Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

 

14th November, 2006

 

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER, 2006 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

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

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

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

 

 

 

1           Apologies/Granting of leave of absences

 

2           Confirmation of the Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 10TH OCTOBER, 2006.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addressing of Committee by Members of the Public

 

5           Urgent Business

 

6           Development Applications

 

6.1                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

1603 ANZAC PARADE, LA PEROUSE.

2

 

6.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

1-3 MOORINA AVENUE, MATRAVILLE.

36

 

6.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

85 LOCH MAREE STREET, MAROUBRA.

41

 

6.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

4 EDGECLIFFE AVENUE, SOUTH COOGEE.

53

 

6.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

24 ABOUD AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

65

 

6.6                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

2-8 JENNER STREET, LITTLE BAY.

82

 

6.7                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

102 PRINCE EDWARD STREET, MALABAR.

141

 

6.8                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

24 HELENA STREET, RANDWICK.

161

 

 

7           Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

8.1

Notice Of Rescission Motion By Councillors Hughes, Woodsmith & Matson – Ordinary Council Meeting – Tuesday, 24th October, 2006 – Item 6.7 – Development Application Report – 96-98 St Paul Street, Randwick.

171

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………….

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

25 October, 2006

FILE NO:

D/0520/2006

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a new three bedroom dwelling above the existing mixed use development.

PROPERTY:

 1603 Anzac Parade, La Perouse

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 ABC Planning P/L

OWNER:

G and A Cardakaris

 

 

 

 

 

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 Chris Bastic, Paul Tracey and Alan White.

 

The subject site is located within a Local Business Zone (Zone 3B), on the northern side of Anzac Parade in La Perouse, directly opposite Botany Bay National Park, with rear vehicular and pedestrian access provided off Goorawahl Avenue.  Existing on the site is a two storey building containing a pizzeria restaurant at the lower ground level fronting Anzac Parade, with two three (3) bedroom dwelling units on the upper level.  There is also undercover on-site parking for 6 cars provided partly underground behind the restaurant, with access from Goorawahl Avenue.  Additionally there are three open air car spaces provided at grade at the rear of the building. 

 

The application proposes the construction of an additional three (3) bedroom dwelling on the roof of the existing building at its northern end, opening onto a large terrace fronting to Anzac Parade.  There is an existing surplus of parking on the site when assessed against Council’s Development Control Parking and as no additional parking is proposed, the overall level of development proposed on the site results in a shortfall of half a car space (rounded up to one).

 

Five (4) submissions were received as a result of the notification and advertising of the application, including one on behalf of the La Perouse Precinct Committee.  The objections relate to the impact of the proposal on the historical and cultural significance of the adjacent heritage area, the view impact particularly from within the Goorawahl Avenue streetscape and its impact on the character of the adjacent residential area, non compliance with the maximum height and floor space controls within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 (LEP) and the shortfall in parking.

 

The main impact of the proposal is the partial loss of view within the road reserve of Goorawahl Avenue, as the proposal would form a built edge to Goorawahl Avenue not inconsistent with the mixed business and residential development under construction adjacent to the site at Nos. 1599-1601 Anzac Parade.  No substantial view impact arises within any nearby dwelling houses that have lodged objections.  The view loss within the streetscape is transient in that it is associated with pedestrian or vehicular movement along a section of Goorawahl Avenue.  This is substantially as a result of the complying building height of the Goorawahl elevation.  As such, it is considered that objections relating to view loss cannot be sustained.

 

The plans have been checked and the floor space ratio (FSR) of the proposed development is under the maximum FSR permissible for the site under the LEP.  It should be noted that the applicant has over-stated the FSR in the documentation accompanying the application.  There are two minor variations with regard to the maximum 9m building height as set for the site in the LEP, being a 100mm variation for the dwelling addition and a 400m variation to the balustrade for the associated terrace.  The proposal is in compliance with the 9m height limit along the Goorawahl elevation.  The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the height variations, which argues that strict compliance with the 9m height standard in the circumstances pertaining to the site is unreasonable and unnecessary.  In this regard the applicant’s submission is considered reasonable as it is considered that there are no significant amenity impacts to surrounding properties and will not affect the heritage significance of the nearby Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area or heritage items in the vicinity.

 

The applicant has agreed at the request of Council’s Heritage Planner to render the entire building to ensure that it integrates with adjacent development in the Local Business Zone and thus form a neutral back drop to Botany Bay National Park.

 

The recommendation is for approval as a deferred commencement consent with details of external materials and finishes to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the consent being made operational.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the construction of an additional three (3) bedroom dwelling on the roof of the existing building.  The dwelling unit is proposed to be located at the northern end of the roof and is to have an open plan living, dining and kitchen area opening onto a large terrace fronting onto Anzac Parade.  In addition, a small cantilevered balcony is proposed to the rear (north) onto Goorawahl Avenue.  Access to the unit is proposed via the existing stairs along the eastern side of the site.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

Figure 1: site locality

 

The subject site is located within a Local Business Zone (Zone 3B), on the northern side of Anzac Parade in La Perouse, directly opposite Botany Bay National Park, with rear access provided off Goorawahl Avenue.  The site is identified as Lot 285 in DP 752015, with an overall site area of approximately 531.9m².  The site is regular in shape, with a frontage width of 13.22m and a side boundary depth of 40.235m.  The site has a fall from its Goorawahl Avenue frontage to Anzac Parade of approximately 4m.  Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

The site is presently occupied by an existing two storey building containing a restaurant at the lower ground level fronting Anzac Parade, with undercover on-site parking for 6 cars provided partly underground behind the restaurant, with access from Goorawahl Avenue.  Additionally there are three open air car spaces provided at grade at the rear of the building.  At the ground floor level, there are two existing three (3) bedroom dwelling units.

 

 

Figure 2: subject site

 

Neighbouring the property to the east is a part two/part three storey mixed business/residential development currently under construction (No. 1599-1601 Anzac Parade) and to the west at No. 1605 Anzac Parade is a part two/part three storey mixed business/residential development which contains Danny’s Seafood Restaurant on the ground and first floor level and residence on the top level.  Located to the rear of the site, within the adjacent 2A Residential Zone are detached dwelling houses in Goorawahl Avenue. 

 

 

Figure 3: No. 1599 Anzac Parade to the east

 

 

Figure 4: No. 1605 Anzac Parade to the west

 

4.       HISTORY

 

Approval for two shops and two dwellings on the subject site was given by consent to Development Application No. 52/1982.  Subsequent approvals have been given for the ground floor shops to be used as an Indian Restaurant (DA 364/1997) and most recently as a pizzeria with outdoor seating (DA 44/2004).

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans, until 8 July, 2006.  As a result, five (5) submissions were received from the following:

 

·          Professor S Kjelleberg and Associate Professor P Conway of 22 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse.

·          G Peters of 15 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse.

·          C and C Abela (on behalf of the La Perouse Precinct Committee and others) of 1587 Anzac Parade, La Perouse.

·          Professor J Ratcliffe and I Ratcliffe (owners of 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse) of 14 Bellbird Close, Cooranbong.

·          D, L , M and E Anderson of 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

 

5.1     Objections

 

The following issues were raised in the submissions to the proposal and are addressed below and in the main body of the report (refer Section 9).

 

Heritage

 

The overall scale and bulk of the proposal will negatively impact to the historical and cultural significance of this heritage area.  The proposed development will have a detrimental appearance to the Park and to the important historical locations in the area.

 

Planning Comment

 

The proposal complies with the maximum floor space requirements of the LEP and the new upper level addition is well setback from the Anzac Parade frontage predominantly under the 9m height standard specified by the provisions of the LEP (refer Section 9.1 of the report).  Council’s Heritage Planner has commented on the proposal in Section 6.1 of the report and has advised that the development will neither detract on the built edge to open space precinct opposite (Botany Bay National Park) nor the heritage item on the opposite side of Goorawahl Avenue (No. 27 Goorawahl Avenue).  Further, Council’s Heritage Planner has advised that rendering and painting the existing building, should the applicant be willing, would serve to better integrate the building with adjacent development and provide an improved setting for the nationally significant built items in the adjacent open space area.

 

Streetscape and views

 

The proposed development, because of its bulk and scale, will impede views of the National Park, the site of Captain Cook’s first landing at Kurnell and Botany Bay from Goorawahl Avenue and from several residences, including Nos. 15 and 28 and Goorawahl Avenue.

 

Planning Comment

 

Council’s LEP does not contain any reference to the concept of view sharing and therefore the impact on views has been considered in accordance with the planning principles for view sharing as set out by the Land and Environment Court in its judgement for Tenacity v Warringah Council – 2004.  The Court states that the concept of ‘view sharing’ is invoked, when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment.  (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.)

 

The Court has given guidance on whether or not view sharing is reasonable, by way of a four part assessment, being:

 

1.       An assessment of views to be affected.

2.       Consideration of from what part of the property the views are obtained.

3.       Assessment of the extent of the impact

4.       An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact.

 

Applying the above principles to views obtained from surrounding properties, it was evident that the no views were obtained currently over the site from No.28 Goorawahl Avenue due to its proximity to the site, lack of elevation with respect to the existing building and substantial vegetation along its frontage to Goorawahl Avenue (refer Figure 5).  The view from No. 15 Goorawahl is at the top of the crest of Goorawahl Avenue and is in an elevated position such that the proposed addition will not significantly affect the existing view. 

 

 

Figure 5: view of subject site

from the front of No. 28 Goorawahl Avenue

 

 

Figure 6: view towards the site

from the balcony of No. 15 Goorawahl Avenue

 

The main view impact arises from within the roadway and nature strip of Goorawahl Avenue (refer Figure 6).  It should be noted that the LEC planning principle for view sharing relates to views obtained from neighbouring properties and not those obtained from a public place.  As such, the Court’s view assessment is an assessment from a static perspective, as it looks at the enjoyment of a view from a standing or a sitting position within a persons’ home, with a view from a living area or a balcony more significant than that obtained from other areas within the home.  The view loss issue pertaining to this application is transient associated with movement through time and space, either by walking along the verge or by a car travelling down Goorawahl Avenue.  Although it may be lost at a particular point of time it is captured at another.

 

 

Figure 7: view from the front of No. 23 Goorawahl Avenue

 

Further the view impact arises from a building height which is substantially in compliance with the 9m height limit applying to the site under the LEP building height controls and in full compliance along the Goorawahl elevation.  A fully compliant building would not result in any substantial difference in impact as the exceedance to the control is only 100mm at the south-western corner of the upper level dwelling addition. The proposed height of the development is comparable with the approved development under construction at 1599 -1601 Anzac Parade and will present a consistent edge to Goorawahl Avenue.  As such, it is not considered to detract from the neighbourhood character and views from individual properties are retained.

 

Zone objectives

 

The proposal fails to comply with the fundamental objectives of the 3B Local Business Zone.  The proposal is out of character with the surrounding residential development at the rear.

 

Planning Comment

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with the 3B Zone Objectives (refer Section 9.1 of the report) and presents substantially as a two storey residential building to Goorawahl Avenue.  The height of the parapet roof to Goorawahl Avenue is also not inconsistent with the approved heights of the development under construction on the adjoining property to the east (1599-1601 Anzac Parade) as it faces Goorawahl Avenue.  As such, the proposal is not considered to be out of character with the area.

 

Height

 

The proposal exceeds the allowed height limit and Council should check the accuracy of the plans with respect to correct ground levels to ensure that the correct height line has been used with regard to the 9m height limit.  The SEPP 1 objection is considered not well founded and strict compliance with the control is necessary to avoid loss of views to residences on Goorawahl Avenue and the negative impact to the streetscape.

 

Planning Comment

 

The proposal has been checked and exceeds the 9m height standard contained in the provisions of the LEP for the new dwelling by100mm and for the balustrade by 400mm at particular points only – refer to the assessment of the SEPP 1 objection within Section 9.1 of the report.

 

Floor space

 

The proposal exceeds the floor space ratio limit and the entire upper level comprises floor space which is above the allowable maximum.  The floor space proposed contributes to the excess bulk and scale of the building and is contrary to the zone objectives.

 

The carpark of the building is never open for public access and is used as storage by the shop.  As such, the carpark should be included as part of the floor space ratio calculation.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is considered not well founded and strict compliance with the control is necessary to avoid loss of views to residences on Goorawahl Avenue and the negative impact to the streetscape

 

Planning Comment

 

The floor space has been checked and has been calculated to be under the maximum permissible FSR for the site in the 3B Local Business Zone (refer to Section 9.1 of the report).

 

Parking

 

The proposal makes no provision for increased parking.  The carpark is never available for public access and in fact is used as storage by the shop.

 

Planning Comment

 

There are currently nine (9) car parking spaces provided on site for the existing uses and this represents a current surplus of one car parking space on the site when the car parking requirements are calculated for the existing uses in accordance with the requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking (DCP-Parking).    The site has been inspected and the basement carparking is not used for storage and is available for parking.  It is noted that access to the three open air spaces at the rear of the site is not restricted The additional three bedroom unit generates a demand of 1.5 car parking spaces and hence results in a deficit of 0.5 car spaces (which rounds up to one (1) car parking space.  Given the on-street parking available in the vicinity of the site it is considered that the shortfall is acceptable in the circumstances (refer to Sections 6.3 and 9.4 of the report).

 

La Perouse Plan of Management

 

The La Perouse Plan of Management approved by Council after consultation with the community and non compliance with this Plan would affect the public interest.

 

The Historic La Perouse Management Plan was prepared for Randwick City Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Services.  It applies only to non-residential areas of the La Perouse headland, including Community Lands, Crown Reserves under the care and control of Randwick City Council, areas of Botany Bay National Park and roadways.  It is not a planning control document but a conservation orientated management plan. 

 

Clause 46 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan provides the appropriate vehicle for the consideration of the proposed development.  This clause applies to development in the vicinity of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and potential archaeological sites and requires that Council must take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item/s, heritage conservation area or potential archaeological site and on their settings.  An assessment has been made by Council’s Heritage Planner (refer Section 6.1 of the report) and it is considered that the proposal will not be out of scale with the ridgeline; is appropriate to the scale of the La Perouse open space precinct; will provide a built edge which will better define the open space of the historic precinct; and will not detract from the setting of the heritage items in the vicinity or views toward them from the water.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Heritage

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has commented on the amended proposal as follows:

 

The subject site is prominently located on the peninsula between Congwong Bay and Frenchmans Bay, facing across the open space at the end of Anzac Parade towards Bare Island and Botany Bay.  The surrounding coastal areas are within the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area and there are a number of heritage items in the vicinity of the site.  Within this open space area is an important group of buildings and objects, including the former Cable House (1882), now a Museum, Macquarie Watchtower (1810), the La Perouse Memorial, and the Tomb of Pere le Receveur.  The Bare Island Fort and Causeway are also listed are also listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 1998, and on the State Heritage Register.  The site is also adjacent to no.27 Goorawahl Avenue, a 1920s style bungalow.  Clause 46 of Randwick LEP 1998 requires that Council take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage items. 

 

The site has frontages to both Anzac Parade and Goorawahl Avenue and is occupied by a two storey building, apparently constructed during the 1970s.  At ground level the building comprises a shop fronting Anzac Parade and parking accessed from Goorawahl Avenue.  At first floor level the building comprises two units.  To the west of the site is a building with ground and first floor level facades built to the street, and its second level somewhat set back.  To the east of the site, currently under construction, is a two and three level building. 

 

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which argues that the proposal does not affect the setting or integrity of the heritage items opposite.  The SEE considers that the streetscape along Anzac Parade will be largely unchanged, except when viewed from a substantial distance within Botany Bay National Park where it will appear as an unobtrusive built form. 

 

Given the importance of buildings and monuments within the La Perouse precinct and the visibility of the site from this area, the design of any building should be carefully considered.  The site forms a backdrop to the La Perouse buildings and monuments and an edge to the open space precinct which contains them.  The south facing facade of any building should be of simple and unified design, which is compatible with adjacent development and does not seek to draw attention to itself.

 

In relation to the Anzac Parade frontage to the development, it is noted that the existing building on the site is compatible with the scale of adjacent development and the proposed additional level is set well to the rear of the site and will not impact on the built edge to the open space precinct.  The design of the existing building is typical of “shoptop” developments throughout the suburban shopping centres of Sydney.  Materials and finishes of the existing building comprising dark face brickwork do not integrate well with the materials and finishes of the existing development to the west and the development under construction to the east.  There is no requirement for such an alterations and additions proposal to consider redesign of the existing building.  However, changes to existing materials and finishes to better integrate the building with adjacent development could provide a more neutral built edge to the open space area, and some redesign of the existing building could provide an improved setting for the nationally significant built elements in the adjacent open space area. 

 

In relation to the Goorawahl Avenue frontage to the development, it is noted that the rear of the site is opposite no.27 Goorawahl Avenue.  The proposal will increase the height of the building to two and a half storeys.  It is noted however that the height and setback of the proposal are consistent with that of the development under construction immediately to the east.  It is considered that these two developments will provide a reasonably consistent edge to the southern end of Goorawahl Avenue and will not detract from the setting of the heritage item opposite. 

 

The submission to the Randwick Municipality Conservation Study prepared by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1983 includes a map, which provides an indication of archaeological resources.  The map indicates several midden and engraving sites in the La Perouse Peninsula area.  Aboriginal archaeological relics are more likely to be found in less disturbed areas, than in areas which have been subject to development.  As the existing building covers the entire site and no further excavation is proposed, it is unlikely that further Aboriginal or European archaeological relics will be uncovered.  However, consent conditions should be included to advise of procedures to be followed in the unlikely event that archaeological relics are discovered.

 

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·    Should any Aboriginal deposits or objects (engravings, middens etc.) be exposed, site work is to temporarily cease within the vicinity while advice is sought from archaeologists, the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service.  A copy of any archaeological excavation permit required under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

·    Should any European archaeological relics be exposed, site work is to temporarily cease within the vicinity while advice is sought from archaeologists, and the NSW Heritage Office.  A copy of any excavation permit required under Section 140 of the Heritage Act, 1977, shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

6.2     Environmental Health and Building

 

Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building has advised that the following are key issues in relation to the proposal, which may be addressed by appropriate conditions of consent which are contained within the Recommendation of this report:

 

Building Services comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the erect a 2rd floor addition to the existing mixed res./com. building that contains a café at ground floor level and 2 sole occupancy units at 1st floor level.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class   -           2          (Residential Units)

Class   -           6          (Shop/cafe)

Class   -         7a      (Carpark)

 

Background

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

6.3     Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer Co-ordinator has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal and appropriate conditions of consent as contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

Traffic Comments

 

There are currently 9 off-street car parking spaces provided within the site for the existing 147m2 of commercial floor space and the 2 x 3 bedroom units. Council’s DCP – Parking requires a total of 8 car spaces, hence the site has a current surplus of one car space. The additional 3 bedroom unit would require an additional 1.5 car spaces, hence the proposal will result in a deficit of approximately 0.5 car spaces (which rounds to one car space). Noting the on-street car parking available in the vicinity of the site, the Development Engineer would not object to the proposal.

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (approximately 532m2) is less than required for the submission of a master plan (4000m2).

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The site is zoned 3B Local Business under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP) and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

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

 

·          Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

·          Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

·          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

·          Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

·          Section 94 Contributions Plan

·          Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy 2005

·          Building Code of Australia.

 

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 and the following relevant environmental planning instruments and policies:-

 

9.1     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The following clauses of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 (LEP) apply to the proposal:-

 

Figure 8: LEP Compliance Table

 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

1.1:1

0.97 :1

Yes

33 - Building Height

9m

9.4m (max)

No - refer SEPP 1 below

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

43

Heritage Item and/or Conservation Area

No

 

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes in the vicinity of the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area containing a number of heritage items.  As well, to the rear of the site, No. 27 Goorawahl Avenue is also a listed heritage item.

Refer Heritage Planner’s comments

(Section 6.1 of the report above)

 

Zone Objectives

 

The objectives for Zone No. 3B (Local Business Zone) are:

 

a)         to provide opportunities for local retail and business development in the City of Randwick , and

b)         to provide opportunities for associated development such as car parking, service industries and the like, and

c)         to provide opportunities for residential accommodation in the local business centres where it does not interfere with the primary business function of the zone, and

d)         to minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

The proposal is for new residential accommodation in conjunction with the existing residential accommodation and the existing restaurant fronting Anzac Parade Parade.  The proposal presents a northern elevation to Goorawahl Avenue containing only two residential dwellings and is in compliance with the maximum height requirements of the 3B Zone with regard to this particular elevation.  There are no significant amenity impacts to the adjacent residential zone in the form of overshadowing or loss of privacy.  The proposal will not interfere with the primary business function of the zone which is maintained by the location of the existing restaurant fronting Anzac Parade.  It should be noted that there is no minimum or maximum proportion of floor space that is required to be allocated to a business or housing use on the site.  It is therefore considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the zone objectives.

 

Floor Space Ratios

 

Under Clause 32(3), a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1:1 is applicable for the site.  The proposed development has a FSR of approximately 0.97:1 which complies with this development standard.  The FSR has been calculated from the submitted plans in accordance with the definition of gross floor area as contained within the definitions of the LEP.  It should be noted that the calculation of FSR provided for the proposed development has been overstated by the applicant and as such the objection made by the applicant pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 with respect to the development stand for floor space ratios is redundant and unnecessary in the circumstances.

 

Building Heights

 

Clause 33 (5) of LEP 1998 requires that the maximum building height for a building, within Zone No. 3B be no more than 9m.  The proposed development has a maximum height of 9.1m approximately to the top of the roof parapet to the proposed new dwelling addition when measured from ground level along the western elevation of the building and also 9.4m to the top of brick balustrade at the southern end of the building.  

 

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 (5) of Randwick LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances. 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 height control in question is a development standard as contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.               The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

The stated objective of the standard, as outlined in the LEP is as follows:-

 

"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 the aims of the policy and the objects of the EP & A Act

 

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that the new building that will allow for the redevelopment potential of the subject land to be further realised without creating any significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding developments. Furthermore, the proposal maintains a restrained approach to the bulk and scale of the proposed building by stepping back the upper level from the Anzac Parade frontage in accordance with the site topography, and thus minimising the appearance to Anzac Parade and Botany Bay National Park.  In this regard it is noted that the proposal is under the maximum floor space ratio applicable to the site under the zoning and hence strict compliance would hinder the redevelopment potential of the land consistent with the surrounding properties in the 3B Zone.

 

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the planning objectives for the locality and the aims of the policy.  As such, strict compliance with the standard would tend to hinder the attainments of the objects, specified in Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act, which encourages the proper management, development and conservation of natural and man made resources and the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use of and development of land. 

 

4.               Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed height control would be unreasonable given the circumstances of the site topography.  The proposed addition maintains compliance with the 9m height limit along the eastern elevation of the building and also predominantly along the length of the western elevation.  The non complying section of the new dwelling occupies approximately a 1m length of the western elevation and degree of the variation is minor only 100m at its maximum variation to the standard. 

 

The 400mm variation to the 9m height standard with regard to the brick balustrade along the front (southern) elevation of the building forms a parapet to the building and which is sufficiently setback from the streetscape so as not form an intrusive element to the appearance of the building.  The applicant has also agreed in writing to include as part of the proposal the rendering of the whole building so that it will integrate with the adjacent development and form a neutral backdrop to the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area.

 

It is therefore considered that strict compliance with the building height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as compliance would not introduce any substantial benefit to either the streetscape or neighbouring properties.

 

5.               Whether the objection is well founded.

 

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that it has:

 

·                Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly.

 

·                Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

 

·                Addressed 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.

 

·                Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely:

 

-      The components of the building which are variations to the height standard are adequately setback from the boundary alignments to minimise the impact to Anzac Parade and Goorawahl Avenue.

-      The additional height above the 9m limit will not be visually detrimental and will not result in a loss of view or outlook to surrounding properties.

-      The proposal will not result in unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual impact.

 

It is therefore considered that:

 

-      The proposal is not inconsistent with adjacent development in the 3B Zone in terms of height, bulk, scale, size. 

-      The proposal will present an appropriate visual backdrop and built edge to the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area and contributes positively to the desired future character of the locality.

 

The non compliance is relatively minor and is a result of the site topography.  The building is well below the 9m height limit at its northern end to Goorawahl Avenue and as such, is not associated with any significant adverse impacts associated to view loss or outlook.  From Anzac Parade it is considered that the additional height is sufficiently setback so as not to be visually prominent.  Therefore having regards to the merits of proposal, it is considered that the additional height of up to 400mm would not impinge on the objectives of the LEP, the specific objectives of the zone and the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

Heritage

 

The subject site is not a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area.  It is however in the vicinity of the surrounding Botany Bay Park Conservation Area and a number of heritage items of both State and Local Significance.  As such, Clause 46 requires Council to take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item, heritage conservation area and potential archaeological sites.

 

No excavation is proposed as part of the application and it is therefore be likely to unearth any items of archaeological significance.  Council’s Heritage Planner has considered the proposal in accordance with the requirements of Clause 46 of the LEP and has found that the proposal is generally acceptable with regard to its relationship to the heritage items in the vicinity (refer Section 6.1 of the report).

 

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

 

The Draft SEPP 2004 seeks to replace the provisions of SEPP 1 and has been publicly exhibited (concluding on 18 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 than a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the controls.  Notwithstanding, that the SEPP is a draft document requiring consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act, Clause 14 of the 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 nor certain and would not apply given that it contains a provision saving the subject application.  As such, further consideration of the Draft SEPP is therefore not required, however, it is considered the proposal will provide an appropriate built form and edge to Anzac Parade consistent with the mixed use development under construction adjoining the site to the east.  Further, a development compliant with the prescribed height control would not necessarily, in the circumstance of the site context, achieve a redevelopment potential consistent with the surrounding built form.  An assessment of the proposal against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1 and against Council’s statutory control and its objectives has been made in Sections 9.1 of this report.

 

9.4     Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The new three bedroom dwelling requires 1.5 car parking spaces under Council’s Development Control Plan – Parking (DCP-Parking).  There are currently nine (9) off – street carparking spaces provided on the site for the existing development, which is one (1) more than is required by the DCP-Parking.  As no additional on-site parking is being provided by the proposed development, there is a shortfall of 0.5 car parking spaces, which is rounded up to the nearest whole number, being one (1) car parking space.

 

The applicant argues that nine car parking spaces are adequate for the site and its proposed uses given the provision of public transportation, the large amount of on-street parking in the immediate vicinity, including public carparking around the Botany Bay National Park. 

 

In consideration of the above, the DCP – Parking stresses the importance of maintaining a perspective of the importance of parking in the overall development assessment process and as such it is considered that the patrons of the pizzeria are more likely to seek and find parking along Anzac Parade to the front of the pizzeria than to utilise undercover parking on-site accessed from Goorawahl Avenue.  If the pizzeria patrons were to utilise on-site parking, the three open air spaces at grade to Goorawahl Avenue would be more readily available for their use rather than the basement carpark.  In the circumstances it is considered that the secure basement carpark should be predominantly made available for residents cars, while the three open air spaces be only available for the restaurant use during its opening hours and signposted as such.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

9.5     Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The calculations for the residential component of the proposed development are set out in Figure 9 below. 

 

Figure 9: Levies for additional residential dwellings

 

Units

Open space levy per unit ($)

Total open

Space

($)

Community facilities levy per unit ($)

Total community facilities

($)

1 x 3 Bedroom

2,732.00

2,732.00

1,208.00

1,208.00

TOTAL*

 

2,732.00

 

1,208.00

 

*Note: An administrative charge of $425.00 is payable for all developments.

 

10.     RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:                  Excellence in urban design and development

Outcome 7:                  Heritage that is protected and celebrated

 

Direction:                      The proposal will improve the appearance of the existing building by the applicant agreeing to render the building in order to integrate its appearance with adjacent development and provide a more neutral edge and an improved setting for the nationally significant built elements in the adjacent open space area.

 

11.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible in the 3B Local Business Zone with the consent of Council.  The proposal does comply with the maximum FSR for the site contrary to the applicant’s statement, although the proposal exceeds the maximum 9m height limit by 100mm for the new dwelling and 400mm for the balustrade to the terrace area.  The issue of view loss is largely contained to within a portion of the road reserve of Goorawahl Avenue and the degree of view loss from with the street is substantially the same whether or not the development was fully compliant with the building height control.  A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted for the building height standard and it is considered to be well founded in the circumstances.  In particular the scale and height is compatible with the adjacent development in the 3B Zone and there are no significant amenity impacts to surrounding properties in terms of view loss, loss of privacy and overshadowing.

 

The proposal presents substantially as a two storey residential building to Goorawahl Avenue, with the commercial component, being the existing Pizzeria, retained to the Anzac Parade frontage.  As such, the consistency with the Local Business zoning is maintained.  The shortfall in parking resulting from the additional dwelling is one (1) space, which is considered minor and acceptable.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.  The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to vary the provisions of Clause 33(5) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to building height for Development Application No. DA 520/2006 on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality and the Director of Planning be notified accordingly;

 

AND

 

B.      THAT Council, as the responsible authority, grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA 520/2006 for the construction of a new three bedroom dwelling above the existing mixed use development. at 1603 Anzac Parade, La Perouse, subject to the following deferred commencement condition:-

 

DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITION

 

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

 

1.       The existing building and new addition are to be rendered with the colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building to be compatible with the adjacent development to the east in order to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and finishes (i.e. a sample board keyed to all building elevations) are to be submitted and shall include the following:-

 

·        metal roof sheeting painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment

·        details and samples of the glass to be used.  The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent and certification of such is required with the sample board. 

 

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

 

C.      Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement condition, to the satisfaction of the Director City Planning, development consent be granted under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA 520/2006 for the construction of a new three bedroom dwelling above the existing mixed use development. at 1603 Anzac Parade, La Perouse subject to the following conditions:-

 

 

REFERENCED PLANS:  

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 01 to DA 04 , dated 2 June, 2006, prepared by Cracknell and Lonergan and received by Council on 30 June, 2006 the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the satisfaction of the deferred commencement condition and by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENTITY:

 

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

 

2.         The carpark in the development, must incorporate the provision of:

 

a)       Car parking spaces allocated at the following rates:- i) a minimum of one (1) undercover carparking space per residential dwelling, ii) three (3) open air spaces at the rear of the property for the use of restaurant during operating hours and a one (1) undercover space for loading and unloading of goods at all times.

 

Details of compliance with the requirement for the use of the (3) open air spaces at the rear of the property for the use of restaurant are to be sign posted as such on site prior to the issue of the occupation certificate.

 

3.         The car parking spaces and driveways must be kept clear of goods at all times and must not be used for storage purposes.

 

4.         External colours, materials and finishes shall be in accordance with those approved by the satisfaction of the Deferred Commencement Condition. No. 1.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

10.       The relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be complied with and a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following the application, a “Notice of Requirements” will be provided, detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

A copy of Sydney Water’s ‘Notice of Requirements’ must be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to issuing a Construction Certificate.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing an occupation certificate or subdivision certificate (whichever the sooner).

 

CONSERVATION/HERITAGE:

 

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

 

11.       Should any Aboriginal deposits or objects (engravings, middens etc.) be exposed, site work is to temporarily cease within the vicinity while advice is sought from archaeologists, the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service.  A copy of any archaeological excavation permit required under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

12.       Should any European archaeological relics be exposed, site work is to temporarily cease within the vicinity while advice is sought from archaeologists, and the NSW Heritage Office.  A copy of any excavation permit required under Section 140 of the Heritage Act, 1977, shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENERGY EFFICIENCY: 

 

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

 

13.       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.

 

14.       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.

 

15.       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.

 

SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS

 

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

 

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

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $2,732.00

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $1,208.00

c)       Administration fee $425.00                                 $

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to

 

a)       a construction certificate being issued

 

for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY AND DANGEROUS GOODS: 

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection and occupational health and safety:

 

17.       All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of WorkCover NSW.

 

18.       All hazardous or intractable wastes and materials (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW, the Environmental Protection Authority, including the following provisions:

 

·        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

·        The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines

 

ASBESTOS POLICY REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

19.       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.

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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.

 

22.       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.

 

23.       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.

 

24.       A Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. 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.

 

PRESCRIBED BUILDING & FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS:

 

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

 

25.       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.

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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.

 

28.       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.

 

29.       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.

 

30.       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”.

 

31.       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.

 

32.       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.

 

33.       In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & 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.

 

34.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY:

 

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

 

36.       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.

 

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

 

CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT:

 

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:

 

38.       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.

 

39.       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.

 

40.       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.

 

41.       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.

 

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.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

 

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

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

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

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

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

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

47.       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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

48.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any 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.

 

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 or nature strip or in any public place:-

 

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

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

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

 

SERVICE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS

 

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

 

50.       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.

 

51.       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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1.      The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

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

 

a)       Part B1                      -       Structural provisions

b)       Part C1                      -       Fire resistance and stability

c)       Part E2                       -       Smoke Hazard Management

d)       Section J                    -       Energy efficiency

 

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 (as applicable) prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

A2.      The applicant/owner is advised that this approval does not guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the applicant should therefore consider their liability under the Act.  In this regard, the applicant is advised that compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility does not necessarily satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

The applicant/owner is requested to give consideration to providing access and facilities for people with disabilities in accordance with Australian Standard 1428 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Design for Access and Mobility, which may be necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

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.

 

A4.      The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

15 September, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/654/06 & PROP022511 & PROP022518

 

PROPOSAL:

 New carport to front of existing childcare centre.

PROPERTY:

 1-3 Moorina Avenue Matraville

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Homeclad Pty Ltd

OWNER:

Joncarm Holdings Pty Limited

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillor’s White, Daley and Procopiadis

 

The application details the erection of a double carport across the whole front yard area of the property.

 

The main issue is the impact of the proposed development upon the streetscape and its non compliance with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details the erection of a prefabricated steel double carport across the front of the property above an existing paved car parking area, sited up to the front and side boundaries and fixed to the façade of the building. The proposed carport has overall dimensions of 6.1m x 10.31m and a height of 3.4m to the hip of the roof.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Moorina Avenue and contains a two storey semi detached dwelling which is currently used as a dwelling and childcare centre catering for 29 children between the ages of 2-6 years with an open paved area at the front of the building providing parking for three vehicles. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 12.19m to Moorina Avenue and a depth of 39.6m and a site area of 483m².

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

Development Application 921/89 was approved for the conversion of a portion of the building to be used as a child care centre, and a further Development Application 622/05 was approved for a sign identifying the child care centre.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Notification. No response has been received.

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Council’s Childcare Centres policy does not contain any specific provisions relating to carport structures.  As such, it is considered appropriate to use the DCP – Dwelling Houses as a guide in the context of a merit assessment given to the nature of the proposal.

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

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.

There are no alterations to the existing levels of landscaping to the site in that the proposed carport is to be erected above an existing area of hard paving which is used for car parking.

Garages & Driveways

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Existing driveways.

S1

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

Existing driveways.

S1

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

Existing driveways, comply.

S2

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

Not possible, no side access to rear of allotment.

S2

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

Does not comply – see assessment below

S2

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

The proposed garage occupies 85 % of the width of the site frontage. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

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

 

It is considered that the proposed new carport to the front of the property will not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the carport will be visually obtrusive and will detract from both the appearance of the dwelling and local streetscape.

 

The siting of the carport to the front of the dwelling will be very prominent in the local streetscape as the existing streetscape is open and contains no similar structures sited up to the front boundary.  The impact of the proposed carport is further exacerbated by the fact that the carport occupies the whole width of the frontage.

 

It is noted that there are examples of other similarly sited structures located near the subject premises, however the majority of the dwellings in this street have either no off street parking or parking is provided via a driveway to the side of the dwelling, and an argument that the streetscape has already been compromised cannot be sustained.

 

8.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome: Excellence in urban design and development.

 

Direction  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the aims, objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the erection of a double carport across the front of the property will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.

For these reasons the application for the erection of this carport cannot be supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No.654/06 for permission to erect a double carport structure to the front of the property at 1-3 Moorina Avenue, MATRAVILLE for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposed carport does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure being sited at the front of the building will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposed carport does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure will occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment, is sited closer than 1m from the side boundary and does not meet the minimum dimension requirements for carparking structures.

 

3.         The proposed carport does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to Building Setbacks as it does not conform to the dominant setback along the street.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

5 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/672/2006 & PROP005526

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a carport in front of the building line of the dwelling and alterations to the roof form at the rear.

PROPERTY:

 85 Loch Maree Street, MAROUBRA

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr. Ray Everitt

OWNER:

Mr R. Everitt and Mrs J. Everitt

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

On the 18 th of August 2006 a development application (DA/672/2006) for 85 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra, was received by Council.  The application proposed to erect a new carport in front of the building line of the existing single storey dwelling and to replace the existing skillion roof at the rear by extending the existing hipped roof.

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic, Ted Seng.

 

The main issue is the impact of the proposed carport upon the streetscape and its non-compliance with the Objectives, Performance Requirements and Preferred Solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP.

 

The recommendation is for approval with conditions, including the deletion of the proposed carport.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to erect a new carport in front of the building line of the existing single storey dwelling and, replace the existing skillion roof at the rear by extending the existing hipped roof.

 

The carport is proposed to be erected on the northern boundary of the site on an existing driveway that provides access to an existing garage in the rear yard.  The purpose of the carport is to provide the occupants, one of which has a permanent disabled parking sticker, with a parking space in close proximity to the dwellings entry.  As the parking arrangement currently exists, it is possible for the occupants to park where the carport is proposed, without vehicular cover.  The proposed carport will not alter the access to the dwelling.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Loch Maree Street between Gale Road and Storey Street in Maroubra.  The site has a frontage of 12.19m, a side boundary depth of 40.24 and an overall site area of 490m2 and is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house.  To the north is a single storey dwelling house and to the south is a two storey dwelling house. 

 

The surrounding area is residential in nature and consists predominantly of single storey detached dwelling houses.  The area is characterised by the consistency in the streetscape as created through the consistent style of the dwelling houses.  Most of the dwellings are single storey cottages and almost all have with driveways that access garages in the rear yard down the northern side boundary.

 

In the entire block, between Gale Road and Storey Street, there are no instances of carports or garages in front of the building line.  The closest example in Loch Maree Street is at 51 Loch Maree Street, over 250m to the north.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

There is no history relevant to this application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Public Notification DCP. No submissions 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  Landscape Issues

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Clause 10 – Residential 2A Zone Objectives

 

The objectives of Zone No 2A include:

(a)  maintain[ing] the character of established residential areas, and

(c)  enabling redevelopment for low density housing forms… where such development… is compatible with the dominant character of existing development

         

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as the proposed carport is not compatible with the dominant character of existing development.  As stated above, this section of 85 Loch Maree Street has a dominant character that includes garages in the rear yards, with access from the Loch Maree Street via the side boundary, and does not include carports.  The nearest carport in Loch Maree Street is at 51 Loch Maree Street, over 250m to the north.  The proposal would set an undesirable precedent for the future character of Loch Maree Street and therefore the proposal does not comply with the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

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 – Dwelling Houses & Attached Dual Occupancy

 

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. 

 

Height, Form & Materials

The proposed roof extension does not alter the external wall height of the building and therefore the Preferred Solutions are not applicable.  The roof extension is considered to be consistent with the Dips Objectives and Performance Requirements though as it is not excessive in height and scale and will not detract from the character of the existing dwelling.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed carport is setback 500mm from the front boundary.  Does not comply – see assessment below.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S3

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

The proposed eaves on the new roof are at least 1.15m from the side boundaries.  Complies.

The proposed carport is located on the northern side boundary.  Does not comply – see assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

Not applicable.

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 carport does not comply with the Preferred Solutions for setbacks as the carport is proposed to be located on the side boundary and in front of the building line.  Although the carport will not reduce sunlight, daylight or fresh air to the building occupants, it will not conform with the dominant streetscape character and therefore does not comply with the Objectives or Performance Requirements of 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.

No change proposed – not applicable.

S1

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

The proposed car parking space is 2.6 x 5.1m.  Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

No change proposed – not applicable.

S1

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

No change proposed – not applicable.

S1

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

No change proposed – not applicable.

S1

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

There is no rear lane to this property – not applicable.

S2

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

The subject site currently has an existing garage to the rear.  The proposed carport in front of the building line does not comply – see assessment below.

S2

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

Does not comply – see assessment below.

S2

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

The proposed carport occupies about 27% 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 proposed car space is undersized in terms of its proposed depth (5.1m), according the DCPs relevant Preferred Solution. This may result in the vehicles overhanging over the public footpath which could cause a safety hazard.

The subject site already has an existing garage at the rear of the property that they access from a driveway down the northern setback.  It is proposed to construct the carport in front of the building line over the existing driveway to provide easier access from the car to the dwelling.  Without the proposed carport the occupants could still park in the same location (as the carport is proposed) and have closer access to the dwelling without compromising what is a streetscape of consistent character.

Therefore the carport does not comply with the Objectives or Performance Requirements of the DCP as it will be visually obtrusive and will detract from both the appearance of the dwelling and local streetscape and is therefore recommended for deletion.

 

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 proposed roof extension complies with the relevant assessment criteria of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP and will not result in an adverse amenity impacts and as such are recommended for approval.  The proposed carport though does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will compromise the existing street scape and the character of the locality.

 

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. 672/2006 for Construction of a carport in front of the building line of the dwelling and alterations to the roof form at the rear. at 85 Loch Maree Street, MAROUBRA 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 16/08/06 (sheets 1 through to 3) 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.         The proposed carport must be deleted from the proposal.  Details of compliance are to be provided on the construction certificate.

 

3.         The design, materials and colour of the roofing to the proposed roof extension are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing roof.

 

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

 

4.         New 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.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturers details.

 

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

 

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

 

5.         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.

 

6.         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.

 

7.         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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

                                                  

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

 

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

 

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

 

9.         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.

 

10.       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”.

 

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:

 

11.       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.

 

12.       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.

 

13.       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.

 

14.       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.

           

15.       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.

 

16.       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.

 

17.       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.

 

18.       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.

 

19.       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.

 

20.       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 conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of public health, amenity and safety:

 

21.       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.

 

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

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SARAH HUDSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

17 October, 2006

FILE NO:

1055/2005/A & PROP025548

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 (2) - Application to extend the rear first floor balcony off bedroom No.1 and provide new planter box off the patio/entry to the dwelling on the ground floor.

PROPERTY:

 4 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Brian Meyerson Architects

OWNER:

 Ms C L Bellenger

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The section 96 modification involves the addition of a planter box on the western end of the front patio, the deletion of the first floor west-facing bathroom window and an extension of the rear first floor balcony. The application was notified from 4 October to 18 October 2006 and one submission was received that raised concern over the loss of natural light to an eastern facing window due to the proposed planter box and any extension to the rear first floor balcony.

 

The proposed planter box will not extend beyond the wall of the dwelling and will remain within the footprint of the patio. The deletion of the first floor window will improve the amenity of the adjoining dwelling and will not adversely impact the internal amenity of the room. The proposed modifications to the rear balcony will add 1.77 sqm of balcony area and increase the rear boundary setback by deleting a portion of the northern section of the balcony. The modifications are not considered to add to the visual bulk of the dwelling and will not adversely impact upon the amenity of the private open space of the adjoining dwellings. A condition has been included with the consent that will require the installation of a 1.8 metre high privacy screen to the western side of the balcony.

 

The proposed modifications are generally minor and will result in a development that is substantially the same as the approved dwelling.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal seeks to modify the approved development by:

 

-     Adding a planter box on the western end of the front patio built to the existing balustrade height and clad with timber.

-     Removing the bathroom window on the western elevation of the first floor, and

-     Extending the rear first floor balcony along the rear of the dwelling. Access to the balcony will be maintained via the sliding door of bedroom 1 and a door from the first floor rumpus room.

 

The proposed modifications do not alter the internal arrangement of rooms or rear private open space of the site.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee between No.2 and No.6 Edgecliffe Avenue and is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 12.19 metres, a western side boundary depth of 29.325 metres, an eastern boundary depth of 29.69 metres and has an overall site area of 359.2 m².  Neighbouring the property to the west is a double storey residential building, to the east is a single storey dwelling and to the rear is a single storey dwelling. The subject site is located within close vicinity of Malabar Road which is an important thoroughfare providing access from the southern suburbs such to Coogee, Randwick and Clovelly. Figure 1 is a photograph of the subject site.

 

Figure 1: The subject site as viewed from Edgecliffe Avenue. 2 Edgecliffe Ave is to the left and 6 Edgecliffe to the right of the photo.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of single and double storey detached residential dwellings with some multi-unit residential buildings. Figure 2 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 original application was lodged on 21 December 2005 and six objections were received that raised concern regarding the visual bulk and scale, loss of coastal views, increased overshadowing and impact to acoustic and visual privacy. Following an on-site meeting at 2 and 4 Edgecliffe Avenue on 7 March 2006 amended plans were requested to reduce the scale of the development and to primarily address the concerns of view loss from 2 Edgecliffe. Amended plans were received on 27 March 2006 and 2 objections were received as a result of the renotification to surrounding residents.

 

The application was referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Paul Tracey, and Alan White on 13 April 2006. The recommendation for approval was supported and the application was approved with conditions.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with DCP – Public Notification. The following objection was received:

 

Ellen and Mario Pasciuto – Units 1 and 2 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

 

They object to extension of rear first floor balcony.

The proposed modification to the rear first floor balcony will increase the rear boundary setback of the approved balcony and will remain consistent with the view line established in the original application. A condition has been included that requires a privacy screen to be installed to the western side of the balcony to reduce direct overlooking into the objector’s property.

 

The objectors are concerned that the new planter box at the front of the site will have an adverse effect on natural light into the ground floor room and no details of plant species have been included.

The front planter box will maintain the existing footprint of the front patio and will not affect the approved side setback. A condition has been included that will require the applicant to submit details to Council regarding the plant species for the planter box prior to a construction certificate being lodged.

 

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

Due to the relatively minor alterations to the approved development referrals to technical officers was not necessary.

 

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. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause 29 - Foreshore scenic protection area

 

The proposed modifications to the approved development involve relatively minor changes to the front and rear of the dwelling. The modifications to the front of the dwelling include a new front planter box to the patio located above the garage and deletion of a first floor bathroom window that faces west. The changes to the rear of the site include the extension of the first floor balcony to wrap around the rear of the first floor bedroom.

 

The proposed modifications to the approved development do not involve any changes that will be noticeable from the foreshore area or detract from the appearance of the surrounding area. The changes to the front of the dwelling would be visually screened from the foreshore area by the other dwellings located east of the subject site. The rear balcony extension is a relatively minor addition that will not disrupt the scale of the dwelling or become a distracting visual element when viewed from the foreshore.

 

Generally the proposed modifications will result in a development that is not visually prominent from the foreshore and will likely be screened by other dwellings located to the east of the subject site. Therefore the application is considered to satisfy the clause.

 

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  Policy Controls

Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

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

Landscaping

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 addition of a planter box to the western section of the front patio will not alter the approved development’s consistency with the preferred solution requirements for total landscaped and permeable areas. It is considered that the proposed planter box will improve the presentation of the dwelling to the streetscape and will soften the north-western portion of the dwelling to the street. The planter box will be clad with timber and will match the light weight timber slat facade of the dwelling. It is considered the planter box will integrate with the design of the dwelling.

A condition has been included with the consent that will limit plant heights to 500mm to ensure there is not a significant impact the amenity of the adjoining neighbour.

The planter box will not obstruct vehicular ingress or egress to the site and will not interfere with the principal pedestrian entry to the dwelling. As such the proposed planter box is considered acceptable.

Floor Area

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 original development application had a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.7:1 which exceeded the DCP preferred solution of 0.6:1 by 38.6sqm. Whilst the proposal was inconsistent with the preferred solution it was considered that the proposal achieved the performance requirements and provided a form and scale that was commensurate with the scale of adjacent dwellings without adversely affecting the amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposal increases balcony area by 1.77sqm and the total balcony area to 18sqm. The DCP stipulates that decks and terraces more than 1 metre above ground level and exceeding a total of 40sqm are included in the gross floor area. The balconies for the site do not numerically contribute to the gross floor area for the site it is also considered that the additional balcony area to the first floor does not add to the visual bulk of the dwelling. The additional balcony area will not obstruct coastal views for the dwelling at 2 Edgecliffe Avenue and the view line established in the original application will be preserved.

The proposed modifications are minor and will not result in a perceptible increase in visual bulk or scale of the approved dwelling. As such the changes relating to floor area are considered acceptable.

Height, Form & Materials

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 modifications to the external sections of the dwelling including the planter box to the front and the additional area to the rear first floor balcony are integrated with the design of the dwelling and utilise materials that either match or are compatible with the materials used for the dwelling. The front planter box will be clad with timber slats that will match the light weight timber clad structure to the first floor. The vegetation for the planter box will soften the appearance of the dwelling to the street and is considered a positive addition to the front of the dwelling.

The extension of the rear first floor balcony adopts a mass and proportion that is consistent with the bulk and scale of the dwelling. The balcony addition will wrap around the north eastern corner of the dwelling and integrates with the form of the dwelling and adds articulation and visual interest to the rear of the site. The balcony will have be a concrete construction and a condition has been included with the consent that will require the concrete portion of the balcony to be painted to match the colour of the dwelling.

The height and form of the modified balcony is commensurate with the bulk of the dwelling and is compatible with the scale of other dwellings in the area. The extension of the balcony will not impact upon access of natural light or views for the adjacent dwellings. There is potential however for the additional balcony area to provide increased overlooking opportunity predominantly to the western and eastern properties. The general degree of overlooking that the original balcony provided to the eastern properties was considered unreasonable, in respect to view loss and visual privacy impacts, as it extended the length of the dwelling to the rear. Amendments to the plan reduced the size of the balcony and deleted all sections of the balcony that were aligned along the rear of the dwelling.

The proposed modification of the balcony will provide some overlooking into the private open space of 2 Edgecliffe Avenue and as such a condition has been included with the consent that will require a 1.8 metre privacy screen, of timber slat material to match the timber slat structure of the first floor, to be installed to the western side of the balcony. It is considered that this will significantly reduce overlooking to the rear private open space of 2 Edgecliffe and will not be visual bulky or obstruct views of the coast for adjoining dwellings. It is considered the balcony will not increase overlooking to the private open space 6 Edgecliffe Avenue beyond the existing approval.

The proposed deletion of the first floor bathroom window will improve the amenity of the adjoining western neighbour and will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling to the street. The modification is considered acceptable.

As such the proposed modifications to balcony and the planter box are considered relatively minor and acceptable. The proposed modifications will not add to the visual bulk of the dwelling and will not be obtrusive visual elements that will affect the amenity of adjacent dwelling. The proposed modifications will be commensurate with the bulk of the approved dwelling and compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

Building Setbacks

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 modifications to the rear first floor balcony will increase the rear boundary setback from 8.75 metres to 9.4 metres which is an increase of 0.65 metres. The change to the rear boundary setback will have a minimal improvement to the visual amenity of rear private space of adjacent dwellings. Generally the rear first floor modifications will not impact upon solar access to the adjacent dwellings and will not become a visually prominent element that will detract from the amenity or enjoyment of the private open space of adjacent dwellings.

The proposed modifications relating to the deletion of the first floor bathroom and the front planter box will not affect the approved setbacks for the dwelling.

The proposed modifications are consistent with the setbacks of the approved dwelling and will generally conform to setbacks of the adjoining development. As such the modified rear boundary setback will have a minimal improvement to the amenity to the rear private open space and is considered acceptable.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

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

S1

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

Not applicable.

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 modifications to the front of the dwelling including the new planter box and deletion of the first floor bathroom window will generally improve the visual and acoustic privacy of the adjoining dwelling at 2 Edgecliffe. These changes are consistent with the design of the approved dwelling are considered reasonable.

The proposed modifications to the rear first floor balcony involve an increase in the area of the balcony by 1.77sqm. The balcony will wrap around the north eastern corner of the dwelling and will not protrude beyond the view line established in the original application. The balcony has a compatible form and scale with the dwelling and will use materials that are consistent with the dwelling. The modifications to the balcony may increase overlooking potential to private open space of the western adjoining property. Therefore to minimise the visual privacy impact of the modification of the balcony, a condition has been included with the consent that will require a 1.8 metre privacy screen, of timber slat material to match the timber slat structure of the first floor, to be installed to the western side of the balcony.

As such the proposed medications to the rear first floor balcony, including the privacy screen condition, are considered to be reasonable and will not adversely affect the visual privacy of adjoining dwellings.

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.

The proposed modifications to the front of the dwelling are minor and are sympathetic to the form of the approved dwelling. The modification to the rear balcony matches the materials of the dwelling and is compatible with the building form. Complies.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

The proposed modifications add to the building articulation. Complies.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

The proposed rear balcony will improve the rear boundary setback and will not obstruct the view line established in the original application. Complies.

 

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

The proposed planter box to the front of the dwelling will use similar materials to the dwelling and will not be an adverse visual element to the street. The proposed extension to the rear first floor balcony improves the rear boundary setback and will not adversely impact the amenity of the adjacent dwellings. Complies.

 

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1  Substantially the same

 

The proposed alterations to the approved development make relatively minor modifications to the dwelling. The changes relating to the deletion of the first floor bathroom and the addition of a planter box to the western section of the front patio do not make substantial alterations to the approved bulk and scale of the dwelling and do not alter the approved use of the site. The changes to the rear first floor balcony will not significantly alter the presentation of the dwelling when viewed from the rear private open space of adjacent dwellings. The additional structure is contained within the bulk of the dwelling and will not detract from the amenity of the surrounding properties.

 

The proposed modifications will not significantly alter the bulk, scale and presentation of the dwelling to the street and does not alter the internal arrangement of living rooms or external spaces. As such the proposal will result in a dwelling that is substantially the same as the approved development.

 

9.2  Consideration of submissions

 

The development application received one objection from the adjoining western neighbour. The objection raised concern about the impact of the front planter box to solar access and the potential visual privacy impact of the rear first floor balcony.

 

The front planter box will maintain the existing footprint of the front patio and will not affect the approved side setback. A condition has been included with the consent that will limit the height of plants in the planter box to 500mm which will reduce any significant adverse impact to amenity and solar access to the objector’s property.

 

A condition has been included requiring the inclusion of a privacy screen to the western side of the rear first floor balcony. The privacy screen will have a minimum height of 1800mm and it considered to reduce direct overlooking and maintain the amenity of the rear private open space of adjacent properties.

 

10.  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 and presentation of the dwelling to the street and will not adversely impact the sustainability of the dwelling.

 

11.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications to the approved development are considered relatively minor and consistent with the relevant preferred solutions and performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan. The proposed addition to the first floor balcony will be a minor increase to the size of the approved balcony and is not considered to result in an adverse impact to the acoustic and visual privacy of the adjacent dwellings. The modifications to the front of the dwelling are consistent with the established bulk and scale of the dwelling and will continue the visual continuity of the development with the streetscape.

 

As such the proposed development 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.. 1055/2005 on property 4 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA-01, DA-02 and DA-03, dated 27 March 2006 and received by Council on 27 March 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered DA-01 Revision E, DA-02 Revision E and DA-03 Revision E, dated 20 September 2006, all received by Council on 26 September 2006, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

And add 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:

 

71.       A privacy screen having a minimum height of 1.8m is to be provided to the western side of the rear first floor balcony. The screen shall be constructed of timber slats or louvres that are consistent in colour with the ‘Lightweight timber clad structure’ as indicated on the plans.

 

Details are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

72.       All concrete sections of the rear first floor balcony are to be rendered and painted to match the colour of the dwelling. Details of compliance are to be provided prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

73.       To maintain the amenity of the adjoining property at 2 Edgecliffe Avenue, the plant species selected for the front planter box shall have a maximum height at maturity of 500mm. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

5 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/649/2006 & PROP000404

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to the dwelling including a first floor extension, an extension of the rear balcony on the ground floor and a new double carport in front of the building line.

PROPERTY:

 24 Aboud Avenue, KINGSFORD

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Ray and Kerrie Delohery

OWNER:

 Mr R. P. Delohery and Mrs K. A. Delohery

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

On the 11 th of August 2006 a development application (DA/672/2006) for 24 Aboud Avenue, Kingsford, was received by Council.  The application proposed to construct an extension to the front of the existing first floor, extend the existing ground floor balcony at the rear of the dwelling and erect a new double carport in front of the building line of the existing dwelling.

 

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

 

The main issue is the impact of the proposed double carport upon the streetscape and its non-compliance with the Objectives, Performance Requirements and Preferred Solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP.

 

The recommendation is for approval with conditions, including the deletion of the proposed double carport.  The applicant was informed that a car port behind the building line within the side setback, where there is an existing driveway, would be acceptable.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to:

·    construct an extension (19.8m2) to the front of the existing first floor to accommodate a new study and a bathroom;

·    extend the existing ground floor balcony by 11.4m2 at the rear of the dwelling; and,

·    erect a new double carport (5.5 x 5.25 metres) in front of the building line of the existing dwelling.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Aboud Avenue between Gardeners Road and Tresidder Street in Kingsford.  The site has a frontage width of 12.5m, a depth of 36.3m and a site area of approximately 453m2.  It is currently occupied by a two storey dwelling house.  To the north is a single storey dwelling house and to the south is a two storey dwelling house.

 

The subject premises has an existing 2.9m wide driveway down the northern side boundary which used to access a garage that was located in the rear yard, but was demolished when a pool was approved in the backyard (BA/1414/1992).

 

The surrounding area is residential in nature and consists predominantly of one and two storey detached dwelling houses.  Most of the dwellings are single storey cottages and almost all have with driveways and car spaces down on of their side boundaries.

 

There are only two examples of carports, similar to that which is proposed, in the streetscape at 19 and 21 Aboud Avenue (opposite the subject premises).  Both were approved prior to the introduction of the current planning controls.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

On the 23 rd of December 1992 an application (BA/1414/1992) for a first floor addition, a swimming pool in the rear yard, which necessitated the demolition of the existing garage in the rear yard and the construction of a single carport, in front of the building line and over the existing driveway, was lodged.

 

The application, including the single carport, was approved on the 1st of June 1993.  The applicants are able to construct the single carport approved in this application as the consent was activated when the other works (a first floor addition and a swimming pool) were carried out.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

Ted & Helen Schey – 21 Maitland Avenue

Issue

Comment

Concerned about visual and acoustic privacy from the balcony extension.

21 Maitland Street is located diagonally to the rear of the subject premises.  It is not considered that the small balcony extension, which is over 20m from the rear verandah of 21 Maitland Avenue, will significantly affect visual or acoustic privacy.

 

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  Landscape Issues

 

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

 

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

The objectives of Zone No 2A include:

(a)  maintaining the character of established residential areas, and

(c)  enabling redevelopment for low density housing forms… where such development… is compatible with the dominant character of existing development

         

As stated above the proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as the proposed carport is not compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

a.    Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses & Attached Dual Occupancy

 

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.

52.6% 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 88sqm. 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 7 x 12.5 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.

Approximately 21.4% of the site is permeable. Complies.

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.47:1. Complies.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed first floor extension has a maximum external wall height of 6.3 metres. Complies.

S4

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

The entire southern elevation of the proposed dwelling is over 1.5 metres from the southern side boundary at first floor level. Complies.

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed double carport is set back between 150 and 500mm from the front boundary.  Does not comply – see assessment below.

S2

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

The proposed balcony extension is over 7 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

The proposed double carport is located 200mm from the northern side boundary.  Does not comply – see assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back at least 1.5 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 double carport does not comply with the Preferred Solutions for setbacks as the carport is proposed to be located 200mm from the northern side boundary and in front of the building line.  Although the carport will not reduce sunlight, daylight or fresh air to the building occupants, it will not conform with the dominant streetscape character and therefore does not comply with the Objectives or Performance Requirements of the DCP.

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 not overlook the rear yard areas of the adjoining properties. Complies.

S1

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

The proposal does not have windows that will compromise privacy.  Not applicable.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed dwelling has parking for 2 cars. Complies.

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 2.5 x 5.5m. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 5.5 metres wide and but is set back at 500mm from the northern side boundary.  The portion that is set back from the northern side boundary is existing and not proposed to change.  Therefore this Preferred Solution is not applicable..

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 5.5 metres at the front boundary. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

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

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

A garage in the rear yard used to exist at the subject premises.  Driveway access to the rear yard is still available down the existing driveway, although it parking beyond the rear alignment of the dwelling would be prohibited by the rear balcony extension.  Does not comply – see assessment below.

S2

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

Parking is available behind the building line but the double carport is proposed to be located in front of the building line. Does not comply – see assessment below

S2

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

The proposed double carport will occupy about 44% of the width of the site frontage. Does not comply – see assessment below.

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

It is proposed to construct a double carport in front of the existing dwelling house, partially over an existing driveway.  The subject site already has an existing driveway which is wide enough to accommodate a vehicle as the width of the driveway is 2.9m whilst the minimum width of a car parking space is 2.5m.  Therefore two cars can currently be parked onsite if parked in tandem on the exiting driveway.

The applicant was informed that a car port behind the building line within the side setback, where the existing driveway is located, would be acceptable but did not wish to amend the plans.

The proposed double driveway, which is 5.5m wide, will reduce the amount of on street parking available in Aboud Avenue and as such sets an undesirable precedent.  The double carport, which is proposed to be 4m high and is 5.5m wide, will be visually obtrusive and detract from the appearance of both the streetscape and the dwelling.

Therefore the carport does not comply with the Objectives or Performance Requirements of the DCP as it will be visually obtrusive and will detract from both the appearance of the dwelling and local streetscape whilst also reducing the provision of on-street parking and is therefore recommended for deletion.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

The proposed extension 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 additional shadow resulting from the proposed extension 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.

 

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 proposed rear balcony and first floor extensions comply with the relevant assessment criteria of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP and will not result in an adverse amenity impacts and as such are recommended for approval.  The proposed double carport though does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will compromise the existing street scape and the character of the locality.  The single carport approved in the Building Application (BA/1414/1992) can be constructed as the consent is active.

 

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. DA/649/2006 & PROP000404 for the construction of an extension to the front of the existing first floor, an extension of the existing ground floor balcony at the rear of the dwelling and the erection of a new double carport in front of the building line of the existing dwelling at 24 Aboud Avenue, KINGSFORD, 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 00, 01, 02 and 03 (Issue A), dated the 12th of April 2006 and received by Council on the 11th 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.         The proposed double carport and extension to the driveway must be deleted from the proposal.  Details of compliance are to be provided on the construction certificate.

 

3.         The external materials, colours and finishes of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building.

 

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.

 

4.         The design, materials and colour of the roofing to the proposed extension are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing roof.

 

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

 

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

 

6.         The 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 manufacturers 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 persons intention to commence building works.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SARAH HUDSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

27 October, 2006

FILE NO:

D/0472/2006

 

PROPOSAL:

 The erection of two residential buildings over basement carparking comprising 55 dwellings, 77 carpark spaces, landscaping, strata sub-division being four storeys and a loft level in height.

PROPERTY:

 2-8 Jenner Street, Little Bay

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Stockland Development (PHH) P/L

OWNER:

Stockland Development (PHH) Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The subject application is for the erection of two residential buildings over basement carparking comprising 55 dwellings, 77 carpark spaces, landscaping, strata subdivision being four storeys and a loft level in height.  The subject site is irregular in shape and comprises vacant land in the Prince Henry site located to the north of the Oval Park, and bounded by three new public roads, Anzac Parade, Jenner Street and, a private road, Millard Drive. The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee as the proposed development is valued at $21 million.

 

The proposal is permissible under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and complies with all the controls contained in the LEP with the exception of the maximum FSR, wall and building height controls. The proposal has an FSR of 1.324:1 which exceeds the maximum FSR control of 1.2:1. The proposal also breaches the maximum wall height control by 500mm for Building 1 and 400mm for Building 2 and the maximum building height control by 2.65m in Buildings 1 and 2 to the top of the lift overruns/stairwells of each respective building. Objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) have been submitted in relation to the breach of these controls. The non-compliances have been assessed and found acceptable as the breach in the height controls are minor and localised; the proposed building affected by the breach will not be visually intrusive or bulky; and will not give rise to any detrimental impacts to surrounding uses in terms of solar access, ventilation, privacy and views. The application complies with all the relevant prescribed controls in the Prince Henry Development Control Plan with the exception of the FSR, wall and building height, and visitor carparking. The shortfall in carparking has been assessed and arises from constraints on the built form of the proposal imposed by the shape and configuration of the subject site, and is considered minor such that it can be accommodated adequately on-street.

 

The proposal was notified and advertised as “integrated development” for a period of 30 days in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). No submissions were received in response to the proposal.

 

The proposal is an “integrated development” as the subject site is located within the Prince Henry conservation area which has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register. Accordingly, the application was referred to the Heritage Council of NSW for approval, and notified and advertised for a period of 30 days in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). The Heritage Council has issued its General Terms of Approval for the proposed development which have been incorporated as conditions of consent.  No submissions were received in response to the advertising/notification process.  

 

The site that is the subject of the proposed development, forms part of a development precinct identified in the Master Plan for the Prince Henry site which was adopted in December 2001. Under the amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gazetted on 16 June 2005, the Master Plan is now made a Deemed Development Control Plan (Deemed DCP). The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Deemed DCP and will be sympathetic to the existing and future developments in locality.

 

The recommendation is for approval of the application subject to conditions.

 

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the erection of a multi-unit residential development comprising of 2 residential buildings, 4 storeys with a loft level in height, containing 55 dwellings over a common basement car park accommodating 77 vehicles including landscaping and strata subdivision. 

 

The proposed development will contain the following uses:

 

Building 1 (fronting Jenner Street)

 

8 x 1           Bedroom

6 x 2           Bedroom

9 x 2           Bedroom + study

9 x 3           Bedroom

Total – 32 units

 

Building 2 (fronting Anzac Parade)  

 

5 x 1           Bedroom

17 x 2         Bedroom

1 x 2           Bedroom + study

Nil x 3         Bedroom

Total – 23 units

 

The two buildings will have a common basement level containing the following uses:

 

·    66 resident and 9 visitor carparking spaces

·    12 bicycle storage area

·    storage space

·    Mechanical switchboard room

·    Communications and services rooms

·    Grey water plant room

·    Pump room

·    Garbage bin storage rooms

 

Access to the basement carpark will be via an existing private road owned by the applicant, Millard Drive. Two visitor carparking spaces will also be provided on Millard Drive, yielding a total of 77 carspaces for the proposed development. 

 

A semi-enclosed central north-facing landscaped courtyard is proposed to the rear of the proposed buildings.

 

On 1 August 2006, the applicant submitted amended building and landscape plans for the proposed developments containing changes to the access arrangements to the proposed development by way of improved disabled access to Building 1 and more direct access for the ground floor dwelling units of Building 1 to the central landscaped courtyard. There were no changes to the envelope of the proposal as originally submitted. Accordingly, the changes were considered minor and not required to be readvertised/renotified.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

The former Prince Henry Hospital site is located on the eastern side of Anzac Parade approximately 14km south of the Sydney GPO. The site, now referred to as the Prince Henry site, is bounded to the north by the University of New South Wales, to the north and east by the Coast Golf Course, to the east by Little Bay and to the south by the Coast and St Michaels Golf Courses and to the west by Anzac Parade.

 

The site that is the subject of the proposed development, forms part of a development precinct identified in the adopted Master Plan (now a Deemed DCP) for the Prince Henry site. The subject site is known as Lot 6 in DP 270427. The site is also referred to as Lot 5 in Council’s Prince Henry Site DCP (the DCP). The subject site is located on the northern side of Jenner Street and eastern side of Anzac Parade and comprises vacant land with an area of 4585 sqm.  

 

The subject site is bounded by Jenner Street and the Oval Park beyond on the southern side, Anzac Parade to the western side, the northern bushland park containing Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub to the north, and Lot 7 containing an almost completed multi-unit residential development (approved under DA 657/2005) to the east.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

The site forms part of the wider area known as the ‘Prince Henry Hospital site’ that was previously used as the Prince Henry (Coast) Hospital.

 

The site as a whole has been subject to a lengthy strategic planning process. On 27 May 2003 Council adopted a revised master plan for the former Prince Henry Hospital site effective for five years from that date. The Master Plan created a new residential and community precinct with a variety of land uses including retail, commercial, open space, recreation and community facilities. Under the amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gazetted on 16 June 2005, the Master Plan is now made a Deemed Development Control Plan (Deemed DCP). On the 18 October 2005, Council adopted amendments to the Deemed DCP subject to variations. Further amendments to the Deemed DCP/Master Plan were approved by Council in May 2006.  These latter two amendments do not affect the subject site.

 

Amendment 28 to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 was gazetted on 26 November 2004 and had the effect of rezoning the Prince Henry site to a mix of 2D Residential (Comprehensive Development), 6 Special Uses and 7 Environmental Protection. The amendment also contains height, FSR and landscape area requirements for development within the 2D area of the site.

 

The Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan (the DCP) was approved by Council on 27 July 2004 and became effective after the gazettal of Amendment 28 to RLEP1998 on 8 December 2004.

 

A number of other development applications have been approved for proposals in the wider Prince Henry site ranging from the demolition of identified buildings and the decontamination and rehabilitation of land to the erection of buildings for specific social/community bodies and infrastructure, civil and streetscape works.

 

A prelodgement meeting was held on 13 December 2005 (PL 63/2005) to discuss development concepts for the proposed development.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

5.1     Advertising/Notification

 

The proposal was notified as “integrated development” for a period of 30 days in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). A notice was placed in the local newspaper and on-site, and letters were sent to adjoining and adjacent landowners advising of the proposal and inviting comment and submissions. No submissions were received in response to the proposal.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Heritage Comments

 

Council’s Heritage Planner advises as follows:

 

“Background

The subject site is located within the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The site and a number of the buildings on it were listed on the State Heritage Register in May 2003.  The site has been the subject of a Conservation Management Plan (CMP), Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) and Heritage Impact Assessment carried out by Godden Mackay Logan (GML) in conjunction with the preparation of a Master Plan for residential use of the former hospital site. 

 

The site encompasses Aboriginal, natural, landscape and built heritage values. 

 

The Proposal

The proposal is for a residential development in the form of two four storey buildings, one facing Anzac Parade and once facing Jenner Street, over a semi-basement carpark. 

 

Heritage Context

The subject site is within Precinct P1 as identified in the DCP.  The site is to the north west of MacCartney Oval.  The site is bounded to the west by Anzac Parade, to the south by Jenner Street, to the east by Millard Drive and to the north by the northern bushland park.

 

The GML Archaeological Management Plan does not identify any Aboriginal sites in the vicinity of the subject site, but locates the site within the Aboriginal Archaeological Zone of High Sensitivity Zone 2- Built Areas).  The GML Archaeological Management Plan does not identify any Historical Archaeological Items in the vicinity of the subject site and locates Lot 6 within Archaeological Zone 7, the former Prince Henry Hospital Complex.  The management recommendations contained in the AMP should be applied accordingly. 

 

There are a number of significant built and landscape elements in the vicinity.  To the south east of the site on the opposite side of the park are the Pathology Department building, the Artisans’ Cottages (all high significance) and the Matron Dickson Nurses Home (exceptional significance).  The setting and curtilage of the Artisans’ Cottages have been identified as significant elements, as well as the adjacent road alignment of Mayo Street and associated retaining walls.  To the north of the site is an area of indigenous vegetation, while to the north east of the site are elements of the Little Bay Geological Site.  The Policies for New Development contained in the GML CMP have generally been incorporated into the Master Plan and the Development Control Plan for the site.  The HIA for the proposed developments should address consistency and compliance of the proposal with the approved Master Plan and DCP.

 

Approvals

As Prince Henry is included on the State Heritage Register (SHR), any development generally needs to be the subject of an Integrated Development Application or a prior application under s60 of the NSW Heritage Act.  As the NSW Heritage Office will be the consent authority for the application, Council cannot issue approval until the Heritage Office has provided conditions of consent.  Site specific exemptions for the Prince Henry site were gazetted in June.  Under the Prince Henry Site Specific Exemptions, development which complies with the identified sections of the Prince Henry DCP and the relevant heritage management plans does not need to be referred to the NSW Heritage Council for approval.  These apply to development outside the Historic Precinct, where the proposal complies with the Height and Setback requirements of the DCP, and where any non-compliance with a number identified sections of the DCP will not result in heritage impacts.  It appears that SEPP 1 objections have been submitted in relation to maximum wall height and maximum building height and that therefore, the proposal will require Heritage Office consent. 

 

Submission

The development application submission includes a Heritage Impact Statement, prepared by Tanner Architects assessing heritage impacts having regard to policies set out in the CMP and the AMP, prepared by Godden Mackay Logan to inform the preparation of the Master Plan.  The HIS notes that the site has been cleared of built structures and landscape features, and that there are no other heritage items within 150 metres of the site.  The HIS notes that archaeological monitoring has been carried out during remediation works for the whole site, and that apparently there are no outstanding archaeological issue.  The HIS recommends confirmation with Landcom as to the extent of archaeological work and consultation undertaken to date the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council, to determine whether archaeological monitoring is required during the construction. 

 

Comments

The proposal appears to be generally consistent with the siting, scale, bulk and form of the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan, although non-compliances have been identified relating to FSR and height.  The footprint of the buildings, defines the public space of Jenner Street and the northern edge of MacCartney Oval.  The finishes board and schedule indicate a predominantly “Berkshire White” colour scheme with colour highlights to recessed walls and masonry floor and walls edges.  The proposed façade treatment, and colours and finishes to each of the buildings provides reasonable uniformity and compatibility with the design of adjacent new buildings along Anzac Parade and Jenner Street, and provides a neutral edge to the open space of the oval. 

 

Recommendations

Conditions should be included in any consent, in addition to any provided by the NSW Heritage Office:”

(Comment: The Heritage Planner’s recommended conditions will be applied in any consent for the application should approval be granted).

 

6.2     Development Engineering Comments

 

Council’s Development Engineer advises as follows:

 

“An application has been received for the construction of two residential flat buildings at the above site containing 55 units with basement carparking for 77 vehicles and associated strata subdivision.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·    Statement of Environmental Effects by Stockland dated June 2006;

·    Geotechnical Report by Douglas Partners dated April 2005;

·    Traffic and Parking Report by Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes dated June 2006;

·    Email from Mike Pinnell of Stockland dated 20 October 2006 and accompanying letter and plan regarding ramp grades;

·    Email from Mike Pinnell of Stockland dated 25 October 2006 and accompanying sketch plan of visitor parking arrangement adjacent to Millard Drive;

·    Waste Management Plan by J D MacDonald dated June 2006;

·    Urban and Landscape Design Report by Oculus dated 13 June 2006;

·    Survey Plan Ref No. 050622 by Denny Linker & Co. dated 9 July 2005;

·    Basement Plan AR.DA.2000 Issue 4 by Allen Jack & Cottier dated 19 October 2006;

·    Ground Level Plan AR.DA.2101 Issue 1 by Allen Jack & Cottier dated 20 June 2006;

·    Sections AR.DA.3120 Issue 1 by Allen Jack & Cottier dated 20 June 2006;

·    The Preliminary Landscape Plan by Oculus, project number S05-044, drawing number DA L 01, issue D, dated 26.7.06;

·    Preliminary Landscape sections DA_L_02 Issue A dated 19 June 2006.

 

Bushland Comments

As the proposed development is located adjacent to an area of protected Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub, the Planning Officer should ensure that the application is referred to Council’s Bushland consultants for comments and/or the imposition of relevant conditions of development consent.

 

Landscape Comments

A site inspection confirmed the absence of existing vegetation within the site; however, species selection and landscape design needs to comply with the performance criteria and controls contained in the Prince Henry DCP for Precinct 1, given the presence of the northern bushland park beyond the site’s northern boundary.

 

Drainage Comments

Stormwater runoff from the site shall be managed in accordance with the Prince Henry drainage strategy prepared by Connell Wagner. This shall involve stormwater discharging to the underground drainage system in Anzac Parade via a new or existing kerb inlet pit.

 

Geotechnical Comments

The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report by Douglas Partners dated April 2005. The report states that free groundwater was not observed in any of the three boreholes drilled at the site (with sandstone encountered at depths of 5.2-6.1 metres below the existing surface level).

 

Accordingly, the application does not require referral to the Department of Natural Resources, nor has a condition been included in this report requiring the basement carpark to be tanked and waterproofed.

 

Traffic Comments

Vehicular Access - All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. Further, the driveway opening at the Millard Drive street frontage must be minimum 6.00 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property. It is noted that the submitted plans demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

Parking provisions – For a development of this size, a total of 80 car spaces are required in accordance with Council’s DCP – Parking; (13 spaces for the 13 x 1 bedroom units, 39.6 spaces for the 33 x 2 bedroom units, 13.5 spaces for the 9 x 3 bedroom units and 13.8 spaces for visitor parking). Further, one space is required for service and delivery vehicles.

 

The submitted plans show the provision of 75 spaces within the basement carpark (66 residential spaces and 9 visitor spaces) with a further 2 visitor spaces proposed at ground level adjacent to Millard Drive (see also Waste Comments below). It is noted that this a shortfall of 3 visitor spaces however in a letter dated 20 October 2006, the applicant has stated that they are unable to provide further visitor spaces within the site, and also that the provision of 11 visitor spaces is in compliance with the RTA requirement of 1 space per 5 units.

 

In addition, the Planning Officer is advised that the proposed development just exceeds the minimum requirement for the provision of one service and delivery vehicle space within the site, however this has not been provided. Noting that Jenner Street has a designated parking bay in front of the subject site, it is considered that there is adequate provision for service and delivery vehicles.

 

It is also noted that there are 10 ‘pairs’ of tandem car spaces. The Planning Officer shall ensure that each pair of tandem spaces is allocated to the one unit.

 

Traffic Generation - The masterplan approved development included a total of 54 units (12 x 3 bedroom, 36 x 2 bed and 6 x 1 bed) and the revised traffic and parking report considered the traffic impacts from 60 units (9 x 3 bed, 35 x 2 bed and 16 x 1 bed) on the site. Given that the submitted plans show only 55 units (9 x 3 bed, 32 x 2 bed and 5 x 1 bed) no objections are raised to the development on the basis of traffic generation.

 

Waste Comments

To minimise the number of bins presented at the kerb for collection, Council requires developments of the size proposed to provide garbage chutes and compactors to reduce the required number of residential garbage bins by half. Under such an arrangement the residential garbage room/s would need to be sized to contain the compactor/s (with safe working area around) and an additional 1 x 240 litre bin for every 4 units. Recyclables cannot be compacted and the recycling room should be sized to contain 1 x 240 litre recycling bin for every 2 units.

 

It is noted however that the provision of garbage chutes and compactors may be difficult to accommodate in the subject development (given that three separate cores are proposed). Consequently, the applicant was advised at prelodgement stage that consideration may be given to alternative waste management arrangements that will still meet the objective of minimising the number of bins that need to be presented at the kerb for collection.

 

A Waste Management Plan and architectural plans detailing three proposed waste storage areas and two bin collection areas were submitted with the development application and referred to Council’s Waste Compliance Officer. The following comments were received:

 

The applicant has provided for the storage of the required number of bins in 3 waste storage areas located in the basement of the proposed development. The storage areas are of sufficient size to contain the required number of bins and have appropriate access for the occupants.

 

Two bin collection areas are proposed, one in Jenner Street and another in Millard Drive. These bin presentation areas are of sufficient size to allow presentation of the required number of bins. The bins will need to be double stacked, however, this will be able to be accommodated as part of the collection.

 

The nominated collection points are some distance from the basement driveway and the bins will need to be transported to the collection points. The applicant has proposed a caretaker will manage the proposed waste system and Council's Waste Services Unit suggests that employment of a caretaker be a condition of approval for the proposed development. In addition the Waste Management Plan outlines the use of a mechanical device to transport bins to and from the waste storage areas. The applicant shall be required to provide details of this mechanical device prior to issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Council's standard conditions regarding drainage to sewer, tap and hose fittings should also apply.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that conditions have been included in this report in regard to the above matters.

 

Visitor parking adjacent to Millard Drive – The amended proposal incorporates the provision of two parallel parking spaces at ground level adjacent to Millard Drive. These spaces are located within a hardstand area allocated for overnight garbage bin storage prior to collection. The applicant has stated that appropriate signage will be placed in this location restricting parking in the 24 hour period when bins are to be stored for collection. A condition has been included in the report to ensure this issue is satisfactorily addressed.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:”

 

6.3     Building Services Comments

 

The Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services advises as follows:

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class -        2       (Residential Units)

Class -        7a     (Carpark)

 

Background

 

 Prince Henry Hospital site.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

It is proposed to provide 3 adaptable units.

 

Conclusion:

 

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

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

6.4     Environmental Health Comments

 

The Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services advises as follows:

 

Key Issues

 

Land Contamination

The site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act and as per Council consent 1188/02 as amended. A site audit statement (SAS) has been issued for the subject lot 7.

 

A comment has been included on the SAS requiring the SAS be included in lease and sale contracts. Furthermore, as a precautionary measure, the auditor has concluded the groundwater should not be used (in the unlikely event that it is accessed) and that the site soils are acceptable for residential end use.  Suitably worded advisory notes to be imposed on consent bringing this matter to the attention of the applicant, developer or other as required.

 

Acoustics

Vipac engineers have prepared an acoustic assessment in accordance with the recommendations and guidelines set out in Councils DCP, the BCA, relevant Australian Standards and the DEC guidelines. A number of criteria and recommendations have been set and made. Appropriate conditions are to be imposed on the consent.

 

Grey water treatment and reuse

The plans indicate a plant room for grey water treatment and another room for storage of grey water. I discussed the matter with Adrian Langdon from DUES (ph: 8281 7340) and he explained it would be necessary and appropriate to condition the consent in relation to odour and noise management; bunding and discharge to sewer; suitable storage of chemicals; compliance with interim guidelines/criteria; requirement for LGA approvals etc.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

6.5     Heritage Council of NSW Comments

 

The Heritage Council advised of its approval of the integrated development application in a letter dated October 2006 with its accompanying general terms of approval. The general terms of approval have been included as conditions of consent.

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Clause 40A of Randwick LEP requires the preparation and adoption of a master plan for the redevelopment of sites having an area in excess of 4,000 square metres and which must be adopted and in force prior to the grant of development consent.

 

Following amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, gazetted on 16 June 2005, master plans are now designated as Deemed Development Control Plans. Accordingly, the master plan for the Prince Henry Site which was adopted on 27 May 2003, is now a Deemed DCP.

 

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 Prince Henry Hospital site is zoned Residential 2D, Open Space 6A, and Environmental Protection-Natural Heritage Areas Zone 7 under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The subject site is zoned Residential 2D. The proposal is permissible with development consent.

 

The following relevant clauses apply to the proposal (and are addressed in detail in Section 10.1 below):

 

Clause 30A      Development of Certain Land in Zone No. 2D

Clause 40        Excavation and filling of land

Clause 40A     Master plans

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

 

Clause 30A of the Randwick LEP 1998 states that the controls applicable to land Zone 2D are identified in the supporting built form control maps applicable to the specific site (in this case the Prince Henry Site) which are as follows:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum number of storeys

4 storeys with loft

 

4 storeys with loft

Yes

Maximum FSR

 

Maximum 1.2:1

1.324:1

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

Building 1 = 14.5m

Building 2 = 14.4m

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Building Height

Maximum 15m

 

17.65m to top of lift-core and stairwell in Buildings 1 and 2.

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

 

Minimum Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 40%

55%

Yes

Minimum Soft Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 20%

33%

Yes

 

8.2     Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policies that are relevant to the proposal are :

 

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Contaminated Land

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

·        State Environmental Planning Policy – State Significant Development

 

The application of these policies to the proposal is addressed in Section 10.1 below.

 

9.       POLICY CONTROLS

 

9.1     Prince Henry Development Control Plan

 

The Prince Henry DCP applies to the developable land within the Prince Henry Site and contains controls that are specifically precinct based. The subject site lies within Precinct P1 and, as such, is subject to the following specific precinct controls:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum number of storeys

4 storeys with loft

 

4 storeys with loft

Yes

Maximum FSR

 

Maximum 1.2:1

1.324:1

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

Building 1 = 14.5m

Building 2 = 14.4m

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Building Height

Maximum 15m

 

17.65m to top of lift-core and stairwell in Buildings 1 and 2.

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Minimum Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 40%

55%

Yes

 

 

 

Minimum Soft Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 20%

33%

Yes

Setbacks

Front Setback to Anzac Parade – 7m (comprising 3m landscape and 4m general building)

 

Front Setback to Jenner Street – 3m (in line with approved development in adjoining Lot 7) m

 

 

Front Setback to Anzac Parade –  7m (comprising 3m landscape and 4m general building)

 

Front Setback to Jenner Street – 3m (in line with approved development in adjoining Lot 7) m

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Articulation zone

Min. 30% and max 60% of building articulation area to be used for building articulation.

59% of the total designated articulation area of both buildings will be taken up for building articulation. 

Yes

 

The DCP also contains a range of performance criteria for five key elements of the DCP namely site context, sub-division and amalgamation, building and site design, sustainable design, and facilities and access. The relevant performance criteria relating to apartment buildings are assessed in Sections 10.3 and 10.4 below where any inconsistencies between the proposal and these performance criteria are discussed accordingly.

 

9.2     Development Control Plan - Carparking

 

The DCP – Parking requires carparking to be provided for the proposal as follows:

 

USE

REQUIREMENT (DCP – Parking)

PROPOSED NUMBER AND/OR FLOOR AREA

REQUIRED PROVISION

PROPOSED PROVISION

Residential

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

13 x one bedroom dwellings

13 spaces

 

 

66 residential carspaces

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

33 x two bedroom dwellings

39.6 spaces

 

1.5 spaces per three bedroom dwellings

9 x three bedroom dwellings proposed

13.5 spaces

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 55

13.7 spaces

11 spaces

TOTAL

 

 

80 spaces

77 spaces

 

9.3     Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

Section 94 contributions are not payable for developments that meet the Deemed DCP standards as the open space and community facility provisions in the Deemed DCP were designed to meet the requirements of the projected number of residents established in the Deemed DCP. Whilst the proposal exceeds the projected number of dwellings established in the Master Plan/Deemed DCP by 1 unit, there has been no commensurate increase in the Section 94 contribution chargeable to the project because the dwelling mix in the proposed development has off-set the potential increase in section 94 contributions (that is, the proposal has increased the proportion of one-bedroom units with a commensurate decrease in two and three-bedroom dwellings with the effect that the Section 94 contribution chargeable will be lower for the one-bedroom dwellings than the two and three bedroom dwellings).

 

9.4     Rainwater Tanks Policy, 2003

 

Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy requires installation of rainwater tanks for all residential development. Council’s Strategic Planner has advised that the requirement for rainwater tanks does not apply in the subject site as the stormwater from the site will be harvested into designated storage ponds to contribute to the whole of Prince Henry site irrigation needs under the total water cycle strategy of the DCP. The Deemed DCP also recommends collection of roof water for irrigation as per the total water cycle strategy. Furthermore, the applicant has provided a BASIX report that Accordingly, the subject site is exempt from Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has submitted a Sustainability Report containing a BASIX assessment and detailing all ESD measures to be applied in the proposed development to achieve the BASIX criteria including the use of water conservation strategies detailing, amongst other things, the use of high efficiency fixtures and fittings, water-saving landscape irrigation systems, and on-site greywater treatment system.

 

10.     ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1   Statutory Controls – S79C(1)(a)

 

10.1.1         Section 91 EP&A Act (Integrated Development)

 

Section 91 of the EP&A Act relates to development that requires development consent and one or more other approvals under relevant nominated Acts. The former Prince Henry Hospital site is located within a conservation area, which has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register, so that any development proposal requires the consent of the Heritage Council of NSW. Accordingly, the application was referred to the Council as integrated development. The Heritage Council advised of its approval of the integrated development application in a letter dated 17 October 2006 with its accompanying general terms of approval. The general terms of approval have been included as conditions of consent.

 

10.1.2         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 21   Sub-division

 

The draft strata plans provided are consistent with the architectural plans that will be the subject of approval if granted. The proposed sub-division is consistent with Part 3.0 of the relevant requirements of the Prince Henry DCP. Standard conditions relating to sub-division will be applied should approval be granted.

 

Clause 30A (2)    Development of certain Land in Zone No 2D (maximum Floor

                            Space Ratio)

 

A floor space ratio of 1.2:1 is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 30A (2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal development has a FSR of 1.324:1

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 30A (2) of Randwick LEP 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 underlying 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 proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that it will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site primarily for residential housing, and in the case of Lot 6, for high density residential development, as required in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP. The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for residential use (ie. urban consolidation) in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses and locating these in close proximity to public transport, regional centres and services.

 

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 is not inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 because it would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section (a) (i) and (ii), specifically, in that the resultant development would promote the orderly use and development of the subject land in line with the overall Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and DCP – Prince Henry.

 

4.       Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed FSR control would be unreasonable in the subject site in that it would not achieve a reasonable and efficient level of redevelopment for the subject land vis-à-vis the need to provide an appropriate mix of apartment sizes whilst maintaining adequate level of amenity for the proposed development especially in terms of solar access, ventilation and landscaping.

 

In contrast, the proposed development would allow for a reasonable redevelopment of the land but with a bulk and scale that would not be visually intrusive in the existing coastal and bushland setting and is consistent with the desired future character of the Prince Henry Site as expressed in the Prince Henry DCP.

 

As discussed in Section 10.4.2.1 below, the façade of the new building will be designed to reduce its apparent scale and respond to the contextual character, including a balance of vertical and horizontal elements which provide symmetry to the building, and articulation and modulation that breaks the visual bulk of the building form. Accordingly, the proposed new building achieves articulation and modulation in its architectural design, and the proposed materials and finishes also assists in reducing the bulk and scale of the building.

 

In addition, the new building will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views (see Section 10.4.2.3 below).

 

In view of the above it is considered that the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

5.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that the applicant has:

 

§  Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly.

§  Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

§  Addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying stated objectives of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality, objectives of the Act and .

§  Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely that:

 

·        The proposed non-compliance do not result in any inconsistencies with the objectives of either the 2D zone in which the site is located or the general objectives for the built and natural environment and amenity or the objectives of the FSR standard.

 

·        The extent of the non-compliance in both instances is relatively minor and does not result in any substantive adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing or loss of amenity to adjoining development

 

·        The proposal will provide a high quality contemporary design that is sympathetic to the desired future character of the area.

 

·        The scale and nature of the non-compliances do not give rise to matters of state or regional significance, nor do the non-compliances adversely impact the public interest.

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported considering that the proposed building will not be visually intrusive in the existing coastal and bushland setting and is consistent with the desired future character of the Prince Henry Site as expressed in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and the DCP – Prince Henry Site.

 

Clause 30A (4)    Development of certain Land in Zone No 2D (maximum

                            building and wall height)

 

The proposal does not comply with the maximum building and wall height control of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as follows:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum Wall Height

14m for 4 storey section

Max 14.5m in Building 1 (localised at parapet of the two vertical framing structures accentuating/cladding the two entry points and lift-cores/stairwells off Jenner Street)

 

14.4m in Building 2 (localised at parapet of the vertical framing structure accentuating/cladding the entry points and lift-cores/stairwell facing Anzac Parade)

 

No

Maximum Building Height

16.5m to roof-top over loft.

 

Max 17.65m in Buildings 1 and 2 (localised at the lift overruns/stairwells of each respective building). In addition, the maximum building height is breached at the top of the clerestory window on Building2 with a maximum height of 16.15m.

 

No

 

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 30A (4) 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 and wall height controls in question are development standards contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.       The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

The underlying object/purpose of the standard, as outlined 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 areas”.

 

3.       Consistency of the development with local planning objectives for the locality, aims of SEPP No.1 and the objectives of the Act.

 

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that it will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site primarily for residential housing, and in the case of Lot 6, for high density residential development, as required in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP. The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for residential use (ie. urban consolidation) in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses and locating these in close proximity to public transport, regional centres and services.

 

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 FSR is not inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 because it would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section (a) (i) and (ii), specifically, in that the resultant development would promote the orderly use and development of the subject land in line with the overall Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and DCP – Prince Henry.

 

4.       Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed maximum building and wall height would be unreasonable in the subject site for the following reasons:

 

§   It would preclude the provision of proper lift access to the compliant floor levels of Buildings 1 and 2 given that the maximum building height breach is localised at the lift over-runs of these buildings.

 

§   It would preclude solar and airflow amenity for, and overall optimal design of, the proposed development because the maximum wall height breach is localised at the clerestory window over dwelling unit No. 503 in Building 2.

 

§   The use of clerestory windows is part of the architectural language for the proposed development and similar elements have been used to reinforce the design of the approved building in the adjoining Lot 7. Accordingly, the use of this element in the architectural presentation of the proposal is reasonable.

 

§   It would reduce the degree of articulation and visual accentuation provided by the vertical framing elements surrounding the entry points to each building.

 

In contrast, the proposed development would allow for a reasonable redevelopment of the land with landscaping and setbacks that comply with the requirements of the Randwick LEP 1998 and Prince Henry DCP. In addition, the bulk and scale will not be visually intrusive in the context of the existing streetscape, proposed future developments, and the oval within the Prince Henry site. The proposed new buildings will also be sympathetic in bulk and scale to the Prince Henry Heritage Conservation Area and its built and landscape heritage elements.

 

As discussed in Section 10.4.2.1 below, the façade of the new building will be designed to reduce its apparent scale and respond to its overall context including the natural coastal setting.

 

In addition, the new building will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access and privacy (see Section 10.4.2.3 below).

 

In view of the above it is considered that the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

 

5.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that the applicant has:

 

§  Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly.

§  Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

§  Addressed 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.

§  Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely that:

 

·        The proposed non-compliance do not result in any inconsistencies with the objectives of either the 2D zone in which the site is located or the general objectives for the built and natural environment and amenity or the objectives of the FSR standard.

 

·        The extent of the non-compliance in both instances is relatively minor and does not result in any substantive adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing or loss of amenity to adjoining development

 

·        The proposal will provide a high quality contemporary design that is sympathetic to the desired future character of the area.

 

·        The scale and nature of the non-compliances do not give rise to matters of state or regional significance, nor do the non-compliances adversely impact the public interest.

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported having regard to the localised nature of the breach in the maximum building height control and the minor and localised nature of the overall breach in maximum wall height control.

 

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 some earthworks to be undertaken to construct the buildings and basement car parking areas. 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.

 

Clause 40A         Master plans

 

A Master Plan for the Prince Henry site, inclusive of the subject site, was adopted in December 2001 subject to a number of matters being addressed in a revised Master Plan and subsequent development applications for the subject site. A further revised Master Plan consistent with the required amendments was adopted by Council on 27 May 2003. The adopted Master Plan is now a Deemed DCP pursuant to amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gazetted on 16 June 2005. The Deemed DCP acknowledged the provision of residential apartments in the subject site. The proposal is consistent with the Deemed DCP with the exception of the number of apartments units which is in excess of 1 unit. This increase is considered minor and does not create any adverse impact on the amenity or visual quality of the locality.

 

On the 18 October 2005 and May 2006, Council adopted amendments to the Deemed DCP subject to variations. These amendments relate to land in the southern half of the Prince Henry site (ie., south of Pine Avenue) and, therefore, are not relevant to the subject proposal.

 

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

 

Clause 43 of RLEP98 relates to heritage items and heritage conservation areas. The subject site lies within the Prince Henry Site which is located within a conservation area that has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register. A Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared and lodged with the application which has been assessed by Council’s Heritage Planner. In addition, as discussed earlier, the proposal has been referred to the Heritage Council of NSW as an integrated development and General terms of Approval have been received from the Heritage Council.

 

10.2            Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policies that are relevant to the proposal are:

 

SEPP No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

 

SEPP 19 requires the consent authority to consider the potential impact of the development on the proposed management of “bushland” within or adjacent to the land. Land containing Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub is located in the adjoining lot 21 to the north of the subject site. Whilst the subject land is not zoned or reserved under an environmental planning instrument for open space purposes, the objectives for the protection of the bushland are still relevant. In this regard, the proposed development is consistent with the aims of the SEPP as it will not affect this adjoining bushland in terms of overshadowing (given the northern location of the bushland). Furthermore, the Prince Henry DCP requires the provision of a 6m wide buffer (known as the Asset Protection Zone) within the subject site separating the building from the bushland. In relation to potential physical impacts, appropriate conditions for the protection of the bushland during and after construction will be applied. Appropriate reference will be made to the Bushland Management Plan Control Document prepared by Manidis Roberts as part of the earlier DA No. 1102/2003 (for Stage 3 - Infrastructure and streetscape works in the Prince Henry site) in the application of these conditions.

 

In addition, the applicant has indicated that non-invasive species will be used throughout the landscape treatment of the proposed development particularly where it interfaces with the bushland remnant. A condition will be applied accordingly should approval be granted for the proposal.

 

SEPP 55 –       Remediation of Contaminated Land

 

This SEPP provides a state wide practice for the remediation of contaminated land. In relation to Lot 6, the subject site, a site audit statement (SAS) has been issued on 9 May 2005 indicating that the site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council consent 1188/02 as amended (for the demolition of buildings and the remediation of the Prince Henry site was issued on 28 February 2003). Accordingly, the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

SEPP 71 –       Coastal Protection

 

This SEPP provides for appropriate and suitably located development within the coastal zone of NSW through legislation of the NSW Coastal Policy. Currently, the policy does not specifically apply to the Prince Henry Site.

 

SEPP – State Significant Development

 

This SEPP consolidates previous provisions for State Significant Development and requires that the Minister be the consent authority for such development. The site is not listed in the Schedules attached to the SEPP as being of state significance. No further consideration of the SEPP is required.

 

10.3             Policy Controls – 79C(1)(a)

 

10.3.1         Development Control Plan – Prince Henry Site

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to the Prince Henry Development Control Plan.  The DCP provides a framework for the redevelopment of the Prince Henry site containing performance criteria and controls to guide builtform, provide environmental and amenity standards, and give appropriate heritage protection for the site both on a precinct-by-precinct basis as well as a general overview.

 

The site the subject of this development application is located within Precinct P1 of the DCP and complies with all the applicable precinct-specific controls with the exception of FSR and maximum wall height. In addition, the proposal generally complies with the range of performance criteria for five key elements of the DCP namely site context, sub-division and amalgamation, building and site design, sustainable design, and facilities and access.

 

10.3.2         Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The Prince Henry DCP states that car parking is to be provided in accordance with the DCP - Car Parking. Applying the carparking rate for multi-unit development, the proposal will require 66 residential and 13 visitor carspaces. The proposal initially provided for 66 residential carspaces and 9 visitor carspaces resulting in a shortfall of 5 visitor spaces. Following discussions with the applicant, a further 2 additional visitor carparking spaces have been identified on the ground level adjacent to Millard Drive that will reduce the shortfall to 3 visitor carparking spaces. It should be noted that the proposed location of the two additional carparking spaces is currently allocated as a hardstand garbage bin location for overnight bin storage prior to morning collection. The applicant proposes that appropriate signage is placed in a suitable location that restricts parking in the designated area for a 24 hour period when bins are stored for garbage collection and emptied. The applicant further advises that the peak demand for residential visitor spaces is likely to be the weekend which will not conflict with weekday garbage collection times. The applicant also advised that the proposed carparking and garbage collection arrangement has been assessed by its consultant traffic engineer and confirmed as feasible in terms of access and traffic.   Council’s Development Engineer raises no objections to the dual purpose use of designated area for carparking and garbage collection subject to an appropriate condition to manage the use of the space. Accordingly, the proposed location of the additional 2 carparking spaces is considered reasonable and acceptable especially as it would also be an efficient use of the subject space.

 

In relation to the remaining shortfall of 3 carspaces, the applicant has indicated that this arises from the overall footprint of the basement carpark in relation to the proposed building envelope above (as defined by the DCP) and the need to meet a number of space demands in the basement carpark (including grey water storage tank and systems, general plant and machinery, and garbage storage areas) whilst minimising the encroachment of the carpark into landscaped and deep soil planting areas. In addition, the applicant advises that whilst Council’s DCP requires 1 visitor space per 4 dwelling units, the RTA regulations require 1 space per 5 units. On the RTA basis the proposal would require 11 spaces, such that the current provision of nine in the basement and the additional two new spaces off Millard Lane would comply with the RTA requirement. The applicant’s justifications for the shortfall in carparking spaces is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·    the shortfall in 3 visitor carparking spaces is considered minor and will not result in any pressure on the demand for on-street carparking as adequate public carparking will be available along Jenner Street

 

·    the subject site has an irregular configuration and depth resulting in a development with two separate buildings located on the perimeter of the subject site and a common basement carpark that is generally contained within the footprint of the proposed buildings. This carparking layout has restricted the capacity for centralised visitor carparking to 9 carspaces given the need to separate the visitor carpark from the residential carpark and the space demands on the basement including, grey water storage and treatment plant, electrical and communication services, hot water storage tanks and pumps, lift cores and stairs, and storage areas. As such, the size and configuration of the subject site and the resultant building will not be conducive to the provision of a centralised visitor carpark that meets the required number of visitor carspaces.

 

10.4     Likely impact of the development - S79C(1)(b)

 

10.4.1  Natural Environmental Impacts

 

An area of bushland containing Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub is located in the adjoining Lot 21 to the north of the subject site. The proposal will not affect this bushland in terms of overshadowing given the location of all buildings to the south of the bushland. Furthermore, the proposal provides a 6m wide buffer (known as the Asset Protection Zone) within the subject site separating the proposed buildings from the bushland in accordance with the Prince Henry DCP. In addition, appropriate conditions for the protection of the bushland during and after construction will be applied accordingly.

 

10.4.2  Built Environmental Impacts

 

10.4.2.1           Urban Design

 

The proposal overall will have predominantly white painted rendered masonry external walls interspersed with accent colours to select bays and recesses, powder-coated aluminium framed windows and louvres with light tinted glazing, vertical metal louvre screens, sun-shade awning and glass balustrades with stainless steel hand-rails.

 

The south-elevation of Building 1 will use semi-recessed curved balconies combined with a curved roof-frame to reflect the curvature of the proposed oval on the southern side, which provides a strong articulation to the building that enhances the Prince Henry site. This theme also reinforces the curved nature of the built form of the approved development in the adjoining Lot 7. Overall, the proposal will have a modern and superior design and visual character that will enhance the streetscape in this part of the Prince Henry site.

 

The west elevation of Building 2 provides an appropriate facade treatment to Anzac Parade with strong entry signature comprising angled-entrance awning at ground floor with a lift-shaft and stairwell above, cladded/encased externally in a bronze pearl powder coated frame. This west elevation has also well-proportioned balconies with articulated louvres on all floors either side of the entry and lift-core.

 

The applicant has provided a photographic sample of the proposed treatment to the façade together with a sample board. The sample board indicates that the elevations will be rendered and painted with appropriate colours and textures that are consistent with the coastal setting as well as that of the adjacent approved development in Lot 7. No objections have been raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel and accordingly these colours, materials and textures are considered acceptable.

 

The articulation of the building has been located within the building envelope set by the DCP and will not extend beyond the articulation zone indicated for the site as required by the DCP. The applicant advises that the building form defines an entry to the Prince Henry site at Anzac Parade as well as the proposed Oval Park by expressing the undulation of the road (Jenner Street) in the façade, balcony and roof curves of the proposed development. Accordingly, this creates a design link with other adjacent proposed developments which are also defined by the curvature of Jenner Street. This relationship is further reinforced by the shared palette of materials and modulation with the adjacent development on Lot 7.

 

The apartment design reflects the character of coastal outdoor living with large deep balconies linked to appropriately planned dual orientation layouts. A strong sense of open space is created by the large semi-enclosed north-facing courtyard to the rear comprising communal lawn and generous plantings. This will be augmented by the adjoining Northern Bushland Park and the 6m wide buffer (Asset Protection Zone) as required under the DCP.

 

The orientation of two proposed buildings will result in apartments and lobby areas overlooking both Jenner Street and Anzac Parade as well as the communal open space and the wider public domain in particular the Oval Park. The proposal has been designed to allow casual surveillance of the street with all entry points clearly visible from both the proposed development and surrounding streets. Accordingly, the proposal meets the safety and security objectives of the Prince Henry DCP. 

 

The proposal incorporates a loft level over Buildings 1 and 2. The proposed loft levels are an integrated level of individual self-contained dwelling units rather than individual loft spaces associated with dwelling units below. Notwithstanding this, the loft levels have been setback adequately from the building line of the storeys below so as to reduce their visual impact from the Anzac Parade and Jenner Street. Additionally, the loft levels have been recessed into the sloping roof-form of the two buildings such that the loft levels do not become visually intrusive and bulky and recede rather than project in the overall builtform of each building. Furthermore, the integration of the loft level into the sloping roof-form has been competently designed such that visually the loft levels present as sleek articulated roof-forms rather than bulky additions with monotonous flat roofs. Accordingly, the design of the loft levels over Building 1 and 2 are considered reasonable and acceptable.

 

Under the provisions of SEPP 65, a Design Review Panel reviewed the proposal on 6 June 2005 and has found the proposal satisfactory on all the SEPP 65 assessment criteria as detailed below. The Panel’s comments (in italics) are listed as follows (with Council’s comments included where necessary):

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The proposal’s relationship to context is generally well considered.  The Panels’ only concerns are:

a)     The relationship to street with regard to access to the entrances and lift lobbies

b)  The large podium area above the car park that would benefit from additional treatment such as landscape.

c)     The boundary interface on the corner Anzac Parade and Jenner Street should be further developed in the landscape proposal. The perspective indicates a tall wall at the break between the two buildings with an upper garden and lower street path level”

 

Comment:

 

In relation to point a) above, the applicant has submitted amended plans on 1 August 2006 to address the Panels concerns. The amended plans provides for wheel chair access directly from Jenner Street through the replacement of  stairs with ramps linking the street to two designated lift lobbies at ground floor level in Building 1.

 

In relation to point b) above, it should be noted that the proposed development exceeds the minimum requirements for landscaping and deep soil planting. Accordingly, the provision of additional landscaping on the podium area above the carpark (which will be allocated as private courtyards to adjoining groundfloor dwelling units) is not critical. However, a condition will be applied requiring the provision of pergola elements in this podium area to soften the degree of hardstand in this area should approval be granted.

 

In relation to point c) above, the applicant advises that the raised planter bed located between Buildings 1 and 2 has been generated by the need to provide natural ventilation to the basement car park  and to allow building 2 to be lowered to more closely relate to the Anzac Parade footpath. Architecturally the 1.3m high wall forms a low level connection between the two buildings. The wall is articulated and is setback from the boundary by a minimum of 2m and up to 4m and buffered with a planter bed. A condition will be applied requiring this treatment to the wall and its planter bed as part of the landscape conditions should approval be granted for the application.

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The rationalization of the car park layout has improved the scale of the building and relationship to ground.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

As previously noted, all ground level units with street frontage should be provided with individual entries/garden gates, and the ‘softening’ of the driveway may include a pergola element so that the amenity overlooking apartments are not compromised.

 

Comment: The provision of individual entries off Jenner Street to ground floor dwelling units in Building 1 is not feasible because of the need to orientate living and dining areas of each of these units north towards the central communal open space, their respective private courtyard and solar access. The applicant has advised that appropriate treatment to soften driveway entries will be undertaken.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

Satisfactory.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Satisfactory.  The small number of single oriented apartments would benefit from the addition of cross ventilation via chimney if possible.

 

Comment:  The applicant advises that currently the development provides 69% of the apartments with cross ventilation, exceeding the SEPP 65 requirement of 60%. The development has also achieved a superior outcome from the BASIX requirements.  Achieved water saving of  60% versus 40% requirement and energy saving of 39% versus 25% requirement.

 

The single aspect apartments are north and north easterly aspect with substantial sun shading provided by the balconies over. In the case of Building 1, the stepped façade allows opportunities of east/ west breezes running parallel to the façade to provide natural ventilation to the apartment interiors.  Accordingly, the applicant advises that the introduction of a 'chimney' at this stage of the project would create a substantial impact on the current design as the issues of acoustic privacy, fire separation and replanning around a substantial new element, are resolved.

 

The applicant’s advice is considered reasonable and acceptable.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

A landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect is required for assessment. The Panel would like to see further justification of only half the ground level units getting access to the private open space. The mechanical engineering solution should not drive this amenity issue. The relationship between unit, terrace and garden could be generally further developed

 

Comment: The applicant has submitted an amended landscape plan on 1 August 2006 which provided ground floor units in Building 1 with direct access to the rear courtyard in response to this comment by the SEPP 65 panel. The revised DA submission shows that six of the seven ground floor apartments of Building 1 will have direct access to semi-enclosed landscaped courtyard to the rear.  

 

The applicant, however, advises that direct access from the ground floor dwelling units in Building 2 to the central landscaped courtyard is not reasonable due to the differences in level between the two as this would require a raised walkway at the level of the apartments running across the private courtyards of these apartments. The raised walkway would, in turn, create a loss of privacy to the groundfloor dwelling units in Building 2 which, to resolve, would require the construction of a 1800mm high privacy screen severely curtailing the views out of the apartments and increasing the shading of the balconies and interiors, particularly in winter.  Accordingly, the applicant advises that the provision of direct access for the ground level apartments in Building 2 is considered to have an overall negative impact on the development. The applicant’s advice in relation to Building 2 is considered reasonable and acceptable especially given that the proposal, overall, has integrated the interface between the garden and the ground floor apartments well through the use of generous balcony areas, the stepped walls defining the balcony edges and the provision of awnings and pergolas. These elements provide a transition from the building form to the external areas and assist in visually connecting the building with its landscaped surrounds.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

As previously noted a high proportion of the bathrooms are internal and there is the possibility to address this in some of the plans.

 

Comment: The applicant advises that the need to maximise the exposure of living rooms and bedroom areas to the north for solar access and ventilation given the constraints of the site and the building envelope predetermined by the Prince Henry DCP has resulted in a number of bathrooms being internal to dwelling units. Accordingly, priority was given to the provision of natural light to the living and bedroom areas and the maximization of cross ventilation in these areas of all apartments.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

Satisfactory.

 

9.       Social issues

 

Wheelchair access from street to all lift lobbies should be provided and the proposed external stairs should be eliminated.

 

Comment: The original plans submitted with the subject DA provided for wheelchair access to apartments only from the basement carpark via lifts. The amended plans lodged by the applicant provides for additional wheel chair access directly from the street through the replacement of  stairs with ramps linking the street to two designated lift lobbies at ground floor level on Jenner Street.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

Satisfactory.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The proposal demonstrates considerable design skill and provides quality apartments with good amenity.  The Panel would like to view the landscape plan as soon as possible and considers that if the applicant addresses the issues outlined, in association with the assessing planner, there is no need to see the application again.

 

10.4.2.2      Heritage Impact

 

The Prince Henry site and a number of the buildings on it were listed on the State Heritage Register in May 2003. The site has been the subject of a Conservation Management Plan (CMP), Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) and Heritage Impact Assessment carried out by Godden Mackay Logan (GML) in conjunction with the preparation of a Master Plan for residential use of the former hospital site.  Specific Elements Conservation Policies (SECPs) are being prepared progressively for individual buildings and items. The site also encompasses Aboriginal, natural, landscape and built heritage values. The built heritage on the site includes many buildings which were part of the former Coast and Prince Henry Hospitals on the site.

 

In relation to the subject site, a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS), prepared by Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, was submitted with the application.  The HIS indicates that the proposal will have no impact to the heritage values of the Prince Henry site, the nearby significant buildings or the significance or the place primarily as the site has been cleared of built structures and landscape features, and there are no other heritage items within 150 metres of the site.  The HIS notes that archaeological monitoring has been carried out during remediation works for the whole site, and that there are no outstanding archaeological issue. Notwithstanding this, the HIS recommends that confirmation with Landcom as to the extent of archaeological work and consultation to date with the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council be undertaken, to determine whether archaeological monitoring is required during the construction. A condition to this effect will be applied should consent be granted

 

Council’s Heritage Planner advises that as the proposal is generally consistent with the siting, scale, bulk and form of the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan, although non-compliances have been identified relating to FSR and height.  The heritage planner notes that footprint of the buildings, defines the public space of Jenner Street and the northern edge of MacCartney Oval.  The finishes board and schedule indicate a predominantly “Berkshire White” colour scheme with colour highlights to recessed walls and masonry floor and walls edges.  The proposed façade treatment, and colours and finishes to each of the buildings provides reasonable uniformity and compatibility with the design of adjacent new buildings along Anzac Parade and Jenner Street, and provides a neutral edge to the open space of the oval.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered reasonable and acceptable in terms of its impact on the heritage significance of the Prince Henry site, and specifically, the nearby significant buildings and place primarily as the site has been cleared of built structures and landscape features.

 

The Heritage Council of NSW has provided appropriate conditions in its general Terms of Approval issued for the proposed development on 17 October 2006.

 

10.4.2.3           Sunlight, Privacy and Views

 

The subject site is bounded by roads on the southern, eastern and western sides, and by the Oval to the south. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that at 9am, 12 noon and 3pm in the winter solstice, overshadowing will be confined to Anzac Parade, Jenner Street, Millard Drive and the Oval. Accordingly, no overshadowing of surrounding residential properties will occur.

 

The DCP requires that new dwellings must achieve 3 hours of solar access 9am to 3pm midwinter and that solar access to at least 50% of the communal and private open space of adjoining properties must be achieved for at least 3 hours 9am to 3pm midwinter. The DCP also requires that development maximise north facing roofs for installation of solar collectors. Approximately 70% of the proposed apartments will have dual aspect so that most dwelling units within the proposed development will have access to the minimum 3 hours solar access between 9am and 3 pm in mid-winter. North facing solar panels have been located on the roof of the development in accordance with the DCP.

 

The elevations have been treated to modulate solar access by the use of sunshading devices, articulation and overhangs to the western facade with greater areas of glazing on the northern, southern and eastern elevations. The central courtyard will have a major portion that will be directly north-facing thus achieving good solar access especially throughout midwinter.

 

In terms of privacy, the proposal will perform well in that:

 

§  The proposal complies fully with the setback requirements of the Prince Henry DCP.

 

§  All apartments will all face relevant street-frontages to Anzac Parade, Jenner Street and Millard Drive.

 

§  The proposal will have a generous separation distances of between (max) 30m and (min) 20 m to the future residential uses across Jenner Street to the south, and across Millard Drive to the east.

 

In terms of views, the proposal will maintain the view-sharing principles of the Prince Henry DCP as the proposal only breaches the maximum building heights in localised parts of Buildings 1 and 2. Furthermore the proposal, in general, is not considered excessive in height bulk and scale.

 

Overall, the proposal is satisfactory with regard to solar access, privacy and views.

 

10.4.2.4      Traffic and access

 

The applicant’s traffic report indicates that the proposal is expected to generate approximately 23 to 29 vehicles per hour two-way during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The proposal will have a minor increase of 1 dwelling unit over that projected in the Master Plan/Deemed DCP. However, the traffic report advises that the expected traffic generation will be low (equivalent to on average only one vehicle every 2 to 3 minutes) which would not have a significant effect on the operation or amenity of the surrounding road network and its intersection.

 

It is noted that, whilst the traffic generation of the subject development alone may not have a significant impact on the surrounding road network, a number of the development applications recently received for the Prince Henry site involve increasing the number of dwellings/beds above that approved in the Deemed DCP. Hence the cumulative effect may mean that the traffic impacts from the actual development of the Prince Henry site will vary from the impacts assessed in the Master Plan/Deemed DCP. In this regard, the applicant has submitted a ‘Supplementary Traffic and Parking Report’ prepared by GSA Planning dated May 2005 which assessed the impacts of increased traffic generation (arising from the changes in dwelling types) over and above the deemed DCP. This report was referred to the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee (SRDAC), and considered at the July 21 meeting of the Committee.  Written comments dated 17 August 2005 were received in Council on 18 August 2005. Whilst the SRDAC has concluded that the proposal will not have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network, it noted that the Police had raised some concerns regarding the ability of the internal road network to cope with the additional traffic. Consequently, the supplementary traffic report was referred to Council’s Traffic Co-ordinator for discussion with police representatives. In these discussions, the Police indicated that their concerns related primarily to the proposed width and configurations of roads within the Prince Henry site. The standards and configurations of roads and other infrastructure within the Prince Henry site have been the subject of a long process of planning in both the master planning and DCP stages, culminating in approval under DA Nos. 433/2003, 862/2003 and 1102/2003. As the widths and configuration of roads within the Prince Henry Site have been established, the concerns raised by the Police are not considered relevant to, and outside the scope of, the assessment of the subject application. Accordingly, the increase in traffic generation in the proposed development (above that projected under the deemed DCP) is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network as originally indicated by the SRDAC.

 

The applicant has provided a further supplementary assessment prepared by GSA Planning dated September 2005 which included a traffic assessment of increased traffic generation (arising from the changes in dwelling types) over and above the deemed DCP with the inclusion of a cul-de-sac at the end of Harvey Street (instead of an intersection with Jennifer Street as approved in the original Master Plan). Accordingly, an INTANAL analysis was undertaken for the Pine Avenue and Anzac Parade intersection and considered two scenarios, one being a full closure at Harvey Street and the other being a partial closure. This additional supplementary traffic analysis indicates that:

 

“The INTANAL results for both scenarios indicate that the intersection controls will adequately cater for the future traffic movements and maintain spare capacity. This has been confirmed and indeed endorsed by the RTA under the April 2005 INTANAL analyses (ie., the analyses underlying the earlier ‘Supplementary Traffic and Parking Report’ prepared by GSA Planning dated May 2005 referred to above) which had similar results.

 

Accordingly, if the Harvey Street access is closed or part closed then the traffic would be distributed between eth remaining three access points. It is unlikely to have a significant impact on the level of service of these intersections”.

 

The applicant has also provided a letter from the RTA, dated 17 August 2005, endorsing the access arrangements in the event of Harvey Street being closed. This letter states, amongst other things :

 

“The RTA has assessed the proposed increase in dwelling yield and the proposed closure or partial closure of Harvey Street and raises no concerns, as it will not have a significant impact on the adjacent classified road network.”

 

It should be noted that, as with the earlier ‘Supplementary Traffic and Parking Report’ prepared by GSA Planning dated May 2005 referred to above, the Police expressed concerns regarding the ability of the internal road network to cope with the additional traffic under the Harvey Street closure scenario. Again, these concerns can be adequately addressed in terms of the earlier assessment made in relation to the earlier report, namely, that the standards and configurations of roads and other infrastructure within the Prince Henry site have been the subject of a long process of planning in both the master planning and DCP stages, culminating in approval under DA Nos. 433/2003, 862/2003 and 1102/2003. As the widths and configuration of roads within the Prince Henry Site have been established, the concerns raised by the Police are not considered relevant to, and outside the scope of, the assessment of the subject application. Accordingly, the increase in traffic generation in the proposed development (above that projected under the deemed DCP) is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network as originally indicated by the SRDAC.

 

10.4.2.5      Ecologically Sustainable Development

 

The Prince Henry DCP requires the preparation of a Sustainability Building Report by an appropriately qualified professional to improve the energy efficiency of the proposed building. The applicant has provided a Sustainability Report prepared by a consultant engineer, outlining the ESD objectives for the proposed development and strategies for evaluating and achieving those objectives. In accordance with this brief, the proposal will incorporate the following sustainability measures:

 

·        Building orientation to provide future occupant with optimum sun-control.

·        Building materials that provide a balance of external insulation for thermal protection and internal thermal mass for heat absorption.  

·        Use passive design measures including natural ventilation and external shading to achieve maximum thermal comfort.

·        Use sun control elements comprising a combination of vertical and horizontal external shading devices, internal blinds and glare control.

·        Building to be insulated to AS 2627 with a minimum R2.0 roof insulation and R1.0 wall insulation as recommended by the Residential Flat Design Guide.

·        Use of photo-voltaic cells on the roofs.

·        Use of high efficiency lighting such as compact fluorescent with dimming control or zoned switching to control light levels.

·        Landscaping designed to require minimal irrigation.

·        Use of best practice water management solutions including AAA rated fixtures and ratings and dual flush WCs.

 

These measures are considered appropriate in achieving ESD objectives.

 

The applicant has also provided a BASIX assessment of the proposal in accordance with BASIX modelling requirements for multi-unit housing showing that the proposed development will achieve a 39% energy saving target which would comply with the 25% saving target under BASIX, and a 60% water saving target which would comply with the 40% water saving requirement under BASIX. Accordingly, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of energy and water conservation.

 

The proposed development will be well served by public buses along Anzac Parade, linking the subject site to the CBD, Railway Square, Bondi Junction, and Randwick Junction in keeping with an increasing trend towards the promotion of public transport usage as a primary means of enhancing ecological sustainability and the reduction of greenhouse gases in the Sydney Region.  The proposal would assist in encouraging the use of public transport in line with ESD principles.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Ecologically Sustainable Development issues.

 

10.4.2.6      Facilities and Access

 

The performance criteria for facilities and access generally apply to multi-unit housing developments. The development provides for pedestrian access from all street fronts as per the Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP requirements.

 

Following concerns raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel, the applicant has amended the proposal to provide for additional wheel chair access directly from the street through the replacement of stairs with ramps linking the street to two designated lift lobbies at ground floor level on Jenner Street (the original plans submitted with the subject DA provided for wheelchair access to apartments only from the basement carpark via lifts). In addition, the applicant provided an access report prepared by an access consultant which considers the proposal against the relevant Australian Standard, BCA and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The report indicates the proposal complies with the accessibility and adaptability requirements of the Australian Standard 4299 – Adaptable Housing and AS1428 – Design for Access and Mobility. In addition, the consultant advises that the proposed development will provide the necessary visitability and adaptability design requirements to satisfy the Prince Henry DCP and  SEPP 65. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to wheel-chair and barrier free access.

 

10.4.2.7      Site Remediation

 

A site audit statement (SAS) has been issued for the subject lot, Lot 6, on 9 May 2005, indicating that the site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council development consent No. 1188/02 as amended (for the demolition of buildings and the remediation of the Prince Henry site was issued on 28 February 2003). Accordingly, the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

10.4.2.8      Social and Economic Impacts – S79C(1)(b)

 

The proposal will increase the availability of housing and promote the objectives of the zone.  The effect of the proposal would be to bring more people to the site resulting in a new community likely to include young families, “empty nester” household, and share households, which will in turn encourage the location of services and facilities into the area. Overall the proposal presents a positive impact within the site and locality.

 

The proposal also has been made fully adaptable for wheel-chair access and will provide for the required 3 adaptable units under the DCP – Prince Henry Site.

 

10.4.3  Suitability of the site – S79C(1)(c) 

 

The subject site is part of the developable land within the Prince Henry Site which is identified in the revised Master Plan adopted by Council on 27 May 2003 (now referred to as a Deemed DCP). In doing so, Council considered the suitability of a range of proposed landuses and their location within the Prince Henry site. The subject site is specifically identified in the Deemed DCP as a location for a multi-unit housing development. The proposal generally is consistent with the terms of the master plan and as demonstrated above the development will not have an adverse impact on any item of environmental, archaeological, heritage or cultural significance.

 

The site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council consent 1188/02 as amended. A site audit statement (SAS) has been issued for the subject lot 7

 

10.4.4  Any submissions made – S79C(1)(d)

 

The proposal being integrated development was notified and advertised for a period of 30 days between 26 January 2005 and 125 February 2005. No submission was received by Council during this notification/advertising period.

 

10.4.5  The public interest – S79C(1)(e)

 

The proposed development is consistent with the deemed DCP and the Prince Henry DCP and will provide the local community with a form of high quality housing and takes advantage of its proximity to the full range of urban facilities and services available to the site. As a consequence, the proposal will have a positive social benefit for the local community and is considered to be in the wider public interest.

 

11        RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

On 27 June 2006, Council adopted The Randwick City Plan as a key strategic plan that establishes the directions for Randwick City over the next 20 years.

 

The subject proposal is for the erection of two residential buildings over basement carparking comprising 55 dwellings, 77 carpark spaces, landscaping, strata subdivision being four storeys and a loft level in height. The assessment of the proposed development indicates that the proposal and its assessment relates to the Outcomes, Directions and Actions in the Randwick City Plan in the following way:

 

11.1     Outcomes 

 

Outcome 5 : Excellence in urban design – The proposal has a good architectural quality in that it has competently produced a modern and superior design and visual character that will enhance the streetscape in this part of Anzac Parade and the overall Prince Henry Site thus contributing to the identified outcome for this thoroughfare

 

Outcome 11 : A healthy environment – The proposal will promote the principles of environmental sustainable development (including solar access, cross ventilation and energy efficiency), comply with BASIX and occur on land that will be suitable for its intended use as required under SEPP No. 55 - Remediation of Contaminated Land.

 

11.2     Directions and Actions

 

Direction 5a & associated key action : Improved design and sustainability across all development –The proposal create a good contemporary architectural design for the subject site whilst maintaining the quality of the adjoining bushland and overall coastal setting. The proposal will therefore contribute to the overall pool of well-designed buildings in Randwick City that can be used as references for the development of design guidelines and programmes. 

 

Direction 11a & associated key action: Council is a leader in fostering sustainable practices  -  The proposed development will be designed in accordance with ESD principles (including solar access, cross ventilation and energy efficiency) and will incorporate a number of sustainability measures to achieve ventilation, thermal comfort, water conservation and energy efficiency.

 

12.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the development standards contained in the RLEP with the exception of the maximum FSR and building and wall height controls. SEPP No.1 objections to the FSR and maximum building and wall height standards have been submitted with the application and considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

The proposal complies with all the requirements of the Prince Henry DCP with the exception of visitor carparking. The shortfall in carparking has been assessed and arises from constraints on the builtform of the proposal imposed by shape and configuration of the subject site and is considered minor such that it can be accommodated adequately on-street.

 

The proposed development has been assessed by the Heritage Council of NSW and General Terms of Approval have been issued for the subject site which will be included as conditions of consent.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties, heritage items and bushland areas. The non-compliances with policy controls will not exacerbate impacts, subject to compliance with conditions of consent.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 30A(2) and 30A(4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended), relating to maximum floor space ratio and maximum wall and building height, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the clauses 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 D/0472/2006 for the erection of two residential buildings over basement carparking comprising 55 dwellings, 77 carpark spaces, landscaping, strata subdivision being four storey and a loft level in height, at 2-8 Jenner Street, Little Bay, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered AR.DA.2000 Issue 3, AR.DA.2101 Issue 3, AR.DA.2102 Issue 3, AR.DA.2103 Issue 3, AR.DA.2104 Issue 3, AR.DA.2105 Issue 3, AR.DA.3120 Issue 3, AR.DA.3130 Issue 3, AR.DA.3400 all dated 20 June 2006  and stamped received by Council on 1 August 2006, the draft strata plans in 14 sheets prepared by Denny Linker & Co. Surveyor’s Reference 050622 DSP dated/printed 14 June 2006 and stamped received by Council 22 June 2006, the Sustainability Report No S4053, Lot 6, Revision B, dated 19 June 2006 and received by Council on 14 June 2006, the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and the details approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces of the new building are to be consistent with that indicated in the sample board accompanying the subject development application and received by Council on 14 June 2006.

 

3.       An amended ground level plan and amended draft strata plan showing the proposed location of two additional carparking spaces on Millard Drive as indicated in the sketch plan dated 24/10/2006 by AJC and received under cover of e-mail dated 25 October 2006, shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

4.       Each north-facing private courtyard (on the podium area above the carpark) adjoining the groundfloor dwelling Units No. A101, A102, A103, B101, B102 and B103 shall be provided with pergola structures to soften the visual impact of the podium hardstand. Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

5.       An amended ground level plan and amended draft strata plan showing the proposed location of two additional carparking spaces on Millard Drive as indicated in the sketch plan dated 24/10/2006 by AJC and received under cover of e-mail dated 25 October 2006, shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

6.       Details of bicycle storage in the basement indicating compliance with the Development Control Plan – Parking shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

7.       Details of all fencing on site including all entrances and associated structures indicating compliance with Part 4.16 Fences of the Development Control Plan for Prince Henry Site shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

8.       Each of the tandem carparking spaces shall be allocated to the same 2 or 3 bedroom unit.

 

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

 

10.     The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent. 

 

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

 

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

 

12.     Upon completion of the development and prior to the issuing of the occupation certificate, documentary evidence is to be submitted to the Council by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the owner of the premises, to the satisfaction of Council) which confirms that the development has been carried out in accordance with the relevant development consent conditions.

 

13.     The registered proprietor of the land the subject of this consent shall enter into a positive covenant that no right of exclusive use and enjoyment of the whole or any specified part of the area or areas designated as common area or similar in the approved plans will be conferred on any person or persons without the prior approval of Randwick City Council.

 

14.     Where the plans which are the subject of this consent reserves parking spaces and/or courtyards for the exclusive use and enjoyment to an occupier of the land, the registered proprietor shall enter into a positive covenant that no change will be made to such reservations without the prior approval of Randwick City Council.

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure the protection of heritage and archaeological significance of the site:

 

16.     Prior to any ground disturbance, further consultation should occur with the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council (LPALC) to determine whether or not archaeological monitoring is required during the construction phase.

 

17.     Should Aboriginal objects be found, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is to be informed (as required by the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974).  Subject to an assessment of the extent, integrity and significance of any exposed objects, applications under either Section 87 or Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act may be required before work resumes.

 

18.     Prior to the commencement of the proposed works, all contractors and relevant personnel involved are to be made aware of the existence of Aboriginal archaeological remains at the Prince Henry site by way of an induction process and of the possibility that more as yet undiscovered Aboriginal cultural material may exist there.

 

19.     Site contractors are to be advised of their obligations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) and notification procedures in the event that any Aboriginal cultural material is disturbed or exposed during site works.

 

20.     Prior to commencement of any subsurface disturbance (excavation), all those involved are to be made aware of the potential for historical archaeological relics to survive within the area.  This is to be done through a site induction, which also notifies all involved of their obligations under the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW).

 

21.     In the event that historical archaeological remains or deposits are exposed during the works, the excavation work shall cease immediately and an evaluation of their potential extent and significance should be undertaken and the Heritage Council of NSW notified under the requirements of the Heritage Act.

 

The following conditions are applied to meet the requirements of the Heritage Council of NSW:

 

22.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the General Terms of Approval issued by the Heritage Council of NSW as detailed in the letter from the Council dated 17 October 2006.

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

 

23.     The applicant shall:

 

a)   Construct a heavy-duty concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the proposed vehicular entrance to the site in Millard Drive.

 

Note: It appears that the new crossing may be located over an existing kerb inlet pit. If the final design shows the new layback being located over the existing drainage pit, the applicant will be required to:

i)    Convert the existing kerb inlet pit to a grated inlet pit in the new layback; and

ii)   Construct a new kerb inlet pit immediately to the south of the new crossing to compensate for the lost inlet capacity.

 

b)   Remove any redundant concrete vehicular crossings and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and kerb and gutter.

 

All civil works are to be in accordance with Australian Standard specifications for driveways, and in general accordance with Randwick City Council's ‘Standard Kerb and Gutter and Vehicular Crossing Detail’ (Drawing SD4) and Council’s ‘Standard DGGP with Extended Kerb Inlet Detail’ (Drawing SD7a).

 

24.     All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines.

 

25.     The driveway opening at the Millard Drive street frontage must be minimum 6.00 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

Note: The submitted plan AR.DA.2101 demonstrates compliance with this requirement.

 

26.     The vehicular access into the site and the carpark layout (including, but not limited to, ramp grades, height clearances and space and aisle dimensions) shall be in accordance with AS2890.1:2004. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

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

 

27.     The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

 

·    Jenner Street: Match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

·    Millard Drive: 2.5% above the adjacent top of kerb level along the full site frontage in Millard Drive.

 

·    Anzac Parade: Match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

28.     The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb/footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

29.     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.

 

30.     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.

 

31.     Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

34.     Stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of this development consent. Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage (for Lot 6) shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)         A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)         A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system. 

 

c)         Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)         The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

e)         Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)          Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)         The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

35.     All stormwater run-off naturally draining to Lot 6 must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

36.     Stormwater runoff from the site shall be managed in accordance with the Prince Henry drainage strategy prepared by Connell Wagner. This shall involve stormwater discharging to the underground drainage system in Anzac Parade via a new or existing kerb inlet pit.

 

Notes:

 

a.   All new kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD7a.

b.   With the exception of the site discharge pipe, all new pipelines constructed within council’s road reserve shall be minimum 375 mm diameter, spigot and socket rubber ringed jointed, steel reinforced concrete pipeline (RRRCP). Prior to backfilling, all pipelines in council’s road reserve shall be inspected and approved by the Hydraulic Engineer certifying the works and Council.

 

37.     Any Infiltration systems/Absorption Trenches must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

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

 

39.     Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

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

 

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

d)       prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

The sediment/silt arrester pit shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:-

 

·    The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

·    The pit constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

·    A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

·    A galvanised heavy-duty screen located over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

 

·    The grate being a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

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

 

·    A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

“This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

  Note:   Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

41.     Three covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)         The car washing bays must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system.

 

c)         The car washing bays must be signposted with Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

d)         The car washing bays must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bays (or equivalent)

 

e)         A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bays.

 

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

 

e)           Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals (over Lot 6;

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

g)           Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

43.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

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

 

44.     The waste storage areas shall be sized to contain a total of 56 x 240 litre bins (28 garbage bins & 28 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

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

 

46.     The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

47.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit documentation confirming that a caretaker has been employed on an ongoing basis to manage the waste systems as described in the Waste Management Plan (prepared by J D MacDonald Waste Management Consultants for Stockland Development dated June 2006) submitted as part of the development application.

 

48.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council for approval, details of the mechanical device proposed to be used for the transfer of full bins to the kerbside for collection.

 

49.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall install suitable signage within the site adjacent to Millard Drive advising visitors to the site that the area is a combined visitor parking and bin collection area and restricting the use of the two ground level visitor parking spaces during the 24 hour bin storage and collection period.

 

50.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste.

 

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

 

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

 

52.     All conditions of development consent must be satisfied and all public roads and reserves must be satisfactorily restored prior to endorsement of the subdivision plans.

 

53.     The applicant shall provide Council with a survey plan of the property prior to endorsement of the subdivision plans.

 

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

 

54.     The Preliminary Landscape Plan submitted by Oculus, project number S05-044, drawing number DA L 01, issue D, dated 26.7.06 and stamped received at Council on 1st August 2006, shall be amended in order to comply with the Landscape Performance Criteria and Controls set out in the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan dated December 2004, for Precinct P1, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate, including:

 

a.         Selection of an alternative species to that of Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) along the length of the northern boundary of the site as it will dominate rather than complement the adjoining bushland given its large size at maturity. Concerns are also held for the potential of this species to overshadow the bushland upon maturity, with seasonal leaf fall entering the northern bushland park given its deciduous habit, also an issue. As such, a more appropriate and acceptable species shall be selected for this area.

 

b.         A pot/container size of 5 litres for the Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) street trees proposed along the length of the southern boundary (Jenner Street) is inadequate, and shall be increased to a minimum pot size of 25 litres. Further, these street trees need to be planted in a straight line along the nature strip rather than slightly staggered as has been shown.

 

c.         Similarly, relevant details regarding the planting of Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum) along the eastern boundary (Millard Avenue) frontage needs to be provided.

 

d.         Written confirmation from a suitably qualified and professional bush regenerator confirming that none of the species proposed in the indicative plant schedule will have the capacity to invade the northern bushland park adjacent the site’s northern boundary.

 

e.         Plant quantities included in the indicative plant schedule as well as on the landscape plan, with all plants to be drawn at their mature size (height & spread) together with proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

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

 

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

 

f.          Appropriate articulation to, and setback (from the boundary) of, the 1.3m high wall that forms a low level connection between Buildings 1 and 2, and the provision of a buffer with a planter bed.

 

55.     Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate, confirming that the landscape works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

 

59.     Any fill importation to the site is to be monitored and classified by the Site Auditor appointed for remediation of the site or a person with his qualifications. Only ‘Virgin Excavated Natural Material’ (VENM) is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW EPA ‘Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. 1999’.

 

60.     Any new information which comes to light during construction works which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

 

61.     The works shall not give rise to environmental pollution or public nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act (2000) & Regulations (2001).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

63.     The report titled Stockland Development (PHH) Pty Ltd Super Lot 6 Prince Henry Little Bay Acoustic Assessment for DA submission report number 20C-05-3105-TRP-149214-2 prepared by Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd dated 16 June 2006, and the recommendations contained within, form part of this consent.

 

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

 

65.     A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

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

 

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

 

67.     An application for installation of the proposed grey water recycling system, in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 is to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to works commencing. Details of compliance with relevant Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS) guidelines are to be provided with the application.

 

68.     An application for the operation of the proposed grey water system, in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 is to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the commissioning of the grey water recycling system. Details of compliance with relevant Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS) guidelines are to be provided with the application.

 

69.     The installation of rainwater tanks and grey water treatment systems shall comply with the following noise control requirements:-

 

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

 

          In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Department of Environment & Conservation Noise Control Guidelines.

 

b)      Plant and equipment associated with rainwater tank(s) and grey water treatment systems are to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

c)       The operation of plant and equipment associated with the rainwater tank(s) and grey water treatment systems are to be restricted, if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on weekends or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

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

 

71.     There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

72.     Liquid trade waste materials or similar are to be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water. Details of compliance are to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of works

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

80.     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.

 

81.     In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & 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.

 

82.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

85.     Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

86.     A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of potential vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          Any practices or recommendations specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises or land must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

88.     The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises including (a public roadway or public place) must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises and (where applicable) details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

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

 

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

 

90.     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.

 

91.     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.

 

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

 

93.     The use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum), Monday to Friday inclusive and from 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturday, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

94.     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.

 

95.     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.

 

96.     A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics/vibration shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council upon commencement of works, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the construction of the development complies with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Noise Control Manual published by the Environment Protection Authority and relevant conditions of approval.  In support of the above it is necessary to submit all relevant readings and calculations made.

 

          Should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

98.     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.

 

99.     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.

 

100.   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.

 

101.   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.

 

102.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

          Dust control measures and practices may include:-

 

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

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

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

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

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

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

104.   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.

 

          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.

 

105.   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.

 

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

 

107.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The following conditions are applied to provide reasonable levels of access for people with disabilities:

 

109.   Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1 and Council’s development control plan for multi-unit housing to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

a)       Clause D1.4          -           Exit travel distances (in carpark)

 

          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.

 

2.       The applicant/owner is advised that this approval does not guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the applicant should therefore consider their liability under the Act.  In this regard, the applicant is advised that compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility does not necessarily satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

          The applicant/owner is requested to give consideration to providing access and facilities for people with disabilities in accordance with Australian Standard 1428 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Design for Access and Mobility, which may be necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

3.       A Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report have been issued for the subject land. The applicant is to note that an unexpected finds protocol is included in the Summary Site Audit Report.

 

          Based on the consideration by the NSW EPA accredited Site Auditor, it has been concluded that the ground water should not be used (in the unlikely event that it is accessed), and that site soils are acceptable for residential end use.

 

4.       A Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report has been issued for Lot 6 by Rod Harwood (SAS number 32 dated 5 May 2005). The applicant is to note that an unexpected finds protocol is included in the Summary Site Audit Report.

 

5.       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 ONGKILI

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

4 October, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/397/2006 & PROP039341

 

PROPOSAL:

 Proposed to construct a first floor addition to the existing dwelling house, new front and rear balconies and associated alterations and additions.

PROPERTY:

 102 Prince Edward Street MALABAR

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Stephen Haigh

OWNER:

 Mr A. S. Punton, Ms A. A. Punton and Mr G. R. Punton

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Michael Daley, John Procopiadis, Dominic Sullivan.

 

On the 30th of May 2006 an application was lodged which proposed to construct a first floor addition to the existing dwelling house, new front and rear balconies and associated alterations and additions.

 

There were three objections to the proposal.  The main issues relate to privacy and view loss.  The proposal does not comply with the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP with regard to maintaining privacy.  In regard to view loss, the proposal has been assessed against the Land and Environmental Court’s planning principle and is not considered satisfactory with regard to view sharing.  It is considered that an increase in the side setback of the proposed first floor on the north western side by a further 1m would provide a reasonable view corridor for 25 Napier Street.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The development application proposes to:

·    Construct a first floor addition (105m2) to accommodate a lounge room, family room toilet, wardrobe and stairwell;

·    Construct a large new roofed deck (20m2) at the front of the proposed first floor;

·    Construct a 5.2m2 balcony at the rear of the proposed first floor;

·    Construct a ground floor extension (33.41m2) to the front of the dwelling comprising an additional bedroom and wardrobe;

·    Internal reconfiguration of the ground floor to accommodate one bathroom and an en suite, a laundry and two internal stairwells to the ground and second floors;

·    Extend the existing front balcony on the ground floor by 4.58m2 (resulting in 11m2 balcony); and,

·    Construct a basement level extension (26m2) at the front to accommodate a second car space and an internal stairwell.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the south-western side of Prince Edward Street between Napier and Howe Streets in Malabar and is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling house with a basement garage level.  The site has a frontage width of 11.58m, a side boundary depth of 30.48m and has an overall site area of 353m².  Neighbouring the property to the north-west is a single storey dwelling, to the south-east is a single storey dwelling and to the rear is a two storey dwelling house. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of one to three storey single dwelling houses.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

      There is no development history relevant to this application.

 

a.    HISTORY OF APPLICATION

 

The development application was lodged on the 30th of May 2006.  Initially two objections were received to the proposed development from 100 Prince Edward Street and 25 Napier Street (see basis of objections below).  The objectors’ sites were inspected on the 28th of June 2006.  Council’s planning officers considered some of the points of objection to be valid and invited the applicant to discuss the proposal.  Council planning officers met with the applicant at Council on the 30th of June 2006 and raised a number of issues that would need to be resolved before the proposal could be considered for approval.  Potential solutions were also suggested, although it was emphasised that Council officers would be willing to discuss alternative amendments to address the concerns.  The issues and potential solutions raised were:

 

i.          Loss of visual and acoustic privacy from first floor front balcony.  A suggested solution was to extend the lounge room by 1m towards the front balcony, which would reduce the depth of the balcony to 2m.

 

ii.          Loss of visual privacy for 25 Napier St from first floor rear balcony.  As privacy screens would not be appropriate it was proposed to delete the balcony.

 

iii.         Light spill into a bedroom at 100 Prince Edward Street from the obscured glazed windows proposed off the stairwell on the northern elevation (totalling 8.16m2).  A suggested solution was to reduce the area of the windows to a maximum total area of 3m2.

 

iv.         The proposal will result in a partial view loss from No. 25 Napier Street.  Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP has Performance Requirements that relate to view sharing and also applies the planning principles with regard to view sharing, as established by the Land and Environment Court.  It is considered that some view loss for No. 25 Napier Street is inevitable and not unreasonable in the proposed first floor addition at No. 102 Prince Edward Street.  It is considered though, that in this instance the degree of view loss may be minimised through simple design amendments, in particular an increase in the northern side set back of the first floor.

 

At the meeting, which was attended by the applicant, one of the owners, the assessment officer and the Team Leader of Assessment (Fast-Track), the applicant made it clear that he did not believe any of the issues raised were valid and was not willing to amend the design in any way.  A letter, which summarised Council officer’s concerns and suggested solutions, was sent to the applicant on the 3rd of July 2006 as a follow up to the meeting.  The applicant was given until the 19th of July to respond, or else assessment of the application would resume and may be determined under delegated authority.

 

Council received a letter from the applicant seeking clarification on the issue of light spill on the 12th of July 2006 and responded with a letter on the 12 th of July 2006.

 

On the 7th of August 2006 a letter was received from the applicant.  A summary of the letter is contained in Section 5.2 below, although the applicant maintained that he did not believe any of the issues raised were valid, but was willing to make minor concessions by providing a privacy screen on the northern elevation of the front first floor balcony and suggested screen planting along the boundaries.

 

Council’s assessment officer contacted the applicant in late August 2006 and informed him that there was not enough information available to adequately assess the level of view loss from 25 Napier Street.  It was requested that information illustrating the level of view loss be provided by the applicant, and certified by a surveyor, or that Council officers be allowed access to the site to set up height poles.

 

Council received information from the applicant on the 7th of September 2006, but it was inadequate in showing the degree of view loss.  Council officers then requested to set up and photograph height poles.  The applicant, one of the owners, the assessing officer and the Team Leader of Assessment (Fast-Track) met onsite on the 29th of September 2006 and took photographs (see Figures 2 to 5) from 25 Napier Street with the height poles set up.  The height poles revealed that the view loss experienced by 25 Napier Street from the proposal would be extensive.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

Mr & Mrs Ellis – 100 Prince Edward St

Issue

Comment

Concern over loss of privacy from proposed ground and first floor front balconies. the

The proposed ground floor front balcony is 1.53m deep and the owners of 100 Prince Edward St are concerned about overlooking into their main bedroom window.  This is considered unlikely as: the proposed ground floor balcony is aligned so that it is in front of the subject bedroom window of 100 Prince Edward St; the floor level of the balcony is lower than that of the subject bedroom,; and, the balcony is off two bedrooms which is considered to be a low intensity use.

The proposed first floor front balcony is 3m deep and is likely to result in a loss of privacy for 100 Prince Edward Street as: the balcony is aligned at a similar depth as the bedroom window and so there is a greater potential for overlooking; the floor level of the balcony is higher than the bedroom and

 

so people will be able to look down into the bedroom from the balcony; and, the balcony is expected to be used intensively because it is located off a large living area and will have ocean views.

Concern over noise problems from the large (3m x 7m) first floor front balcony, located off the lounge room.

The size of the balcony is unusually large (3 x 7m = 21m2, even compared to the sizeable balconies on similar developments in the vicinity.  It is also expected that this balcony will be used intensively because of its size, location of a large living area and the ocean views it will capture.

Concern over light-spill from the two-storey high obscured glazed windows (5.2m x 1.7m) opposite the second bedroom window.  The stairs are open plan to the lounge and at night the stair window will be lit up. A reduction to 3m2 is requested.

The exact amount of light spill cannot be determined although it is considered that as the windows are located 2.8m from each other that the standard use of lighting in the stairwell will not have an unreasonable impact on 100 Prince Edward St.

Concerned about loss of privacy from rear first floor balcony at rear – request 1.8m high privacy screen.

The proposed building causes privacy loss for 100 Prince Edward St, 104 Prince Edward St and 25 Napier St.  Although privacy screens would resolve the issue for 100 and 104 Prince Edward St, it would not improve privacy for 25 Napier St and the balcony is therefore considered unsupportable.

The rear section of the proposed extension does not comply with the 1.5m side setback Preferred Solution on the north-western elevation.  Concerned about impact of bulk, loss of natural light and loss of privacy.

 

The north-western rear section of the building is set back 1.14m from the side setback.  This does not comply with relevant DCPs Preferred Solution that first floors be set back 1.5m.  The proposed setback will not reduce privacy or access to natural light and does not considerably increase the bulk as viewed from 100 Price Edward St and is therefore considered acceptable in this respect.  It does though affect the degree of view loss for 25 Napier St and an increase in the side setback is recommended to remedy this.  This is discussed in detail in Section 8.2.

The height exceeds the 7m external wall height limit at the lounge, which increases the height, size & bulk when viewed from the street.  It will appear to be three levels due to the garage level and is not consistent with the streetscape and will dominate it.

The proposed external wall height, of 7.9m, exceeds the relevant DCPs Preferred Solution of 7m.  Notwithstanding, the variation is considered acceptable as the height of resulting dwelling will not cause adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining dwellings and is considered to have a similar bulk and scale to other developments in the street.

Coralie & Glenn Biddle – 25 Napier St

Issue

Comment

The first floor addition will block coastal and district views.

25 Napier St, a two storey dwelling, currently enjoys sweeping district, Long Bay and ocean views over the roofs of other dwellings.  The proposed development will result in total view loss of the ocean and a loss of the majority of the view to Long Bay.  An assessment of this view loss is contained in Section 8.2 and is illustrated by Figures 2 to 5.

The rear balcony will compromise the privacy of our two bedrooms and rear yard.

As illustrated in Figure 1 below, the proposed balcony will look directly into the private open space of 25 Napier St.  The proposed balcony does not comply with the relevant DCP requirements and the loss of privacy is considered unreasonable.

Franz Sewera & Natasha Gan – 104 Prince Edward St

Issue

Comment

Objects to front verandah on privacy grounds.

The front balcony does not affect the privacy of 104 Prince Edward St.

Objects to first floor window (just behind the front verandah) as it will reduce privacy to the dining area.

The subject window does not affect the privacy of 104 Prince Edward St.

Objects to rear balcony on privacy grounds.

Note: this specific point of objection was withdrawn by a letter signed by Natasha Gan, sent by the applicant, and received by Council on the 10th of August 2006.

There are also significant concerns as to how the proposed first floor window and front balcony would limit their potential to design a first floor addition.

The impacts of a proposal on potential future design options for future proposals are difficult to judge.  As such this is not a matter for consideration.

 

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  Engineering Issues

 

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineers.  The following Comments were received:

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

Conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Clause 10 – Residential 2A Zone Objectives

The objectives of Zone No 2A include:

 

(a)  maintaining the character of established residential areas, and

(c)  enabling redevelopment for low density housing forms… where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development…

         

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as the proposal is not consistent with the surrounding residential area and it will compromise the amenity for the surrounding dwellings by resulting in unreasonable privacy and view loss, as described in detail below.

 

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       Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

53% of the site is landscaped area. Complies.

S1

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

No change proposed – not applicable.

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.

No change proposed – not applicable.

S1

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

No change proposed – not applicable.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

25% of the site is permeable. Complies.

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.58:1. Complies.

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 7.9 metres. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

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 12.4m south-eastern elevation of the proposed first floor addition is 1.23 metres from the south-eastern side boundary at first floor level. Does not comply-see assessment below

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 external wall height, of 7.9m, exceeds the Preferred Solution for maximum external height by 0.9m.  It should be noted that the site slopes up towards the rear of the allotment and that as the proposal is for a first floor addition there is limited opportunity to reduce the height of the dwelling beyond what is proposed.  Dwellings in the immediate vicinity are of a similar height and scale to the proposed development and the height of the proposal will not significantly affect privacy, access to light.  Notwithstanding, the siting and form of the proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirement of the DCP in relation to view sharing.  (See Section 8.2 for a detailed assessment of view loss)

The proposal also does not comply with the Preferred Solution, S4, which states that the length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.  The proposals first floor (excluding the roofed balcony) is 12.4m in length and is located 1.23m from the south-eastern boundary and as such does not comply with the Preferred Solution.  The primary purpose of this Preferred Solution is to reduce the impact of overshadowing.  As discussed in further detail in the Solar Access and Energy Efficiency section below, it is considered that 104 Prince Edward Street will maintain adequate sunlight, daylight and fresh air and is therefore considered acceptable.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

No change proposed – not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed dwelling is 8.2 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

The proposed development is set back 1.23 metres from the south-eastern side boundary and 1.14 metres from the north-western side boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 1.23 metres from the south-eastern side boundary and 1.14 metres from the north-western side boundary. 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 proposed development is set back 1.23 metres from the south-eastern side boundary and the rear portion of the first floor is set back 1.14 metres from the north-western side boundary and as such does not comply with the Preferred Solutions.  In relation to the south-eastern side boundary setback, 1.23 metres is considered to permit adequate sunlight (see analysis in the Solar Access and Energy Efficiency section below), daylight and fresh air to the occupants of 104 Prince Edward Street and is therefore considered acceptable.

In relation to the north-western side boundary setback, 1.14 metres is considered adequate in maintaining sunlight, daylight and fresh air to the occupants of 100 Prince Edward Street, but exacerbates the view loss that will result from 25 Napier Street.  If the rear portion of the first floor was setback 1.5m from the north-western boundary to comply with the Preferred Solution it would not significantly reduce the view loss experienced by 25 Napier Street.  As such a more significant setback, of approximately 2.2m is suggested as a way of reducing the view loss from 25 Napier Street (see Section 7.2 for a thorough analysis).

 

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 first floor rear balcony will overlook the rear yard area of 25 Napier Street. 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 does not have any habitable room windows that will cause overlooking – not applicable.

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.

 

There are privacy concerns in relation to the front first floor balcony and the rear first floor balcony.  As stated above, the proposed first floor front balcony is likely to result in a loss of privacy for 100 Prince Edward Street as the balcony is aligned at a similar depth as the bedroom window and so there is a greater potential for overlooking.  The floor level of the balcony is also higher than the bedroom and so people will be able to look down into the bedroom from the balcony.  Also, the balcony is expected to be used intensively because it is located off a large living area and will have ocean views.  It is recommended that if approval be granted for this proposal that solid privacy screens be included on both the north-western and south-eastern edges.

 

The proposed rear first floor balcony does not comply with the Preferred Solution as it will look directly into the private open space of 25 Napier Street, 100 Prince Edward Street and 104 Prince Edward Street (see Figure 1).  Although privacy screens could be used to preserve privacy for 100 and 104 Prince Edward Street, due to the orientation of the balcony and the private open space privacy screens will be ineffective in maintaining privacy for 25 Napier Street.  102 Prince Edward has two other large balconies proposed and as such it is considered that if this balcony is deleted that it will not have a significant adverse amenity impact on the occupants of 102 Prince Edward Street.  It is considered that the proposed rear balcony will have unreasonable impacts on the privacy of 25 Napier Street and that, if approval is granted for the application, that the balcony should be deleted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box: Figure 1 - The private open space of 25 Napier St (foreground) and 102 Prince Edward St in the backgroundGarages & 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 at least 2.5 x 5.8 metres. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 6 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 6 metres at the front boundary. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

Driveway gradient details have not been provided although given that there is an existing driveway there it is expected that a workable solution can be found.

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.

There is no vehicular access to the rear of the site.  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 50% of the width of the site frontage. Does not comply – see assessment below.

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

The proposed driveway is 6m wide at the property boundary, which is double the width of the preferred solution.  It is considered that any approval granted should be conditioned to reduce the driveway width at the property boundary to 3m to minimise the loss of on-street parking and reduce the amount impervious surface area.

The proposed garages occupy approximately 50% of the site frontage, which does not comply with the Preferred Solution of 35%.  Notwithstanding, it complies with the Objectives and Performance Requirements as although it will be visually dominant it is not considered that it will be obtrusive and it will be compatible in scale and form to development in the vicinity.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

With the information submitted it is not possible to ascertain whether the proposal will overshadow solar collectors on adjoining properties. See comments below.

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.

With the information submitted it is not possible to ascertain whether the proposal will reduce solar access to less than 3 hours on north-facing windows. See comments below.

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.

From the information provided to Council it is not possible to ascertain what the extent of the overshadowing on 104 Prince Edward Street, in particular the north-western facing windows, will be.  Given that: the windows are north-west facing, not technically north facing; 104 Prince Edward Street is setback approximately 2.8m from its north-western boundary, which will result in a separation of approximately 4m between the two dwellings;  and, 104 Prince Edward St is currently a single storey residence which it can be reasonably expected will become a two storey residence at some point in the future, it is considered that the overshadowing impacts will not warrant refusal of the application.

 

8.2       View Loss

 

The relevant Council DCP, for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, has limited reference to the assessment of view loss.  In this regard the comments by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd v Warringah Council (2004) in regard to the concept of view sharing should be considered:

 

The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment (taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.)”.

 

          Senior Commissioner Roseth adopts a four part assessment based on the following:-

1.   An assessment of the view affected. 

2.   An assessment from what part of the property the views are obtained.

3.   An assessment of the extent of the impact.

4.   An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact.

 

1.       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.

 

An inspection was undertaken from the objectors’ properties to ascertain the extent of the view loss that may be occasioned as a result of the proposed development.  Height poles were erected on the site, on the 29th of September 2006, and viewed from the affected property (25 Napier Street).  Photos were taken, see Figures 2 to 5 in this report.

 

Currently 25 Napier Street enjoys district views to the north and views to Long Bay, Malabar Headland, including the tip of Malabar Headland and the Pacific Ocean to the east.  The interface between Long Bay and Malabar Headland as well as Malabar Headland and the ocean, that is the tip of Malabar Headland, is clearly visible.  Using the principles adopted by Senior Commissioner Roseth, the views currently enjoyed by 25 Napier Street are considered to be valuable.

 

2.       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.

 

25 Napier Street is a two storey dwelling that accesses most of their views over the rooftops of single storey houses from the windows on their north-eastern elevation.  The existing views are available from a seated and standing position.  The views are over the roofs of other dwellings, the most significant portion of the view is obtained over the roof of 102 Prince Edward Street, the subject property as well as through the side setback between 100 and 102 Prince Edward Street.  As discussed below, it is considered that the retention of part of the water view through this side setback is feasible in these particular circumstances.

 

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

 

The extent of the impact on 25 Napier Street is considered to be severe.  As stated above, the views from 25 Napier Street are accessed from the windows on their north-eastern elevation.  The room uses along this elevation include a living room, kitchen and two bedrooms.  Below the ‘existing’ and ‘potential resulting’ views are listed according to each room on the north-eastern elevation:

 

Room

Existing Views

Potential Resulting View Loss

Living Room

- Ocean views

- District views

A very small portion of the ocean will be visible although the vast majority of the ocean will be blocked by the proposed developments wall height.

The district view to the north will not be affected.

Kitchen

- Ocean views

- Long Bay views

- Malabar Headland (including partial view of tip) views

- District views

The view to the ocean will be blocked.

A small portion of the view to Long Bay and Malabar Headland will be visible.  The tip of Malabar Headland will not be visible.

The district view to the north will not be affected.

Bedroom 1 (northern-most bedroom)

- Ocean views

- Long Bay views

- Malabar Headland (including tip) views

- District views

The view to the ocean and the tip of Malabar Headland will be blocked.

Most of the view to Malabar Headland and Long Bay will be blocked.

The district view to the north will not be affected.

Bedroom 2 (southern-most bedroom)

- Long Bay views

- Malabar Headland (including tip) views

The view to the tip of Malabar Headland will be blocked.

A significant part of the view to Malabar Headland and Long Bay will be blocked.

 

As illustrated in the table above and demonstrated in Figures 2 to 5, the development will result in a significant amount of view loss from all rooms along the north-eastern elevation, in particular the living room and kitchen.  All views to the tip of Malabar Headland, which is particularly valued because it illustrates the interface between land and water, will be lost.  A partial view of Long Bay and Malabar Headland will still be available from the Bedroom 2, and to a lesser extent Bedroom 1, through the side setback between 100 and 102 Prince Edward Street.  When considering the first three of Senior Commissioner Roseth’s principles it is considered that the proposal will result in a severe degree of view loss from 25 Napier Street.

 

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

 

The proposal does not comply with the applicable Preferred Solutions including the maximum external wall height and the side setbacks of the first floor.  The height of the proposal, in conjunction with the proposed side setbacks of the first floor, will result in a significant degree of view loss and as such it is considered that the proposal is unreasonable.

 

The second part of Senior Commissioner Roseth’s fourth principle asks, when a proposal does comply, could a more skilful design provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours.  It this instance it is considered that a more skillful design could achieve this, potentially by redesigning the first floor addition to incorporate an increase of the north-western side setback of the first floor to 2.2m from the boundary.  This would significantly improve the amount of view retained by 25 Napier Street without compromising the amenity of the proposed first floor addition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


In summary, some view loss for 25 Napier Street is inevitable and not unreasonable in the proposed first floor addition at 102 Prince Edward Street.  Given the assessment of the proposed impacts with regard to the Land and Environment Courts Planning Principle regarding views, the development is not considered satisfactory with regard to view sharing.

 

9.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome - Excellence in urban design and development

 

10.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria with regard to visual and acoustic privacy, side setbacks and view loss as stated in the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

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. DA/397/2006 for proposed to construct a first floor addition to the existing dwelling house, new front and rear balconies and associated alterations and additions at 102 Prince Edward Street MALABAR for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposal will adversely impact on the amenity of 25 Napier Street, Malabar, in terms of view loss and does not satisfy the Objectives and Performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to the sharing of views.

 

2.       The proposed first floor balconies do not satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements as stated in the DCP - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, in relation to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

3.       The proposed first floor side setbacks do not satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and exacerbate the view loss from 25 Napier Street.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SARAH HUDSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

13 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/532/2006 & PROP042994

 

PROPOSAL:

 Addition of first floor storage area over existing garage fronting Helena Lane

PROPERTY:

 24 Helena Street, RANDWICK

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Charalambos Antonaros

OWNER:

C Antonaros

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Robert Belleli, Scott Nash, Bruce Notley-Smith, John Procopiadis, Margaret Woodsmith.

 

The application details construction of a two storey garage to the rear of the subject site fronting Helena Lane.

 

The main issue is the height of the wall to the western boundary, and the adverse impact on the adjoining properties in relation to solar access and visual bulk and scale.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

There is an existing garage and toilet to the rear of the subject site; it currently has an external wall height of 2.65m and an overall height of 3.15m. The proposed development involves demolishing the western wall, building new external walls to the common boundaries of 22 and 26 Helena Street encompassing a first floor addition at an overall height of 5.225m.

 

The ground floor area will encompass the existing toilet, a reduced carspace due to the location of the stairs and an area of private open space, while the first floor will be used as a storage area. The carspace will be reduced from 4.65m x 2.9m to 4.35m x 3.2m and its clearance height reduced in line with the angle of the stairwell to the landing.

 

The resulting area of the ground and first floor area totals 64.96 m2 which includes 34.61m2 of storage area, 12.225 m2 of additional ground floor area and 18.125 m2 of existing ground floor area. 

 

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Helena Street between Rainbow lane and Helena Street, which runs to an end of a cul-de-sac that changes direction mid-way from an east-west to a north-south orientation.  The site is bounded on its northern side by Helena Lane and is presently occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 6.05m, a side boundary depth of 36.580m and has an overall site area of 221.6m². 

 

Neighbouring the property to the west is pair of single storey semi-detached dwellings, to the east is the adjoining single storey semi-detached dwelling and to the rear opposite the Laneway are residential flat buildings. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominately of single and two storey semi-detached and a number of residential flat buildings.

 

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

 

Mr & Mrs B. Ryan of 22 Helena Street Randwick

 

·      Loss of solar access to their private open space during the mornings up until 12noon.

·      The floor to ceiling height of the storage space (being 2.4m) and installation of a skylight will lend itself to being used as a habitable area.

·      The visual impact and intrusiveness created by a 5.22m wall along the common boundary.

 

Comment: Given the proposed outbuilding is sited on the boundary and is adjacent to the objectors principle private open space, it is considered the proposal as it stands in terms of bulk and scale will reduce the enjoyment of the neighbours use of their private open space in terms of access to sunlight, fresh air and being visually obtrusive. In this respect, it is considered that a reduction in the bulk and scale of the proposed outbuilding will reduce these adverse impacts on the objector’s site. Should the height of the external wall be reduced from 5.22m to 3.5m and a gable roof be constructed to house the storage area it would reduce these adverse impacts on the adjoining properties as well as its integration along Helena Lane.

 

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

 

The objectives of Zone No 2A are to maintain the character of established residential areas

 

Helena Lane exhibits numerous garages, the majority of which are single storey and where Council has recently approved a first floor attic addition to an existing garage at 36 Helena Street it has resulted in a similarly sized height (5.9m external wall height). However, it was considered a reasonable addition given the existing structure currently had a sizable external wall height and the additional bulk was limited to a gable roof form lessening its minimise visual impact and its angled form would serve to limit the loss of solar access to the eaves of the existing structure. In terms of the subject proposal, it is considered the proposal is not consistent with the aims and objectives of the RLEP in that the development will compromise the amenity of the surrounding residents and will not be compatible with the existing dominant character of the area along Helena Lane or the desired future character of development on this laneway.

 

5.1  Policy Controls

 

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

 

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.

33.6% (74.5 m2) of the site is landscaped area. The current landscaped area is 41.2% (91.5 m2) of the site where the decrease is as a result of extension of the garage on ground level.  Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

The rear yard has an area of 29.5 m2. 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 5.9m x 5 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.

6.4% of the site is permeable. The current permeable landscaped area is approximately 16% (37 m2) of the site where the decrease is a result of the proposed concreting of the rear private open space. Does not comply – see assessment below.

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.

 

In terms of the loss of landscaped area, garages along Helena Lane consistently take up a similar amount of ground cover on similar sized lots.  Further, a sufficient level of private open space is provided on the site.

 

In terms of the loss of permeable or soft landscaped area, it is considered unreasonable and results in the whole of the rear private open space area of the site being hard surfaces preventing any stormwater infiltration and planting of appropriate vegetation which would soften the impact of the structures on the site.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.65:1. 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.

 

Although the floor space of the proposal comply with Councils preferred solution, the proposed upper level bulk created by the new two storey garage is considered to be incompatible with the predominately single storey garages along the Helena Lane, and is visually obtrusive to the adjoining neighbour’s private open space. It is therefore considered the proposed upper level addition doesn’t meet the relevant performance requirements or the objectives for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

Not applicable.

S1

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

The proposed garage external wall height is 5.22m. Doesn’t comply. See assessment below.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Excavation is only occurring for footings and will not detrimentally impact on the adjoining sites.

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.

Not applicable.

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.

As addressed above under section 5.1, it is considered the proposal is not consistent with the existing form or desired form of garages fronting Helena Lane and given the visual bulk of the structure and loss of natural light in the adjoining property at 22 Helena Street, it is considered the proposed upper level addition doesn’t meet the relevant performance requirements and objectives of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed dwelling is set back X 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.

Not applicable.

S3

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

The proposed development is set on the side boundaries. Doesn’t Comply See assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set on the side boundaries. Doesn’t 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 proposal varies from the preferred solutions in that the ground level and first floor level are sited to the boundary. In terms of the ground level, it is considered reasonable to site it the side boundaries given that Helena Lane has single storey garages sited to the side boundaries and future garages along Helena Lane will be similarly sited.

However, in terms of the upper level, it is considered excessively bulky and will have adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining site at 22 Helena Street. The applicant has been advised that were various amendments be made to the proposal, such as a reduction in the external wall height and that the upper level storage area be contained within a traditional roof form, then this would represent a more reasonable development within this area. The applicant has rejected this recommendation indicating the storage area being sought is necessary. It is considered the proposed development doesn’t meet the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP regarding building setbacks.

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.

Existing circumstances allow for 1 carspace with rear lane access and requiring 2 carspaces is unreasonable. Not applicable.

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 4.65m x 2.8m. Does not comply – see assessment below

S1

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

Existing. Not applicable.

S1

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

Existing. Not applicable.

S1

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

Existing Not applicable.

S1

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

Does not comply, however there are no major objections in this regard in that the proposed additions to the rear garage are consistent with other garages setbacks along Helena Lane.

S2

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

Existing. Not applicable.

S2

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

Existing Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed garage occupies 100% of the width of the allotment. See assessment below. Does not comply – see assessment below.

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

It is considered non-compliance with the driveway dimension preferred solutions is reasonable in that most other driveways in this lane have similar widths, ground coverage and were the driveway be required to be setback 1 metre from the laneway it would adversely impact on convenient and safe access to and from the garage from Helena Lane.

In terms of non-compliance with the carspace preferred dimensions, it is considered the proposal falls substantially short of the required length by 1.15m and as it stands will not meet the performance requirements for safe and convenient parking and therefore not meet the relevant performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP or Parking DCP.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Not applicable

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

The north-facing windows 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.

 

6.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:              Excellence in urban design and development.

 

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

 

7.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality.  However, were the outbuilding to be limited to an external wall height of approximately 3.5m whereby the storage area is contained within a conventional roof form it would represent a more appropriate development to Helena Lane and the impacts on adjoining properties would be minimised. 

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

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. 532/2006 for the addition of a first floor storage area over an enlarged ground level garage fronting Helena Lane. at 24 Helena Street for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposal is excessive in height, bulk and scale and does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to Section 4.3 Height, Form and Materials.

 

2.       The proposal does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP- Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to Section 4.4 Building Setbacks.

 

3.       The proposal is antipathetic to the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone in that it will not be compatible with the dominant character of existing development and will compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

 

4.       The proposed does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP- Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to Section 4.7 Garage, Carports and Driveways as the proposed carspace is less than the minimum required dimensions.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ELIAS COOREY  

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

8.1       Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Hughes, Woodsmith & Matson – Ordinary Council Meeting – Tuesday, 24th October, 2006 – Item 6.7 – Development Application Report – 96-98 St Paul Street, Randwick. (D1082/2004 & PROP000231)

 

That the resolution passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24th October, 2006 reading as follows:-

 

“A.    THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to modify Development Consent No.1082/2004 on property at 96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick, in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 020, 030-036, 040-044, 050-055, all Issue B, dated 1 23/03/05, prepared by Buzacottwebber and received by Council on 24/03/05, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details approved with the deferred commencement conditions and as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered 030 Issue F, 031 Issue E, both dated 16/01/2006 and received by Council on 17/01/2006; 032 Issue D, 033 Issue E, 034 Issue F, 035 Issue D, 036 Issue D, 040 Issue F, 041 Issue F, 042 Issue E, 043 Issue E, 044 Issue F, 050 Issue D, 051 Issue D, 052 Issue D, 053 Issue D,  all dated 27/10/2005 and received by Council on 28/10/2005; 054 Issue E, dated 17/11/2005 and received by Council on 20/12/2005; 055 Issue E, dated 17/11/2005 and received by Council on 18/11/2005, only so far as they relate to the modifications detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the Section 96 plans numbered 030 Issue H, 031 Issue G, 032 Issue F, 033 Issue H, 034 Issue I, 035 Issue F, 036 Issue F, 037 Issue E, 040 Issue I, 041 Issue 1, 042 Issue H, 043 Issue G,  044 Issue H, 050 Issue G, 051 Issue F, 052 Issue G, 055, 053 Issue F, 054 Issue H, 055 Issue H, all dated 1/8/2006 and received by Council on 3 August, 2006 only so far as they relate to the modifications detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by  the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Amend Condition No. 134 to read:

 

134.   Balconies of Units 4, 8, 10, 12 and 18 shall have fixed external louvre screens along the full length of their western elevation located adjacent to the inner face of the balustrade, with the louvres fixed in a horizontal position in order to restrict overlooking to the private open space and windows of 94 St Pauls Street, while Units 16 and 20 shall have a fixed external louvre screens along the western edge of the roof for the extent of the living room and balcony with the louvres fixed in a horizontal position in order to restrict overlooking to the private open space and windows of 94 St Pauls Street.  Details shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

Amend Condition No. 135 to read:

 

135.   Balconies of Units 7, 9, 11 and 17 shall have fixed external louvre screens along the full length of their eastern elevation located adjacent to the inner face of the balustrade, with the louvres fixed in a horizontal position in order to restrict overlooking to the private open space of 14C Dudley Street and 14E Dudley Street, while Units 15 and 19 shall have a fixed eternal louvre screens along the eastern edge of the roof for the extent of the living room and balcony with the louvres fixed in a horizontal position in order to restrict overlooking to the private open space14C Dudley Street and 14E Dudley Street .  Details shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

Amend numbering of following conditions:

 

136.   The bedroom door of Unit 19 shall be relocated to allow separate access to the bathroom.  Details shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

137.   Mechanical car stackers shall be deleted from the approval and the three spaces designated with double car stackers shall be used only as single car spaces.  Details shall be shown as such on the plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate

 

138.   The basement carpark in the development must allocate not less than one (1) car parking space to each residential unit and two (2) spaces as visitor spaces, one of which shall also be designated as a carwash space.  Details of compliance with this condition are to be shown on the relevant plans for the construction certificate prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

139.   Access to the St Pauls Street shall be provided from the point of exit from the fire isolated passageway and details of such shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

140.   The landscape plan shall be revised to be consistent with the amended Section 96 architectural plans as approved and conditions of consent prior to the issue of the construction certificate

 

Additional conditions

 

141.     Side and rear boundary fences behind the front building alignment shall be a maximum of 1.8m high and the landscape plan shall be amended accordingly prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

142.     The fixed screening along the western elevation of the balcony of Unit 18 (Level 4) shall be returned along its northern elevation for a length of 1m and shall be detailed as such on the construction certificate plans to the satisfaction of the certifying authority  prior to the issue of the construction certificate

 

143.     All external privacy screens shall be be non reflective and consist of anodised fixed horizontal aluminium bar screening and shall be detailed as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

144.     The front entry doors to the building at the basement floor levels shall be re-located a further 1.3m to the south to remove the apparent conflict with the access door to the garbage room.  Details in accordance with this requirement shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

145.     Prior to the issue of the construction certificate the landscape plans shall be amended to show consistency with the architectural plans with particular respect to terrace areas and planted areas adjacent to Units 1, 2 and 14.  In this regard the paved terrace area on the eastern side of Unit 1 and the western side of Unit 2 shall have a maximum depth of 1.2m in front of the kitchen and the full width of Bedroom 2, and shall follow the line of the balconies above these units. The reclaimed areas of terrace shall be detailed as planted areas in both the architectural and landscape plans.

 

146.     Eaves 1m in depth shall be provided to north facing balcony walls of Units 7, 8, 15, 16, 19 and 20 with the eaves to be integrated into the existing roof form and the retractable awnings on Units 7 and 8 shall be deleted from the design.  Details shall be shown on the construction certificate plans to the satisfaction of the certifying authority prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

147.     Ventilated skylights shall be provided to the ensuites of Units 19 and 20, with the skylights to be of a translucent polycarbonate material, with a minium size of 900mm x 900mm.  Details be shown on the construction certificate plans to the satisfaction of the certifying authority prior to the issue of the construction certificate

 

148.          Weather protection shall be provided to the rear (southern) balconies by extending the non-trafficable roof of the building over the balconies of Units 19 and 20 by approximately 1m to align with the rear (southern most) walls adjacent to the west and east respectively to the balconies.  Details in accordance with this requirement shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

149.          Weather protection shall be provided to the rear (southern) access door of the building by the provision of a glazed canopy projecting 1m from the building its width in alignment with the access path. Details in accordance with this requirement shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

150.          In order to make the rear (southern) access door of similar proportions to windows along the rear (southern) elevation, the Bedroom 1 of Unit 19 shall be relocated to the east to align with the window of Bedroom 3 of Unit 17 below and the rear (southern) access door shall be fully glazed and increased in width to the width of the internal access corridor. A new glazed window shall also be provided above the door aligned with and matching the door, with the top of the window in alignment with the top of window of Bedroom 3 of Unit 17. Details in accordance with these requirements shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.”

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

Upon the abovementioned Rescission Motion being carried, it is intended to move the following motion:-

 

That the Section 96(2) application be refused.