Act applies to the Prince Henry Site as a whole, and to the subject site. The Department of Environment and Conservation has reviewed the proposal concluding that the loss of further bushland cannot be supported (refer Section 5.1).

 

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Contaminated Land

Randwick LEP 1998 requires that consent for development on contaminated land only be granted if Council is satisfied that the contaminated land will be remediated prior to development occurring, and that, after being remediated, the land will be suitable for the proposed purpose. It is noted that detailed investigations have been undertaken for the whole Prince Henry Site and this matter has already been addressed in Development Application (948/2002) for demolition and site remediation works, approved on 17/12/02. Supplementary investigations undertaken as part of the subject rezoning proposal indicate that there is no reason to expect the presence of ground contamination in the subject site that might preclude future residential use of this area.

 

Section 117 Direction 13 – Environmental Protection Zones

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP that creates, removes or alters an Environmental Protection Zone boundary or provision. This direction aims to ensure that any rezoning is justified by an environmental study.

 

4.3       RANDWICK LEP 1998

 

Under Clause 40A of Randwick LEP 1998, a Masterplan is required for development of a site area of more than 4,000m².

 

Under Randwick LEP 1998 (Amendment No 28), the Prince Henry site is zoned a combination of 2D Residential – Comprehensive Development, Public Open Space and Environmental Protection. 

 

The 2D Residential zone permits a range of uses, including dwellings and multi-unit housing. Most of the proposed Masterplan Amendments relate to this zone, and are  permissible with consent. Similarly the proposal to extend a one way road along the edge of Pine Avenue Park is also permissible in the Open Space zone subject to consent.

 

However, the proposed use of Lot 50 for attached dwelling (8 x 2 storey townhouses) is prohibited in the Environmental Protection zone. Rezoning of this land for residential use is not appropriate. This is contrary to Council’s earlier decision of February 2004 to zone this land for environmental protection because of its environmental significance. Furthermore, a species impact statement has not been prepared under the TSC Act, and the proposal is contrary to SEPP 19, and thus Council cannot issue consent.

 

The proposed use of Lot 50 for residential uses is clearly prohibited (refer also to Section 8.1). Any request to rezone this part of the site, should be addressed separately to this proposed Masterplan Amendment, and should address the need for an environmental study that provides thorough justification on biodiversity grounds.

 

Adoption of the remaining amendments would require further amendment to the existing LEP and DCP.

 

5.         CONSULTATION

 

The draft plans were placed on exhibition at Council’s Administrative Centre, and Bowen Libraries. Details of the public exhibition period and exhibition locations were also placed on Council’s website. An advertisement was placed in the local paper and approximately 220 residents and landowners in the surrounding areas were notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy. The La Perouse Precinct Committee, the Metropolitan Land Council, La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council, and the Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation were also notified.

 

The exhibition commenced on 22 September and finished on 6 October 2005. A total of 4 submissions were received during the exhibition period. Key issues raised in submissions are summarised below.

 

Submission – R Padgett & J Radkevitch

This submission supports the proposed amendments to the Masterplan. In particular it supports the lower scale of development adjacent to Jennifer Street and the proposal not to proceed with vehicle access between Harvey and Jennifer Streets, although it supports pedestrian and cycle access.

 

Response

Noted. This report recommends that the two way vehicular connection between Harvey Street and Jennifer Street, as adopted in May 2003, be retained, to provide a vehicle access point for the southern part of the site (that is south of Pine Avenue). This southern connection to Jennifer Street is important as it will help integrate the Prince Henry site with surrounding existing development, and will promote the ‘open’ nature of this development, rather than a perception of a ‘gated community’.

 

Submission – R Quirk

This submission opposes the removal of any more ESBS.

 

Response

Agreed. This report recommends against the rezoning of Lot 50 and the removal of ESBS.

 

Submission – M & K Heffernan

This submission also supports the proposal to terminate vehicle access between Harvey and Jennifer Streets.

 

Response

Noted. This report recommends the two way vehicular connection between Harvey Street and Jennifer Street as adopted in 2003 be retained, as previously outlined.

 

Submission – D Kerr

This submission opposes the removal of any more ESBS.

 

Response

Agreed. This report recommends against the rezoning of Lot 50 and the removal of ESBS.

 

5.1       CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

 

Relevant government agencies (15 agencies) were notified that the draft amendment was on public exhibition. Submissions were received from 6 government agencies (see below). A brief response was received from the NSW Department of Planning (formerly DIPNR) indicating that it did not have any formal comments to make about the proposed Masterplan amendments. The remaining 8 agencies (NSW Fire Brigades, the State Transit Authority, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Prince of Wales Hospital - Community Health, Energy Australia, Department of Education and Training, Australian Heritage Commission, and the Department of Community Services) did not provide any responses.

 

Submissions were received from the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), Sydney Water, NSW Heritage Office and Airservices Australia as outlined below.

 

Roads and Traffic Authority

The RTA, in its letter to Council dated 5 September 2005, raises no concerns as it considers that the proposal will not have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network. However, although a similar response appears in its letter to the proponent dated 17 August 2005, that earlier letter notes that the Police have raised some concerns about the ability of the internal road network to cope with the additional traffic.

 

Comment:

The proposed Masterplan amendments related to traffic circulation include:

·      a reduction in dwelling numbers from the 2003 Masterplan numbers of 104 dwellings (which will result in an estimated reduction of the resident population of approximately 156 persons);

·      the closure of the western end of Harvey Street to vehicles (via proposed cul de sac), so that no through connection is provided to Jennifer Street;

·      the introduction of a one-way loop road to provide access to 23 detached dwellings (Lot 75); and

·      the introduction of a one-way private driveway to provide access to the 2 and 3 storey town- and courtyard dwellings in Lot 51.

 

This report does not support the closure of the western end of Harvey Street, and recommends that the two-way vehicular access to Jennifer Street as adopted in May 2003 remain.

 

This report recommends that the remaining proposed amendments relating to internal circulation (via new one-way loop access in Lots 51 and 75) be adopted. The widths of these proposed one-way accesses are addressed in this report as a variation to the master plan which requires that “all road widths, verge and footpath widths, travel lanes and parking lanes are to be provided in accordance with…… Council’s adopted standards and any Council endorsed recommendations of the Traffic Committee”. It is noted that the Police have representation on the Traffic Committee.

 

Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage

The DEH response notes the proposed amendment includes removing nearly 2,400m2 of ESBS, an ecological community listed under the EPBC Act as endangered and that most of the proposed amendments are either adverse, neutral or do not appear to enhance the historic heritage significance of the place. DEH leave it to the proponent to consider whether or not to refer the proposal to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for determination.

 

Comment:

This report recommends against the rezoning of Lot 50 and removal of ESBS. If this matter is to be pursued, referral to the Minister may be required.

 

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC)

The DEC does not support the proposed Masterplan Amendments on biodiversity grounds and considers that the proposed impacts on ESBS are unacceptable for an endangered ecological community where less than 3% (148 ha) of the original distribution remains. The proposed amendments will increase the ESBS to be removed from the whole site to 0.74 ha or 21% of the 3.6 ha present prior to the commencement of the project. DEC consider this an exceptionally high level of ESBS loss. Concern is also expressed about the indeterminate amount of shading of Lot 66 (the main parcel of ESBS on the Prince Henry site) caused by the relocation of buildings towards Harvey Street. Until these impacts are able to be demonstrated, the DEC considers that they may significantly impact on the ESBS stand in question.

 

The DEC notes that it conceded to the removal of approximately 0.5 ha of ESBS  in 2003 because of its poor quality. The DEC advises that it is unlikely to give its concurrence to the proposal in its present form and believes that the proposed impacts on ESBS should be substantially reduced before any modification to the masterplan is approved.

 

While the DEC’s strong preference is for any further impacts on ESBS at the Prince Henry site to be avoided, it will consider supporting minor modifications to the adopted mansterplan that:

 

-     retain the core of ESBS on Lot 50

-     retain a vegetative link between the ESBS on Lot 50 and Lot 66, and

-     reduce the extent of overshading of ESBS on Lot 66.

 

The DEC also notes that the amendment report claims that the Council approved site remediation activities will reduce the area of ESBS on Lot 50 from 0.24 ha to 0.15 ha. The DEC understands that the approval for these activities was issued prior to ESBS being identified on Lot 50. Consequently… the need for remediation of the lot should be reviewed, and if not able to be avoided, then a methodology adopted that reduces impacts on ESBS to the greatest practicable extent.

 

As a final note the DEC indicate that the Masterplan Amendments may also require approval by the Commonwealth Government (refer Section 4.1).

 

Comment:

This report recommends against the rezoning of Lot 50 and removal of ESBS.

It is also noted that remediation of this lot can proceed in the same manner as the other lots on the site which retain ESBS, thus removing the need for more intrusive remediation (that would otherwise be required in that case of proposed residential or open space uses).

 

Sydney Water

Sydney Water has provided an assessment of each of the proposed amendments. They conclude that either changes to DSP and upsizing charges will apply, there may be some impact on water mains as laid or there is minimal impact.

 

Comment:

All of these issues can be addressed during implementation.

 

NSW Heritage Council

The NSW Heritage Office reviewed the proposed amendments to the Prince Henry adopted Masterplan 2003 and advised that they generally support the proposed amendments subject to a number of conditions.

 

1)   The proposed amendments to the Prince Henry Masterplan are to be in accordance with the following documents:

a)   Conservation Management Plan dated February, 2003 and Archaeological Management Plan dated August, 2002 prepared by Godden Mackay Logan and both endorsed by the NSW Heritage Council

b)   The relevant Specific Element Conservation Policies (SECP), and

c)   Bushland Management Plan, dated November 2004 prepared by Manidis Roberts.

 

2)   Approval of the Masterplan amendments does not include part of Amendment I which involves boundaries changes between Lots 47 and 48 as described in Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) dated 31 August, 2005, prepared by Godden Mackay Logan.

 

              Nominated Heritage Consultant

3)   A heritage consultant is to be nominated for the preparation of the detailed guidelines and controls as required in these conditions of approval.

4)   The consultant shall have appropriate qualifications and experience commensurate with the project. The name and experience of this consultant shall be submitted and approved by the Director of the Heritage Office.

 

Development Controls

5)   Development controls are to be prepared to implement the following conditions of approval. The controls are to be prepared in consultation with the Heritage Office, Randwick City Council and approved by the Director of the Heritage Office. The approved controls are to be included in all relevant site management documents including the Prince Henry Development Control Plan, Prince Henry Design Guidelines and Specific Elements Conservation Policy.

 

Amendment B in Lot 51

6)   Houses within each group are to have consistent setbacks, uniform roof forms, cladding, colour and roof and eaves heights.

7)   The proposed roads in Lot 51 are to be one way pedestrian/vehicular shared accessways with minimum allowable width.

8)   The design of the accessways is to minimise the extent of paving, kerb and channelling level changes and crossings to Brodie Avenue.

9)   The rear of the northern housing group should be screened by a minimum 1.5m high masonry wall.

10) 1.8m high by 2m wide screen planting, selected in accordance with the Bushland Management Plan, is to be provided along the northern and eastern garden walls of the northern housing group.

11) Any walls or fences that enclose the front yards of houses within each group are to be maximum 1.2m high backed with screen planting selected in accordance with the Bushland Management Plan up to 1.8m maximum height.

 

Amendment C in Lot 54

12) The proposed rear additions to Heffron House are not to obscure the central rear wing’s external fabric and appearance. The hipped roofs of the east and west rear wings are to retained and not obscured by the new work.

13) The new additions are to be lightweight framed structures with frame and window proportions that relate to the existing proportions.

14) Internal alterations are not to involve the full removal of walls but are to retain downstand beams and wall nibs as evidence of the original layout.

 

Amendment G: in Lot 75

15) Houses within each group are to have consistent setbacks, uniform roof forms, cladding, colour and roof and eaves heights. No structure is to be forward of the front setback to Ewing Avenue.

16) A continuous 1.5m to 2m high masonry wall is to be provided along Ewing Avenue. Only one shared pedestrian/vehicular opening is to be provided for each the four proposed allotments serviced from Ewing Avenue with 3m maximum width subject to Randwick Council’s requirements.

17) The design and location of the proposed dwellings fronting Ewing Avenue between NR6 and NR7 are to be symmetrically arranged on the centreline of Operating Theatre No 3.

18) Houses within the blocks north of NR6 and south of NR7 on Ewing Avenue are to be symmetrically arranged within the group subject to the retention of the significant views.

19) Garages or carports are to have equal front and side setbacks and to have matching character.

20) The proposed dwelling houses in the northern group are to allow an 8m minimum width view corridor from the east entry of Flowers Ward 3 across Lot 75.

21) Further information is to be submitted to confirm the proposed design of the new roads and any proposed additional features such as street trees to retain the open views from the Flowers Wards to the coast.

 

Amendment H in Lot 43

22) Concerning a future building in Lot 43:

a)   The floor level is to match Flowers Ward 5.  The ridge line is to match Flowers Ward 5 service wings. The verandahs are to match the Flowers Ward 5 verandah roof line.

b)   The building is to include masonry foundation walls and a hipped slate covered roof with either copper and lead roof plumbing.

c)   The building’s facade is to include an outer screen wall and glazed/solid wall behind that reflects the Flowers Wards, where canvas blinds originally stretched between timber posts positioned behind the cast concrete verandah columns.

d)   The building’s location is not to obstruct views to the coast from the eastern entry to Flowers Ward 3 and one bay north of the entry.

e)   The building’s width is to match the north ward of Flowers Ward 5 and verandahs.

f)    The building’s colours and materials are to have low reflectivity are to harmonise with the palette of colour and texture of the Flowers Wards.

 

Amendment I in Lots 48 and 51

23) Restrictions should be placed in the relevant Section 88B instrument for Lots 48 and 51 to protect and coordinate management of the existing sandstone outcropping (Item L-14 in the CMP) which will be bisected by the proposed boundary.

 

Amendment J in Lots 69 and 74

24) New plantings in the re-aligned part of Lot 74 (from the Coast Hospital Road to south of the public accessway through Lot 39) are to be max 1.5 metres high and be selected in accordance with the Bushland Management Plan.

 

Amendment L in Lot 48

25) The proposed driveway from Brodie Avenue is to be 5m minimum width, subject to approval by Randwick Council.

26) The detail of the sides of the new driveway cutting is to match the existing rock cutting and is to use salvaged sandstone to supplement the work.

27) Any landscaping is not to cover the outcrop. Landscaping in the vicinity of the outcrop is to be low indigenous vegetation (maximum .3m high) and selected in accordance with the Bushland Management Plan.

28) Any safety fencing is to be west of the westernmost extent of the rock outcrop.

 

Amendment M in the Flowers Wards Group

29) The fabric of the existing parking on the western side of Hill Theatre No 2 (Operating Theatre No 3) is to be retained to allow for interpretation of the original entry to the building.

30) New parking east of Hill Theatre No 1 (Operating Theatre No 2) is to be symmetrically located on the centreline of the building.

 

Amendment N in the Flowers Wards Group

31) The driveway and garage opening widths are to be minimised. Detailed design of the driveways and the openings are to be submitted and approved by the Director of the Heritage Office.

 

Generally

32) The design and appearance of any new kerb crossings and additional roads within the Heritage Precinct is to be subservient to the existing roads is to ensure that the primacy of the significant road network is retained.

 

Comment:

These recommendations are to be further incorporated into DCP review and Specific Elements Conservation Policy (SECP) requirements as appropriate. The NSW Heritage Office’s recommendation that the proposed boundary adjustment between Lots 47-48 remain unchanged is incorporated into the recommendations of this report as a variation to the Masterplan.

 

Airservices Australia

Airservices Australia indicated that it had no comments other than to reiterate our comment on the earlier draft plans that the Prince Henry Hospital site is outside the 20 ANEF noise corridor associated with Sydney Airport. In accordance with Australian Standard AS2021-2000 (Acoustics – Aircraft Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and construction), building sites outside the 20 ANEF contour are rated as “acceptable” for residential and all other proposed development at the site.

 

Airservices Australia’s submission further notes that, notwithstanding the above comment, there may be some aircraft noise at the site, as aircraft flight paths pass adjacent to, and sometimes over, the development site.

 

Comment:

It is noted that the Prince Henry site lies outside the 20 ANEF noise contour associated with Sydney Airport and thus is rated as “acceptable” for residential and other uses proposed at the site.

 

5.2       CONSULTATION BY LANDCOM AS PART OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

 

Landcom has liaised with Council Officers during the preparation of the proposed Masterplan Amendment. Landcom has also liaised with the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), the NSW Heritage Office, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council, the Coast Golf Course, Jarrah House, the residential aged car facility (St Lukes/Multiplex) and relevant public authorities in defining the proposal.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS’ COMMENTS

 

The proposed Masterplan Amendments were referred to relevant technical officers within Council for comment during the exhibition period. These comments are summarised below.

City Services (Traffic)

The City Services Department has reviewed the proposed Masterplan Amendments and has provided comments on traffic circulation relating to the proposed master plan amendments.  No objection was raised to the proposed one way system within Lot 51 and Lot 75. However, it is advised that any proposals for the introduction of one-way system on public roads as part of any future development applications should be referred for the concurrence of the Randwick Traffic Committee and approval of the RTA.

 

Similarly, detailed plans showing the proposed traffic control devices at intersections, lane marking details and kerb side parking controls should be submitted for the concurrence of the Randwick Traffic Committee, prior to implementation.

 

Comment:

These recommendations form part of this report.

 

Development Engineer

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed master plan amendments and has provided comments the issues of landscaping, parks and recreation, drainage, traffic – namely road width requirements (supplementing those comments provided by City Services), parking (related to Amendment H – the relocation of public parking spaces from Lot 43 to alternative locations within the site) and assets and civil works.

 

In particular, Council’s Development Engineer notes that Lot 51 contains 5 existing trees that were to be retained as part of the adopted Masterplan (May 2003). These trees are considered to be significant as they are visible from Anzac Parade, and are essentially the only trees of this size remaining in or adjacent to Lot 51. The amendment Masterplan report gives insufficient evidence in support for the proposed removal of these trees, and thus this report recommends that references to the removal of these trees be deleted. This report also notes that this matter is to be subject to a more detailed consideration at development application stage.

 

Comment:

The recommendations from Council’s Development Engineer form part of this report, with the exception of the recommendation regarding amendment H.

 

Masterplan amendment H proposes to relocate 16 at-grade public car spaces (on Lot 43), so a small building comprising 2 dwellings can be provided on Lot 43.  These 16 spaces to be relocated nearby, amongst the Flowers Wards (as described in Amendment M in Section 3 of this report).  Council’s Development Engineer recommended that this amendment not be adopted, because the relocated parking spaces do not provide the level of convenience or accessibility to the nearby community facilities (particularly the Coast Centre for Seniors) that they were designed to serve. Council’s Development Engineer also notes that a number of the revised parking spaces are only accessible from private roads.

 

The NSW Heritage Office and the Joint Randwick-Waverley Design Review Panel raised no objection to the proposed Amendment H (the relocation of these parking spaces, and the new building containing 2 dwellings on Lot 43).

 

Whilst there will be some reduction in convenience and accessibility of the relocated parking spaces, they will still be located at-grade and relatively close to the two Coast Centre for Seniors’ buildings. Further, given that no objection to the proposed new building on this lot (Lot 43) has been raised on heritage grounds, on balance the proposed Masterplan Amendment H is considered to be acceptable. Thus, this report recommends that Amendment H be adopted. 

 

All other recommendations from Council’s Development Engineer form part of this report.

 

7.         DESIGN REVIEW PANEL

 

The Joint Randwick-Waverley Design Review Panel (The Panel) reviewed the proposed Masterplan Amendment on 1 August 2005 and provided the following comments:

 

The Randwick/Waverley SEPP 65 Design Review Panel members have reviewed the Master Plan and now the Amended Master Plan with regard to the relevant parts of the SEPP and have previously commented favourably on its potential to deliver suitable, sustainable built form with high amenity and equity.  However the Panel has always contended that the density proposed for the site and in particular, the areas along Anzac Parade, was well below optimum.

 

A more comprehensive urban edge to Anzac Parade would create more appropriate use of this valuable urban site, increase security and passive surveillance and increase equity by making available more dwellings on this unique site.  The elevation and views to Botany Bay from Anzac Parade make it a very desirable address. 

 

The Panel has consistently expressed the view that the master plan is too restrictive on this valuable frontage and that potential locations for future expansion on some sites (such as Lot 58) should be noted on the DA drawings.

 

The proposal to amend the Master Plan has come from economic necessity, as we understand, due to the vastly increased costs of site remediation.  The Panel has no objection per se to the proposal of redistributing the density however the most appropriate area is still considered to be along the Anzac Parade frontage.

 

The proposed amendments are listed below with the Panel’s comments:

 

Precinct 3 [Amendment G – Lot 75] – changed from multi residential apartments to detached dwellings – The suggestion that Landcom prepare fence/wall designs and guidelines for roof forms and landscaping as appropriate responses to the context of the Flowers Wards is supported. The Panel stresses the need for a strong public domain landscape treatment opposite the wards.   The lower density  that is proposed causes some concern to the panel as does the suburban nature of the proposed detached dwelling in this area which is mainly characterised by the simple block form of the Flowers Wards.

 

Increased height of Lot 33b [Amendment F]  –  Although this is not considered the most appropriate position for the tallest building on the PHH site the Panel accepts that, with skilled architectural design, an elegant thin-plan building could be acceptable.

 

Proposed building H – The Panel does not have any objection to a two storey building on this site in lieu of the open carpark.

 

Proposed building I [changes to lot boundaries of Lots 47-48] – There does not appear to be a convincing argument for a residential building on this site and the Panel recommends that it not be changed from the current Master Plan.

 

Proposed change E – Increasing the distance between the existing building and the proposed new building is supported by the Panel.

 

Alteration to building footprint D – no objection

 

Change of building envelopes B – no objection

 

Proposal for 8 townhouses A – Envionmental issues with the remnant bushland will have to be resolved with the council, otherwise the Panel has no objection to townhouses on this Jennifer Street site.

 

Closure of road K – The Panel does not support the closure of this road and considers that the retention of the connecting road system and permeability of the site a high priority.

 

Comment:

It is noted that environmental issues associated with Amendment A (the proposed rezoning of Lot 50 from Environmental Protection to 2D Residential – Comprehensive Development) are discussed in this report (Sections 4 and 8), and thus this proposed rezoning is not supported.

 

The Panel’s remaining comments are reflected in the recommendations of this report.

 

8.         DISCUSSION

8.1       ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

 

The proposed Prince Henry Masterplan Amendment includes a proposal to rezone part of the site (Lot 50) which contains an endangered ecological community, Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS), from Environmental Protection to 2D Residential – Comprehensive Development. Masterplans under clause 40A of Randwick LEP are not mechanisms to make prohibited uses permissible. Rather, they deal with the distribution of permissible uses. A Masterplan may, however, contemplate and foreshadow a future rezoning.

 

If such a rezoning were to be contemplated then a separate rezoning application is required. However, it is important to note that this assessment report does not support a rezoning for the following reasons:

 

-     the quality of the ESBS is rated by the Bushland Management Plan (BMP) as a good example with high floristic diversity and low weed infestations

-     the need for remediation of the lot has not been reassessed since the BMP was prepared, particularly as references to the former tram loop in the CMP and DCP indicate it lies within Lot 66, not Lot 50. Remediation of this lot can proceed in the same way as the other lots on the site which retain ESBS.

-     a species impact statement under the TSC Act has not been prepared

-     the proposal does not comply with the aims and objectives of SEPP 19

-     the proposal does not comply with the aims and objectives of S117 Direction 13

-     the DEC does not support the proposal in its present form (refer Section 5.1)

-     there is objection to the proposal from the community (refer Section 5)

-     the economic need for 8 additional townhouses has not been established, when elsewhere on the site, on less sensitive sites, apartment yield has decreased

-     the need to continue the grain of the surrounding neighbourhood on an environmentally sensitive site has not been justified

-     the fact that the bushland may be degraded does not on its own preclude its rehabilitation nor justify safety concerns.

 

Contrary to the comment in the accompanying Heritage Impact Statement (HIS p5), the area of indigenous vegetation within Lot 50 has never been approved for development. The proposed Masterplan Amendment lodged in March 2003 sought to have it approved for housing, but this notion was rejected by Council in May 2003.

 

No other environmental issues have been identified.

 

8.2       BUILT FORM

 

The proposed Masterplan Amendments include a number of changes to proposed built form. As set out above the proposed 8 townhouses on Lot 50 (Amendment A) are not supported on environmental grounds.

 

Amendments B and G

The proposed changes to the built form on Lots 51 and 75 (Amendments B and G) are the most significant. In both cases apartment blocks set in landscaped surrounds are to be replaced by attached and detached housing on individual lots. As noted in the HIS, the approved guidelines seek buildings with an institutional character in these locations to mitigate the visual impacts of new residential buildings in close proximity to the Flowers Wards Group. Both the HIS and the Heritage Council agree that these impacts can be mitigated through built form controls as recommended. It is noted that each allotment in Lot 75 (Amendment G) will have an individual rainwater tank.

 

In urban design terms the changes to Lots 51 and 75 are acceptable, although the reference in the proponent’s report to setting back of the third storey on the southern block in Lot 51 from the northern façade to minimise overshadowing should read the southern façade.

 

In regard to the built form changes on Lots 43, Heffron building (Lot 54) and Flowers Wards 2, 4, 5 and 6 (Amendments C, H and N) heritage criteria are paramount. It is noted that these are acceptable to the Heritage Council within strict guidelines, and  will be conditioned accordingly at the development application stage.

 

Amendments D and E

On Lots 55 and 56 (Amendments D and E), minor amendments are proposed to the building footprints. These amendments will bring these buildings closer to Harvey Street and the Jennifer Street bushland. The shadow diagrams that accompany the proponent’s report indicate that the overshading impacts are concentrated in the early morning around mid-winter. However, these amendments will not have a significant impact and are therefore supported.

 

Amendment F

Amendment F proposes an increase to the maximum height of part of the building on Lot 65 from 5 to 8 storeys. The visual analysis that accompanies the submission indicates that increasing the height on Lot 65 while having some additional impact, is acceptable, subject to detailed assessment of overshadowing (refer below). However, the assessment also confirms that 8 storeys are acceptable only due to its location on the downhill slope and away from other development. Higher heights should not be contemplated.

 

The location of the proposed 8 storey component of this building adjacent to the eastern edge of the Jennifer Street Bushland may cause additional overshading of the bushland, which is of some concern to the DEC. However, the shadow diagrams that accompany the proponent’s report indicate that the overshading impacts are concentrated in the early morning around mid-winter. The impact on the streetscape of the taller building height is acceptable, subject to the addition of a further requirement to assess this at development application stage.

 

8.3       HERITAGE

 

The heritage issues with respect to Amendments B, C, G, H, I, J, L, M and N have been addressed by the NSW Heritage Council whose recommendations are at Section 5.1.

 

The built form changes lead to the need for the proponent to amend boundaries between Lots 47, 48 and 51 and Lots 55 and 56 for what appears to be FSR purposes, although the reasoning is not clear. Heritage Council has expressed the view that the adjustment between Lots 47 and 48 should not proceed as it places the curtilage of Henry’s Trading Post within two lots, one publicly owned and one privately owned. This recommendation is included as part of this report.

 

8.4       OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING

 

Extension of Pine Avenue Park

The increase in open space proposed by the realignment of the 7th green of the Coast Golf Course and the extension of Pine Avenue Park is positive and is therefore supported.

 

The applicant, in discussion with Council officers, has indicated that the extension of the above park has been proposed to compensate for the proposed loss of bushland zoned Environmental Protection (Lot 50) adjacent to Harvey Street and the proposal to build 8 x 2 storey townhouses (Amendment A). Landcom has advised that should Council not agree with the proposal to build 8 townhouses on this bushland (Amendment A), then the package including the proposed extension of Pine Avenue Park is a less viable option for Landcom, as it may financially compromise their returns. Nevertheless, it is a recommendation of this report that Amendment A (that is the proposal to rezone the bushland from Environmental Protection to Residential to allow the 8 townhouses) not be supported.

 

 

Amendment B (Lot 51)

Lot 51 contains 5 existing trees that were to be retained as part of the adopted Masterplan (May 2003). These trees are considered to be significant as they are visible from Anzac Parade, and are essentially the only trees of this size remaining in or adjacent to Lot 51. The amendment Masterplan report gives insufficient evidence in support for the removal of these trees, and thus this report recommends that references to the removal of these trees be deleted. This report also notes that this matter is to be subject to a more detailed consideration at development application stage.

 

8.5       VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING

 

Amendment K – proposed closure of Harvey Street

The most significant change to the road network is the proposal to terminate the western end of Harvey Street with a cul-de-sac and extend only a pedestrian, cycle and emergency accessway through to Jennifer Street (Amendment K). In urban design terms permeability is an important safety and access consideration, allowing a multitude of ways into and through neighbourhoods, notwithstanding the reservations of the local Jennifer Street community. Thus it is recommended that the closure of the western end of Harvey Street not be supported, and that the two way vehicular connection of Harvey Street to Jennifer Street as adopted in May 2003 remain.

 

Amendments B and G – one-way loop roads

The proposed amendments also include two new one-way road loops from Brodie Avenue to Harvey Street through Lot 51 and Ewing Avenue through Lot 75 (part of Amendments B and G). Both will comprise a 3.5m carriageway and 2.3m parking bays on one side. As the road width and design complies with Council’s requirements, the latter road will be a public road, dedicated to Council. The other will remain a private road. This is generally acceptable to City Services, subject to detailed review at development application stage.

 

Amendments L, M and N

Relocation of the driveway to Lot 48 and rearrangement of the parking around the Flowers Wards Group including proposed undercroft parking (Amendments L, M and N) have been considered by Heritage Council and are acceptable subject to strict guidelines.

 

8.6       SUMMARY

 

With the exception of the proposed removal of the bushland on Lot 50 and the cul de sac at the western end of Harvey Street, the proposed Masterplan Amendments are considered to fit within the framework of the adopted Prince Henry Masterplan. It is considered that the amendments will have a minimal effect on built form and heritage, a positive environmental outcome (via the retention of native bushland), and a positive outcome for the community (via the extension of Pine Avenue Park). A number of changes to the LEP and the Prince Henry DCP may be required. This is noted in the recommendations of this report.

 

9.         CHANGES TO LEGISLATIVE REFORMS

 

A number of  legislative reforms commenced on 30 September 2005, including changes to parts 3 and 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. These changes affect Council’s Masterplan provisions in our LEP, making them redundant. The process of master planning must now be undertaken through existing tools in the legislation, such as site specific DCPs and staged development approvals. A new provision allows an owner to submit a staged development application instead of a DCP where Council’s LEP presently requires a master plan, ie, sites over 4,000 m2.

 

Alternatively the new provisions allow a development control plan to be prepared by, or on behalf of, an owner of land. As is the case with Council’s existing Masterplan provision the owners may submit a development application where Council refuses a DCP or delays in making the DCP by more than 60 days. Council may request further information from the relevant land owner and extend the 60-day time limit. The usual appeal rights would be available in relation to the development application. 

 

Transitional provisions in the Act also deem master plans made or adopted under an EPI, such as Council’s LEP, before the Act’s commencement to be DCPs. Transitional provisions in the Regulations deem master plans lodged under a provision of an EPI, but not made or adopted at the time of the Act’s commencement, to also be DCPs. These DCPs are known as ‘deemed DCPs’.

 

Consequently the current amendment to the Prince Henry Masterplan, the subject of this report, will become a ‘deemed DCP.’ The 2003 Prince Henry Masterplan was followed by a site specific DCP. The current Masterplan, to be considered by Council, was mindful of the impending legislative change and was lodged as a combined Masterplan/DCP.

 

10.       OTHER ISSUES

 

10.1     SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS

 

The Prince Henry Masterplan identifies certain works (community facilities, open space, roads and services) that would be provided as works in kind via conditions of consent and/or a developer agreement with Council in lieu of a monetary Section 94 contribution.

 

Landcom’s proposal report (refer to Attachment 4) indicates that as this Amendment does not constitute a population increase, but open space is increased, the developer agreement between Council and Landcom remains unaltered.

 

10.2     AFFORDABLE HOUSING

 

The 2003 Masterplan includes the requirement that 1% of dwellings on the site are affordable housing. This requirement was subsequently incorporated into the developer agreement based on an estimated number of dwellings in the 2003 Masterplan (approximately 870 dwellings). The decreasing in dwelling numbers (by 104 dwellings) as part of this proposed masterplan amendment will result in a total of approximately 770 dwellings on site, which may result in the loss of affordable housing (by 1 dwelling).

 

11.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council adopt the recommendations outlined in this report, the applicant will be asked to cover Council’s cost with regards to any subsequent amendments to the LEP and DCP in accordance with Council’s fees and charges.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Landcom has submitted a proposed Masterplan Amendment, which seeks support to rezone a small portion of the site from Environmental Protection to 2D Residential – Comprehensive Development, change some adopted housing types from apartments to detached and attached dwellings, make a number of minor boundary and building footprint adjustments, enlarge Pine Avenue Park, revise the western end of the new road to Jennifer Street to a cul-de-sac, and alter parking and driveway arrangements, particularly around the Flowers Wards. The amendment results in a decrease in the number of dwellings by 104 and a decrease in car parking spaces of 137.

 

With the exception of the proposed removal of the bushland on Lot 50 and the cul de sac at the western end of Harvey Street, the proposed Masterplan Amendments are considered to fit within the framework of the adopted Prince Henry Masterplan. It is considered that the amendments will have a minimal effect on built form and heritage, a positive environmental outcome (via the retention of native bushland), and a positive outcome for the community (via the extension of Pine Avenue Park).

 

It is therefore recommended that the proposed Masterplan Amendments be adopted subject to a number of variations.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is therefore recommended that Council:

 

1.       Adopt the Proposed Masterplan Amendment dated September 2005, in accordance with the variations made in Attachment 1.

 

2.       Resolve that the Master Plan (September 2005) be adopted for 5 years from the date of its adoption being 18 October 2005.

 

3.       Require that the applicant amend the Masterplan in accordance with the schedule of variations detailed in Attachment 1, which will be confirmed by Council in a letter of advice to Landcom. The amended Masterplan including Council variations is to be submitted to Council within three months from the date of its adoption.

 

4.       Resolve to prepare an Amendment to Randwick Local Environmental Plan, under the relevant provisions of the EPA Act, and regulations to give effect to the Master Plan (September 2005) and variations and adopted by Council.

 

5.       Resolve to make the necessary amendments to the existing Prince Henry Development Control Plan to incorporate the master plan/deemed development control plan, as adopted by Council on 18 October 2005.

 

6.       resolve that the cost of implementing the changes arising as a result of this proposed master plan amendment (including amendments to the LEP and Prince Henry DCP) be billed to Landcom in accordance with Council’s fees and charges.

 

7.       Give delegations to the Director of City Planning to correct any errors and misdescription contained in the report attachments.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment 1 - Schedule of Variations

Attachment 2 - Location Maps

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SILVIJA SMITS

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

CONSULTANT ARCHITECT AND PLANNER

planningmatters PTY LTD

 

………………………………

 

MoNICA COLOGNA

 

SENIOR PLANNER

 

ATTACHMENT 1

Schedule of Variations to Masterplan

 

The Masterplan Amendments, dated September 2005, received by Council 5 September 2005 and adopted at the Council meeting 18 October 2005, is varied in the following way, and the relevant sections of the Masterplan are to be amended accordingly and submitted to Council within 3 months from the date of its adoption being 18 October 2005:

 

1.       The remnant bushland proposed for removal on Lot 50 is to be retained. The remnant bushland is to be retained as per the LEP Amendment No. 28 Map (Sheet 1), which supersedes relevant diagrams in the Masterplan.

 

2.       The boundary around Lots 47 and 48 is to remain unchanged.

 

3.       The proposed cul de sac at the western end of Harvey Street is to be deleted and Harvey Street is to remain as a two way vehicular connection to Jennifer Street as adopted in May 2003. Pedestrian and cycle access are also to remain as adopted in May 2003.

 

4.       The master plan is to note that all road widths, verge and footpath widths, travel lanes and parking lanes are to be provided in accordance with current development consents, issued construction certificates, Council’s adopted standards, and any Council endorsed recommendations of the Traffic Committee. The master plan maps are to be amended accordingly

 

5.       Vehicular crossings on NR6 and NR7, and the private driveways within Lot 51, are to be designed and constructed to accommodate the 85th percentile vehicle turning movements based on the worst case on-street parking scenario. The intersection geometry and carriageway widths of NR6 and NR7, and the private driveways within Lot 51, are to be such as to facilitate suitable collection of domestic waste and circulation by vehicles with a minimum turning radius of 10.5 metres. Larger trucks such as 12.5 metre removalist trucks will be able to navigate the intersections without mounting kerbs.

 

6.       The roads indicated as private driveways in Lot 51 are to be designed to Council’s specifications and are to have the following minimum widths: 3.5m travel lane (measured from face of kerb) and a 2.3m parking lane; and one way circulation.

 

7.       The master plan is to note that dedication to Council of the proposed extension of Pine Avenue Park will not occur until such time as Council is satisfied that the use of the park by the general public does not represent an unreasonable risk resulting from the proximity of the park to the Coast Golf Course.

 

8.       The references to the proposed loss of additional trees in Lot 51 to be deleted. Note: this matter is to be subject to a more detailed consideration as part of the future development application assessment for Lot 51.

 

9.       The references to Landcom’s Design Guidelines be deleted from the masterplan report.

 

10.     All indicative building envelopes are to be deleted from the amended master plan. Note: the primary controls of FSR, height, and minimum landscaped area are specified.

 

11.     The master plan is to note that a restrictive covenant is to be placed on the title within Lot 75 to prohibit dual occupancies.

 

12.     Note that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical and formatting errors, if required, and to include additional/alternative explanatory photographs/graphics in preparing the draft documents for public exhibition.

 

 


ATTACHMENT 2 – Map 1 Location

 

 

Map 2 – Detailed Location Map

 
 



MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1     Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Bastic & White – Ordinary Council Meeting, Tuesday, 27th September, 2005 – Confidential General Manager’s Report 48/2005 – Maroubra Beach Pavilion - Cafe & Kiosk - Lease Tender Evaluation - T036/05. (F2005/00198)

 

That the resolution passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 27th September, 2005 reading as follows:-

 

that:

 

(a)        Council not accept any tenders; and

 

(b)        tenders be called again, requesting that all tenderers secure a bank guarantee for their rent for the full four and a half (4½) year period.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

Upon the abovementioned Rescission Motion being carried, it is intended to move the following motion:-

 

That the matter be reconsidered by Council.

 

11.2     By Councillor Scott Nash – Leases – Council as Landlord. (F2004/06351 xr F2005/00171)

 

That in respect of all leases entered into by Randwick City Council as landlord with any tenant, that Council insist on a suitable guarantee provided by the proposed tenant before entering into the lease (such as a bank guarantee, security deposit or personal guarantee from directors if the tenant is a company.)

 

11.3     By Councillor Andrews – Installation of roundabout at Malabar Road/Mons Avenue, Maroubra.  (F2004/08222 xr F2005/00171)

 

That Council considers the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Malabar Road/Mons Avenue Maroubra.  Further this matter be referred to the Traffic Committee for its comments.

 

11.4     By Councillor Andrews – Installation of pedestrian crossing at Fenton Street, Maroubra. (F2004/08222 xr F2005/00171)

 

That Council consider the installation of a pedestrian crossing at the Fenton Street, Maroubra near the intersection of McKeon Street.  Further this matter be referred to the Traffic Committee for its comments.

 

 

 

11.5     By Councillor Andrews – Kerb & Guttering at 31-35 Mason Street, Maroubra.  (F2004/06115 xr F2005/00171)

 

That this Council provide kerb and guttering for the residence of 31-35 Mason Street, Maroubra that being the only remaining part of Mason Street which has not been kerb and guttered.  That funding for this project be available in the budget for 2006/07.

 

11.6     By Councillor Matson – Kashmir, Pakistan & India Earthquake Relief.  (F2005/00182: xr F2005/00171)

 

That Council:

 

1)              Resolves to donate $1,000 to Medecins Sans Frontieres or another suitable agency assessed by the General Manager to be providing relief work to the victims of the recent earthquake affecting parts of Kashmir, Pakistan & India;

 

2)              Offers to make the Town Hall available for free should the Kashmir, Pakistan and Indian communities of the local area wish to stage a fundraising event; and

 

3)       Encourages residents and businesses within the area to donate to relief efforts.

 

11.7     By Councillor Matson – Alcohol Free Zones in Coogee.  (F2004/06858 xr  F2005/00171)

 

That Council notes recent correspondence received from the Coogee Precinct Committee and resolves to support the following requests from the Committee:

 

1.              That the existing Alcohol Free Zone in the east end of Dolphin Street, from Arden to what was Beach Street and including the Council carpark on the south side of Dolphin Street, be re-established.

 

2.              That the following streets and footpaths be established as Alcohol Free Zones:

 

a.                       Brook Street between Dolphin and Coogee Bay Road and Dolphin and Alfreda Streets between Brook and Arden Streets;

b.                      Beach Street (south) from Dudley to Carr Street; and

c.                       Kurrawa Avenue and Carr Street from Arden to Beach Street.

 

3.              That consideration be given to making the street level beach promenade area an Alcohol Free Zone; and

 

4.       That the other existing Alcohol Free Zones for Coogee listed in the General Managers letter to the Coogee Precinct Committee of 26 July be re-established and retained beyond 18 October, 2005.