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

 

 

17th October, 2006

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 24TH OCTOBER, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Prayer & acknowledgement of local indigenous people

 

2           Apologies/Granting of leave of absences

 

3           Confirmation of the Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2006.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addressing of Council by Members of the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 72/2006 - USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH FOR MOLLOY SHIELD SURF CARNIVAL - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES.

2

 

6.2                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 73/2006 - WAIVING OF FEES - COOGEE SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - EXPRESS ISLAND CHALLENGE AROUND WEDDING CAKE ISLAND.

4

 

6.3                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 74/2006 - INSTALLATION OF BANNER FOR RAINBOW STREET PUBLIC SCHOOL - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES.

6

 

 

7           Urgent Business


 

8           Director City Planning Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 92/2006 –

5 MCDOUGALL STREET, KENSINGTON

8

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 93/2006 –

138 COOGEE BAY ROAD, COOGEE.

33

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 94/2006 –

68 - 76 WENTWORTH STREET, RANDWICK.

58

 

8.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 95/2006 –

15 PEARCE STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.

76

 

8.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 96/2006 –

35 - 37 ST PAULS STREET, RANDWICK.

114

 

8.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 97/2006 –

707 - 745 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA.

156

 

8.7                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 98/2006 –

707-745 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA.

175

 

 

9           General Manager's Reports

 

9.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 35/2006 - DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST RETURNS.

193

 

9.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 36/2006 - PREMIER'S CRIME PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP.

195

 

9.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 37/2006 - 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF RANDWICK MUNICIPALITY 2009.

199

 

9.4                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 38/2006 - APPLICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTARY POLICING IN THE COOGEE BASIN.

204

 

9.5                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 39/2006 - TAKING THE NEXT STEP IN UNDERSTANDING, APPLYING & REPORTING ON RANDWICK'S ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS OF THE EASTERN SUBURBS & ADJACENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS.

208

 

9.6                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 40/2006 - PROCESS FOR MID-TERM REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF RANDWICK'S SUSTAINING OUR CITY INITIATIVE.

212

 

9.7                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 41/2006 - RANDWICK'S SUSTAINING OUR CITY COMMUNITY & SCHOOLS EDUCATION INITIATIVES.

215

 

9.8                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 42/2006 - 2007-2008 OCEAN THUNDER SURF BOAT SERIES.

218

 

 

10         Director City Services' Report

 

10.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 75/2006 - CITY OF RANDWICK SIGNAGE STRATEGY - "CITY GATEWAY SIGNAGE".

220

 

 

11         Director Governance & Financial Services' Report

 

11.1                        

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 67/2006 - DETERMINATION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL - 2006/2007 FEES FOR COUNCILLORS AND MAYOR.

224

 

 

12         Petitions

 

13         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

13.1

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Nash, Procopiadis & Andrews – Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting – 10th October, 2006 – Item 6.7 – Development Application Report – 96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick. 

226

13.2

Motion By Councillor Nash – Construction of Footpaths in the Randwick City Area.

226

13.3

Motion By Councillor Matson – Extension of Coogee Resident Preferred Parking Scheme. 

226

13.4

Motion By Councillor Matson – Pending Closure of EcoLiving Permaculture Garden

227

13.5

Motion By Councillor Matson – Adoption of New Telecommunications and Radio Communications DCP. 

227

13.6

Motion By Councillor Matson – Protecting NSW Workers from WorkChoices Bill 2006. 

228

13.7

Motion By Councillor Matson – Consequences to Sydney of Global Peak Oil Production. 

228

 

14         Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

14.1                      

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 76/2006 - TENDER NO T13/06. COUNCIL NURSERY STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND REUSE WORKS.

229

 

14.2                      

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 77/2006 - COFFEE CART AND LOUNGES IN FOYER OF BOWEN LIBRARY -TENDER EVALUATION REPORT.

238

14.3

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 78/2006 - RECEIVAL, RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL OF DRY WASTE TENDER REPORT.

252

 

 

15         Notices of Rescission Motions

 

 

………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 72/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH FOR MOLLOY SHIELD SURF CARNIVAL - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES.

 

 

DATE:

5 October, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/08302

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application has been received from Darryl Bleasdale, Hon Secretary, Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club seeking Council’s assistance in the waiving of fees for the Molloy Shield which is to be held at Maroubra Beach on Sunday, 19 November, 2006, from 12noon to 3.00pm.

 

The four Surf Clubs within the City, Clovelly, Coogee, Maroubra and South Maroubra will be attending and participating in the activities.  The Carnival includes beach events (sprint and flag races) and water events (swim and board races).

 

ISSUES:

 

The annual non-profit community beach event gathers the local community and visitors to the beach and its surrounds and draws many competitors to enjoy the day. It is considered that the event is very worthwhile and well received within the community in previous years.

 

Listed below are associated fees:-

 

Application Fee                                                $132.00

Beach Hire                                                         408.45

One lifeguard    x 4hours                                     339.92

TOTAL:                                                          $880.37

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $880.37 and currently there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2006/2007 to cover these contributions.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

On previous occasions Randwick Council has provided considerable support for this surfing activity and it is considered that Council’s assistance be given again this year by  waiving the associated fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1)      Council vote $880.37 to cover the fees associated with the Molloy Shield to be held at Maroubra Beach on 19 November, 2006, from 12noon to 3.00pm and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2006/2007;

 

2)      The event organiser undertakes to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event; and

 

3)      The Mayor or his representative shall be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PAUL TRACEY

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 73/2006

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - COOGEE SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - EXPRESS ISLAND CHALLENGE AROUND WEDDING CAKE ISLAND.

 

 

DATE:

11 October, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/08286

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Ms Heather Morris of the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club has again approached Council for assistance in waiving the fees associated with the use of Coogee Beach for its ocean swim, the Express Glass Island Challenge around Wedding Cake Island on Sunday, 26 November, 2006.

 

ISSUES:

 

The event is being organised by the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club and is designed to promote the role of surf lifesaving and surf awareness in the local community and to promote Coogee Beach and surrounding areas. It is also aimed at involving members of the general public in the events by way of competition or as spectators. 

 

Listed below are associated fees:

 

Beach Hire-Coogee Beach                               $542.71

Application Fee                                                $132.00

Extra Beach Cleaning                                        $500.00

2 Multi-Skill workers (full day)              $700.00

 

TOTAL                                                        $1,874.71

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

In the event that Council accepts the report recommendation, the direct financial implication to Council will be a contribution of $1,874.71 from Council’s 2006/07 Contingency Fund.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

On previous occasions Council has provided considerable support to this event and it is considered that Council’s assistance be given again this year by waiving the associated fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.       Council vote $1,874.71 to cover the fees associated with the Express Glass Island Challenge and funds be charged to the Contingency Fund 2006/07;

 

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

 

3.       The Mayor or his representative be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PAUL TRACEY

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 74/2006

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

INSTALLATION OF BANNER FOR RAINBOW STREET PUBLIC SCHOOL - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES.

 

 

DATE:

28 September, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06257

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A request has been received from the Secretary of the Rainbow Street Public School Parents and Friends Association, seeking the waiving of fees associated with the installation of a banner advertising the school’s car boot fund raising event planned in Term 1, 2007.

 

ISSUES:

 

Rainbow Street Public School is a small school with a student population of 240. The School’s P&C is striving to improve the school’s facilities and is fundraising to provide wireless internet access to two outer buildings, which have no access to the internet.

 

By placing a banner on the corner of Alison Road and Doncaster Avenue, the school hopes to maximise exposure to the fundraising day, adding to its success. 

 

Costing is as follows:

 

Application fee                                                                         $132.00

Installation and removal of banner @ $500.00 per week x 2 weeks.                                                                                                                                          $1,000.00

Total                                                                                                    $1,132.00

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $1,132.00 and there are currently sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2006/07 to cover this contribution.

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that Council should vote to waive the fees associated with this event and that the funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2006/07.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       the fees associated with the installation and dismantling of a banner for the Rainbow Street Public School (on the flagpole on the corner of Alison Road and Doncaster Avenue in Term 1, 2007), be waived and $1,132.00 be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2006/07;

 

b)      the wording of the banner being presented to Council for approval prior to being ordered; and

 

c)       the fundraising event organiser undertakes to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PAUL TRACEY

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 92/2006

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

5 McDougall Street, KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

9 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/543/2006 & PROP006147

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No DA/543/2006 for new first floor addition to the existing dwelling to include new sitting room, bedroom & associated amenities (Heritage Conservation Area).

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 29 September, 2006

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

PATRICK LEBON

MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

29 September, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/543/2006 & PROP006147

 

PROPOSAL:

 New first floor addition to the existing dwelling to include new sitting room, bedroom & associated amenities (Heritage Conservation Area)

PROPERTY:

 5 McDougall Street, Kensington

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Ms P M Duncan

OWNER:

 Ms P M Duncan

 

 

 

 

 

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 proposed development involves the construction of a new first floor addition to the existing single storey single dwelling house. The proposed first floor will include a new bedroom, shower room and large sitting room at the rear. The proposal will also include a new skylight visible to the street and a new timber frame window to the southern elevation of the existing ground floor. There is no proposed works to the existing fences, landscaping or car parking on the site.

 

The subject site is located within the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and the adjoining property at 7 McDougall Street is listed in schedule 3 of the Randwick LEP as a heritage item. The application was referred to Council’s heritage planner and was deemed acceptable after subsequent modifications were received.

 

One objection was received during the notification period and raised concerns regarding the potential loss of solar access and the visual bulk and scale of the development to the street and adjoining properties.

 

The proposed development satisfies the FSR, maximum external wall heights and setback preferred solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. The proposed development will increase the overshadowing to the north-facing windows of the southern neighbour however the degree of overshadowing is considered minor and generally consistent with the preferred solutions of the DCP.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development involves the construction of a new first floor addition to the existing single storey single dwelling house. The proposed first floor will include a new bedroom, shower room and large sitting room at the rear. The proposal will also include a new skylight visible to the street and a new timber frame window to the southern elevation of the existing ground floor.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of McDougall Street between No.3 and No.7 in Kensington and is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 15.24m, a side boundary depth of 45.26m and has an overall site area of 689.7 m².  Neighbouring the property to the south is a single storey dwelling, to the north is a single storey dwelling and to the rear is a single storey dwelling. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of detached residential dwellings. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

Previous applications for the site include:

 

Application number

Description

Determination

DA/1009/2005

Alterations and ground rear additions including new side car port and pergola, rear swimming pool and basement storage and wine cellar (Heritage Conservation Area)

Approved, 2 February 2006

 

B.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The development application was lodged on 5 July 2005 and notified to the surrounding properties from 17 July to 31 July 2006. The application was advertised from 16 August to 30 August 2006. One objection was received during the notification period.

 

During the assessment of the application concern was raised regarding the visual bulk and scale of the proposal and potential adverse impact that the development would have to the streetscape. Council’s heritage assessment officer liaised with the applicant’s architect and amended plans that increased the site boundary setback of a portion of the first floor were received on 7 September 2006 to the satisfaction of Council’s heritage assessment officer.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

The following objections were received during the initial notification period from:

 

Angelo Di Paola - 24 Hayward Street Kingsford (Owner of 7 McDougall Street, Kensington)

 

·    The proposed development blocks solar access to north facing windows which currently receive sunlight at 12pm.

 

Comment – The proposed development will increase overshadowing to the north-facing windows. The proposal will partially overshadow some north-facing windows during from 12pm to 3pm and onwards however the overshadowing is consistent with the preferred solution of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. See section 8 of this report for further discussion on solar access.

 

·    The proposed development is not sympathetic to the streetscape and character of similar properties in the neighbourhood.

 

Comment – The proposed development was amended at the request of the heritage assessment officer after concerns were raised regarding the original bulk and scale of the development. The modifications satisfactorily address the concern of visual bulk and the siting of the addition 14.2 metres from the front boundary and 1.7 metres and 2 metres from the northern and southern boundaries respectively, significantly reduce the visual dominance of the proposal. The proposal adopts similar roof form and pitch to the existing dwelling and is generally considered to be compatible with the dominant character of the neighbourhood.

 

·    Both properties (No.5 and 7 McDougall St, Kensington) are under a heritage conservation order and that the proposed development will diminish the value of his property and the dwelling at 5 McDougall.

 

Comment – Schedule 3 of the Randwick LEP lists 7 McDougall Street, Kensington and not 5 McDougall Street as a heritage item. However the applicant has provided a heritage impact statement and the development has been referred to Council’s heritage assessment officer for comment. As such clause 43 of the LEP has been addressed by the assessment of this application.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

6.1   Heritage Assessment Officer

 

As the subject site is located within the West Kensington Conservation Area the proposed development was referred to Council’s heritage assessment officer for comment. The following comments were received:

 

The subject site is within the West Kensington Conservation Area and is occupied by a single storey Federation style villa which retains much of its original form, and Arts and Crafts-influenced detailing.  To the south east of the site is no.7 McDougall Street, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998. 

 

In February 2006 a development application (DA/1009/2005) was approved for alterations and additions to the side and rear of the dwelling at ground floor level, including rebuilding and extending the existing rear skillion.  The current application proposes an upper level addition comprising bedroom, bathroom and a 50m2 sitting room.  The application w as been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Peter Banfield. 

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the bulk of the proposed addition in relation to the original fabric of the dwelling and the prominence of the proposed gable to the front elevation of the upper level.  A meeting was held to discuss these issues and amended plans have now been received.  As compared to the original proposal, the current proposal steps in the side wall of the upper level bedroom, breaking the wall plane of the side elevation and reducing the size of the front gable. 

 

It is considered that the proposed stepping in of the side wall of the upper level will further break down its bulk and reduce its dominance.  It is considered that the resulting reduction in size of the proposed front gable will reduce the apparent height of the upper level and reduce its prominence.  The current proposal is consistent with the guidelines in Council’s Draft DCP for the West Kensington Conservation Area. 

 

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

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

 

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A (Residential A Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

Clause 43 - Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

 

The subject site is located within the West Kensington Heritage Conservation area and adjacent to 7 McDougall Street which is listed as a heritage significant item under schedule 3 of the Randwick LEP 1998 as amended. The proposed development was referred to Council’s heritage assessment officer for comment and amended plans were requested that addressed the visual bulk to the streetscape and the amenity impact to the adjoining neighbour.

 

The amended plans generally improved the visual bulk and scale of the proposal and it is considered the design is sympathetic to the conservation area and the adjoining heritage item. Council’s heritage assessment officer was satisfied that the amended plans addressed the heritage issues of the surrounding area.

 

Draft West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area DCP

 

The subject site is located within the heritage conservation area defined in the draft DCP. Therefore the principles contained within the DCP including scale and proportion, form and massing and setbacks and siting are applicable to this development. Assessment has also been undertaken in relation to the second level additions performance requirements contained in the DCP.

 

An assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the DCP is contained in section 8 of this report.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1   Draft West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area DCP

 

Streetscape Principles

 

The streetscape principles contained within the DCP relate to the scale and proportion, form and massing and setbacks and siting of proposed developments. The issues of scale, proportion, form and massing have been generally addressed though the assessment of the development against the performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP in section 8.2 of this report.

 

As such the performance requirements relevant performance requirements relating to second level additions has been included below.

 

Second Level Additions

 

Performance Requirement

Assessment

S1

The existing building on the land has no particular significance and the height and scale of the proposal is modest and compatible with the neighbouring single level development.

The subject dwelling has some contribution to the significance of the streetscape, however is not listed as a heritage significant item in schedule 3 of the Randwick LEP.

The proposed scale and height is compatible with the surrounding development is not considered excessive. Complies.

S2

Roof space is converted to provide accommodation without intruding upon the street presentation of an otherwise reasonably intact building.

The proposed form and scale of the first floor addition is compatible with the surrounding area and will not adversely impact the presentation of the dwelling to the street. Complies.

S3

The second level is confined to the rear, either out of site or setback far enough to appear as a separate structure.

The proposed second level to the existing dwelling is located to the rear of the dwelling and has a front boundary setback of 14.2 metres.

The proposal will retain a significant portion of the roof of the front of the dwelling and will significantly maintain the character of the existing dwelling. It is unnecessary for the proposal to appear as a separate structure as the design integrates satisfactorily with the existing dwelling. Complies.

 

8.2   Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy Development Control Plan

 

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

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed FSR is 0.5:1. Complies.

 

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

The proposed development will increase the gross floor area of the site by 97.3sqm however the total FSR for the site will remain consistent with the maximum FSR allowed under the provisions of the DCP. Although the preferred solution has been satisfied it is pertinent to consider the visual impact of the addition will have to the adjoining property and to the streetscape.

The proposed first floor addition will increase the height and visual bulk of the dwelling. The proposal will increase the height of the dwelling however it is considered that the addition is located a significant distance from the front boundary and will not be a dominant visual element to the streetscape. The proposal being set back from the front of the dwelling allows a significant portion of the existing roof to be preserved and thus maintain the existing character of the dwelling to the street. The character of the dwelling will maintain the integrity of the heritage conservation area and will not detract from the streetscape.

The proposed first floor addition will have a southern side boundary setback of 1.7 metres and a northern side boundary setback of 3 metres. To further improve the presentation of the dwelling to the streetscape, an amended design was requested that increased the southern side boundary setback for the front portion of the dwelling. The siting of the addition and the proposed setbacks are considered to ameliorate any adverse visual bulk impacts the addition may have to the adjoining properties. The proposed bulk will be consistent with the visual rhythm of the street and is not considered excessively bulky.

Generally the addition will maintain the character of the existing dwelling and will not have an excessive visual bulk that will detract from the surrounding residential area or the amenity of the adjoining properties.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 6.8 metres. Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable.

S4

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

The entire southern elevation of the proposed dwelling is 20.8 metres from the southern side boundary at first floor level. Complies.

S5

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

Not applicable.

 

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

 

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

The proposed development will enhance the existing desirable built form by siting the first floor addition to the rear of the dwelling and integrating the design with the existing dwelling. The proposal adopts a similar roof pitch and form to the existing dwelling and is considered to add articulation to the front façade of the dwelling. The proposal will not maintain a height that is sympathetic to the existing dwelling and scale and height of the adjacent dwellings.

The location and positioning of windows of the proposal are generally consistent with the existing dwelling and will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling to the street. The proposed materials and finishes will match the existing dwelling and a condition of consent has been included that requires the applicant to provide a sample of the external finishes prior to a construction certificate being issued.

It is considered the proposal integrates successfully with the existing dwelling and will have a height and form that maintains the existing character of the dwelling. The proposed development is consistent with both the preferred solution and performance requirements relating to height and form and is considered a reasonable addition to the site.

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed first floor addition is set back 14.2 metres from the front boundary and will not alter the existing front setback of the dwelling. Complies.

S2

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

The proposed dwelling is 20.8 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

Not applicable.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 1.7 metres from the side boundaries. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

 

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

The proposed development satisfies the numerical preferred solutions of the DCP and is considered to have a siting that is sympathetic to the streetscape. The proposed front boundary setback of 14.2 metres will ensure that the proposal does not become a dominant or obtrusive element and will maintain the character of the existing dwelling. The significant front boundary setback will also facilitate the preservation of the front portion of the existing roof and thus maintain the presentation of the dwelling to the street.

Due to the driveway and car parking spaces on the north-western side of the site, the proposed western side boundary setback will be 3 metres. This side boundary setback is substantial and the proposed addition will not adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining northern neighbour.

The southern side boundary setback of 1.7 metres exceeds the requirements of the preferred solution by 200mm. The proposal generally conforms to the dominant side boundary setbacks of the street and will be consistent with the existing side boundary setbacks for the site. While the proposal will restrict some solar access for the southern neighbour, it is considered such impacts are consistent with the preferred solutions of the DCP and any further increases to the proposed first floor side boundary setbacks are considered unreasonable.

The proposal is compatible with the existing dwelling and will conform with the character of the adjoining developments and to the streetscape. As such the building setbacks are considered acceptable.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposal does not have any habitable room windows that overlook those of adjoining dwellings within 9 metres. Complies.

S1

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

The ground floor and first floor rear decks will overlook the rear yard areas of the adjoining properties. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

The proposal includes 9 new windows to the first floor level. East and west facing windows are either entirely obscure glazed, have obscure glass below 1.5m or have minimum sill heights at 1.5m. Complies.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

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

 

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

The proposed development will involve the creation of 9 new windows to the first floor and a new window to the southern elevation on the ground floor. The positioning of the windows is considered reasonable for a residential development of this scale and is unlikely to significantly affect the visual privacy of the adjoining dwellings. Windows to the northern and southern elevation that will overlook the adjoining properties have either minimum sill heights of 1.5 metres, obscure glazing to a height of 1.5 metres above floor level or are entirely obscured as is the case with the east facing first floor window located near the stair case. The modification to the ground floor window will have negligible impact to the visual and acoustic privacy of the adjoining southern neighbour and is likely to be completely screened by the existing boundary fence.

It is considered the acoustic privacy of the adjoining neighbours will be preserved as the additions to the first floor are primarily living rooms and do not contain entertainment areas access to balconies or external private spaces. As the proposed development involves only internal additions the acoustic privacy of adjoining neighbours is considered to be maintained.

Generally the positioning of the windows to the proposed first floor will not adversely impact the visual or acoustic privacy of the adjoining properties.

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

No change from the existing development. Not applicable.

S1,3

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

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

S2

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

Not applicable.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

 

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

 

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

 

In terms of Performance Requirements, as a general guide new dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies must demonstrate that they have been designed to achieve energy efficiency; achieve a NatHERS, rating of 3.5 stars; and buildings are orientated and internally configured to take advantage of and maximise solar access.

 

Due to the subject site and adjacent lots in the street being orientated east to west a significant portion of the shadows generated by the development will be cast to the adjoining southern property at 7 McDougall Street. The greatest overshadowing impact to 7 McDougall Street will be at 12 noon when 5 of the 7 north facing windows will be overshadowed and 3pm when 3 of the north facing windows will be overshadowed. The development satisfies the preferred solution of the DCP by providing greater than 3 hours of sunlight to north-facing windows to living rooms of neighbouring dwellings.

 

The degree of overshadowing is reasonable considering the height, FSR and side boundary setbacks of the development remain consistent or exceed the preferred solutions of the DCP and that the orientation of adjoining lots invariably increases the degree of overshadowing.

 

As such the additional overshadowing created by the proposed development is acceptable.

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.       RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

 

Direction: 4a. Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposed additions will adopt a massing and visual bulk compatible with the existing dwelling and will not become a prominent visual element to the streetscape.

 

The proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of adjacent neighbours and will not result in substantial overshadowing or overlooking into the living areas of surrounding properties. It is considered the proposal will maintain the dominant character of the surrounding area and will not adversely impact the heritage significance of the West Kensington conservation area.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 543/2006 for a new first floor addition to the existing dwelling to include a new sitting room, bedroom and associated amenities at 5 McDougall Street, Kensington subject to the following conditions:-

 

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

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered Dwg. No.39/06, dated 5 September 2006 and received by Council on 7 September 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

3.         There must be no encroachment of the structure/s onto any adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless permission has been obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land accordingly.

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain the heritage significance and amenity of the premises and locality:

 

5.         Details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, 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.

 

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

 

6.         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.

 

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

 

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

 

8.         New hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

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

 

9.         Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11.       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.

 

12.       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.

 

13.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

                                                  

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

 

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

 

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

 

15.       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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

17.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

19.       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.

 

20.       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 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

22.       The demolition, removal, storage, handling and disposal of building products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Conservation (formerly the Environment Protection Authority) and Randwick City Council policies and conditions, including:

 

·        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

·        WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·        Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·        The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

·        Relevant Department of Environment & Conservation (DEC) / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

·        Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

23.       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.

 

24.       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.

 

25.       Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all building, demolition and associated site works (including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

In addition, the use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers or the like, is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum) on Monday to Friday only, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

26.       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.

           

27.       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.

 

28.       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.

 

Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of public health, amenity and safety:

 

34.       The demolition, removal, storage, handling and disposal of products and materials containing asbestos must be carried out in accordance with Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy and the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW and the NSW Department of Environment & Conservation (formerly the Environment Protection Authority), including:

 

·       Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·       Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·       Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

·       WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·       Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·       The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

·       Relevant Department of Environment & Conservation (DEC) / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

35.       A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

 

The Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

·       The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·       Details of hazardous materials, including asbestos

·       Method/s of demolition and removal of asbestos

·       Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·       Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne asbestos and dust

·       Methods and location of disposal of any asbestos or other hazardous materials

·       Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented as identified in the Asbestos Survey

·       Date the demolition and removal of asbestos will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) if the Council is not the PCA, not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition works involving asbestos products or materials.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Note it is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

36.       A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 200 m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation). Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.

 

37.       On demolition sites involving the removal of asbestos, a  professionally manufactured sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS” and include details of the licensed contractor. The sign shall measure not less than 400mm x 300mm and the sign is to be installed prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos has been safely removed from the site.

 

38.       Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

 

Asbestos waste must be disposed of at an approved waste disposal depot (refer to the DEC or Waste Service NSW for details of sites). Copies of all receipts detailing method and location of disposal must be maintained on site and be provided to Council officers upon request, as evidence of correct disposal.

 

39.       A Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (ie an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council upon completion of the works (prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued), which confirms that the relevant requirements contained in the Asbestos Survey and conditions of consent, in relation to the safe removal and disposal of asbestos, have been satisfied.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate security provisions are made for vehicular access, parking and public infrastructure:

 

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

 

41.       A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council's City Services Department prior to opening-up or carrying out any proposed works within the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place and all works including repairs are to be carried out to Council's satisfaction.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1       Building or excavations works must not be commenced until a construction certificate has been obtained from Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier and either Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) for this development.

 

Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate and appoint a PCA before commencing works is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

A2       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the construction certificate must not be inconsistent with the development consent.

 

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

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

PATRICK LEBON

MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

DEVELOPMENT ASSESMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 93/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

138 Coogee Bay Road, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

12 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/675/2006 & PROP005444

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No DA/675/2006 for alterations to three existing dwelling units including internal reconfiguration, new windows and door openings to the rear elevations and minor extensions to the landing on the top and middle levels.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 3 October 2006.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SARAH HUDSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

3 October 2006

FILE NO:

DA/675/2006 & PROP005444

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations to three existing dwelling units including internal reconfiguration, new windows and door openings to the rear elevations and minor extensions to the landing on the top and middle levels.

PROPERTY:

 138 Coogee Bay Road, COOGEE

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Georgia Coudounaris

OWNER:

 Georgia Coudounaris

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The subject development application (DA/675/2006) proposes minor internal alterations, new window and door opening on the rear façade and minor extensions to the existing landings at the rear of the building.

 

The main issues relate to visual and acoustic privacy and the concern by surrounding residents that the building is being used illegally for backpacker accommodation.  In 2005 Council’s Compliance officer investigated whether 138 Coogee Bay Road was illegally operating as an unauthorised backpackers and came to the conclusion that it was not operating as a backpackers, but as unauthorised ‘shared accommodation’.  A ‘Notice of Intention to Serve an Order’ was issued to the subject premises in August 2005.  The matter has since been resolved to the satisfaction of Council and is not relevant to the assessment of this development application.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to construct minor alterations at the rear of the existing three storey flat building including:

·    reconfiguring the kitchens;

·    two new louvred and obscured glass window openings (400mm wide x 1350mm high) on the rear elevation off the lower and middle level kitchens;

·    a new door opening on the rear elevation of the top level kitchen;

·    a minor extension (2400 x 900mm = 2.16m2) to the top floor landing and roof; and

·    an extension (5.5m2) to the middle floor landing to link the side walkway with the external rear staircase.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the north-eastern corner of Coogee Bay Road and Powell Street in Coogee and is presently occupied by an existing three storey residential flat building which accommodates six two-bedroom dwellings.  The site has a frontage width of 11.48m, a side boundary depth of 28.4m and has an overall site area of approximately 313m².  The subject site drops steeply, approximately 8m, from Coogee Bay Road to the rear boundary so that the three storey building appears to be only one storey at Coogee Bar Road.  Neighbouring the property to the east is a part one – part three storey mixed use development, to the west is vacant land which is an unfinished portion of Powell Street and to the rear is a two storey dwelling house.  There is a pedestrian walkway from Coogee Bay Road to Powell Street adjacent to the western boundary of the subject site.  The surrounding area is residential to the north and there is a mixture of residential and business premises the vicinity along Coogee Bay Road.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

DA/41/1994

Conversion from residential flat building to boarding house.

Refused

22/03/94

DA/93/1999

Alterations and additions to existing premises and change the use to a boarding house.

Refused

12/07/00

DA/119/2005

Alterations to Unit 6 and change to a 2 bedroom unit including internal reconfiguration and use of additional area under and within the existing building envelope and new window openings and doorway.

Approved

24/03/05

DA/744/2005

Alterations to Units 1 and 3 including minor internal reconfiguration that relocated the kitchen and altering the windows.

Approved

10/11/2005

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

The following neighbouring residents objected to the proposal:

 

1.   Tollasepp – 24 Powell Street

2.   A. Kilpatrick – 11 Powell Street

3.   Shane Bultin – 8/136 Coogee Bay Road

4.   Judith Burke – 7/136 Coogee Bay Road

5.   Paul Fraser & Georgina Waite – 17 Powell Street

6.   Caren Wun & Ian Gibson – 13 Powell Street

7.   Maurice Brett – 2/24 Powell Street

8.   Irene Craig – 15 Powell Street

9.   Stephanie Burke – 22 Powell Street

10. Rob Banks – 23 Powell Street

11. Ms Dagmar Shah – 9 Powell Street

12. Louis Street – 9/136 Coogee Bay Road

13. Melissa Dryden & David Eldridge – 25 Powell Street

14. Dona H. Smith – 2/140 Coogee Bay Road

15. Christine & Richard Champion – 7 Powell Street

16. Steve Shoobert – 19 Powell Street

 

The points of objection related to:

 

·    Alleged unauthorised use of the premises as backpacker accommodation;

·    Noise;

·    Loss of Privacy;

·    Littering;

·    Building work is occurring, which it is alleged is unauthorised;

·    The resulting internal configuration suits backpacker accommodation as the rear door leads into the kitchen; and,

·    Loss of on-street parking.

 

These points of objection are considered below.

 

Issue

Comment

Alleged unauthorised use of the premises as backpacker accommodation

 

In 2005 Council’s Compliance Team investigated the use of 138 Coogee Bay Road and came to the conclusion that it was not operating as a backpackers, but as unauthorised shared accommodation.  A ‘Notice of Intention to Serve an Order’ was issued to the subject premises in August 2005.  This matter has since been resolved to the satisfaction of Council and is not relevant to the assessment of this development application.

Noise generation

 

Windows: The proposal includes two small (400mm wide x 1350mm high) louvred windows off the lower and middle levels on the rear elevation.  The proposed windows will provide light and ventilation to the adjacent kitchens.  There is no evidence to suggest that the noise generated from the subject kitchens would be excessive.

Top level landing extension: It is proposed to extend the landing on the upper floor by 2.16m² by ‘infilling’ part of the external rear stairwell.  The purpose of the small and narrow (900mm deep) landing is to provide access from the rear top level unit to the year yard through the new kitchen as the existing door would be through a bedroom in the proposed reconfigured apartment.  The landings will increase the amenity for the unit occupants by allowing direct access to the rear yard and increase light and ventilation to the unit.  Due to the small size of the landing there is no evidence that it would result in an excessive level of noise.

Middle level landing extension: It is also proposed to extend the middle floor landing so that the walkway on the western side of the building and the external stairwell on the rear elevation meet.  The extension will increase the landing by 5.5m².  The landing will increase the amenity for the building occupants by creating direct access to the front top and middle floor units to the rear yard.  Due to the moderate size of the landing it is considered unlikely that the moderate extension will result in an excessive level of noise generation.

Loss of Privacy – objections on the basis of privacy loss were received from two properties.  For the purpose of clarity the impact on privacy has been assessed separately for each property.

 

25 Powell Street: The private open space of 25 Powell Street is located in the north eastern corner of the property on the far side of the dwelling, as viewed from 138 Coogee Bay Road.  The private open space is approximately 20m from the proposed landing extension, and as illustrated in Figure 1, is barely visible over the roof of 25 Powell Street from the proposed landing.

2/140 Coogee Bay Road:  The entire private open space of 140 Coogee Bay Road is currently visible from the top landing of 138 Coogee Bay Road.  It is proposed to extend the landing to the west of the existing landing and therefore the ‘view’, from the landing to the private open space at 140 Coogee Bay Road, will not change.  Figure 2 shows the ‘view’ from 138 Coogee Bay Road to 140 Coogee Bay Road.  Although the ‘view’ into 140 Coogee Bay Road will not be altered by the proposal it is considered that a 1.8m high privacy screen along the length of the eastern elevation of the balcony is a simple way to improve the privacy of 140 Coogee Bay Road.

 

Littering

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed middle level landing extension, which is the area of concern as it is adjacent to Council land, will promote littering.

Building work is occurring, which it is alleged are unauthorised.

 

As described in Section 4a above, the subject premises has two current development applications (DA/119/2005 & DA/767/2005) as well as fire upgrading works which were required to be done.  Construction Certificates have been issued for both of the DAs (in December 2005 & April 2006) and as such works could have commenced as early as December 2005.  Council has no records of this matter being reported and may have been dealt with or by the accredited certifier.

The resulting internal configuration suits backpacker accommodation as the proposed door allows access for all the tenants through the common kitchen to the proposed landing.

 

The unit in question (that is the only unit with pedestrian access to a landing through the kitchen) is the rear unit on the top floor.  The internal configurations of all the other five dwellings have been proposed to be altered in the same manner as this unit both in this DA and previous DAs.  The applicant has verbally advised Council officers that the old kitchen is being turned into a bedroom so that the bedroom occupant can access the water views that are available from that room.   The theory that this reconfiguration will facilitate the illegal operation of a hostel is considered unfounded, given that the floor plans have been designated specific uses consistent with that of a multi-unit housing dwelling.

Loss of on-street parking

 

The proposal does not intensify the use of the site and therefore will not reduce the amount of on-street parking.

 

A brief submission was also received by Christine Kochowiec from Altona North, Victoria (owner of 1/136 Coogee Bay Road), who stated that she did not have an objection to the proposal so long as construction noise was not excessive (before 7am) and there was no loss of sunlight for the neighbourhood.  It is likely that any approval would include the standard hours of construction which are 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday, 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and no construction on Sundays.

 

5.2  Support

 

No submissions of support were received, however, the applicant has viewed the objection letters through a Section 12 application.  Xen Coundounaris, who occupies the subject premises, has provided Council with the following response to the points of objection on behalf of the applicant:

 

Comments from Applicant

Assessing Officers Comments

General: The applicant is concerned, that after meeting with several objectors, that none had viewed the plans and was basing their objections on one neighbour’s interpretation and objections.  It is alleged some neighbours had been approached to sign a letter written on their behalf.  The existence of one objector, Donald Smith, could not be verified.

Notwithstanding the allegations, all objections have been thoroughly assessed as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Alleged unauthorised use: The premises has never been used as a backpackers or as short term accommodation, although the flats were sublet as boarding rooms (eg to UNSW), and rental leases were provided to Council in 2005 to verify this.

This matter has since been resolved to the satisfaction of Council and is not relevant to the assessment of this development application.

Privacy: Every attempt has been made to limit privacy impacts, for instance through the provision of obscure glazing on the new windows.

Potential privacy impacts from the altered stairs, which have been altered to provide access to the rear yard, are considered negligible.  The access ways have basic widths and cannot accommodate BBQ’s or be used for entertainment purposes.

The complaint by 25 Powell Street that the minor landing extension will invade their privacy is an overstatement.

It is considered that the proposal will not reduce the privacy currently enjoyed by 25 Powell Street.   It is considered that privacy to 140 Coogee Bay Road can be improved through the provision of a 1.8m high privacy screen along the eastern elevation of the top floor landing.

Noise: The issue of noise is doubly a burden for our building as we are subject to the noise of revellers on Coogee Bay Rd and down the Council stairs as well as people congregating around the phone late at night and it is also assumed that the noise is coming from our building.

I (Xen Coudounaris) have lived in one of the rear dwellings of property for 12 years and do not entertain, have BBQ’s or drink and have always strictly enforced low noise levels.

Noted.

Internal configuration/Noise: The “balconies” are landings, which are sought to provide access for the remaining units to the backyard without having to leave the property and re-enter.

 

Noted.

Noise: The adjacent set of public stairs is used extensively, day and night, and gives rise to excessive noise levels, especially for us.  Regularly people have sat drinking under the stair, dumping rubbish and throwing glass bottles both into the park as well as our property. It’s a regular occurrence for people to throw a shopping trolley down the stairs in the middle of the night.

 

Noted.

Noise: Some letters of objection stated recent noise problems yet, apart from the landlord, there have been no tenants living at the property since the beginning of 2006 and only 2 units were leased in the last 24 months.

 

Noted.

Alleged unauthorised building works: In reference to the ‘clouds of white dust’, by 25 Powell Street, the objectors are well aware this was a result of brick cutting in relation to the approved works as the objectors contacted the Certifiers who stopped work.  Given this, it seems unusual that 25 Powell made reference that the works were ‘obviously without Council consent’.

 

Noted.

Rubbish: As the park is the primary outlook for all of the units we have endeavoured to keep this park clean and tidy for lengthy periods over the last 35 years. Tenants have very rarely littered in the park.  We have always made available our own bins for those who spend time cleaning the park.

Noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

       The application was referred to Council’s Regulatory Building Team.  The following comments were received:

 

BCA Building Classification

Class        -           2          (Residential units)

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

§ Rise in storeys of three

§ Masonry walls, tiled roof and timber floors

§ Two (2) exits ,one of masonry construction and one of metal construction

§ Five (5) SOU’s, two (2) each on the top two levels and one on the lowest level

§ External balconies

§ Side boundary building setbacks of 970mm and 1420mm to the eastern and western side boundaries respectively.

 

Background

The existing building on site is a post war three storey brick residential flat 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):

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 specific conditions being included in any development consent.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The following clauses of LEP 1998 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Clause 11 – Objectives of the Residential 2B Zone

 

The site is zoned Residential 2B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character and environmental qualities of the locality whilst also significantly increasing the amenity of the existing dwellings.

 

Clause 33 – Building Heights

 

Clause 33 of LEP 1998 imposes a maximum overall building height of 9.5 metres and a maximum external wall height of 7 metres for buildings on land zoned 2B.  The proposed covered landing has a maximum overall height of 10.85 metres and, therefore, does not comply.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

The proposal does seek to vary a development standard contained with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 Objection to the floor space ratio control.

SEPP 1 Objection – Height (Clause 33)

A SEPP 1 Objection was received by Council on the 11th of October 2006.  The objection seeks to vary the development standard for the maximum height, as prescribed by Clause 33 of Randwick LEP 1998.  The development standard is 9.5 metres, but the proposed height of the roof over the landing extension is 10.85 metres.  The existing maximum height of the existing building, which is not proposed to be changed, is 14 metres.

The grounds for the SEPP 1 objection that were put forward are that:

1.   The existing building is currently non-compliant and the application does not propose to modify the existing building height.

2.   The proposal only seeks a minor extension to the landings of an existing set of external stairs and these stair additions remain open in design to match the existing stairs.

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

The FSR control in question is a development standard contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The stated object/purpose of the standard, as outlined in Randwick LEP 1998, is:

 

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

 

In relation to the purpose of Clause 33 it is considered:

 

a)   the proposal is in keeping with the character of the existing building;

b)  the proposal will not compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential development in that there will not be any significant adverse or unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining residences with respect to loss of visual or acoustic privacy and overshadowing; and,

c)   strict compliance with the LEP controls in Clause 33 of the LEP will not alter the maximum height of the existing development.

 

As such the proposal is consistent with the underlying objectives of the relevant standard.  Compliance with the development standard is considered unnecessary given the circumstances of the case, as the existing maximum height of the existing building, which is not proposed to be changed, is 14 metres and the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality.

 

Therefore it is recommended that Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988, relating to height, 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.

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 (Draft SEPP 2004)

 

The Draft SEPP 2004 (Application of Development Standards) seeks to replace the provisions of SEPP 1 and has been publicly exhibited (concluding on 18th June 2004). The new SEPP will introduce new provisions for assessing whether flexibility of a planning standard are acceptable or not.

 

The additional tests include whether the proposal will result in a better environmental outcome that a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the controls. Notwithstanding, that the SEPP is a draft document includes savings provisions that any development application made and not determined when the draft SEPP is gazetted is to be assessed against the existing provisions of SEPP No.1.

 

Further, legal advice provided to Council considers that the draft SEPP should not be given any significant weight, as its final form is neither imminent not certain and would not apply given that is contains a provision saving the subject application. As such, further consideration of the Draft SEPP is therefore not required.  Notwithstanding, the proposal results in a better environmental outcome as it will improve access to the rear yard area.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

a.    Development Control Plan – 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. Therefore, the tables below assess the proposal against the Preferred Solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements.

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Height

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

 

It is not proposed to alter the existing walls.

Not applicable.

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

 

 

The proposal will have no adverse amenity impacts on the streetscape of the adjoining properties. 

Complies.


 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Building Setbacks

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

The proposed landing extension on the middle level is proposed to be located 180mm off the western side boundary.  The landing, which is open style with a 1m high balustrade, continues the side setback of the rest of the semi-enclosed landing along the western elevation.  The proposed landing complies with the relevant Performance Requirements as it will not affect solar access and will improve the streetscape amenity, as viewed from Powell Street, as it will break up the visual bulk of the building.

Complies.

 

P4  General

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

 

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

The proposed roof over the top floor landing extension will have no adverse impacts on the adjoining properties.

Complies.


 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

The only private open space for the dwellings is a small area to the rear of the dwelling.  Currently, this area is not readily accessible to the middle and top floor units at the front of the dwelling and will not be readily accessible after the internal reconfiguration of the top rear unit.  The landing extensions will provide all units with improved access to the rear yard.

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.

As stated above, the existing layout does not provide direct access to the only private open space at the rear, but the proposed landing extensions will remedy this.

Complies.

 


 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

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.

Windows: The proposed windows will not compromise privacy as they are proposed to be constructed of obscured glazed glass.

Top floor landing: The private open space of 25 Powell Street is located in the north eastern corner of the property on the far side of the dwelling, as viewed from 138 Coogee Bay Road

 

 

 The private open space is approximately 20m from the proposed landing extension, and as illustrated in Figure 1 above, is barely visible over the roof of 25 Powell Street from the proposed landing.

Although the ‘view’ into 140 Coogee Bay Road will not be altered by the proposal it is considered that a 1.8m high privacy screen along the length of the eastern elevation of the balcony is a simple way to improve the privacy of 140 Coogee Bay Road.

Complies.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

The extended landings, due to their limited size and function as access ways, are not considered to facilitate noise generating activities.

Complies.

 


 

9.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4 – Excellence in Urban Design and Development.

 

Direction 4a  – Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

10.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Multi-unit Housing and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.  It is considered that, given the minor nature of the development, it will not compromise visual or acoustic privacy and, as such, is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988, relating to height, 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

 

B.       THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 675/2006 for alterations to three existing dwelling units including internal reconfiguration, new windows and door openings to the rear elevation and minor extensions to the landings on the top and middle levels at 138 Coogee Bay Road, COOGEE NSW 2034 subject to the following conditions:-

 

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

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered HK 0405/11/C, dated August 2006 and received by Council on the 18th of August 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         A 1.8m high privacy screen shall be provided along the eastern edge of the upper floor landing.  Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

3.         The subject premises shall only be used for the purpose of ‘multi-unit housing’, as defined by Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

5.         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.

 

6.         There must be no encroachment of the structure/s onto any adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless permission has been obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land accordingly.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

9.         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.

 

10.       Prior to the commencement of any building works (including necessary upgrading works specified in the conditions of this consent), a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

12.       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.

 

13.       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”.

 

14.       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.

 

15.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

          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 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

19.       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 issuing an occupation certificate 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:

 

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

 

21.       Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all building, demolition and associated site works (including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and (except as detailed below) between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays.

 

All building, demolition and associated site works are strictly prohibited on Sundays, Public Holidays and also on Saturdays adjacent to a Public Holiday.

 

In addition, the use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers or the like is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum) on Monday to Friday only, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

22.       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.

 

23.       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.

 

24.       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.

 

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.

 

25.       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 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.

 

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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1       Building or excavations works must not be commenced until a construction certificate has been obtained from Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier and either Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) for this development.

 

Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate and appoint a PCA before commencing works is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

A2       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the construction certificate must not be inconsistent with the development consent.

 

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

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

A3       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)       Clause D2.16             -       Balustrades and handrails

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SARAH HUDSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 94/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

68 - 76 Wentworth Street, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

12 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/125/2003/E & PROP007843

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No DA/125/2003/E for Section 96 modification of approved development in Block A: including reconfiguration of internal spaces, relocation of internal courtyard to attic level for increased living spaces and changes to roof structure. Block B: alteration of external walls to provide for more internal space including, deletion of balconies facing Tramway Lane and a level 3 cantilevered balcony.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 12 September 2006.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER  

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

12 September, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/125/2003/E & PROP007843

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification of approved development in Block A: including reconfiguration of internal spaces, relocation of internal courtyard to attic level for increased living spaces and changes to roof structure. Block B: alteration of external walls to provide for more internal space including, deletion of balconies facing Tramway Lane and a level 3 cantilevered balcony.

PROPERTY:

 68-76 Wentworth Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Pindari Centennial Park Developments Pty Ltd

OWNER:

 Pindari Centennial Park Developments Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The section 96 application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

The proposed development is seeking consent to make modifications to the current approval including an internal reconfiguration of the apartments in Block A and B, minor changes to the footprint of Block A and B, relocation of internal ground floor courtyard to the attic level, the deletion of balconies from the Tramway Lane elevation of Block B and a cantilevered balcony to level 3 of Bock B.

 

The development application was notified from 16 August to 30 August 2006 and was also advertised in the Southern Courier newspaper. One objection was received during the notification period and raised concerns regarding potential floor area increases, increased overshadowing as a result of changes to the eastern edge of the cantilevered attic roof and the relocation of ground floor internal courtyards to the attic level of Building A.

 

Generally the modifications to the original development are primarily internal and will not be noticeable from the streets surrounding the subject site. The changes in floor space are a result of the filling of internal voids and will not make perceptible changes to the approved building bulk and scale. The changes to the external walls are minor and will not reduce permeable landscaped area and as such the objection cannot be supported and the proposed modifications are considered reasonable.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The development application involves the following modifications to the current approval:

 

Block A

Units 1 and 20

·    Relocation of eastern ground floor wall out to line raised garden wall

·    Internal courtyard deleted to allow dining and living rooms to flow

·    Increased area to first floor bedroom and bathroom

Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18 and 19

·    Deletion of internal courtyard on ground and first floors

·    Increased area to living and bedroom

Units 6 and 15

·    Moving of rear wall to enlarge ground floor footprint

Units 7 and 14

·    ‘Squaring off’ of the re-entrant corners in internal courtyard to improve space efficiency

Units 8 and 13

·    Realignment of perimeter walls at ground and first floor levels where some balconies existed

Units 9 and 12

·    ‘Squaring off’ of rear wall into the internal courtyard

·    This allows more generous planning to the ground and first floors and also aids in stair access

Units 10 and 11

·    Realignment of rear walls at ground floor level to match the first floor

Block B

Unit B01 and B03

·    Realignment of the north and south external walls to increase area in living, dining and kitchen areas.

·    These changes do not alter the overall footprint of the building.

Unit B02

·    Unit decreased in size by the alignment of party walls with adjacent units 1 and 3

·    This unit is now a 1 bedroom unit with more effective layout

Unit B04 and B06

·    This unit has been increased in area by incorporating the 1100 deep balconies to north and south into floor plan

·    This increases living and dining area

·    Privacy screen to north will have same effect as previous proposal

·    Reconfiguration of balconies to west ensures each living area has access to usable balcony space

·    Internal party walls with B05 have been realigned to improve bedroom spaces and usability of bathrooms

·    No change to building footprint

·    B05 converted to 1 bedroom unit

·    Balcony created for unit B05 to the west within the original footprint

Unit B07, 08, 09 and 10

·    Realignment of north east and southern walls at ground floor level. Will not step outside footprint of building

·    Rearrangement of living/dining area, wet areas and laundry

Unit B11, 12 and 13

·    Realignment of north and south walls will delete 1100mm wide balconies

·    This change will increase dining and living areas in units 11 and 13 whilst retaining western balcony

·    Unit 12 decreased in size and altered to become 1 bedroom unit and 1100mm deep western balcony

Unit B14 and B17

·    Realignment of north and south walls will delete 1100mm wide balconies

·    Improvement to internal living spaces

Unit B18

·    Reorientation part of western balcony to improve use of outdoor space

·    Solid privacy screens to western side

Unit B19, 20 and 21

·    Realignment of north and southern perimeter walls to delete 1100mm wide balconies

·    Timber screens to northern side to ensure privacy

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site has an irregular shape and slopes significantly from Wentworth Street down to Dangar Street. The site features a significant number of mature eucalyptus trees with the largest specimens located along the eastern section of the site. The site has a total area of 8041m2 and is bounded by Tramway Lane to the north, King Street to the south, Dangar Street to the west and Wentworth Street to the east. To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Tramway Lane are predominantly single and semi-detached dwellings located in the North Randwick Heritage Conservation area. To the west of the site is the recently developed Montefiore aged care facility comprising of a synagogue, health-care facility and function hall. Further to the west is the STA bus depot and the UNSW press building site. While surrounding uses is a mix of institutional uses, the dominant character of the surrounding area is residential.

 

Figure 1 – View of completed Block C on the corner of King Street and Wentworth Street.

 

Block C, also known as ‘Pindari’ won the Multiple Housing Award at the 2006 NSW Institute of Architects Awards. Pindari is located on the south eastern corner of the site was approved under the previous development application 125/2003. Figure 1, above, is view of Block C from King Street. Figure 2 below is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 2: The subject site and surrounding area

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

A.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The development application was notified from 16 August to 30 August 2006 and was also advertised in the Southern Courier newspaper. One objection was received during the notification period and raised concerns regarding potential floor area increases, increased overshadowing as a result of changes to the eastern edge of the cantilevered attic roof and the relocation of ground floor internal courtyards to the attic level of Building A.

 

Generally the changes are minor and will not result in a significant change to the current approved development. The proposal will not significantly alter the external fabric of the building and will not have a detrimental impact to the adjoining properties. As such the objection cannot be supported.

 

Under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 65 the development application was referred to Council’s Design Review Panel for comment. The Design Review Panel meeting on 9 October 2006 found the proposed modifications would generally improve the internal amenity of the units. The comments from the Design Review Panel have been included in section 8.2 of this report.

 

B.    HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The site previously formed part of the Vice-Chancellor’s residence of the University of NSW and was considered surplus to the University. A Master Plan for the site was adopted by Council on 25 June 2002.

 

The original application was lodged on 24 February 2003 and sought consent to demolish the existing buildings onsite and erect a multi-unit housing development comprising of three buildings with a total of 66 dwellings including 137 car spaces at basement level.

 

The original application departed from a number of requirements of the adopted Master Plan for the subject site. Following discussions with Council’s officers, the design and layout of the proposal was amended to make the proposal generally consistent with the requirements of the adopted Master Plan including FSR, setbacks and landscaping.

 

A number of applications have been submitted for the subject site and include:

 

Application no.

Description

Determination

RZ/1/2002

Master Plan for Multi-unit housing redevelopment

Adopted by Council on 25 June 2002

DA/125/2003

Demolish existing buildings onsite and erect a multi unit housing development comprising 3 buildings with a total of 66 dwellings including 137 car spaces at basement level.

Approved by Council 12 August 2003

DA/135/2004

Strata subdivision of building

Approved under delegation 9 March 2004

 

Subsequent section 96 applications for the site include modifications to the conditions of consent and in some instances involve changes to the layout of apartments. The table below includes the section 96 applications determined by Council.

 

Application no.

Description

Determination

DA/125/2003/A

Section 96 Modifications of conditions of consent

Approved by Council on 24 December 2003

DA/125/2003/B

Section 96(1) and 96 (1A) modifications of conditions of consent.

Approved by Council 26 on February 2004

DA/125/2003/C

Section 96 modification to Development Consent No.125/2003 relating to Condition No. 149, the internal layout of dwelling units, balconies in the north elevation of Block B, upper floors to units B20 and B21, lift overrun, entry gate, and openings in Block C.

Approved by Council 22 on February 2005

DA/125/2003/D

Section 96 application to amend conditions 149(a) and (b) relating to a refundable deposit for landscape management for stage 2 of the Bundock redevelopment.

Approved by Council on 11 April 2006

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

Richard F Harvey on behalf of the Executive Committee for Strata Plan 55294 at 1/89 – 91 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

Objection

Comment

The proposed modifications increase the floor area of the development and insufficient justification is provided in the Statement of Environmental Effects in this regard.

The proposed modifications increase the floor area of units by making changes to the ground floor footprint and continuing the changes to the upper floors. These changes do not make significant visual bulk and massing of the residential buildings and will not have an adverse visual impact to the adjoining properties.

 

The changes to floor area are discussed in greater detail in section 9.2 of this report

The proposed modifications to the eastern edge of the cantilevered attic roof along Dangar Street will increase overshadowing to neighbouring dwellings to the south.

The proposed changes to the roof along units to Danger Street are relatively minor, do not add to the total height of the buildings, and are below the ridge line of the previously approved development.

The modifications to the roof are consistent with visual bulk of the approved development and will not have an adverse overshadowing impact.

“Roof pergolas” have been converted into habitable third floors with permanent stair access and windows.

The proposed modifications to the attic and roof of Block A are internal and will not be noticeable from Tramway Lane or Dangar Street.

The visual impact will be minimal and as the changes to the attic do not introduce windows or balconies visual privacy will be maintained.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

Given the relatively minor modifications to the site the application did not require any referral to technical officers or external bodies.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A Master Plan for the site was submitted and adopted by Council, subject to variations and requirements, on 25 June 2002. Council received amendments to the adopted Master Plan in July 2002 that altered, amongst a number of relatively minor variations as stipulated by the Council resolution, the FSR for the site from 0.89:1 to 0.8:1 as well as changes to the number of storeys and total height of the building envelopes.

 

Generally the proposed modifications will not be antipathetic to the original application and will be consistent with the design and planning principles of the Master Plan, as amended, for the site.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development 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 2D (Residential D—Comprehensive Development Zone) 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

Provided

Compliance

31 – Landscape Area

Min. 60 % of site area

 

Originally approved 64 % of site area (5172m2) to be maintained.

 

Yes

 

32 – FSR

 

Max 0.8:1 (6430m2)

 

Max 0.85:1(6864.5m2)

No

33 – Building Height

Block A: maximum RL of 60.6 stepping down to RL 56.0 at Dangar Street frontage. Maximum RL relates to roof articulation zone.

 

Block B: maximum RL of 63.5 for western building of Block B. Maximum RL relates to roof articulation zone.

Block A: proposed modifications do not alter maximum RL of this block.

 

 

Block B: Proposed cantilevered balcony to level of western building of Block B is 62.4 and therefore within maximum RL for roof articulation zone however exceeds the maximum wall height RL of 61.0

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

No – however visual impact of cantilevered balcony is likely to be minimal. See section 9.2 of this report for a detailed assessment.

 

 

Clause 30A – Development of certain Land in Zone 2D

 

The built form controls for the site are contained within the Master Plan adopted on 25 June 2002 and made effective by amendment No.31 of the Randwick LEP 1998 which was gazetted on 9 May 2003.

 

Clause 30B - Traffic and transport measures for Zone No 2D

 

As the proposed modifications involve relatively minor alterations to the buildings on Block A and Block B and do not increase the number of units or bedrooms on the site. Changes to the existing on-site car parking spaces are not required as there is no additional car parking demand.

 

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

 

The subject site is located adjacent to the North Randwick Heritage Conservation area whose boundary is aligned along the opposite side of Tramway Lane. The proposed modifications are relatively minor and the external changes are integrated with the approved design and will not become visually prominent elements that will detract from the heritage significance of conservation area.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 31)

 

The Master Plan adopted by Council on 25 June 2002 was made effective by amendment No.31 of the Randwick LEP 1998, gazetted on 9 May 2003. See section 9.3 of this report for discussion regarding the proposed modifications and their consistency with the relevant build form controls for the site.

 

8.2   State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

In accordance with the SEPP and Council’s referral procedure the application was referred to the Design Review Panel held on 9 October 2006 for comment. The following comments were provided:

 

The proposed changes set out to improve the internal amenity of the apartments by providing more flexible planning arrangements.  The Panel supports such improvements however consider that the increases being sought in floor space should be balanced with some site planning and detail improvements as follows.

The internal courtyard provides a separation of only 9.9 m between the buildings.  12m is a preferred distance to increase privacy opportunities. The landscape proposal within this courtyard should seek to maximize the soil depths available over the car park to ensure that sizeable trees will survive and grow.

Internal bathrooms should be provided with clerestory windows through to the courtyard space at the attic level.

Some planning arrangements on the southern part of the site could remain with the kitchen opposite the stair so that the dining space has direct access to the southern yard.

Some provision for an accessible apartment.

Reconsider the small WC window directly adjacent the front doors.

The reconfiguration of the bedrooms in Block B has increased the problem of people walking past bedroom windows and in this regard the previous plans are preferred.  Many of these apartments are below ground level and the two storey apartments are preferred as they increase the aspect and amenity for those apartments.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

As previously noted the Panel considers that the proposal could be greatly improved if the setbacks were not so large.  We do not consider that this will have adverse effects on neighbours.

 

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 proposed development comprises 10% or 4 units out of 42 units in Block A and B as being adaptable for potential disabled access. It should also be noted that Units B.01, B.03, B.14 and B.15 and associated car spaces are allocated as adaptable for disabled access. It is considered the panel comments regarding disabled access have been satisfied by these measures.

 

The width of the internal courtyard within Block A has not been altered in the current proposal.  The minimum separation distance between the north and south wings of Building A are 11.5m at ground level and 10m at first floor level.

 

The position of WC windows located near the front entry of apartments in Block A is not considered to have an adverse impact to the amenity of the entry areas of the apartments and are likely to have minimal impact to character of the open space within Block A and are not visible from the street. Therefore the panel comments are not considered to warrant any amendments to the plan.

 

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.      Development Control Plan - Multi-Unit Housing

 

Many of the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP have been incorporated in the adopted master plan in terms the design principles that have influenced the built form.  It is considered that the proposal satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Multi Unit Housing. 

 

9.2 Master Plan

 

A Master Plan for the multi-unit housing development was adopted by Council on 9 April 2002 subject to a number of variations and requirements for submission of future development applications. The Master Plan is the principle planning document for the site and provides the built form controls for future development applications. The requirements of the Master Plan are assessed below.

 

Building Height

 

The proposed modifications will not alter the external wall or building height of the approved Blocks A and B. The most significant change to the currently approved development relates to the proposed cantilevered balcony to the western elevation of Block B. The balcony will have an RL of 62.4, which is a maximum height of 10.7 metres above Tramway Lane ground level. The balcony will remain below the height of the maximum ridgeline of the western section of Block B and below the roof articulation zone RL of 63.5 stipulated in the Master Plan.

 

As the balcony adds some bulk to Block B some consideration regarding wall height is required. The LEP defines ‘wall height’ as being:

 

the vertical distance from the highest point on an external wall to the ground level of the site. Each external wall height measurement must include gable ends and attic walls with an area over 6 metres 2 and dormer windows that protrude horizontally from the roof more than 2.5 metres.

 

A SEPP 1 objection was lodged by the applicant in the original development application to address the non-compliant wall height of Units B18 and B22 in Block B that presented to Tramway Lane. The proposed wall height exceeded the 7 metre height limit as stipulated in the Master Plan by 2.5 metres. The SEPP 1 objection for the non-complying height was deemed acceptable and that the degree of non-compliance was minimal and compatible with the scale of existing development within the adjoining conservation area. Furthermore it was considered that the non-compliant wall heights would not have an overbearing impact on the conservation area and would be compatible in height with neighbouring buildings and the predominant scale of buildings in the locality. 

 

The proposed cantilevered balcony will have a maximum height that remains below the approved non-compliant wall height of Unit B18 however due to the slope of the site has a maximum height of 10.7 metres above Tramway Lane which exceeds the maximum wall height by 3.7 metres. It should be noted that the balcony will not be a visually dominant element to this section of the site and will not be immediately noticeable from Tramway Lane as it will be screened by the roof and building bulk of Block A and B. The cantilevered balcony is not excessively bulky and due to its cantilevered design will have a minimal visual presence on the site.

 

It should be noted that the proposed cantilevered balcony to Block B will be setback 16.3 metres from Tramway Lane. The development controls stipulated by amendment No.31 of the RLEP requires a maximum building height of 9.5 metres and a maximum wall height of 7 metres for buildings 20 metres from the Tramway Lane. The original development deviated from this control and a SEPP 1 objection was provided. The SEPP 1 objection was supported by Council and it was deemed that the non-compliances regarding wall height did not result in an adverse impact to the amenity of the surrounding area.

 

It is considered the proposed cantilevered balcony remains consistent with the built form and massing of Block B and the ‘Building Types and Massing’ section outlined in the Master Plan. The balcony incorporates an angled edge that matches the repeated angled elements in Block B and throughout the approved development. In this respect the form of the balcony is reasonable for the site and will not be a disparate visual element to the development.

 

Direct views of the balcony will be obscured by the mass and height of Block B and Block A and the balcony will be compatible the scale of the approved buildings for the site. As such the proposed balcony to Block B and its non-compliance with the built form controls is considered acceptable.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposal will result in a net increase to the gross floor area of the site. The table below provides the details of the changes to the floor area.

 

 

Approved Unit Area

Proposed Unit Area

Difference

BLOCK A

2302 m2

2595.5 m2

+293.5 m2

BLOCK B

1730.4 m2

1871.4 m2

+141 m2

 

The proposal will increase the gross floor area of the site by 434.5m2, or 5 per cent of the total site area. The current approval has a gross floor area of 6430m2 or an FSR of 0.8:1 and the proposed modifications will result in a total gross floor area 6864.5m2 and an FSR of 0.85:1. As such the proposed modifications will exceed the maximum FSR of 0.8:1 as specified in amendment No.31 of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The increase in floor area is a result of adjustments to ground level external walls to Blocks A and B, level 1 voids of Building A being filled and the internal courtyard being relocated to the attic level and the conversion of balconies in Building B to habitable space. The changes relating to the conversion of courtyards into habitable internal living rooms results in a numerical increase in FSR however does not translate to a perceptible increase in the visual bulk or the buildings to the street or surrounding properties.

 

The modifications to the courtyards in Block A improve the internal amenity of apartments by providing greater floor area and improved access for living and dining rooms, kitchens, and bedrooms. The numerical increase in net floor area will have no adverse impact to the presentation of Block A and B to the surrounding area will result in an improvement to the internal configuration of apartments. As such the proposed modifications area considered to be reasonable.

 

Landscaped Area

           

The proposed modifications to the ground floor of Block A and Block B make relatively minor changes to the alignment of walls and do not result in a loss of permeable landscaped area. The resultant changes increase the footprint of the buildings however it is unlikely that the changes will affect the capacity of the landscaped area to soften the development to the streetscape, improve the amenity of the site to the residents or reduce the attractiveness of private open space on the site.

 

The proposed modifications will not affect the significant trees on the site as identified during the assessment of the original application and by the report prepared by Tree and Landscape Consultants dated 23 February 2004.

 

All the changes to the footprint of the buildings will expand floor area over existing impermeable ground surfaces and therefore the changes to the ground floor of Block A and B are considered acceptable.

 

9.3       Impact on adjoining development

 

Visual Impact on streetscape

 

The proposed modifications will alter the external appearance of Block A and B to the surrounding streets however the changes to Block B are considered to be most noticeable to the surrounding area. The most significant changes to Block B include the replacement of recessed balconies located on the Tramway Lane elevation with sliding door openings with and external fixed timber slats screens. The other significant modification to Block B will include the inclusion of angled protrusions to level 3 of the eastern building that will match the form of larger angled elements that exist on level 2 and 3 of the building.

 

The changes are considered to be compatible with the built form of Block B and will not detract from the presentation of the buildings to Wentworth Street and Tramway Lane.

 

Loss of sunlight

 

The proposed modifications make minor alterations to the position of external walls and relate primarily to internal reconfiguration of apartments in Block A and B located on the northern section of the subject site. The proposal does not increase the height of the approved development or involve additions that will protrude beyond the existing building envelopes. As such the modifications will not adversely affect solar access to the adjoining property at 89-91 King Street or residential dwellings on Wentworth Street, Dangar Street or King Street.

 

The solar access to adjacent residential properties will remain consistent with the originally approved development.

 

10  SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

10.2     Substantially the same

 

The proposed development does not alter the mix of units on the site and does not significantly alter the external appearance of the residential buildings. The modifications relating to the reconfiguration of internal spaces is considered to be consistent with the originally approved development as no additional bedrooms or living rooms are created. The modifications to the external walls are relatively minor and will not have a significant impact to the surrounding area or the streetscape.

 

The deletion or introduction of balconies is not considered inconsistent with the originally approved development and generally the proposed development is substantially the same as the originally approved development.

 

10.3     Consideration of submissions

 

The single submission received during the notification period has been considered during the assessment of the application. The submission raises concern regarding a number of issues including increases in floor area, overshadowing and the conversion of the roof pergolas into habitable floor space. See section 5.1 of this report for detailed comment to each of the objections raised.

 

11  RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:     Excellence in urban design and developmentOur places and spaces will be inviting, safe, sustainable and contribute to our City’s liveability.

Direction:       4a. Improved design and sustainability across all development.  (The proposed modifications will improve the design of the internal spaces of the units and promote a more effective use of the living room areas).

 

6e. Housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse community is enhanced.  (The diversity and internal accessibility of the units have been enhanced by the proposed modifications. The proposal will continue the housing diversity that the original proposal provided to the surrounding area).

 

12  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications to the original development will involve relatively minor changes to internal configuration of the buildings that comprise of Block A and B of the site. The internal modifications will improve the internal amenity of apartments and access between living rooms and bedrooms. Acoustic and visual privacy and solar access for the apartments will not be adversely impacted by the proposed modifications.

 

The changes to the external appearance of Block A and B will be consistent in form, scale and character to the approved development on the site and will not adversely affect the amenity of the streets that surround the subject site. The proposal is consistent with the built form controls of the Master Plan and the increase in gross floor area will not result in a perceptible change to the visual bulk and scale of the buildings to the streetscape.

 

As such the proposed modifications are recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 125/2003/E for Section 96 modification of approved development in Block A: including reconfiguration of internal spaces, relocation of internal courtyard to attic level for increased living spaces and changes to roof structure. Block B: alteration of external walls to provide for more internal space including, deletion of balconies facing Tramway Lane and a level 3 cantilevered balcony at 68-76 Wentworth Street, Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 01 – DA 16 issue L and dated 28 July 2002, except where amended by plans numbered DA-01 to DA-11, and DA-15, Issue L, dated 3 October 2003,  and the Section 96 plans numbered S96-3101 Issue B, S96-3102 Issue B, S96-3103 Issue B, S96-3104 Issue B, S96-3105 Issue B, S96-3106 Issue B,  S96-3201 Issue B S96-3301 Issue B and S96-3302 Issue B dated 6 February 2004, and the Section 96 plans numbered S96-0107 Issue A, S96-1102 Issue B, S96-1103 Issue B, S96-1301 Issue A, S96-2102 Issue B, S96-2103 Issue B, S96-2104 Issue B, S96-2201 Issue B, S96-2301 Issue B, S96-2302 Issue A, S96-3103 Issue C, dated 20 august 2004, and S96-3301 Issue D and S96-3302 Issue D, dated 20 January 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered S96-1102 – 1105 Issue C, S96-1201 Issue C, S96-1301 Issue A, S96-1302 Issue C, S96-1303 Issue C, S96-2102 Issue C, S96-2103 Issue C, 2104 Issue C, S96-2201 Issue C, S96-2301 Issue C, S96-2302 Issue C, and received by Council on 28 July 2006, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application. 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 95/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

15 Pearce Street, SOUTH COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

5 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/647/2006 & PROP035044

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No DA/647/2006 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey dwelling with lower level garaging, swimming pool and balconies at first floor level.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 3 October 2006.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

3 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/647/2006 & PROP035044

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey dwelling with lower level garaging, swimming pool and balconies at first floor level

PROPERTY:

 15 Pearce Street, SOUTH COOGEE

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Ergo Architecture & Interiors

OWNER:

Mr A S Osburg

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Council for determination at the request of Councillors Woodsmith, Matson, and Procopiadis.

 

The proposal involves demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a two storey dwelling with basement garage and a swimming pool. Bedrooms are located on the lower floor, and living rooms with balconies are at first floor level.

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Pearce Street between Close Street and the Pacific Ocean in South Coogee. Views of Wedding Cake Island and the Pacific Ocean are available from and over the site.

 

Two objections were received and raised issue with privacy, view sharing and stormwater. Privacy is addressed in the report and there are conditions of consent in the recommendation dealing with stormwater disposal.

 

The applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan omitting some of the taller trees so that some views over the site could be retained.  The applicant considers that further changes to the proposal to accommodate view sharing would have a detrimental impact on the proposal and the streetscape.

 

The proposed view sharing has been considered in accordance with the Land and Environment Court principles established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. The impact is considered to be acceptable and further design revisions are considered to be unnecessary.

 

The proposal satisfies the design performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a two storey dwelling with a basement garage, a swimming pool. The proposed garage is mostly excavated into the site below the existing ground level. The ground floor comprises four bedrooms, laundry, and a bathroom. The upper level comprises living areas and balconies facing north and south. The principle living area and its balcony are oriented toward the north and views of Wedding Cake Island and the Pacific Ocean.  The contemproary street elevation is dominated by a skillion roof, extensive glazing, a frameless-glass balustrade on the upper balcony and a timber-batten screen on the lower terrace.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Pearce Street between Close Street and the Pacific Ocean in South Coogee. This site is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 14.09 m, a side boundary depth of 39.745 m and an overall area of 560.3 m².  The site has a north-easterly aspect and views toward Wedding Cake Island. A two storey dwelling is to the east. Two, three-storey dwellings and a two-storey dwelling are to the west and have frontage to Close Street.  A two-storey dwelling is to the rear of the site and has frontage to Palmer Street.  The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of large one, two and three-storey houses. Many of the newer houses in the area are oriented toward the north and views of Wedding Cake Island. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Figure 2 shows the street setting of the subject site.

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

 


Figure 2: Streetscape (The star marks the existing dwelling)

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

There is an existing single storey dwelling on the site.  The dwelling is of red-brick construction with a hipped tile roof.  The dwelling was probably constructed in the 1960s.

 

The development application was lodged 11 August 2006 and notified for 14 days to 4 September 2006.

 

The applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan 29 August 2006 omitting some of the larger trees to preserve views over the site.  The applicant also submitted a view sharing analysis form No. 5 Close Street on 22 September 2006 in response to an objection (as requested by the Assessment Officer).  The analysis stated:

 

“We have explored the possibility of altering our proposal to retain the north east view from No. 5 Close Street, but the required changes will have detrimental impact to our proposal and on the streetscape.

 

The plan diagram show that any proposal (without having an unreasonable front setback) on this site will impact on the north east views from No. 5 Close Street.

 

The proposal retains ocean views from No. 5 Close Street to the East.”

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

Martin Enright – 8 Palmer Street, SOUTH COOGEE

 

·    Proposal provides view corridor along eastern boundary.  Request that this attribute be retained.

 

Comment:  The view corridor along the eastern boundary has been retained.

 

·    Impact on privacy of the raised rear yard.

 

Comment:  The landscape plan shows that the rear yard will remain approximately at its present level. The southern elevation in drawing 08 shows the courtyard to be slightly elevated immediately adjoining the rear of the building. This is acceptable.

 

·    Request appropriate conditions in relation to drainage, the channelling of ground water and run-off.

 

Comment:  Appropriate consent conditions are included in the recommendation.

 

·    First floor living area and balcony has a direct view into our property.

 

Comment:  The upper level family room and balcony have a southerly orientation, but are over 13 metres from the common boundary with 8 Palmer Street. The impact on privacy is in accordance with the DCP and is considered to be acceptable.

 

Peter and Angela Drakakis – 5 Close Street, SOUTH COOGEE

 

·    Views to wedding cake island obstructed by north western corner of the building.

Comment:  The views from No 5 Close Street will be obstructed by the proposed development. As described later in this report, the view from No 5 is oblique and difficult to protect, requiring significant and unreasonable changes to the proposed dwelling.

 

·    Request installation of height poles to accurately determine view loss.

 

Comment:  The views to Wedding Cake Island from the subject site will be obstructed by the proposed development. The installation of height poles would not further aid this view loss assessment.

 

·    Planting of tall trees in the rear yard will result in substantial view loss to the east.

 

Comment:  Some of the larger trees were omitted in the revised landscape plan received 22 September 2006.  The recommendation includes a requirement to replace the remaining tall trees with a more appropriate species.

 

5.2  Support

 

No submissions of support were received.

 

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       Development Engineer

 

The application has been referred to the Development Engineer for comment, conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.

 

The following specific comments are offered by the Development Engineer:

 

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

 

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

 

6.2       Landscape Technician:

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Landscape Technician for comment.  Conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.

 

The following specific comments are offered by the Landscape Architect:

 

“There are no existing trees, (covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.”

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

There are no master planning requirements for this development proposal.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

8.1                   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 10 Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone)

 

The land is zoned Residential 2A. The proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

Clause 22 Services

 

This clause requires Council to be satisfies that the subject site is adequately serviced by water, sewer and drainage.  The subject site is adequately serviced.

 

Clause 29 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

This clause identifies visually prominent residential areas along the coast and establishes consent requirements for development in these areas to protect and enhance their visual qualities. The clause identifies the subject site.

 

The consent of the Council is required to erect a building within the foreshore scenic protection area which exceeds 5 metres in height measured vertically from any point on ground level to the highest point of the building. The Council may only grant consent after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

The probable aesthetic appearance of the building is generally compatible with the prevailing urban character of the locality and its relationship with the foreshore. The building would be comparable in scale, massing and colour with surrounding buildings and would not create any adverse visual or solar access impact on the foreshore and foreshore reserve near the site.

 

8.2       State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

The proposal is for a new dwelling and the applicant has provided a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development. The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction.

 

The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP:BASIX have been included in the recommendation.

 

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  Policy Controls

a.   Development Control Plan No. - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

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

 

Landscaping

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

49 % of the site is landscaped area. Complies.

S1

A minimum of 25m² of useable private open space is to be provided.

The rear yard has an area of 117.6m. Complies.

S1

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

The above area has dimensions of 12 x 9.8 metres. Complies.

S1

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

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

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

28.5 % of the site is permeable. Complies.

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed landscape plan generally satisfies the performance requirements of this clause. The Podocarpus elatus shown in the back yard is not an appropriate plant for this site. The P. elatus is a very tall conifer with a dense canopy that grows rapidly to maturity in 10 or so years. It is not appropriate because it would greatly obstruct the existing views over the site. The recommendation deletes the plant from the plan.

 

Floor Area

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.53:1 applies. 

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

 

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

 

The proposed dwelling is generally compatible in bulk and scale with the prevailing streetscape character. The non-compliance does not create any negative impacts on neighbouring buildings or the street.

 

The floor space ratio calculations include the basement storage area. This area is generally below natural ground level and does not greatly contribute to the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling. If the storage area is excluded from floor space calculations, the resulting floor space ratio becomes 0.52:1, which is compliant with the maximum. The proposed building would not be excessive in bulk or scale and would be compatible with the established character of Pearce Street. The building minimises adverse effects on neighbours and the street and is considered to be acceptable.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 7.6 metres. Does not comply – see assessment below

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Some minor cut and fill of less than 1 meter would be required to accommodate the lap pool. Complies.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

All excavations are at least 900mm from a side boundary. Complies.

S3

No excavation within 3m of a rear boundary.

Excavations for the pool are within 1.5 metres of the rear boundary. Does not comply - see assessment below.

S4

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

The entire southern elevation of the proposed dwelling is 13.3 metres from the southern side boundary at first floor level. Complies.

S5

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

Not applicable.

 

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

 

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

 

External Wall Height

The external wall height encroachment is generally confined to the north eastern portion of the proposed building and is considered to be very minor. The proposed building is compatible in scale with the prevailing streetscape character, and the height encroachment does not create and negative impact on privacy, solar access or views.

 

Excavations

The excavations toward the rear boundary of the site are confined to the footprint of the swimming pool. The excavations do not alter the natural topography of the land and do not compromise the objectives of the clause.

 

Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed dwelling is set back 4.6 metres from the front boundary and is generally consistent with the setbacks of adjoining dwellings. Complies.

S2

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

The proposed dwelling is 13.3 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

The proposed development is set back 0.9 metres from the side boundaries. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 0.9 metres from the side boundaries. Does not comply - see assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

 

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

 

The western elevation is setback just 900 mm from the boundary at the second level. However, the westerns elevation faces onto the rear boundary of lots in Close Street and for this reason does not adversely affect the neighbour’s access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

 

The proposal satisfies the requirements of this Clause.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Upper level living room windows facing east are either high level (1700mm sill height) or are screened by the terrace privacy screen. West facing windows are over 9 metres from adjoining development. South facing windows are over 13 metres from rear boundary. Lower level comprises bedrooms only. Complies.

S1

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

The upper and ground floor terraces are suitably screened. A living room window, which is positioned to take advantage of views toward the ocean, would allow some overlooking of the neighbours front non-private porch. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

All windows have suitable sill height. Complies.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

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

 

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

 

Overlooking

The eastern neighbour’s front porch is not highly private because it faces and is exposed to the street. The proposed design is a response to the available views and this mild overlooking is considered to be reasonable.

 

The proposal satisfies the privacy requirements of this Clause.

 

Safety & Security

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The proposed front door faces the street. Complies.

S1,3

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

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

S2

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

Suitable condition included.

 

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

 

The proposal satisfies the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions in the DCP.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed dwelling has parking for 2 cars. Complies.

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 3m x 6m. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 3 metres wide and is set back at least 1 metre from the side boundary. Complies.

S1

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

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

S1

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

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

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed garage is located behind the building line. Complies

S2

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

The proposed garage occupies about 28 % of the width of the site frontage. Complies.

 

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

 

The proposal satisfies the requirements of this clause.

 

Fences

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S1

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

The proposed front fence has a total height of 2.5m metres.  Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

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

 

The front fence is set above and back from a landscaped podium on the front boundary. While the total height of the fence is 2.5 metres, the apparent height above the podium is just 1.7 metres. The upper two-thirds of the apparent height of the fence comprise timber battens and can be conditioned to be 50% open. This condition is included in the recommendation. The front fence is integrated with the landscaping, entry and terrace arrangements of the dwelling and is compatible with the local streetscape.

 

Foreshore Development

 

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

Not applicable

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic to the surrounding landscape.

The propose colour schedule is sympathetic to the surrounding landscape.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

The proposed building responds to site topography.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

View sharing is considered to be acceptable. See view sharing assessment later in this report.

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

Ancillary structures (terraces and balustrades, etc) complement the appearance of the proposed building.

 

The objectives of this clause are to protect the landscape qualities and the aesthetic appearance of ocean foreshore areas, and to consider the natural form of the land wand water interface and the original character of the foreshore.

 

The performance requirements and standards establish criteria for a foreshore building line, view sharing, ancillary structures, and scale, form and appearance.

 

The proposal satisfies the requirements of this Clause. Some further discussion on view loss is considered appropriate in light of the submissions on the matter.

 

View Loss

 

The following view loss assessment relates to view loss from 5 Close Street. A submission on view-loss was received from the owner. This property is considered to be an appropriate representative for view-loss assessment in the locality because of the extent of view loss it suffers.  The assessment was aided by an observation of the views from the living room accompanied by the objector’s nephew on 13 September 2006.

 

Senior Commissioner Roseth established the following view sharing assessment principles in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

 

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

 

Comment: The view in question is a partial view of Wedding Cake Island. The view is highly oblique, being between 25 and 30 degrees from the horizontal plane of the window. The dwelling at No 5 Close Street is not oriented towards or designed to take advantage of the view toward the island. While views of Wedding Cake Island are generally iconic, the forgoing attributes of the view from No 5 Close Street diminish its value.

 

The photo in Figure 3 shows the view from the east facing living room windows at No. 5 close Street toward the north-east.  The photo was taken by a Council Officer at standing height (1.7m).  Wedding Cake Island is roughly in the lower left of the photo between the two roof hips.  The applicant has shown the proposed building envelope, and the setback required to retain the view to Wedding Cake Island from No. 5 Close Street.

 

Figure 3: The view toward Wedding Cake Island from the living room at 5 Close Street

 

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

 

Comment: The view is obtained from both seated and standing positions in the living room at No 5 Close Street. The view is over the side boundary.  It is considered that this later attribute of the view makes it difficult to protect.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed development will completely obstruct views of Wedding Cake Island from the living room at No 5 Close Street. The east facing living room windows at No 5 will retain the whole of their eastern views toward the ocean.   Given the degree of view retention to the east, and the oblique nature of and difficulty in protecting views to the island, view loss is qualitatively assessed as minor.

 

The photo in Figure 4 shows the view from the east facing living room windows at No. 5 Close Street toward the east.  The photo was taken by a Council Officer at standing height (1.7m).  The views toward the Pacific Ocean would be preserved with the subject proposal.

 

Figure 4: Views to the east from No 5 Close Street

 

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

 

Comment: The proposal generally satisfies the relevant development and planning controls. There are a number of areas where the proposed development does not satisfy ‘preferred solutions’ but these non-compliances do not change the extent of view loss that would be suffered by No. 5 Close Street.   The design modifications that would be required to retain the view are significant and the impact on view loss could not be reduced without compromising the development potential at No. 15 Pearce Street.  The view loss caused by the proposed development is considered to be reasonable and acceptable.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Does not apply (See BASIX requirements)

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

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

 

In terms of Performance Requirements, as a general guide new dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies must demonstrate that they have been designed to achieve energy efficiency; achieve a NatHERS, rating of 3.5 stars; and buildings are orientated and internally configured to take advantage of and maximise solar access.

 

The proposal satisfies the requirements of this Clause.

 

9.2  BCA Classification

 

Under the building code of Australia, the classification of the building is: -

Dwelling House – Class 1a

Swimming Pool – 10b

 

9.3  The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

 

The proposed development is not considered to have any unreasonable or unacceptable impacts on the natural, built, social or economic environments. The proposal generally complies, or can be conditioned to comply with the relevant built form, amenity and site management controls and would satisfy the residential zone objectives.

 

9.4       The Regulations (prescribed matters for consideration)

 

AS 2601—1991: The Demolition of Structures

 

Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure compliance with this Australian standard.

 

9.5       Site Suitability

 

The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

 

10.  RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5 : Excellence in urban design – The proposal has a good architectural quality and will improve the appearance of the dwelling and improve the amenity of the occupants.

 

Outcome 11 : A healthy environment – The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling are orientated to the north of the site which will improve both solar access and cross ventilation and also increase the energy efficiency of the dwelling which therefore promotes the principles of environmental sustainable development.

 

11.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.  CONCLUSION

 

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

Two objections were received and raised issue with privacy, stormwater and view sharing. Privacy concerns are addressed in the report and there are conditions of consent in the recommendation dealing with stormwater disposal.

 

The applicant’s position is that further changes to the proposal to accommodate view sharing would have a detrimental impact on the proposal and the streetscape.

 

The proposed view sharing has been considered in accordance with the Land and Environment Court principles established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. The impact is considered to be acceptable and further design revisions are considered to be unnecessary.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 647/2006 for permission to Demolish the exisitng dwelling and construct a two storey dwelling with basement garaging, swimming pool and balconies at first floor level at 15 Pearce Street, SOUTH COOGEE  NSW  2034 subject to the following conditions:

 

Conditions of Consent

 

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

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following plans and information except as may be amended by the conditions of this consent and/or as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

a.          Plans prepared by Ergo Architecture and Interiors, May 2006 and numbered consecutively 01 – 08 (received by Council 11 August 2006).

 

b.         Site Management Plan prepared by Ergo Architecture and Interiors, May 2006 (received by Council 11 August 2006).

 

c.          Landscape Plan prepared by Susan Miles Landscape Architect 28 August 2006 (received by Council 29 August 2006).

 

d.         Colour scheme and sample board prepared by Ergo Architecture and Interiors, July 2006 (received by Council 11 August 2006).

 

e.          The development application form, Statement of Environmental Effects and any supporting information received with the application.

 

2.         To preserve views over the site, the Podocarpus elatus and Banksia integrifolia shown in the rear yard on the landscape plan must be deleted. In their place, the owner shall plant a native tree or shrub with a height when mature that does not exceed 3 metres. Details must be provided to the Principle Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application.

 

3.         To ensure the front fencing contributes positively to street character, the timber screen on the front terrace shall be constructed so that it is at least 50% open. Design details must be provided to the Principle Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application.

 

4.         There must be no encroachment of the structure/s onto any adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless permission has been obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land accordingly.

 

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

 

6.         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 approved paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

 

7.         Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents.

 

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

 

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

 

9.         In accordance with Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all of the required commitments listed in the relevant BASIX Certificate for this development are fulfilled.

 

10.       In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a relevant BASIX Certificate and associated documentation must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application for this development.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate are to be included on the plans, specifications and associated documentation for the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

11.       The following provisions are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant BASIX Certificate and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate documentation (as applicable), to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority:

 

·           Stormwater management (i.e. rainwater tanks)

·           Water efficiency (i.e. triple A rated taps and showers, dual flush toilets and water re-use)

·           Landscaping provisions

·           Thermal comfort (i.e. construction materials, glazing and insulation)

·           Energy efficiency (i.e. cooling & heating provisions and hot water systems)

 

12.       In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue a final Occupation Certificate for this development, unless it is satisfied that each of the required BASIX commitments have been fulfilled.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Council upon issuing the final Occupation Certificate.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate drainage is provided from the premises and to maintain adequate levels of health and amenity in the locality: (Note: Stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of this development consent.)

 

13.       Detailed drainage plans shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The drainage plans shall demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this development approval.

 

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

 

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

 

Notes:

a.          The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed

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

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

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

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

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

 

b.            The infiltration/rubble pit shall:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

15.       As the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation, the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority. 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).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.       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.

 

19.       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.

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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.

 

Note: 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.

 

 

22.       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.

 

23.       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”.

 

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

 

25.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

27.       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.

 

28.       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

 

29.       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.

 

30.       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.

 

31.       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 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

33.       The demolition, removal, storage, handling and disposal of building products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Conservation (formerly the Environment Protection Authority) and Randwick City Council policies and conditions, including:

 

·        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

·        WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·        Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·        The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

·        Relevant Department of Environment & Conservation (DEC) / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

·        Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

34.       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.

 

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

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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.

 

38.       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.

 

39.       Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all building, demolition and associated site works (including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

In addition, the use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers or the like, is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum) on Monday to Friday only, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

40.       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.

 

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.

 

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

 

a)        Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks and levels of the building.

 

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.

 

42.       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.

 

43.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

45.       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.

 

46.       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 soil and 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.

 

47.       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.

 

48.       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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of public health, amenity and safety:

 

51.       The demolition, removal, storage, handling and disposal of products and materials containing asbestos must be carried out in accordance with Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy and the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW and the NSW Department of Environment & Conservation (formerly the Environment Protection Authority), including:

 

·        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

·        WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·        Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·        The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

·        Relevant Department of Environment & Conservation (DEC) / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

52.       A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

 

The Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

·        The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·        Details of hazardous materials, including asbestos

·        Method/s of demolition and removal of asbestos

·        Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·        Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne asbestos and dust

·        Methods and location of disposal of any asbestos or other hazardous materials

·        Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented as identified in the Asbestos Survey

·        Date the demolition and removal of asbestos will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) if the Council is not the PCA, not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition works involving asbestos products or materials.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Note it is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

53.       A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 200 m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation). Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.

 

54.       On demolition sites involving the removal of asbestos, a  professionally manufactured sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS” and include details of the licensed contractor. The sign shall measure not less than 400mm x 300mm and the sign is to be installed prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos has been safely removed from the site.

 

55.       Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

 

Asbestos waste must be disposed of at an approved waste disposal depot (refer to the DEC or Waste Service NSW for details of sites). Copies of all receipts detailing method and location of disposal must be maintained on site and be provided to Council officers upon request, as evidence of correct disposal.

 

56.       A Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (ie an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council upon completion of the works (prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued), which confirms that the relevant requirements contained in the Asbestos Survey and conditions of consent, in relation to the safe removal and disposal of asbestos, have been satisfied.

 

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

 

57.       Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council and details are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

58.       A demolition and construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development, to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

The Waste Management Plan must provide details of the type and quantities of demolition and construction waste materials, proposed re-use and recycling of materials, methods of disposal and details of recycling outlets and land fill sites.

 

Where practicable waste materials must be re-used or recycled, rather than disposed and further details of Council's requirements including relevant guidelines and pro-forma WMP forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre or by telephoning Council on 9399 0999.

 

Details and receipts verifying the recycling and disposal of materials must be kept on site at all times and presented to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

59.       The following damage/civil works security deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for Council or a Council approved subcontractor to carry civil works such as construction of a new vehicular crossing to the subject site.

 

a.   $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:

 

60.       Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a.   Construct a new concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site. This shall include any necessary excavation of rock on Council’s nature strip.

 

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

 

c.   Reconstruct the Council concrete footpath to suit the new levels for the driveway entrance. This shall include the reconstruction of steps to the west of the driveway entrance.

 

d.   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.

 

61.       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.

 

62.       The gradient of the internal access driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

The height of the building must not be increased to satisfy the required driveway gradients.

 

63.       A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council's City Services Department prior to opening-up or carrying out any proposed works within the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place and all works including repairs are to be carried out to Council's satisfaction.

 

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

 

64.       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 shall be as follows:

 

a.   Pedestrian Gate Entrance – Match the existing Council footpath level at this location.

 

b.   Driveway Entrance – RL 21.67 AHD

 

The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

65.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

66.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $620.00 calculated at $44.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

67.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

70.       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.

 

71.       Landscaped areas must include an area dedicated to on-site composting.

 

72.       The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation (except as amended by the terms of this consent) prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

73.       The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

74.       The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be maintained by the applicant in accordance with Council guidelines. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, watering, mowing, fertilising, and the removal of weeds.

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1       Building or excavations works must not be commenced until a construction certificate has been obtained from Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier and either Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) for this development.

 

Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate and appoint a PCA before commencing works is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

A2       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the construction certificate must not be inconsistent with the development consent.

 

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

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

A3       The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 96/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

35 - 37 St Pauls Street,  RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

12 October, 2006

FILE NO:

D/43/2006 &

PROP050888

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No DA/43/2006 for demolition of the existing building, retaining two shop-front facades to St Pauls Street, and construction of a part-3, part-4 storey mixed use development designed as 2 buildings with central courtyard and containing 2 retail shops, 10 residential dwellings with 4 carparking spaces provided with access off Aeolia Lane, and strata subdivision.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 10 October 2006.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

12 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/43/2006

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing building, retaining two shop-front facades to St Paul Street, and construction of a part-3, part-4 storey mixed use development designed as 2 buildings with central courtyard and containing 2 retail shops, 10 residential dwellings with 4 carparking spaces provided with access off Aeolia Lane, and strata subdivision.

PROPERTY:

 35-37 St Pauls Street, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Brian Meyerson Architects

OWNER:

 A S & G Voloshin and M Moses

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 

The application is referred to the Council at the request of Councillors Michael Daley, Scott Nash and Chris Bastic.

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing building, retaining two shop-front facades to St Paul Street, and construction of a part-3, part-4 storey mixed use development designed as 2 buildings with central courtyard and containing 2 retail shops, 10 residential dwellings with 4 carparking spaces. One building (maximum 3 storeys) will have a primary frontage to St Pauls Street while the other building (maximum 4 storeys) will have a secondary frontage to Aeolia Lane.

 

The proposal has been referred to the Urban Design Review Panel to ensure compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) and the accompanying Residential Flat Design Code. The Panel has raised concerns specifically in relation to the inadequate width of the central courtyard and amenity of the split level in the apartments contained in the building fronting Aeolia Street. To address the Panel’s concerns, the applicant submitted amended plans on 10 July 2006. Further amended plans and a supplementary parking/access report were submitted on 6 September 2006 following a meeting with the applicant on 2 August 2006 in which concerns regarding the deficiency in carparking, non-compliance with the FSR control and breach of the height limit were discussed. These amended plans and supplementary information (which are the subject of this report), have been assessed and are considered to be inadequate and unsatisfactory in addressing the concerns as raised at the meeting.

 

The proposal does not comply with the statutory controls applicable to the site in that it has a maximum FSR of 2.35:1 compared with the maximum FSR control of 1.5:1 and a maximum height of 13.1m compared with a maximum building height control of 12m. The applicant has submitted objections under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in relation to these non-compliances. An assessment of the objections indicate that the applicant has not made a valid case to indicate why compliance with the development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary. Specifically, the proposal is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and will be excessive, intrusive and overwhelming in height, bulk and scale such as to detract from the heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area.

 

The proposal does not comply with the DCP – Carparking with a shortfall of 13 car spaces which, given the acute shortage of on-street and public carparking in The Spot, is considered inappropriate and unacceptable. 

 

The Heritage Impact Statement submitted with the development application is deficient as it fails to provide an adequate heritage impact assessment that assesses the proposed development and its impact on the heritage significance of the relevant affected heritage item and its setting, and the heritage conservation area as required under Clause 43 and 46 of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The recommendation is for refusal of the development application.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings but retain two shopfront facades to St Pauls Street and construct a part 3, part 4 storey mixed use development designed as 2 buildings with central courtyard and comprising of 2 retail shops, 10 residential dwellings (studio and 1 bedroom dwellings) with 4 car parking spaces provided with access off Aeolia Lane, and strata subdivision.

 

The residential component of the development comprises the following:

 

St Paul Street block

 

·    4 x 1bedroom dwellings on Levels 1 and 2

 

Aeolia Lane block

 

·    4 x 1 bedroom dwellings on Levels 1 and 2 

·    2 x studio dwellings on Level 3

 

Pedestrian access is provided from both St Paul Street and Aeolia Lane.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the northern side of St Paul Street in The Spot commercial centre.  The site is roughly rectangular in shape decreasing in width from St Pauls Street to Aeolia Lane and has a fall of approximately 1.8m from Aeolia Lane to St Paul Street.

 

Existing on the site are two ground level retail shops each with two-bedroom dwelling units above fronting St Paul Street and separate garages fronting Aeolia Lane.  

 

The subject site is adjoined to the west by a two-storey  brick shop and residence, to the north by Aeolia Lane, to the south by the Ritz Cinema building, which is listed as a heritage item under the Randwick LEP 1998,  and to the west by St Paul Street.

 

The surrounding development comprises the shopping centre of The Spot containing primarily shops, restaurants and the Ritz Cinema complex. The shopping centre and the immediate surrounding residential area is listed as a Heritage Conservation Area under the Randwick LEP 1998. 

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

The proposal was the subject of a prelodgement application and meeting which was held in September 2005. 

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified and advertised from 15 February to 1 March 2006 in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. 11 submissions were received in response as follows:

 

R. Arbues, 11/25-31 Perouse Road, Randwick

 

§ Parking is grossly inadequate in an area with parking problems.

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly,  the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

§ Rubbish removal from the rear lane will be difficult with congestion and obstruction of vehicular access in the rear laneway.

Comment: Aeolia Lane is currently a narrow laneway serving the rear garages of Nos. 29 -37 St Pauls Street and the Ritz Cinema carpark. The applicant has not provided information indicating that ingress/egress arrangements are satisfactory, will not compromise vehicular or pedestrian safety, and will achieve satisfactory sight-lines along this laneway. The application, accordingly, is recommended for refusal. 

 

§ Overdevelopment of the subject site.

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below. 

 

§ Proposal will not fit with the character of the Spot Precinct.

Comment: The proposal will be excessive and overwhelming in bulk and scale such as to detract from the heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area as discussed in Section 10.1.1 below.

 

§ Proposal does not comply with the Council’s codes and regulation.

Comment: Non-compliance with Council’s statutory and policy controls are discussed in Sections 10.1.1 and 10.3 below. The SEPP No.1 Objections submitted for the breach in the FSR and height controls have been assessed and no valid case has been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of carparking is unacceptable. Accordingly the DA is recommended for refusal.

 

J. Temple, 14/6 Ormond Street, Bondi

 

§ Proposal is an overdevelopment of the subject site that will damage the character of the Spot.

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below. 

 

N & A Katehos, 39 Kookaburra Street, Greystanes (Owners of Unit 7/48-50 St Pauls Street, Randwick)

 

§ Non-compliant and excessive Floor Space Ratio and non-compliant and inadequate carparking.

Comment: Non-compliance with Council’s statutory and policy controls are discussed in Sections 10.1.1 and 10.3 below. The SEPP No.1 Objections submitted for the breach in the FSR and height controls have been assessed and no valid case has been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street/public carparking is unacceptable. Accordingly the DA is recommended for refusal.

 

S. Jirapattranant, 33 Perouse Road, Randwick (owner of nearby restaurant)

 

§ Obstruction and disruption to deliveries and services to the objector’s restaurant from Aeolia Lane during construction.

Comment: Appropriate demolition and construction management conditions can be applied with any consent for any development of this nature including the control and restrictions on demolition/construction traffic in the laneway. Notwithstanding this, the application is being recommended for refusal.  

 

§ Inadequate on-site carparking results in increase on-street parking thus affecting parking needs of the restaurant and other business in the Spot.

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly,  the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

J. Katehos, 1/25-31 Perouse Road, Randwick (owner of 25-31 St Pauls Street)

 

§ No justification for the extent of the proposal’s non-compliance with Council’s Parking DCP particularly when considering the current issues with parking in the area.

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly, the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

§ Object to comparison with objector’s building at 25-31 St Pauls Street, as this existing development complies with the DCP – Parking.

Comment: The subject proposal has been assessed on its merits having regard to the heads of consideration in Section 79c of the EP&A Act and given the detrimental effects arising from the non-compliances with the FSR, building height and carparking controls, the proposal is recommended for refusal. 

 

§ Proposal grossly exceeds allowable maximum FSR and will set a precedent.

Comment: Non-compliance with Council’s statutory and policy controls are discussed in Sections 10.1.1 and 10.3 below. The SEPP No.1 Objections submitted for the breach in the FSR and height controls have been assessed and no valid case has been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street/public carparking is unacceptable. Accordingly the DA is recommended for refusal.

 

§ Overdevelopment of a small site for financial gain whilst burdening the surrounding area.

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below. 

 

§ Proposal will disrupt the access to residents along Aeolia Lane during construction and operation.

Comment: Appropriate demolition and construction management conditions can be applied with any consent for any development of this nature including the control and restrictions on demolition/construction traffic in the laneway. Notwithstanding this, the application is being recommended for refusal.  

 

J Ziade, 50 St Paul Street, Randwick (owner of the Ritz Cinema)

 

§ The Spot precinct is deficient in carparking.

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly,  the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

§ The proposal fails in providing the required carparking spaces.

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly,  the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

§ Future residents of the proposed building that would not have a parking space would apply for Resident Parking Permits thus minimising (viz) on-street carparking for customers of the business precinct.

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly,  the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

§ Visitors of residents in the proposed building will also use on-street parking.

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly, the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

§ Approving the deficiency in carparking will set an unnecessary (viz) precedent.

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly, the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

§ The use of the car stacker off Aeolia Lane will obstruct ingress to and egress from the Ritz Cinema.

Comment: The applicant has advised that an appropriate car stacking system can be used to minimise disruption to traffic in the lane. Furthermore, conditions can be applied requiring amongst other things that the car stacker be installed and operated so as not to disrupt or obstruct traffic in the laneway should approval be granted. However, as indicated above, the subject DA is being recommended for refusal.

 

§ The use of the car stacker off Aeolia Lane will obstruct operation of the Ritz Cinema valet parking.

Comment: The applicant has advised that an appropriate car stacking system can be used to minimise disruption to traffic in the lane. Furthermore, conditions can be applied requiring amongst other things that the car stacker be installed and operated so as not to disrupt or obstruct traffic in the laneway should approval be granted. However, as indicated above, the subject DA is being recommended for refusal.

 

§ There is no provision for a carwash bay.

Comment:  Council’s DCP – Carparking requires the provision of carwash bays at a rate of 1 car wash bay per 12 dwellings. The proposal provides for 10 dwelling units so that a carwash bay is not required.

 

§ There is a lack of turning circle for vehicular ingress to/egress from the proposed development.

Comment: Aeolia Lane is currently a narrow laneway serving the rear garages of Nos. 29 -37 St Pauls Street and the Ritz Cinema carpark. The applicant has not provided information indicating that ingress/egress arrangements are satisfactory, will not compromise vehicular or pedestrian safety, and will achieve satisfactory sight-lines along this laneway. The application, accordingly, is recommended for refusal. 

 

§ The proposed parking will block egress paths from the Ritz in an emergency situation.

Comment: Aeolia Lane is currently a narrow laneway serving the rear garages of Nos. 29 -37 St Pauls Street and the Ritz Cinema carpark. The applicant has not provided information indicating that ingress/egress arrangements are satisfactory, will not compromise vehicular or pedestrian safety, and will achieve satisfactory sight-lines along this laneway. The application, accordingly, is recommended for refusal. 

 

§ All other developments in the Spot area approved by Council have complied and provided full parking requirements.

Comment:  The proposal, assessed on its own merits, fails to comply with the required carparking provision and therefore is recommended for refusal.

 

§ No SEPP 1 objection has been lodged in relation to the non-compliance with carparking.

 

§ Comment: SEPP No.1 objections can only be lodged in relation to non-compliances with statutory controls. No SEPP No.1 objection is required in relation to the non-compliance with the carparking standard as this is a DCP control. Notwithstanding this, the application is being recommended for refusal.

 

§ Excessive non-compliance of proposed FSR sets an undesirable precedent.

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below. Furthermore, the proposal will be excessive and overwhelming in bulk and scale such as to detract from the heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area as discussed in Section 10.1.1 below.

 

§ The proposal has excessive height and bulk relative to the area of the subject site and would detract from the heritage character of the area and create an eyesore to the area.

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below. Furthermore, the proposal will be excessive and overwhelming in bulk and scale such as to detract from the heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area as discussed in Section 10.1.1 below.

 

§ There will be noise and sound vibration impacting the proposed dwelling units result in complaints by future residents.

Comment: The proposed mixed-use development with its multi-unit residential component is a permissible use in the Local Business 3B Zone subject to Council’s consent.  The applicant has submitted an acoustic report which has been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health officer. As advised by the Environmental Health officer in Section 6.2 below, the acoustic report concludes that, provided the recommendations contained within the report were carried out, the proposed residential development is predicted to comply with the noise intrusion requirements of Randwick City Council and/or other relevant Australian standards or guidelines. The recommendations contained in the report include well-sealed air-tight glazing when closed and assessment of potential noise emissions generated from the development plant and equipment, once equipment has been decided upon. Accordingly, the Environmental Health Unit finds the findings of the acoustic report acceptable, subject to conditions including the submission of an acoustic validation report prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

S Himskirk, 33a St Paul Street, Randwick

 

§ Excessive FSR compared to maximum FSR control of 1.5:1

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below

 

§ Structural damage to objector's property resulting from demolition and construction.

Comment: Appropriate demolition and construction management conditions can be applied with any consent for the proposed development. Notwithstanding, the application is being recommended for refusal.  

 

§ Replacement of existing fence with an unsightly brick wall.

Comment: As discussed in Section 10.1.1 and 10.4.2.1 below, the proposal will result in an excessive, height, bulk and scale which will tower over the adjoining lots 29-33 (including the objector’s property) such as to detract from the heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area as discussed in Section 10.1.1 below. Accordingly, the application is being recommended for refusal.  

 

§ Affect existing access to objector’s residential property at rear garage.

Comment: Aeolia Lane is currently a narrow laneway serving the rear garages of Nos. 29 -37 St Pauls Street and the Ritz Cinema carpark. The applicant has not provided information indicating that ingress/egress arrangements are satisfactory, will not compromise vehicular or pedestrian safety, and will achieve satisfactory sight-lines along this laneway. The

 

§ Overwhelming bulk and scale

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below.

 

§ Loss of privacy to existing courtyard, bathroom and bedroom.

Comment: As discussed in Section 10.4.2.3.2 below, the proposal will not give rise to overlooking of the objector’s property as all proposed balconies will face the internal courtyard or Aeolia Lane with the western edges of relevant balconies to be screened with extended blade masonry walls. Notwithstanding this, glazed opening are proposed along the western wall of the proposed development but no details have been provided as to the material for these opening (ie., whether obscured glazing will be applied). Accordingly,  this has been applied as one reason for refusal of the application.

 

§ Traffic congestion in rear lane with delivery vehicles and carparking blocking access to the objector’s garage.

Comment : There are existing loading zones in St Pauls Street that may be used to service existing shops fronting this street. One of the reasons for refusal of the subject application is the lack of carparking in the proposed development (ie., any car parking generation from the development site should be met on site.), which will potentially give rise to further carparking in Aeolia Lane which, being a narrow laneway, will become further obstructed and congested.

 

§ Potential for proposed apartments to become backpackers hostel degrading the village atmosphere of the Spot

Comment : The proposal is for a mixed use development including studio and 1 bedroom apartments which is permissible in the Local Business 3B zone subject to Council’s consent. The nature of the occupancy/tenancy of these dwelling units is a matter that is determined by external market factors that are not within the scope of this assessment other than in terms of the impacts addressed in Section 10.4 below as required under Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act.

 

§ Long term detriment of living conditions of residents of the Spot.

Comment : the likely impact of the proposed development is addressed in Section 10.4 below in accordance with Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act

 

M Howe, 25 Byron Street, Coogee

& J & M Stevens, 29 Henning Avenue South Coogee

 

§ Number of dwelling units is excessive for an area already congested.

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below. 

 

§ Studio and 1 bedroom units generate transient residents inappropriate for the area

Comment : The proposal is for a mixed use development including studio and 1 bedroom apartments which is permissible in the Local Business 3B zone subject to Council’ consent. The nature of the occupancy/tenancy of these dwelling units is a matter that is determined by external market factors that are not within the scope of this assessment other than in terms of the impacts addressed in Section 10.4 below as required under Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act.

 

§ Exacerbates the serious parking problem in The Spot which already deters the objector from going to The Spot

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly, the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

§ Affects the visual quality of the streetscape

Comment: The proposal will be excessive and overwhelming in bulk and scale such as to detract from the heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area as discussed in Section 10.1.1 below.

 

§ Cramming of more people into an area already crowded

Comment : The proposal is for a mixed use development including studio and 1 bedroom apartments which is permissible in the Local Business 3B zone subject to Council’s consent. The nature of the occupancy/tenancy of these dwelling units is a matter that is determined by external market factors that are not within the scope of this assessment other than in terms of the impacts addressed in Section 10.4 below as required under Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act.

 

S Burns, BM Salmon Layton & Co. Solicitors, Level 2, 67 Castlereagh Street, Sydney (on behalf of A Savva, 33A St Pauls Street, Randwick)

 

§ Excessive FSR compared to maximum FSR control of 1.5:1

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below

 

§ Structural damage to objector's property resulting from demolition and construction.

Comment: Appropriate demolition and construction management conditions can be applied with any consent fro the proposed development. However, eth application is being recommended for refusal.  

 

§ Replacement of existing fence with an unsightly brick wall.

Comment: As discussed in Section 10.1.1 and 10.4.2.1 below, the proposal will result in an excessive, height, bulk and scale which will tower over the adjoining lots 29-33 (including the objector’s property at 33a St Pauls Street) such as to detract from the heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area as discussed in Section 10.1.1 below.

 

§ Affect existing access to objector’s residential property at rear garage.

Comment: Aeolia Lane is currently a narrow laneway serving the rear garages of Nos. 29 -37 St Pauls Street and the Ritz Cinema carpark. The applicant has not provided information indicating that ingress/egress arrangements are satisfactory, will not compromise vehicular or pedestrian safety, and will achieve satisfactory sight-lines along this laneway. The application, accordingly, is recommended for refusal. 

 

§ Overwhelming bulk and scale

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below.

 

§ Loss of privacy to existing courtyard, bathroom and bedroom.

Comment: As discussed in Section 10.4.2.2.2 below, the proposal will not give rise to overlooking of the objector’s property as all proposed balconies will face the internal courtyard or Aeolia Lane with the western edges of relevant balconies to be screened with extended blade masonry walls. Notwithstanding this, glazed opening are proposed along the western wall of the proposed development but no details have been provided as to the material for these opening (ie., whether obscured glazing will be applied). Accordingly,  this has been applied a sone reason for refusal.

 

§ Traffic congestion in rear lane with delivery vehicles and carparking blocking access to the objector’s garage.

Comment : There are existing loading zones in St Pauls Street that may be used to service existing shops fronting this street. One of the reasons for refusal of the subject application is the lack of carparking in the proposed development (ie., any car parking generation from the development site should be met on site.), which will potentially give rise to further carparking in Aeolia Lane which being a narrow laneway will become further obstructed and congested.

 

§ Potential for proposed apartments to become backpackers hostel degrading the village atmosphere of the Spot

Comment : The proposal is for a mixed use development including studio and 1 bedroom apartments which is permissible in the Local Business 3B zone subject to Council’s consent. The nature of the occupancy/tenancy of these dwelling units is a matter that is determined by external market factors that are not within the scope of this assessment other than in terms of the impacts addressed in Section 10.4 below as required under Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act.

 

P. Chilcott, PO Box 172, St Pauls, NSW

 

§ Overdevelopment as proposed FSR exceeds maximum FSR control

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below. 

 

§ Site too small to cope with 10 residential units

Comment: The proposal with a non-complying FSR of 2.35:1 is considered an overdevelopment of the subject site and recommended for refusal as discussed in Section 10.1.1.1 below. 

 

§ Inappropriate development as proposed dwelling units look into internal courtyard and unattractive laneway

Comment: The design merits of the proposal are addressed in Section 10.4.2.1 below.

 

§ Delivery to shops will be difficult given existing congestion in the laneway.

Comment : There are existing loading zones in St Pauls Street that may be used to service existing shops fronting this street. One of the reasons for refusal of the subject application is the lack of carparking in the proposed development (ie., any car parking generation from the development site should be met on site.), which will potentially give rise to further carparking in Aeolia Lane which being a narrow laneway will become further obstructed and congested.

 

§ Inadequate parking provision.

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly, the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

The Spot Precinct, PO Box 172, St Pauls, NSW

 

§ Insufficient carparking given existing parking problems in The Spot and non-compliance with DCP – Parking

Comment: The non-compliance with the DCP – Carparking in an area with acute shortage of on-street and public carparking is unacceptable and, accordingly, the DA is recommended for refusal (as discussed in 10.3 below).

 

§ Excessive overdevelopment and non-compliance with Randwick LEP in terms of FSR given small size of the subject site

 Comment: Non-compliance with Council’s statutory and policy controls are discussed in Sections 10.1.1 and 10.3 below. The SEPP No.1 Objections submitted for the breach in the FSR and height controls have been assessed and no valid case has been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. Accordingly the DA is recommended for refusal.

 

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  Development Engineering Comments  

 

The Development Engineer advises as follows:

 

“An application has been received for the construction of a mixed use development at the above site containing two commercial tenancies and 10 units with car parking for four vehicles as well as associated strata subdivision.

 

Landscape Comments

 

Within the existing, small courtyard beyond the rear of the existing dwellings, there are two Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palms) of about 6-8 metres in height. Despite being the only vegetation at the site, they are considered insignificant, with this species no longer covered by Council’s revised Tree Preservation Order.

 

Although not officially requiring consent for removal, permission has been listed in this report for the clarification of the applicant.

 

Despite the fact there is no minimum requirement for landscaping at this particular site, a landscaped courtyard is proposed for the upper ground floor level, with a landscape plan detailing the proposed treatment needing to be submitted.

 

The provision of street trees on the St Paul’s Street frontage is not feasible in this instance given the presence of an awning and associated lack of available space, with the requirement to develop the streetscape in front of the site not needed given that all paving works in this commercial centre have already been undertaken by Council.

 

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 / Civil Works Comments

 

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 18 spaces are required (5 spaces for the 200m2 of retail space, 10 spaces for the 10 x one bedroom units and 3 visitor spaces).

 

The submitted plans show a total of only four car spaces being provided on-site, by means of a double two car stacker fronting Aeolia Lane. The applicant has proposed to provide one space for each of the two retail units and one space each for two of the ten residential units, representing a shortfall of some 14 car spaces.

 

The applicant has submitted a Traffic and Parking Assessment by Project Planning Associates dated 19 January 2006. This report states that the proposed development represents a shortfall of only 6 car spaces and that this shortfall is acceptable because of public transport accessibility, proximity to services and a generalisation that occupants of smaller apartments typically generate low parking demands. The Development Engineer provides the following comments regarding the submitted Traffic and Parking Assessment:

 

The proposal is not an extension/modification to the existing development, hence there is no ‘credit’ of 2 carparking spaces in relation to the two existing units not having car parking;

The parking requirements for the retail units should be based on Council’s DCP – Parking values of 1 car space per 40m2 (that is, 5 car spaces), not on the current supply of one car space for each of the two retail units;

Visitor parking is also required, at a rate of 1 car space per 4 units; hence an additional 3 spaces are required; and

 

The applicant’s consultant has noted that the development will encourage cycling, however only minimal bicycle parking appears to have been provided. Council’s DCP – Parking specifies a minimum of 4 secure spaces shall be provided for a development of this size.

 

It is further noted that the subject site is located in an extremely busy area with a high demand for on-street parking. The Development Engineer does not support the application being approved with only four parking spaces.

 

Should the Planning Officer consider approving the application with a shortfall in car spaces, the occupants of the development site would not be entitled to apply for residential parking permits at any time in the future. A condition has been included in the report to address this matter.

 

Given the high demand for on-street parking in the area, the Planning Officer may wish to refer the application to the Traffic Committee for consideration prior to approving any parking deficits.

 

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, given the site constraints, car stackers may be considered for use.

 

Should the Planning Officer consider approving the car stackers, it is recommended that the following conditions (at a minimum) be included in any development approval:

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Vehicular Access

Council generally requires that all vehicular crossings are located at least 1.50 metres from the site boundary and that all new walls adjacent to the crossings be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site (or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre) to provide satisfactory sight lines.

 

In addition, for properties proposing vehicular access from rear laneways, Council generally requires a garage structure or car space to be setback one metre from the property boundary.

 

At the prelodgement stage the applicant was advised that given the site’s constraints (including narrow street frontage to Aeolia Lane), consideration may be given to waiving these requirements. However it was noted that this would be subject to justification from a suitably qualified traffic engineer that satisfactory sight lines could still be achieved, for example through the installation of convex mirrors or similar. Neither the submitted traffic report nor the submitted plans appear to address this issue.

 

It is recommended that the Planning Officer request the applicant address this matter prior to the issuing of development consent (however a condition has been included in the report should the Planning Officer consider this information unnecessary prior to development approval).

 

The Planning officer is also advised that Council generally requires all vehicles enter and exit the site in a forward direction. The parking arrangement shown on the submitted plans does not comply with this requirement. It is recommended that the applicant be requested to submit details from a suitably qualified traffic engineer demonstrating that the ingress/egress arrangements are satisfactory and will not compromise vehicular or pedestrian safety.

 

Service Authority Comments

 

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 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 proposed works will be in be in excess of $1 million the applicant would be required to meet all costs associated with replacing the overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site.

 

However, an inspection of the site revealed that with the exception of the feeder lines into the subject site there are no overhead cables along the St Pauls Street site frontage. Consequently, the applicant will only need to underground the cables servicing the subject development site.”

 

6.2  Environmental Health Comments

 

The Environmental Health Services advise as follows:

 

 “The proposal

 

The proposal consist of an application for the demolition of existing building and construction of a new mixed use development. The new building consists of a part 3 part 4 storey mixed sue development comprising of two retail and ten residential apartments.

 

Key Issues

 

Acoustics

 

The proposed development is located in ‘The Spot’ in Randwick. This area has a concentration of restaurants and cafes with outdoor dining as well as a cinema, and many businesses in this area trade late.

 

Minimal information relating to the issue of acoustic amenity was submitted with the original application, and as such Council requested further information in relation to this matter. On 17 July 2006 Councils Environmental Health Unit received an additional report titled 35-37 St Pauls Street Randwick Acoustic Impact Assessment Report number 20C-06-0113-TRP-204383-1 dated 7 July 2007 prepared by Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd.

 

This report concluded that provided the recommendations contained within the report were carried out, the proposed residential development is predicted to comply with the noise intrusion requirements of Randwick City Council and/or other relevant Australian standards or guidelines. The recommendations contained in the report include:

 

Glazing Schedule

All windows/doors should be well sealed (airtight) when closed.

Assessment of potential noise emissions generated from the development plant and equipment, once equipment has been decided upon.

 

The EHU accepts the findings of the acoustic report. An acoustic validation report will be required to be submitted prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.”

 

6.3       Heritage Comments

 

Council’s Heritage Planner advises as follows:

 

“The subject site is within The Spot Conservation Area and is occupied by a two storey mixed commercial/residential building, part of group of two storey Edwardian style buildings of similar design, which extend around to corner of Perouse Road and St Pauls Street.  The building has been somewhat altered including replacement of original shopfront.  The site is within The Spot Conservation Area and is adjacent to The Ritz cinema, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998 and which is also listed on the State Heritage Register.

 

The proposal is to provide a new four level building behind the existing two storey façade.  The floor plan of the upper two levels of the building will comprise two units facing towards the front of the site and two units facing towards the rear.  Another two units are to be provided on the top level facing towards the rear.

 

The pre-da proposal was been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Rappoport Pty Ltd, Conservation Architects and Heritage Consultants.  The current application includes a Statement of Environmental Effects which quotes from a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Urbanistes.

 

The Urban Design Study of Randwick and The Spot shopping centres prepared by Knox Tanner in February 1994 notes the building at no.29-37 St Pauls Street is of high architectural quality, and has a critically important streetscape impact.

 

Development Control Plan No.22 for The Spot and Surrounds, identifies the group comprising nos.29-37 St Pauls Street as a contributing façade.  These buildings contribute to the identity of the conservation area.  In relation to contributing facades, the DCP requires that any application considers the significance of the item as a component of the environmental heritage of The Spot and the extent to which the proposal affects the significance of the item and the streetscape.

 

The Spot DCP includes a building envelope plane for historic buildings/contributing facades in order to reduce the prominence of additions and alterations to ensure they do not intrude upon the streetscape and the existing character of buildings built between the late 1880s and the mid 1930s.  The height plane is projected from a point 1600mm above the kerb line with its angle determined by the height of the retained buildings.  It appears that the proposed development will be contained within the required height plane.

 

The Urbanistes HIS considers that the building is of medium to high local aesthetic significance as part of a reasonably well preserved streetscape item, the Warwick Buildings.  In relation to the Ritz cinema, the assessment notes that “the adjoining heritage items’ significance and cartilages (sic) will not be adversely affected by the proposal which would not be visible from either it or the public domain, St Pauls Street.”  The Rappoport HIS considered that the building’s primary significance lies in the St Pauls Street façade, while the secondary significance is comprised in the northern elevation fronting the rear lane which mirrors the rear elevations of the adjoining properties to the west.

 

In relation to the demolition of the existing building, other than the St Pauls Street façade, it is noted that the Statements of Heritage Impact publication published by the NSW Heritage Office and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning provides the following Questions to be Answered in the case of Major partial demolition of heritage items:

 

Is the demolition necessary for the heritage item to function?

Are important features of the item affected by the demolition (eg- fireplaces in buildings)?

Is the detailing of the partial demolition sympathetic to the heritage significance of the item?

 

If the partial demolition is a result of the condition of the fabric, is it certain that the fabric cannot be repaired?

 

The proposed demolition is not a result of the condition of the fabric and it is unclear whether or not the demolition is necessary for the building to function.  The HIS considers that the first floor front room is of low heritage significance.  There are concerns in relation to the extent of demolition, that only a small remnant of the original building will remain which will be devalued by the new development on the site.

 

In relation to the construction of the new development there are concerns that the proposed three and four level development affecting two of the five buildings within the group will detract from the group value of the building comprising nos.29-35 St Pauls Street, as a result of the additional height proposed.  It is noted that the proposed upper level appears to comply with the building height plane contained in the DCP, however concerns remain that the additional levels will be visible from the surrounding area, which other than the Ritz Cinema, has a predominantly two storey scale.  In particular there are concerns that the top level of the proposal will be visible against the western side wall of the western addition to the Ritz Cinema.  From Aeolia Lane at the rear of the site the proposal will detract from the group value of no.29-35 St Pauls Street by replacing the existing single story rear wings with a four level building”. 

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site area is 361 sqm which is less than the site area required for the preparation of a master plan under clause 40A of the RLEP98.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The development 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 Local Business 3B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the proposed development is permissible within the zone.

 

The following clauses of the RLEP are applicable to the proposal:

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided (Amended Proposal)

Compliance

32 - FSR

1.5:1 (541.5sqm)

2.35:1 (849 sqm)

No (SEPP No.1 Objection submitted)

33(1) – Building Height

12m max. overall

13.1m (measured to pitch of the rooftop enclosure over the Aeolia Street building)

 

No (SEPP No.1 Objection submitted)

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

 

43

 

 

Protection or heritage item, heritage conservation areas and relics

Located in a heritage conservation area.

Inadequate assessment of impact on the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area.

46

 

Vicinity of heritage item or heritage  conservation area.

Located adjacent to a heritage item (Ritz Cinema).

Inadequate assessment of impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item – the Ritz Cinema.

 

8.2       State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. No details of the past and present use of the land has been provided with the development application with respect to the potential for contamination on the site to enable an adequate assessment of the proposal under SEPP55 - Remediation of Land (see further discussion in Section 10.2 below).

 

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

 

SEPP 65 sets out design quality principles for residential flat buildings, which must be taken into consideration by a consent authority. The design quality principles relate to general approach, context, scale, built form, density, aesthetics, amenity, resources, energy and water efficiency, social dimensions and safety and security.

 

In accordance with SEPP 65, the application was referred to the Urban Design Review Panel on 6 March 2006. The design issues raised by the Panel are discussed in Section 10.4.2.1 of this report.

 

9.         POLICY CONTROLS

 

9.1 Development Control Plan No. 22 – The Spot and Surrounds Coogee Precinct.

 

The proposal’s compliance with DCP No. 16 is indicated in the following table:

 

Required

Provided / Proposed

Y / N

1.  Site Consolidation – Min. 800 sqm and frontage of 1.8m to permit development to FSR of 3:1.

1.  The site has an area of 1275 sqm and frontage of 25.3m.

Yes

2.  Building Height Plan of 45 degrees above 8m to adjacent street frontages in the areas shown in Figure 4 of the DCP.

 

Building Height Plan – Residential Development in Business Zones – 45 degrees above 8m where any proposed development shares a boundary with an existing residential property.

 

Building Height Plan – Historic Buildings/Contributing Facades – Max 45 degrees above 1600mm above the kerb line.

 

 

 

2 Does not apply to subject site.

 

 

 

 

Does not apply to subject site as adjoining properties to the east and west are commercial properties.

 

 

 

 

Applies to subject site as the site has a contributory façade as listed in the table indicated in page 5 of the DCP. Whilst retaining the existing shopfront façade, the addition behind the façade does not comply with this building height plane. 

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

3.  Where commercial component proposed is less than 25% of gross floor area side and rear setbacks should be equivalent to SEPP No. 20 “Minimum Standards for Residential Flat development”  

3.  Whilst commercial component is 23% SEPP No. 20 is no longer applicable to the subject site so that this control is no longer applicable.

N/A

4.  Where possible, the original heritage shopfront and detailing should be retained.

4.  Existing contributory facade including windows and awning structure to be retained.

Yes 

5.  Advertising structures and signs should not project above building and should respect the design of the building and not adversely affect the heritage streetscape values.

5.  No advertising sign is proposed in the subject development application.

N/A

6.  Building and Streetscape Colours of new development should be sympathetic to the conservation of older buildings reflecting their cultural significance; reflect existing heritage colours in the area.

6.  Council’s heritage planner finds that the colour scheme of the new development acceptable and consistent with the heritage colours of existing buildings in the Spot Heritage Conservation Area.

Yes

7. Facades/Infill development respect the built heritage and desired townscape character of The Spot  

Applies to subject site as the site has a contributory façade as listed in the table indicated in page 5 of the DCP. Whilst retaining the existing shopfront façade, the addition behind the façade does not comply with Building Height Plan – Historic Buildings/Contributing Facades – Max 45 degrees above 1600mm above the kerb line.  

No

7.  Continuous flat suspended/cantilevered awning to provide continuous pedestrian shelter and should be 3.5 m to 4.5 m above street level.

8.  Continuous awning proposed along the St Paul frontage (max 3.5m above street level) except for the part of the frontage  that is setback by 4m to provide a public space as required by the Urban Design Review Panel.

Yes

8.  Loading and unloading facilities not on the main street.

11.  Loading and unloading will be from rear lane.

Yes

 

9.2 Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The proposal’s compliance with DCP – Parking is indicated in the following table:

 

Number of car parking spaces:

 

 

 

 

 

USE

REQUIREMENT (DCP – Parking)

PROPOSED NUMBER AND/OR FLOOR AREA

REQUIRED PROVISION

PROPOSED PROVISION

Residential

1 space per two studio dwelling  

2 x studio dwelling

1 spaces

 

 

2 residential carspaces

 

1 space per one bedroom dwelling over 40 sqm

8 x one bedroom dwelling

8 spaces

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 10 units

2.5 spaces

 

Business

1 space per 40 sqm GFA

200 sqm GFA

5 spaces

  2 retail carspaces

TOTAL

 

 

16.5 spaces

 4 spaces

 

The proposal will have a numerical shortfall of 13 carspaces which does not comply with the carparking requirements of the DCP. This issue is addressed in Section 9.2 below.

 

Other relevant policy controls applicable to the subject site are as follows (see assessment in Section 10.3.3 and 10.3.4 below):

 

·    Contaminated Land Policy, 1999

·    Rainwater Tank Policy, 2003

 

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         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

10.1.1.1           Floor Space Ratio

 

A floor space ratio of 1.5:1 is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposed development has an overall floor space ratio of 2.35:1.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 32 of Randwick LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.       Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

 

The FSR control in question is a development standard contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.       The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

The stated object/purpose of the standard, as outlined in Randwick LEP 1998, is:

 

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

 

3.       Consistency of the development with local planning objectives for the locality, aims of SEPP No.1 and the objectives of the Act.

 

The Urban Design Study Framework of Randwick and The Spot Shopping Centres prepared by Knox Tanner in February 1994 stated, among other things, that the building at No. 29-37 St Pauls Street is of a high architectural quality, and has a critically important streetscape impact. Whilst it is noted that the proposal retains the existing shop front façade with the new development immediately behind this façade recessed to minimise its visual impact on St Pauls Street, the overall builtform of the proposal over the subject site and especially to the rear will be excessive and overwhelming in bulk and scale such as to detract from the visual quality and value of the group of buildings comprising No. 29-37 St Pauls Street. Additionally, the proposal with its non-compliant FSR will yield an excessive number of dwelling units relative to the amount of carparking that can be provided in the proposed development which, as indicated in Section 9.2 above, falls significantly short of the required number under the DCP - Parking. This parking shortfall is inconsistent with Council’s carparking strategy for The Spot which is essentially to maintain the availability of public carparking by ensuring that all new developments meet carparking requirements on-site.

 

The aims and objectives of SEPP No.1 are to provide:

 

“provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”

 

The objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

 

(i)         The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purposes of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and better environment;

(ii)        The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

The variation from the FSR control is inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 because it would detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) in that the resultant development would not promote the orderly use and development of the subject land because

 

·    it will create additional parking demand without providing/catering for this on-site but rather expecting this to be met on-street in a locality that is already experiencing acute shortage of on-street/public carparking.

 

·    it will have an excessive height, bulk and scale that detracts from heritage significance of The Spot Heritage Conservation Area and, specifically, the visual quality and architectural integrity of the adjoining group of buildings comprising Nos. 29-33 St Pauls Street, having regard to the existing nature of the rear elevations of these adjoining properties.

 

4.       Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

It is considered that compliance with the development standard in this case is reasonable and necessary for the following reasons:

 

·    To ensure that the resultant development on the subject site would have a bulk and scale that is consistent with, and respects, the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area. The breach in the FSR control is considered inappropriate in this case because it has resulted in a builtform at the rear that will be excessive and overwhelming in bulk and scale such as to detract from the visual quality and value of the group of buildings comprising No. 29-37 St Pauls Street.

 

·    To ensure that any development on the subject site is commensurate with the size of the subject site. In this case, the subject site is small in size being 361 sqm such that the proposed FSR at 2.35 :1 represents an overdevelopment of the site, a major indicator of this being the significant shortfall in carparking spaces having regard to the pressure on public carparking in The Spot.

 

In view of the above it is considered that the compliance with the development standard is reasonable or necessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

5.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

          An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that

 

§  Whilst the applicant’s SEPP No.1 submission has articulated the underlying and stated objectives of the standard clearly, it has failed to address adequately the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying stated objectives of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality, and objectives of the Act.

 

§  Whilst the applicant’s SEPP No.1 submission has demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, and overshadowing, it has failed to address the overbearing bulk and scale, intrusive nature and detrimental builtform impact of the proposal in relation to the heritage conservation area and the integrity of the group of buildings to the north-west comprising Nos 29-37 St Pauls Street.

 

§  The applicant has stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the SEPP No.1 submission. However, contrary to the applicant’s claim in the submission, the proposal will not promote the orderly use of the land and fails to consider adequately the heritage context and public carparking constraints in the locality in that the proposed development will not be commensurate with the size of the subject site which is small in size being 361 sqm. The proposed FSR at 2.35 :1 represents an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in (1) a bulky and overbearing building that would detract from the visual quality and heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area (and specifically the integrity of the group of buildings comprising No. 29-37 St Pauls Street) and (2) a development that will have a significant shortfall in carparking spaces that will put pressure on the existing acute shortage of public carparking in The Spot.

 

It is considered that SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and is not supported.

 

10.1.1.2           Building Heights

 

Clause 33 of the Randwick LEP 1998 sets a maximum 12 metre overall height limitation on buildings in the Local Business 3B zone affecting the site, as measured from existing ground level. The proposal would have a maximum overall height of approximately 13.1m to the top of roof ridge over the Aeolia Lane building, which does not comply with the building height control.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1) in respect to the non-compliance with the maximum permissible overall height limit and has argued that strict compliance with clause 33 of Randwick LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.         Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

 

The building wall height control in question is a development standard contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.         The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

The underlying objectives of the standard, as outlined in Randwick LEP 1998, are to:

 

·    Minimise the impact of the development adjoining the nearby land;

·    Control the bulk and scale of development through the imposition of appropriate height limits and

·    Ensure that there is a sympathetic transition between the prevailing scale and character of existing building in the locality and new development.

 

In addition, the underlying purpose of the building heights standard as stated in Randwick LEP 1998 is;

 

" to set upper limits for the heights 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 area”.

 

3.         Consistency of the development with local planning objectives for the locality, aims of SEPP No.1 and the objectives of the Act.

 

The Urban Design Study Framework of Randwick and The Spot Shopping Centres prepared by Knox Tanner in February 1994 stated, among other things, that the building at No. 29-37 St Pauls Street is of a high architectural quality, and has a critically important streetscape impact. Whilst it is noted that the proposal retains the existing shop front façade with the new development immediately behind this façade recessed to minimise its visual impact on St Pauls Street, the overall builtform of the proposal over the subject site and especially to the rear will be excessively high and it is where the proposal breaches the height control. As a result, the builtform to the rear will be visually intrusive and overbearing over the laneway such as to detract from the visual quality and value of the group of buildings comprising No. 29-37 St Pauls Street.

 

The aims and objectives of SEPP No.1 are to provide:

 

“provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”

 

The objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

 

(iii)       The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purposes of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and better environment;

 

(iv)       The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

The variation from the height control is inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 because it would detract from the objects of the Act under Section (a) (i) and (ii) in that the resultant development would not promote the orderly use and development of the subject land. The proposed building will have an excessive height, bulk and scale that detracts from heritage significance of The Spot Heritage Conservation Area and, specifically, the visual quality and architectural integrity of the adjoining group of buildings comprising Nos. 29-33 St Pauls Street, having regard to the existing nature of the rear elevations of these adjoining properties.

 

4.         Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

Compliance with the development standard in this case is considered reasonable and necessary to ensure that the resultant development on the subject site would have a height, bulk and scale that is consistent with, and respects, the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area. The breach in the height control is considered inappropriate in this case because it has resulted in a builtform at the rear that will be excessive and overwhelming in height, bulk and scale such as to detract from the heritage significance of The Spot Heritage Conservation Area and in particular the visual quality and integrity of the group of buildings comprising No. 29-37 St Pauls Street.

 

In view of the above it is considered that the compliance with the development standard is reasonable or necessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

5.         Whether the objection is well founded.

 

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that:

 

§  Whilst the applicant’s SEPP No.1 submission has articulated the underlying and stated objectives of the standard clearly, it has failed to address adequately the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying stated objectives of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality, and objectives of the Act.

 

§  Whilst the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 submission  has demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, and overshadowing, it has failed to address the overbearing height, bulk and scale, intrusive nature and detrimental builtform impact of the proposal in relation to the heritage conservation area and the integrity of the group of buildings to the north-west comprising Nos 29-37 St Pauls Street.

 

§  The applicant has stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the SEPP No.1 submission. However, contrary to the applicant’s claim in the submission, the proposal will not promote the orderly use of the land and fails to consider adequately the heritage context of the locality in that the proposed development will be excessively high, bulky and overbearing, and visually intrusive, to Aeolia Lane such that it would detract from the visual quality and heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area (and specifically the integrity of the group of buildings comprising No. 29-37 St Pauls Street).

 

It is considered that SEPP 1 objection to the height control is not well founded and is not supported.

 

Clause 40            Excavation and filling of land

 

Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct the buildings and proposed carpark stacker/lift. This work will not result in any significant impact on the topography of the site, is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

10.2            Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policies that are relevant to the proposal are:

 

SEPP 55 –  Remediation of Contaminated Land

 

This SEPP provides a state wide practice for the remediation of contaminated land. The applicant has provided documentary evidence of the history and use of the site for the current use, that is the motel, and residential use prior to this.

 

As indicated in Section 8.5 above, no details of the past and present use of the land has been provided with the development application with respect to the potential for contamination on the site to enable an adequate assessment of the proposal under SEPP55- Remediation of Land. As such, the requirements of SEPP No. 55 have not been satisfied.

 

SEPP 65 – State Significant Development– Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

This SEPP aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development through the submission of a detailed SEPP 65 Design Quality Report and a review by a SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. The proposal was considered by the Panel at its meeting on 6 March 2006 and the assessment of the Panel is detailed in Section 10.4.2.1 below.

 

10.3             Policy Controls – 79C(1)(a)

 

10.3.1  Development Control Plan No. 22  – The Spot and Surrounds Coogee Precinct

 

The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the DCP No. 22  – The Spot and Surrounds Coogee Precinct in terms of the following controls :

 

·    Building Height Plane – Historic Buildings/Contributing Facades – Max 45 degrees above 1600mm above the kerb line.

 

Comment: This control applies to subject site as the site has a contributory façade as listed in the table indicated in page 5 of the DCP. The applicant in addressing this non-compliance states in the SEE that whilst the new development to the St Pauls Street frontage encroaches this building height plane it will be hidden behind the existing shopfront façade which will be retained. The applicant’s advice is considered acceptable given that the retention of the existing shopfront façade in effect retains the contributory façade and, furthermore, the new addition behind this façade has been recessed such that it will not be visible from street street level. Accordingly, whilst not strictly complying with this height plane control, the proposal meets the intention of this control through the retention of the front façade and recessing of the new building to St Pauls Street.

 

·    Facades/Infill development respect the built heritage and desired townscape character of The Spot  

 

Comment: Whilst the proposal will respect the existing contributory facades along the St Pauls Street frontage, the height, bulk and scale of the proposal to Aeolia Lane is not considered sympathetic to the built heritage and desired townscape character of The Spot. The Aeolia Lane building will be intrusive and overbearing in relation to the adjoining properties at Nos. 29-33 St Pauls Street. 

 

10.3.2  Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The total carparking requirement for the proposal under the DCP – Parking is 17 carspaces. The proposal will provide 4 carparking spaces, resulting in a shortfall of 13 car spaces. The applicant has provided a parking assessment which provides the following justifications for the shortfall (followed respectively by Council’s assessment and comments): 

 

·    The two existing residential apartments on the site do not have off-street carparking and therefore a “credit” of 2 carparking spaces should provided

 

Comment: Even if a credit of two carparking spaces is recognised, the proposal will still have a shortfall of 11 spaces which is still significant in the context of the existing acute pressure of on-street/public carparking demand in The Spot.

 

·    The site is highly accessible by public transport with a large number of bus services available in Perouse Road and St Pauls Street

 

Comment:  The presence of bus services in the Spot and its value in terms of promoting sustainable access and mobility to and from the centre is not disputed especially in view of the range of services available in the centre (including restaurants and the cinema). However, the critical shortage of carparking in The Spot remains an overriding concern for Council and this shortage should not be further exacerbated by the additional pressure of another 11 carspaces that will need to be met off-site.   

 

·    The site is located within easy walking distance to an extensive range of shops and services such as supermarkets, banks, cafes, restaurants, local post office, several schools and the like.

 

Comment: The range of services and shops located in the Spot is recognised and the attraction of these services and shops for visitors travelling by private car means that the availability of carparking spaces in the Spot must be maintained and protected. The shortfall in carparking in the proposal will place added pressure on the existing on-street/public carparking within the Spot.

 

·    The site is located within easy walking distance of the University of New South Wales and several major hospitals with teaching facilities and as such, many of the apartments are likely to be occupied by students.

 

Comment: Whilst the tenancies of the proposed studios and one-bed room units may suit students, there is no definitive evidence that these future residents will all be students. Even if the occupancy of the proposed dwelling units were to be taken-up solely by students associated with the University and hospitals, the travel characteristics of these occupants/residents will extend beyond the University and hospital which may essentially require the ownership and use of cars.

 

·    Occupants of smaller apartments typically generate very low parking demands and in many cases do not own a motor vehicle at all as reflected in ABS Census data.

 

Comment: Whilst the applicant’s parking assessment draws on ABS Census data to provide car ownership rates for smaller dwellings, there is no definitive evidence to suggest that the future occupants/resident of the proposed development will not require the ownership/use of private cars. Notwithstanding this, the numerical shortfall of 13 carspaces in an area with an acute shortage of on-street/public carparking for the range of shops and services (including restaurants and the cinema) is fundamentally unacceptable and unreasonable.

 

In view of the above assessment, it is considered that the applicant has not provided adequate justification for the shortfall in carparking. In particular, the numerical shortfall of 13 carspaces is significant and arises from an overdevelopment of the subject site. Accordingly, the shortfall in carparking must be addressed by a reduction in the size of the proposed development, an issue and option which the applicant and the traffic consultant have not referred to nor mentioned in their respective assessments despite Council’s request in previous meetings/communications on this matter.  

 

10.3.3              Contaminated Land Policy, 1999

 

Council’s Contaminated Land Policy applies to the site. The applicant has provided no information or details on past and present activities on the subject site to allow an appropriate assessment under this policy and SEPP No. 55 to assess whether the site is suitable for the intended use. Accordingly, the proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to Council’s Contaminated Land Policy.

 

10.3.4              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 water for a range of landuses including commercial and mix-used developments. The proposal has not  provided any details of rainwater tank capacities and location within the proposed development. Accordingly, objectives and requirements of Council’s Rainwater tank Policy has not been met.

 

10.4                 Likely impact of the development - S79C(1)(b)

 

10.4.1              Natural Environmental Impacts

 

The subject site is located in an urban area within The Spot commercial centre and is substantially built upon by the existing shops and residences on-site. As such, there are no items of natural and/or environmental significance existing on the site that will be affected by the proposal. 

 

10.4.2              Built Environmental Impacts

 

10.4.2.1           Urban Design

 

In accordance with SEPP 65, the proposal has been reviewed by the Design Review Panel on 6 March 2006 and a number of issues have been raised. The Panel has provided the following comments with Council’s comments attached :

 

1.         Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

“The context of this development is well described in this application.  Generally the proposal would fit in.”

 

Comment:         The retention of the existing shopfront façade and recessing of the new development immediately behind the façade will minimise the visual impact on the front streetscape along St Pauls Street. However, the height, bulk and scale of the proposed building over the subject site and to the rear laneway will be excessive and overbearing in the context of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area, especially in relation to the existing group of buildings comprising No. 29-33 St Pauls Street immediately to the north-west.

 

2.         The Scale of the Proposal

 

“The proposed development would not be very visible except from the lane behind.  For this reason it can be said that its scale is not excessive.” 

 

Comment : The proposal will present as a four storey building to the rear laneway which is considered excessive and overbearing in height, bulk and scale  having regard to the scale of the existing group of buildings comprising No. 29-37 St Paul Street within The Spot heritage Conservation Area. Council’s assessment of the scale of the proposal differs from that of the Panel in that Council’s Heritage Planner has raised concerns regarding the visual impact of the height, bulk and scale of the building having regard to the Knox Tanner Urban Design Study in which the significance and architectural quality of the group of buildings comprising No. 29-37 St Pauls Street were identified. The Heritage Planner’s concerns are reasonable and valid especially given that the proposal significantly exceeds the maximum FSR and building height controls applicable to the site.

 

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal

 

“Except for the size of the proposed central courtyard, built form is acceptable. 

 

The cross section of the proposed building has to some extent been compromised by strict compliance with the height limit.  It appears that it could be slightly higher without adverse effects, whilst improving internal amenity considerably.”

 

Comment: In line with the advice of the Panel, the applicant has amended the original proposal by increasing the height of the Aeolia Street building to remove internal split levels within the individual apartments in this building. This amendment has resulted in a breach of the maximum height limit at the rear, which combined with a non-compliant and excessive FSR, creates a builtform that fundamentally detracts from the heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area and specifically, the integrity of the group of buildings comprising Nos. 29-37 St Pauls Street.   

 

4.         The Proposed Density

 

“The density proposed is well in excess of that prescribed in the LEP.  Although this would not result in adverse externalities, it is the Panel’s opinion that the internal courtyard is too small.  Its size as proposed would, as discussed below, result in poor amenity and establish an unfortunate precedent for further development along St Paul’s Lane.”

 

Comment: The non-compliance with the FSR is excessive in that it results in an overdevelopment of the site as reflected in the disproportionate number of dwelling units relative to the carparking provision. The applicant has addressed the Panel’s concerns regarding the size of the internal courtyard by increasing the width of the courtyard by 2.5m approximately to the north but in doing so shifting the bulk of the Aeolia Lane building closer to Aeolia Lane thus exacerbating the bulk and overbearing impact of this building to Aeolia Lane and the adjoining north-western properties. Accordingly, the overall impact of the proposed excessive density has been:

 

·    A development that has a significant shortfall in carparking provision

 

·    A development with an excessively high, bulky and overbearing builtform in relation to the rear laneway and  adjoining properties to the north-west at Nos. 29-33 St Pauls Street.

 

5.         Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Although a Basix analyses has not been sighted, the proposal would appear to be generally satisfactory.  All units would enjoy cross ventilation.  Should onsite retention of storm water be provided?  Roof lighting and ventilation of the top floor bathrooms should be provided, and northern winter sun could be introduced to the southern apartments though clerestorey windows.

 

A larger courtyard would improve the solar access to Upper Ground apartments facing St Pauls Street.

 

Cross ventilation to the bedrooms facing the courtyard could also be improved by using a different window configuration.

 

Comment: The proposal requires a BASIX analyses to be applied for the multi-unit residential component of the proposal. No BASIX analyses has been submitted as discussed in Section 10.4.2.5 below. The Panel confirms that all dwelling units in the proposal will be cross-ventilated. The Panels recommendation that windows for bedrooms facing the courtyard be reconfigured to improve cross ventilation is reasonable. However, in relation to the central courtyard, it should be noted that the applicant has amended the proposal by increasing the width of the courtyard by 2.5m but this has been achieved predominantly by moving the bulk of the Aeolia Street building by the same amount closer to Aeolia Lane thus accentuating the bulkiness and overbearing impact of this building to Aeolia Lane and the immediate adjoining properties to the north-west at No. 29-33 St Paul Street.

 

6.         The Proposed Landscape

 

Opportunities for screen planting within the internal courtyard are very limited.  A detailed specification of the landscaping proposed should be provided.

 

Comment: The Panel’s comments in relation to landscaping are reasonable. However, the issue of the excessive height, bulk and scale and deficient carparking remain outstanding and the overall proposal is not supported on account of these issues.

 

7.         The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

As indicated above, it is the Panel’s view that the depth of the courtyard should be increased to approximately 12 metres for the following reasons:

 

§ This would substantially increase visual privacy for all the units

§ It would improve the proportion of the space and might allow a less intrusive arrangement of stairs.

§ Sufficient space would become available for screen planting

§ There would be more satisfactory solar access to the living rooms of the ground floor apartments that face into it.

§ An appropriate precedent would be established for redevelopment of the similar sites to the west.  A long 8 metre deep court would create unpleasant conditions.

§ Some of the circulation spaces are very tight and could be eased a little.

§ The step in the floor plan makes it difficult to use living spaces and therefore may be better placed in the hall adjacent to the kitchen cabinets.  A change in the height of the building to allow flat floor plates may be worth considering.

§ The kitchen exhausts (from the shop tenancies) have to be incorporated at this stage.

 

Comment: As mentioned above, the applicant has amended the proposal by increasing the width  the courtyard by 2.5m but this has been achieved predominantly by moving the bulk of the Aeolia Street building by the same amount closer to Aeolia Lane thus accentuating the bulkiness and overbearing impact of this building to Aeolia Lane and the immediate adjoining properties to the north-west at No. 29-33 St Paul Street.

 

8          The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The proposed development would improve security in the Lane.

 

Fire safety and BCA advice should be sought.

 

Comment: Surveillance of the rear laneway from north-facing balconies in the Aeolia Street will be available under the proposal. However, the issue of the excessive height, bulk and scale and deficient carparking remain outstanding and the overall proposal is not supported on account of these issues.

 

9.         Social issues

 

This would appear to be a good location for small units, but it would be desirable to have some variety, or perhaps the construction could allow for non load bearing sections to party walls that could allow for interconnection in the future.

 

Comment: The Panel’s concern regarding the lack of variety in the type and size of dwellings proposed is reasonable in that, as an overdevelopment of the subject site, the proposal seeks primarily to maximise the yield of dwelling by focusing on smaller dwellings units, namely studios and one-bedroom dwellings, at the expense of a broader variety of dwelling sizes.  

 

10.       The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The external appearance of the proposed building from the lane would be satisfactory.

 

Comment:  Council’s Heritage Planner has raised no objections to the appearance of the building in terms of the proposed external materials and colours subject to appropriate conditions. However, as indicated above, the Heritage Planner has raised concerns regarding the visual impact of the height, bulk and scale of the building in the heritage significant Spot Conservation Area. The proposal accordingly is not supported especially given that the proposal significantly exceeds the maximum FSR and building height controls applicable to the site.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Generally this is a well-designed proposal.  It is however the Panel’s view that the courtyard is too small.  There are a number of ways in which its size could be increased.  For preference the six rear apartments could be changed to three, two bedroom apartments.

 

The Panel need not see this application again.

 

Comment: As indicated in the respective comments above, the applicant has submitted amended plans to address the Panel’s concerns namely to widen the courtyard and increase the height of the rear Aeolia Street building to remove internal split levels within the individual apartments in this building. However, as also indicated above, these amendments have serve to accentuate and exacerbate the excessive height, bulk, scale and overbearing impact of the Aeolia Street building to Aeolia Lane and the immediate adjoining properties to the north-west at No. 29-33 St Pauls Street. As such, the proposed development as amended is not supported.

 

10.4.2.2      Heritage Impact

 

Given the concerns raised by the Heritage Planner in Section 6.2 above, it is considered that the Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Urbanistes and submitted with the development application is deficient for the following reasons:

 

1.   The Urbanistes HIS fails to provide adequate assessment of the impact of the excessive height, bulk and scale of the building on Aeolia Lane and the visual quality and architectural integrity of the adjoining group of buildings comprising Nos. 29-33 St Pauls Street, specifically the rear elevations of these adjoining properties to the west. In particular, Council’s Heritage Planner advises that “there are concerns that the proposed three and four level development affecting two of the five buildings within the group will detract from the group value of the building comprising Nos.29-35 St Pauls Street, as a result of the additional height proposed.”  Additionally, Council’s Heritage Planner advises that “the proposed upper level appears to comply with the building height plane contained in the DCP, however concerns remain that the additional levels will be visible from the surrounding area, which other than the Ritz Cinema, has a predominantly two storey scale.  In particular there are concerns that the top level of the proposal will be visible against the western side wall of the western addition to the Ritz Cinema.  From Aeolia Lane at the rear of the site, the proposal will detract from the group value of no.29-35 St Pauls Street by replacing the existing single story rear wings with a four level building. 

 

2.   The Urbanistes HIS confines its assessment of the proposed demolition of the existing building to the “first floor front room” of the existing property. In contrast, Council’s Heritage Planner emphasises that any assessment of the demolition of the existing building, other than the St Pauls Street façade, should be in accord with the Statements of Heritage Impact publication published by the NSW Heritage Office and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning which provides the following Questions to be Answered in the case of Major partial demolition of heritage items:

 

·    Is the demolition necessary for the heritage item to function?

·    Are important features of the item affected by the demolition (eg- fireplaces in buildings)?

·    Is the detailing of the partial demolition sympathetic to the heritage significance of the item?

·    If the partial demolition is a result of the condition of the fabric, is it certain that the fabric cannot be repaired?

 

The Urbanistes HIS has not addressed these fundamental questions. Having regard to these questions, Council‘s Heritage Planner advises that  the proposed demolition is not a result of the condition of the fabric and that it is unclear whether or not the demolition is necessary for the building to function.  The Urbanistes HIS only considers that the first floor front room is of low heritage significance, whereas there are concerns in relation to the extent of demolition, that only a small remnant of the original building will remain which will be devalued by the new development on the site.

 

3.   The Urbanistes HIS is entitled “Preliminary Heritage Impact Assessment of New Works adjacent to the Randwick Ritz” and has sub-headings referring to “Draft Statement of Heritage Significance” and Draft Statement of Heritage Impact” indicating that the HIS is not a final, complete and comprehensive assessment of the heritage impact of the proposed development as reflected in the concerns raised in the preceding points 1 and 2 above, and as required under Clauses 43 and 46 of the Randwick LEP. 

 

In view of the above, the proposal fails to provide an adequate heritage impact assessment that assesses the proposed development and its impact on the heritage significance of the relevant affected heritage item and its setting, and the heritage conservation area as required under Clause 43 and 46 of the Randwick LEP 1998. As such, the application is recommended for refusal. 

 

10.4.2.3      Sunlight, Privacy and Views

 

10.4.2.3.1        Overshadowing

 

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that at 9.00 am in the winter solstice, overshadowing will occur predominantly upon the roof of the adjoining western shops and residences at Nos. 31 and 33 St Paul’s Street. By 12 noon these properties will be free from overshadowing from the proposal with overshadowing occurring largely over the carriageway of St Pauls Street and the western blank wall of the Ritz Cinema. By 3.00 pm, the proposal will mainly overshadow the western blank wall of the Ritz Cinema.

 

Overall the proposal’s shadow impact on adjoining properties is considered to be reasonable given the configuration of the site upon which the proposed development sit and its location adjoining the larger Ritz Cinema building.

 

10.4.2.3.2        Overlooking

 

The proposed building will have north-facing balconies linked to living rooms in the St Paul Street Building which will overlook the internal courtyard and the Aeolia Street Building which will overlook the laneway. Unit Nos 3 and 4 on Level 1 will have bedrooms linked to south-facing balconies which will overlook the internal courtyard while the two studio units on Level 4 will have kitchens linked to south-facing balconies which will overlook the internal courtyard as well.

 

Concern has been raised by the owners/residents of the adjoining western property at No. 33 St Pauls Street in relation to loss of privacy to their existing rear courtyards and bathroom and bedroom windows. The proposal will not give rise to overlooking of these properties as all proposed balconies will face the internal courtyard or Aeolia Lane with the western edges of relevant balconies to be screened with extended blade masonry walls. Notwithstanding this, glazed opening are proposed along the western wall of the proposed development but no details have been provided as to the material for these opening (ie., whether obscured glazing will be applied). Accordingly, this lack of detail would warrant as one reason for refusal of the application.

 

10.4.2.3.3        Loss of views

 

The subject site and surrounding land are relatively flat. There is no apparent loss of views enjoyed by adjoining and surrounding properties that would be affected by the proposed development.

 

10.4.2.4           Traffic and access

 

The applicant’s traffic consultant’s Traffic and Parking Assessment advises that the proposed new development will result in a traffic generation potential of approximately 8 to 9 vehicle trips per hour during peak periods. When compared with the traffic generation of the existing uses on site the proposed development will have net increase in traffic activity of 2.6 peak hour vehicle trips. Accordingly, the assessment concludes that the projected increase in traffic activity as a consequence of the development proposal is statistically insignificant and will not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of the road network capacity.

 

Notwithstanding the low traffic generation rate, concern has been raised by residents regarding potential traffic congestion in the Aeolia Lane. In this regard, the applicant has not provided information indicating that ingress/egress arrangements are satisfactory, will not compromise vehicular or pedestrian safety, and will achieve satisfactory sight-lines. This lack of detail warrants as one reason for refusal of the application.

 

10.4.2.5           Social impacts

 

The density proposed in terms of FSR will be well in excess of the maximum FSR control in the Randwick LEP resulting in an overdevelopment of the subject site. The applicant advises in the Statement of Environmental Effects that the proposal will be beneficial in providing residential units in a centre with an existing range of public transport options and services. However this analysis does not take into account the fact that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the subject site that will give rise to added pressure on carparking in The Spot due to the significant deficiency in carparking provision.    

 

As discussed in Section above, the Design Review Panel has raised concerns that the proposal will lack of variety in the type and size of dwellings proposed. The Panel’s comments in this regard are considered reasonable, noting further that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the subject site in terms of the non-compliant FSR and proposed number of dwelling units that comprise only small dwelling units (ie., studios and one-bedroom dwellings) given the applicant’s focus on maximising yield on the small site at the expense of a smaller number but broader variety of dwellings.  

 

10.4.2.6           Ecologically Sustainable Development

 

The proposal requires a BASIX analysis to be applied for the multi-unit residential component of the proposal. No BASIX analysis has been submitted with the application This lack of detail warrants as one reason for refusal of the application

 

Notwithstanding the lack of a BASIX analysis, it is noted that the proposal has achieved cross-ventilation for all dwelling units with northerly aspects to living areas of each dwelling unit. Additionally, the amended plans indicate an increase the setback of the studio dwellings in upper floor of the Aeolia Lane building from the central courtyard to allow solar access into the living room of the dwelling units on the first floor of the St Pauls Street building facing the central courtyard.

 

10.3   Suitability of the site – S79C(1)(c) 

 

The subject site is zoned Local Business 3B and the proposed development is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.  However, the subject site is inadequate in size to contain the proposed development which has an FSR and building height that is excessive relative to the size of the subject site and the nature of adjoining development in the Spot Heritage Conservation Area. Accordingly, the subject site is unsuitable for the proposed development. The inadequate size of the subject site provides an indication of the need for, and merits of, amalgamation with adjoining allotments to achieve a compliant development at the density, scale and height proposed. 

 

Any consideration of the suitability of the subject site requires careful analysis and evaluation of the site and adjoining properties is essential for good design. A site analysis involves assessing a range of internal and external site factors that can affect the design and siting of development on a site. Those factors relevant to the subject site include the configuration and orientation of the site, the location and proximity of residences on adjoining properties and the nature of development in the general locality. These and potential other factors place considerable design constraints on the final development to take place on the site.

 

It is considered that little thought has been given to this important phase of site development. The applicant has not submitted an adequate site analysis, which demonstrates that the development opportunities and constraints have been instrumental in shaping the design of the proposed development.  The lack of consideration given to this aspect is supported by the following;

 

·          The design and siting deficiencies of the current application;

 

·          The considerable visual, bulk and scale impacts on adjoining properties flowing directly from the proposed development; and

 

·          The carparking deficiencies of the proposal and its impact on the availability of on-street/public carparking in the locality

 

·          The resident objection to the development as proposed.

 

Having regard to these considerations, it is considered that the subject site is unsuitable for a development of this density and height.

 

Site constraints, including the dominant architectural character of The Spot commercial centre and, specifically, St Paul Street and Aeolia Lane, adjoining land use and the narrowness of the site, all contribute to require special consideration to be given to the type and form of re-development to take place on the site. Site constraints are a key element of the problems identified with the proposal, particularly in respect to height, floor space, building form, aesthetics, and parking accessibility. The controls relating to these elements contained in the local planning instruments are minimum requirements to be observed.  On sites such as the one under consideration, the proposed development fails to acknowledge the constraints of a relatively small development site. As such it is imperative that the minimum standards are complied with.

 

10.4.4         Any submissions made – S79C(1)(d)

 

The proposal was notified and advertised from 15 February to 1 March 2006 in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. 11 submissions were received and the issues raised in these submissions are addressed in Section 5 above.

 

10.3     The public interest - S79C(1)(e)

 

The proposed development is not in the public interest because it will result in a excessively high, bulky and intrusive development that will detract from the visual character and heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area, and will create a development significantly lacking in carparking that will exacerbate the existing critical shortage of on-street and public carparking in The Spot.

 

11        RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The proposal, given its non-compliance with Council controls, its excessive height, bulk and scale and deficient carparking fails to support the key outcomes of the Randwick City Plan. Specifically, the proposal does not support

 

Outcome 5 : Excellence in urban design – of the Randwick City Plan.

 

12.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13   CONCLUSION

 

The SEPP 1 objection lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and the maximum building height of 12m is not considered to be well founded in the circumstances and no valid case has been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

The proposal is considered an overdevelopment relative to the size and configuration of the subject site and will be excessive and overwhelming in height, bulk and scale such as to detract from the heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area.

 

The proposal does not comply with the DCP - Carparking having a significant numerical shortfall of 13 carparking spaces which is unacceptable and unreasonable in the context of the existing shortage of carparking in the Spot. No details have been provided of the ingress/egress arrangements in Aeolia Lane to ensure that vehicular or pedestrian access and safety along this laneway is not compromised and to achieve satisfactory sight-lines along the laneway.

 

The application has not provided an adequate heritage impact assessment of the proposed development as required under Clause 43 and 46 of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

It is recommended that Council refuse its consent to the application.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. D/43/2006 for demolition of the existing building, retaining two shop-front facades to St Paul Street, and construction of a part-3, part-4 storey mixed use development designed as 2 buildings with central courtyard and containing 2 retail shops, 10 residential dwellings with 4 carparking spaces provided with access off Aeolia Lane, and strata subdivision at 35-37 St Pauls Street, Randwick, for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposed development does not comply with Clause 32 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 which prescribes the maximum floor space ratio standard,

 

and the SEPP No.1 Objection submitted in relation to this standard is not well founded as the proposed development will have an excessive bulk and scale that detracts from heritage significance of The Spot Heritage Conservation Area and, specifically, the visual quality and architectural integrity of the adjoining group of buildings comprising Nos. 29-33 St Pauls Street, having regard to the existing nature of the rear elevations of these adjoining properties; and will generate a significant off-street car parking requirement that will not be fully provided for within the proposed development thus placing pressure upon the existing limited availability of on-street and public carparking in The Spot.

 

2.       The proposed development does not comply with Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 which prescribes the maximum building height standard, and the SEPP No.1 Objection submitted in relation to this standard is not well founded as the proposed development will have an excessive height, bulk and scale that detracts from the heritage significance of The Spot Heritage Conservation Area and, specifically, the visual quality and architectural integrity of the adjoining group of buildings comprising Nos. 29-33 St Pauls Street, having regard to the existing nature of the rear elevations of these adjoining properties.

 

3.       The proposed development does not meet the carparking requirements for multi-unit housing contained in Clause 2.3 – Requirements for Various Land Uses of the DCP – Parking, in that the proposed development will have a numerical deficiency of 13 carspaces which is unacceptable and unreasonable in the context of the critical shortage of on-street/public carparking in The Spot.

 

4.       The proposed height, bulk, scale and form of the proposed development is unsuitable for the subject site in that it constitutes an over development of the subject site and detracts from the heritage significance and character of existing development in The Spot Heritage Conservation Area, specifically, the visual quality and architectural integrity of the adjoining group of buildings comprising Nos. 29-33 St Pauls Street, having regard to the existing nature of the rear elevations of these adjoining properties.

 

5.       The Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Urbanistes Pty Limited and submitted with the development application is deficient as it fails to provide an adequate heritage impact assessment that assesses the proposed development and its impact on the heritage significance of the relevant affected heritage item and its setting, and the heritage conservation area as required under Clause 43 and 46 of the Randwick LEP 1998. In this regard, the Heritage Impact Statement fails to provide adequate assessment of the impact of the excessive height, bulk and scale of the building on Aeolia Lane and the visual quality and architectural integrity of the adjoining group of buildings comprising Nos. 29-33 St Pauls Street, specifically the rear elevations of these adjoining properties to the west; has not addressed the fundamental Questions to be Answered in the case of Major partial demolition of heritage items as listed in the Statements of Heritage Impact publication published by the NSW Heritage Office and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning; and is not a final, complete and comprehensive assessment of the heritage impact of the proposed development as required under Clauses 43 and 46 of the Randwick LEP. 

 

6.       The site is unsuitable for the proposed development because it is inadequate in size to contain the proposed development which has an FSR and building height that is excessive relative to the size of the subject site and the nature of adjoining development in the Spot Heritage Conservation Area.

 

7.       The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and details relating to a thorough and comprehensive site analysis that assesses a range of internal and external site factors that affects the design and siting of development on the subject site, and that demonstrates the development opportunities and constraints that have been instrumental in shaping the design of the proposed development.  In this regard, the site analysis must give due and proper acknowledgement of the constraints posed by a relatively small development site such as the subject site.

 

8.       The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and details relating to the ingress/egress arrangements in Aeolia Lane to indicate that vehicular or pedestrian access and safety along this laneway is not compromised and to achieve satisfactory sight-lines along the laneway.

 

9.       The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and details relating to the proposed glazed opening in the western elevation of the proposed development which are necessary to ensure no loss of privacy to the adjoining western properties.

 

10.     No details have been provided with respect to the potential for contamination on the site to enable an adequate assessment of the proposal under SEPP55- Remediation of Land.

 

11.     No details have been provided with respect to compliance with the BASIX – Building Sustainability Index in relation to the multi-unit residential component of the proposed development.

 

12.     The proposed development is not in the public interest because it will result in a excessively high, bulky and intrusive development that will detract from the visual character and heritage significance of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area, and will create a development significantly lacking in carparking that will exacerbate the existing critical shortage of on-street and public carparking in The Spot.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Director, City Planning Report 97/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

707 - 745 Anzac Parade, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

9 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/255/2002/I & DP1071735 (Lot 8 )

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No DA/255/2002/I for Section 96 modification of approved development in Building I including the alteration to apartment mix and reduction in number of apartments by 1, alteration to internal layout, modifications to balconies and building footprint, new balconies to western elevation on levels 1 to 7, new low level sash and sun shading screens to northern and western elevations and changes to external facade.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 96 Application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 27 September 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

27 September, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/255/2002/I & DP1071735 (Lot 8 )

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification of approved development in Building I including the alteration to apartment mix and reduction in number of apartments by 1, alteration to internal layout, modifications to balconies and building footprint, new balconies to western elevation on levels 1 to 7, new low level sash and sun shading screens to northern and western elevations and changes to external facade.

PROPERTY:

 707-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Crone Partners Architecture Studios

OWNER:

 Clycut Pty Ltd / Alpine Hotels 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.

 

The proposed development involves reconfiguration of the internal layout of the residential units of Building I which is located on the western side of the site. The changes include conversion of single level apartments into two level apartments, new balconies, new sun shading structures and the conversion of a ground floor two bedroom apartment into a new gymnasium for use by the residents only.

 

The development application was lodged on 26 July 2006 and notified and advertised in the Southern Courier from 16 August to 30 August 2006. No submissions relating to the development application were received during the notification and advertising period.

 

The application was referred to the 4 September 2006 Design Review Panel (DRP) for comment. The panel recommended changes to the plan including balconies to the north-western corner of Building I, adding sun shading devices to the west facing apartments and changes to improve the internal ventilation.

 

Amended plans were received on 25 September 2006 that made changes to the proposal including new west facing balconies to levels 1 to 7 and an extension to the balcony on level 8, louvred sun shading screens to the new balconies, new low level sash windows to single aspect apartments on the eastern and western elevations, sun shading louvres to the west facing apartments and a ceiling fan to the 3 bedroom apartment facing Maroubra Road.

 

The proposal will decrease the total number of units from 570 to 567 and will alter the apartment mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. However the proposed mix of apartments will remain consistent with the apartment mix stipulated in the adopted Master Plan for the site. The proposed development will not increase parking demand and will result in a surplus of 3 parking spaces for the residential component of the development.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed modifications involve only changes to the internal apartment layout and external facade of the northern section of Building I. The proposed development was lodged and assessed concurrently with another section 96 application 1188/2003/B. The combined proposed works will result in the following apartment mix:

The proposed mix of apartments includes:


 


Apartment type

Original application including 1188/2003

Proposed modification

Change

1 bedroom unit

188 units

184 units

- 4 units

2 bedroom unit

330 units

328 units

- 2 units

3 bedroom unit

52 units

55 units

+ 3 units

Total

570 units

567 units

- 3 units total

 

The proposed modifications include the following works to the northern section of Building I only:

Level

Description of works

1

Original modifications: Extension of north western corner apartment from a 1 bed room to a 2 storey 3 bedroom apartment. Minor modifications to footprint.

2

Deletion of 1 bedroom north western corner apartment to accommodate upper storey of Level 1, 3 bedroom apartment. Modifications to footprint to accommodate preceding modifications including balcony modifications. Additional amended modifications: new balcony to north-western corner with associated northern louvred screen, new low-level sash windows to west and east facing single aspect apartments, new sun shading screens to western elevation.

3

Extension of north western corner apartment from a 1 bed room to a 2 storey 3 bedroom apartment. Modifications to footprint to accommodate preceding modifications including balcony modifications. Additional amended modifications: new balcony to north-western corner with associated northern louvred screen, new low-level sash windows to west and east facing single aspect apartments, new sun shading screens to western elevation.

4

Deletion of 1 bedroom north western corner apartment to accommodate upper storey of Level 3, 3 bedroom apartment. Modifications to footprint to accommodate preceding modifications including balcony modifications. Additional amended modifications: new balcony to north-western corner with associated northern louvred screen, new low-level sash windows to west and east facing single aspect apartments, new sun shading screens to western elevation.

5

Extension of north western corner apartment from a 1 bed room to a 2 storey 3 bedroom apartment. Modifications to footprint to accommodate preceding modifications including balcony modifications. Additional amended modifications: new balcony to north-western corner with associated northern louvred screen, new low-level sash windows to west and east facing single aspect apartments, new sun shading screens to western elevation.

6

Deletion of 1 bedroom north western corner apartment to accommodate upper storey of Level 5, 3 bedroom apartment. Modifications to footprint to accommodate preceding modifications including balcony modifications. Additional amended modifications: new balcony to north-western corner with associated northern louvred screen, new low-level sash windows to west and east facing single aspect apartments, new sun shading screens to western elevation.

7

Modification of bedroom of north western corner apartment. Additional amended modifications: new balcony to north-western corner with associated northern louvred screen and new low-level sash windows to west and east facing single aspect apartments.

8

Conversion of north western corner of apartment from a 1 bedroom apartment to a 2 bedroom apartment. Modifications to footprint to accommodate preceding modifications including balcony modifications. Additional amended modifications: increase of existing balcony by 1m to the west with associated northern louvred screen.

Facades

Modifications to the northern, eastern and western facades as a result of apartment modifications.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is irregular shaped lot having a principal frontage to Anzac Parade and secondary frontages to Maroubra and Boyce Roads. The recently constructed development on the site also has an extensive frontage to Bruce Bennetts Place and Piccadilly Place. The northern section of the site features the approved mixed-use development 255/02 which comprises of two levels of basement car parking and 551 residential units in nine (9) separate buildings built over a podium of retail/ commercial uses.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by a mix of uses. Along Anzac Parade to the northeast and southeast are a range of commercial and retail developments. Behind Anzac Parade (and the subject site) to the west are smaller scale retail and commercial uses, new residential towers and medium density housing. To the east, across Anzac Parade are small-scale commercial and retail uses. Some of these turn the corner and front Green Street, which is opposite the site. An exception to the one to three storey forms on the eastern side of Anzac Parade is a large, multi-storey carpark on the northern side of Green Street. To the north, across Boyce Road are 8-9 storey residential flat buildings. To the south, across Maroubra Road, is a one to two storey retail strip with residential areas extending behind. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The section 96 application was lodged on 26 July 2006 and notified and advertised in the Southern Courier from 16 August to 30 August 2006. No submissions relating to the development application were received during the notification and advertising period.

 

During the assessment of the application it was realised that some of the changes indicated within the ‘clouds’ on the plans did not fall into the approved scope of works under application 1188/03 and actually related to the original application 255/02.

As such on 24 July 2006 the applicant confirmed via email to withdraw those parts of the application that do not fall within the scope of works of application 1188/03 and lodge a separate section 96 application for application 255/2002. This development application was lodged on 12 July 2006.

 

It should be noted that the current application seeks to alter only the rooms in the southern section of Building I and the south-western apartments of Building G. The modifications contained within the ‘clouds’ of the other areas of Building I and Building G refer to application 1188/2003/B which is currently under assessment.

 

As the proposed modifications were lodged pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended, the application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) under the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65).

 

A DRP meeting was held on 4 September 2006. The panel also considered the changes involved with the other section 96 application for the site, 1188/2003/B and recommended changes to the plan including balconies the north-western corner of Building I, adding sun shading devices to the west facing apartments and changes to improve the internal ventilation of both Building I and G..

 

Amended plans received on 25 September 2006 made several changes as recommended by the panel such as adding external louvres to the western elevations, adding balconies to the western elevation, adding low level window openings to improve ventilation and adding a ceiling fan to the 3 bedroom apartment facing Maroubra Road in Building G.

 

b.    HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The subject site originally comprised of five smaller lots which were amalgamated as part of the original application 255/02. The uses for the lots prior to the original application being lodge generally consisted of commercial and retail uses.

 

There have been numerous development applications submitted for the site however the most relevant to this application relate to two applications, application 255/02 for the construction of a mixed-use development and application 1188/03 for the extension of the mixed-use development. Details of the applications are included in the table below:

 

Application No.

Description

Determination

RZ/21/2001/A also referred as application 28/2001

Amendment to masterplan & changes to height and arrangement of building envelopes and quantity of retail floorspace.

Approved by Council on 26 February 2002

DA/255/2002

Demolition of the existing shopping centre and carpark and construction of a new mixed use development comprising ground floor, mezzanine and part first floor retail/commercial, 551 residential units and associated car parking.

Deferred commencement approval by Council effective from 12 November 2002

DA/1188/2003

Demolition of the existing commercial building and extension of the Maroubra Mall Development to incorporate a new ten storey mixed commercial/residential development to include 16 dwellings, 32 basement car spaces and ground and first floor commercial floor space and associated modifications to the approved development to amend the unit mix, extension to basement 3 car parking and reconfigure retail arcade to increase commercial area.

Deferred commencement approval by Council effective from 2 June 2004.

DA/220/2003

To subdivide the existing site into 8 Torrens, stratum allotments, in accordance with separate uses approved under DA 255/02

Approved on 25 June 2003

 

Seven section 96 applications have been lodged for application 255/2002, the most recent being application 255/2002/H which was approved on 22 August 2006 and made minor changes to the apartment mix of Building I including alterations to Building G.

 

Two section 96 applications have been submitted for application 1188/2003. The first application was lodged on 30 June 2006 and made alterations to the width of fire stairs, the deletion of two apartments and minor changes to the retail area. The application was approved on 28 July 2006.

 

Section 96 application 1188/2003/B was lodged on 12 July 2006 and is currently under assessment.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. No submissions relating to the development application were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application did not require referral to technical officers. The application was however referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) as required by SEPP 65. See section 8.3 of this report for the comments provided by the panel.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A Master Plan was originally lodged for the site at 707-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra in April 2001. Council granted consent to the Master Plan at its extraordinary meeting on 7 August 2001. After consent was granted more detailed proposals for development of the site were prepared. A proposal was discussed with Council Officers in November 2001. This proposal departed from the Master Plan in a number of key areas.

 

In order to resolve these departures, an application to revise the Master Plan was lodged in December 2001. Changes proposed included the reduction of the minimum retail/ commercial gross floor area, and changes to the maximum allowable building envelopes for several of the residential buildings indicated in the original Master Plan. Approval for these amendments, subject to changes made by Council, was granted on February 26, 2002.

 

The proposed modifications make relatively minor alterations to the approved development and generally remain consistent with the relevant sections of the adopted Master Plan for the site.

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed against the aims and objectives of the adopted Master Plan in section 9 of this report.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development 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 3A (General Business Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the zone. The proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent and the following clause is relevant to the proposal:

 

Clause 42D - Maroubra Junction Town Centre

 

The proposed modification to the original development will maintain a high level of design and will not impact adversely upon the amenity of surrounding residential areas. The amended plans improve the environmental performance of the units and provide environmentally sustainable approaches to the use of the site.

 

It is considered the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the clause and will improve the amenity of the town centre.

 

8.2       SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

The original application was lodged on 25 March 2002 which was prior to BASIX being applicable for multi-unit development. Therefore the proposed modifications are exempt from SEPP: BASIX requirements.

 

8.3       SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

In accordance with the SEPP and Council’s referral procedure the application was referred to the Design Review Panel held on 4 September 2006 for comment. The following comments were provided:

PANEL COMMENTS

1.         Relationship to the Context of the Proposal                                         n/a

2.         The Scale of the Proposal                                                                      n/a

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal                                                             n/a

4.         The Proposed Density                                                                           n/a

5.         Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The reduction of the number of ‘through’ apartments is not supported by the Panel as it is considered a reduction in amenity and environmental performance.

There is no objection to the moving of the main bedroom in the apartments that face Maroubra Rd however late afternoon summer sun exposure remains of high concern as previously noted in our reports.  As a minimum requirement ceiling fans should be included.  External sun shading should be optimized.

6.         The Proposed Landscape                                                                         n/a

7.         The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

Comments on cross ventilation as per above.

The reduction in the number of balconies is not supported.  It is recommended that the applicant improve the north-west corner by the addition of wrap around balconies and sun shading.  As many of the apartments will now be single orientation east and west, it is important that additional external shading be provided to these facades, otherwise the apartments risk being over reliant on air-conditioning to achieve a comfortable interior environment.

8.         The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal                        n/a

9.         Social issues

The desire to change the mix of the apartments is acknowledged however any new apartment configurations should not reduce the environmental performance, ability to cross ventilate or reduce the aesthetics of the building.

10.       The Aesthetics of the Proposal

The previously approved elevations are considered to be more resolved than those proposed in this Section 96 application. The Panel recommended that the massing, screening and extension of balconies be reworked.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is the Panel’s view that any changes proposed should provide improvement to the environmental performance and aesthetics of the DA approved building, and that further work is required to achieve such a result.

8.4       Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan

The Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP was approved by Council on 18 November 2003 and was made effective on 18 May 2004. At the time of the assessment of the original application the DCP was in draft form and was known as the Draft Maroubra Town Centre (MDCP).

The proposed modifications to the approved development have been assessed with consideration to the development controls contained with the Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP. Assessment against the objectives and performance criteria of the DCP is contained in section 9 of this report.

 

8.5  DCP – Parking

 

While the DCP – Parking was used as a reference in the assessment of the original application, the parking generation rates for the site are stipulated in the amended Master Plan adopted for the site on 26 February 2002. The on-site resident car parking, residential visitor parking and retail shared usage parking of the original application was considered satisfactory by Council’s development engineers and the assessment report for the Master Plan stated that the reduced parking rate of 1 parking space per unit was appropriate.

 

The proposed development will reduce the total number of units on the site and therefore result in a parking surplus of 3 parking spaces under the Master Plan generation rates. Therefore the DCP – Parking is not applicable to the proposal and the proposed car parking arrangement is considered reasonable. See section 9.3 of this report for an assessment of the proposal against the Master Plan.

 

8.6  Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The original development was assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposed additional dwellings on the site. As a result of the assessment a condition of consent was included requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities for the residential component of the development.

 

No contribution was required with regard to car parking as the development met the requirement for the retail/commercial areas and was generally consistent with the adopted Master Plan for the site. The original application involved a series of stormwater and drainage works that were beneficial to the whole immediate locality and as such much of the section 94 contributions were waived.

 

Whilst the proposal increases the total number of units on the site and it is considered the increase is relatively minor and will not significantly increase demand for services or amenities already provided. As such no change to the original section 94 contributions is considered necessary.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1       Floor area

The original development had a floor space ratio of 3.81:1 (70,062m2), which exceeded the permissible FSR under the RLEP for a development on the site, being 3:1 (55,167m2). The applicant submitted a SEPP 1 objection which was considered acceptable by Council.

The proposed development modifies the footprint of the ground floor of the northern section of Building I which results in a minor alteration to the floor area of the approved development. The proposal remains consistent with the original approved visual bulk and scale of the development and does not alter the approved building massing of Building I.

It is considered the changes to the floor layout carried up through to level 8 are consistent with the scale and visual bulk of the original approval and will not increase the height or become an obtrusive visual element to the streetscape.

9.2       Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan

The Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP was in draft form when the original application was assessed. The DCP was made effective on 18 May 2004 and provides the desired future urban character of the area through performance based development and design controls.

 

Apartment Layout

 

The proposed modifications to the apartment layout involve the reconfiguration of bedrooms, living and dining rooms, kitchens, bathrooms and ensuites. The inclusion of balconies to the western elevation of Building I has also altered the internal configuration of rooms. The modified apartment layout ground level to level 8 features a generally repeated pattern with balconies to the western elevation, a central longitudinal corridor and kitchens, bathrooms and ensuites located along this central spine away from the edges of the building.

 

It is considered that the internal amenity of the proposed single aspect rooms will be maintained by the inclusion of separate balconies to each unit and the orientation of living rooms to maximise daylight access and natural ventilation either by windows or balconies.

 

Balconies

 

The proposed modifications involving the inclusion of balconies to the northern corner of the western elevation and the arrangement of apartments integrating balconies to living rooms and bedrooms are considered to satisfy the general objectives of the DCP.

 

The balconies to levels 4, 6, 7 and 8 will have a width of 3.8 metres and a depth of 3 metres and are classified as ‘primary balconies’. These larger balconies will be contiguous to living or dining rooms and more suited to recreation or entertainment.  The balconies to the western elevation on levels 2, 3 and 5 are will have a width of approximately 3.8 metres and a depth of 1 metre and will provide a functional space for passive recreation and are adequate for one or two persons to enjoy. These balconies are ‘secondary balconies’ and their placement is consistent with the performance criteria of the DCP.

 

Generally the balcony placement will improve the amenity of the apartments and will not detract from the acoustic or visual privacy and solar access of adjoining apartments. The balconies are generally consistent with the relevant performance criteria of the DCP.

 

Daylight Access

 

The modified apartments are likely to receive good daylight access given the northern orientation of Building I and the location of bedrooms, living rooms and dining rooms along the outer sections of the apartments. The kitchens, bathrooms and ensuites have been located along the central section of the building and away from the windows and balconies of the apartments. The proposed modifications are consistent with the guidelines of the DCP and will ensure maximum direct sunlight to habitable rooms and private open spaces.

 

In response to the DRP comments the amended plans submitted on 25 September 2006 included sun shading screens to the western balconies and to the west facing windows. The screens will improve the internal amenity of the apartments along the western section of Building I by minimising the strong afternoon sunlight during the summer months and reducing dependency on air-conditioning to maintain internal amenity.

 

The proposed modifications are consistent with the objectives and guidelines for daylight access in the DCP.

 

Natural Ventilation

 

The DCP requires apartment design to facilitate the circulation of sufficient volumes of fresh air to create a comfortable internal amenity. The proposed modifications will reduce the number of ‘through’ and thus potential for cross ventilation. To mitigate the potential loss of ventilation low level sash windows will be installed to the western and eastern elevations to facilitate convection current flow of air in the single aspect apartments. Balconies to each of the modified apartments will also provide substantial openings for fresh air ventilation.

 

The proposal will generally achieve the natural ventilation objectives and performance criteria contained within the DCP and the proposed modifications are considered acceptable in this regard.

 

9.3       Maroubra Mall Master Plan

 

The Maroubra Mall Master Plan is the principal document, which provides assessment criteria for development on the subject site. An assessment of the scheme against the relevant principles in the Master Plan is provided below:

 

Building Envelope, Form and Height

 

The modifications to the external portions of Building I are restricted to the western, northern and eastern elevations. The changes to the western elevation are most significant with the inclusion of sun shading structures and new balconies to levels 2 through to 7. The changes to the northern elevation include the new balconies and louvred shading screens. The changes to the eastern elevation will involve modifications to balconies and windows. The proposed modifications will not modify or alter the approved height of Building I.

 

The proposed modifications relating to the external shading devices to the western elevation of Building I will remain within the originally approved building envelope of the development. The changes to the footprint of the building area relatively minor and will not significantly alter the form of Building I.

 

It is considered the changes to the external facade of the building are relatively minor and will not significantly alter the appearance of the building to the surrounding area.

 

Façade Treatment and Appearance

 

The changes to the external section of Building I include new balconies to the western elevation from level 2 to level 7 with an increase to the balcony at level 8, sunscreens to the west facing apartments and low level sash windows to single aspect apartments facing west and east.

The changes to the external façade, mainly the western and eastern elevation are minor and will not significantly change the presentation of this building to the site or to the surrounding environment. The proposed materials are compatible with the approved works and will not adversely impact the adjoining properties.

The proposed modifications will not result in any significant protrusion or visual element that will be noticeable from the street or surrounding area. The changes to the northern elevation of the building will not have a significant adverse impact to the amenity of the other buildings on the site or adversely impact the character of the streetscape.

 

Parking

 

The amended Master Plan resolved to provide a reduced parking rate compared to the DCP – Parking after consideration to the RTA recommended parking rates for high density apartments, census and survey information provided by the applicant revealing low levels of motor vehicle ownership in Maroubra Junction and the high accessibility of public transport near the subject site and the mixed-use nature of the development. The parking rate of 1 parking space per 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartment was deemed acceptable by Council and incorporated into the Master Plan.

 

The amended Master Plan required each residential unit to have a car parking space that was tied to the unit in title and that the parking spaces for residents were not be subdivided and sold separately to units. The proposed modifications do not alter this parking arrangement and it is envisaged that the parking surplus of 3 parking spaces will not have an adverse impact to the parking allocation for existing units.

 

Generally the parking generation rate of the proposed modifications to Building I and G will result in a surplus of 3 residential car parking spaces. Therefore the proposal in regarding to on-site parking is considered acceptable.

 

Floor Area and Mix

 

The proposed modifications will result in the following apartment mix:

 

Apartment type

No. of apartments

% mix

Master Plan requirement

Complies

1 Bedroom

184

32.5

40 % maximum

Yes

2 Bedroom

328

57.8

40% minimum

Yes

3 Bedroom

55

9.7

5% minimum

Yes

 

The proposal will delete one apartment to accommodate a new gymnasium for use by residents only. The proposal maintains compliance with the minimum and maximum mix percentages stipulated in the adopted Master Plan for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. The above table also includes the approved modifications to Building H which was lodged under a separate application which deletes 2 apartments from Building H.

 

Privacy and Amenity

 

In response to the SEPP 65 DRP comments the amended proposal adds new balconies to the western elevation of Building I to improve the ventilation and circulation of air as well as providing external shading. The balconies will be 1 metre deep and have been included on levels 2 to 7. The existing balcony to level 8 has been extended by 1 metre to align with the new balconies created below. The internal amenity of the apartments is considered to be improved by providing increased external private open space and openings for air circulation.

 

The visual privacy of residents in Building D on the site will be maintained by the inclusion of louvred sun shading screens along the northern side of the proposed balconies. The sun shading screens will also function as privacy screens as they comprise of vertical louvered elements that will restrict views from the balconies.

 

Environmental Performance

 

The SEPP 65 DRP comments recommended an improvement to the environmental performance of the apartments by increasing openings to facilitate increase air circulation and the addition of external louvres and shading devices to reduce solar access during summer months and thus reduce the reliance on air-conditioning units to regulate the temperature of the apartments.

 

The reduction of ‘through’ apartments was not supported by the DRP due to the potential decrease in ventilation. However to mitigate this potential negative impact, the applicant has improved the single aspect apartments by provided low level opening sash windows to the western elevation to facilitate convection current movement of air through the apartments.

 

It is considered the low level sash windows to the western and eastern elevation, external sun shading louvres and screens to the northern and western elevations and new western facing balconies with associated louvred northern shading screens will improve the internal amenity of the apartments and maintain the environmental performance of the apartments. The changes are reasonable and remain consistent with the environmental performance criteria specified in the Master Plan.

 

Site Facilities, Services and Access Principles

 

The proposed modifications will make changes to the internal access of units due to the conversion of single bedroom apartments into two level, two and three bedroom apartments. The internal access for apartments will generally be consistent with the objectives of the Master Plan and will not result in a poor internal amenity for residents.

 

10.  SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

10.1     Substantially the same

 

The proposed modifications are considered relatively minor and will not significantly alter the appearance of the buildings to the surrounding area. The alterations to the configuration of the apartments improve access and flow between living and entertainment rooms and increase apartment size by conversion of single floor apartments into two level apartments. The use of the site will not be altered by the proposal and the modifications are consistent with the original approval and the subsequent modifications to the original consent.

 

The proposal will maintain the approved built form and remain consistent with the vision, development and design controls of the DCP and the Master Plan. The proposal will result in a development that is substantially the same as the original approval.

 

10.2     Consideration of submissions

 

        There were no submissions received regarding the application.

 

11.  RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and developmentOur places and spaces will be inviting, safe, sustainable and contribute to our City’s liveability

Direction:           

4a. Improved design and sustainability across all developmentThe proposed modifications will improve the sun shading and solar efficiency of the apartments thus maximising the environmental performance of the buildings.

 

4b. New and existing development is managed by a robust frameworkThe proposed modifications will be consistent with the development controls contained within the Maroubra Town Centre DCP and the adopted Master Plan for the site. The impact of the development will be minimal.

 

12.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications are considered to be relatively minor and will result in a development that is substantially the same as the originally approved development. The proposed modifications are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Randwick LEP 1998, the objectives and performance criteria of the Maroubra Town Centre DCP and the approved Master Plan for the site.

 

The proposed development will have negligible environmental impact to the surrounding area and therefore is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.255/2002 on property 707–745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition 1 of the Development Consent Conditions to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by Crone Nation Architects, Revision C of drawings numbered with the prefix A2004/ ADA and individually numbered Z1054-Z1064 dated 25 October, 2002 and Revision B of drawings numbered with the prefix A2004/ ADA and individually numbered Z2000, Z2001, Z2005 and drawings numbered SK.02-SK.07 dated 18 September, 2002 except where amended by plans with prefix A2004/ADA and numbered Revision A of S6501, S6502, S6504, S6505- S6507, S6509, S6511, S6513, S6514, S6515, S6520, S6530- S6533 and Revision B of S6510, only insofar as they relate to the areas highlighted on the plans by way of a “cloud” in the north-western corner of Building I, the application form and any supporting information received with the application except as may be amended by the Section 96 plans numbered:

 

Plan number

Plan date

Plan Revision

2129A/ ADA Z1056

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z1057

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z1058

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z1059

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z1060

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z1061

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z1062

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z1063

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z1064

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z2001

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z2002

21 September 2006

BC

2129A/ ADA Z2003

21 September 2006

BC

 

and the following elevation diagrams numbered:

 

Plan number

Plan description

2129A/ ADA 52111

Building 5 North Elevation

2129A/ ADA 52112

Building 5 West Elevation

2129A/ ADA 52113

Building 5 East Elevation Courtyard

 

and received by Council on 25 September 2006, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted and clouded on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application and only insofar as those changes are substantially related to the original approval 255/02.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 98/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

707-745 Anzac Parade, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

9 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/1188/2003/B & Lot 8 DP1071735 (Lot 8)

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No DA/1188/2003/B for Section 96 modification of approved development in Building I: Alter unit configurations, internal alterations, modification of building footprint, modification to balconies and facade, conversion of 2 bedroom apartment on Level 1 into residents' gym. Building G: Internal alterations to Southwest corner apartments.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 96 application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 4 October, 2006.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

4 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/1188/2003/B &

DP1071735 (Lot 8)

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification of approved development in Building I: Alter unit configurations, internal alterations, modification of building footprint, modification to balconies and facade, conversion of 2 bedroom apartment on Level 1 into residents' gym. Building G: Internal alterations to southwest corner apartments.

PROPERTY:

 707-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Crone Partners Architecture Studios

OWNER:

 Clycut Pty Ltd / Alpine Hotels Pty Ltd