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

 

2nd May, 2006

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 9TH MAY, 2006 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

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

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2004, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WHOSE MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 11TH APRIL, 2006.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Development Applications

 

5.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 30/2006 –

8-10 WOOD STREET, RANDWICK(DEFERRED)

2

 

5.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 31/2006 –

343-355 CLOVELLY ROAD, CLOVELLY.  (DEFERRED)

50

 

5.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

820A-824 ANZAC PARADE AND 5 ALMA ROAD, MAROUBRA.

136

 

5.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

80 MIDDLE STREET AND 133 BOTANY STREET, RANDWICK.

148

5.5                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

7 WILD STREET, MAROUBRA.

242

 

5.6                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

48-58 MAROUBRA ROAD, (LOTS 1 & 2 DP 962347) MAROUBRA.

249

 

5.7                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

41 TUNSTALL AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

328

 

5.8                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

38 WENTWORTH STREET, RANDWICK.

368

 

5.9                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT -  

351 RAINBOW STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.

380

 

5.10                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

22 MINNEAPOLIS CRESCENT, MAROUBRA.

395

 

5.11                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

145-149S FRANKLIN STREET, MATRAVILLE.

402

 

5.12                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

101 BILGA CRESCENT, MALABAR

434

5.13

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

54 MAROUBRA ROAD & 59-63 ROYAL STREET, MAROUBRA.

452

 

5.14                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 34/2006 - 6 HAIG STREET MAROUBRA.

490

 

 

6           Miscellaneous

 

6.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 35/2006 - GAZETTAL OF THE STANDARD INSTRUMENT (LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS) ORDER 2006, KNOWN AS THE STANDARD LEP TEMPLATE.

517

 

6.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 36/2006 - RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL'S SECOND ECOLIVING FAIR FOR WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY 2006.

522

 

 

7           General Business

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

…………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Planning Report 30/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

8-10 WOOD STREET, RANDWICK. (DEFERRED)

 

 

DATE:

26 April, 2006

FILE NO:

D0225/2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 18 April 2006, it was resolved that the development application, under Section 82A review, for alterations and additions to the existing boarding house and change of use to a residential flat building comprising 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings, associated garaging and strata subdivision, be deferred for the applicant to provide additional information in respect of the locations of the available comparable accommodation in the area.  The purpose of this report is to present the additional information provided by the applicant in respect of this resolution.

 

ISSUES:

 

On 27 April 2006, the applicant (SPD Town Planners) submitted a facsimile (attached) to Council providing additional information on the findings of the actual locations of the comparable accommodation in the vicinity of the subject site.

 

The advertisements identified in the newspapers have been circled, which identify the locations of the boarding house accommodation.  All identified boarding houses are located in the subject or adjoining postcode areas, which satisfies the requirements of SEPP 10.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council determine the application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the Director City Planning’s Report 29/2006 dated 30 March 2006.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Director City Planning Report 29/2006 dated 30 March 2006

2. Facsimile from SPD Town Planner dated 27 April 2006 (under separate cover)  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

TOM HUTCHISON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

30 March, 2006

FILE NO:

DA225/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A Review of the decision to refuse development consent to the application seeking to make alterations & additions to the existing boarding house & change of use to a residential flat building comprising 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings, associated garaging and strata subdivision.

PROPERTY:

 8-10 Wood Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 G & I Selia

OWNER:

Mr G Selia

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Wood Street between Eulalie Avenue and Rae Street, Randwick.  It is located within the St Marks Heritage Conservation Area.  The site has a 12.2 metre frontage to Wood Street, a 39.4 metre alignment to the side Lane, a 12.2 metre rear alignment to Wood Lane and a total site area of 692.9m2.  The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of attached and semi-detached dwelling houses and some residential flat buildings. 

 

The subject application is an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to review Council’s previous determination (refusal) of the development application. 

 

The application was notified to surrounding properties and was advertised in the local newspaper.  Three submissions were received raising issue with parking and manoeuvrability; heritage; amenity to lower level units; and loss of privacy.

 

The main planning issue is the NSW Department of Planning’s concurrence requirements in respect of SEPP 10 – Retention of Low-Cost Rental Accommodation.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the eastern side of Wood Street on the northern corner of Wood Lane in Randwick. The site is a corner allotment that has three street frontages. The southern side of the site measures 39.415 metres, the primary frontage to Wood Street measures 12.19 metres, likewise the third frontage to the rear of the site, to Wood Lane, is 12.9 metres long. The northern side boundary adjoins a two- three storey dwelling house (6 Wood Street) and measures 39.625 metres. The total site area is 692.9m2. The site is currently occupied by a two-three storey boarding house containing 10 rooms and a single garage to the rear boundary.

 

Development in the locality is comprised of a variety of residential uses. To the south of the site across Wood Lane (West) are garages of and rear yards of properties which address Rae Street. Across Wood Lane to the east are three storey residential flat buildings which address Dutruc Street. Opposite the site to the west, across Wood Street are 1-2 storey dwelling houses including a row of attached two storey terraces. Adjoining the site to the north is a 2-3 storey brick dwelling, with detached garage and roof terrace to the rear, number 6 Wood Street. The site is located in the St Marks Heritage Conservation Area.

 

3.        HISTORY

 

On 31 March 2004, a development application was lodged that proposed to make external and internal alterations and additions to existing boarding house and change of use to residential flat building comprising 7 x 2 bedroom units and associated garaging and strata subdivide.

 

The original draft assessment of the application concluded that the proposal was acceptable and could be approved subject to conditions.  However, on 20 June 2005, the DIPNR refused to grant its concurrence for the proposal under the provisions of SEPP 10.  Consequently, on 30 June 2005, the application was refused for the following reasons:

 

1.     The application fails to meet the requirements of SEPP 10- Retention of Low Cost Housing in that:

·    All of the low cost dwellings on the site will be lost as a result of the development and that represents a major reduction of low-cost rental accommodation on site. 

·    The applicant has not demonstrated under the provisions of SEPP 10 that there is sufficient comparable accommodation available in the locality to offset, or ‘absorb’ the likely loss of low-cost rental accommodation.

·    The subject site is well located for a low-rental residential building as it enjoys a close proximity to employment opportunities, public transport and community services. It is considered that the proposal, if realised, will bear significantly greater negative than positive social and economic effects upon the general community.

·    Inadequate measures have been proposed by the applicant to assist those residents (i.e. all residents) likely to be displaced if the proposal is realised.

·    Approval of the development could contribute to the cumulative decline of low-cost rental accommodation. This in turn raises displacement problems for existing tenants and major socio economic impact issues in the area.

·    The annual return on investment for the property is 6.63%, which is above the 6% annual return stipulated within the SEPP 10 Guidelines as the financial viability threshold of boarding houses. Therefore, with regard to the provisions of Clause 7(9) (b) and the SEPP 10 Guidelines, the subject building can continue to be used for low-cost rental accommodation because its continued use as a boarding house is considered financially viable.

 

2.     The application fails to satisfy the objectives under Clause 2 of Draft LEP 22 – Affordable Housing, specifically:

·    2(l)     to encourage the provision of housing mix and tenure choice, including affordable housing, in the City, and

·    2(m)   to encourage the retention of affordable housing in the City in a variety of types and tenures.

 

3.     The application fails to demonstrate that it satisfies the requirements of Clause 34 of Draft LEP 22 – Affordable Housing, specifically:

 

(e)  whether arrangements have been made or will be made to assist residents who may be displaced by the development, and

 

(f)  the availability of other buildings suitable for use as affordable housing, having regard to their location, type, size, rent levels and available services, and

 

(g)  any adverse social and economic effects caused by the development on affordable housing stocks and on households in the local community on very low, low or moderate incomes who are spending 30% or greater of gross incomes on rent or home purchase expenses.

 

4.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The development application proposes to make internal and external alterations and additions to the existing boarding house to create 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings and four carparking spaces to the rear of the site with access off Wood Lane. The applicant contends that the development is for 5 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 1 bedroom units, however the attic areas described as ‘utility/ storage rooms’ in the Statement are shown with beds in the plans and an ensuite is provided to the attic space of Unit 7. The proposal has been assessed as being a 7 x 2 bedroom unit development.

 

The applicant also proposes external improvements to the site including a roof terrace above the four car garage at the rear of the site, decks to the rear of the building at first and second floor level and new landscaping to the front and rear of the site. The street elevation of the building is to be renovated including reinstatement of some original features such as the opening of first floor balconies that have been enclosed.

 

The subject application is to review Council determination of the development application under Section 82A of the EP&A Act.  Although the details of the proposed development remain the same under the subject application to review, the applicant has been negotiating with the, now, Department of Planning, to provide a contribution to offset the loss of low-cost housing.  The applicant has also stated that he would be willing to provide extended notice to vacate for residents (i.e. 50 days) and provision of a one-off lump sum payment of $500 to each of the residents to assist then in relocation to alternative accommodation.

 

5.    STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 82A

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, enables an applicant to request a Review of a Determination of a Development Application or conditions of Development Consent. Council may review the Determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the Determination.

 

The proposal constitutes essentially the same development and is, therefore, assessable under Section 82A.

 

6.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 16 November 2005.  As a result of this notification, three submissions were received from the following properties:

 

§ BC and EM Noonan – 17 Rae Street

§ Mary-Louise White – 3 Wood Street

§ Margaret L Varady – 15 Rae Street

 

The following issues were raised in the submissions:

 

§ Lack of parking;

§ Heritage concerns insofar as changes to the façade of the building;

§ Manoeuvrability into proposed garages;

§ Amenity to lower level of units 1 to 4 of the proposed development; and

§ Loss of privacy to Rae Street properties.

 

The following comments are made in response to each of the above issues:

 

§ A traffic and parking study specific to the site was submitted with the development application that indicates the development will not have a significant impact;

 

§ Council’s Heritage planner reviewed the documentation during the development application and has agreed that the proposal will be acceptable provided that certain changes are made in respect to window/door openings in the façade of the building (see Heritage Planners comments) and appropriate conditions imposed with any consent;

 

§ The garage has been setback a metre from the eastern boundary of the site, increasing the area at the northeastern junction of the site available for visibility and manoeuvring;

 

§ The Design Review Panel has reviewed the plans and the addition of windows and removal of primary living areas from the basement level has improved amenity such that the amenity of the proposal is considered satisfactory; and

 

§ The development overlooks the garages of these properties and will not result in significant privacy impacts due to the separation between the sites provided by Wood Lane (West) and the existing garage structures to the rear of these properties.

 

7.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

Except the comments from the NSW Department of Planning, all the following referral comments were received during the assessment process of the original development application. 

 

Development Engineers

 

The Development Engineers have provided the following comments in relation to the subject application:

 

An application has been received for conversion of the existing boarding house into 7 units with parking for 4 vehicles and associated strata subdivision.

 

Landscape Comments

There are two (2) Sapium sebiferum (Chinese Tallowoods) on Council’s nature strip at the front of the site. They are both approximately 4-5 metres in height and appear in reasonable condition. They should remain largely unaffected by the proposed works; however, the applicant will be required to ensure their retention as part of this proposal.

 

In the rear yard against the northern boundary, there is one Callistemon viminalis (Bottlebrush) of approximately 6 metres in height, and to the east, one tree (species undetermined) of about 5 metres in height. Both trees appear in reasonable condition and provide effective screening between this site and the adjacent property to the north. Given the proximity of the proposed paving, decking and pergolas to these trees, protection measures will be necessary during the course of the proposed works to ensure their retention as is shown on the plans.

 

Still in the rear yard, against the southern boundary, there is one Persea americanna (Avocado) of approximately 5 metres in height, which appears in average condition. Although it is shown for retention on the plans, approval is granted for the removal of this tree subject to a suitable replacement being provided in its place.

 

In the neighbouring property to the north, close to the common boundary, there is one Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow Leafed Peppermint), of approximately 8-10 metres in height. This tree appears in good condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This tree should remain largely unaffected by this application; however, protection measures will be necessary to ensure the applicant retains this tree as is shown on the plans.

 

Still in this neighbouring rear yard, but to the east, there is one Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) of approximately 6-7 metres in height. This tree appears in good condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This tree should remain largely unaffected by the proposed works; however, protection measures will be necessary to ensure the applicant retains this tree as part of the proposal.

 

Drainage Comments

On-site detention is not required for this development however site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to a minimum 5 metre square base infiltration area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit that drains to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

Traffic Comments

The City Services Dept in its prelodgement report for the subject site requested the applicant submit turning manoeuvre diagrams for vehicles entering and exiting the proposed carspaces. The City Services Dept has requested the diagrams as the applicant has not complied with Council’s DCP requirement to have garages in laneways setback 1.00m from the property boundary. The turning manoeuvre diagrams shall accurately plot the kerb line on the other side (east side) of the rear lane.

 

As mentioned in the prelodgement report the applicant may consider making the garages in the rear lane 2 double car garages so as to improve turning manoeuvres.

 

Conditions 55 to 88, as required by the Development Engineers, have been included in the recommendation section of this report. The submitted plans show two double garages in accordance with the recommendation.

 

Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building has provided the following comments in relation to the application:

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the alteration and addition of the existing boarding house to a residential dwelling comprising of 7 residential units and garage parking at the rear.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§   Class 2            -           Residential units

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

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

 

Standard conditions have been included in the consent to address a range of construction site management issues.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Conclusion:

No objections are raised in relation to the proposed development, subject to the following conditions being included in any development consent.

 

Conditions required by the Building Section have been included in the recommendation section of this report.

 

Heritage Planner

 

Council’s consultant Heritage Planner has made the following comments in relation to the application:

 

Site and Surrounding Area: The subject site is located in the St Marks Conservation Area.  It features a large modified two storey Victorian villa that is one in a group of three.  The dwelling is adjacent to a side lane and has rear lane access.  The dwelling has been heavily modified in its conversion to a boarding house and there has been a loss of detail and intrusive alterations such as the enclosure of verandahs.  The building has retained its principle form, materials, fenestration and character as well as its relationship to the other dwellings in the street.

 

Significance:  The dwelling makes a positive contribution to the conservation area as a representative example of a late Victorian villa that is part of a group of three.  Alterations to the dwelling and the group have impacted on the significance of the place.

 

Proposal: It is proposed to make alterations and additions to the existing building converting it from boarding house accommodation featuring bed sit units to a more modern arrangement of studio, one and two bedroom apartments.  The proposal will involve refurbishment works to the façade, a rear wing addition, new verandahs to the rear elevation and a new garage to the rear lane.

 

Submission: A Heritage Impact Statement was submitted with the development application.  .The HIS notes that the proposal has been designed to retain existing fabric and enhance or restore it and that the impacts of the proposal are minimal and reasonable in heritage terms in the context of the conservation area.  It also states that the proportions of new windows are in keeping with the period of the original building.

 

Assessment: Generally, the proposal is considered to respect the significance of the site and its contribution to the conservation area.  The internal alterations will be largely unseen and are considered reasonable given the modifications that have already occurred to the building and also provide the opportunity to enhance the contribution of the dwelling to the area through the remediation of intrusive alterations. The addition to the rear wing is appropriate in its contemporary form and materials which allows the existing form to be read.  The proposed rear balconies are suitable in form and materials.  The refurbishment of the façade will enhance the significance of the place, although the new bi-fold doors to the ground floor are considered to be intrusive and are not sympathetic to the building in proportion as it results in a large void to the elevation which will be visible from the street. The rear lane garage is appropriate in the context.

 

Recommendations: The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

§ It is recommended that the bi-fold doors on the ground level be changed to a pair of French doors similar to those proposed for the first floor and are to be aligned with those of the first floor.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

§ The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building/existing buildings in the heritage conservation area.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

§ Any sandstone kerbing to be removed shall be removed under the supervision of Council’s Heritage Planner and the sandstone shall be stored in Council’s care.

 

Deferred Commencement condition No.1 and Condition of consent No.30, as recommended by the Heritage Planner, have been included in the recommendation section of this report. The submitted plans show that the front elevation provides for french doors in accordance with the heritage planner’s advice (see first bullet point).

 

 

Design Review Panel

 

The application was referred to Council’s Design Review Panel at prelodgement stage and for DA comment to the meeting of 5th July 2004. The Panel provided some clear advice regarding amendments to improve the design. The following comments were made:

 

1.         Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

2.         The Scale of the Proposal

 

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal

 

1.         The southern elevation would be more appropriate without lines on the wall as indicated on plans.  This would reduce the fragmentation of the southern elevation.

 

2.         The external privacy screens indicated on the street elevation will require careful detailing so as not to detract from the character of the building.

 

4.         The Proposed Density

 

The reduction in unit numbers and improved internal planning is supported.

 

5.         Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

6.         The Proposed Landscape

 

A more developed landscape plan is required.  The hard landscaping indicated on the basement level plan displays inadequate design and spatial qualities.

 

7.         The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

A larger window in bedroom 2 of unit one would provide more appropriate levels of light and ventilation.

 

BCA assessment required in regard to fire safety.

 

Optimise day lighting opportunities by incorporating clerestory windows, skylights etc, particularly to the entry spaces.  Fixed windows above entry doors may be an option for improving light levels.

 

Some internal rooms and circulation spaces could be improved by changing door swings.

The chamfered decks will reduce amenity to the users, particularly to unit six and seven. Decks should be ideally 2.5 metres deep and where possible three metres wide where there is no direct connection to the garden. We suggest that decks should all be of a similar depth.

8.         The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

9.         Social issues

 

10.       The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

As previously noted, French doors to the street elevation of Unit 2 would be a more appropriate response to the building and its context.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The panel considers this application has improved and that if the applicant addresses all the issues as outlined above, in association with the assessing planner, there is no need to see the application again.

 

The submitted plans satisfy all of the Panel’s concerns with the exception of the shape of the balconies to units 6 and 7. The applicant has advised that the chamfer (truncated corner of the balconies) has been introduced to allow for solar access to the balconies and rear elevations of units below. It is considered that this is a good argument and that the balconies, as proposed, will provide good amenity to users.

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65.

 

Department of Planning

 

The Section 82A application was referred to the Department of Planning on 24 November 2005.  On 15 February 2006, the Department granted its concurrence based on negotiations with the applicant.  The following condition, which is to be included with any consent, shows the result of the negotiations:

The one-off monetary contribution of $67,080.00 (‘Contribution’) proposed by DA 225/2004 (as amended) for the purposes of mitigating the proposed loss of low-cost rental accommodation, shall be dealt with as follows:

(a)  The contribution is to be paid by the Owner to Randwick City Council (‘Council’) in one complete payment to Council’s satisfaction prior to the Construction Certificate being issued; and

(b)  Council shall use the contribution solely for the purpose of developing affordable housing in the vicinity of the land to which the DA is subject.

Payment of the above contribution was discussed with Council’s Manager Strategic Planning prior to the concurrence being granted by the DoP.  It was determined that the contribution could be accepted by Council to contribute to funding for Council’s new affordable housing scheme.

On the basis of the above, it is considered that reason for refusal No.1 has been satisfactorily addressed.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls:-

 

§ Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

§ State Environmental Planning Policy No.10 – Retention of Low-Cost Rental Accommodation

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

§ Building Code of Australia.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

This section undertakes an assessment having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

9.1   Environmental Planning Instruments

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The following clauses of the RLEP 1998 have been considered during the assessment of the proposal:

 

CLAUSE

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

21 – Subdivision

Requires Council Consent

Consent sought – draft strata plans provided

Yes

31 (2)– Landscape Area

50% of site area

(240.8m2)

37%

(176.5m2)

No1

31 (3)- Landscaped Area over basements (maximum)

Not to exceed 50% of landscaped area requirement

(25% of site area)

(120.4m2)

0% of landscaped area requirement

(0m2 over garages – roof terrace not included in landscaped area)

Yes

32 (2) – FSR

0.65:1

(313.04m2)

1.21:1

(585.61m2)

No1

33 (1)– Building Height

12m

9.4m (new work only – no change to existing building)

Yes

33 (3)- External Wall Height

10m

9.4m (new work only – no change to existing building)

Yes

46 – Development in the vicinity of Heritage Item or Conservation Area

Must consider impact on heritage of surrounding items.

Will not detract from setting of conservation area

Yes

1Objection under SEPP No. 1 provided in support of non-compliance

 

When the development application was being considered, draft amendment No.22 to LEP 1998 was awaiting gazettal.  That Amendment has since been gazetted and the LEP has been amended.  The relevant parts of the LEP that have been amended follow and are shown in bold, where relevant, in the following paragraphs.

 

Clause 2

(a) to consolidate and review existing planning controls in the City of Randwick, and

(b) to reduce the number of zones into which land is divided, and

(c) to create a broad framework of planning controls within which the Council may prepare development control plans to formulate and adopt more detailed policies and guidelines relating to matters of significance for local environmental planning, and

(d) to ensure that development is carried out in such a way as to allow the economic and efficient provision of public services and amenities, and

(e) to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage and aesthetic character of the City, and

(f) to facilitate and encourage community consultation and participation in the planning process, and

(g) to promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the City, and

(h) to recognise the importance of ecological sustainability in the planning and development processes, and

(i) to recognise the responsibilities of accountability in the planning processes, and

(j) to enhance individual and community economic well-being and welfare and safeguard the welfare of future generations, and

(k) to encourage consideration of social consequences when decisions are made in the implementation of this plan, and

(l) to encourage the provision of housing mix and tenure choice, including affordable housing, in the City, and

(m) to encourage the retention of affordable housing in the City in a variety of types and tenures.

By virtue of the fact that the Department of Planning has reached an agreement with the applicant that involves payment of a Contribution to Council for allocation to affordable housing projects in the Council area, it is considered that approval with any such condition would be consistent with objectives (l) and (m) above.

Clause 12(1)

The objectives of Zone No 2C are:

(a)    to allow a variety of housing types within residential areas, and

(b)    to allow a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors, and

(c)    to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas, and

(d)    to allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality, and

(e)    to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with objective (e) - See comments under assessment of clause 2.  The proposal is also not inconsistent with the other relevantly applicable objectives of the zone, in that the built form of the proposal will contribute to the aesthetic character of the area whilst not adversely impacting on the social amenity of surrounding residential properties.

Clause 34(3)

When determining an application required by this clause, the Council may grant its consent only where it has made an assessment of and considered the implications of:

(a)    the need to retain the particular type of housing in relation to any identified needs of the local area, and

(b)    the accumulated impact that the loss of the building or place for use as a boarding house will have on the supply of that type of housing in the local area, and

(c)    any building and fire safety requirements, and

(d)    the financial viability of the continued use of the building or place as a boarding house, and

(e)    whether arrangements have been made or will be made to assist residents who may be displaced by the development, and

(f) the availability of other buildings suitable for use as affordable housing, having regard to their location, type, size, rent levels and available services, and

(g)    any adverse social and economic effects caused by the development on affordable housing stocks and on households in the local community on very low, low or moderate incomes who are spending 30% or greater of gross incomes on rent or home purchase expenses.

The applicant has undertaken a survey of comparable accommodation is the surrounding area and has presented the results.  The survey has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP 10 Guide.  The survey demonstrates that there is adequate comparable accommodation available to absorb the increase in demand created by tenants displaced from the subject boarding house. 

The applicant has also stated that he would be willing to provide extended notice to vacate for residents (i.e. 50 days) and provision of a one-off lump sum payment of $500 to each of the residents to assist then in relocation to alternative accommodation.  These will be imposed as conditions of any consent issued.

As stated earlier, the applicant has been negotiating with the, now, Department of Planning, to provide contribution to offset the loss of low-cost housing if the proposal is realised.  This will also be included as a condition of any consent.

Therefore, in summary, the existing tenants will be given adequate time to find alternative accommodation in a market that has adequate comparable accommodation.  They will be provided with a contribution towards relocating, which may fully fund their removal expenses.  The loss of the existing boarding house will be off-set by the payment of the contribution towards other low-cost housing scheme(s) in the Council area. 

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development, with those inclusions, adequately satisfies the relevant assessment criteria of clause 34.

Clause 46 – Development in the vicinity of heritage items

 

Across Wood Lane (West) to the south of the site are the garages and rear boundary of heritage items at 11A-23 Rae Street. The alterations and additions to the existing building on the site have been contained within the existing building envelope or located to the rear of the site. This has minimised the impact of the development on the heritage items to the south of the site. The significance of the items is stated in the LEP as being that they form part of an historic residential streetscape c.1887. Due to the subdivision pattern in the area, with the rear boundary of these Rae Street properties being closest to the subject site, the development will not affect the Rae Street streetscape nor the significance of the items.

 

The site is located within the St Marks Heritage Conservation Area. It is considered the improvements to the appearance of the existing building will make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area. Council’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the plans and is satisfied the development will not impact on the significance of nearby heritage items nor the heritage conservation area as a whole.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

 

Density

 

The FSR of the proposal is 1.21:1 (585.6m2) and does not comply with the permissible FSR under clause 32(2) of the RLEP 98 for a development on the site, being 0.65:1 (313.04m2). The applicant has submitted an objection under SEPP No. 1 that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

Clause 32(2) of Randwick LEP 1998 imposes a maximum FSR of 0.65:1 at the site (as the site is less than 700m2 in area). This allows a gross floor area (GFA) of 313.04m2 at the site. The existing building has a GFA of 540.1m2 which represents an FSR of 1.12:1. As it presently stands, the existing development fails to achieve the maximum 0.65:1 FSR requirement.

 

The proposed development incorporates only 42.7m2of additional floor space, resulting in a GFA of 582.8m2 and an FSR of 1.21:1. Importantly, it is noted that 31.3m2 of the additional floor space is contained within the existing roof form as utility space, and does not have any impact on the scale, height, bulk or appearance of the existing building on the site.

 

The altered building, in terms of its height, size, bulk and scale is generally consistent with that of the existing building, as the majority of the additional GFA is contained within the existing building envelope.

 

Additionally, the proposal does not give rise to any unreasonable adverse environmental impacts in relation to adjoining properties in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts as discussed in the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the Development Application.

 

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

 

The proposed development is of a height, size, bulk and external appearance that is

 

The objective of the floor space ratio (FSR) standard is to establish a reasonable upper limit for development in residential zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment. An accepted measure of the impacts on amenity is the degree of compliance a proposal achieves with Council’s amenity standards for overshadowing, visual privacy, views etc.

 

Consistent with the objective of the FSR standard, the development minimises impacts to neighbouring properties despite the non-compliance of the proposal with the density standard of 0.65:1. The reuse of an existing building envelope by the proposal has minimised impacts such as overshadowing and visual bulk and scale and indicates the proposed density can be accommodated on the site without adverse impact.

 

From Wood Street the building appears as a two storey structure. The location of the basement below street level provides for additional floor space without increasing building bulk. Similarly, the attic area will be concealed within the existing roof space of the building and will increase the gross floor area by approximately 30m2 but not result in any increase in the visual bulk or amenity impacts such as overlooking or overshadowing. The above ground portion of the development exclusive of the attic space has an FSR of approximately 0.785:1, or a gross floor area 65m2 in excess of Council’s statutory requirement. This degree of non-compliance is considered to minor in terms of bulk and scale and amenity impacts.

 

Development to the north and east of the development site is typical of the 2(c) zoning, being comprised of large residential flat buildings with an average height of 3 storeys. The development proposed at 2 storeys (plus basement and attic areas) is of a compatible density and a reduced height and bulk when compared to these developments. The building has a traditional residential form that appears as a large house further reducing the scale of the proposal. The elevations of the building are well-articulated with balconies and projections. The additional floor area of the proposal does not result in a significant increase in visual bulk due to the articulation provided to the building form and the location of the majority of the non-compliance in the basement and attic areas.

 

The increase in density on the site is considered to represent a reasonable level of redevelopment, consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard and the density envisaged in the 2C zone. The provision of units within an existing residential building in a heritage conservation area will increase the variety of residential accommodation available in Randwick City and provide a new and viable use for an existing building which contributes positively to the streetscape and conservation status of the area.

 

The non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard contained in clause 32 of the Randwick LEP will not result in significant impacts on adjoining development and therefore strict compliance is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. It would be unreasonable to enforce compliance with the FSR standard contained within the RLEP when the proposed development on the site achieves the underlying purpose of the standard and meets Council’s controls with regard to streetscape, height and residential amenity. It is considered that SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

The development provides 37% (176.5m2) of the site area as landscaping. This does not comply with the statutory requirement under clause 31(2) of the RLEP98 of 50% (240.8m2). This is exclusive of the rooftop garden over the garage which provides an addition area of 70m2 but cannot be included in landscaped area calculations under the LEP definition. None of the required landscaping occurs over basement areas, which meets the requirement under clause 31(3) of the LEP, limiting landscaping over basements to less than 50% of the required landscaping. The applicant has submitted an objection under SEPP No. 1 that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

Clause 31(2) of Randwick LEP 1998 imposes a minimum landscape area standard of 50% (240.8m2) at the site. The existing building has a total landscaped area of 206.9m2 (42.9%). As it presently stands, the existing development fails to achieve the minimum 50% requirement.

 

The existing landscaping on site is in poor conditions and relatively ad-hoc in nature. The area is not visually attractive and does not encourage its use or patronage. The subject proposal seeks to formalise and improve the landscaped area on the site to improve its useability, functionality and visual appeal.

 

The proposal provides 176.5m2 (36.6% of site area) as landscaped area and an additional 71.7m2 in the form of the terrace over the proposed garages.

 

Although not strictly in accordance with the definition of landscaped area, as contained in LEP 1998, it may be argued that the terrace above the garages should be included as landscaped area due to it being one of the primary common open space areas proposed for the site. In this regard, if the terrace above the garages were included, the site would contain 248.2m2 of landscaped area, being more than the 50% requirement.

 

It is reasonable to assume that one of the intents of the landscaping standard is to ensure that there is sufficient opportunity to provide “soft” landscaping (i.e: planting) within the site. All 176.5m2 of landscaped space will be able to accommodate planting and assist in stormwater management.

 

In conjunction with the discussion above, the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as:

§ The proposal provides landscaping on the site where currently very little exists;

§ The non-compliance with the standard will have no adverse impacts in relation to stormwater management;

§ The site will maintain a visual balance between the built form and areas of landscaping;

§ Each of the units contained within the proposed development will have private open space areas, in the form of a balcony and/ or courtyard; and

§ Usable communal open space is provided in the rear of the site and will be accessible to all future occupants of the development.

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal will provide 37% of the site as landscaped area and fails to meet the statutory standard of 50% by approximately 65m2. The existing building on the site results in a landscaped area of 42.9% and also fails to comply with the statutory standard. The development represents a reduction of 5.9% on the existing situation. The proposal is considered to improve the landscape presentation of the site as currently the area is not landscaped in a formal way although it does contain a few larger trees covered by Council’s TPO.

 

The proposal provides adequate areas of communal and private open space, which adds to the amenity of the units. The deep soil landscaped area has been concentrated towards the rear of the site, which provides for substantial plantings to the edges of the site to be maintained. There is no landscaping provision over basement areas and pervious paving has been used wherever possible to maximise opportunities for stormwater infiltration. Landscaping has also been well integrated into the street setback which improves the appearance of the site from the street in accordance with the objectives of the landscaping standards. The objectives of clause 31(2) will be met by the development despite non-compliance the statutory standard.

 

The landscape plan lodged with the application indicates shrubs and trees ranging from 1.0 metre to 6.0 metres in height and incorporates native species and existing trees on the site into the design.

 

Two of the units have access to ground level private open space and the site is proposed to be well landscaped to all boundaries to provide outlook and amenity to residents and the street. The landscaping plans have been revised to minimise hardstand surfaces and utilises rooftop landscaping to maximise the usable external area of the site.

 

Council’s Landscape Officer has noted several trees on the site and Council’s naturestrip that are to be protected during the works.

 

The proposal, subject to compliance with conditions of consent, meets Council’s objectives for landscaping despite non-compliance with the statutory standard of RLEP 1998.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.10

The Section 82A application was referred to the Department of Planning on 24 November 2005.  Comments in this respect are under the referral section, earlier in this report.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Application of Policy-

This Policy 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 is to be applied in accordance with the following paragraph:

The application requires assessment under SEPP 65 and as such the application was referred to the Design Review Panel.  Comments in this respect are under the referral section, earlier in this report.

6.2   Development Control Plans and Policies

 

Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan, 2000

 

Discussion of compliance with the requirements of the Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan is included in section 6.3 of this report.

 

Development Control Plan Parking (DCP Parking), 1998

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

 

 

Car Parking

a)   number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) layout

 

 

Bicycle Storage

 

 

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

 

1space/4 dwgs or part thereof for visitors (2 spaces required)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 10

 

As per DCP.

 

 

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

(2 bike spaces)

 

4 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

0 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

4 spaces

 

Adequate turning areas provided.

 

Not indicated

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

Yes

 

 

No*

* May be conditioned to comply

 

As indicated above, the proposal does not comply with the number of resident, visitor and bicycle spaces required for a development of this size. The non-compliance has been discussed in detail in section 6.3 of this report.

 

Section 94 Contributions Plan, 1999

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes 7 dwellings on the site. The proposal contains 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings.  Therefore, the contribution rate is 7 x $1792.88 (open space - $12,550.16) and 7 x $792.72 (community facilities - $5,549.04) = $18,099.20. 

The existing boarding house has 10 rooms and, therefore, a credit applies.  The rate is $1040 per bedspace = $10,400.  The ratio of total contributions payable in accordance with the above is 69% open space and 31% community facilities.  On that basis, a credit of $7,176 should apply to open space and $3,224 should apply to community facilities.

Therefore, the total amounts payable are $5,374.16 for open space and $2,325.04 for community facilities.  An appropriate condition (No.23) is included in the recommendation section of this report.

 

Rainwater Tanks Policy, 2003

 

A condition requiring the installation of a rainwater tank in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy could address the Policy requirements.

 

6.3   DCP – Multi-Unit Housing

Height

 

The development has an overall height of up 9.4 metres (exclusive of the existing building which will remain at its existing height and complies with the statutory standard of 12 metres. The maximum external wall height of the development is also 9.4 metres and complies with the standard of 10 metres.

 

The objective of Council’s overall and wall height standards are to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

The proposed development meets the statutory external wall height and overall height standards of 10 metres and 12 metres, respectively, to all elevations. The proposed development is consistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding properties and will not have an adverse impact on the existing heritage streetscape. The increased height of the building to the rear on the site (at second floor level) will not result in significant overshadowing, view or privacy impacts.

 

The height of the proposal achieves numeric compliance and the stated objectives of the height standard. The development is satisfactory with regard to height.

 

Desired Future Character

 

The site is considered to be in a Type 7 – Mixed Building Type Area under Part 2 of the Randwick Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The site is located amongst a variety of development types including 3 storey 1960-80s walk-up flats and 1-2 storey freestanding and semi-detached dwelling houses. The development is of a scale that is the same or less than nearby residential flat buildings, and although the development is larger than some dwelling houses, the re-use of an existing structure has minimised any impacts of the development. The reinstatement of the balconies (previously enclosed) and upgrading works to the street façades of the building will make a positive contribution to the mixed character of the area.

 

Building Setbacks

 

The retention of the existing building on the site means the proposal will not result in significant changes to existing setbacks. The front setback will be maintained and is consistent with the alignment in Wood Street. The existing building is setback 1 metre from the northern side and has a nil setback to Wood Lane (West) on the southern side. These setbacks do not meet the preferred solutions under the Multi Unit Housing DCP, however as the existing building was constructed prior to Council’s current controls compliance has not been enforced.

 

New balconies have been proposed to the rear of the existing building. These balconies will be setback an average of 2.5 metres from the northern side boundary. The balconies do not have any privacy screening indicated. The proximity of the balconies to the boundary and their elevation will provide opportunities for overlooking of the rear yard of the adjacent property. As such, any approval could include a condition requiring screening be provided to these balconies. Balconies on the southern side overlook garages and Wood Lane (West) and will not result in significant privacy impacts. No screening is required to the balconies on the southern side.

 

A new garage is to be constructed with nil setbacks to side boundaries. This does not meet the requirements of Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP, however the garage is consistent with the predominant pattern of garaging in Wood Lane and is considered to be acceptable. The garage has been setback 1 metre from the rear boundary in accordance with the requirements of the DCP – Parking and to address concerns raised in relation to visibility and manoeuvring in the laneway.

 

The development, subject to conditions on any approval, is considered satisfactory with regard to setbacks.

 

Fences

 

The development will retain the existing masonry fencing to Wood Street.

 

Along Wood Lane (West) to the southern boundary solid timber fencing to 1.2 metres high with 50% transparent timber slats above to 1.8 metres high is proposed. This fencing will be setback 1 metre in parts to accommodate screen planting to the Lane.

 

To the northern side boundary fencing to 1.8 metres in height comprised of 1.2 metres of solid timber with timber slats above is proposed, this meets the preferred solution under the DCP. Towards the eastern end of this boundary a 3.5 metre high section of fence is proposed to the edge of the terrace above the garage. This fencing will project approximately 1 metre beyond the line of the above garage terrace of the adjoining dwelling. While the fence provides some screening between the two terraces, the extension of the fencing is considered to result in additional visual scale and bulk impacts. A condition could require modification of this element to provide screening across the western edge of the terrace to restrict sightlines without resulting in significant additional bulk to the adjoining property.

 

The development, subject to conditions on any approval, is considered satisfactory with regard to fencing.

 

Privacy

 

The dwellings are all generally oriented to the front and rear of the subject site, this has minimised privacy impacts to surrounding properties. There are five new windows on the northern elevation that relate to 2 new bedroom windows at basement level, a new window to a ground floor kitchen area, stair and dining room and bedroom on first floor level. The angle of view from these new windows will be restricted by the existing building on the site at 6 Wood Street. The new windows will not overlook the rear yard of 6 Wood Street. Although the new windows are approximately 1 metre from the wall of the adjacent dwelling, there is only two windows vertically aligned on the southern elevation of 6 Wood Street. These windows are located approximately 12.5-13.5 metres along the southern elevation of 6 Wood Street, measured from the front boundary of the subject site. None of the new windows will align to this window and no privacy impacts will result from construction of the new windows. New windows are also proposed to the southern elevation, however these will overlook garages and will not result in any visual privacy impacts.

 

Decks are proposed at ground and first floor level and due to the topography towards the rear of the site, ground level balconies are quite elevated. The balconies to the southern side of the site are located more than 9 metres from the northern boundary of the site (common with 6 Wood Street) and this distance is considered to provide adequate separation to negate any privacy impacts. The northern balconies, however, are located an average of approximately 2 metres from the northern boundary of the site and, due to their chamfered plan, they lack screening. Screening is to be provided to the northern elevations of these balconies to ensure visual privacy is maintained between the properties (see condition No.6 in recommendation).

The roof terrace over the garage to the rear of the site is elevated and located so as to allow for overlooking of the rear yard of 6 Wood Street. In order to mitigate these impacts and minimise the visual bulk of any screen structures on 6 Wood Street, A condition requiring a fixed privacy screen with a height of 1.8 metres above finished floor level of the garage roof be provided to the north western edge of the terrace, extending between the northern boundary to the top of the stair access from the rear yard of 8-10 Wood Street could be imposed to address this issue.

The development is satisfactory with regard to privacy, subject to imposition of conditions on any consent.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

The orientation of the site results in shadows cast over Wood Lane and Wood Lane (West) and garages of dwellings that address Rae Street to the south. The area of additional shadow is minor, being cast from the new garage structure to the east (rear of the site). The shadow will affect the rear yard of 23 Rae Street throughout the day to a maximum area of approximately 12m2 of additional shadow. Despite this minor increase, the dwelling at 23 Rae Street will still achieve more than 3 hours of sunlight to the majority of the yard at midwinter and the northern elevation of this dwelling will not be affected by any additional shadow.

 

The applicant has submitted a NatHERS report for the proposal, which indicates that the development meets the minimum (3.5 stars) applied to residential development by Council with three dwellings achieving a rating of 5 stars and two achieving 4 stars. Standard conditions could also be applied to ensure the proposal minimises water and energy use if approval were to be granted.

 

The proposal, subject to conditions being included on any approval, is satisfactory with regard to ESD principles.

 

Safety and Security

The proposal provides primary access to the site from Wood Street with a secondary access from Wood Lane (West). An access gate is also provided from the four parking spaces at the rear of the site to the back door of the building. The entries proposed will be clearly legible from the Wood Street and Wood Lane (West) frontages. Large windows and balconies are proposed to Wood Street including the restoration of first floor balconies. Balconies are also provided to Wood Lane (West) that will improve opportunities for surveillance of the public domain.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to safety and surveillance.

 

Traffic and Parking

 

The development does not meet Council’s DCP – Parking requirements with regard to resident and visitor car parking. The development is deficient by 6 spaces. The existing boarding house on the site requires provision of 2 carspaces but provides only one. A credit may be applied for the existing deficiency on the site, reducing the parking shortfall to 5 spaces.  The strata plan shows four units having access to a parking space. The remaining 3 units will not be provided with parking and no visitor spaces will be provided. The deficiency is considered to be acceptable as the development utilises an existing building within a heritage area and provision of further parking on the site may detract from the appearance of the site and would further reduce the area available for landscaping. In the circumstances the provision of four spaces is considered to be an acceptable compromise between parking provision, landscaping and streetscape impacts. The development is located within a 2(c) zone and the redevelopment for multi unit housing is consistent with the objectives for the zone. The applicant has provided a traffic and parking study which indicates that the development will not have a significant impact on the surrounding area in terms of traffic and parking generation.  Condition No .4 in the recommendation section of this report requires for the provision of bicycle parking spaces on the site.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to parking provision.

 

10.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The applicant has satisfactorily addressed all reasons for refusal.  The Department of Planning has granted its concurrence.  The proposed development was considered, in its original assessment, to be acceptable in all other aspects.  On that basis, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and Council may rescind its decision dated 30 June 2005 and grant approval to the development application.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT, under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), Council's original determination of Development Application No.DA/225/2004 dated 30 June 2005 for the application seeking to make alterations & additions to the existing boarding house & change of use to a residential flat building comprising 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings, associated garaging and strata subdivision at 8-10 Wood Street, RANDWICK  NSW  2031, be rescinded.

 

AND

 

B.        THAT Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 31 and 32 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988, relating to floor space ratio and landscaping, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the objective of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

AND

 

C.        THAT Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA-225/2004 for permission to make alterations & additions to the existing boarding house & change of use to a residential flat building comprising 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings, associated garaging and strata subdivision at 8-10 Wood Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by the Architecture Company, numbered Issue H of DA02, DA05 dated 21/10/04 in the amendments box and stamped received by Council on 2 March 2006 and Issue D of DA03, DA04 and DA06 dated 20/02/04 in the amendments box and stamped received by Council on 2 March 2006 and the landscape plans drawn by Zenith Landscape Designs, Drawing Nos. 04-1649A and 04-1649B dated Feb 04 and stamped received by Council on 2 March 2006 and Sheets 1-4 of the strata plans, surveyor’s reference 19915 stamped received by Council on 2 March 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the information submitted to satisfy the deferred commencement conditions and except as amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.     A one-off monetary contribution of $67,080.00 is to be paid to Council for the purposes of mitigating the proposed loss of low-cost rental accommodation.  The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque in one complete payment prior to the Construction Certificate being issued, and, in accordance with the concurrence requirements of the Department of Planning, the Council shall use the contribution solely for the purpose of developing affordable housing in the vicinity of the subject site.

 

3.     All residents of the building are to be given a minimum of fifty (50) days notice before being required to vacate the premises.  A copy of such notice is to be submitted to Council at the same time that it is issued to the residents.

 

4.     A total of three (3) bicycle parking spaces are to be provided on site in a secure place that is accessible to residents and visitors of the building.

 

5.     Each resident of the building is to be provided with a one-off lump sum payment of $500 to assist in the cost of relocating.  Each payment is to be made within 7 days of the notice to vacate is issued in accordance with condition No.3.

 

6.     A fixed privacy screen having a minimum height of 1.8m and extending a minimum length of 1.5 metres is to be provided to the northern edges of balconies to Unit 4 and Unit 5 and the screen shall be constructed of timber. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

7.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above the finished floor level of the roof terrace to the garage to the rear of the site is to be provided. The screen is to be fixed along the curved western edge of the terrace extending from the northern boundary of the site to the nosing of the first stair. The screen shall be constructed of timber.

 

The 3.5 metre high timber screen shown at the eastern end of the northern elevation adjacent to the masonry wall of the garage is to be deleted in favour of continuation of the 1.8 metre high timber boundary fencing.

 

This condition is imposed to maintain privacy to the rear yard of the adjacent dwelling and minimise visual privacy impacts to this property. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

8.     The property is to be treated to remove any vermin prior to the commencement of works. Documentation from a licensed pest controller is to be provided to the PCA indicating that the property has been treated prior to works commencing. This condition is imposed to protect the amenity of surrounding properties and future residents on the site.

 

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

 

10.   The garages shall not be let, adapted or used for separate occupation or commercial purposes

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.   In accordance with the provisions of clauses 143A and 154A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a ‘Design Verification Certificate’ must be provided to the Certifying Authority and the Council, prior to issuing a construction certificate and an occupation certificate, respectively.

 

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

 

20.   The enclosure of balconies is prohibited by this consent.

 

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

 

22.   Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway or public place.

 

The following condition is applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

23.   In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council.

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $5,374.16

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $2,325.04

c)       Administration fee $425.00                                                         $   425.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

27.   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.

 

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

 

29.   A rainwater tank, of sufficient size to provide water for irrigation of all landscaped areas within the development, is to be provided to the development in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy

 

The tank is to be located a minimum of 900mm from the side boundaries and is to have a maximum height of 2.4 metres.  The tank is to be installed behind the front building line and is to be located at ground level and be incorporated into the relevant construction certificate and landscape plans, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The noise level from the pump is not to exceed 5dBA above ambient background noise, measured at the property boundary and the pump must not be audible within any dwelling located upon any other premises between 10pm and 8am.

 

The following conditions are imposed to maintain the integrity of the St Marks Heritage Conservation Area:

 

30.   Any sandstone kerbing to be removed shall be removed under the supervision of Council’s Heritage Planner and the sandstone shall be stored in Council’s care.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

33.   The existing levels of fire safety within the premises are to be upgraded to achieve an adequate level of fire safety in accordance with the provisions of clause 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a report prepared by a suitably qualified person or accredited certifier is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Environmental Health & Building Services, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

The fire safety report must detail the measures considered appropriate to satisfy the relevant performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia, to protect persons using the building, and to facilitate their egress from the building in the event of fire and to restrict the spread of fire.

 

The fire safety upgrading works are to be included in the construction certificate and be implemented prior to occupation of the new building or part.

 

The fire safety report is specifically required to address the following provisions of the Building Code of Australia, as applicable:

 

a)       EP2.1 & EP2.2              -                       smoke hazard management

b)       EP4.1 & EP 4.2             -                       emergency lighting and exit signs

c)       BP1.1                            -                       structural provisions

d)       CP1                               -                       structural stability during a fire

e)       CP2                               -                       elements to avoid the spread of

                                                                        fire

f)        DP1 to DP6                   -                       access and egress

 

34.   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.

 

35.   Prior to the commencement of any building work, a principal certifying authority must be appointed and Council is to be notified accordingly and, at least 2 days notice of the intention to commence building work must be given to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

36.   An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the principal certifying authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

40.   All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993 and details of compliance are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to the principal certifying authority, prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

 

41.   A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be available to the Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

The Principal Certifying Authority shall specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

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

 

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

 

43.   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.

 

44.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

46.   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.

 

47.   Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions and debris at all times.

 

48.   Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written consent of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Council’s Local Approvals Policy.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

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

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

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

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

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

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

53.   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

 

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

 

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

 

55.   The following damage deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)  $2000.00         -           Security damage deposit

 

The damage deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge. The applicant is to advise Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

56.   The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for Council or a Council approved subcontractor to construct the vehicular crossing.

 

a)         $5000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

The vehicular crossing deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the Council vehicular crossing by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

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

 

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

 

(a)             Construct concrete laybacks at kerb opposite the vehicular entrances to the site, including any associated roadworks.

(b)             Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full site frontage in Wood St including any associated roadworks.

 

Reconstruct the Council footpath along the Wood St site frontage, if required.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

58.   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.

 

59.   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.

 

60.   The applicant is to dedicate a 1.00m x 1.00m splay at the south-east corner of the site. No structure is to be located within the dedicated splay corner.

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

 

61.   The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like shall be as follows:

 

§ Wood St Frontage - match the back of the existing Council footpath.

§ Wood Lane Southern Side Frontage – match the existing asphalt road level.

§ Wood Lane Eastern Rear Frontage – match the centreline of the road at all points along the rear site frontage.

 

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

 

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

 

63.   The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1,760.00 calculated at $27.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

64.   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.

 

65.   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.

 

66.   Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant must liaise with Energy Australia prior to lodging the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

67.   A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney water Act 1994 must be obtained. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Notice must be issued to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to release of the plan of subdivision.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Notes:

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

b. The infiltration/rubble pit shall:-

    

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

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

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

iv.  Note:  other equivalent methods of infiltration may be adopted.

v.  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.

 

69.   All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

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

 

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

 

71.   The garbage room areas will have to be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 8 x 240 litre bins (4 garbage bins & 4 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

72.   The waste storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

73.   Prior to the credited certifier issuing an occupation certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to contact Council’s Manager of Waste in regards to meeting Council’s requirements for waste services to the development site.

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

 

74.   The applicant shall create suitable right of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

75.   The conditions of development consent must be satisfied and all public roads and reserves must be satisfactorily restored prior to the finalisation of the strata subdivision.

 

76.   Prior to release of the Plan of Subdivision the applicant shall provide Council with a subdivider/developer certificate for the proposed lots.  The certificate is obtained from Sydney Water.

 

77.   The applicant shall provide Council with a survey plan of the property prior to receiving strata subdivision approval.

 

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

 

78.   The landscaped areas shown on the plan numbers 04-1649, sheet 1 & 2, drawn by MG of Zenith Landscape Designs, dated February 2004, shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority or {the Director of Assets & Infrastructure in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979}, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

a.         A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary (buildings, trees, other structures etc), council’s footway, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the trees to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

The plan shall clearly show the position, canopy spread (location of dripline), trunk diameter, height and names of all existing trees upon the site and adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary which are likely to be affected by the development.

 

b.         A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size with a dense planting of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved. Plant spacings are to be clearly indicated for all accent and groundcovers.

 

c.         A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings for groundcovers and accent planting, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

d.         Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

e.         Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

f.          Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

g.         The landscape plan shall show a minimum number of 3 x 45 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located within the site. The trees selected shall be of a species that attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

h.         All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm. Planter box details shall be submitted with the detailed landscape plans.

 

i.          The plan shall respect the prevailing coastal influences and the coast's special design considerations and requirements, and shall be designed accordingly. Generally, species selection shall be restricted to local indigenous coastal species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

j.          In order to reduce the amount of stormwater generated by the site, porous paving shall be used in all pathways and paved areas. Details are to be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

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

 

79.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

82.   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.

 

83.   Approval is granted for the removal of the following tree subject to the planting of 3 x 45 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the site. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a) One Persea americanna (Avocado) in the rear yard, against the southern boundary

 

84.   The applicant shall be required to ensure the retention and long term health of the Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow Leafed Peppermint) and the Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) in the neighbouring property to the north, close to the common boundary. As a general guide there shall be minimal excavation or root pruning within the driplines of the subject trees.

 

85.   In order to accommodate the proposed rear deck and pergola as is shown on the plans, permission is granted for the selective pruning of branches from the Callistemon viminalis (Bottlebrush) and the tree (species undetermined) located along the northern boundary in the rear yard. All pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist, with suitable qualifications in Arboriculture and to Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

The applicant will be required to provide details of a suitably qualified and professional Arborist to be used for such work prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

86.   In order to ensure the retention of the Callistemon viminalis (Bottlebrush) and the tree (species undetermined) located on along the northern boundary in the rear yard in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.         The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the trees using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 1 metre from the outside edge of the tree trunk.

 

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

 

c.         Within this zone there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of in the area and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

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

 

d.         Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, services, pipes, detention tanks, stormwater infiltration systems, paving etc within 2 metres of the tree trunks shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

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

 

87.   A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque for the amount of $7000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

a.   The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months after the issue of a final occupation certificate by the principle certifying authority providing the landscape works have been successfully implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape documentation. Throughout the maintenance/bond period, the applicant shall be responsible for all routine maintenance such as grass cutting, weeding, watering, fertilising, spraying, staking and replacement of all failed plant stock.  There must be no alteration to the original design, including substitution of trees and shrubs, without the prior approval of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

b.   Any contravention of Council's landscape conditions at any time during the construction period or prior to the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the date a final occupation certificate is issued will result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security.

 

88.   In order to organise for an inspection for the release of the security deposit, the applicant shall contact the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to liaise with Council’s Asset & Infrastructure Department to arrange for an inspection of the landscaping to be carried out. Should the landscaping be found to be unsatisfactory, thus necessitating further inspections, the applicant is advised that each additional inspection will be charged at $55.00 (incl.GST) and that this amount  shall be paid into Account Number 41901939, Code RGJ at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to any further inspection being carried out.

 

The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for a further inspection to be undertaken.

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.

 

A2.      The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

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

 

a)     Part B1        -         Structural provisions

c)     Part E2         -         Smoke Hazard Management

d)     Part E4         -         Emergency lighting, exit signs and 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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

TOM HUTCHISON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 31/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

343-355 Clovelly Road, Clovelly. (DEFERRED)

 

 

DATE:

24 April, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/406/2005

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A Development Application Report for 343-355 Clovelly Road was submitted to the 11 April, 2006 Health Building and Planning Committee Meeting. The Applicant for DA0406/2005 subsequently submitted a written request for the matter to be deferred. It was resolved to defer the matter to the 9 May, 2006 Health Building and Planning Committee Meeting.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 13 March, 2006

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

13 March, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/0406/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a new three storey mixed use development comprising 5 x residential units, 4 x commercial tenancies and basement parking for 12 cars, strata subdivision

PROPERTY:

 343-355 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Jim Demetriou Group Pty Ltd

OWNER:

A Papas Enterprises 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 John Procopiadis, Paul Tracey, Alan White. The estimated cost of the works is $1,991,751.00.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing two storey building on the site (currently a mixed use development with shops on ground level and dwellings above), excavate and construct a single level of basement carparking (including the provision of mechanical car stackers) and a new three storey mixed-use development on the site at 343-355 Clovelly Road, Clovelly. The above ground development will comprise 5 residential units and 4 ground floor commercial tenancies.

 

The site enjoys the benefits of ‘existing use rights’ under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as it has been operating (with development consent) as a mixed use development (generally prohibited under the 2(b) zoning) prior to the coming into force of RLEP 1998. As such the EP&A regulations allow the existing use to change to another non-conforming use. The proposed development is therefore permissible under the ‘existing use’ provisions of the EP&A Act. As a consequence of the existing use provisions any relevant development standards under RLEP 1998 are not applicable. This also includes any relevant aims and objectives contained within LEP’s. However such aims and objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a new assessment of the proposal.

 

The development does not comply with the numeric standards for landscaping, height and FSR in the 2(b) zone, however the design of the proposal has limited its impact on surrounding properties. The development will not result in significant additional amenity impacts to surrounding properties. Where elements of the proposal have been assessed as having a negative impact on amenity, these impacts may be mitigated via conditions of consent. The redevelopment of the site will improve the amenity of the area by increasing parking provision with a similar density to that already existing on the site (one additional residential unit). The proposal will also increase the variety of residential accommodation in the area by providing a greater mix of units.

 

The application and amended plans received in response to the preliminary assessment process have both been notified to surrounding properties. The notification and advertising periods have resulted in 16 submissions. The submissions raised the following issues as primary concerns:

§  View and privacy impacts, particularly from proposed roof terrace

§  Excessive height and density, bulk and scale and impact on character and the street

§  Inadequate landscaping

§  Inadequate parking and existing traffic and parking congestion in the area

§  General amenity impacts, particularly to 16 Beach Street

 

The development is 3 storeys in height and is generally consistent with surrounding development and the width of adjoining streets. Council’s Design Review Panel made comment on the proposal indicating that it meets the 10 principles of good design.

 

The recommendation is for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions. The primary deferred commencement conditions relate to removal of the roof terrace and balconies on the northern side of the development.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing building on the site and erect a mixed retail and residential development comprising 863.1m2 of Gross Floor Area (GFA) and being 3 storeys in height. The development will provide for 4 commercial tenancies at ground floor level with 5 residential units above (1 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed units). A single level of basement car parking providing 12 spaces is also proposed with access from Beach Street.

 

Landscaping is provided to the rear (north) of the site and includes both deep soil and over slab planting. A large roof terrace (approximately 100m2 in area) also provides communal open space to the residential component of the development.

 

The design of the proposed building is contemporary in style, with the external finishes being a mixture of face brickwork, rendered masonry and stone cladding. Clear and translucent glazing is proposed to balustrading and window treatments throughout the development. Timber privacy screens also provide relief to the elevations.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is a regular shape and is located on the northwestern corner of Clovelly Road and Beach Street in Clovelly. The southern (Clovelly Road) boundary of the site measures 32.435m, the eastern boundary fronts Beach Street and measures 15.24m. The northern boundary of the site adjoins 16 Beach Street (a terraced residential flat building containing four dwellings above semi-basement parking) and measures 32.49m. The western boundary of the site measures 15.24 metres and adjoins 337-339 Clovelly Road (a two storey commercial building with 2 dwellings above). The total site area is 494.28m2. The site is comprised of a single allotment, Lot B in DP306859.

                              

Existing on the site currently is a two storey building with pitched roof constructed in the early 1930s. The ground floor is comprised of three shops (originally constructed as six separate tenancies but subsequently amalgamated into three). The first floor level is comprised of 4 x 2 bedroom units. There is currently no parking provision on the site.

Above L-R: The site as viewed from Clovelly Road (adjoining automotive workshop at 337-9 Clovelly Road in foreground). The eastern eleveation of the existing building as viewed from Beach Street.

 

Development in the locality is comprised of a variety of residential and commercial uses. Across Beach Street to the east of the site are 1-2 storey residential flat buildings and semi-detached dwelling houses. Across Clovelly Road to the south are 1-2 storey residential flat buildings and dwelling houses, further to the south west on Clovelly Road are small scale commercial uses. Adjoining the site to the west are older style 2 storey commercial and mixed use developments.

 

The site was included as a contributory building within the Clovelly Road Conservation Area under the Draft Heritage LEP amendments which were considered by Council on 13 December 2005. As Council resolved not to proceed with the draft amendments, the site and surrounds currently has no heritage status. Heritage items exist at the corner of Clovelly Road and Arden Street at the western end of the block on which the site is located. The items are known as Walder’s Corner (319 Clovelly Road) and Pohill’s Corner (317 Clovelly Road).

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged on May 26, 2005. Additional information including a geotechnical report was requested from the applicant on 9 June 2005. Further information was requested with regards to the draft heritage status of the site on 21 June 2005. As a result of comments made by the Randwick Design Review Panel, the submissions of surrounding residents and preliminary assessment by Council officers, the applicant was advised to consider amendments to the scheme on 26 July 2005. The applicant took some time to provide the additional information requested and to prepare amended plans. Amended plans were received on 6 February 2006 and were renotified to surrounding properties concluding on 28 February 2006. Further amendments to address technical issues in relation to the basement were submitted on 24 February 2006. The amendments submitted on 6 February as further amended by the 28 February plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

The amended plans show an improved basement layout with reduced area (and removal of basement mezzanine level) to allow for the provision of deep soil planting to the northern boundary, reduction in the ground floor commercial tenancies to achieve deep soil planting and landscape zone to the northern boundary, reduction in the size of terraces to the northern side of the first floor level. The plans also show an increased roof terrace area and changes to the elevations of the building and proposed colour scheme.

 

b.    HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

The current commercial uses at the site have been approved under the following applications:-

 

DA/286/1985

Use 2 shops at 343 and 345 Clovelly Road as cake shop

Approved 27/11/1985

DA/131/1977

Use existing shop at 347 Clovelly Road as a pizza restaurant

Approved 25/08/1977

DA/751/1998

Use existing shops at 351-355 Clovelly Road as a dive shop

Approved 16/11/1998

 

The address 349 Clovelly Road relates to the residential component of the existing building above the shops. Although this portion of the existing building is separately addressed, the whole of the site is one allotment of land (Lot B in DP 306859). The existing building was constructed as a whole and is considered to be “mixed-use development” and therefore has the benefit of existing use rights, even though multi unit housing as a use on its own is permissible use within the 2(b) zone.

 

Existing use rights have been established and provide a basis for assessment of this application despite the proposed mixed-use development being prohibited in the 2(b) zone.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.       M.Kossi, 2/1 Campbell Street, Clovelly (owner 337-339 Clovelly Road, Nino’s Auto Engineers)

 

§  Inadequate side setback to boundary of 337-339 Clovelly Road. Loss of amenity to any future development at 337-339 Clovelly Road, inappropriate to 2B zoning.

 

Comment: The property at 337-339 Clovelly Road is currently partially commercial (automotive workshop) in use and does not provide setbacks to the site boundaries consistent with the 2(b) zoning of the sites. The nil setback to the western boundary has been discussed in Section 9.3 below, and is considered an appropriate streetscape response given the existing context and commercial uses.

 

§  Excessive height of western wall will result in bulk and scale, solar access and view impacts

 

Comment: The western elevation complies with the overall height standard in the 2(b) zone and with wall height at its northern end. The parapet of the development is only 1 metre higher than the existing parapet at 337-339 Clovelly Road and is considered consistent with the existing streetscape. There will be no additional bulk and scale, view or solar access impacts to 337-339 Clovelly Road as a result of the development.

 

§  Privacy, overlooking from NE balcony at the upper level.

 

Comment: Balcony is to a bedroom and has solid side walls, privacy impacts are not considered to be significant to this property.

 

2.       C.Reed & C van Kemenade, 2/16 Beach Street, Clovelly

 

§  Privacy and overlooking particularly from elevated north facing balconies, planters are inappropriate as screening due to the difference in ground levels which will result in patio areas being gloomy, request existing setback maintained or minimum setback of 4-4.5 metes.

§  Excessive FSR, bulk and scale and increased density impacts

§  Excesive wall height of 11 metres, blocks skyline views and results in oppressive bulk, should not exceed guidelines or the existing building

 

Comment: Refer to discussion under Section 9.5 Privacy, 9.3 Setbacks, 9.1 Height and 9.2 FSR, below

 

§  Impact on character of Clovelly Road especially in relation to Draft Heritage DCP, contributory building should not be demolished

 

Comment: Draft DCP has now been refused by Council and is no longer a document for consideration in this assessment.

 

§  Concern over construction damage as a result of excavation

 

Comment: Standard conditions of consent including preparation of dilapidation reports have been recommended.

 

§  Concern over amount of hard paving

 

Comment: Landscaping and parking have been revised to include deep soil provision.

 

§  Concern over safety and traffic access to Beach Street

 

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the application and made appropriate comment in Section 6.2.

 

§  Concern regarding the accuracy of statements made by the applicant in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects.

 

Comment: Additional information has been received from the applicant to clarify statements where necessary. This assessment has been made independently and the the applicant’s statements and calculations have not been relied upon.

 

3.       M. Benge on behalf of Executive Committee, Owners Corporation, 16 Beach Street, Clovelly on behalf of unit owners of Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 at 16 Beach Street

 

§  Size and height of building, bulk and scale, relationship to the topography in particular relationship to Nino’s Autos at 337-339 Clovelly Road.

§  Overdevelopment and excessive density in quiet residential area

§  Deficient in landscaped area

§  Inadequate parking due to proposed use of car stackers

§  Existing FSR should not be exceeded further

§  Loss of privacy from rooftop terrace, balconies and entertaining areas, inadequate setback to northern boundary

§  Loss of views from Unit 4

§  Intrusive roof design and unsightly hot water systems

§  Traffic hazard, proximity to roundabout and pedestrian traffic

 

Comment: These issues have been partly addressed by the amended plans and are discussed in detail in Section 9 of this report.

 

§  Poor amenity of south facing units and limited cross ventilation

 

Comment: Council’s SEPP 65 Design Review Panel has reviewed the amenity of the development and is satisfied it meets the principles of quality residential design. The proposal also achieves a NatHERs rating consistent with the preferred solution under Council’s Multi Unit Housing DCP.

 

§  Proposal is inconsistent with Draft Heritage LEP and DCP

 

Comment: Draft DCP is no longer a document for consideration in this assessment.

 

§  Loss of light, resulting in further damp issues which are already occurring on southern side

 

Comment: The proposal is located to the south of the existing building at 16 Beach Street and will not result in overshadowing to this property. Setbacks of the proposal (subject to compliance with conditions of consent) are considered adequate for maintaining skylight and ventilation to the development at 16 Beach Street.

 

§  Noise

§  Amount of excavation and risk of structural damage during construction.

 

Comment: Standard conditions of consent including preparation of dilapidation reports and to regulate noise have been recommended.

 

4.       S & T Ray, 3/16 Beach Street, Clovelly

 

§  Lack of landscaping and difficult parking seem to indicate proposal is overdevelopment of the site

§  FSR and height are excessive, building does not respond to character or topography of the area

§  Demolition of existing building is contrary to draft heritage controls

§  Loss of privacy from overlooking from 2nd & 3rd floor levels

§  Noise disturbance

 

Comment: These issues have been addressed above and in Section 9 of this report.

 

§  Loss of views to coastline

 

Comment: View loss to Unit 3, including photographs of existing view opportunities from this dwelling, is discussed in Section 9.6 of this report and were found to be satisfactory.

 

5.       J. Holmes  & S. Hoyt, 19 Beach Street, Clovelly

 

Letter attached with following names in support of the concerns raised in this submission:

 

6.       M.Moscatt, 17 Beach Street, Clovelly

7.       B.Weight, 15 Beach Street, Clovelly

8.       M.Nash, 15 Beach Street, Clovelly

9.       JP Fitzgerald & G Smith, 11 Beach Street, Clovelly

10.     M.Lee, 5 Beach Street, Clovelly

11.     B. Kenny, 13 Beach Street, Clovelly

 

§  Concern regarding use of car stackers to achieve parking in this already congested area. Car stackers may not be readily accessed and will result in further pressures on on-street parking.

 

Comment: It is considered that there is less resistance to use of car stackers where on street parking is already in limited supply, such as in the vicinity of the subject site. In these instances, residents are more likely to use stackers as there is limited or no on-street availability. The allocation of stackers and type of stackers proposed also encourage their use by minimising the amount of manoeuvring required.

 

§  Question provision of vehicular access on Beach Street right next to the busy roundabout and corner of Clovelly Road.

§  Request a traffic management plan for Beach Street prior to any approval being considered by Council

 

Comment: The applicant has provided a traffic and parking report in support of the application. The report has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and is considered satisfactory. There appears to be no safety issue with the driveway location.

 

12.     P.Sutton, 18 Watkin Street, Newtown 2042(owner of 5/292 Clovelly Road, Clovelly)

 

§  Visual privacy impacts across northern and southern boundaries

 

Comment: Visual privacy to the adjoining property to the north is discussed in Section 9.5. The southern boundary faces Clovelly Road and a separation distance to properties on the southern side of Clovelly Road (including 292 Clovelly Road) of over 20m, this exceeds the 9 metres considered adequate to maintain privacy.

 

§  Excessive project scale is inconsistent with draft heritage provisions and will impact on the character of the area

 

Comment: The Draft Heritage DCP is no longer a document for consideration in this assessment. Notwithstanding this, a Heritage Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted with the application and the development has been reviewed by Council’s Design Review Panel and was considered appropriate to the surrounding context. It is considered that the development is satisfactory with regard to the character of the area.

 

§  Bulk of building blocks views

 

Comment: The bulk of the building from Clovelly Road will be largely contained within the envelope of the existing building on the site. The reduction in height of the lift and stair access to the site will minimise any intrusion of the development into existing outlooks. Significant view loss will not occur as a result of the proposal.

 

§  Roof deck will result in large gatherings and noise impacts.

 

Comment: Roof terrace has been recommended for removal.

 

The amended plans received on 6 February 2006 were renotified to surrounding residents for 14 days concluding on 28 February 2006. The following submissions were received:

 

13.     M. Benge on behalf of Executive Committee, Owners Corporation, 16 Beach Street, Clovelly on behalf of unit owners of Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 at 16 Beach Street

 

§  Development is out of proportion and character to existing buildings in the surrounding area

§  Development exceeds height standards

§  The development does not step down the site in response to the topography and existing development on adjoining sites

§  Development is not setback to Beach Street and this is not commensurate with surrounding development as claimed by applicant

§  FSR is excessive

§  Development is inappropriate to quiet character of Clovelly Road

§  Development is grossly deficient in landscaping

§  Inability to achieve cross ventilation and good amenity to units which face south indicate overdevelopment

§  Car stackers indicate overdevelopment of the site and are subject to failure resulting in residents using on-street spaces

§  Roof design is intrusive and services such as hot water may interrupt views

§  Lift well and sunshade superstructure are intrusions into air space

§  Severe impact on views from Units 3 & 4 at 16 Beach Street.

§  Skylight on roof terrace should be flat not upright to minimise view impacts

§  Loss of privacy from rooftop terrace and balconies

§  Minimum setbacks are not achieved 4m average should be provided to northern boundary

§  Overlooking from terraces

§  Glass doors on northern side result in overlooking

§  Screening on some north facing windows does not result in no impact as not all windows are screened and there is no screening to balconies and roof terrace

§  New garage entry will remove on-street spaces from outside the site.

 

Comment: These issues have been discussed in detail in Section 9 of this report.

 

§  Request Council undertake independent cost analysis to ascertain if development has a cost of works greater than $2m

 

Comment: Council’s preliminary assessment of the application using Cordell’s Building Cost Guide indicated that the construction value of the development exceeded $2 million. The development includes particular items that are not covered in the Cordell’s Building Guide such as mechanical car stackers. To clarify the cost of the works for the purposes of the Delegations Policy and calculation of assessment fees, the applicant was requested to provide a costing provided by a Quantity Surveyor. The cost has been estimated at $1,991,751.00. This is accepted as accurate. As three Councillors have called the application to this meeting, there is no impact of the estimate in terms of the determination of the application. The estimate exceeds that originally accepted by counter staff of $1.5m by $491,751.00. The additional estimated cost generates an additional assessment fee of $1,726.10 including plan first fees and payment of these fees prior to operation of any consent has been included as Deferred Commencement Condition 5.

 

§  Glazed returns on eastern edge of balconies at first and second floor level results in direct line of sight to outdoor terraces of units 1 and 2, 16 Beach Street.

 

Comment: As the edges of these balconies are located towards the street frontage (Beach Street) of the site, impacts on the adjoining property to the north are limited. The primary outlook from the balconies is to the east and south easterly view opportunities and away from the adjoining residential flat building to the north. The glazed returns are considered to be appropriate to the location of the site nearby the coast.

 

§  View loss, reduction of property values

 

Comment: Property value is not a valid planning consideration. View loss is discussed in Section 9.6 and is considered satisfactory.

 

§  Noise and interruption to quiet enjoyment

§  Loss of light and exacerbation of dampness issues at 16 Beach Street

§  Excavation, concern regarding structural damage to 16 Beach Street as a result.

§  Traffic hazard from proximity of development to roundabout

 

Comment: These concerns have been addressed previously, above.

 

§  Entrance to carpark is narrow and will result in tight turning circle.

 

Comment: Parking layout has been reviewed and is considered satisfactory. Council’s Development Engineer has also reviewed the plans and has no objections.

 

§  If approval is contemplated, suggest changes to the plans, including reduction of density, limitations on size and use of the roof terrace, increased setback to north and removal of balconies and increased privacy screening measures to the north.

 

Comment: Where assessment has indicated impacts are excessive and can be resolved by conditions of consent, conditions have been recommended.

 

14.     M & J Makas, 4/16 Beach Street, Clovelly

 

§  Loss of ocean views to Gordon’s Bay and Coogee Headland

§  Loss of privacy and noise, particularly from the roof terrace

§  Bulk and scale and consistency with planning standards and controls

§  If approval is contemplated, suggest changes to the plans, including reduction of density, limitations on size and use of the roof terrace, increased setback to north and removal of balconies and increased privacy screening measures to the north.

 

Comment: The view and privacy impact of the proposal to 4/16 Beach Street has been discussed in detail in Sections 9.6 and 9.5, below. Bulk and scale has also been addressed in Sections 9.1 and 9.2, below.

 

15.     S & T Ray, 3/16 Beach Street, Clovelly

 

§  Amended plans have not addressed fundamental concerns

§  Lack of landscaping and difficult parking seem to indicate proposal is overdevelopment of the site

§  FSR and height are excessive, building does not respond to character or topography of the area

§  Loss of privacy from overlooking from 2nd & 3rd floor levels

§  Noise disturbance

§  Loss of views to coastline

 

Comment: These concerns have been addressed in this report.

 

16.     C.Reed & C van Kemenade, 2/16 Beach Street, Clovelly

 

§  Building height is still excessive and will result in inconsistency with the existing building on the site and surrounding neighbourhood

§  Setbacks to northern boundary are inadequate in terms of skylight, airflow, privacy and sense of openess

§  Privacy impacts from the northern elevation of the building

§  Elevation of the terrace and patio areas 1-2m higher than adjoining ground level will result in privacy impacts

§  Density should be reduced so parking can be accommodated on the site without the use of stackers

§  Landscaping is inadequate, density should be decreased to provide for more landscaped area.

§  Concern over the currency and accuracy of information provided in relation to the design of the building, cost of works, SEE, traffic report and the detailing of the superstructure to the roof terrace.

 

Comment: These concerns have been addressed previously, above.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1   Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

 

Building Services Comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing buildings located upon the site and construction of a new 3 storey mixed residential and commercial development with basement carparking.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class       -           5 or 6   (Retail/Shops/Offices)

Class       -           2          (Residential units)

Class       -           7a        (Carpark)

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a post war brick mixed res/comm. building bounded by buildings of a similar nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

 

Standard conditions are proposed to be included in the consent to address construction site management issues, such as the location of stock piled material or the storage and disposal of excavated materials, sediment and erosion control, public safety and perimeter safety fencing.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

Appears satisfactory.

 

Conclusion:

 

No objections are raised in relation to the proposed development, subject to the following conditions being included in any development consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, the following conditions should be included in the development consent.

 

Environmental Health Comments

 

The proposal

 

The proposal consists of an application for the demolition of an existing two storey mixed commercial and residential development and the construction and strata subdivision of a three storey mixed use development comprising five retail/commercial suites and five residential apartments with basement car parking for fifteen vehicles.

 

Key Issues

 

Land Contamination

 

A site inspection and review of Councils approvals for the site reveal that while there is a motor mechanic workshop located in the adjoining property, it is considered unlikely that the property to which this application relates has been subject to potentially contaminating activities as detailed in SEPP 55.

 

The site inspection undertaken on 10 June 2005 revealed that the motor mechanic workshop is in good structural condition, and there were no obvious signs of contaminants off site, such as staining of concrete or soils.

 

Acoustics

 

The proposal includes the installation of a car stacker in the basement carpark. Council has previously asked for acoustic reports in relation to the operation of carstackers, and it is considered appropriate that an acoustic report be required in this instance to consider the potential impact for noise nuisance from this unit and other plant and equipment that will service the development. The report should consider the potential for noise emissions and imissions associated with the development.

 

Commercial Units 

 

The proposal includes the development of five retail/commercial units. A condition requiring that Development consent be obtained in relation to the specific ‘use’ of commercial tenancies/occupancies and ‘shop fit outs’, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 is to be included.

RECOMMENDATION:

Should the approval be granted to the application, the following conditions should be included in the development consent:

 

Further to the Building Services comments, the following was noted:

 

As a required means of egress from the basement carpark is via the vehicular access driveway, a 1m wide path of travel should be defined and separated from the vehicular access.

 

This was requested to be shown in the amended plans and has been indicated in the amended basement and ground floor plans lodged on 24 February 2006. Conditions suggested by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services have been included in the Recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 33-79).

 

6.2   Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

 

An amended application has been received for the construction of a three-storey mixed use development at the above site containing 5 units and 4 commercial/retail tenancies, with basement parking for 12 vehicles as well as associated strata subdivision.

 

Landscape Comments

There are no street trees on either the Clovelly Road or Beach Street frontages, nor will there be room for new street trees upon completion due to the presence of an overhead awning proposed for around the perimeter of the site. This property is not located within the Clovelly Beach Commercial Centre, and as such, design guidelines do not apply.

 

Two Grevillea x banksii ‘Moonlight’ have been recently planted (by property owners rather than Council) on the nature strip to the north of the subject site, in front of 16 Beach Street, and would remain unaffected, with conditions not necessary.

 

Within the adjoining property to the north, 16 Beach Street, there is a variety of species which have been planted close to the common boundary, in most cases slightly encroaching within the subject site. They are from east to west, clumps of Strelitzia nicholii (Large Leafed Bird of Paradise) of about 4 metres in height, several Leptospermum polygalifolium (Tea Trees) of between 3-4 metres in height and one sparse Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo) about 5 metres tall.

 

Given the presence of an existing low masonry retaining wall and timber pailing fence along the length of this boundary, and the associated differences in level between the two sites, it is unlikely that the proposed excavations would impact significantly on their health and stability as the roots would be largely contained to the higher side of the wall.

 

Further towards the western half of the subject site, there are a variety of shrubs which will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed works; however, as they are too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, conditions will not be included in this report.

 

In the northwest corner of the site, there is one Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) of approximately 11 metres in height which appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Despite the absence of deadwood of any noticeable structural defects, the western side of its canopy is virtually devoid of foliage as it has been suppressed by an adjoining tree.

 

The full weight of the canopy is restricted to the eastern side, and has resulted in a pronounced lean to the east. Although it may compensate for this lean over time, it must be recognised that it would be placed under further stress during the course of the works should it be retained.

 

A substantial redesign of the entire proposal to ensure its retention is not warranted as it is not deemed a significant specimen, and as such, removal and replacement with appropriate native species which will provide effective screening seen as the most desirable course of action in this circumstance, with conditions in this report provided on that basis. 

 

Immediately to the west of this tree, there is one Acacia elata (Sydney Green Wattle) of approximately 6 metres in height which appears in poor condition with a large amount of deadwood and poor form. It has been suppressed due to its poor siting and shall be removed as part of this application.

 

There is what appears to be one Flindersia australis (Australian Teak) of approximately 4 metres in height growing within the adjoining property to the west, 337-339 Clovelly Road, within in a narrow garden bed only as wide as the girth of its trunk hard up against the common boundary.

 

Concrete surfacing exists throughout this neighbouring site, turf within the subject site, with a minor difference in level between the two sites (falling to the east). Both excavation and construction associated with the basement and first floor levels will be undertaken right along this common boundary, almost hard up against its trunk, which poses a realistic threat of killing and/or de-stabilising the tree.

 

As it is located on an adjoining property, the applicant has a responsibility to ensure it remains unaffected by their proposed works; however, as it is too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, the onus is on the applicant to negotiate an acceptable arrangement with the tree owner regarding its removal, costs and replacement. A deferred commencement condition requiring the applicant to obtain written approval from the adjoining owner for the tree removal has been included in this report.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

Traffic Comments

The expected peak flow volume of vehicles from the proposed 5 residential units and 4 commercial tenancies is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Beach Street (nor at the adjacent intersection with Clovelly Road) as a result of this development.

 

Driveway location

The Planning Officer is advised that the proposed driveway location in Beach Street is in compliance with Section 3.2.3 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 as it is located more than 6 metres from the tangent point of the intersection with Clovelly Road.

 

Vehicular Access

The applicant was previously advised that in order to provide adequate pedestrian safety the internal driveway in Beach Street should be provided with a stop sign and holding line. Further, it was noted that a convex mirror or similar should be installed on the wall adjacent to the southern side of the driveway access, to provide sightlines to the north for exiting vehicles stopped inside the property boundary. Amended plans have now been submitted showing compliance with this requirement.

 

It is also noted that the submitted plans show the wall on the southern side of the vehicular crossing being splayed 1.2 metres by 1.2 metres rather than Council’s standard required splay of 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres. Given that a convex mirror is also proposed on the northern side of the driveway, to improve sight lines to the south, no objections are raised to the slightly reduced splay corner.

 

The driveway opening at the Beach Street frontage and the internal driveway access must be 3.50 metres wide at all points along the driveway. The Planning Officer is advised that this will necessitate part of the wall on the northern side of the driveway being narrowed. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, the applicant is to engage a suitably qualified traffic engineer to determine whether the proposed traffic signals are appropriate. Exiting vehicles must always give way to entering traffic to ensure that queuing in Beach Street does not occur. Details demonstrating how this requirement will be complied with (either through the operation of traffic signals or alternative means) shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Note: Should the traffic engineer determine that traffic signals are not appropriate, they shall be deleted from the plans submitted for the construction certificate.

 

Parking Facilities

The Planning Officer should ensure the proposed parking provisions are adequate, however the following comments are provided to assist in determining compliance.

 

According to Council’s DCP – Parking, a total of 14 spaces are required (7 spaces for the 260m2 of retail space; 6 spaces for the 3 x 2-bedroom units, 1 x 1-bedroom unit and 1 x 3-bedroom unit and 1 visitor space).

 

The submitted plans show a total of only 12 car spaces being provided on-site, with 6 of these spaces being provided within a triple two car stacker.

 

Mechanical car stackers

The Development Engineer does not favour the use of car stackers as they are a mechanical system and as such may be subject to failure. However, should the Planning Officer consider approving the car stackers, it is recommended that the following conditions be included in any future development consent issued:

 

1.   An inspection and maintenance schedule for the car stackers shall be prepared in consultation with the car stacker manufacturer. A copy of the schedule is to be included in the documentation submitted for the construction certificate.

 

2.   The car stackers shall be inspected and maintained in accordance with the approved schedule.

 

3.   Any future strata management statement or building management statement shall incorporate the inspection and maintenance schedule for the car stackers.

 

4.   Training of all residents in the use of the car stackers shall be required as part of any future strata management statement or building management statement.

 

5.   All caretakers shall be trained in the operation of the car stackers and a contact number for the caretaker should be provided within the basement should users require assistance.

 

6.   Manufacturer specifications and instructions for operation of the car stacker shall be provided in a clearly visible location adjacent to the car stacker.

 

7.   The car stacker shall have a manual over-ride system for operation in the event of power/mechanical failure.

 

8.   The car stackers (including over run areas) shall be appropriately secured to ensure that pedestrian (resident/tenant and visitor) safety is not compromised at any time.

 

Further, the Planning Officer should ensure appropriate conditions are included regarding allocation of the parking spaces within the triple car stacker.

 

Splay Corner Comments

A 2 metre x 2 metre splay corner is to be provided at the intersection of Clovelly Road and Beach Street in order to provide adequate pedestrian and vehicular sight distance.

 

Car wash bays   

It is understood the Planning Officer has not allocated any parking spaces as visitor spaces accordingly no conditions have been included in relation to the provision of a covered car washing bay.

 

Waste Comments

As requested in Council’s previous memo dated 16 February 2006, amended plans have now been submitted showing the provision of a retail/commercial waste storage area (within the basement car park) sized to contain 8 x 240 litre bins.

 

Conditions suggested by Council’s Development Engineer have been included in the Recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 80-131).

 

6.3   Heritage Planner

 

The site is located in the area covered by Draft LEP (Amendment No. 39). In response to this draft document the applicant was requested to provide a heritage impact statement on 21 June 2005.

 

Council resolved on 13 December 2005 that the draft LEP (Amendment No 39) and accompanying DCP not be approved and not proceed.

 

The applicant took some time to lodge a Statement of Heritage Impact for the site (dated August 2005), formally lodging this document on 6 March 2006. The Statement was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner, however as the Draft LEP and DCP are no longer relevant to this application referral comments were not required. everal residents have raised the issue of character and heritage in their submissions. In relation to these issues, the submitted Statement of Heritage Impact concludes that:

Given the significance of surrounding heritage items and the extent and impact of the proposed works, the new development is considered acceptable in heritage terms.

The impact of the development on heritage items in the vicinity of the site has been discussed under Section 8(a) of this report.

 

6.4   Design Review Panel

 

Council’s Design Review Panel considered the application at its July 2005 meeting. The following comments were received:

 

1.   Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

Generally the Panel considers the design to be a good response to the site. The architect should address the comments below, which would lead to further refinement of the design.

 

The Panel considers that the proposed scale is appropriate in its immediate context and in response to the width and frontage of Clovelly Road / Beach Street intersection. As this will be the eastern-most building of this run of Clovelly Road shops, the corner and facades will be prominent. This prominence has been considered in the design response.

 

The Panel was surprised to be advised that the site’s zoning was 2b. This block has a consistent street wall of inter-war shops, with residential accommodation above. To the north in Beach Street, there are substantial post-war apartment buildings, up to 5 storeys in height. Therefore the context has a strong urban character, to which the scheme responds well.

 

The applicant has provided reasonable documentation (montages, Beach St elevations) to support the height and volumes proposed in the streetscape.

 

2.   The Scale of the Proposal

 

It is the Panel’s opinion that massing is generally well considered and that the scale and the height of the development are satisfactory. The Panel would prefer to see a more wall-like treatment of the Clovelly Road façade, in contrast to the north façade which can be more domestic in the scale and reading of the elements.

 

The Panel strongly recommends that deep soil planting be introduced in the setback to the northern neighbour. This would require the rear of the shops and the basement carpark to be set back from the north boundary by 3 – 4 metres to allow for a selection of trees to be planted in deep soil. This would be a desirable solution to the interface with the adjoining residential buildings, and provide much needed screening and a green outlook.

 

3.   The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The Panel suggests that the design would benefit from a reduction of the number of elements and components in the facades. There could also be a better combination of elements.

 

The use of high quality materials should be investigated for the corner element, rather than using discordant colour in a somewhat arbitrary way (the yellow element).

 

The treatment of the driveway and surrounding built form should be developed to reduce the impact of the wide carriageway.  The introduction of planting, a pergola structure, and some quality materials and wall treatments would assist in creating a satisfactory Beach Street façade

 

4.   The Proposed Density

 

The proposed volume is similar to that of the existing building on the site, and the mixed-use neighbours to the west. Therefore the volume and resulting density are considered appropriate for this site. As noted, the Panel considers that the shops 1-3 are overly long, and should be cut back to allow for deep soil planting along the northern boundary. This would reduce the FSR by a reasonable amount.

 

Adequate ceiling heights have been provided to the shops and apartments, as is required by SEPP 65.

 

5.   Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Due to the thin cross-section design, the number of internal spaces that would require artificial lighting throughout the day is minimal. Good cross ventilation is provided to all the apartments. The common areas also have excellent daylight and natural ventilation. All apartments have light and air from at least two sides, and all have northern or eastern orientation to living areas.

 

The applicant should consider complying with the pending BASIX requirements. Elements such as outdoor clothes lines, retention tanks for rainwater reuse, roof insulation and the like, should be incorporated into the design.

 

6.   The Proposed Landscape

 

The Panel considers that the integration of the driveway with the building and landscape design could be reconfigured. It would be improved if the entrance ramp was turned 90 degrees to decrease the prominence of the roller door, and the carpark layout could be tightened up. The driveway could incorporate permeable paving, and should be more decked over by planters.

 

A well-designed Landscape Plan should be prepared that is a good response to the space, transition and privacy issues.

 

The Panel suggests that some street trees be provided. This should be discussed with the relevant Council officer.

 

7.   The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

Floor to floor dimensions should allow for the provision of the appropriate acoustic ratings, particularly where bathrooms sit over living areas.

 

The units are mostly well planned, with good integration of internal and external living areas.

 

The provision, location and elements of the roof terrace are all supported, as they will provide amenity for future residents. This is a very good arrangement that should be the model for other rooftops in mixed –use developments.

 

The basement car park should be re-planned to be a much more straightforward arrangement. A reduction in commercial floor space would result in a decrease in parking required. This would allow the awkward stackers to be deleted, and a much more straightforward and economical basement arrangement to be provided. This would also substantially reduce the unnecessary shoring and excavation required for the stackers, and reduce risk, disruption and noise during the construction period.

 

8.   The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The design provides good activation of the street, and good passive surveillance. The provision and extent of the awning is supported.

 

9.   Social issues

 

The proposal has an appropriate mix of units. The shops to both street frontages and the location of the residential foyer in Clovelly Road are appropriate.

 

10. The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The proposal has the potential to be a well considered addition to the Clovelly area, however some of the elements in the façade could be refined and the language of the building further developed. The individual elevations need to be better related in terms of consistency and inter-relation of materials, such as;

 

-     The corner element and splay roof should be less “featurist”, and better integrated with the overall designs, The soffit detail is important due to its prominence.

-     The street wall to Clovelly Road should be more unified in character, presenting as a masonry wall with a rhythm of openings. The Panel considers that the glass balustrades on this busy street façade are out of place, and that a more solid treatment would be more appropriate;

-     The eastern façade can be the more dramatic one, due to the slope, street geometry, outlook and expressed thin section;

-     The sun shading elements on the north façade are appropriate;

-     The façade detailing needs further design input. A detailed section and part elevation at 1:50 scale should be submitted, accurately showing junctions, materials and finishes.

 

There are some minor discrepancies between plan and elevation on the south façade at first floor, which should be corrected.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel recognises the design qualities of the Development Application. The Panel has suggested a series of further refinements, to more fully meet the SEPP 65 requirements.

 

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

 

The amended plans and sample board have addressed the Panel’s concerns with regard to deep soil planting, parking layout, materials and colours and the aesthetics of the building, particularly in relation to the Clovelly Road elevation to a satisfactory level. A landscaping plan has not been provided for assessment and this has been included as a deferred commencement condition of consent (see Deferred Commencement Condition 4).

 

In response the Panel’s positive comments in relation to the roof terrace, the applicant has enlarged this element in the amended plans and increased amenity to this area by providing more cover to the roof top. However, it is considered that the additional awnings and the access to the rooftop area will have negative impacts in terms of outlook from surrounding properties, bulk and scale and concern is raised the enlarged communal terrace may result in significant acoustic privacy issues due to its elevation. While the terrace would provide additional amenity to the residents of the development it is not considered necessary and given its impacts has been recommended for removal from the development (see Deferred Commencement Condition 1).

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site is less than 4,000m2 in area there is no requirement for a master plan under clause 40A of RLEP98.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP98)

-State Environmental Planning Policy 10– Retention of Low Cost Housing (SEPP 10)

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

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

 

(a)      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2(b) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the proposed activity (mixed-use development) is generally prohibited within the zone. Despite this prohibition, the site has been used continuously as a residential flat building with shops attached by virtue of lawful consents, which predate the current planning controls (that now prohibit such uses within the 2(b) zone). The property therefore enjoys the benefits of “existing-use rights”.

 

Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act affords protection to uses operating under a lawful consent to continue even if a subsequent planning instrument prohibits that use. Under clause 41(1d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation the protection extends to changing from one non-conforming use to another:

 

(1)      An existing use may, subject to this Division:

(d)      be changed to another use, including a use that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act

 

Section 108(3) of the Act also provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate from the “incorporated provisions” have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument that would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims, objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

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

 

(a)    to allow a variety of housing types within residential areas, and

(b)    to allow for a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors, and

(c)    to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development in the area, and

(e)    to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability.

 

The development will increase the mix of dwellings provided on the site at present and therefore will contribute to the variety of housing types and the housing choice in the locality. The site currently provides 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings. The proposal will provide 3 x 2 bedroom dwellings and incorporate a 3 bedroom and 1 bedroom dwelling into the mix. The one bedroom dwelling will provide for greater housing affordability and the three bedroom dwelling will improve housing choice by providing a larger unit which may provide greater housing affordability and choice for a range of groups including families. The proposal is considered to meet objectives (a) and (e), above.

 

The development does not provide community facilities, however the retention of the established non-conforming small-scale retail tenancies on the ground floor is considered appropriate to maintaining the existing service and amenity provided to the local area. Neighbourhood shops of the scale proposed can have positive benefits in terms of minimising local traffic volumes and providing opportunities for community interaction as well as providing services to local residents. The commercial portion of the development is considered to serve the needs of local residents, workers and visitors and supports the aim of objective (b).

 

The locality of the site is mixed in character, being comprised of single dwelling houses, older style residential flat buildings up to 4 storeys in height and more recent developments with a 2 to 3 storey scale. The proposal will increase the height of development on the site from 2-3 storeys as viewed from Clovelly Road and from 1 to 2 storeys as viewed from properties to the north on Beach Street. Despite the increased number of storeys proposed, the building will have an overall height that is comparable to the ridge height of the existing building on the site. The parapets at the western and eastern ends of the Clovelly Road frontage exceed the existing ridge height by approximately 1 metre. The dominant character of Clovelly Road includes small scale retail uses, many with residential dwellings above and the development is consistent with this character. The form, bulk and scale and overall character of the the proposal responds to the range of conditions adjoining the site and is considered to consistent with the mixed character of the area. The development is not considered to significantly compromise the amenity of the area and where appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended to mitigate or minimise impacts (see discussion under Section 9, below). The proposal is satisfactory with regard to objective (c) of the zone.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the objectives of the 2(b) zone.

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31(2) - Landscaped Area

50% of site area (or 247sq.m)

21% or 102 sqm

No

31(3) – Landscaped Area over Basement

Less than 50% of landscape requirement (or 124sqm)

29% or 72.12sqm

Yes

32 – FSR

0.65:1 or 321sq.m

1.75:1 or 863.1sq.m

No

33(1) – Building Height

North

South (Clovelly Road)

 

East (Beach Street

Western Side

 

33(3) – External Wall Height

North

 

South (Clovelly Road)

 

East (Beach Street

Western Side

9.5m max. overall

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7m max. wall height

 

 

 

 

7.8-9.1m (stair 10m)

9.5-10.8m (lift overrun 12.2m)

11.5m

7.5-9.6m

 

 

 

7m- 9.5m (7.8m skylight, stair 10m)

7.9-10.4m (lift overrun 12.2m)

8.5m-11.5m

6.7m-9.6m

 

 

Yes (No)

No

 

No

No (partial)

 

 

 

No (partial)

 

No

 

No

No (partial)

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

21

Council consent required for subdivision

Yes, subdivision proposed

Draft strata plans provided for assessment

35

Business Premises in residential zones permissible where originally constructed for that purpose and floor area less than 50sqm

Although shops have been constructed and used as such since 1933 total commercial floor area exceeds 50sqm and therefore is non-conforming use

Although shops have been constructed and used as such since 1933 total commercial floor area exceeds 50sqm and therefore is non-conforming use

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item or within conservation area.

Heritage items nearby the subject site at 317 and 319 Clovelly Road. Not in a conservation area.

See discussion below.

 

Non-compliances with statutory standards cannot derogate (detract from) the protection afforded by existing use rights under s108(3) of the Act. An objection under SEPP No. 1 in support of variance from the statutory standards is not required in this instance. The relevant clauses of the RLEP have been discussed under Sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4 of this report.

 

Clause 21 – Subdivision

 

The draft strata plans provided reflect the development as originally submitted. Amended strata plans have not been lodged reflecting the changes in the plans for approval. As the changes are relatively minor, and the plans will be further amended by Deferred Commencement conditions, strata approval can be granted subject to a condition requiring new strata plans reflecting the development as approved being prepared with the subdivision certificate application. There are no minimum lot requirements for subdivision in the 2(b) zone, the LEP requirements have been satisfied.

 

Appropriate strata conditions, including conditions in relation to carparking allocation have been recommended (see Conditions 4 and 122-125).

 

Vicinity of Heritage Items

 

The development is nearby to heritage items on the corner of Clovelly Road and Arden Street to the west of the site.

 

Above: Walders Corner (foreground) and Pohills Corner (background) are listed heritage items under RLEP98.

 

The development has been designed with consideration of heritage issues as the site was previously included as part of a draft heritage conservation area. The façade of the building is masonry, consistent with the nearby heritage items and includes heritage proportions (such as a vertical rather than horizontal fenestration pattern). Council’s Design Review Panel has made an assessment of the aesthetics of the proposal and the applicant has made changes in accordance with the Panel’s advice, including a new materials and colours sample board.

 

The development will not impact on the heritage value of the surrounding area and in particular on the curtilage of nearby heritage items on Clovelly Road.

 

(b)    State Environmental Planning Policy 10– Retention of Low Cost Housing (SEPP 10)

 

Clause 7(2) requires Council consent for strata subdivision and alterations and additions to residential flat buildings classed as “low-rental residential buildings” under clause 6 of the SEPP. Under the SEPP demolition of low-rental residential buildings does not require the concurrence of the Department of Planning. It is unclear if the existing building is classed as a “low-rental residential building”, however as the existing building is proposed for demolition, details of rental levels and further consideration of the SEPP is not required.

 

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

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. Although the adjoining site is currently used for automotive purposes, Council’s Environmental Health officer considers cross site contamination unlikely and has indicated that the site is suitable for the proposed residential and commercial use.

Council has carefully considered the issue of contamination, proposed appropriate conditions and fulfilled its obligations under SEPP 55.

 

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

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. Any redevelopment of the site which includes dwelling units should achieve consistency with the design quality principles embodied in SEPP 65. This approach has been reinforced by the Land and Environment Court in a recently adopted planning principle regarding Existing Use Rights (Fodor Investments vs Hornsby Shire Council). The application has been considered by Council’s Design Review Panel. The Panel’s comments are included in section 6.4, above.

 

The amended plans received on 24 February 2006 responded to the Panel’s comments and as discussed in section 6.4, the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65 and the principles of good design.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

The following Council policy controls may be used as a guide in assessing the proposed development.

 

§ DCP – Parking 1998

§ Section 94 Contributions Plan

§ Contaminated Land Policy 1999

§ Rainwater Tank Policy 2003

§ DCP – Multi Unit Housing

 

a.       Multi Unit Housing DCP

 

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. As the site benefits from ‘Existing Use Rights’, the provisions of the DCP cannot be enforced. The table below is provided to indicate the performance of the proposal against the Preferred Solutions, and demonstrate its compatibility with surrounding and likely future development. A merits based assessment against the objectives of Council’s controls and the likely impacts of the development has been provided in Section 9, below.

 

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1  Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Complies

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

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

Complies

P3  Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

Complies

Height

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

 

Complies

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

 

Complies

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

Complies

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.

Northern Side

Does not comply

First floor inclusive of balconies Av. 3.63m excluding balconies 3.95m

Second floor inclusive of balconies Av. 3.65m excluding balconies 5.12m which would comply

Complies. Minimum side setback to both levels is 3.0m

Complies Second floor is 16m, but first floor provides articulation to <10m wall length

Complies

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.

Due to site orientation and street alignment, no rear setback requirement for this site.

Density

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

 

 

Complies

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have: 

§ consistent with streetscape;

§ Entrances highlighted; and

§ Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

S1 Solid front fences no higher than 1.2 metres. May increase to 1.8 metres when 50 % transparent.

 

Fences not provided, walls to Beach Street are consistent with adjoining properties which are set above basement parking resulting in high front walls.

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.

Complies

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

 

Does not comply, has been allocated to Units 2 and 3 as private open space including garden areas.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Complies

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

 

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.

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.

Complies. Privacy impacts have been appropriately mitigated or conditions applied, see discussion below.

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Complies

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Complies

P4  Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Conditioned to comply

View Sharing

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

 

Complies. Surrounding properties and levels have been adequately plotted to allow for assessment.

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

 

Does not comply. Roof terrace projections will increase loss of outlook to adjoining properties, see discussion below.

P3  Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

Complies, corridor along northern side of existing building retained.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

Complies

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

 

Complies

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.

 

Complies

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

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

§ Living areas are orientated to the north.

§ Larger windows are located on the north.

S4  75% of dwellings achieve 3.5star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars. The NatHERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

Complies All dwellings achieve 3.5(+) stars.

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. Solar hot water system shown on roof plan

Safety and Security

P1  Design allows surveillance.

 

Complies

P2  Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Complies

P3  High walls and structures avoided.

 

Complies

P4  Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

Complies

P6  Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

Conditioned to comply

P7  Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

Conditioned to comply

P8  External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

Conditioned to comply

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.

 

Refer to table under DCP - Parking, below

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

 

Complies

P2  Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required (refer to dwelling number requirements in P1 and P2 Barrier Free Access.

 

Not Required

P3  Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Conditioned to comply

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1  Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Complies

P2  Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Complies

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

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

Not Applicable

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

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

Complies, setback not provided but traffic control measures and planting provided in alternative ways to ensure safety and streetscape objectives are met.

P5  Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Complies

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

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

Complies

Storage

P1  Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1  10m2 of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1m. At least 50% of storage space is within dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area. Storage facilities may be in basement areas, or attached to garages .

Complies

Barrier-Free Access

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

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

Conditioned to comply with BCA

P2  Dwelling requirements:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 so on…

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

 

Not Required

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

 

Not Required

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

 

Not Required

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1  Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Conditioned to Comply

P2  Provisions for a single common TV and radio reception device.

 

Conditioned to Comply

P3 – P6  Utilities Requirements

 

Conditioned to Comply

P7  Internal laundry to each dwelling, communal clothes drying made available and screened from the street.

 

Complies

Waste Minimisation and Management

P2  Waste storage to be provided in a centralised position that has easy access for moving bins to the street for collection.

 

Complies

P3  The location and design of waste facilities does not visually detract from the development or the streetscape.

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

Complies

 

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

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

a) Number

Residential

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bicycle Storage

 

 

 

Accessible Parking

 

 

Car Wash Bays

 

b) layout

1.0 spaces required for each one bedroom dwelling (1 x 1.0 = 1.0 spaces)

 

1.2 spaces required for each two bedroom dwelling (3 x 1.2 = 3.6 spaces)

 

1.5 spaces required for each three bedroom dwelling (1 x 1.5 = 1.5 spaces)

 

1 space/4 dwgs or part thereof for visitors (1.25 spaces required)

 

1 space per 40m2 GFA (343/40 = 8.5 spaces)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 16 SPACES

 

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

(1 bike space)

 

1 space per dwelling in accordance with MUH DCP. (not required)

 

1 per 12 dwellings (0 bays)

 

As per DCP.

 

1 space

 

 

 

 

5 spaces*

 

 

 

 

2 spaces

 

 

 

 

0 space

 

 

 

 

4 spaces

 

12 spaces (includes 6 spaces in stacker)

 

 

Not Indicated

 

 

 

 

0 spaces

 

 

 

0 bays

 

 

Adequate turning areas provided.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

No

 

 

 

No1

 

 

 

 

Not Required

 

 

 

Not Required

 

 

Yes

* Spaces in stackers to be allocated requiring allocation of 4 spaces in stacked arrangement to two dwellings, additional space is to be allocated to third 2 bedroom dwelling

1 May be conditioned to comply

Note: The plans have been marked to indicate 13 spaces,however this is a typographical error and only 12 spaces are provided.

 

Although spaces provided within the mechanical car stackers can be accessed individually (ie: while two cars are parked each vehicle can be independently retrieved from the stacker) it is considered prudent that both the spaces provided in each of the stackers serve only 1 unit. In order to achieve this, spaces within the car stackers are to be dedicated to the larger 2 & 3 bedroom residential units (see Condition 4). The provision of bicycle spaces in accordance with the DCP- Parking is also a recommended condition. Discussion of compliance with the DCP – Parking can be found under sections 6.2 and 9.9 of this report.

 

8.2  Council Policies

 

a.   Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes an additional dwelling on the site. As a result of this assessment a condition of consent has been proposed requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities and administration charges totalling $3,503.15 for the residential component of the development.

 

No contribution in relation to townscape or carparking may be levied for the commercial component of the development as the site is not located within a commercial centre and there is no increase to the gross floor area of the commercial use on the site as a result of the proposal.

 

b.  Contaminated Land Policy, 1999

 

Council’s Contaminated Land Policy applies to the site and has been addressed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer in section 6.1. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to Council’s Contaminated Land Policy.

 

c.     Rainwater Tank Policy, 2003

 

Council adopted a Rainwater Tank Policy on the 14th October 2003. The Policy encourages water conservation and reduce demand for potable (drinking) water. Condition 31 requires the applicant to provide appropriate measures in accordance with the Policy.

 

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   Height, Form and Materials

 

The development has an overall height (and external wall height as a flat roof profile is proposed) ranging between 6.7 to 12.2 metres. The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible height and wall height for development on the site, being 9.5 and 7 metres, respectively. Although the statutory standard cannot derogate from existing use rights provisions, the merits of the proposal can be discussed with regard to FSR and the resultant bulk and scale of the development.

 

It should be noted that the difference in ground levels between the northern and southern boundaries of the site currently provides for a two storey building to Clovelly Road which appears as a single storey building to the northern side. The proposal will also result in a difference of one level between the scale presented to Clovelly Road and Beach Street (3 storeys) and that presented to the northern boundary (2 storeys above natural ground level). This topography also results in greater non-compliance with the statutory height standard on the southern (Clovelly Road) and eastern (Beach Street) elevations than on the northern and western elevations.

 

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

 

The proposal has been designed to respond to the sloped topography of Clovelly Road, taking the roof ridge of the existing building which is broken into two levels as a guide. The building has been designed with a western portion that is higher (by approximately 1 metre) than the eastern portion and this follows the eastern slope of Clovelly Road.

 

A measure as to the suitability of the development and the extent of impact to adjoining properties are the minimum amenity standards contained within Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The applicant has provided shadow diagrams showing all surrounding allotments in plan form (as required for this DA) at midwinter, the equinoxes and midsummer. The proposal maintains solar access to surrounding properties and achieves the minimum of 3 hours to all neighbours with shadows largely falling on the roadway.

 

The non-compliance of the development has been assessed in terms of its impact on views and visual and acoustic privacy (see Sections 9.5 and 9.6). The outcome of this assessment is that the general form of the development, being 2-3 storeys is consistent with the development standard for overall height and the setback of the top floor will meet the intent of the wall height standard, being to present a two storey proportion to the street in 2(b) zones. The isolated areas of maximum non-compliance, being the lift and stair access to the roof terrace and the roof terrace itself may result in significant acoustic privacy and impacts on view/ outlook from 16 Beach Street. Although this area would provide additional amenity to the dwellings within the development, the non-compliance of this portion of the proposal suggests these impacts are unreasonable. Deferred Commencement Condition 1 requires that the roof terrace be deleted from the proposal and the stair and lift access be reduced in height. The maximum height of the development as modified by Deferred Commencement Condition 1 would be 9.1 metres (compliant) to the northern elevation and this will ensure that amenity impacts of the development on the adjoining residential flat building are minimised. As discussed above, the height of the proposal to Clovelly Road and Beach Street is considered to be appropriate in the circumstances and will not result in significant bulk and scale impacts on the existing streetscape.

 

The proposal does not meet the floor space ratio control, but has an FSR that is commensurate with surrounding residential flat developments that predate the 2(b) zoning of the site. The development does not comply with the landscaping standards set under RLEP98, however it will improve upon the existing situation by providing open space areas that are accessible from the new dwellings. Deep soil planting will be maintained to part of the northern boundary to minimise the impact of the increased height of the development on the adjoining property to the north.

 

The building exceeds the allowable height standards under RLEP98, however (subject to compliance with Deferred Commencement Condition 1), this will not result in adverse impacts on existing residential development. The development meets the objective of the external wall height and overall height standards, being to set upper limits for the height of buildings which are consistent with other development controls such as FSR and landscaping and have regard to the amenity of surrounding properties. The height of the proposal (as amended further by Deferred Commencement Condition 1) is satisfactory given the surrounding context and lack of impacts on adjoining development.

 

9.2   Density

 

The FSR of the proposal (as amended) is 1.75:1 (863.1m2) and exceeds that permissible under clause 32(1) of the RLEP 98 for a development on the site, being 0.65:1 (321m2), by 542m2. Although the statutory standard cannot derogate from existing use rights provisions, the merits of the proposal can be discussed with regard to FSR and the resultant bulk and scale of the development. The existing building on the site has an FSR of approximately 1.27:1 (630m2) and also exceeds the current FSR standard.

 

The objective of the floor space ratio (FSR) standard is to establish a reasonable upper limit for development in residential zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment. An accepted measure of the impacts on amenity is the degree of compliance a proposal achieves with Council’s amenity standards for overshadowing, visual privacy, views etc.

 

Consistent with the objective of the FSR standard, the development minimises impacts to neighbouring properties despite the non-compliance of the proposal with the density standard of 0.65:1. Approximately 40% of the floor area proposed is located below existing ground level on the northern side of the site. This arrangement has minimised the impact to adjoining residential developments by limiting the bulk of the proposal to two storeys as viewed from the north.

 

The FSR standard makes a general relationship between the site area and allowable density in order to ensure Council’s other statutory and policy controls can be met. Despite the non-compliance with the FSR standard, the proposal achieves a high degree of compliance with Council’s controls for setbacks, solar access and carparking. The height non-compliances occur to Clovelly Road and Beach Street and to isolated parts of the northern elevation. These non-compliances will be addressed by removal of the roof terrace. As discussed in this report, the FSR of the proposal will not result in overshadowing, inadequate landscaping or privacy impacts. The design amendments made to the materials and form of the development have reduced its visual bulk and improved its relationship to the street.

 

The development is consistent with larger built forms in the vicinity and will not result in excessive building bulk on the street. The site is not highly visible from surrounding areas or the foreshore and the bulk of the additional floor space has been adequately articulated to reduce impacts on the outlook of surrounding properties.

 

 

Above: 3-4 storey residential flat buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site, left on Clovelly Road and right on Beach Street.

 

The commercial tenancies proposed to the ground floor along the street frontages will contribute to the availability of services to the local area without resulting in significant impacts in terms of traffic, parking or increased noise. Clovelly Road is highly trafficked and the ground floor of the development on the southern side of the building (facing Clovelly Road) does not offer good opportunities for visual, acoustic privacy and solar access for residential uses. In this instance the provision of low –density commercial use is considered appropriate.

 

As the site enjoys the benefits of existing use rights, compliance with the floor space ratio standard cannot be enforced, notwithstanding the protection afforded by existing use rights the proposal achieves the objectives of the FSR standard and is considered satisfactory with regard to clause 32 of the LEP.

 

9.3   Building Setbacks

 

The aim of Council’s preferred solutions with regard to setbacks is to achieve consistency along street frontages. The nil setbacks to Clovelly Road and Beach Street are consistent with the commercial use on the ground floor (and the nil setback of adjoining properties to the west along Clovelly Road) and will reinforce the corner location of the site. The upper floor levels have been set back from the street frontage to provide for balconies and articulation to the street façade. The setbacks to the street frontages are satisfactory.

 

The proposal also has a nil setback to the western side which adjoins the building at 337-339 Clovelly Road which has a close to nil (300mm increasing to 900mm at the rear) setback to the common boundary. The nil setback to the western side is consistent with the practice in commercial shopping strips of providing a street wall where the facades of individual buildings form a wall and reinforce the street edge. As a boundary wall is provided to the adjoining site the nil setback of the proposal will not result in any additional amenity impacts.

 

The northern side boundary setbacks do not meet the preferred solutions for average setbacks, although the preferred solutions for minimum setbacks are achieved by the development. At the first floor level the building fails to meet the average setback by 370mm. This figure includes the balcony to bedrooms 1 and 2 of Unit 3 which is elevated above the private open space for this unit. If this balcony were removed from the first floor level, the average setback would increase to 3.95m and result in a minor non compliance of 5mm with the preferred solution. Such a non-compliance would not be easily discernible and the increased average setback would achieve the objective of the preferred solution which is to ensure adequate space between buildings, minimising the potential for increased bulk and scale impacts to the adjoining dwellings at 16 Beach Street. Removal of the balcony from the bedrooms in favour of windows will not result in any significant amenity impact to Unit 3 and this has been included in Deferred Commencement Condition 3.

 

At second floor level the development achieves an average setback of 3.65m which does not comply with the preferred solution by 350mm. Again, this calculation includes the balcony and planter box provided to the northern side of Unit 5 which services bedrooms and the balcony to Bedroom 1 of Unit 2. The applicant has submitted sections which indicate that the elevation of the balcony and the planter boxes to the Unit 5 balcony will prevent an angle of view to the private open spaces of the adjoining residential flat building and the planter boxes provide separation between the balcony and southern elevation of the building at 16 Beach Street of 9 metres. Therefore significant overlooking from this balcony to 16 Beach Street is unlikely to occur. However, the balcony and associated planter box and balustrading are considered to increase the visual bulk of the building in close proximity to the northern boundary of the site. This will have a negative impact on the courtyards of Units 1 and 2 of 16 Beach Street which are at a lower ground level than the subject site. The removal of these elements will result in a compliant average setback and provide a built form that recedes towards the top (similar to the existing pitched roof building on the site at the moment. Deferred Commencement Condition 2 requires that the planter box be deleted and the balcony removed in favour of non-trafficable roof with a parapet). Removal of this balcony will increase the average setback for the second floor level to 4.92 metres which more than complies with the preferred solution. Adequate balconies which meet the preferred solutions for private open space and are accessed from living areas are provided to the east and south of this dwelling and removal of this balcony will not result in significant reduction of amenity.

 

Above: View  looking southeast from the courtyard of Unit 2/16 Beach Street to the northern elevation of the existing building on the subject site at 343-355 Clovelly Road. Note the difference in ground levels.

 

The juliette balcony to Bedroom 1 of Unit 2 is setback 3 metres off the boundary. The balcony is set at RL 51.5, which is at the approximate level of Level 4 of the adjoining building at 16 Beach Street. This is the upper terrace level of Unit 3 and the lower level of Unit 4 in this development. The location of the balcony at the western end of the site will not provide for significant overlooking of the terrace of Unit 3 or windows of lower level rooms in Unit 4. The balcony is associated with a bedroom and is therefore is unlikely to result in extensive or prolonged use. The applicant has provided sliding screens to the edge of the balcony so that the doors of the bedroom may remain open whilst still maintaining some weather protection. The balcony will not result in significant bulk and scale impacts to the adjoining property at 16 Beach Street as ground levels increase towards the western end of the adjoining site and the dense vegetation which exists at the moment in this location does not provide outlook to the courtyards of lower level dwellings. The balcony is opposite the deep soil landscaping zone and the proposed plantings will soften the appearance of the northwestern corner of the development.

 

Above: View of existing vegetation and building to the west of the subject site from lower level of Unit 3/16 Beach Street.

 

The development meets the DCP requirement for articulation to all elevations, providing modulation of all wall surfaces and minimising flat areas of façade to less than ten (10) metres in length. The materials and finishes indicated with the application add to the visual interest of the facades and are well integrated to emphasise the articulation of the building.

 

The building (subject to compliance with conditions of consent) is satisfactory with regard to building setbacks.

 

9.4   Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

The development provides 21% (102m2) of the site area as landscaping. This does not comply the statutory requirement under clause 31(1) of the RLEP98 of 50% (247m2) by 145m2. The amount of landscaping over the basement/ podium levels represents 29% (72m2) of the landscaping requirement and complies with the maximum permissible under clause 31(3) of the RLEP98, being 50% of (124m2) of the required landscaping.

 

The objective of the landscaping standards is to establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes. The existing development on the site has a similar provision of landscaped area (22% of site area). The proposal will maintain this provision and improve site amenity by providing basement carparking which accommodates some deep soil provision and over slab planting. The landscaped area has been concentrated to the northern edge of the site to gain maximum solar access and maintain the existing landscape screening between the site and adjoining residential flat building. The landscaping proposed is considered to be appropriate given the existing situation non the site and the surrounding context of the development which is mixed in character including many commercial developments, which if located in a business zone would not be subject to any landscape requirements.

 

There is no significant vegetation on the site at present. The landscape plan lodged with the application has not been updated in response to the comments of Council’s Design Review Panel and the amended plans. A new landscape plan is to be provided to and approved by Council prior to operation of any consent (see Deferred Commencement Condition 4). This will ensure the landscaped area provides areas of open space that can be used for recreational purposes and also makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and adjoining properties consistent with the objectives of the landscape controls.

 

The area of deep soil planting will provide for stormwater infiltration in accordance with the objectives for deep soil planting. Although the proposal represents a reduction from the existing deep soil provision, the incorporation of some deep soil planting will provide for recirculation of stormwater to the groundwater table. The development has been conditioned to provide a rainwater tank in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy and this will increase the reuse of rainwater on site consistent with the objectives of the standards.

 

Although the large roof terrace proposed provides communal open space for the enjoyment of all units, its size and elevation raise concerns regarding acoustic and visual privacy. The stair and lift access required to this area result in additional building bulk and height which will impact on the streetscape and outlook from the adjoining property to the south. For these reasons it is considered the roof terrace should be deleted. This has been recommended in Deferred Commencement Condition 1. Consistent with the definition of landscaped area in the RLEP98, the roof terrace has not been calculated and removal of this element will not affect the landscaped area calculation. There is no communal landscaping requirement in the DCP, and removal of this element is not considered to significantly reduce amenity in the development, particularly given the proximity of the site to local beaches, foreshore reserves and parks. Section 94 contributions have been levied with regard to open space to cater for the increased demand on these public open spaces generated by the development.

 

Each unit has at least one balcony of suitable depth to allow for ventilation and recreational use. North facing first floor units have courtyards that provide private open space at ground level.

 

Conditions of consent proposed by Council’s Development Officer have been included in the Recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 126-131).

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to landscaping.

 

9.5   Privacy

 

The site has two street frontages and a third boundary which faces an existing building built close to the boundary. The arrangement of the building around the perimeter of the site has minimised the potential for overlooking of the adjoining property to the north (16 Beach Street).

 

At first floor level (ground level to the north of the site) windows are provided to bedrooms of Unit 3 and living, dining rooms and kitchens of Units 2 and 3. The windows to Unit 2 will not result in overlooking of surrounding properties due to the deep soil planting and fencing proposed and the relative levels between the sites which are similar at this point along the boundary.

 

Towards the eastern end of the first floor level bedroom windows to Unit 3 and a balcony are proposed. The provision of a balcony in this location is considered likely to overlook the adjoining property at 16 Beach Street and increases building bulk. As such, the balcony is to be deleted and the bedrooms provided with windows only (see Deferred Commencement Condition 3). Screen planting and fencing will assist in screening the subject site from the adjoining building. The wall to wall distance between the properties after deletion of the bedroom balcony will be 8.6 metres and will approximate the 9 metres recommended in best practice documents.

 

At the northeastern corner of the site, dining room windows and a small terrace providing access to the courtyard space are provided to Unit 3. The location of these elements close to the Beach Street frontage of the site has minimised the impact to the adjoining property at 16 Beach Street. Unit 1/16 Beach Street does have principal private open space to the front of the site at 16 Beach Street, however existing dense planting along the southern boundary of this property precludes overlooking between the sites. The provision of additional screen planting to the subject site and the setback of the dining room area combined with the proposed boundary fencing will not allow overlooking from the new development to this terrace. This has been demonstrated by the applicant in the part section g-g submitted with the February amendments.

Above: View from terrace of 1/16 Beach Street looking towards subject site, dense planting on the southern boundary of 16 Beach Street precludes overlooking.

 

At second floor level, north facing windows are provided to 2 bedrooms of Unit 2, two bedrooms in Unit 5, the living room of Unit 5 and bathrooms to both dwellings. A juliette (1m) wide balcony is provided to Bedroom 1 of Unit 2 and a long balcony 1.3m wide plus planter box is provided along the northern edge of Unit 5.

 

The provision of bedroom and bathroom windows along this elevation at second floor level is not considered to result in any significant privacy impacts. The distance between the southern elevation of 16 Beach Street and the northern elevation of the development is 7.3m to 9.8m. Where the distance is less than 9 metres (towards the western end of the site), deep soil planting has been incorporated which will provide the additional screening not provided by physical separation. Sliding privacy screens are provided to the balcony to Bedroom 1 of Unit 2 and these will minimise any impact from the balcony.

 

Towards the eastern end of the distance between the elevations is 9.8 metres (exclusive of balconies) and this distance is considered sufficient to minimise overlooking. Although the applicant has indicated in section that the planter boxes to the edge of the north facing terrace to Unit 5 prevent significant overlooking of 16 Beach Street, these elements increase the bulk of the building and its proximity to the boundary. In order to reduce visual bulk and the perception of overlooking from 16 Beach Street, Deferred Commencement Condition 2 requires removal of the balcony and planter boxes.

 

The proposed roof terrace has been provided with a planter box which cuts the angle of view to 16 Beach Street. This combined with the separation distance of over 9.5 metres assists in minimising visual privacy impacts to the terrace of 3/16 Beach Street to the north of the site. It is noted that the terrace of 3/16 Beach Street is very large and exposed, occupying the whole of the roof of the floor below and that a large area of the terrace is already overlooked by 4/16 Beach Street, the unit above (see photo below). However, as the terrace proposed in this application is for communal use, the opportunities for acoustic privacy impacts to surrounding properties are considered to be greater than the existing private terraces on the adjoining building. In addition, the stair and lift required to access the terrace increase the visual bulk of the development and its height and are considered inappropriate. For these reasons, it is recommended the terrace is deleted (see Deferred Commencement Condition 1).

Above: View from terrace of 4/16 Beach Street which overlooks a substantial area of the terrace of Unit 3/16 Beach Street below.

 

The development has incorporated features to mitigate privacy impacts and (subject to conditions) meets Council’s performance requirements and preferred solutions with regard to privacy.

 

9.6   View Sharing

 

Distant ocean, headland and district views are enjoyed to the east, south and southeast from the upper level roof terraces of Units 3 and 4 of 16 Beach Street. The existing views to the south and southeast of the terrace to Unit 4 are achieved over the existing building on the subject site as illustrated by the photographs below:

Above: Panoramic view looking Southeast to southwest from the terrace of Unit 4/16 Beach Street across the subject site at 343-355 Clovelly Road.

 

Above: View looking Southeast to southwest from the terrace of Unit 3/16 Beach Street across the subject site at 343-355 Clovelly Road. Note, the roof of the existing building impedes clear views from this terrace.

 

District and distant views are also achieved to Waverley Cemetery, the ocean and horizon due east from these terraces across existing development on the eastern side of Beach Street.

 

Above: View looking east from the terrace of Unit 3/16 Beach Street.

 

Above: View looking east from the terrace of Unit 4/16 Beach Street.

 

As indicated by the photographs above, the existing easterly view from the upper level terraces at 16 Beach Street will not be affected by the development. The development will have some impact on the outlook to the south and south east from these terraces.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The views from 3/16 Beach Street to the southeast are district land views and interrupted water view to the horizon. It should be noted that the view in this direction is already substantially obscured by the pitched roof form of the existing building on the site, as indicated in the photos above.

 

The views from 4/16 Beach Street to the southeast are also district land views and water view with less interruption than that from 3/16 Beach Street due to the increased elevation of this property. In the distance of this view, the northern Coogee headland and the coastline including breaking water can be seen. It should be noted that the distance of this property from the land-water interface means that future development in a wide number of locations closer to the foreshore could potentially remove the coastal (and land/water interface) component of the view.

 

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

 

The main view aspect from 3/16 Beach Street is due east. This is across the front boundary and will not be affected by the proposal. The small area of aspect to the southeast (across the hip of the existing pitched roof) is gained across the southern side boundary and is more difficult to protect in terms of view loss. The currently available views are available from a seated and standing postion.

 

The view aspect from 4/16 Beach Street is to the east, south and southeast. As for 3/16 Beach Street views to the east are across the front boundary of 16 Beach Street, whereas the views to the south and southeast are across side boudnaries. As the outlook is from a large open terrace area, views can be achieved from seated and standing positions. The photographs above are taken from a standing position.

 

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

 

The extent of the impact on 3/16 Beach Street is considered to be negligible. The area of view lost is minor, being the area filled in by the development having a flat roof as opposed to the pitched, hipped roof that exists on the site at the moment. The existing view from the covered terrace area and living rooms of this property is obscured by the existing building on the site (see photo below) and due to the existing building there additional impact of the development on the outlook from this area is negligible. As district and ocean views are available in an easterly direction from this terrace, the loss of a small area of view from an exposed area of the terrace is not considered to be significant.

 

Above: View looking south from the covered area of terrace at 3/16 Beach Street.

 

The development will result in loss of the southerly portion of the view from the terrace at 4/16 Beach Street and loss of some district view to the south east (ocean view will be retained). The extent of the view loss may be considered to be moderate, as the views lost are distant and may be interrupted by future developments between the site and the foreshore and the expansive view opportunities to the east and northeast from the terrace.

 

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

 

The building complies with the 9.5m height limit along the eastern half of the northern elevation (the critical elevation for view impacts to 16 Beach Street). The height limit is breached by the lift shaft, awning to the roof terrace and stairs towards the middle of the northern elevation. To the western end of this elevation the 9.5m overall height limit is observed, however the 7m wall height is breached by the skylights and a portion of the parapet.

 

The development complies with the overall height limit to the eastern end of the site on the northern side. The view loss impacts to 3/16 Beach Street are therefore considered to result from the change from a pitched to a flat roof. These impacts are considered reasonable given the quality of views lost, opportunities for views from the other portions of the terrace and location of the views across a side boundary. The proposal is considered to have mitigated its impact by providing open balconies to the eastern end of the development to reduce the solidity of the building at this point and maximise the opportunity for retention of outlook across the site.

 

The loss of ocean, district and distant headland and land/water interface views from 4/16 Beach Street is the result of the lift and stair access to the roof terrace. A portion of the outlook (at the southwestern edge of the existing view) will be lost as a result of the roof and skylight of the western part of the development. The stair and lift access both breach the statutory height standard of 9.5 metres. The skylight complies with the overall height standard. While it is noted that the coastal views from the terrace at 4/16 Beach Street are a considerable distance from the site and there are significant view aspects to the east, the non-compliance of these elements of the building are considered to result in view impacts which are ‘unreasonable’. In order to address concerns regarding acoustic privacy the roof terrace is to be deleted (see Deferred Commencement Condition 1). Deletion of the roof terrace will provide a side benefit of reducing the height of the stair and lift so that they do not interrupt the outlook from the terrace in such a significant way. While the skylight will interrupt the view to the western end of the panorama provided above, the view lost as a result of this part of the development is comprised of rooftops and district views which are not highly significant. As the skylight complies with the height standard and the views lost from this portion of the development are not considered high quality, this impact is considered to be reasonable.

 

The development, subject to modifications required by the deferred commencement conditions is considered satisfactory with regard to view and outlook sharing.

 

9.7   Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

With regard to solar access, the proposal meets the requirements of the DCP maintaining at least 3 hours of midwinter solar access per day to surrounding properties. Living areas within the development have been located to maximise exposure to the northern aspect in order to achieve good solar access to the dwellings.

 

The layout of the building which concentrates the building form to the street edge and maximises the north facing landscaped area has allowed for the provision of operable windows to habitable rooms and encourages passive ventilation to all units in accordance with ESD principles. The incorporation of some two-storey units into the mix has increased opportunities for cross ventilation and improved the overall amenity of dwellings within the development.

 

The applicant has submitted a NatHERS report of the dwellings in the proposed development, which shows that all dwellings achieve a rating of 3.5-5 stars. This meets Council’s minimum requirement of 3.5 stars.

 

The proposal has achieved excellent solar access and energy efficiency for the units proposed without a significant reduction in solar access for surrounding properties.

 

 

9.8   Safety and Security

 

The development meets the requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP with regard to safety and security. The development provides residential entry from Clovelly Road secured via an intercom system. Retail entries are also provided from Clovelly Road as per the existing situation. A roller shutter and intercom access has not been indicated to the basement parking, conditions requiring this provision have been applied (see Condition 6). All floors of the building have living areas to units and balconies that are oriented towards the three street frontages to provide opportunities for passive surveillance of the street.

 

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

 

9.9   Traffic and Parking

 

The development meets Council’s requirements with regard to resident car parking provision. The development does not provide the required commercial parking under the DCP – Parking of 9 spaces, providing 4 on site spaces for the retail component of the development. The proposal is also deficient one residential visitor space.  Although the commercial/visitor parking provision is 6 spaces short, the overall parking provided is only 4 spaces short of the DCP requirement due to the over provision of parking to the residential portion of the development due to the required allocation of spaces contained within car stackers.

 

The existing building on the site provides 314m2 of commercial floor space and 4 x 2 bedroom units. The existing development on the site generates the following parking requirement/ compliance under the DCP:

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

a) Number

Residential

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial

 

 

 

 

 

1.2 spaces required for each two bedroom dwelling (4 x 1.2 = 4.8 spaces)

 

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

 

1 space per 40m2 GFA (314/40 = 7.85 spaces)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 14 SPACES

0 spaces

 

 

 

 

0 spaces

 

 

 

 

0 space

 

 

0 spaces

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

No

 

 

The existing building on the site results in a parking deficiency of 14 spaces. This may be applied as a parking ‘credit’ on the site and indicates that the impact of the 6 space deficiency proposed will be negligible compared to the overall benefit of the development in providing on site parking where none is currently provided. The development will improve the current situation by 8 parking spaces and sufficient parking is provided on site to meet the residential and commercial demands of the development. The commercial tenancies currently occupying the site do not have access to any parking and the provision of one space per tenancy is considered adequate to meet the demand of these small scale retail uses.

 

The allocation of spaces could be adjusted to accommodate a residential visitor space, however this would be at the expense of a residential parking space. Such an allocation is likely to have a bigger impact on on-street parking spaces as the occupant of the dwelling would then have to park on the street, while a visitor space was potentially unoccupied inside the basement.

 

The proposal as originally submitted to Council included 15 car spaces and resulted in a deficiency of only one space. The amended plans received in February 2006 removed spaces in favour of increasing the deep soil landscaping provision on the site to improve amenity to surrounding properties and the site. Given existing site conditions, the loss of two parking spaces in favour of improved landscaping is considered to have minimal impact on parking while improving the amenity of the area.

 

Concern has also been raised by local residents that the new driveway will result in loss of on-street parking spaces. The driveway crossover is to be limited to 3.5 metres in width by Condition 5. This represents one on-street space. As can be seen in the table above the development will increase off street parking provision in the area by 12 spaces. The loss of one on street space to provide the increased parking is not considered to be significant, particularly as on-street parking outside the Clovelly Road frontage of the site will be maintained.

 

Bicycle parking has not been indicated on the plans in accordance with the DCP – Parking. The required bicycle parking of 1 space is to be incorporated into the basement under Condition 1. The driveway width and gradient proposed from Beach Street meets Council’s requirements. The Development Engineer has provided comments that the carparking provision is satisfactory.

 

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

 

9.10 Fences

 

As a nil setback is proposed to Clovelly Road and Beach Street due to the commercial usage, no front fencing is proposed. This is consistent with the existing situation. Towards the northern end of the Beach Street frontage the garage entry acts as a ‘fence’ and has a height of 3.4 metres. This is consistent with the established streetscape along the western side of Beach Street which is characterised by high retaining walls with properties set above street level.

Along the northern boundary of the site (shared with 16 Beach Street), fencing to a height of 1.5 metres above the ground level on the subject site is proposed. The fencing has been minimised in height to try and reduce visual bulk and scale impacts on existing courtyards of 16 Beach Street which are at a lower ground level than the subject site. The maximum height of the fencing from these adjoining courtyards will be 2.4 metres. This is similar to the existing situation and will not exacerbate the existing conditions in the private open space of 2/16 Beach Street. The 1.5m fencing to the subject site (high side of the boundary) will ensure privacy and safety for residents of the development.

 

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

 

10.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed upgrade and extension of the existing non-conforming stable use on the is permissible on this site under existing use rights provisions of the EP&A Act. It is considered that the scale and form proposed development is appropriate on the site given the existing character of this residential area. The development proposes a building envelope, height, and landscaping treatment that generally meet the criteria and fulfil the objectives contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and Council’s Development Control Plans.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the design quality principles contained within SEPP 65 and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties and the redevelopment of the site under existing-use rights provisions (outside of Council’s statutory and policy controls) will not exacerbate impacts. A merits based assessment of the proposal has been made and the proposed building form is considered to be appropriate on the site given the character of the area, the objectives and zoning of the site contained within the RLEP98. As such the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).  “Deferred Commencement” to Development Application No DA/406/05 for Demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a new three storey mixed use development comprising 5 x residential units, 4 x commercial tenancies and basement parking for 12 cars, strata subdivision at 343-355 Clovelly Road, Clovelly subject to the following conditions:-

 

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

 

1.       The roof terrace and associated awnings and planter boxes are to be deleted from the plans and the roof over the eastern portion of the building made non-trafficable. The lift core is to have a maximum height of RL54.90. The stairs are to be reduced to a maximum parapet height of RL54.90. The parapet to the eastern portion of the roof is to be set at a maximum RL54.10.

 

2.       The northern balcony to Unit 5 at second floor level, including the planter box is to be deleted and replaced with non-trafficable roof structure, so that the setback of the northern elevation of Unit 5 is 6 metres. The deletion is to include the northeastern corner of the eastern balcony. A parapet to a height of RL 50.64 may be provided along the northern and eastern edges of the building for consistency with the floors below. Any parapet is to be constructed in line with the northern wall of the first floor level (ie: minimum setback to northern boundary of 3.7 to 4.9 metres) and the eastern wall of the first floor level.

 

3.       The north facing first floor terrace to bedroom 1 and 2 of Unit 3 is to be deleted in favour of non-trafficable roof or a continuation of the adjacent planter box. The north facing doors to bedrooms 1 and 2 are to be replaced with windows with a minimum sill height of 1.2 metres.

 

4.       A landscape plan reflecting the architectural plans for approval is to be provided indicating the landscaping proposed to the site including the species, size at installation and size at maturity. The plan is to be prepared by a qualified landscape architect.

 

5.       The payment of additional development assessment fees of $1,726.10 being for the shortfall between the detailed estimated cost of the works and the cost of works estimated at the time the application was lodged.

 

6.       Prior to this consent becoming operational, the applicant shall obtain written consent from the owners of the adjoining property to the west (337-339 Clovelly Road) for removal of the tree located close to the common boundary. A copy of the written consent shall be submitted to Council.

 

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

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

B.      Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement condition, to the satisfaction of the Director of City Planning, development consent be granted under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/406/05 for Demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a new three storey mixed use development comprising 5 x residential units, 4 x commercial tenancies and basement parking for 12 cars, strata subdivision at 343-355 Clovelly Road, Clovelly subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by Jim Demetriou Group numbered Job No. 2362-C and drawing numbers DA-03, DA-04 dated Jan 06 and stamped received by Council on 24 February 2006, and plans numbered Job No. 2362-B and drawing numbers DA-05 to DA-11, dated Jan 06 and stamped received by Council on 6 February 2006, the materials and sample board prepared by Jim Demetriou Group numbered Job No. 2362-C and sheet no. DA-14 dated Jan 06 and stamped received by Council on 24 February 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details submitted to satisfy the deferred commencement conditions and the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         A secure bicycle space is to be provided in the basement of the development. Details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

3.         The plans submitted with the subdivision certificate application are to indicate 9 lots and common property allocations and are to reflect the approved plans as amended by the details submitted to satisfy the deferred commencement conditions.

 

4.         The carparking allocation is to be as follows:

 

1.                  Tenancy

2.                  Parking Space

3.                  Shop 1

4.                  13

5.                  Shop 2

6.                  12

7.                  Shop 3

8.                  11

9.                  Shop 4

10.              8

11.              Residential Unit 1

12.              10

13.              Residential Unit 2

14.              Stacked Space 1,2

15.              Residential Unit 3

16.              Stacked Space 3,4

17.              Residential Unit 4

18.              9

19.              Residential Unit 5

20.              Stacked Space 5,6

Note: Numbering above reflects the numbering on approved basement plan DA-03, dated Jan 06 and stamped received by Council on 24 February 2006

The parking allocation is to be reflected in the plans submitted for strata approval.

 

5.         The driveway crossing to Beach Street is to be a maximum of 3.5 metres in width. This condition is imposed to minimise interruption to the footpath, kerb and guttering and to clarify the plans. Details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

6.         A roller door or gate is to be provided to the carparking to maintain security to the carparking area. The roller door or gate is to be provided with remote access for residents and tenants to prevent queuing at the entry to the carpark.

 

Details of compliance are to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

Details of the proposed colour of the roof are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of City Planning, in accordance with the section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the roofing being installed.

 

8.         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.

 

9.         Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway or public place.

 

10.       External walls sited less that 500mm from the boundaries of the site are to be erected as ‘face brickwork’ or other maintenance free materials, to ensure that adequate provisions are made for maintenance purposes within the property boundaries.

 

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

 

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

           

            In this regard, prior to occupation of the building, an application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of an appropriate street number/s to the development.

 

13.       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

 

14.       The applicant is to ensure the requirements of all relevant authorities and utilities are met in relation to provision of services to the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

20.       Adequate lighting is to be provided within the development for personal security and safety and to all common areas. Details are to be provided on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

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

 

22.       The installation of roller shutters or security grilles to the shopfront is not permitted, unless a specific development consent has been obtained from Council.

 

23.       All signage and advertising must be in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP) for Outdoor Advertising and development consent must be obtained for all signage and advertising in accordance with Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 (unless exempt from approval under Council's DCP for Exempt and Complying Development).

 

All advertising and signage must be written in English language or both English and relevant non-English language equally.  The use of non-English language advertising only is not permissible.

 

24.       In accordance with the provisions of clauses 143A and 154A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a ‘Design Verification Certificate’ must be provided to the Certifying Authority and the Council, prior to issuing a construction certificate and an occupation certificate, respectively.

 

25.       Details of any proposed electricity power supply poles to be provided to service the development are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning, prior to installation.

 

26.       Solar hot water heaters, other than those shown on the approved plans or other structures are not permitted to be installed on the roof of the building unless the prior written approval of Council’s Director of Planning has been obtained beforehand.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

28.       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.

 

29.       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.

 

30.       Appliances provided within the development must satisfy any relevant BASIX requirements and as a minimum appliances should satisfy the following energy ratings:

 

·           Clothes dryers minimum 2.5 star

·           Dishwashers minimum 3 star

·           Air conditioners minimum 4 star

·           Clothes washers minimum 4 star

·           Fridge minimum 4 star

 

31.       A rainwater tank, of sufficient size to provide water for irrigation of landscaped areas within the development and for internal toilet flushing and clothes washing machine use, is to be provided to the development in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

The tank is to be located in the basement or a minimum of 1.5m from the side boundaries and is to have a maximum height of 2.4 metres.  The tank is to be installed behind the front building line and is to be located at ground level and be incorporated into the relevant construction certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The noise level from the pump is not to exceed 5dBA above ambient background noise, measured at the property boundary and the pump must not be audible within any dwelling located upon any other premises between 10pm and 8am.

 

The following condition is applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

32.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council.

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $2,134.37

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $   943.78

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

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

 

33.       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.

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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.

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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.

38.       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”.

 

39.       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.

 

40.       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.

 

41.       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.

 

42.       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.

 

43.       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 and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

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

 

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

 

44.       Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

45.       A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of potential vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)       all of the premises adjoining the subject site.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

50.       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.

 

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

 

52.       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.

 

53.       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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

55.       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.

 

56.       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.

 

57.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

60.       Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, to the satisfaction of WorkCover NSW and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

61.       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.

 

62.       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.

 

63.       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.

 

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

 

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

·        location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·        location of building materials for construction;

·        provisions for public safety;

·        dust control measures;

·        site access location and construction

·        details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·        protective measures for tree preservation;

·        provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·        location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·        details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·        construction noise and vibration management.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

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

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

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

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

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

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in a site water management plan and must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction.  A copy of the approved details must be forwarded to the Council and a copy is to be maintained on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

67.       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.

 

68.       A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, to the satisfaction of Council, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

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

 

70.       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.

 

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

 

Temporary fences and 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.

 

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.

 

71.       A ‘B Class’ overhead type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public, located adjacent to the development, prior to the commencement of any works on the site which comprise:-

 

·        any works or hoisting of materials over a public footway or adjoining premises, or

·        any building or demolition works on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6 metres of the street alignment.

 

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

 

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

 

72.       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 or 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 conditions are applied to provide access and facilities for people with disabilities and peoples safety in general:

 

73.       Access and facilities for people with disabilities must be provided to and within the commercial part of the building in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1 and relevant Council development control plans for the subject development, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the proposed access and facilities for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

76.       A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services. The report is to consider the potential for noise emissions and emissions from the car stacker and other plant and equipment servicing the development.

 

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

 

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

 

78.       Development consent is required to be obtained in relation to the specific ‘use’ of commercial tenancies/occupancies and ‘shop fit outs’, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

79.       The location and facilities for the collection, storage and disposal of wastes generated within the premises shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

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

 

80.       The following damage/civil works security deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)         $1000.00         -           Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

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

 

§ A satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge; and

§ Completion of the civil works as conditioned in this development consent by Council.

 

The applicant is to advise Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Note: The driveway shall be 3.50 metres wide.

 

b)       Remove any redundant concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c)       Reconstruct any damaged sections of kerb and gutter along both the Clovelly Road and Beach Street site frontages.

 

d)       Construct full width concrete footpath along both the Clovelly Road and Beach Street site frontages (except opposite the vehicular entrance). 

 

82.       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.

 

83.       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.

 

84.       A stop sign and holding line shall be provided on the internal driveway adjacent to the property boundary in order to improve pedestrian safety.

 

85.       The wall on the southern side of the internal driveway shall be splayed 1.2 metres by 1.2 metres at the property boundary.

 

Note: The submitted plan DA04 received by Council 24 February 2006 demonstrates compliance with this requirement.

 

86.       A convex mirror, or similar, shall be installed within the site adjacent to the northern side of the driveway in order to improve sightlines to the south for exiting vehicles stopped inside the property boundary.

 

87.       A convex mirror, or similar, shall be installed within the site adjacent to the southern side of the driveway in order to provide satisfactory sightlines to the north for exiting vehicles stopped inside the property boundary.

 

88.       Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, the applicant is to engage a suitably qualified traffic engineer to determine whether the proposed traffic signals are appropriate. Exiting vehicles must always give way to entering traffic to ensure that queuing in Beach Street does not occur. Details demonstrating how this requirement will be complied with (either through the operation of traffic signals or alternative means) shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Note: Should the traffic engineer determine that traffic signals are not appropriate, they shall be deleted from the plans submitted for the construction certificate.

 

89.       The driveway opening at the Beach Street frontage and the internal driveway access must be minimum 3.50 metres wide at all points along the driveway. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

90.       A Works Zone is to be provided in the vicinity of the site for the duration of the construction works.  The ‘Works Zone’ shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee and shall have a minimum length of 12 metres. The prescribed fee for the Works Zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site.

 

It is noted that the requirement for a Works Zone may be waived if it can be demonstrated (to the satisfaction of Council’s traffic engineer) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) may be undertaken wholly within the site.

 

91.       Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, the applicant shall submit for approval and have approved by Council's Traffic Engineer a detailed construction traffic management plan. The plan shall demonstrate how construction and delivery vehicles will access the development site during the demolition and construction phase of the development.

 

92.       A 2 metre x 2 metre splay corner is to be provided at ground floor level at the intersection of Clovelly Road and Beach Street in order to improve pedestrian and vehicular sight distance.

 

Note: The submitted plan DA04 received by Council 24 February 2006 demonstrates compliance with this requirement.

 

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

 

93.       The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall:

 

Match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage in both Clovelly Road and Beach Street.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0923.

 

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

 

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

 

95.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $2097 calculated at $44.00 (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:

 

96.       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.

 

97.       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.

 

98.       Prior to the  issuing of a construction certificate, the applicant shall liaise directly with Telstra to determine whether the existing phone box in Beach Street will require relocation due to the proposed driveway location. The applicant shall meet the full cost for the relocation of the phone box (if required) prior to the construction of the driveway.

 

99.       Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

100.     Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant must liaise with Energy Australia prior to lodging the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

101.     A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the website www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer infrastructure can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Notice must be issued to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to release of the plan of subdivision.

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

 

102.     Stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of this development consent. Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)         A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)         A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system. 

 

c)         Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)         The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

e)         Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)          Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)         The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

103.     All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

104.     All site stormwater must be discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter in either Clovelly Road or Beach Street.

 

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

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the on-site detention system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

107.     The maximum depth of ponding in above ground detention areas shall be as follows:

 

(a)      300mm in landscaped areas (where child proof fencing is not provided around the outside of the detention area and sides slopes are steeper than 1 in 10)

(b)      600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10.

(c)      1200mm in landscaped areas where a childproof fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

 

Notes:

§   It is noted that above ground storage will not be permitted in basement carparks or in any area which may be used for storage of goods.

§   Mulch/bark must not be used in onsite detention areas

 

108.     Any above ground stormwater detention areas must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

112.     Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

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

 

The sediment/silt arrester pit shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:-

 

·    The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

·    The pit constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

·    A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

·    A galvanised heavy-duty screen located over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

 

·    The grate being a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

·    A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system provided for the access grate.

 

·    A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

“This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

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

 

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

 

(a)      The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

(b)      Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

(c)      Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

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

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

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

 

115.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

116.     Should groundwater be encountered within the depth of the basement carpark, the basement carpark is to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)   Any subsoil drainage (from planter boxes etc)  is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be discharged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

b)   Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

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

 

117.     The residential waste storage area shall be sized to contain a total of 6 x 240 litre bins (3 garbage bins & 3 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

118.     The commercial waste storage area shall be sized to contain a total of 8 x 240 litre bin (4 garbage bins & 4 recycling bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

119.     The waste storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

120.     The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

121.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site.

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

 

122.     A "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property (in conjunction with registration of the plan of subdivision) to ensure that the onsite detention system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.   The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

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

 

123.     The applicant shall create suitable right of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

124.     All conditions of development consent must be satisfied and all public roads and reserves must be satisfactorily restored prior to endorsement of the subdivision plans.

 

125.     The applicant shall provide Council with a survey plan of the property prior to endorsement of the subdivision plans.

 

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

 

126.     Landscaping at the site shall be installed substantially in accordance with landscape plan prepared by Ray HK of Fuggle & Associates, Landscape Architects, drawing number L01, project number 1394a, issue A, dated 28/02/05 and stamped received at Council on 26th May 2005, and the details submitted with to satisfy the deferred commencement conditions, subject to the following additional requirements being shown on an amended plan, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a.         Continuation of the raised planter along the length of the western edge of the proposed ground floor Unit 2.

 

b.         Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

c.         All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must having a minimum soil depth of 600mm.

 

127.     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.

 

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

 

129.     Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to implementation of the landscape plan submitted by HK of Ray Fuggle & Associates, Landscape Architects, drawing number L01, project number 1394a, issue A, dated 28/02/05 and stamped received at Council on 26th May 2005.

 

(a)        One Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) near the northwest corner.

(b)        One Acacia elata (Sydney Green Wattle) in the northwest corner.

 

130.     The tree located within the adjoining property to the west (337-339 Clovelly Road) close to the common boundary,  shall be removed prior to the commence of works on the site in accordance with the written consent  obtained to satisfy the deferred commencement condition.

 

131.     A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $2,500.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

a.   The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months after the issue of a final occupation certificate by the principle certifying authority providing the landscape works have been successfully implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape documentation. Throughout the maintenance/bond period, the applicant shall be responsible for all routine maintenance such as weeding, watering, fertilising, spraying, staking and replacement of all failed plant stock.  There must be no alteration to the original design, including substitution of trees and shrubs, without the prior approval of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

b.   Any contravention of Council's landscape conditions at any time during the construction period or prior to the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the date a final occupation certificate is issued will result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1       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 C                        -       Fire resistance and stability

c)       Part C2                      -       Compartmentation and separation

d)       Part C3                      -       Protection of openings

e)       Clause C3.2&C3.4    -       Protection of openings in external walls

f)        Part E1                       -       Fire fighting equipment

g)       Part E2                       -       Smoke Hazard Management

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

i)        Part F1                       -       Damp and weatherproofing

j)        Part F5                       -       Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent and advisory notes 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.

 

A2.      The applicant/owner is advised that this approval does not guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the applicant should therefore consider their liability under the Act.  In this regard, the applicant is advised that compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility does not necessarily satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

The applicant/owner is requested to give consideration to providing access and facilities for people with disabilities in accordance with Australian Standard 1428 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Design for Access and Mobility, which may be necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

5 April, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/0795/1999

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2) modification to increase the commercial floor area at first and second floor levels, internal alterations at ground floor level and modifications to the Anzac Parade facade of the approved 8 storey mixed commercial/ residential development

PROPERTY:

 820A-824 Anzac Parade and 5 Alma Road, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 K-El-K Pty Ltd

OWNER:

K-El-K Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 and was the subject of resident objections. The approved development comprises the erection of an 8 storey mixed commercial, retail and multi-unit residential development with 2 levels of basement carparking fronting Anzac Parade and a 3 storey residential building fronting Alma Road.

 

The application seeks to amend the approved development by providing a mezzanine office level above the first floor approved building envelope to the northwestern corner of the site and extension of two approved commercial suites on the first floor by incorporating previously approved balcony areas within the commercial tenancies. No changes are proposed to carparking. Minor modifications to the exterior of the building on Anzac Parade (increased glazing area) is also proposed. 

 

The application has been notified to surrounding residents, resulting in a two submissions which raised concerns regarding the existing approved building on the site which is now under construction, overshadowing and overlooking.

 

The main issues for consideration are the increased floor area and increase commercial floor space to residential floor space and the impact of increases on parking provision, section 94 contributions and the streetscape presentation of the development.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant seeks modification of the existing approval as follows:

 

Ground Floor

 

§  Internal layout changes to ramp and stair access of ground floor commercial tenancy to the northwestern corner of the development.

 

First Floor

 

§  New stair to northwestern office to provide access to new mezzanine level.

§  Extension of Commercial Units 1 and 2, providing additional lettable areas of 58m2

§  Floor to ceiling height of office space reduced to 3.1m where mezzanine is located

 

Second Floor

 

§  Construction of new mezzanine level above approved northwestern office space providing approximately 50m2 of additional floor area. Mezzanine will have floor to ceiling height of 3 metres.

§  RL of approved building envelope (RL39.7) will not change to accommodate to mezzanine level.

 

Southwestern Elevation (Anzac Parade)

 

§  Change to elevational treatment to remove one masonry bay of previously approved southwestern façade by extending glazed treatment further southwards. Awning will remain as per existing approval.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Anzac Parade and southern side of Alma Road. The site is irregular in shape and broadly comprises two lots, one lot having frontage to Anzac Parade and another having frontage to Alma Road. The site is located within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

 

The Anzac Parade allotment has a western boundary to Anzac Parade of approximately 38.4m, a southern boundary of 39.27m, an eastern boundary staggered into two sections measuring approximately 16m and 36.6m each, and a northern boundary measuring approximately 48m. The Alma Road allotment has a northern frontage to Alma Road of approximately 14.3m, a western boundary of 27.3m, a southern boundary of 14.5m and a western boundary of 27.2m. The site has an area of approximately 1624m2.

 

The subject site is currently undergoing construction works for the building approved under DA 795/1999 and subsequent modifications under section 96.

 

To the north of the subject site is a three-storey residential flat building at no. 820 Anzac Parade and further north across Alma Road is a 8 storey residential high-rise building at No. 818 Anzac Parade and a single storey building at No. 2 Alma Road. Immediately to the east is a 2 storey brick dwelling house at No. 7 Alma Road. To the south is a 2 storey brick building containing shops and offices at No. 826-828 Anzac Parade. Across Anzac Parade to the west is an 8 storey residential high-rise building at 701-702 Anzac Parade and the Pacific Square development at 707-751 Anzac Parade.

 

There are no heritage items or conservation areas in the vicinity of the site.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 795/1999 for the erection of an 8 storey mixed commercial, retail and multi-unit residential development with 3 levels of basement carparking fronting Anzac Parade and a 3-storey residential building fronting Alma Road was approved on 16 November 1999. The approved development was subsequently amended by the following approved Section 96 applications:

 

§  Section 96 modification ‘A’ to delete one basement level and increase area of remaining two basement levels, reconfigure the ground level entry/lobby, lift, shops and garbage area; reconfigure east-facing apartments in the Anzac Parade building; and install planter and balconies to the Alma Street building was approved on 31 May 2000.

 

§  Section 96 ‘B’ modification to amend RL’s in basement levels and ground and first floor levels, sewer in basement and ramps in basement was approved on 4 August 2004.

 

§  Section 96 ‘C’ modification to alter the internal layouts of the units, increase the amount of commercial space by decreasing the number of commercial units, deletion of planter boxes to provide privacy screens and louvres to balconies, railings to become glass and other internal reconfigurations.

 

For clarity. the effects of the previous section 96 applications and the changes proposed under this application have been summarised in the following table:

 

 

Original Approval

S96A

S96B

S96C

Current Application

S96D

Residential GFA

3827.8 m2

3827.6 m2

3827.6 m2

3963.9 m2

3963.9 m2

Commercial GFA

1044 m2

1044.2 m2

1044.2 m2

907.95 m2

1016.1 m2

 

4871.8m2

4871.8 m2

4871.8 m2

4871.8 m2

4980 m2

FSR

3:1

3:1

3:1

3:1

3.1:1

Unit Mix

 

 

 

 

 

Studios

-

-

-

-

-

1 bed

3

3

3

3

3

2 bed

15

15

15

18

18

3 bed

17

17

17

15

15

 

35

35

35

36

36

Parking

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial

26

16

18

22

22

Residential

56

56

56

56

56

Loading

 

 

1

1

1

Total

82 spaces

72 spaces

75 spaces*

79 spaces

79 spaces

* Note changes to parking was not highlighted in application and does not seem to have been approved.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.       A. Hetreles, 11A Shaw Avenue, Kingsford (owner 4/820B Anzac Parade, Maroubra)

 

§  Overshadowing from additions

 

Comment: The proposed modifications will not change the approved building envelope. There will be no additional overshadowing impacts to any surrounding properties.

 

§  Overlooking from mezzanine area (two metre increase from existing approval will impact on privacy and light to balcony area)

 

Comment: As noted above, there will be no increase to the approved height or form of the building envelope as a result of the proposed additions. There will be no additional privacy impact as there is no change to the glazing on the southern elevation as part of the modifications. The mezzanine will have outlook to Anzac Parade only.

 

§  Decrease in property value as a result of impacts

 

Comment: It is considered there will be no additional amenity impacts as a result of the proposed modifications and as such there should not be any impact on property values.

 

2.       B.McNaughton, 7 Alma Road, Maroubra Junction

 

§  Concerned about invasion of privacy from development which is not being constructed as originally notified. Original notification showed building with half of 5 Alma Road as unbuilt open space, but is now reduced to only approximately 6ft resulting in overshadowing and overlooking impacts.

 

Comment: The original development application had a rear setback (on the lot previously known as 5 Alma Road) of 1.777 metres. At upper floor levels this increases to just over 3 metres. There have been no changes to the rear setbacks as a result of subsequent section 96 modifications.

 

§  Plans received previously showed units 33, 34 and 35 at ground floor. From this it was presumed that the units would be level with Alma Road and car entries at other side of building in Alma Road but garages have been built under the whole units now making the building four stories high.

 

Comment: There has been no change to the number of storeys along the eastern boundary from the originally approved plans. The approved eastern elevation (as per notification plans) indicate a four storey building (including carparking) when viewed from the east (7 Alma Road).

 

§  Concern consultation regarding these modifications has been inadequate.

 

Comment: Section 96 applications A and C were notified to surrounding residents and B. McNaughton made submissions in relation to both modifications as well as the original development application. Section 96 modification B did not require notification as that application related only to the lowering of floor levels and modifications to the basement level. There has been no approved modification to the rear setback originally approved at 1.777m to 3.007 metres.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

Referral of this application to technical officers within Council and external referral bodies was not required due to the minor nature of the modifications.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site has an area of less than 4,000m2 there are no master planning provisions applicable to the site.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

§ Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

§ Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP

§ Section 94 Contributions Plan

§ DCP – Parking

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Original Approval

S96 ‘D’ Application

Compliance

42D – Maroubra Junction Town Centre

(4) Max No of storeys

8 storeys

N/A

Northwestern corner of building now 3 storeys due to mezzanine

Modification Complies

(6)Max Height to underside of ceiling for no. of storeys

8 storeys: 26.7m

3 storeys: 12.0m

N/A

Northwestern corner of building 3 storeys due to mezzanine max height 10.5m No change to height proposed.

Modification Complies

 

Clause 42D of RLEP98 sets specific objectives for development in the Maroubra Junction Town Centre. The amendments proposed under this application are minor and will not reduce the achievement of the objectives. The incorporation of additional commercial area within the building will provide for ongoing viability of the town centre. Likewise, the increase (albeit minor) in commercial space within the development will support the objectives of the 3A (General Business) zone.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP

 

The original development application was approved prior to the development of the Maroubra Junction DCP. Although the original application was not considered under this DCP, the modifications proposed will not result in non-compliance with the DCP as indicated in the table in Section 8(a) above.

 

The only other parts of the DCP for consideration in relation to the proposed modifications are those relating to Building Configuration (ceiling heights in relation to the mezzanine level) and Building Form and façade articulation.

 

4.4 Building Configuration

 

The modifications will not affect ceiling heights throughout the majority of the development. The addition of a mezzanine level will reduce the previously approved ceiling heights at the northwestern corner of the building. Section 4.4.4 of the DCP sets the following minimum ceiling heights to allow for flexibility of uses within the building envelopes specified:

 

Required Ceiling Height

Provided in mezzanine area

Complies

Ground: 3.6m

3.4m

No1

First: 3.3m

3.1m

No

Second: 2.7m

3.015m

Yes

Total: 9.6m

Total:9.515m

Yes

1 No change, as per existing approval prior to Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP

 

Although the building was approved prior to the current DCP, the cumulative total floor to ceiling height complies with that required under the DCP. The applicant has provided floor to ceiling heights within the lower level of the office space which do not comply with the minimums under the DCP. This is not considered to be a significant non-compliance as the reduced ceiling height is isolated to a single commercial tenancy and the upper level of the mezzanine will not be able to be separately let from the lower level office space. The ceiling heights provided are adequate for the commercial uses proposed.

 

4.6 Building Form

 

The proposed modifications to the exterior of the building in removing a portion of the masonry frontage to Anzac Parade in favour of continuation of the glazed façade will not result in changes to the awnings or signage proposed to the building nor to the proposed roof design. Therefore no further consideration of sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.3 of the DCP is required.

 

Section 4.6.2 Facades and Articulation of the DCP sets the requirements for façade design in the Town Centre. The proposed changes to the Anzac Parade façade will increase the articulation of the façade by providing a clearer delineation between the glazed commercial portion of the building and the mixed residential/ commercial portions to the south. The modification to the façade will assist in reducing the scale of the building to the street as the changes will enhance the appearance of the development being two separate buildings rather than one large building. The changes are consistent with the location of the building on a corner within the town centre and are considered to improve the overall aesthetic appearance of the development.

 

The modifications are satisfactory with regard to the Maroubra Junction DCP.

 

DCP - Parking

 

Although no modifications are proposed to the parking provision on the site, modification is proposed to the density of the building in terms of gross floor area of the commercial tenancies. Compliance of the proposed modifications with the DCP – Parking is as follows:

 

b.         DCP - Parking

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

 

 

Car Parking

a)   number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal

 

Commercial

 

 

Total

 

1.5 spaces required for each three bedroom dwelling (15 x 1.5 = 23 spaces)

 

1.2 spaces required for each two bedroom dwelling (18 x 1.2 = 22 spaces)

 

1.0 spaces required for each one bedroom dwelling (3 x 1.0 = 3 spaces)

 

1space/4 dwgs or part thereof for visitors (9 spaces required)

 

57

 

1 space per 40m2 of GFA (25 spaces)

 

82 spaces

 

22 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

22 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

3 spaces

 

 

 

 

9 spaces

 

 

 

 

56

 

22 spaces

 

 

78 spaces

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

No

 

No

 

 

No

 

Conditions have been recommended to ensure the residential component of the development complies with the DCP –Parking. In relation to the commercial portion of the development, section 94 contributions may be levied for the shortfall of 4 spaces (once all residential parking has been provided). Previously under section 96’A’ 10 commercial spaces were levied for under section 94. This previously included condition has been modified to reflect the current parking allocations (see Condition 85).

 

8.2  Council Policies

This application does not propose any variation to the approved residential component of the development and therefore no adjustment to residential contributions levied under section 94 is required as a result of this application.

 

Section 94 contributions were not originally levied with respect to commercial activity on the site. No details were provided in relation to the existing commercial floor space on the site prior to the granting of the original approval. The site was previously occupied by single storey commercial buildings (with the exception of 5 Alma Road). It is likely these buildings had a cumulative floor area greater than 63% of the site (the commercial provision under the current proposal) and therefore no levy for additional commercial floor area is payable.

 

As noted above under the discussion on the DCP – Parking, the proposal is 4 commercial parking spaces short of the DCP requirements. Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan provides for parking contributions in the town centre. The previously approved section 96’A’ application included an additional section 94 condition (Condition 85) which levied for 10 carparking spaces (a total of $111,250.00). This condition was not modified under the subsequent section 96’C’ application, which increased the provision of parking on the site and reduced the parking shortfall. This condition requires modification to reflect the currently proposed shortfall under this section 96 application. The levy payable for 4 commercial carparking spaces is $44,500 and this has been included in a modified Condition 85.

 

Condition 86 was also added under section 96’A’, this condition required payment of $425.00 administration fee. This condition was already included in the original determination (Condition 9). Therefore, Condition 86 may be deleted as the administration fee is only payable once.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to Council’s section 94 contributions plan.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1       Substantially the same

The proposed modifications are considered to be minor in their scope and the proposed increase in floor area will not result in any significant or perceptible increase in the building envelope as viewed from the street or surrounding properties. The proposal will not result in additional dwellings or bedrooms. The modifications will result in a development that is substantially the same as that currently approved. The proposed modifications may therefore be considered under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

9.2       Consideration of submissions

 

Submissions have been considered under Section 5.1 of this report.

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

As the modifications are largely internal to the site and are contained within the approved building envelope there will be no additional amenity impacts to surrounding properties in terms of overlooking or overshadowing. The inclusion of balcony areas into the approved commercial tenancies will not significantly reduce the amenity of the commercial tenancies and will not increase the visual bulk of the building as viewed from surrounding properties nor the street.

 

The provision of a mezzanine level within the northwestern corner of the building will not affect the overall appearance of the building nor reduce the amenity of the office space provided. Parking impacts as a result of increased density will be minimised through the levying of section 94 contributions and the location of the development on major public transport routes.

 

The proposed changes to the Anzac Parade elevation of the development are supported as they will assist in minimising visual bulk and scale and improve the overall aesthetic quality of the development.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to environmental impact.

 

11.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.  CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the proposed modifications to the commercial tenancies and Anzac Parade elevation of the development are satisfactory. The modifications proposed do not result in any addition to the maximum height of the development or significant decrease in landscaping and the development as modified will be substantially the same as the approved scheme.

 

As such the application is recommended for approval subject to imposition and modification of conditions of 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. 795/1999 on property 820A-824 Anzac Parade and 5 Alma Road, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

§  Amend Conditions 1 and 85 as follows:

 

1.         The development shall be implemented substantially in accordance with the details set out on the plans numbered DA.08, DA.09, DA.10, DA.11A, DA.12A, DA.13, DA.14, DA.15A, DA.16A, DA.17A, DA.18 and DA.19, and stamp-dated on 15 July 1999, and amended plans numbered DA.05A, DA.06A and DA.07A, and stamp-dated 21 September 1999, and DA.02B, DA.03B and DA.04B, and stamp-dated 18 October 1999, and amended plans numbered DA.07B, DA.08A, DA.09A, DA.10A, DA.11B, DA.12B, dated and received by Council on 16 December 1999, and amended by the plan stamped “Randwick City Council” received 9 March 2000, and the plans numbered DA.05B, DA.06B, DA.07B, DA.08A, DA.09A, DA.10A, DA.11B, and DA.12B stamped received on 17 April 2000, and amended plans numbered CC04 to CC07 and CC14 to CC19 all dated 14-07-2004 and received by Council on 16 July 2004, and amended plans numbered CC04 to CC20, Issue G, dated 3 August 2005, and stamped received by Council on 4 August 2005, and CO01 to CO04, Issue G, dated 3 August 2005, and stamped received by Council on 4 August 2005, and the Concept Landscape Plan dated 3 August 2005 and stamped received by Council on 4 August 2005, and on the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the s96 plans drawn by idraft plans pty ltd, numbered Issue I of drawing numbers CC06,CC07,CC08 and CC18 dated 27/02/06 in the amendments box and stamped received by Council on 3 March 2006, 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:

 

85.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision of carparking in lieu of on site provision of $44,500.00. The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a subdivision certificate being issued for the proposed development. Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

§ Delete Condition 86

 

§ Add Condition 88 as follows:

 

88.     As a minimum, allocation of parking within the development is to be as follows:

 

Residential: 48 spaces

Residential Visitors: 9 spaces

Commercial: 21 spaces

 

This allocation is to be reflected in the Construction Certificate and Strata Subdivision plans and does not include provision for loading which is to be allocated one space. This condition is imposed to clarify the parking provided and ensure maximum compliance with the DCP – Parking.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

24 April, 2006

FILE NO:

D/0568/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A application to review Council's refusal of the proposed multi-unit development incorporating 21 dwellings in 2 and 3 storey type attached town-houses in 5 separate buildings, basement carparking and strata subdivision. 

PROPERTY:

 80 Middle Street and 133 Botany Street, Randwick

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Exceland Property Group Pty. Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council at its meeting on 13 December 2005.

 

The original development application for the demolition of the existing structures on the site, excavation and construction of a multi unit housing development comprising 21 two and three storey attached townhouses in 5 separate buildings over basement level parking for 31 vehicles, and strata subdivision into 21 lots was refused by Council at its meeting on 13 December 2005.

 

The application pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) seeks a review of Council’s determination. In support of this the applicant states that the plans as originally submitted and determined have been amended to address each of the reasons for refusal in the original determination. An assessment of the amendments indicates an improved proposal that addresses all of the issues raised in the refusal of the DA.

 

The prevailing concern associated with the validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights. Accordingly, this report has assessed the remaining issues of merit associated with the Section 82 proposal as they relate to the reasons of refusal of the original DA. These issues have been satisfactorily addressed in the Section 82A application. In particular, the scale and form of the amended proposal is appropriate on the site and will be compatible with existing development in the locality given the existing character of this residential area. The development proposes a building envelope, height, and landscaping treatment that generally meet the criteria and fulfil the objectives contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and Council’s Development Control Plans. In addition, the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding properties. Accordingly, the application for review is supported and approval of the development application is recommended, subject to conditions of consent.

 

It is recommended that Council’s original determination of Development Application No. 568/2005 be rescinded and the development application be approved.  

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant advises that the  Section 82A application involves an amendment to the original proposal to address Council’s reasons for refusal of the original DA. The applicant further advises that, in doing so, the amended development is substantially the same as that proposed by the original application. The applicant’s response to the reasons for refusal are detailed below (an assessment of the merits of the responses/proposed amendments is undertaken in Section 10.1):  

 

Reason for refusal No. 1

 

“1.    The proposed development of the site for multi-unit housing is prohibited within the 2(a) zone of RLEP 1998, and ‘existing-use-rights’ have not been established.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The issue of Existing Use Rights (EUR) is currently under discussion between the legal representatives acting on behalf of both Council and the Applicant. We believe that this issue can be appropriately resolved, such that Council is satisfied that the site has the benefit of EUR.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 2

 

“2.    The proposed development has not minimised its impact in terms of overlooking of adjoining properties and dwellings within the development. In particular, the north facing balcony to Unit A.03 and the south-facing balconies at first floor level of Building E and design of the southern elevation to the first floor of Building E. These impacts could be addressed by conditions of consent deleting balconies and providing obscure glazing.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The following amendments have been made to the proposal in order to address this reason for refusal:

 

·          dwelling A.03 has been reconfigured by relocating the north-facing balcony to within the external envelope, to minimise opportunities for overlooking into No. 78 Middle Street;

·          a 1m wide awning has been provided over the north-facing terrace to dwelling A.01 to minimise opportunities for overlooking;

·          opaque glazing has been provided to the following windows:

o Building A stairwell window;

o B.05 Bathroom window;

o C.06 Bathroom window;

o E.01 stair window; and

o E.02 stair window.

·          the south-facing balconies to dwellings E.01 and E.02 have been deleted to minimise opportunities for overlooking into No. 135 Botany Street.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 3

 

“3.    The scale of the proposed building fronting Botany Street is incompatible with directly adjoining buildings and should be reduced to minimise its streetscape dominance. This impact could be satisfactorily addressed by redesign and a reduced roof height for the front section of the building, to give the building a one and a half storey scale to the street with the upper level contained in the roof form; or for the upper level to be stepped back from the street so that the scale of the building was compatible with its single storey neighbours. A skillion roof form may also be considered over the basement parking and driveway on the southern side of this building to be more compatible with the surrounding residential forms.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The proposal has been amended to address this reason for refusal. In particular, the front setback of the upper level of dwelling E.02 has been increased by 1.92m and a terrace has been provided in the western elevation of this dwelling. This gives the building a one and a half storey scale, as recommended by Council. Furthermore, a hip roof is now proposed to the two (2) storey portion of this building, while a skillion roof is provided over the driveway to the basement.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 4

 

“4.    The proposed colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are incompatible with the predominantly light coloured finishes of traditional stone or weatherboard buildings in the heritage conservation area. Details of the finishes could be resubmitted to satisfactorily address this issue.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “Turner and Associates have prepared a revised sample board, which proposes the use of the following materials and finishes:

 

·          light coloured facebrick;

·          timber cladding and battens

·          light coloured paint finish;

·          metal zinc roofing; and

·          light coloured aluminium door frames.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 5: Flood study

 

“5.    The flood study submitted does not adequately demonstrate that the proposed floor levels provide minimum 300mm clearance above the 100 year ARI flood levels and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed driveway high points provided provide a minimum of 150mm clearance above the 100 year ARI flood levels. An addendum to the flood study should be provided to address this concern.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “Reason for refusal No. 5 states that the flood study submitted with the DA did not adequately demonstrate that the proposed floor levels and driveway high points provide the required clearances above the 1:100 year flood levels.

 

Henry and Hymas Consulting Engineers have prepared a revised Flood Study, in order to address issues raised by Brown Partners, Council’s hydraulic consultants. In this regard, we enclose two (2) copies of the following documentation from Henry and Hymas:

 

·          correspondence dated 13 December 2005; and

·          Flood Report Revision 2 dated July 2005.

 

These documents confirm the flood levels at the site, and confirm that the floor levels adopted in the amended proposal are at least 300mm above the 100 year flood level, and that the adopted driveway high points are at least 150mm above the 100 year flood level, as required by Council.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 6

 

“6.    The plans do not demonstrate that the access driveways provide satisfactory ramp grades and transitions in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004).”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The driveway ramp gradients have been revised in accordance with advice from Traffix traffic consultants, as follows:

 

·          maximum gradient of 1:8 up from street boundary;

·          flat up to 6m from street boundary;

·          1:8 for min 2m;

·          1:4 for the main ramp; and

·          1:8 for a minimum of 2m at basement.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 7

 

“7.    The proposed Floor Space Ratio is considered to be excessive.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The DA which was refused by Council’s elected representatives had a Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 1,862.18m2, which represented a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.87:1.

 

The amendments described throughout this proposal have reduced the GFA of the proposal by 30m2. In this regard, the amended proposal has a GFA of 1,832.18m2 which represents a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.85:1. Furthermore, if the GFA of the proposal which is contained in the attics of the respective buildings is excluded, the proposal would have a GFA of 1,638.18m2, and an FSR of 0.76:1.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Botany Street, and the northern side of Middle Street in Randwick and is located within the block bounded by Jane Street, Barker Street, Botany and Middle Streets in Randwick.

 

The site is comprised of five separate allotments and is known as 80 Middle Street and 133 Botany Street, Randwick, set out as follows:

 

80 Middle Street

 

§ Lot 1 in DP 76670 (Detached two storey Dwelling house)

§ Lots B and D in DP 344998 (Single storey stable buildings to the rear of the two storey dwelling house)

 

133 Botany Street

 

§ Lot 1 in DP69695 (Single storey stable buildings to the rear of the two storey dwelling house)

 

The subject site has a combined area of 2,140 sqm with a frontage to Botany Street (west) of approximately 9.5 metres, to Middle Street (south) of approximately 8.75 metres. The eastern boundary of the site (adjacent to Hay Lane) is 81.09 metres long. The northern boundary of the site is 29.91 metres in length.

 

The western boundary of the site is irregular, stepping to create two rectangular lots between Lot 1 in DP69695 and Lot 1 in DP 76670. Lot B in DP344998 (the northernmost allotment of the two central lots) has a western boundary of 20.865 metres and a depth (west to east) of approximately 42 metres. Lot D in DP344998 has a western boundary of 22.395 metres and a depth (west to east) of approximately 30 metres.

 

Hay Lane (also known as Norbar Lane) is a 2.4 metre wide unformed laneway and stormwater channel which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. The lane reserve widens to approximately 3.0 metres in width to the north of the subject site boundaries.

 

Whilst the site is generally level owing to previous improvements, there is a fall north to south approximately 2 metres. However due to the length of the site this fall does not result in a substantial gradient across the site.

 

Existing on the site and in the vicinity of the works are several large trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

The site is located in the Struggletown Heritage Conservation area and there are several heritage items in the vicinity of the site (refer to hatched properties in aerial photograph below).

 

Surrounding development is generally consistent with the 2A Residential zoning, being comprised of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses.

 

To the North

 

Immediately adjacent to the site to the north (side boundary adjoining), at 131A Botany Street are two detached dwelling houses (1/131A to the front of the lot is 1-2 storeys and 2/131A to the rear of the lot is single storey).

Further to the north and northeast of the site are the Royal Hospital for Women and a strip of small scale commercial uses (on Barker Street), including a convenience store and petrol station at the corner of Barker and Botany Streets.

 

To the West

 

Immediately adjacent the site to the west are the rear boundaries of properties fronting Botany Street (135-141 Botany Street). These allotments contain 1-2 storey dwelling houses including a pair of semi detached dwellings (135-137 Botany Street). 135 Botany Street shares a side and rear boundary with the subject site. 139 Botany Street is a two storey dwelling house which is listed as a heritage item under RLEP98.

 

Immediately to the west of the allotment which addresses Middle Street is 78 Middle Street, a one to two storey dwelling house.

 

Further to the west of the site (across Botany Street) is the continuation of the 2A zone with small scale residential uses interspersed with 3 storey walk-up type flat buildings constructed prior to the current planning controls.

To the South

 

To the south of the site (across Middle Street) the 2A residential zone continues with small scale residential uses along Middle Street. Horse breeding and training facilities including a large carpark (181 Botany Street) exist to the rear of these residential uses (made permissible by Schedule 2 of RLEP98 - refers to RLEP70).

 

To the East

 

Immediately to the east of the site is 82 Middle Street (side boundary adjoining) and 6 and 8 Jane Street (rear boundaries adjoining). 82 Middle Street and 6 Jane Street are occupied by two storey dwelling houses. 8 Jane Street is occupied by a single storey dwelling house.

 

Further to the east are small scale residential uses (on the eastern side of Jane Street) including several heritage items with horse salesyards and stables behind (made permissible by Schedule 2 of RLEP98 - refers to RLEP70).

 

The Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area extends to Barker Street in the north, Young Street to the east, the southern boundary of 181 Botany Street to the south and along Botany Street and the western boundary of 181 Botany Street to the west.

 

The surrounding area is shown in the aerial photograph below. Heritage items are hatched and the Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area is outlined. The subject site is shaded.

 

4.    SITE/APPLICATION HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The development application was refused by Council at its meeting on 13 December 2005 (the reasons for refusal are listed in section 2 above and 10.1.1 below). On 23 December 2006, the applicant lodged the subject Section 82A application as detailed in Section 2 above.

 

The original development application was the subject of a Class 1 Appeal with the Land and Environment Court on the basis of “deemed refusal”. Following the refusal of the development application, the appeal was rescheduled for hearing on 27 and 28 March 2006. In February 2006, the applicant applied to, and was subsequently granted by, the Court to have the issue with respect to existing use rights considered separately from the merits of the appeal.

 

On the 10 March 2006, the applicant filed various affidavits and Statutory Declarations with the Court in support of the claim to existing use rights. Following a review of these documents, Council’s solicitor has advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed that he site has the benefit of existing use rights. Based on this advice, Council advised the Court that it would not pursue the issue of existing use rights. The hearing dates for 27 and 28 March were subsequently vacated and the appeal has been relisted for hearing on 8 and 9 June 2006 on the merits of the appeal.

 

b.       HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

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

 

Address

Approval

No.

Development Details

Date of Approval

80 Middle Street

BA391/66

Two storey dwelling house and single storey stables to the rear of the two storey dwelling house

3/5/1966

 

DA313/85

Erect roof over sandyard

2/12/1985

 

DA165/89

Construct roof over existing sandpit and additions at rear

11/7/1989

 

BA1063/89

Construct roof over sandpit and garden shed

13/10/1989

133 Botany Street

BA356/64

Cottage and stables

6/4/1968*

 

BA997/66

Demolition of existing cottage and stables and construction of new brick cottage and stables.

1/11/1966

 

BA360/68

Addition of cloak and bathroom at western end of stables

5/5/1964*

*Dates as they appear in Council’s database records, seems to be an error in data transfer as dates do not appear to accurately correspond to application dates.

 

5.   COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

Following the request for a review, the amended proposal was notified to surrounding property owners and advertised on 5 February 2003. In response to this notification the following submissions were received:

 

5.1     Objections

 

S. & R. Spina, 109-111 Middle Street, Randwick

S. Carnes, 117 Middle Street, Randwick

(These two objectors have similar objections as listed below)

 

§ Development not in keeping with the area and density will create problems for the area.

Comment: The proposal is for a predominantly medium density town-house development with numbers of dwellings that are commensurate with an FSR that will be compatible in the area in terms of density and impact (see sections 10.1.2, 10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.2  and 10.3.2.3 below).

§ Rental dwellings result in people moving in and out of the area constantly.

Comment: The sale of the dwellings after construction and whether they will be owner-occupied or rental is a market consideration and not a planning issue and as such beyond the scope of consideration of the application.

§ Inadequate provision for removalist and service vehicles results in dwelling contents thrown on the streets.

Comment: Tradespeople and commercial vehicles such as vans or utes will be able to utilise the basement visitor parking. Parking for light rigid trucks or emergency vehicles is not specifically required under the DCP – Parking for a development of this size. Unauthorised rubbish disposal on Council footpath is an issue that can be dealt with through Council’s compliance unit in discussion with resident/strata management groups. 

§ No horse business has been conducted on No. 80 Middle Street and various persons occupy the late Stuart Bathis’ dwelling.

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ Narrow streets with constant non-resident car parking on either side restricts traffic flow.

Comment: The traffic impacts of the development are considered acceptable as discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report.

§ Overcrowding will increase noise and detrimentally affect the locality.

Comment: The proposal is for a predominantly medium density town-house development with numbers of dwellings that are commensurate with an FSR that will be compatible in the area in terms of density and impact (see sections 10.1.2, 10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.2  and 10.3.2.3 below).

§ Flood plain and water table a risk to underground carpark.

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has investigated the submitted flood study and is satisfied with the provided levels, subject to a high point being included in the carpark driveway.

 

B. Pratt, 8 Jane Street, Randwick

 

§ Density will create overcrowding/problems for the area.

Comment: The proposal is for a predominantly medium density town-house development with numbers of dwellings that are commensurate with an FSR that will be compatible in the area in terms of density and impact (see sections 10.1.2, 10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.2  and 10.3.2.3 below).

§ Proposal lacks central open space.

Comment : The proposal complies with the landscaping standard in the RLEP 1998 and therefore provides adequate internal landscape areas which can be used suitably for recreational purposes as addressed in Section 10.1.2.3 below. Additionally, Section 94 contributions for open space and community facilities will be charged for the development.

§ Inadequate setbacks from Hay Lane restricts solar access and privacy to adjoining residences.

Comment: The development does not meet the preferred solutions for side setbacks above ground floor level along Hay Lane. Despite the non-compliance, the location of the buildings on the laneway result in a separation distance to the rear boundaries of properties that address Jane Street of 3-4.8 metres. Windows to the Hay Lane elevations have been minimised to ensure privacy impacts do not occur and the separation distance provided by the laneway is adequate to minimise visual bulk and scale and overshadowing impacts to properties at 6-8 Jane Street.

§ Gross overdevelopment

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

§ Detailed evidence from a number of residents adjoining the subject site that existing use rights have been abandoned for Lot 1 DP 76670, Lots B & D DP 344998, and Lot 1 DP 69695, and that existing use rights do not extend to 133 Botany Street.

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ Concern regarding waste collection arrangements due to narrow street frontages, will cause a hazard to pedestrians and vehicles

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the waste management plan and the plans have been annotated to show the presentation of bins so that they do not cause a hazard.

§ Large volume of extra traffic will be generated, Middle Street is narrow

Comment: The traffic impacts of the development are considered acceptable as discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report.

 

A & J Bathgate, 50 Denison Street, Bondi Junction (owner of 82 Middle Street)

 

§ 80 Middle Street and 133 Botany Street have not been used in association with stables at the rear and no horses seen or heard entering stables in excess of two years so their use has ceased.

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ The bulk and scale of the proposal is not consistent with the existing stable, associated residential development on the site and adjoining buildings.

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

§ Overshadowing to the rear yard at 3:00pm in winter.

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were  addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yard of the objectors’ property, the assessment noted that “…the properties at 82 Middle Street and 6-8 Jane Street will experience some overshadowing to their rear yards from 1pm onwards, maintaining the existing good solar access from 10am. A usable area of the rear yards of 6-8 Jane Street will remain in sun until 2pm on midwinter days and 82 Middle Street will not overshadow itself at 9am so these properties will all achieve 5 hours of solar access to their rear yards midwinter. This complies with the minimum required under the DCP of 3 hours per day.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Loss of privacy from rear verandah/terrace on the first floor of Block A, and the relocated windows on the first floor of Block B

Comment : As discussed in Section 10.1.1.2 below, the north-facing balcony to dwelling unit A.03 has been effectively partially recessed within the envelope of the dwelling unit and the envelope extended to enclose the sides of the proposed balcony in response to reason for refusal No. 2. This partial recessing and enclosing of the subject balcony will minimise overlooking into the objector’s property. The objector’s reference to relocated windows on the first floor of Building B is incorrect.

§ Erroneous reference to objectors’ backyard as “heavily landscaped”.

Comment: The applicant’s information has not been relied upon in this assessment and a site inspection has been undertaken.

§ Use of Norbar/Hay Lane will increase noise and reduce privacy.

Comment: Vehicular access from Middle Street to Barker Street via Hay Lane will not be possible under the proposed development given that Hay Lane will becomes a landscaped and paved pedestrian pathway for the whole length of the laneway adjoining the proposed development. Hay Lane is already a public laneway for public access. Land which fronts this public road is entitled to use that way for access. The proposed restricted vehicular access and enhanced pedestrian access along Hay Lane is not inconsistent with this designated access and the proposed number of dwellings that will be served by the laneway is not considered excessive and accordingly is not considered give rise to any noise or privacy issues.

§ Does not meet minimum setback from adjacent buildings and from Hay Lane.

Comment: Along Hay Lane, the development does not meet the preferred solutions for side setbacks above ground floor level. Despite the non-compliance, the location of the buildings on the laneway result in a separation distance to the rear boundaries of properties that address Jane Street of 3-4.8 metres. Windows to the Hay Lane elevations have been minimised to ensure privacy impacts do not occur and the separation distance provided by the laneway is adequate to minimise visual bulk and scale and overshadowing impacts to properties at 6-8 Jane Street.

§ Unsatisfactory internal amenity due since Norbay/Hay Lane is used as a gated footpath.

Comment: Gates previously shown as restricting access from Middle Street to Hay Lane have been deleted in the original proposal. Requirements for the laneway to ensure public access to the lane can be maintained at all times has been included as part of the conditions imposed on any approval.

§ The proposal fails to meet the requirements of SEPP 65.

Comment: Council’s Design Review Panel has reviewed the original application with regard to SEPP 65 at several meetings of the Panel to ensure that the proposal maximises improvements to the general design, energy use and internal amenity. In the development application, the applicant provided additional information to address the concerns of the Panel. These improvements remain valid and applicable to the current amended proposal. Accordingly, the proposal has satisfactorily met the requirements of SEPP 65.

§ Proposal not compatible with the heritage significance of the Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area and the heritage item at 139 Botany Road.

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

§ The proposal does not meet the carparking requirements for Dwelling Houses and attached Dual Occupancy.

Comment: The proposal is for a multi-unit housing development, not dwelling houses or attached dual occupancy. The proposal complies with the carparking requirements for multi-unit housing in the DCP - Parking

§ Inadequate access for service vehicles.

Comment: Tradespeople and commercial vehicles such as vans or utes will be able to utilise the basement visitor parking. Parking for light rigid trucks or emergency vehicles is not specifically required under the DCP – Parking for a development of this size.

§ Design of basement carpark and gradients does not comply with DCP – Parking and AS2890.1.

Comment: The proposal is satisfactory in terms of the requirements of Council’s DCP-Parking and AS2890.1. The applicant has submitted amended gradients with the current amended proposal which Council’s Development Engineer raises no objections to subject to conditions should approval be granted.

§ Proposal will increase traffic in narrow streets.

Comment: The traffic impacts of the development are considered acceptable as discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report.

§ Inadequate street frontage for garbage bin collection.

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the waste management plan and the plans have been annotated to show the presentation of bins so that they do not cause a hazard.

§ Impact of construction traffic and noise from the Middle Street access and one site access only provided during construction, should be an access to Botany Road as well as Middle Street

Comment: A detailed construction site management plan is required for the development as a condition of consent which includes that all site frontages be utilised to access the site.

§ Site does not have benefit of Existing Use Rights

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ Narrow street frontages

Comment: Street frontages are adequate and commensurate with the scale and proportion of the buildings proposed. The reduction in scale of Building A in the current amended proposal will make this building more compatible with its frontage to Botany Street and with adjoining properties.

 

A Crossley, PO Box 4, St Paul’s (owner of 78 Middle Street)

 

§ Number of dwellings too numerous for the area.

Comment: The number of dwellings can be accommodated on the site with required parking and private open space. The density is based on gross floor area, not the number of dwellings and has been assessed as satisfactory as discussed in section 10.2

§ Proposal too crowded and apartments are too small

Comment: Council’s Design Review Panel has reviewed the original plans having regard to the Residential Flat Design Code and was satisfied that the units are adequately sized. This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Proposal will result in conditions associated with boarding house accommodation.

Comment : Proposal is for development of individual town-houses and dwelling units – not boarding houses.

§ Rental dwellings result in transient occupants who create noise pollution and security problems.

Comment: The sale of the dwellings after construction and whether they will be owner-occupied or rental is a market consideration and not a planning issue and as such beyond the scope of consideration of the application.

§ Use of Norbar/Hay Lane will create security problems.

Comment: Safety and security have been discussed under Section 10.3.2.1  of this report.

§ Garbage bin collection at Middle Street will impede/create hazard and noise.

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the waste management plan and the plans have been annotated to show the presentation of bins so that they do not cause a hazard.

§ Letter boxes on Town House B will create junk-mail litter on the lane.

Comment: This is not a planning issue and as such beyond the scope of consideration of the application.

§ Fire services report to address restricted size of entrances and exits in fire emergencies.

Comment: The proposal will be required to meet the requirements of the Building Code of Australia with regard to fire separation. Further details in relation to fire safety are not required at DA stage.

§ Description of 78 Middle Street is misleading.

Comment: The applicant’s information has not been relied upon in this assessment and a site inspection has been undertaken.

§ Bulk and scale of Building A results in loss of sunlight and privacy.

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were  addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the objector’s property, this assessment noted that “… the northern elevation of 78 Middle Street is already overshadowed at ground level by the high boundary wall which will be retained by the development. At first floor level there are bedroom and bathroom windows on the northern elevation. Although living rooms are generally considered critical in the assessment of overshadowing the development has ensured that additional overshadowing to the northern elevation of 78 Middle Street affects one bedroom window at 9am midwinter. For the remainder of the day all windows are in full sun and this more than complies with the preferred solution of 3 hours under the DCP (which applies to living areas).The proposal will not result in any additional overshadowing to the living areas of 78 Middle Street. This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Overwhelming bulk and scale of Building B to the northern boundary of No. 78 Middle Street.

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

 

S Crossley, PO Box 4, St Paul’s (owner of 78 Middle Street)

 

§ Site has lost existing use rights

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ Height, bulk and scale of Building A inconsistent with existing building and that of immediate vicinity.

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

§ Proposal not compatible with the heritage significance of the Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area.

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

§ Loss of privacy from south-facing balcony of unit A02 in Building A. Comment: As discussed in Section 10.3.2.3, to address this concern, a condition will applied requiring the installation of a privacy screen for the whole length of the western edge of the first floor balcony to dwelling unit A02 in Building A should approval be granted.

§ First floor balcony to Unit A03 will overlook/overshadow objectors’ kitchen area.

Comment : As discussed in Section 10.1.1.2 below, the north-facing balcony to dwelling unit A.03 has been effectively partially recessed within the envelope of the dwelling unit and the envelope extended to enclose the sides of the proposed balcony in response to reason for refusal No. 2. This partial recessing and enclosing of the subject balcony will minimise overlooking into the objector’s property. The balcony is not considered to give rise to any adverse overshadowing impact on the objector’s kitchen given its size and recessed position within the proposed building envelope.

§ Privacy awning to unit A01 is unnecessary and creates a security risk to objectors’ property from people accessing and jumping off the awning.

Comment: The provision of an awning to unit A01 is considered reasonable for minimising opportunities for overlooking the rear yard of Unit A01 from Unit A03 above. The objector’s concern regarding security from this awning is considered unreasonable in view of the location of this awning within the private curtilage of Building A (rather than a public domain).  

§ Overlooking from first floor bedrooms/bathrooms of Building B.

Comment: The overlooking impacts within the proposed development were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically it was noted in the assessment that “…The southern elevation of Building B addresses the rear boundary of 78 Middle Street. The proposal will retain a 3 metre high wall along the southern boundary of the site. This has minimised the opportunities for overlooking between Building B and 78 Middle Street. At ground floor level there will be no opportunities for overlooking. At first floor level three bedroom windows have opportunity to overlook the first floor windows of 78 Middle Street, no overlooking of private open spaces will occur. The elevations of Building B and 78 Middle street are approximately 7 metres apart, this is less than the 9 metres generally recommended. The design has recognised the potential for impacts by providing timber battened screens to these windows. The screens will also prevent cross viewing into the rear yard of 76A Middle Street from these windows. There will be no overlooking from the attic skylights in the roof of Building B.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Increase noise pollution and traffic vibration

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report and are considered acceptable. Furthermore, standard conditions for construction management will be applied should approval be granted.

§ Loss of street parking

Comment : The proposal complies with Council’s DCP – Parking and therefore, provides adequate carparking for residents and visitors.

§ Garbage bin collection at Middle Street will impede/create hazard.

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the waste management plan and the plans have been annotated to show the presentation of bins so that they do not cause a hazard.

§ Security concerns from the opening of Norbar/Hay Lane.

Comment: Safety and security have been discussed under Section 10.3.2.1  of this report.

 

A & R Richardson, 141 Botany Road, Randwick

 

§ No outlook and privacy for proposed town-houses

Comment: The overlooking impacts within the proposed development were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically it was noted that “…the separation distances between Buildings A and B, B and C and D and E exceed 9 metres and considered adequate to maintain privacy between dwellings within the development. Approximately 8 metres separation distance is provided between buildings C and D, however these buildings have been designed so that building D turns its back to Building C with minimal windows addressing Building C. Adequate outlook into private open spaces separating the proposed town-houses will be maintained. Furthermore, no open space at the rear of the Building D  will be overlooked by Building D. Apart from Building A, all units are vertically organised as single occupancies, so that there will not be any significant overlooking as a result of living areas of one dwelling being located over the private open spaces of adjoining dwellings. Subject to compliance with conditions of consent, the proposal will provide good privacy to dwellings within the development.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Loss of privacy

Comment: The overlooking impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property), the assessment noted that “…only three west facing bathroom windows are provided at first floor level in the western elevations of Buildings B, C and D which face these rear yards. There are no west-facing windows in the attic level of this elevation. A condition will be applied requiring the bathroom windows in Building B (which faces the objectors’ property) and Building C to be obscurely glazed up to 1.7m above finished floor level.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Loss of sunlight

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were  addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, it was noted that “…in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property) some overshadowing during midwinter mornings will be experienced. However, as a minimum these properties will have usable areas of their rear yards in sun from 10am to 2pm midwinter thus complying with the minimum required under the DCP of 3 hours per day.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

 

J Minary, 135 Botany Street, Randwick

 

§ Overshadowing of north elevation windows.

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal. Specifically, in relation to the objector’s property, the original assessment noted that “…the northern elevation of this property would be completely in shadow as a result of the development at 9am on midwinter mornings. By midday all windows on the northern elevation of this property would have a majority of their surface in sun. By 3pm all except for one window will have sun on a portion of their surface. The proposal achieves solar access to a portion of the surface of all windows on the northern elevation of the objector’s property between 11am and 3pm midwinter and meets the preferred solution of three hours per day. The overshadowing impact is considered to be largely the result of orientation such that a reduced or more skilful design is unlikely to be able to remedy this impact. Building E, which is causing the overshadowing to this property is setback in excess of the dwelling house requirements and it is likely a two storey dwelling house which complied with Council’s DCP requirements would result in the same or greater shadow impacts to the northern elevation of the objector’s property.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Eastern rear and northern side boundary fences should be 2.5m high for privacy and security.

Comment: Although fencing to the height requested is generally discouraged due to issues of bulk and scale and the potential for overshadowing, in this instance the fencing is considered appropriate for maintaining privacy. The fence will not result in any additional overshadowing to the objector’s property than what is already proposed. Accordingly, a condition will be applied for the fence requested to ensure privacy for the objector’s property should approval be granted. 

§ The proposed driveway off Botany Street and pathways proposed along the eastern rear and northern side boundaries create noise, and privacy and security impacts.

Comment: The privacy impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the objector’s property, the original assessment noted that “…the pedestrian and vehicular entries to the site from Botany Street adjoining the objector’s property would be unlikely to cause significant disruption to this property given that the pedestrian entry serves a maximum of 12 dwellings (buildings C, D and E). The majority of residents and visitors to the site are expected to enter from the basement carpark and potentially from the public laneway to the east of the site (where the mailboxes are located).” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal. Furthermore, the provision of alternative entry from Middle Street will distribute access to the site and good surveillance from Botany Street will reduce the potential for crime and  vandalism to occur in the pathway.

§ Noise from mechanical exhaust system and construction activity.

Comment: Standard conditions will be applied requiring that the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

§ Structural damage during excavation and construction.

Comment: A condition requiring a Dilapidation Report prior to works will be applied.

§ Overlooking from Buildings C, D and E.

Comment:  The overlooking impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property), the assessment noted that “…only three west facing bathroom windows are provided at first floor level in the western elevations of Buildings B, C and D which face these rear yards. There are no west-facing windows in the attic level of this elevation. A condition will be applied requiring the bathroom windows in Building B and Building C (which faces the objectors’ property) to be obscurely glazed up to 1.7m above finished floor level. In relation to overlooking from the upper floor of Building E, the deletion of the south-facing first floor balconies in Building E under the current amended plan will eliminate this overlooking issue.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Proposal is overdevelopment and will be overcrowded.

Comment: The proposal is for a predominantly medium density town-house development with numbers of dwellings that are commensurate with an FSR that will be compatible in the area in terms of density and impact (see sections 10.1.2, 10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.2  and 10.3.2.3 below).

§ Result in flooding and drainage problems.

Comment: A revised Flood Study has been submitted with the Section 82A review in response to reason for refusal No. 5 which has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and found to provide adequate finished levels for flood level clearances (see Section 6.2 below).

§ Increased traffic especially during construction.

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report and are considered acceptable. Furthermore, standard conditions for construction management will be applied should approval be granted.

 

L & P Lum, 139 Botany Street, Randwick

 

§ Sanitary drainage runs through 80 Middle Street and access to boundary trap can only be accessed through 80 Middle Street. Applicant should relocate trap so that access to the trap can be easily gained for maintenance/ in case of blockage.

Comment: Condition requiring relocation of the boundary trap as requested will be applied should consent be granted.

§ Overshadowing of backyard and heritage listed property which has limited window openings

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property) the assessment noted that “…some overshadowing during midwinter mornings will be experienced. However, as a minimum these properties will have usable areas of their rear yards in sun from 10am to 2pm midwinter thus complying with the minimum required under the DCP of 3 hours per day.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Increase vehicular traffic in Middle Street and Botany Street especially impact on emergency vehicles/services on Botany Street.

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report and are considered acceptable.

§ Loss of privacy to backyard

Comment: The overlooking impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property), the assessment noted that “…only three west facing bathroom windows are provided at first floor level in the western elevations of Buildings B, C and D which face these rear yards. There are no west-facing windows in the attic level of this elevation. A condition will be applied requiring the bathroom windows in Building B (which faces the objectors’ property) and Building C to be obscurely glazed up to 1.7m above finished floor level.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Increased security risk.

Comment: Density, character and security have been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents including those related to security.

§ Out of character with heritage conservation area.

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

 

S&M Kanapathipillai, 2/131A Botany Street, Randwick

 

§ Overlooking from 5 townhouses, balconies should be bricked up privacy screens are insufficient.

Comment: Privacy impacts are discussed in Section 10.3.2.3 of this report. The proposed privacy screens in the original proposal remain in the amended proposal and are considered adequate to prevent direct sightlines to 2/131A Botany Street. It should be noted that the last dwelling in Building D was deleted in the original proposal to prevent direct overlooking of the private open space of this dwelling.

§ Structural damage from basement in close proximity

Comment: A dilapidation report and standard conditions to ensure construction is undertaken in a proper and professional manner would be imposed on any consent.

§ Noise pollution from occupants

Comment: Council’s standard noise conditions for residential development would be  recommended on any consent. It is not considered that there would be undue noise from the occupants of the development.

§ Noise and vibration of plant in basement will cause structural damage

Comment: Council’s standard conditions with regard to operation of plant and equipment, noise and vibration emissions would be included on any consent.

§ Increased traffic impacts

Comment: Traffic impacts of the development have been considered under Section 10.3.2.4.

§ Heritage impact, inconsistent bulk and scale, balconies are inconsistent with style of surrounding buildings

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

§ Existing use rights do not apply, houses have not been used by people associated with the stables

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

 

Y Sabbadini, 153 Arden Street, Coogee (owner 1/131A Botany Street)

 

§ Proposal exceeds size and scale of what could be considered as existing use

Comment: The site enjoys the benefit of existing use rights such that the EP & A Act allows for changes to, enlargement and intensification of the existing uses on the site.

§ Overlooking, noise pollution

Comment: Privacy impacts are discussed in Section 10.3.2.3 of this report. Standard noise conditions have been imposed.

§ Safety and security impacts

Comment: Safety and security have been discussed under Section 10.3.2.1 of this report.

§ Heritage impacts

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

 

R & D Stokes, 132 Barker Street, Randwick

 

§ Overlooking, our property is single storey and will be overlooked by development

Comment: The rear boundary of 132 Barker Street is approximately 12 metres from the rear boundary of the subject site and Building D is over 12 metres from the rear boundary of 132 Barker Street. There will be no overlooking impact to this property.

§ Bulk and scale is inconsistent with surrounding 2A zone

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area.

§ Heritage impacts

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

§ Safety during demolition, particularly with regard to asbestos

Comment: Standard conditions in accordance with Council’s Asbestos Policy would be included with any approval.

§ Traffic congestion

Comment: Traffic impacts have been discussed under Section 10.3.2.4 of this report.

§ Inaccurate and misleading proposal, dwelling and adjoining dwelling is single storey

Comment: The applicant’s information has not been relied upon in this assessment and a site inspection has been undertaken.

§ Security as a result of overlooking and public lane

Comment: As noted above, overlooking of this dwelling will not occur due to the significant separation distance. The laneway is one allotment to the east of this property and is unlikely to result in any significant security impact.

 

 

On 7 April 2006, a letter was received from the following residents raising concerns regarding the validity of Existing Use Rights for the subject site:

 

B. Pratt, 8 Jane Street, Randwick

A & J Bathgate, 50 Denison Street, Bondi Junction (owner of 82 Middle Street)

S Crossley, PO Box 4, St Paul’s (owner of 78 Middle Street)

V Howell 137 Botany Street, Randwick

S&M Kanapathipillai, 2/131A Botany Street, Randwick

L & P Lum, 139 Botany Street, Randwick

J Minary, 135 Botany Street, Randwick

A Conrecorde & C Walsh, 113 Middle Street Randwick

 

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed that the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Heritage Planners Comments

 

Council’s Heritage Planner advises that the previous comments applied to the original proposal are still applicable to the current amended proposal and these are as follows:

 

“The subject site is located to the rear of a number of properties facing Middle and Botany Streets, but with accesses to both streets, and is occupied by a number of stables buildings.  The site is within the Struggletown Conservation Area.  The cottage at no.139 Botany Road is listed as a heritage item, as well as cottages at nos.11 and 15 Jane Street, and nos.84 and 88 Middle Street.

 

The application proposes demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new residential development, of two levels and two levels with attic, over a basement carpark.  The proposal is to comprise five separate buildings, including one fronting Middle Street and one fronting Botany Street.  Following receipt of the original application, a number of concerns were raised and amended plans have now been received. 

 

The original application is accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Graham Brooks and Associates Pty Ltd.  The HIS provides a detailed history of the development of the site between 1860 and 1970, including detailed diagrams.  The history notes that the central area of the block bounded by Barker, Botany, Middle and Jane Streets was dissected by a stream that fed into Bird’s Gully to the south, and was originally used for the purpose of market gardens, and later for horse stabling, with cottages fronting the streets.  The central area of the subject site contains several stables buildings, including a U-shaped block built in 1884, and a smaller block built c.1890-1900, another built in 1924 and another built in 1941.  There is also a single story dwelling at no.133 Botany Street built in early 1960s and a two storey residential building at no.80 Middle Street apparently constructed in 1970.

 

The HIS notes that due to the earlier uses on the site, it is likely to have high archaeological potential.  In terms of grading of heritage significance, the HIS considers that the 1884 stables have high heritage significance in historical and social terms, providing a tangible link to the late nineteenth century social history of Struggletown with its important horse racing associations.  The 1890/1900 stables are considered by the HIS to have moderate significance, while the 1924 stable, the 1941 stable and the house at no.133 Middle Street have little significance and the house at no.80 Middle Street is intrusive.

 

The HIS argues that the condition and integrity of the stables buildings do not allow for their continued use of re-use as stables, as they cannot be upgraded to meet current standards; and that they cannot be adapted for a different use, due to their purpose-built nature.  The possibility of retention of a portion of the stables building has been investigated, but proved to be a major impediment to the development of the site.  A comprehensive interpretation program has therefore been developed, which has investigated a number of options.  These options are as follows:

 

Option 1- a written history

Option 2- incorporation of sections of old fabric in common areas

Option 3- development naming

Option 4- use of graphic material in marketing

Option 5- plaques and signage

Option 6- interpretative reconstruction of selected components

Option 7- partial in-situ retention of selected components

Option 8- landscaping plans

The HIS recommends a combination of Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8, with some elements of Option 5.

 

Given the difficulties of continued or resumed use of the building for horse stabling, there are no heritage objections to demolition of the stables building subject to archival recording and the implementation of an interpretation program which will allow the significance of the site to be understood by both residents of the site and the wider public.

 

The HIS considers that the demolition of the existing buildings fronting Middle and Botany Streets will not detract from the heritage significance of the Struggletown Conservation Area, or from heritage items in the vicinity.  The HIS argues that the scale, roof forms, materials and detailing of the proposal will be compatible with surrounding development, and that the main bulk of the development will be well set back from the street and less intrusive. 

 

There are no heritage objections to the demolition of the existing buildings fronting Middle Street and Botany Streets which are not considered to contribute to the heritage significance of the Struggletown Conservation Area.  Concerns were raised in relation to the original application that the proposed buildings fronting Middle Street and Botany Street would be incompatible with the predominant single storey scale of the conservation area.  ).  The two storey scale of the buildings which front the streets will be accentuated by their narrow footprint which is necessitated by the need for vehicular entrances and exit from the basement carpark.  It is noted that recent infill development replacing single storey cottages in the surrounding area including Jane and Middle Streets, have been designed to have upper level rooms contained within the roof form.  In relation to the proposed building fronting Middle Street, it is noted that the existing dwelling which is to be demolished and a number of dwellings in the immediate vicinity are of two storey scale.  There are no heritage objections to the two storey scale of the proposed building which is similar in form to the existing building on the site.  In relation to the proposed building fronting Botany Street, it is noted that the majority of buildings comprising nineteenth century cottages and Interwar and Post War detached and semi-detached cottages are of a single storey scale, either with hipped roofs (twentieth century dwellings) or gables to side elevations only (nineteenth century dwellings).  It is recommended that the proposed building fronting Botany Street be redesigned to reduce its scale to the street and to reduce its streetscape dominance.  Such redesign could take the form of a considerably reduced roof height for the front section of the building, to give the building a one and a half storey scale to the street with the upper level room was contained in the roof form; or for the upper level to be stepped back from the street so that the scale of the building was compatible with its single storey neighbours. (Comment: The applicant, as part of the Section 82A application, has amended the proposal appropriately as reflected in the response to reason for refusal No. 2.)

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the original application that the proposed development, comprising three bulky buildings in this central area of the site, would detract from the traditional development pattern on the site and in the surrounding area, which comprises closely spaced buildings defining the street edges and scattered outbuildings in the centre of the block.  It is noted however that the scale and bulk of the buildings in the central area of the site will not be prominent from the street.

 

There are no heritage objections to the modern design of the development which is appropriate to an infill development on a site of this size.  A materials and finishes board has been submitted in conjunction with the application, however there are concerns that the proposed materials and finishes comprising generally dark brickwork and dark metal wall cladding, will not be compatible with the predominately light coloured finishes of traditional stone or weatherboard buildings in the area.  An amended materials and finishes board is to be submitted. (Comment: The applicant has submitted a revised materials and finishes board as part of the Section 82A application and has been found satisfactory by the heritage planner).

 

Conditions should be included in any consent.”

 

6.2   Development Engineers Comments

 

The Development Engineer advises as follows:

 

“A section 82A review has been received for the above development application.

 

The subject development application is for construction of a multi-unit housing development at the above site containing 21 townhouses with associated strata subdivision. It is understood that the planning officer is not going to include approval for strata subdivision as part of this application. Consequently there are no strata subdivision conditions included in this report.

 

Subsequent to the original application being assessed, the applicant has submitted amended plans and an amended floodstudy.

 

The comments and conditions contained in this report are based on the following plans and details (note: the items in bold are amended plans and details):

 

§ Basement Floor Plan, DA010 (issue k), Job No. 05015 by Turner & Associates dated 15.12.05.

§ Ground Floor Plan, DA011 (issue k), Job No. 05015 by Turner & Associates dated 15.12.05.

§ Landscape Plan and Planting Schedule prepared by Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, drawing number L01, project number 050623, sheet 1, Issue C, dated July 2005

§ Arboricultural Assessment Report prepared by Peter Richards of Tree and Landscape Consultants, reference number 519-1 06, dated 8 July 2005

§ Waste Management Plan dated 17 November 2005

§ Flood Report by Henry & Hymas Civil and Structural Engineers, Revision 2, dated July 2005 and received by Council on the 23 December 2005

§ Review of Flood Report by Brown Consulting (X05232) dated 17 January 2006.

 

Landscape Comments

The following landscape comments were received from Council’s Landscape Development Officer:

 

There are a total 23 trees which may be directly affected by this application.

 

Supplementary documentation in the form of an Arboricultural Assessment Report prepared by Peter Richards of Tree and Landscape Consultants, reference number 519-1 06, dated 8th July 2005 and stamped received at Council on 15th July 2005 (referred to as ‘the Arborist Report’ in this memo) has been received; however, neither the Arborists Report or the Landscape Plan and Planting Schedule prepared by Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, drawing number L01, project number 050623, sheet 1, Issue C, dated July 2005 and stamped received at Council on 15th July 2005 have been updated to reflect the changes made to the architectural plans, and therefore, a revised landscape plan will be required prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Along the eastern boundary, off the Middle Street frontage, there are a total of eight (8) Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palms, tree’s 8-14 & 23 in the Arborists Report). All these palms are around 12 metres in height and have been shown for removal on the plans provided.

 

Approval is not required for the removal of this species as they are no longer covered by the revised Tree Preservation Order; however, consent has still been included in this report for the applicant’s information.

 

In this same area, adjacent the southeast corner of the existing 2 storey brick stables building, there is one large and prominent Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda, Tree 17) of approximately 17 metres in height and 9 metres in width which appears in reasonable condition and is of a scale covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

Although deemed a reasonably significant example of the species which contributes to the amenity of this site and surrounding properties, it will not be physically possible to retain this tree and proceed with demolition of the existing structures or construction of the basement as shown, and as such, approval has been granted for its removal on the basis that advanced replacements will be provided in this specific area of the site in order to directly compensate for the loss of established canopy cover.

 

It should also be noted that Council’s revised Tree Preservation Order states that where a tree is located within 2 metres of an existing building structure, as is the case with this tree, consent is no longer required for its removal; however, permission has still been provided in this report for clarity purposes.

 

In the rear yards of adjoining properties to the east, 4 and 6 Jane Street, there is a row of five (5) Cupressus sempervirens (Italian Cypress, Trees 3-7) of approximately 10-12 metres in height, as well as one Persea americanna (Avocado Tree, tree 15) and one Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum, Tree 16) both of about 6 metres in height. All seven (7) of these trees are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

These trees are sited at such a distance from the basement carpark that they would remain unaffected, with the only works to be undertaken in close proximity being construction of a new concrete footpath and nature strip along the length of laneway. Therefore, the implementation of only minimal protection measures is considered necessary.

 

Within the existing central grassed courtyard, there is a total of five (5) Archontophoenix alexandrae (Alexander Palms, tree 18-22) of between 5-8 metres in height which appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

The proposed excavated basement completely encompasses this area of the site, and as it would not be possible to retain these palms in their current location, the Arborist has recommended that they be transplanted elsewhere within the site for incorporation into the landscape scheme as existing/advanced specimens. 

 

This initiative is supported as it is deemed reasonable (given the size and quantity of trees to be removed from the site to accommodate the proposed works), as well as feasible, given the resilience of this species to the effects of excavation/construction. As such, conditions have been included in this report requiring the submission of more detailed information regarding the transplant technique and aftercare prior to the commencement work.

 

Towards the western portion of the site, in the rear yard of 133 Middle Street, there is one Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box, Tree 2) of approximately 10 metres in height which appears in reasonable condition, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and has been listed for removal on the plans and in the Arborists Report in order to accommodate the excavated basement level as shown.

 

This tree is setback at such a distance from the Botany Street frontage that only a very minimal loss of amenity would result from removal of the Brush Box. It is considered that a redesign to ensure its retention not justified given that it is not deemed an overly significant specimen as well as the fact that replacement plantings could achieve a reasonable size and level of amenity within a relatively short period of time. As such, approval has been granted for the removal of this tree.

 

On Council’s Botany Street nature strip, there is one Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box, Tree 1) of approximately 6 metres in height which is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order as it is located on public property, however, it appears in average condition due to the effects of heavy topping and lopping around overhead wires by service authorities over a protracted period of time.

 

This tree forms part of an established avenue of this species on both sides of Botany Street which is believed to have been in place for around 20 years, and is the first and only tree in this immediate area when entering from the north.

 

It is understood that the plans have already been amended several times in order to appease a variety of concerns relating to building design, amenity and objections from neighbouring properties, with this current issue showing the provision of a 1140mm wide pedestrian entrance path against the southern boundary, with a 3400mm wide vehicle entrance (at the property boundary) adjacent to the paths northern edge.

 

Excavations for the cross over on the nature strip (opposite the proposed driveway) would involve the removal of about 40% of its root plate including fine feeder roots required for air, moisture and nutrient uptake, as well as woody roots which are necessary for stability and anchorage.

 

Removal of this amount of root material would directly increase the threat of part or full tree failure due to the decline in health and condition that would be experienced, and would undermine Council’s duty of care as it is not in the best interests of the long term management of the tree.

 

The feasibility of ‘swapping’ the location of the proposed vehicle entrance and pedestrian path in an attempt to increase the distance between its trunk and any excavations to minimize root disturbance was explored; however, it is understood that this will not be feasible given the requirement to provide a direct pedestrian path providing access to the rear portion of the site.

 

The use of a pier and beam style/cantilevered slab for the section of driveway over the nature strip was also investigated; however, this construction method would still require significant excavations into the root plate of the tree.

 

Despite being a relatively poor example of the species, retention is still considered the most desirable course of action due to the avenue effect which exists in this street; however, due to the layout required for the ground floor level and the lack of available room or other options, retention will not be feasible.

 

It is likely that this tree will decline in the foreseeable future due to the cumulative effects of the heavy pruning regime employed by service authorities, and therefore, regrettably, a condition has been included in this report granting consent for its removal, with the applicant required to cover Council’s costs for removal, replacement and loss of amenity from the streetscape.

 

Flooding Comments

The Planning Officer is advised that the subject site is located adjacent to a council stormwater drainage line and may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events.

 

An amended flood study by Henry and Hymas Civil and Structural Engineers, was submitted to Council on the 23 December 2005. This floodstudy was subsequently referred to Brown Consulting for independent review. Brown Consulting concluded that:

 

‘The levels established in the Henry and Hymas flood report are generally reasonable, but rely on many assumptions that are difficult to verify. This uncertainty should be considered in setting freeboards’.

 

The flood levels determined in the Henry and Hymas report are as follows:

 

§ Botany Street – Northern property boundary: RL 44.03 (AHD)

§ Botany Street – Southern property boundary: RL 43.86 (AHD)

§ Botany Street – Northern side of vehicular access: RL 43.95 (AHD)

§ Middle Street – Along site frontage: RL 42.15 (AHD)

§ Easement – adjacent to Block D: RL 42.99-42.85 (AHD)

§ Easement – adjacent to Block C: RL 42.70-42.54 (AHD)

§ Easement – adjacent to Block B: RL 42.39-42.26 (AHD)

§ Easement – adjacent to Block A: RL 42.15 (AHD)

 

Given the uncertainties in the determined flood levels (refer to review by Brown Consulting) combined with the high flow velocities (generally in excess of 1.5 m/s) it is considered that the freeboards should be increased from 300mm to 450mm for all ground floor levels; and from 150mm to 300mm for the driveway entrance points. The minimal freeboards of 300mm and 150mm are considered inappropriate given the assumptions/uncertainties in the study and the high flow velocities.

 

The submitted plans show the following floor levels and driveway high points:

 

§ Block A: RL 42.54 (390 mm above flood level)

§ Block B: RL 43.00 (610 mm above flood level)

§ Block C: RL 43.30 (600 mm above flood level)

§ Block D: RL 43.60 (610 mm above flood level)

§ Block E: RL 44.33 (300 mm above flood level)

§ Driveway high point off Middle Street: RL 42.30 (150 mm above flood level)

§ Driveway high point off Botany Street: RL 44.18 (230 mm above flood level)

 

Consequently the highpoint in the driveway off Middle Street shall be raised by 150mm to RL 42.45 (AHD) and the high point in the driveway off Botany Street shall be raised 70 mm to RL 44.25 (AHD). Further the floor level of Block A shall be raised by 60mm to RL 42.60 (AHD) and the floor level of block E shall be raised by 150mm to RL 44.48 (AHD). All other floor levels are considered to be satisfactory based on the flood study by Henry and Hymas Consulting Engineers.

 

To address the flooding issues on the site the following deferred commencement condition has been included in this report:

 

Prior to this consent becoming operational, the applicant shall submit amended plans showing:

 

§  The high point in the driveway off Middle Street being raised by 150mm to RL 42.45 (AHD);

§  The high point in the driveway off Botany Street being raised by 70 mm to RL 44.25 (AHD);

§  The floor level of Block A being raised by 60mm to RL 42.60 (AHD); and

§  The floor level of block E being raised by 150mm to RL 44.48 (AHD).

 

The above deferred commencement condition may be deleted if amended plans addressing the issue are received prior to development approval being granted:

 

Comments regarding works in Council’s unformed laneway

As detailed above the subject site is located adjacent to a Council stormwater drainage line. The stormwater line is located within a variable width laneway located adjacent to the eastern property boundary.

 

Whilst the laneway extends all the way from Barker Street to Middle Street, it is unformed and contains numerous obstructions (such as fences and sheds).

 

The submitted plans show a new footpath being constructed through the laneway to facilitate pedestrian access to the townhouses. Council Assets Engineers have reviewed the proposal and do not object in principal to the applicant upgrading the laneway for pedestrian use, provided that the following requirements are complied with:

 

1.     The footpath constructed over the laneway is to be concrete and constructed in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works";

2.     The footpath constructed over the laneway is to match the level of the footpath in Middle Street (at the Middle Street alignment) as well as the alignment levels of the adjacent properties to the east and west of the laneway;

3.     The laneway shall be contoured to direct overland flows through to Middle Street;

4.     No landscaping shall be provided in Council’s laneway. Any landscaping proposed adjacent to the laneway will require approval from Council to ensure that the species selected will not result in root damage to either the proposed footpath or the existing stormwater drainage line;

5.     Suitable lighting shall be provided within the laneway.

6.     No fencing shall be installed across the laneway at either the northern boundary of 133 Botany Street or the eastern boundary of 80 Middle Street, as the laneway is to remain clear and unobstructed for public access.

 

With regard to item 5 above it is noted that appropriate lighting of the laneway must be provided from within the subject development site. The following condition has been included in this report to address the issue of lighting the laneway:

 

Details of the proposal method for lighting the laneway shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. It is noted that the lighting must be provided from within the subject development site and must not cause lightspill into adjoining properties.

 

Further to the above comments regarding use of the laneway for pedestrian access, it is noted that the development engineer raises some concerns regarding pedestrian safety within the laneway. It is understood that the application has been referred to the police for a crime risk assessment. The planning officer should ensure that any comments received from the police (particularly with regard pedestrian safety in the public laneway) are incorporated into the approval.

 

There shall be no encroachment of any portion of the development into the laneway. 

 

 

Comments regarding protection of Council’s pipeline

Prior to the issue of a construction Certificate, the applicant shall engage a suitably qualified surveyor to accurately locate the drainage line located adjacent to the eastern site boundary.  The following details shall be submitted to Council:

 

(i)         The drainage line location and the offset distance/clearance from the outside edge of the drainage line to the proposed development; and

 

(ii)        The invert levels of the drainage line.

 

The footings of any structures located adjacent to the stormwater drainage line burdening the site shall be founded on rock, or, extended below a 30 degree line taken from the pipe invert level at the edge of the laneway (‘angle of repose’). The building works must be inspected by the applicant's engineer to ensure that these footings extend below the ‘angle of repose’ and documentary evidence of compliance is to be submitted to Council, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction.

 

The applicant shall provide details of how it is proposed to fully protect and maintain Council’s drainage line during all excavation and construction works. The details shall be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer and shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

The pipeline located within the laneway adjacent to the eastern site boundary shall be fully protected during all excavation and construction works. There shall be no movement of construction equipment, nor the storage of any material on the laneway.

 

Prior to the commencement of work on the site, the applicant shall submit to Council’s Director of City Services a CCTV survey of the pipeline located within the laneway adjacent to the eastern site boundary. The CCTV survey shall inspect the stormwater pipe for any pre-existing damage.

 

Upon completion of all construction works, the applicant shall undertake another CCTV survey of the pipeline to determine if the pipeline has been damaged during work on the site. The second CCTV shall be submitted to Director of City Services for approval prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall meet the full cost for repairing/replacing any sections of the pipeline that are damaged by works on the site.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that any submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Service Authority Comments

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8th November 2005, Council resolved that:

 

(a)     the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million;

 

(b)     the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site, when the cost of works on the site exceeds $1 million up to $2 million; and

 

(c)     the Director, City Planning investigate the feasibility of funding the undergrounding of existing overhead cables for new development under the new options provided for in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (Developer Contributions) Act 2005.

 

Given that the cost of works is approximately $5 million, the applicant shall be required to meet the full cost for undergrounding cables in the vicinity of the development site. A condition regarding this matter has been included in this report.

 

The applicant shall meet the full cost for Energy Australia to relocate/remove the power pole located immediately adjacent to the western side of the proposed vehicular crossing in Middle Street prior to construction of the new vehicular crossing.

 

Alignment Level Comments

The alignment levels at the property boundary in Middle Street and Botany Street should match the back of the existing footpath. Consequently, the alignment levels shown on the submitted plans are too high and should be reduced as detailed below:

 

§ Alignment level at the vehicular exit in Middle Street – Reduced from RL 41.85 (AHD) to RL 41.78 (AHD)

§ Alignment level at the vehicular entry in Botany Street – Reduced from RL 43.80 (AHD) to RL 43.72 (AHD)

 

Note: These levels are based on the submitted survey plan (24057DT)

 

Driveway Grade Comments

The access ramps into the property will need to be modified to suit the alignment levels (detailed above) and provide the required high points (refer to flooding comments).

 

The following deferred commencement condition has been included in this report and may be deleted if amended plans addressing the issue are received prior to development approval being granted:

 

Prior to this consent becoming operational the applicant shall submit for approval, and have approved by Council, amended plans and longitudinal sections through the both the ingress and egress driveways showing:

 

§ Compliance with the issued alignment levels at the property boundary (i.e. RL 41.78 (AHD) at the Middle Street vehicular exit point and RL 43.72 (AHD) at the Botany Street vehicular entry point);

§ Compliance with the required internal driveway high points (i.e. RL 42.45 (AHD) along the Middle Street driveway and RL 44.25 (AHD) along the Botany Street driveway);

§ Satisfactory ramp grades and transitions in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004); and

§ Satisfactory headroom/height clearances over the access ramps in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004).

 

The sections shall be checked and certified by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and a copy of the certification shall be submitted to Council with the amended plans.

 

Traffic / Parking Comments

The Planning Officer should ensure the proposed parking provisions and internal carpark layout are satisfactory.

 

Council generally requires all new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings being lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. However, as the driveway in Botany Street is to be a one-way entry crossing, the requirement for splays on this crossing may be waived.

 

All new walls adjacent to the driveway opening at the Middle Street frontage (which is to be the exit point for the development) must be lowered to a height of 600mm and/or splayed 1.5 m x 1.5 m as detailed above.

 

The vehicular entry and exit driveways shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004) and shall have a minimum clear width of 3 metres.

 

Waste Comments

Council generally requires developments containing more than 20 units to provide chute fed compactor systems to reduce the number of residential garbage bins by half. Whilst the subject development contains 21 units, it is noted that the units are provide in a town house style of development with no common cores. Consequently the provision of a garbage chute would be very difficult.

 

Given the above, it is considered that the requirement for a chute fed compactor system may be waived in this instance. Consequently, the garbage storage areas shall be sized to contain a total of 11 x 240 litre garbage bins and 11 x 240 litre recycling bins (whilst maintaining satisfactory access to all bins). The submitted plans demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

The submitted plans show ramps grades of up to 1 in 4. These grades are too steep to facilitate manual wheeling of the bins from the basement up to the kerbside for collection. Council’s development engineer recommended that provision be made for moving full bins up to the kerb using a mechanical bin mover or similar attached to the side of the driveway, however, the applicant has indicated (refer to the submitted waste management plan dated 17 November 2005) that they would prefer to attach a positive covenant to the title of the property noting that the transfer of bins from the basement to the to the kerb for weekly collection is the responsibility of the owners corporation and that such a transfer will be undertaken by an appropriately dimensioned vehicle.

 

Consequently, the following condition has been included in this report:

 

Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, a positive covenant shall be registered on the title of the subject property stating that the owners corporation will be responsible for ensuring that all full bins are safely transferred from the basement to the kerbside for collection each week using an appropriately dimensioned vehicle. The method of moving bins up the steep driveway ramps shall be in general accordance with the details contained in the letter from Bell Star Group dated 17 November 2005.

 

Groundwater Comments

The applicant has submitted a preliminary geotechnical assessment by Argus Australia dated August 2005. The report states that two bore holes were drilled with rock being located at depths of 3 metres and 3.6 metres. The applicant’s consultant noted that groundwater was not encountered in either of the boreholes. Given the proposed basement extends to only 2.4 metres below the existing ground level, the application does not require referral to the Department of Natural Resources as integrated development.

 

Should the application be approved the following deferred commencement conditions shall be complied with prior to the consent becoming operational:”

 

6.3       Manager, Environmental Health Comments

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building has provided the following comments in relation to the original development application (which remain valid and applicable to the amended proposal):

 

6.3.1            Environmental Health Comments

 

“The proposal

 

The proposed development involves the following:

 

§  Demolition of all existing structures on the site;

§  Construction of a multi – unit housing development comprising twenty – four (24) dwellings, predominantly in the form of two (2) storey or two (2) storey plus attic townhouses; and

§  Shared basement parking for thirty – six (36) vehicles.

 

Key Issues

 

Land Contamination

 

A preliminary site contamination investigation report was requested to be submitted as part of an additional information request. Subsequently, a preliminary investigation report prepared by Aargus Pty Ltd dated September 2005 was submitted. In summary, the report states that, ‘the site is considered suitable for the proposed residential development.

 

It is therefore considered that standard conditions in relation to land contamination should therefore be attached to the consent.

 

Acoustics

 

It is considered that the proposed development will have a minimal impact on the surrounding residential premises and therefore standard conditions should be attached to the consent.

 

Asbestos

 

The preliminary investigation report submitted with the application reveals that some forms of asbestos are located on the site. It is therefore considered that standard conditions in relation to the removal of asbestos are to be attached by the Assessing Planning Officer.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, the following conditions should be included in the development consent:”

 

6.3.2           Building Comments

 

“The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing dwellings and construction of a new 2 and 3 storey Multi Unit Housing residential development containing 24 sole occupancy units and a basement carpark..

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class -        2       (Residential Units)

Class -        7a     (Carpark)

 

Background

 

The existing buildings on site are post war brick and timber frame cottages with stables bounded by buildings of a similar nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Noise:

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

 

Site Management:

Standard conditions are proposed to be included in the consent to address construction site management issues, such as the location of stock piled material or the storage and disposal of excavated materials, sediment and erosion control, public safety and perimeter safety fencing.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1 and Council’s development control plan for multi-     unit housing to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

Conclusion

 

No objections are raised in relation to the proposed development, subject to the following conditions being included in any development consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, the following conditions should be included in the development consent.”

 

(Comment: Conditions suggested by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building have been included in the Recommendation section of this report).

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (1,709m2) is less than that required for the submission of a master plan under Clause 40A of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Section 82A review application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

8.1         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the proposed activity (multi-unit housing) is prohibited within the zone. Despite this prohibition, the site enjoys the benefit of existing use rights as an “animal establishment” and that this use has not been abandoned as indicated in the evidence filed by the applicant to the Land and Environment Court and reviewed by Council’s solicitor.

 

It should be noted that on 29 March 2006, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Existing Uses) Regulation 2006 was gazetted so that, amongst other things, an existing use can no longer be changed to another prohibited use. The amending Regulation also contains savings and transitional provisions which essentially protect the rights provided for under Sections 106 to 108 of the EP&A Act for an existing use that is the subject of an application for development consent made before the commencement of the amending Regulation. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the provisions of the EP&A Amendment (Existing Uses) Regulation 2006, the subject site still enjoys the benefits of existing use rights as provided for in Sections 106 to 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, provisions in the Act which remain unchanged.

 

Section 108(3) of the Act also provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate from the “incorporated provisions” of the Act would have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument that would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims, objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

(Original Proposal)

Provided

(Amended Proposal)

Compliance

31(1) - Landscaped Area

40% of site area (or 856m2)

53% or 1,154m2

53% or 1,154m2

Yes

31(3) – Landscaped Area over Basement

Less than 50% of landscape  area requirement

(428m2)

53% or 1,154m2

53% or 1,154m2

No, however proposal meets intent of standard as 26% of site area is soft landscaping

32 - FSR

0.5:1 (1,070m2)

0.87:1 (1,862.18 m2)

0.85:1 (1,832.18 m2)

No

33(1) – Building Height

9.5m max. overall

9m max.

9m max.

Yes

33(3) – External Wall Height

7m max. wall height

6m max

6m max

Yes

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Applies

Comment

21

Strata Subdivision

Yes

Yes

Strata plans not submitted to Council for assessment.

43

Heritage Item or Conservation Area

Yes

Yes

See Heritage Planners assessment in Section 6.3

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

Yes

See Heritage Planners assessment in Section 6.3

 

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

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. As the site has been used to house animals, a preliminary Environmental Site Assessment report was submitted to Council’s Environmental Health department. Council’s Environmental Health officer has reviewed the submitted material and indicated that the site is suitable for the proposed residential use, subject to conditions of consent.

 

Council has carefully considered the issue of contamination, proposed appropriate conditions and fulfilled its obligations under SEPP 55.

 

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

 

The original proposal was subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings and the proposal was referred to the Design Review Panel in October 2005. Amended plans were further referred to the Panel in December 2005 responding to the Panel’s comments. The amended proposal still incorporates and retains the Panel’s comments and recommendations and accordingly the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65 and the principles of good design.

 

9.         POLICY CONTROLS

 

The following Council policy controls may be used as a guide in assessing the proposed development.

 

§  DCP – Parking 1998

§  Section 94 Contributions Plan

§  Contaminated Land Policy 1999

§  Rainwater Tank Policy 2003

 

Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP does not apply to the proposal (which is multi-unit housing). The Multi-Unit Housing DCP only applies to development within the 2(b) and 2(c) zone and therefore is not applicable to the subject site, which is zoned 2(a). Notwithstanding this, relevant provisions of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP have been applied as a guide in assessing the DA.

 

10.     ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1   Statutory Controls – S79C(1)(a)

 

10.1.1              Section 82A Review

 

The applicant advises that the Section 82A application seeks to amend the original proposal so as to address Council’s reasons for refusal of the original DA and that, in doing so, the amended development will be substantially the same as that proposed in the original application. The merits of the applicant’s response/amendments are addressed as follows:

 

Reason for refusal No. 1

 

“1.    The proposed development of the site for multi-unit housing is prohibited within the 2(a) zone of RLEP 1998, and ‘existing-use-rights’ have not been established.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The issue of Existing Use Rights (EUR) is currently under discussion between the legal representatives acting on behalf of both Council and the Applicant. We believe that this issue can be appropriately resolved, such that Council is satisfied that the site has the benefit of EUR.”

 

Comment:  The existing use on 80 Middle Street and 133 Botany Street, being the horse stables, was lawfully commenced as indicated in the development consents granted for both sites (see Section 4 above). On 10 March 2006, the applicant filed a number of affidavits and statutory declarations with the Land and Environment Court as evidence that the  existing use rights had not been abandoned. The evidence comprises the following:

 

§ Affidavit of Mr Norrie Bathis, the owner of No. 80 Middle Street, with attached rental statements from previous renters of No. 133 Botany Street obtained from PRD Nationwide Wills Bros.

 

§ Affidavit of Mr Matthew Bathis, the son of Mr Norrie Bathis, asserting the use of the stables, as a rest point for horses between journeys, associated with the business of horse transporting.

 

§ Affidavit of Mr Timothy Michael O’Riordan, a tenant at No. 80 Middle Street, asserting the stabling of ponies on the site.

 

§ Affidavit of Mr Geoff Allan Borger, Race Horse Trainer previously renting at No. 133 Botany Street, asserting the stabling of horses at the premises on a continual basis throughout the rental period.

 

Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights. Accordingly, the applicant has adequately and satisfactorily addressed the reason for refusal No. 1.

 

Reason for refusal No. 2

 

“2.    The proposed development has not minimised its impact in terms of overlooking of adjoining properties and dwellings within the development. In particular, the north facing balcony to Unit A.03 and the south-facing balconies at first floor level of Building E and design of the southern elevation to the first floor of Building E. These impacts could be addressed by conditions of consent deleting balconies and providing obscure glazing.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The following amendments have been made to the proposal in order to address this reason for refusal:

 

·          dwelling A.03 has been reconfigured by relocating the north-facing balcony to within the external envelope, to minimise opportunities for overlooking into No. 78 Middle Street;

·          a 1m wide awning has been provided over the north-facing terrace to dwelling A.01 to minimise opportunities for overlooking;

·          opaque glazing has been provided to the following windows:

o Building A stairwell window;

o B.05 Bathroom window;

o C.06 Bathroom window;

o E.01 stair window; and

o E.02 stair window.

·          the south-facing balconies to dwellings E.01 and E.02 have been deleted to minimise opportunities for overlooking into No. 135 Botany Street.”

 

Comment: The above-listed changes have been verified in the Section 82A plans and the following assessment is made:

 

1.         The north-facing balcony to dwelling unit A.03 has been effectively partially recessed within the envelope of the dwelling unit and the envelope extended to enclose the sides of the proposed balcony. This partial recessing and enclosing of the subject balcony represents a significant improvement (in terms of minimising overlooking of adjoining properties at 78 and 82 Middle Street) over the projecting balcony in the original proposal. Accordingly, objections from the owners of No. 78 and 82 Middle Street concerning overlooking from this balcony have been adequately addressed in that the recessed and enclosed nature of the amended balcony will minimise overlooking into their respective backyards.

 

2.       The use of opaque glazing will assist in minimising potential overlooking from the stairwells, stair and bathroom areas of the applicable dwelling units in Buildings A, B C and E, although the degree of overlooking from these areas would have been minor in any case given that these are not living areas.

 

3.         The deletion of the proposed south facing balconies to dwellings E.01 and E.02 will eliminate the potential overlooking impacts from these balconies onto the adjoining southern property.

 

The amendments as listed above have adequately and satisfactorily addressed the reason for refusal No. 2.

 

Reason for refusal No. 3

 

“3.    The scale of the proposed building fronting Botany Street is incompatible with directly adjoining buildings and should be reduced to minimise its streetscape dominance. This impact could be satisfactorily addressed by redesign and a reduced roof height for the front section of the building, to give the building a one and a half storey scale to the street with the upper level contained in the roof form; or for the upper level to be stepped back from the street so that the scale of the building was compatible with its single storey neighbours. A skillion roof form may also be considered over the basement parking and driveway on the southern side of this building to be more compatible with the surrounding residential forms.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The proposal has been amended to address this reason for refusal. In particular, the front setback of the upper level of dwelling E.02 has been increased by 1.92m and a terrace has been provided in the western elevation of this dwelling. This gives the building a one and a half storey scale, as recommended by Council. Furthermore, a hip roof is now proposed to the two (2) storey portion of this building, while a skillion roof is provided over the driveway to the basement.”

 

Comment:  The amended proposal has incorporated the second option contained in the reason for refusal, that is, the upper level has been stepped back from the Botany Street by a further 1.92m giving a total setback of 5.42m for the upper level. This will have the desired effect of reducing the scale of Building E when viewed from the street so that the scale of the building will be compatible with its single storey neighbours. The amended proposal also includes the provision of a skillion roof over driveway to the basement carpark on the southern side of the building to be more compatible with the surrounding residential forms.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 4

 

“4.    The proposed colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are incompatible with the predominantly light coloured finishes of traditional stone or weatherboard buildings in the heritage conservation area. Details of the finishes could be resubmitted to satisfactorily address this issue.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “Turner and Associates have prepared a revised sample board, which proposes the use of the following materials and finishes:

 

·          light coloured facebrick;

·          timber cladding and battens

·          light coloured paint finish;

·          metal zinc roofing; and

·          light coloured aluminium door frames.”

 

Comment : Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the revised colour sample board and is satisfied that the revised colours and finishes would be compatible with that of buildings in the immediate and surrounding areas of the proposed development.

 

Reason for refusal No. 5: Flood study

 

“5.    The flood study submitted does not adequately demonstrate that the proposed floor levels provide minimum 300mm clearance above the 100 year ARI flood levels and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed driveway high points provided provide a minimum of 150mm clearance above the 100 year ARI flood levels. An addendum to the flood study should be provided to address this concern.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “Reason for refusal No. 5 states that the flood study submitted with the DA did not adequately demonstrate that the proposed floor levels and driveway high points provide the required clearances above the 1:100 year flood levels.

 

Henry and Hymas Consulting Engineers have prepared a revised Flood Study, in order to address issues raised by Brown Partners, Council’s hydraulic consultants. In this regard, we enclose two (2) copies of the following documentation from Henry and Hymas:

 

·          correspondence dated 13 December 2005; and

·          Flood Report Revision 2 dated July 2005

 

These documents confirm the flood levels at the site, and confirm that the floor levels adopted in the amended proposal are at least 300mm above the 100 year flood level, and that the adopted driveway high points are at least 150mm above the 100 year flood level, as required by Council.”

 

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has investigated the submitted flood study and is satisfied with the provided levels, subject to a high point being included in the carpark driveway.

 

Reason for refusal No. 6

 

“6.    The plans do not demonstrate that the access driveways provide satisfactory ramp grades and transitions in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004).”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The driveway ramp gradients have been revised in accordance with advice from Traffix traffic consultants, as follows:

 

·          maximum gradient of 1:8 up from street boundary;

·          flat up to 6m from street boundary;

·          1:8 for min 2m;

·          1:4 for the main ramp; and

·          1:8 for a minimum of 2m at basement.”

 

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer advises that the