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

 

5th December, 2006

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

1           Prayer & acknowledgement of local indigenous people

 

2           Apologies/Granting of leave of absences

 

3           Confirmation of the Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER, 2006.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addressing of Council by Members of the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

Additional Mayoral Minutes (if any) will be issued and listed in a supplementary agenda.

 

7           Urgent Business

 

7.1       LATE ITEM - GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 49/2006 – RESCISSION MOTION – 47-53 DUDLEY STREET, COOGEE. (This report is in the Additional Items column)

 

8           Director City Planning Reports

 

8.1                    

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 109/2006 –

179 BOTANY STREET, RANDWICK.

2

 

8.2                    

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 110/2006 –

UNIT 27/57-63 BELMORE ROAD, RANDWICK.

11

 

8.3                    

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 111/2006 –

46 - 50 PEROUSE ROAD, RANDWICK.

19

 

8.4                    

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 112/2006 –

112 - 124 ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON.

45

 

8.5                    

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 113/2006 –

58 DUKE STREET, KENSINGTON.

85

 

8.6                    

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 114/2006 –

2 MAYO STREET, LITTLE BAY (LOT 27).

105

 

8.7                    

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 115/2006 –

20 PAULING AVENUE, COOGEE.

158

 

8.8                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 116/2006 - PROPOSED TELECOMMUNCATIONS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN.

168

 

 

9           Director City Services' Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 91/2006 - NEW FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION - VICTORIA STREET, MALABAR.

175

9.2

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES’ REPORT - 92/2006 - PIONEER PARK CLOSED LANDFILL - REMEDIATION COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.

183

9.3

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES’ REPORT - 93/2006 - COMMERCIAL CENTRE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT WORKS AT HAVELOCK AVENUE PRECINCT, HIGH CROSS PRECINCT (EXCLUDING THE PARK) AND MALABAR JUNCTION PRECINCT.

187

 

 

10         Director Governance & Financial Services' Report

 

10.1                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 80/2006 - AMENDED PRIVACY MANAGEMENT PLAN.

195

 

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1                     

Motion by Councillor Matson - Response to Total Environment Centre call for recovering E-waste collection costs.

197

12.2

Motion by Councillor Matson - Clean Up Australia Day activities at Little Congwong Beach.

197

12.3

Motion by Councillor Matson - Comparison of Greenpower Schemes. 

197

12.4

Motion by Councillor Matson - Busking Competition.

197

12.5

Motion by Councillor Matson - Retention of Foreshore Beach.

197

12.6

Motion by Councillor Matson - Motion By Councillor Matson – Removal of Asbestos from the 9FSB Building on the Bundock Street site.

198

12.7

Motion by Councillor Matson - Impact of proposed Residential Development for 155-157 Arden Street, Coogee on Historic Sandstone Retaining Wall and the Streetscape of Arden Street.

198

12.8

Motion by Councillor Matson - Interpretation of Section 2.1 of Council’s Footpath Dining & Trading DCP 2004. 

198

 

13         Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

13.1                     

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES’ REPORT 94/2006 - CIVIC IMPROVEMENTS LEXINGTON PLACE, MAROUBRA.

199

13.2

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES’ REPORT 95/2006 - TENDER T17/2006 SUPPLY OF TWO REAR LOADING GARBAGE COMPACTOR TRUCKS.

215

13.3

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES’ REPORT 96/2006 - SSROC CONTRACT FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS - TENDER EVALUATION REPORT.

220

 

14         Notices of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Planning Report 109/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

179 BOTANY STREET, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

28 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/801/06 & PROP037317

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment report for Development Application No. DA/801/06 for first floor addition to existing dwelling house.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 24 November, 2006.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

24 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/801/06 & PROP037317

 

PROPOSAL:

 First floor addition to existing dwelling house.

PROPERTY:

 179 Botany Street, Randwick

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 G. Sparling

OWNER:

Mrs R Withers

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 


1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Procopiadis and White.

 

The application details a first floor addition to the existing dwelling house.

 

The main issues are the proposal’s non-compliance with of the Floor Space Ratio (FSR), height and setback requirements of the DCP-Dwelling Houses and the impact of the development upon the amenity of the adjoining property.

 

The application is recommended for refusal. 

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details the erection of an upper level addition to the existing dwelling comprising two bedrooms, two bathrooms and storage with a balcony to the rear. The addition will provide for 89m² of additional floor area to the dwelling. An existing garage between the dwelling and southern side boundary is to be demolished.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Botany Street and has a frontage width of 7.163m, a depth of 39.62m and an area of 275m². The site falls towards the rear with a difference in levels of up to 2.5m. The locality is primarily residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings, although this site adjoins directly to the east the Inglis Horse Stable complex and to the south Paine Reserve.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

4.1 Objections

 

Mr & Mrs R McCann of 177 Botany Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed upper level development will obstruct their view across Paine Reserve from their upper level balcony and will therefore impact upon the amenity of their dwelling; there are no objections if the addition maintained the rear setback of their dwelling.

 

The proposed upper level addition continues 4.5m past the end of the upper level addition of the objector’s premises and will result in the outlook from their rear balcony across to the reserve being completely obscured and replaced with an outlook onto a blank masonry wall. If the upper level addition was maintained in line with the rear of the objector’s upper level their outlook would be maintained and a reasonable amount of living area in the proposed upper level addition could also be provided.

 


5.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

6.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

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. 

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 0.84:1. Does not comply – see assessment below.

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

The proposed floor space ratio of the dwelling will be a substantial departure from the preferred solution maximum and represents numerically 53m² above the maximum floor areas of the preferred solution. With respect to the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP, this side of Botany Street contains predominantly single storey semi detached dwellings and an argument cannot be sustained that the resultant bulk and scale of the dwelling will be compatible with the existing character of the locality, or would minimise adverse effects of bulk on adjoining neighbours.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

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

S4

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

Complies.

S5

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

The proposed upper level addition is sited directly behind the existing front of the dwelling and extends to the rear to encompass the whole envelope of the dwelling, does not comply (see assessment below).

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 upper level addition does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the siting of the proposed addition to almost the whole building envelope is excessive in scale and will be incompatible with the existing character of the locality, and does not minimise impacts upon adjoining dwellings in terms of natural light and views.

The external wall height of the proposed is also excessive resulting in a 3 storey scale to the rear of the site.

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is sited up to the northern side boundary and up to 900mm from the southern side boundary, does not comply (see assessment below).

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 siting of the wall of the upper level upon the northern boundary were it extends past the end of the upper level of the adjoining dwelling will significantly compromise the amenity of that dwelling in that the outlook from the rear of that dwelling will be upon a masonry wall sited upon the boundary and extends past the rear of that upper level by 4.5m. Were the addition is sited up to the northern side boundary adjoining the party wall and towards the front of the dwelling will not have any impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining dwelling. With respect to the southern side boundary setbacks, these will not result in any impacts to adjoining dwellings in that this setback is to an access driveway to the adjoining horse stables.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

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.

A privacy screen is proposed to the northern end of the balcony which will maintain a reasonable degree of privacy to the adjoining dwelling.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

 

View Loss

 

Under Section 4.3 of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies a performance requirement is that buildings are designed to allow for a sharing of view loss. This concept of view loss has recently been defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

The Commissioner in deciding whether or not view sharing was reasonable adopted a four step assessment as follows.

 

a)       The value of the subject view ie. water views are more valued than land views with iconic view such as the Opera House of North Head being more valued than views without icons and whole views are more valuable than partial views.

b)       From what part of the property are views obtained, for example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult to maintain than views from front and rear boundaries, and in addition whether or not the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position is also relevant, with sitting views being more difficult to protect. The expectation to retain side and sitting views is often unrealistic.

c)       Assess the extent of the impact from the property as a whole rather than just for the view affected, the impact on views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas, then it is useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

d)       The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact and compliance with planning controls, with a development which satisfies planning controls being considered more reasonable than one that does not. 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 upon 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 objector’s property from their upper level balcony enjoys an outlook across the rear of the site towards Paine Reserve. When undertaking an assessment of the view loss and view sharing, a determination must be made as to the extent of view loss and the impact that this will have upon the property which has the benefit of the view. In this instance the view loss is assessed as follows;

 

a)       The view across the subject property to the south over Paine Reserve whilst not iconic still provides a significant visual amenity to the objector’s property.

 

b)       The views that are impacted on are obtained across the adjoining property towards the south which are acknowledged as being more difficult to maintain.

 

 

c)       The extent of view loss is regarded as moderate with the view from the upper level balcony across the park being obscured, however the outlook towards the east and north are maintained.

 

d)       The proposal does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria including the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings.  A reduction in the bulk and scale of the building by increasing the rear setback of the proposal would maintain the existing views from the adjoining property.  As the views loss is a direct consequence of the proposal’s non-compliance with a number of planning controls, the impact although moderate is considered unreasonable.

 

7.    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.

 

The proposal will not contribute to the above outcome as it fails to meet the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP-Dwelling Houses.

 

8.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

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 dwelling, the appearance of the pair of semi detached dwellings, the local street scape and the character of the locality.

 

For these reasons the application for the erection of a proposed upper level addition to the dwelling cannot be supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.801/06 for permission to erect an upper level addition to the dwelling at 179 Botany Street Randwick for the following reasons;

 

1.       The proposal does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings in that the floor area of the dwelling will be excessive in bulk and scale and will be incompatible with the existing character of the locality and the adjoining dwelling.

 

2.       The proposal does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings in that the second storey of the semi detached dwelling does not integrate with the streetscape and the adjoining semi detached dwelling.

 

3.       The proposal does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings in relation to setbacks as it does not maintain the setback of adjoining development at the rear, and will adversely impact of the amenity on the adjoining semi in terms of daylight, visual bulk and loss of views.

 

4.       The proposal does not comply with the objectives and performance required of Section 4.3 - Height, Form and Materials as the height of the proposal addition is excessive and does not satisfy the principle of view sharing.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 



 

Director, City Planning Report 110/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

Unit 27/57-63 Belmore Road, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

30 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/840/2006 & PROP029325

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. DA/840/2006 to enclose the balcony to Unit 27 with glass panels.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 23 November 2006

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ELIAS COOREY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

23 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/840/2006 & PROP029325

 

PROPOSAL:

 Enclose the balcony to unit 27 with glass panels

PROPERTY:

 Unit 27/57-63 Belmore Road Randwick

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Ms H H Dinh

OWNER:

Ms H H Dinh

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 


1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Bradley Hughes, Scott Nash and John Procopiadis.

 

The application seeks to enclose the existing balcony to Unit 27 on the rear eastern elevation of the existing building. The subject dwelling is located within a relatively new mixed commercial/residential apartment development comprising of 32 dwelling units, a supermarket, restaurant, and associated basement car parking.

 

The main issues relating to the development proposal are the non compliance with the maximum floor space ratio, non-compliance with the relevant objectives of the DCP for Randwick Junction and the Residential Flat Design Code, in respect to the adequate provision of private open space. The proposal also follows a similar enclosure to unit 16 directly below the subject unit whose balcony enclosure was approved on 13 December 2005 by Council contrary to the Director City Planning’s recommendation. It is also considered the proposed enclosure will detract from the overall cohesive appearance of the building and compromise its architectural integrity.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal seeks to enclose the existing balcony of the rear second floor dwelling (Unit 27). The balcony is to be enclosed with an aluminium framed opening with obscure glazing. The enclosed balcony will provide for an additional 13m2 of floor space to this dwelling. Plans and specifications have been provided for the enclosure of the balcony detailing the removal of the existing steel handrail to accommodate a new frame with four safety glass panels (two fixed and two sliding). The glass panels would be glazed with ‘cathedral’ obscure glass, laminated and fixed with aluminium angles and silicone sealant

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is on the eastern side of Belmore Road and south of the intersection of Belmore and Alison Road within the Randwick Junction Commercial area and presently contains a relatively new mixed commercial residential building comprising of 32 dwelling units, a supermarket, restaurant, and associated basement car parking. The site has a frontage to Belmore Road of 31.7m and there is rear vehicular access via a driveway accessed from Belmore Road. The subject unit is located to the rear of the premises adjacent to the adjoining site occupied by the Gemini hotel.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Consent (DA 745/00) was granted on 8 May 2001 for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a part four and part five storey mixed commercial and residential development comprising thirty two dwellings, a supermarket and restaurant and associated basement car parking

 


5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP- Public Notification and no submissions have been received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

No referrals were required.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)

-   State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-   Development Control Plan – Randwick Junction DCP

-   Building Code of Australia

 

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      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned No. 3A (General Business Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

8.1.1   Clause 32 (3), Floor Space Ratio

 

Clause 32 (3) of the Randwick LEP 1998 states that a maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 3A as indicated on the zoning map is 2:1. The existing building has a floor space ratio of 2.196:1 and the proposed additional floor area which will result from this enclosure will have a floor space ratio of 2.22:1.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 32 (3) of RLEP 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 RLEP.

 

2.       The stated object or purpose of the standard

 

The underlying purpose of the standard, as outlined in RLEP, 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.”

 

The proposed development is inconsistent with the objective of the standard, in that it does not allow for sufficient private open space for the subject dwelling, and will set an unsatisfactory precedent for other balcony enclosures within the building, resulting in additional bulk and floor space to a residential flat building which exhibits a cohesive design.  The existing building has been the subject of a previous balcony enclosure  (under DA/712/2005 for unit 16) and any further increase to the bulk of the building, albeit minor, is unreasonable having regard to the purpose of the standard.

 

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

 

Notwithstanding the proposed enclosure is located at the rear of the subject building, the proposal has the capacity to set a further undesirable precedent for future balcony enclosures within the building, thus cumulatively increasing the overall bulk and floor space of the existing residential flat development.

 

4.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

The applicant has provided the following reasons why compliance with the standards is unreasonable and unnecessary:

 

-     The proposed balcony enclosure is contained within the existing building envelope and will result in a minor increase in the approved floor area and the FSR of the building.

-     The proposed enclosure is not visible from any public areas and will not detract from the overall streetscape or the architectural integrity of the building.

-     The existing balcony is recessed into the façade of the building and the enclosure will not result in a major increase to the overall bulk of the dwelling.

-     The proposal is in a unique location at the rear of the site and directly above an existing enclosed balcony (unit 16 under DA/712/2005) and given the balcony directly above does not have a roof over it, this will unlikely be enclosed and thus create an undesirable precedent for future applications.

-     will provide real and measurable benefits for the occupants of the unit through the minimisation of noise impacts from the nearby booster pump plant.

-     The scale and nature of the non-compliance does not give rise to matters of state or regional significance, nor does the non-compliance adversely affect the public interest.

-     The extent of balcony enclosures will be limited to this balcony as it is directly above an existing enclosed balcony to unit 16 and the balcony above the subject balcony  that it is the only one adjacent to the

 

Whilst there are no adverse environmental impacts on adjoining properties arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts, the proposal will set an unsatisfactory precedent further leading to other enclosures within the building, to the detriment of its aesthetic appearance.

 

The applicant has asserted that due to the “unique” location of the unit, and that the upper level balcony not being conducive to an enclosure that this application essentially represents the last reasonable application for an enclosure. This argument cannot be sustained as there are a multitude of reasons why occupants would seek balcony enclosures on different parts of the building and the submission of further development applications for balcony enclosures cannot be precluded.  Further, there are numerous examples of balcony enclosures to uncovered upper level balconies of residential flat buildings in the City of Randwick.

 

It is considered that the above SEPP 1 objection is not adequately well founded and should not be supported.

 

8.1.2   Clause 46, Development in heritage conservation areas

 

Under Clause 46 of the LEP, Council must consider the likely effect of the proposal upon the significance of the heritage conservation area.  It is not considered that the proposed balcony enclosure will have any significant impact upon the character of the heritage conservation area.  It should be noted that no objections were raised by the heritage planner.

 

8.2    Development Control Plan – Randwick Junction

 

The relevant aims and objectives of the Randwick Junction DCP are to:

 

•   Encourage environmental and architectural design excellence and civic accountability;

•   Encourage the use of energy efficient design techniques;

•   Minimise the adverse impacts of development on the environment of Randwick Junction on resident and user amenity and the existing environment;

•   Encourage development which is compatible with the significant heritage character in Randwick Junction;

•   Promote development that enhances the existing urban character and provides linkages between past and future development, both in terms of scale and architectural expression;

 

The proposal to enclose the existing balcony does not demonstrate compliance with the objectives outlined above in that it does not promote development that enhances the existing urban character and architectural design excellence. The proposed balcony enclosure has the potential to maintain an undesirable precedent for future development which will detract from the appearance of the building. 

 

8.2      Residential Flat Design Code

 

With regards to Site Configuration and Open Space, the Residential Flat Design Code prescribes the provision of private open space for each apartment capable of enhancing residential amenity in the form of balconies, terraces, gardens, yards, and courtyards. In the case of the proposal, the balcony is the subject dwelling’s primary balcony/ private open space.

 

The objectives of the Residential Flat Design Code aim to: -

 

•   Provide all apartments with private open space.

•   To ensure that all balconies are functional and responsive to the environment thereby promoting the enjoyment of outdoor living for apartment residents.

•   To ensure that the balconies are integrated into the overall architectural form and detail of residential flat buildings.

•   To contribute to the safety and liveliness of the street by allowing for casual overlook and address.

 

The proposed enclosure of the balcony will not satisfy the relevant objectives of the Residential Flat Design Code and will not allow for a sufficiently large and well proportioned balcony capable of being used for promoting indoor/outdoor living. The proposal is therefore not supported given its non-compliance with the objectives of the Residential Flat Design Code.

 

9.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:         Excellence in urban design and development.

 

Direction:            Improved sustainability and design across all development.

 

10. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11. CONCLUSION

 

The proposal to enclose the existing balcony to the rear of the existing mixed use residential flat building does not demonstrate compliance with the relevant assessment criteria. The proposal fails to meet the numerical requirements of the relevant planning instruments in terms of FSR (State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards). Furthermore, the proposal has the potential to set a further poor precedent for future development and is therefore 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/840/2006 & PROP029325 to Enclose the balcony to unit 27 with glass panels at Unit 27/57-63 Belmore Road Randwick for the following reasons:-

 

1.     The proposed balcony enclosure will create an additional 13sqm of floor space, increasing the overall floor space ratio to 2.22:1, in breach of Clause 32 (3) of LEP 1998 which prescribes a maximum floor space ratio of 2:1. The SEPP 1 Objection regarding this non compliance with the standard is not well founded as the proposal results in additional visual bulk to the existing building.  

 

2.     The proposed balcony enclosure does not demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the Residential Flat Design Code in that it does not provide the subject dwelling with sufficient private open space to allow and promote indoor/outdoor living.  

 

3.     The proposal represents a cumulative piecemeal enclosure of a balcony on the existing building. The proposal will create a further undesirable precedent leading to further enclosures, cumulatively impacting on the visual bulk of the building.

 

4.     The proposal does not comply with the relevant objectives of the DCP for Randwick Junction and will detract from the appearance and architectural integrity of the existing building.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ELIAS COOREY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 111/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

46 - 50 PEROUSE ROAD, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

28 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/881/2006 & PROP035242

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. DA/881/2006 for change of use to an ice-cream shop including changes to the façade, fit out, signage and outdoor seating.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 27 November 2006.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SACHA KALESS

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

STUDENT TOWN PLANNER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

27 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/881/2006 & PROP035242

 

PROPOSAL:

 Change of use to an ice-cream shop including changes to the facade, fit-out, signage and outdoor seating.

PROPERTY:

 46-50 Perouse Road, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 ARC8 Projects

OWNER:

Joe Hassarati & Co Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 


1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

This application proposes the change of use of the post office to an ice-cream shop including changes to the façade, fit-out, signage and outdoor seating for 6 chairs and 3 tables. The proposed hours of operation are 8am to 12pm Monday to Sunday.

 

A number of submissions have been made, some regarding the proposal and others regarding the relocation of the post office. These submissions state that the proposal is not in the public interest as it will be removing an essential community service from the area, result in mono-culture of cafés and restaurants and that no suitable alternative has been provided. The broad economic and social aspects of the development, such as whether or not the community as a whole “needs” the product offered by the applicant is not a relevant planning matter under S79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.  The L2and and Environment Court has made it clear on a number of occasions that market forces and fair trading legislation are the appropriate vehicles for regulating economic competition.  Notwithstanding the above, a development application has been lodged with Council to relocate the post office to No. 70 Perouse Road.

 

Objections relevant to the assessment of the application include concerns regarding increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic and parking impacts, noise and waste due to extended hours of operation.

 

The proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

This application proposes the change of use of the post office to an ice-cream shop including changes to the façade, fit-out, signage and outdoor seating for 6 chairs and 3 tables. The proposed hours of operation are 8am to 12pm Monday to Sunday.

 

The subject site is located within a heritage conservation area. The shop façade currently has a number of PO Boxes and a roller shutter which will be removed and replaced with glass. The new exterior will be white in colour consistent with the franchise colours including white exterior walls and tiles. The interior of the shop will include both structural and non-structural alterations to increase the front service area of the shop and reduce the “back of house” area. Security grilles will also be placed inside the shopfront. Disabled access is provided via the front entry to the shop. Proposed signage includes new under awning signage and two external signs. Signage will be internally illuminated.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located at No. 50 Perouse Road on the western side of Perouse Road between St. Pauls Road and Barker Street in Randwick and is presently

occupied by an existing two storey building with a shopfront on the ground floor and a residence above. The shopfront has a frontage width of 5.5m, a side boundary depth of 12m to 12.8m and an overall shop area of approx. 65m².  To the rear of the shop is a rear access lane, loading dock and staff toilet block. Neighbouring the property to the north is a two storey building with a shop on ground floor and a residence above, and to the south is a two storey boarding house. The surrounding use and character along Perouse Road is commercial in character however there is also residential uses with single and two storey dwellings and residential flat buildings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A number of applications for the subject site are present on Council’s records:

 

LA/9/1993

From fruit shop to post office

Approved 20th September 1993

 

BA/984/1993

Alterations and change of use to a post office

Approved 26th October 1993

 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.

The following submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

 

The owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  As a result of this notification, one submission was received:

 

Alison Hahn, 2/65 St. Pauls Street, RANDWICK NSW 2031

A/Prof Carolyn Quadrio, 1a Stewart Street, RANDWICK NSW 2031

Catherine O’Brien, PO Box 28 St. Pauls 2031

Christine Gearie, 21/255 Avoca Street, RANDWICK NSW 2031Eleanor Scott

Denise Kallas, 4 Soudan Street, RANDWICK NSW 2031

Denise Soo, 15 Perouse Road, RANDWICK NSW 2031

Dr. Emok Tork

Helena Lilywhite

Judy Bottom and numerous petition signatories, Prince of Wales Hospital complex

Julie and Gary Hahn

Professor Roberto Gonzalez, PO Box 99, St. Pauls Street RANDWICK NSW 2031

Scott Frazer

William Robers, 7 Soudan Street, RANDWICK NSW 2031

 

Issue

Comment

The use of the post office by patrons and loss of what is considered to be an essential community service.

Noted. A Development Application for a new post office has been submitted to Council for 70 Perouse Road Randwick.

Existing ice-cream shop and places to buy ice-creams already in the area

Noted.

 

Paul Chilcott, Chair, The Spot Precinct PO Box 231, St Pauls NSW 2031

Issue

Comment

Please determine in conjunction with the land owner and proposed lessee if adequate time can be given to the existing post office to relocate to a new premises within “The Spot” commercial area

This is not a planning consideration. An extra week for public notification was also granted to the development proposal. This public notification period as well as the assessment period is considered to be adequate time.

If a new post office is secured, please expatiate any application required to allow them to operate on a temporary basis

An application for a post office is required to follow the usual assessment procedures.

The sales process will be lengthy and therefore outdoor tables should not be approved until pedestrian traffic impact is better known. The site is also adjacent to a busy intersection and pedestrian crossing

It is considered that there will be no adverse impacts on pedestrian traffic. A post office would be expected to have greater impacts especially since the ice-cream shop is proposing to increase the front of house section of the shop and include indoor seating, as well as outdoor seating.

Recessed shopfront should be flush with the existing building alignment of neighbouring properties as a better reflection of DCP 22 – Heritage Conservation Area

Aligning the shopfront with neighbouring building alignments is not considered to be a necessity especially as it will be making structural changes to an existing shopfront in a heritage conservation area.

Maintaining community services on a  sustainable basis (within walking distance  to the local community) should be part of the assessment process

It would be difficult to provide community services in walking distance for every member of the community; in any case, this is not a matter of consideration for Council.

 

Cindy Tse, St. Pauls LPO

Issue

Comment

Public has expressed there concern by voluntarily signing the petition

Noted.

Been a long-term tenant but lease has expired and can’t afford the new rent

Not a planning consideration.

Can’t relocated in 30 days because of bank-like service with complex electronic technology and 250 PO Boxes

Not a planning consideration.

Not asking to refuse the current application but allow time for relocation

Not a planning consideration.

As it is close to Christmas long queues will be experienced and this is not in the public’s best interest

Not a planning consideration.

Detrimental effect on local residents and other businesses within The Spot

Not a planning consideration.

 


Gordon Rowell and Amanda Hickie, 111 Perouse Road, RANDWICK NSW 2031

Issue

Comment

Assessment should be deferred until a suitable alternative can be found or application refused

Not a planning consideration.

Hours of operation are inappropriate as the site is close to residential properties and inconsistent with other businesses

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has commented that the hours of operation are excessive and will be restricted.

Loss of services and lack of mix of businesses and increased competition

Not a planning consideration.

 

Dr. Karen Duggan, 3 Soudan Street, RANDWICK NSW 2031

Issue

Comment

Loss of amenity

The proposal is not considered to have a significant impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Further strain on inadequate parking

A post office is considered to generate a higher demand for parking than an ice cream shop, and therefore the proposal is considered to be appropriate.

Posting and retrieving mail will become more difficult

Not a planning consideration.

Waste disposal into neighbouring streets

Details on the disposal of waste have been provided by the applicant, and the proposal is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Gavin Rubinstein and Kevin Birger, Sugarplum café and ice-cream bar, Shop 1 25   Perouse Road, RANDWICK NSW 2031 and 122 petition signatories

Issue

Comment

The current post office supplies vital goods and services to residents and businesses and the loss of the post office will be inconvenient

Not a planning consideration.

Closure of the post office erodes the diversity of The Spot

Not a planning consideration.

An international company moving into a market place where there are Australian owned companies offering the same or similar products is questionable and un-Australian

Not a planning consideration.

There are numerous businesses in the area which supply ice-creams

Not a planning consideration.

Sugarplum café and ice-cream bar is an Australian owned and operated company manufacturing all products in Australia

Not a planning consideration.

 


David Clarence, 106 Oberon Street, RANDWICK NSW 2031

R T Furse, 1st floor 18 Perouse Road, RANDWICK, PO Box 251 St. Pauls 2031

Patrick Longfield

Issue

Comment

Concern about time-frame given to the current tenants of the post office to relocate

Not a planning consideration.

 

Leslie Young

 

Issue

Comment

Request for extension as Development Proposal notice not present on site

An extension to the period of notification of one week was granted.

 

5.2 Support

 

One letter in support of the application has been received:

 

Richard W. Hall, acting on behalf of David and Beth Dale

Issue

Comment

Clients have acted in good faith and in accordance with Council’s requirements

Noted.

Clients made to feel guilty with petition etc when both were educated at local schools

Noted.

Client has acted within the lease of the owner/occupier and would merely like to take possession of the site

Noted.

Been trying to assist the relocation of the post office

Noted.

Does not want to inconvenience the public

Noted.

Would like to have the matter dealt with as quite as possible to ensure that CC Approval and fit-out is finalised before Christmas

Noted.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1 Heritage Referral

 

This application has been referred to the Heritage Planner for comment, conditions have been included for provision with any consent granted. The following conditions have been provided:-

 

The subject site is within The Spot Conservation Area and is occupied by a two storey mixed commercial/residential building which extends around the south western corner of Perouse Road and St Pauls Street.  The building is a largely intact example of the International style dating from the 1930s or 1940s.  The upper level facade in face brickwork with timber windows is little altered, and the ground level façade retains the majority of its original shopfronts which feature large plate glass windows in chrome frames with back tiled surrounds. 

 

The application proposes a change of use for the southern-most shop in the building from provision of post office boxes to a retail ice cream outlet.  The proposal will involve provision of a new shopfront including new glazing, tiled surround and new signage including illuminated under awning signage, illuminated wall signage and shopfront spandrel signage.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which also addresses heritage impact.  The SEE considers that the proposed replacement of post office boxes and roller shutter with a glazed shopfront will improve the streetscape contribution of the building. 

 

A pre-lodgement application was recently submitted for alterations and additions to no.46-50 Perouse Road, including infill of the existing open rear courtyard and conversion of the existing residential units to commercial use.  This proposal was accompanied by a submission from Robert Staas of Noel Bell Ridley Smith and Partners P/L addressing the heritage impact of the proposal.  The submission listed aspects of the existing building which contribute to the conservation area, and those which are of lesser significance.  Identified contributing elements include the main street façade materials and detailing of the upper level facades, the cantilevered awning and remnant ground level shopfronts. 

 

The Urban Design Study of Randwick and The Spot shopping centres prepared by Knox Tanner in February 1994 notes the building is of high architectural quality and is a critically important streetscape element.

 

Development Control Plan No.22 for The Spot and Surrounds, identifies the group comprising no.46-50 Perouse Road as a contributing façade. These building contribute to the identity of the conservation area. In relation to contributing facades, the DCP requires that any application considers the significance of the item as a component of the environmental heritage of The Spot and the extent to which the proposal affects the significance of the item and the streetscape. 

 

Of the ground floor shops in the building, most retain their original plate glass windows in chrome frames with black tiled surrounds below and to the sides.  The subject shopfront retains the black tiles to its right hand side edge (between no.50 and no.48), with a large are of missing tiles to its left hand side edge and none below the sill.  There is a discrepancy between the shopfront design shown in the perspective and in the front elevation.  The elevation however indicates retention of existing tiling to no.48 and a white rendered and painted finish to the left hand side edge and the area below the sill.  It is noted that the proposed shopfront is to be set back from and angled away from the property boundary, creating a panel of wall on which the new illuminated wall signage is to be mounted.  The line of the proposed shopfront will not relate to the other shopfronts in the building.  The proposed white finish will contrast markedly with the other shopfronts and require the removal of the some of the original black tiles.  It is considered that the proposed white tiled/rendered and painted surround, will detract from the continuity of remnant ground level shopfronts, which have been identified as contributing elements in relation to the heritage significance of the building.  The shopfront design is to be amended to require the retention of the existing black tiles to the right and left hand sides of the shopfront and the replacement of missing tiles to the left hand side of the shopfront, and a black finish between floor and footpath levels.  If the black finished surrounds are reinstated, the proposed angled shopfront and illuminated wall signage is considered acceptable.

 

6.2  Environmental Health Referral

 

This application has been referred to the Environmental Health Department for comment, conditions have been included for provision with any consent granted. The following conditions have been provided:-

 

Environmental Health comments

 

The proposal

The existing premises located at 50 Perouse Road ‘The Spot”, Randwick, be redesigned and reconstructed to accommodate a food premises, known as ‘Cold Rock’ Ice Creamery.

 

Key Issues

 

Food Safety Requirement

Food safety requirements in relation to Food Act 2003 and Food Safety Standards are addressed in the following standard conditions and are to be included in any consent given, to ensure compliance with food handling, storage and safety practices.

 

Hand Washbasin

The plans submitted into Council include the inclusion of two (2) hand washbasins; one is situated in the front counter area, with second located back of house.

 

Noise and Amenity

Noise emissions can arise from patrons using the footway dining area. Noise emissions from the proposed footway dining area have the potential to cause a noise nuisance in the nearby surrounding residential area.

 

The potential for noise has been considered. It is unlikely that the use of the proposed footway dining area will create a noise nuisance due to the area being small in nature and the limited  number of patrons who can utilize this small space at one time.

 

The application has stated that it proposed that the premises will operate during the following hours;

 

Monday to Sunday:                  11ammidnight.

 

The premises is situated in a Local Business Zone (3b). The proposed hours of operation are considered excessive. A similar proposal was approved in 2003, with a restriction on operating hours to protect the amenity of the surrounding environment. Therefore, in line with the 2003 approval, the hours of operation are restricted to the following:

 

Monday to Saturday:   11am – 11pm;

Sunday:                          11am – 10:30pm.

 

Noise emissions generated from plant and equipment have been considered. It is understood that due to the premises not operating mechanical exhaust ventilation, cool room motors and an air-conditioning unit, it is unlikely that a potential noise nuisance will be created. 

 

Footway Dining Area

The hours of operation on the footway dining area have been restricted to assist in minimizing the potential noise impacts on the surrounding environment.

 

Waste Storage Area

There is currently a waste problem associated with a number of food premises within the Randwick local government area, therefore adequate measures have been made in this report for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials.

 

6.3 Development Engineers

 

This application has been referred to the Development Engineers for comments, conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted. The following conditions have been provided:-

 

An application has been received for internal fit-out of an existing commercial premise as well as outdoor footpath seating and the installation of new signage at the above site.

 

The submitted plans show the 3 tables and 6 chairs proposed occupying a space of approximately 1.00 metres deep and 4.50 metres wide adjacent to the property alignment to provide 3 chairs and 6 tables. The distance from the property alignment to the face of kerb at this location is approximately 3.60 metres, thus the residual unimpeded footway width would be 2.60 metres if the footpath seating is installed.

 

Randwick City Council's Development Control Plan "Footpath Dining and Trading" specifies that footpath seating may only be installed if the unencumbered residual footpath width is at least 2.50 metres, given the busy location. The subject proposal does satisfy this requirement.

 

Council has the authority to approve the use of footways for restaurant purposes through Part 9, Division 1 – Footway restaurants of the new Roads Act 1993. The act provides for the following:

 

(1)       A Council may grant an approval that allows a person who conducts a restaurant adjacent of a public road (being a public road that is vested in fee simple in the Council) to use part of the footway for the purposes of the restaurant.

 

(2)       An approval may be granted on such conditions (including conditions as to payments in the nature of rent) as the Council determines.

 

(3)       An approval may not be granted in respect of a footway of a classified road except without the concurrence of the R.T.A.

 

(4)       The term of an approval is to be such period (not exceeding seven (7) years) as is specified in the approval.

 

(5)       An approval lapses at the end of its term or, if part of the footway the subject of the approval ceases to be used for the purposes of a restaurant, when that use ceases.

 

Perouse Road, the subject road of the proposal, is not a classified road and subsequently, R.T.A. concurrence is not required. 

 

Signage Comments

 

The applicant shall be advised that Council may be implementing a new policy (under Section 611 of the Local Government Act) wherein fees may apply for advertising in public airspace.

 

6.4 BCA Classification

 

Under the Building Code of Australia (BCA), the classification of the building is:-

Dwelling in a Class 6 Building – Class 4,

Sale of goods by retail – Class 6.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject site is less than 4000m² and therefore a master plan is not required.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-       Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended;

-       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998;

-       Building Code of Australia;

-       Development Control Plan – “The Spot” and Surrounds; Outdoor Advertising, Parking.

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Local Business 3B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following clause of the LEP 1998 applies to the proposal:-

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

 

The purpose of this clause is ‘to establish consent requirements for development involving a heritage item or land within a heritage conservation area. The subject building is located within a heritage conservation area. Also to establish criteria for the assessment and determination of development applications arising from these consent requirements’.

 

Council may grant consent to work where alterations to a building within a heritage conservation area proposes changes to non-structural elements such as details, fabric, finish or appearance of its exterior, except changes resulting from any maintenance necessary for its ongoing protective care which does not adversely affect its heritage significance.

 

The subject site is located in a cluster of shops within “The Spot” precinct. The proposal will make changes to the exterior of the shopfront however these changes are not considered to impact on the integrity of the building or setting. These changes will restore the appearance of the shopfront with the removal of the PO Boxes and roller shutters, which are considered to detract from the appearance of the shopfront, and replaced with glass. A security grille will be placed inside the shopfront to reduce any impacts. A condition has also been included which conserves and enhances the appearance of the shopfront with the protection of the black tiling to the left and right hand side of the shopfront, reinstatement of missing black tiling to the left hand side of the shopfront. A black finish between floor and footpath levels is also conditioned. The application is considered to be acceptable, subject to these conditions.

 

The proposed advertising is considered to be sympathetic and will not be visually obtrusive. While the number of advertising signs will increase the number and size of these new signs is not excessive. The inclusion of a black finish between floor and footpath levels will ensure that the shopfront relates to adjoining dwellings. Fit-out and structural and non-structural alterations will also be made to the interior of the shop that will not affect the heritage significance of the property. 

 

The proposal is not considered to have a negative impact on the heritage significance of the building or setting. The application recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

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.

 

(a) Development Control Plan – “The Spot” and Surrounds

The proposal complies with the objectives of the DCP – “The Spot” and Surrounds as the alterations to the existing shopfront are considered to be compatible and enhances the traditional historical streetscape. The subject property is located within the heritage conservation area and is listed as an item with a contributing façade. It is not listed as an item of environmental heritage.

Relevant objectives include:

·         To conserve and enhance the existing commercial streetscape, in particular above awning level. Any new development should respect the scale and complement the features of adjoining buildings;

 

·         To encourage reinstatement of original features such as awnings and windows and remove inappropriate alterations and additions;

 

·         To ensure painting/colour schemes of buildings are appropriate to the heritage streetscape;

 

·         To take into account the urban design planning for the area;

 

·         To minimise the potential of buildings within the commercial zone to adversely affect the amenity of adjoining residential land;

 

The proposal is also consistent with other objectives in the DCP as alterations will be made to restore the appearance of the shopfront. The PO Boxes and roller shutter door will be replaced with glass and a security grille placed inside the shop will be consistent with the appearance of the shopfront and reduce any impacts. Conditions have also been imposed to ensure that the shopfront relates to the adjoining properties and maintains the features of the contributing façade. The design of the façade, subject to conditions, will promote an attractive and harmonious streetscape that relates to the scale of pedestrians and outdoor seating will increase on-street activity. The retail floorspace along the length of the commercial street frontage will maintain and enhance retail quality, variety and continuity. The loading dock to the rear of the shop will also be utilised in order to prevent deliveries through the front entrance.

 

The proposal will enhance the traditional historical streetscape and the heritage significance of the building and setting.

 

(b) Development Control Plan – Footpath Dining and Trading

 

The main function of the DCP – Footpath Dining and Trading is “to maintain the primary function of footpaths as public pedestrian corridors and domains, while encouraging reasonable opportunities for outdoor dining and other footpath trading activities”. Another objective of the DCP is “to enhance the social and aesthetic aspects of the City’s streetscapes”.

 

The details provided in the Development Application are consistent with DCP requirements and leave an appropriate footpath clearance zone minimum width. The amount of tables and chairs is not considered to be excessive and will increase on-street activity.

 

(c) Development Control Plan – Outdoor Advertising

 

The objectives of the DCP include to:-

 

·         Ensure that outdoor advertising is in keeping with the scale and character of the building to which it is attached and does not detract from the architectural style or features of the building;

·         Recognise that outdoor advertising can help to express the character of a commercial district or business centre;

·         Ensure opportunity exists on a  fair and equitable basis to occupy limited advertising space;

·         Ensure that the placement and amount of advertising does not crowd advertiser’s messages;

·         Reduce the visual complexity of streetscapes by providing fewer, more effective signs.

 

The proposed changes to the signage will replace the existing under awning sign of the post office and include two new fluorescent backlit external signs on the shopfront elevation of the ground floor façade of the building. This is consistent with the relevant objectives for local business zones and does not detract from the integrity of the overall existing streetscape subject to conditions relating to enhancing contributing façade features such as the black tiling. The sizes of the signs are compatible with the bulk and scale of the buildings in the street and are not considered to be visually dominating or inconsistent with the relevant assessment criteria.

 

(d) Development Control Plan - Parking

 

As there is no proposed increase in the floor area, additional car parking is not required. The proposed ice-cream shop is not considered to result in a significant increase in parking pressures.

 


7.4  Site Suitability

The proposed changes, subject to conditions, will restore and enhance the appearance of the shopfront and be consistent with the environmental heritage of the area. These changes, subject to conditions, are considered to be appropriate and will not result in any adverse impacts to surrounding properties as the use will not result in noise or odour. The proposal will also increase on-street activity that is considered to have a beneficial effect on the locality. 

The hours of operation have been modified to be consistent with the hours of operation of surrounding businesses and ensure no adverse impacts on neighbouring residential properties. 

 

10. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:                  A strong local economy.

Direction 9a and associated action: Vibrant town centres that adequately serve the community and support local business.

 

11. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12. CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible with consent in the Local Business 3B zone and complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the DCP for ‘The Spot’ and surrounds, Outdoor Advertising and Parking and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA/881/2006 for the change of use to an ice-cream shop including changes to the façade, fit-out, signage and outdoor seating at 46-50 Perouse Road, RANDWICK subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered “B 03, B 04, B 05, B 06, B 07, B 13, B 14, B 17, B 20, B 21, B 30, B 40” dated September 2006 and “A 28, B 16” dated March 2006 and received by Council on the 12th October 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:

 

The following conditions are applied to conserve the heritage significance of “The Spot” precinct and the contributing façade of the subject building:

 

2.       The existing original black tiles to the right and left hand sides of the shopfront must be retained and repaired.  Missing tiles to the left hand side of the shopfront must be replaced with new tiles, matching the existing tiles as closely as possible.  A black rendered and painted finish is to be provided between floor and footpath levels.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

3.       An architect or tradesperson suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation shall be engaged to oversee the carrying out of repairs.

 

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:

 

4.       Minimum 2.50 metre wide section of footpath is to remain unimpeded for pedestrian use.

 

5.       Prior to operation of the proposed footpath restaurant the applicant/proposed Licensee shall enter into a formal license agreement with Council covering the terms and conditions of the footpath restaurant. The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Property Compliance Officer, (9399-0936), regarding Council’s requirements for the formal license agreement.

 

6.       The Licensee must keep in full force and effect for the term of the license agreement established, a policy of public risk insurance with respect to the licensed area and the business undertaken by the Licensee therein. The limit of public risk shall be not less than $10,000,000 or such other sum as the Council may reasonably nominate in writing from time to time as the amount which may be paid arising out of any one single accident or event.

 

NOTES:

a.  The policy shall extend to cover death or injury to any person and damage to property of any person sustained when such person is using or entering the licensed area;

b.  The policy must name the Council as the owner and the Licensee as the insured and must contain a clause that the insurer will not cancel or change the insurance without first given the Council ten (10) days prior written notice;

c.  The insurance must be with an insurer approved by the Council and a copy of the policy or a certificate of insurance shall be delivered by the Licensee to the Council.

 

7.       The Licensee shall indemnify Council for the full duration of the license agreement from and against all claims, demands, writs, etc. as set out in the formal license agreement.

 

8.       The style and colour of the furniture to be used in the footpath restaurant area shall be in accordance with the Development Control Plan “Footpath Dining & Trading”. No advertising or other structures shall be installed without the prior written consent of the Director of City Planning. Design details of the proposed furniture shall be submitted to Council for approval, and approved, prior to the execution of a formal license agreement between Council and the applicant.

 

         Note:  All street furniture is to be removed from the Licensed area outside approved trading hours.

 

9.       The applicant shall meet all other requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan “Footpath Dining & Trading”.

 

10.     The applicant shall ensure that the footpath restaurant area is maintained in a clean and tidy condition at all times. It is noted that this includes high pressure water blasting to clean the footpath restaurant area at least once every 6 months or as directed by Council’s officers.

 

11.     The footpath restaurant area Licensee shall ensure that the pavement of the footpath restaurant area is maintained free of grease and other foodstuffs at all times.

 

12.     The footpath restaurant area Licensee shall, during the term of the agreement with Council, abide with any current or future Council Policy, Resolution or directive relative to the consumption of alcohol in public spaces.

 

13.     The Licensee shall abide with any directive given by any utility authority in relation to access requirement to any utility within the proposed licensed area.

 

14.     The development consent is valid for a maximum period of seven (7) years from the date of determination. A new development application is to be lodged prior to the expiration of the development consent should the Licensee/owner wish to continue using Council’s footpath for outdoor dining.

 

15.     The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath in Perouse Road to the underside of the proposed under-awning advertising sign, (i.e. the sign to be installed above the footpath in Perouse Road), shall be 2.60 metres.

 

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:

 

16.     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).

 

17.     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.

 

18.    The hours of the operation of the business are restricted to:

 

Monday to Saturday:          11am – 11pm;

Sunday:                           11am – 10:30pm.

 

19.     The hours of operation of the footway dining area are restricted to:-

 

Monday to Saturday:          11am – 10:30pm;

Sunday:                           11am – 10:30pm.     

 

All food services to customers shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the area and all outdoor furniture is to be removed within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

20.     Amplified music, entertainment, or any other ancillary activity is not permitted within the footway dining area, except with prior development consent.

 

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:

21.     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.

22.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health nuisance to the adjoining/nearby premises or environment.

 

23.     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.

 

24.     Preparation, display and/or storage of food is not permitted within the footway dining area.

 

25.     The footway dining area is to be limited to six (6) persons.

 

26.     The footway dining area is to be limited to three (3) tables and six (6) chairs.

 

27.     The footpath within and adjacent to the outdoor seating area must be maintained in a clean condition, free from litter, foodstuffs and waste materials at all times.

 

The footpath must be cleaned thoroughly on a regular basis, in a manner that is environmentally satisfactory and waste receptacles must be provided within the area for customers.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003 and to ensure public health and safety:

 

28.     The premises is to be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Australia & New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004, Design, construction and fit-out of food premises and details of compliance are to be included in the documentation for the construction certificate to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

29.     Food safety practices and operation of the food premises must be in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Food Standards Code and Food Safety Standards at all times, including the requirements and provisions relating to:

·        Food handling – skills, knowledge and controls;

·       Health and hygiene requirements;

·       Requirements for food handlers and businesses;

·       Cleaning, sanitising and maintenance;

·       Design and construction of food premises, fixtures, fitting and equipment.

 

A failure to comply with the relevant food safety requirements is an offence and may result in legal proceedings, service of notices and/or the issuing of on-the-spot penalty infringement notices.

 

30.     The food premises must be registered with Council's Environmental Health section and the NSW Food Authority must also be notified of the food business in accordance with the Food Safety Standards, prior to commencement of food business operations.

 

31.     Upon completion of the work and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the premises must be inspected by Council’s Environmental Health Officer to ascertain compliance with relevant Food Safety Standards and the written approval of Council (being the relevant Food Authority for this food business) must be obtained prior to the operation of the food business.

 

32.     The Proprietor of the food business and all staff carrying out food handling and food storage activities must have appropriate skills and knowledge in food safety and food hygiene matters, as required by the Food Safety Standards.

 

33.     The design and construction of food premises must comply with the following requirements, as applicable:-

 

·       The floors of kitchens, food preparation areas and the like are to be constructed of materials which are impervious, non slip and non abrasive.  The floor is to be finished to a smooth even surface, graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer.

 

·       The intersection of walls with floor and plinths is to be coved, to facilitate cleaning.

 

·       Walls of the kitchen preparation areas and the like are to be of suitable construction finished in a light colour with glazed tiles, stainless steel, laminated plastics or similar approved material adhered directly to the wall adjacent to cooking and food preparation facilities or areas, to provide a smooth even surface.

 

The glazed tiling or other approved material is to extend up to a minimum of 450mm above bench tops or other facilities and equipment.

 

·       Walls where not tiled are to be cement rendered or be of rigid smooth faced non-absorbent material (i.e. fibrous cement sheeting, plasterboard or other approved material) and finished to a smooth even surface, painted with a washable paint of a light colour or sealed with other approved materials.

 

·       The ceilings of kitchens, food preparation areas, storerooms and the like are to be of rigid smooth-faced, non absorbent material i.e., fibrous plaster, plasterboard, fibre cement sheet, cement render or other approved material.

 

·       All refrigerators, ice cream displays, hot water heaters, cupboards, shelving, counters and bars to be supported on wheels, concrete plinths a minimum 75mm in height, metal legs minimum 150mm in height, brackets or approved metal framework of the like.

 

·       Cupboards, cabinets, benches and shelving may be glass, metal, plastic, timber sheeting or other approved material.  The use of particleboard or similar material is not permitted unless laminated on all surfaces.

 

·       Adequate fly screens and doors with self-closing devices, (where applicable), are to be provided to all external door and window openings. 

 

·       Garbage storage enclosures are to be fitted with a hose cock and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste connected to the sewer.

 

·       Wash hand basins must be provided in convenient positions, with hot and cold water, together with a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels.  Such hot and cold water shall be supplied to the wash hand basins through an approved mixing device.

 

·       Ceramic tiles being provided to a height of 450mm above bench tops, wash hand basins and similar fittings.

 

·       A numerically scaled indicating thermometer or recording thermometer, accurate to the nearest degree Celsius being provided to refrigerators, ice cream displays, cool rooms and other cooling appliances.  The thermometer is to be located so as to be read easily from the outside of the appliance.

 

·       Food that is to be kept cold should be cooled, within four (4) hours from the time when it was prepared or was last kept hot, to a temperature of not more that 5°C and keep this food cold at or below that temperature.

 

34.     Liquid trade waste materials are to be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water, Trade Waste Department and details of compliance are to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of works.

 

35.     Trade/commercial waste materials must not be disposed via council’s domestic garbage service.  All trade/commercial waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales and details of the proposed waste collection and disposal service are to be submitted to Council prior to occupation of the building.

 

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

 

36.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of commercial waste and recyclable material, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

37.     A waste storage facility within the premises is to be designated for the storage of garbage and recycling bins. Once waste and recycling materials have been collected, bins must be returned to the designated waste storage facility.

 

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

 

38.     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.

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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.

 

41.     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.

        

42.     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.

 

43.     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.

 

44.     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.

 

45.     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.

 

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:

 

46.     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.

 

47.     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.

 

48.     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.

 

49.     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.

         

50.     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.

 

51.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A3        The applicant shall be advised that Council may, in the future, be implementing a new policy (under Section 611 of the Local Government Act) wherein fees may apply for advertising in public airspace.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SACHA KALESS

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

STUDENT TOWN PLANNER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 112/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

112 - 124 ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

28 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/788/05 & PROP019074

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. DA/788/2005 & PROP019074 to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect a 6 storey mixed retail and residential development comprising 40 dwellings with 2 levels of basement carparking for a total of 68 vehicles.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 28 November 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

28 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/788/2005 & PROP019074

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect a 6 storey mixed retail and residential development comprising 40 dwellings with 2 levels of basement carparking for a total of 68 vehicles.

PROPERTY:

 112-124 Anzac Parade, Kensington

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Caldis Cook Group

OWNER:

 Kenthill Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 


1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $8.5 million.

 

The original application that was lodged on 29 September 2005 proposed the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of a 7 storey mixed retail/commercial and residential development comprising 2 retail/commercial tenancies, 50 residential dwellings and two levels of basement carparking for a total of 74 vehicles.

 

The application has been reviewed by the Urban Design Review Panel on three (3) occasions. Council officers have also undertaken various assessments of the proposal. As a result, the proposal has been the subject of significant amendments. The amended proposal was lodged on 14 November 2006 and the details are as follows:

 

 

Original

Amended

No. of storeys

7

6

No. of retail tenancies

2

2

No. of residential dwelling

50

40

No. of basement levels

2

2

No. of parking spaces

74

68

Strata subdivision

Yes

Yes

 

The proposal constitutes ‘Integrated Development’ due to the basement carparking which may require removal of groundwater. Referral to the Department of Natural Resources has occurred in accordance with the requirements for Integrated Development. The proposal also requires referral to Sydney Airports Corporation, NSW Police, the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Design Review Panel.

 

The site is located within the Kensington Town Centre, which is subject to a Development Control Plan prepared in 2002 that makes specific controls for each block within the town centre. The DCP was subject to a lengthy process of community consultation and public comment prior to its adoption. Several buildings in the southern half of the town centre are currently under construction or have recently been completed in general accordance with the site specific requirements of the DCP.

 

The application was notified and advertised for 30 days in accordance with Integrated Development provisions. In response, a single submission was received which raised non-compliance with the Kensington Town Centre DCP and aesthetic concerns regarding the design of the development among other issues.

 

The recommendation is for refusal due to deficiencies with regard to the Design Quality Principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65, and has significant non-compliances with the Kensington Town Centre DCP controls.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The original proposal sought consent for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and construction of a 7 storey mixed retail and residential building comprising two retail tenancies at ground level, 50 residential dwellings (i.e. 9 x studio, 13 x 1 bed, 26 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) and two levels of basement carparking for a total of 74 vehicles.

The proposed amended development involves the following:

 

·         demolition of all improvements on the site;

 

·         construction of a six storey mixed retail/residential building containing the following:

 

·         car parking for sixty-eight (68) vehicles over two (2) basement levels as well as a loading bay and a bicycle parking area at ground floor level. Vehicular access to and from the site is proposed from Ascot Street. Utility and garbage rooms are also proposed to the rear of the commercial tenancies at ground level;

 

·         two (2) ground floor retail tenancies with frontage to Anzac Parade and Ascot Street;

 

·         forty (40) residential dwellings (i.e. 1 x studio, 12 x 1 bed, 24 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed); and

 

·         strata subdivision of the proposed development into two (2) commercial and forty (40) residential allotments.

 

Deep soil zones are proposed to the eastern and a section of northern side boundaries and a communal open space over podium is also proposed at the rear of the first floor level providing 205m2 of roof top area with barbeque facilities and perimeter planter boxes.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is an irregular shaped, corner allotment that is bounded by Anzac Parade to the west and Ascot Street to the south. The eastern (rear) boundary of the site adjoins 5-7 Ascot Street which is occupied by 4 storey brick flats. The northern (side) boundary of the site adjoins 110 Anzac Parade and 8 Goodwood Street, occupied by a Service Station and 4 storey residential flat building, respectively.

 

The subject site is comprised of two parcels, being Lots 106 and 107 in DP 2822. These lots include addresses 112-124 Anzac Parade. The subject site has an area of 1,655.58m² and slopes northeast to southwest resulting in a change in level of approximately 600mm between the north-eastern and south-western corners of the site, representing a slight gradient across the site. The site has a frontage to Anzac Parade of 40.335 metres and a frontage to Ascot Street of 38.965 metres.

 

The site is currently occupied by a two storey retail and residential building and a free standing two storey brick warehouse occupied by a car repair business addresses Ascot Street to the rear of the Anzac Parade building. A hardstand parking area providing parking for approximately 12 vehicles accessed from Ascot Street is provided in the northeast (rear) corner of the site. The site is zoned Local Business 3(B). There are no heritage items or conservation areas in the vicinity of the site.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by a mix of uses. To the south of the site are 2 storey commercial buildings to Anzac Parade, including buildings indicated as ‘contributory’ in the Kensington Town Centre DCP. To the north, the Kensington Town Centre extends for a block and is comprised of a mix of retail, commercial and residential buildings which display a variety of built forms. Across Anzac Parade to the west are 2-3 storey commercial and mixed commercial residential uses with small to medium scale residential uses behind. Small to medium scale residential, recreation and open space uses comprise the area to the east of the site towards Doncaster Avenue and the Racecourse. The site is in close proximity to recreation and education uses at Randwick Racecourse and the University of NSW.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

4.1      APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged on 29 September 2005. No formal prelodgement discussions have taken place.  The development was referred to the Design Review Panel for consideration at its November 2005 meeting. On 14 November 2005, the applicant was advised of substantial issues and outstanding information with regard to flooding, traffic and waste management. The applicant was also advised that the advice of the Design Review Panel and Council’s planning officer may result in further amendments to the scheme and that amendments should be consolidated to minimise fees and save time in the assessment of the application.

 

The Design Review Panel recommendations were received in early December and forwarded to the applicant. The applicant was requested to attend a meeting with planning staff to discuss the application and required amendments. The applicant indicated a preference to prepare sketch plans and then attend a meeting. As the issues raised by preliminary assessment were considered significant, Council’s planning staff forwarded a detailed letter of issues to the applicant on 20 December 2005.

 

The applicant lodged the amended proposal on 24 March 2006 and the proposal was referred to the Design Review Panel for consideration at its April 2006 meeting. The Panel remains unconvinced about many aspects of the amended proposal, and suggested that urban designer’s input should be sought to improve the proposal’s character.

 

The applicant was advised to address the issues raised by the Design Review Panel. Further amendments were presented to Council at a meeting held on 7 June 2006 with Council’s planning staff. As the issues raised by the Panel have not been adequately addressed by the amended plans, Council’s planning officer forwarded a detailed letter of issues to the applicant on 28 June 2006.

 

Further amendments were submitted to the Design Review Panel for consideration at its meeting in October 2006 and the final amended plans were submitted on 14 November 2006.

 

4.2      HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

The site has is currently used as a car workshop and repair area and adjoining sites are used for a service station. These uses have been considered in Council’s assessment of the suitability of the site and appropriate conditions recommended for inclusion on any approval where necessary.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original proposal (excluding all the amendments) has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submission was received:

 


5.1 Objections

 

1.   R.Cresdee, 65 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

·        Building is 7 storey with roof terrace and plant rooms (effectively 8 storeys). Less than 70% will achieve desired cross flow ventilation, unit mix does not meet the DCP requirements and minimum areas have not been provided.

 

·         Comment: The proposal has been reduced in height by one storey so that it is now a maximum of six storeys high. The non-compliances raised above have been resolved by the amended proposal.

 

·        Cylindrical corner element is out of context with traditional straight lines of heritage shopfronts

 

·         Comment: The cylindrical corner element has been deleted.

 

·        Active street frontage will not be achieved by the colonnade above street level in this proposal.

 

Comment: The elevated colonnade is a preliminary response to address the potential for flooding of the site. This issue has been addressed in a number of ways by other developments in the Town Centre. As further details regarding flood levels have been requested and these may affect the design of the podium to Anzac Parade, a detailed assessment of this element has not been undertaken in this report. The provision of commercial uses to the street will provide some activity to the street.

 

·        Colorbond cladding to top storeys is out of character with predominantly masonry character of town centre

 

·         Comment: Colorbond cladding to top storeys has been deleted.

 

·        Laminated glazing in accordance with the recommendations of the External Noise Assessment should be required via condition

 

·         Comment: Appropriate acoustic conditions have been suggested by Council’s Manager, Environmental Health and Building.

 

·        Design of proposal will set a poor precedent for future development in the town centre.

 

Comment: Due to the significant non-compliance with the DCP for Kensington Town Centre which is a relatively new document, the proposal is considered to set a poor precedent for future development and erode the overall vision for the Town Centre as set by the DCP.

 

2.   Paul W Jenkin, owner of 61 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

·         Pedestrian access into the proposed new shopfronts and building lobby for people with disability from Anzac Parade.

 

Comment: A disabled access ramp is provided on Ascot Street boundary. 

 


6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

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

 

Building Comments:

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing buildings located upon the sites and construction of a new 7 storey mixed residential and commercial development with 2 levels of basement parking and 50 residential apartments and strata subdivision.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class    -        6        (Retail/Shops)

Class    -        2        (Residential units)

Class    -        7a      (Carpark)

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a post war brick dwelling bounded by buildings of a similar nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

 

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

 

The proposal appears to demonstrate compliance with the BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the basement car park and the ground floor shops and, sanitary facilities for people with a disability are also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of the BCA.

 


Conclusion:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

Environmental Health Comments:

 

The proposal

 

The proposed development involves the following:

 

·     Demolition of all existing improvements;

·     Construction of a seven (7) storey mixed use development, providing two (2) retail tenancies at ground floor and fifty (50) residential apartments over six (6) levels;

·     Construction of a two (2) level basement carpark;

·     Strata subdivision of the development into fifty – two (52) allotments.

 

Key Issues

 

Land Contamination

 

Environmental Investigation Services (EIS) undertook an environmental site assessment to assess the likelihood of contamination of the subsurface soils and groundwater of the proposed premises. Subsequently, an environmental site screening report dated June 2004 was submitted with the application.

 

In section 9, ‘Comments and Recommendations’ of the report it states the following:

 

‘Historical information and an inspection of the site and surrounding areas did not indicate any obvious on-site or nearby off-site activity that could be expected to generate significant soil or groundwater contamination apart from the building at the south-west section of the site used as a car workshop and repair area and the service station to the north of the site. Access was not obtained within the existing buildings on site at the time of assessment and additional boreholes will be required to assess these areas of the site when they become accessible’.

 

Furthermore, in summary, the report states that:

 

·         Additional TCLP analyses should be undertaken as part of the additional assessment to determine clarification of fill soils;

·         A slightly elevated level of zinc was encountered in the groundwater samples when compared to the ANZECC 2000 – Freshwater Guidelines;

·         While major contamination of the site is not apparent, problems may be encountered with smaller scale features between boreholes; and

·         The site is considered suitable for the proposed development provided that the additional work as outlined in the report is undertaken.

 

Due to the information provided to Council and the potential for soil contamination to exist under the building housing the car workshop and repair area, which may potentially alter conclusions made in relation to land contamination, it is considered that an additional detailed assessment of the site will be required to be undertaken upon demolishing the buildings located on the site. Such requirements are outlined in Council’s Contaminated Land Policy.

 

Therefore, conditions in relation further assessment and reports to be undertaken prior to a construction certificate being issued should be attached to the consent should the application be approved.

 

Acoustics

 

An acoustic report, prepared by ‘Acoustic Logic Consultancy Pty Ltd’ dated 9 September 2005 was submitted with the application.

 

In summary, the report states that the noise levels will comply with the noise criteria listed in Council’s Kensington Town Centre DCP, provided the glazing construction requirements listed in section 7 of the report and other recommendations are implemented.

 

It is therefore considered that standard noise conditions, including a condition requiring compliance with the recommendations of the submitted acoustic report be attached to the consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

As the recommendation is for refusal, conditions recommended by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building have not been included.

 

6.2  Development Engineer

 

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

 

An amended application has been received to demolish the existing structures and construct a new mixed use development comprising 40 dwellings and 2 retail tenancies, with 2 levels of basement carparking for 68 vehicles as well as strata subdivision into 42 allotments at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

·         Amended Statement of Environmental Effects by dated November 2006;

·         Amended Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates dated September 2006;

·         Geotechnical Report by Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd dated 9 June 2004;

·                   Site Flood Assessment by Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd dated 13 June 2004;

·                   Flood Impact Assessment - Additional Hydrologic Modelling by Patterson Britton & partners dated 17 February 2006;

·         Basement Level 2 Plan DA-05 by Caldis Cook Group Architects dated 6 November 2006;

·         Basement Level 1 Plan DA-02 by Caldis Cook Group Architects dated 10 November 2006; and

·         Ground Floor Plan DA-07 by Caldis Cook Group Architects dated 10 November 2006.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is no vegetation of any significance within the site or on adjoining properties which will be affected by the proposed works; however, the architectural plans show landscape treatment to a proposed deep soil zone in the northeast corner of the site at ground level, as well as along the eastern boundary, with podium planting/terraces on the first and fifth floors.

 

The landscape concept plan submitted contains an insufficient level of detail to allow a thorough and proper assessment of what is proposed, and therefore, a revised and amended plan will need to be submitted for Council’s consideration.

 

As this property falls within the Kensington Commercial Centre, Council requires that upgrading of the footpaths along the length of both frontages be undertaken in accordance with the Urban Design Guidelines which have been developed for this precinct.

 

While an in-house preliminary design has been prepared for the upgrading all footpath areas in the Kensington suburb, the applicant will still be required to develop a more site specific design to ensure that existing street furniture in the form of bins and bin enclosures, seats, planter boxes and the bus stop, as well as any other particulars such as doors/entranceways and awnings are incorporated into the overall, final design.

 

A joint site inspection with Council’s Landscape Architect revealed that although two street trees already exist along the Anzac Parade frontage, retaining them or providing additional or replacement trees is not deemed feasible primarily due to the presence of the bus stop and the need to provide an unimpeded line of sight for buses approaching from the north.

 

Also, the extent of the proposed awning combined with the relatively narrow width of the footpath is not conducive to the planting of Plane Trees, which are the desired species in this location, due to their large size at maturity, the restricted amount of space to accommodate their future development and the resulting need for heavy and ongoing pruning which would substantially alter their intended appearance, form and function.

 

Therefore, street trees are not deemed appropriate for either frontage in this particular instance, with removal costs not to be charged for the loss of the two existing street trees on the Anzac Parade frontage due to their small size, but the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for costs associated with originally planting them.

 

Traffic Comments

 

Parking provision – For a development of this size, a total of 64 car spaces shall be provided in accordance with Council’s DCP – Parking. It is noted that the submitted plans show the provision of 68 car spaces demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

 

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.

 

The driveway opening at the Ascot Street frontage must be 5.50 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

Civil Works – The submitted plans show the provision of a 7.5 metre laneway along the eastern boundary (incorporating a 2 metre wide landscaped strip) to provide both vehicular access to the subject site and allow for extension of the ‘laneway’ at some future time as per the Kensington Town Centre DCP (to provide a right of carriageway in conjunction with the future redevelopment of the adjacent site).

 

Council’s Coordinator Assets was contacted in regard to this matter and it was suggested that the laneway should be designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s standard specifications for road pavements; as the intended future use as a right of carriageway may lead to the Council taking on the laneway as a public road at some point in the future.

 

However, further investigation of the Kensington Town centre DCP has shown that the amalgamation of sites within the current development application has removed any ‘landlocked’ properties (two sites abut the northern property boundary and these both front Goodwood Street); as such, the future right of carriageway will not be required, and the ‘laneway’ will remain a private access driveway to this site only.

 

Accordingly, the Development Engineer considers that it is not appropriate to require the driveway be constructed to Council’s standard specifications for road pavements, and has instead conditioned for standard driveway construction.

 

Awning Comments

 

The minimum clear distance from the existing footpaths in Anzac Parade and Ascot Street to the underside of the proposed awning shall be 3.00 metres. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

All new awnings shall be set back a minimum of 600mm from the face of kerb. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Splay Corner Comments

 

To improve visibility at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Ascot Street, a minimum 3.0 metre x 3.0 metre splay corner shall be provided at ground level. There shall be no walls or planting higher than 600mm located within the splay corner. The submitted plans demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Service Authority Comments

 

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, Council resolved that:

 

(a) the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million;

 

(b) the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site, when the cost of works on the site exceeds $1 million up to $2 million; and

 

(c) the Director, City Planning investigate the feasibility of funding the undergrounding of existing overhead cables for new development under the new options provided for in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (Developer Contributions) Act 2005.

 

Given that the cost of works is over $8 million, the applicant shall be required to meet the full cost for undergrounding cables in the vicinity of the development site. A condition regarding this matter has been included in this report.

 

Groundwater Comments

 

The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report by Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd dated June 2004. This report states that groundwater was encountered at depths of 2.6 and 2.8 metres below ground level. Given that the basement excavation will extend more than 6 metres below ground level, it is expected that groundwater will be encountered within the excavation.

 

A condition has been included in this report requiring the basement carpark to be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

Further, it is understood that the application was previously referred to the department of Natural Resources as integrated development. The Planning Officer is to ensure that all comments/conditions provided by the Department of Natural Resources are incorporated into the development approval.

 

Waste Management Comments

 

Residential waste - The proposed development is required to provide chute fed automatic compactors for residential garbage, with the residential garbage storage area/s sized to contain a compactor (with safe working area) plus 10 x 240 litre garbage bin (1 bin per 4 units). The submitted plans show the provision of two garbage storage areas each containing a chute fed compactor located on the ground floor. Whilst these have doors to ensure they are not accessible to the general residents, it is noted that a minimum of 2 x 240 litre garbage bins are required to be located outside of the compactor areas to facilitate disposal of non-recyclable residential garbage which cannot fit into the compactors. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Recyclables shall not be compacted. The residential recycling waste storage area shall be separated from the compactor room and shall be sized to contain 20 x 240 litre recycling bins (1 bin for every 2 units)  whilst providing satisfactory access to all recycling bins.

 

Commercial waste – The retail/commercial waste storage area shall be sized to contain a total of 4 x 240 litre bins (2 x garbage bins and 2 x recycling bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to each of the bins.

 


Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

Flooding Comments

 

The applicant has submitted a flood study by Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd dated 13 June 2006 as well as revised hydrologic modelling dated 17 February 2006. The revised study determines that the minimum floor level at the northern end of the site is RL 27.25 (AHD) and at the southern end of the site is RL 27.03 (AHD) (based on the minimum 300mm freeboard required by Council for all habitable/storage areas).

 

It is noted that the amended plans submitted show the floor levels of all ground floor areas (including the driveway and loading bay) being located at or above the floor levels determined in this study.

 

As the recommendation is for refusal, conditions recommended by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building have not been included.

 

6.3  Design Review Panel

 

As noted previously, the application has been considered by the Design Review Panel on three occasions. The current amended proposal was considered by the Panel at its October 2006 meeting and the following comments were received in relation to the proposal:

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

 

The site is located in the Kensington Town centre, on a prominent corner on the east side of Anzac Parade. The recent Kensington Centre DCP puts forward a set of urban design strategies to guide new development along this important corridor.

 

As stated in previous reports, the Panel remains concerned about the following issues;

-        Design character and elevational treatments

-        The ground floor street interface / disjointed colonnade design

-        The lack of coordination of the lane alignment and potential extension

-        The frontage and presentation to the proposed lane

 

The Panel considers that the expanded lane system in Kensington needs to be properly set out, in order to maximise public benefits without causing undue difficulties to owners of particular sites.

 

The Panel reiterates its earlier comments to reduce the freeboard to a minimum, preferably 150mm. This would ease the problems of the removal of the shops from the street frontage, and relieve the ramp length. Reductions in the extent of the colonnade, particularly along Ascot Street, should be investigated.

 

The Panel does not consider that the site analysis and information supplied is sufficient for a development of this scale and importance (although the design data is reasonably comprehensive).

 

2.           The Scale of the Proposal

 

The site is a generous corner lot. The DCP proposes a clear hierarchy in scale between the major frontage to Anzac Parade, and a smaller scale treatment to Ascot Street.

 

Although further major redesign has been undertaken since the last Panel presentation, the Panel remains concerned that the proposal is poorly configured, resulting in an awkward massing.

 

Although the round corner element has been deleted as previously suggested, in the Panel’s opinion, the elevations are still not well resolved. Elements are jumbled, poorly scaled and related. The language is heavy, and there is an inadequate sense of the materials. The scale transition in Ascot Street is rather clumsy.

 

As a large-scale development on a prominent site, the DA needs to demonstrate high quality design.

 

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The revised proposal more closely accords with the DCP. The previous reductions in number of storeys and increase in floor to floor heights are improvements. The Panel remains concerned about the unresolved relationship between the plans and the elevations.

 

The massing of the block has, if anything, become more confused since the last presentation to the Panel. The typical floor plan is too deep and clumsily configured. The maximum building depths of 22 metres (east west) and 20 metres (north south) exceed the 18 metres maximum building depth stipulated in the RFDC. The stepping re-entrants on the rear façade are extremely unconvincing, giving rise to poor outlook, sun access and privacy conditions for a number of apartments. Indeed the floor plans generally are now quite poorly configured, with too few through apartments, and many sub-standard interior spaces (see comments under Amenity below).

 

The problems of the floor plans result in an awkward massing that is evident on all elevations. Small scale elements step in and out, or are eroded, with little reference to a guiding overall form. In the Panel’s opinion, there is no satisfactory architectural resolution of the glazed and/ or solid façade elements on the 4, 5 and 6th floors.

 

The configuration and presentation of the loading dock / driveway entry and bicycle parking seems to be excessive in size, and causes a number of complications at the rear. A smaller dock should be investigated.

 

4.         The Proposed Density

 

The revised proposal more closely accords with the DCP. However the way the current density is distributed gives rise to many amenity and design problems.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Window operation types throughout need to be more considered to enhance natural ventilation opportunities. In apartments with two storey voids, it is important to be able to access the external wall in order to be able to open windows and access balconies.

 

Ceiling fans should be provided in bedrooms.

 

Water retention tanks have been included on the plans.

 

The “Solar Access Table” is a useful way of demonstrating solar access to each unit during the day. The distinction between bedroom and living room is also well represented. However it should be noted if the solar access is to the outer edge of the balcony or the glass line. This point should be clarified.

 

Both common lobbies on the typical floors now benefit from at least some natural light. It is not clear whether there is any natural ventilation to the common areas.

 

6.             The Proposed Landscape

 

Following previous Panel reviews, the introduction of some deep soil planting and the provision of the landscaped podium at level 1 are both improvements.

 

Nonetheless the landscape design indicated in the DA is not good, being confined to inadequately narrow bands to the site and podium perimeter.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The Panel is concerned at the awkwardness of much of the internal planning. The amenity and quality of the internal environment of the corner units is particularly questioned.

 

The Panel considers that the problems of internal planning continue to arise from the poor consideration of the lift and stair cores. Although a second lift has been added, the common corridors remain awkward and narrow. Although windows have been added in the common corridors to give some natural light, the Panel considers that a layout with multiple cores would be more likely to allow for better unit plans throughout.

 

The Panel has a range of concerns regarding amenity;

 

-        Sunshading – west elevation shading inappropriate.  Horizontal on west does not work.  Shading is needed to the west facing  rooms rather than balconies as proposed.  Louvres to the balconies may only reduce light levels rather than provide cooling.

 

-        Elevations – ordinary at the best.  Spikey roof edge should be revised to provide and overhang. Entrance canopies and retail frontage need to be refined in detail.

 

-        Access needs more consideration and integration

 

-        Roof  - opportunities to get more north sun, light ventilation etc.  Also all top floor balconies only have pergola cover – should be weather protection.

 

-        Loading bay should be deleted and placed parallel near substation (if required) – truck turning can still be achieved

 

-        Undercroft area unacceptable –may be better if it were all enclosed.

 

-        Notes on glass block windows says non transparent – we presume this means translucent not opaque.  Notes on upper levels say opaque (opaque glass would not transmit light)

 

-        Southern lobby – awkward configuration – the window position could be closer to the lift (reducing foyer floor area)

 

-        Level 4 south east corner not well resolved on elevation. 

 

-        Level 5 unit 37 could have roof terrace or the planning of the foyer at this level could break through to the east and provide area for everyone to use.  A reconfiguration of the entire proposal with another lift core would be preferred.

 

-        All room dimensions should be indicated on the plans, rather than in a table in a report.

 

The Panel does not support any single orientation apartments facing a main road. The particular model of stepped cross – over units, which was previously overemphasised, has now been deleted altogether.

 

The projections of units at the rear cramp the rear facades, severely limiting access to light and outlook. This shortcoming is also reflected in the poor massing and articulation of the rear facades.

 

While the revisions to the carpark layout have been an improvement, further consideration could be given to finding a more efficient layout that allows for more substantial areas of deep soil planting.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The open loading dock and undercroft pose safety and security problems, as they are deep, shadowy spaces that lack adequate surveillance.

 

9.       Social issues

 

The revised mix of units is supported.

 

In principle the common podium terrace is supported, however issues such as exhausts, shade and wind protection, and landscaped areas need to be better integrated.

The lack of a clear and equitable disabled access to the northern lobby from the street is questioned.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The external character of the proposal remains a serious concern to the Panel. Elements appear to lack a clear logic, and the facades seem to be being developed without full coordination with the plan.

 

The east and south façades are flat and risk being very bland. The rear facades feature clashes of discordant elements. Neither approach is likely to be satisfactory. Detailed comments include;

 

-        The West elevation should more clearly indicate the condition on the north boundary further back.

 

-        The North elevation at ground level does not seem to match the plan, it is also very poorly resolved.

 

-        The East elevation should show the rest of the development in the background.  The undercroft area, open to the lane, is an unpleasant and undesirable condition.

 

-        The South elevation treatment to top level questionable as previously noted

 

-        Generally the north east elevations over the loading dock/driveway are inadequately shown.

 

The new roof design is ordinary, and lacks design resolution.

 

The Panel would prefer if the colonnade could be further reduced in extent. The separate entries are weakly stated, and lack amenity and equity of access.

 

The material and aesthetic character of the proposal remain underdeveloped and should be reconsidered to address the SEPP 65 and RDFC standards.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel appreciates that the architects have endeavoured to improve the design of the building, better conform with the DCP, and address the Panel’s concerns. These changes have been previously listed in SPD Planners accompanying report.

 

Despite the successive redesigns, the Panel remains unconvinced about many aspects of this proposal. The Panel had previously recommended that urban design input should be sought to improve the proposal’s character, however this has not been undertaken.

 

The Panel considers that the proposal fails to meet a number of the SEPP requirements, and therefore the DA cannot be supported. The applicant should meet with the Panel again when the above issues have been more satisfactorily addressed

 

Comment:

 

As indicated in the respective comments above, the amended proposal fails to satisfy the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65. As such, the proposed development as amended is not supported. 

 

6.4  NSW Police

 

The application was referred to Maroubra Police on 7 October 2005 under the Protocol for Review of Development Applications for comment in relation to the principles for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).

 

No response has been received from the Police in response to this referral. Under the Protocol, the Police have 14 days to respond to referrals. As 14 days have now elapsed, Council may now assess and determine the application without waiting for Police comment.

 

6.5  Sydney Airports Corporation

 

Under the provisions of the Air Navigation (Building Control) Regulations the concurrence of the Sydney Airports Corporation is required as the building proposed on the subject site has a maximum height in excess of 15 metres and may fall within the Conical Surface of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for Sydney Airport.

 

Sydney Airports Corporation’s advice was received on 20 January 2006 and advises that no objection to the erection of the proposed building to a height of 52.995 metres above AHD. As the recommendation is for refusal, relevant conditions of consent have not been included in this report.

 

6.6  Roads and Traffic Authority

 

The original proposal was forwarded to the RTA for comment via Council’s Traffic Committee on 28 October 2005. The Traffic Committee responded on 15 December 2005 with the following comments:

 

1           There is no indication that the Visitor Parking is to be marked as “Visitor Parking”

 

2           There are 2 car wash bays indicated – this would seem to be less than the 4 required.

 

3           The clearance height of the Service Bay is difficult to gauge.  It is suggested that the clearance be no less than 4.5m in order to satisfy the needs of removalist vans, waste contractors vehicles and other larger service vehicles.

 

4           It would seem that the supply of parking spaces is less than the DCP requirement; by 2 spaces.

 

5           The Disabled Persons Parking Space numbered B2 is sub-standard in width

 

6           The Disabled Persons Parking Space numbered B1 is located in a poor position relative to the elevators.  Consideration should be given to swapping space 22 with space 21.

 

7           It should be noted that removal of, or adjustment to, the Bus Zone / Bus Stop arrangement at the Anzac Parade frontage of the site, is unlikely to be considered as a result of this Application.

 

These comments were included in the letter of issues sent to the applicant on 20 December 2005. The amended proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineers and no objections were raised.

 

6.7  Department of Natural Resources

 

Due to the depth of basement excavation proposed and possible requirements for dewatering the application was forwarded the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for comment as Integrated Development on 10 October 2005.

 

The Department has not provided comment, however as the statutory time frame for comment of 40 days has now elapsed, Council can determine the application without further advice from the Department.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

·         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·         State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

·         State Environmental Planning Policy 11 – Traffic Generating Development (SEPP 11)

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

·         State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP65)

·         State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (SEPP: BASIX)

·         Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan, 2002

·         DCP - Parking

·         Section 94 Contributions Policy

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

 

The site is zoned 3(b) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the RLEP apply to the proposal:-

 

Kensington Town Centre

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

42C(4) Development Controls

(a) Max. No. Storeys

6

6

Yes

(b) Max. Height

21.6m

21.55m

Yes1

(c) Min. Frontage

20m

Anzac 40.335m

Darling 38.965m

Yes2

(d) Min. Allotment Size

900m2

1,655.58m²

Yes

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

21

Subdivision

Yes – Statement of Environmental Effects includes strata subdivision in description of works.

Strata plans not provided. Application form does not indicate consent for Strata Subdivision is sought, despite description in SEE, therefore Strata not considered in assessment.

1 Building height measured to underside of ceiling of topmost floor as per clause 42C(5)

2 Generally not applicable to corner sites

 

The subject site is zoned Local Business (Zone No. 3(B) under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Clause 42C(3) of the RLEP removes consideration of  the Floor Space Ratio (FSR), height and landscaping standards for the 3(B) zone in the Kensington Town Centre.

 

The amended proposal achieves compliance with all statutory standards set by Clause 42(C) of the RLEP.

 

Clause 42C of the RLEP also outlines the following specific objectives for the Kensington Town Centre:

 

(a)     To achieve high quality design in all new development and improvements undertaken in the public domain;

(b)     To encourage a vibrant and active town centre that provides a range of facilities and services that benefit the locality;

(c)     To provide opportunities for residential development in the town centre which compliment the primary business function of the town centre;

(d)     To encourage a variety of medium density housing forms which compliment the development within the town centre and does not impact adversely on surrounding residential areas;

(e)     To encourage the amalgamation of land to facilitate redevelopment within the town centre;

(f)     To facilitate development within the town centre that supports regional entertainment industry;

(g)     To ensure that social and cultural needs are considered with any development proposals in the town centre;

(h)     To facilitate the provision of vehicular access and off-street parking to support the local businesses;

(i)      To ensure that public transport and associated facility needs are considered and promoted with any development proposals and public domain improvements in the town centre;

(j)      To ensure appropriate conversation of the environmental heritage and recognition of the characteristics of buildings with architectural merit;

(k)     To require and encourage and environmentally sustainable approaches to future land use and development; and

(l)      To improve the overall environmental quality of Kensington Town Centre.

 

Whilst the amended proposal complies with the numerical development standards as set out in Clause 42(C) 4 of the RLEP, it has been demonstrated in this report that the relevant objectives of the Kensington Town Centre have not been met.

 

The amended development does not meet the urban design objective of the DCP in relation to corner buildings. The proposal requires significant amendment (as outlined by the Design Review Panel) in order to meet high quality design standards and make a contribution to the existing streetscape on Anzac Parade. It is considered that the proposal fails to meet objective (a), above.

 

The amended development provides adequate floor to ceiling heights for retail/commercial uses at ground floor and residential above, and is considered to satisfy objectives (b) and (c), above.

 

The amended proposal exceeds the building envelope, footprint and depth envisaged by the DCP. The form of the development will not complement existing and desired future development in the town centre and therefore is contrary to objective (d), above.

 

The site meets the site area requirements for redevelopment and will not inhibit future opportunities for site consolidation. The development meets objective (e) above.

 

The development does not directly support the regional entertainment industry. However, the DCP does not suggest this is a major objective for this particular site. The development will increase the local population which is considered to be of some value in supporting the local entertainment opportunities on offer, through both patronage and potential employees. The commercial areas of the development may be tenanted by restaurants or cafes which will also support the existing entertainment uses. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to objective (f).

 

As noted in the Design Review Panel’s comment in relation to social impacts of the development, the amended proposal fails to provide adequate arrangement regarding equitable disabled access to the northern lobby from the street. It is therefore considered that the amended proposal is therefore unsatisfactory with regard to objective (g), above.

The amended proposal provides adequate on-site parking to meet the demand of the retail and residential uses and is considered to satisfy the objectives (h) and (i), above.

 

The development is not located in a heritage conservation area and there are no items of environmental heritage existing on the site, or nearby. However the current design of the proposal will not make a positive contribution to the streetscape of Anzac Parade, nor to the Town Centre in general which includes several heritage items and conservation areas. The design of the development could be improved with regard to objective (j), above.

 

As noted by Council’s Design Review Panel the energy efficiency of the development could be improved by increased sun shading, more consideration of fenestration, ventilation and water retention. The development does not achieve the required level of environmental sustainability and therefore is inconsistent with objective (k), above.

 

The development in its scale, architectural form and proposed uses will not contribute to the environmental quality of the town centre as discussed throughout this report and is therefore inconsistent with objective (l), above.

 

Strata subdivision is not proposed as part of this application.

 

(b)        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 11 – Traffic Generating Development

 

Clause 7 (4)  of the SEPP requires Council to forward applications for development which is listed in Schedule 2 to the RTA for comment, where the site has direct vehicular or pedestrian access to:

 

(a)  an arterial road, or

(b) a road connecting with an arterial road, if the access is within 90 metres (measured along the road alignment of the connecting road) of the alignment of the arterial road,

 

Vehicular access to and from the site is proposed on Ascot Street, with less than 90 metres to Anzac Parade (which is an arterial road).

 

Clause (q) of Schedule 2 reads as follows:

 

(q) areas used exclusively for parking or any other development, in each case having ancillary accommodation for 50 or more motor vehicles, or the enlargement or extension of a parking area where the enlargement or extension accommodates 50 or more motor vehicles.

 

As noted previously, the original development provides parking for 74 vehicles and is less than 90 metres from Anzac Parade, referral to the RTA is required in accordance with the SEPP. The original proposal has been referred to Council’s Traffic Committee for comment and these comments are reproduced in Section 6.6, above. Given the issues raised by the Traffic Committee were not fully addressed in the amended proposal, no referral to RTA was made. As the recommendation is for refusal, the referral is not considered necessary.

 

(c)         State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated for rezoning and development applications.

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building has considered the information provided by the applicant with regard to contamination and the previous and present uses of the site. As a result of this assessment, conditions of consent requiring a detailed site contamination report audit were suggested to ensure that the applicant’s claims that the site is suitable for high density residential use are correct.

 

Council has carefully considered the issue of contamination and fulfilled its obligations under SEPP 55. As the recommendation is for refusal, conditions regarding contamination have not been included in the Recommendation section of this report.

 

(d)        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. The application has been referred to Council’s Design Review Panel for comment in relation to the principles of good design. The Panel’s comments indicated significant concerns with regard to the development’s achievement of the principles of Context, Scale, Built Form, Density, Resource and Energy Use, Landscape, Amenity, Safety and Security and Aesthetics.  The Panel’s comments are reproduced in Section 6.3, above.

 

The proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to SEPP 65 and the principles of good design.

 

(e)        State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (SEPP: BASIX)

 

The SEPP: BASIX requirements are in force for all new multi unit housing developments where development applications were lodged on or after 1 October 2005.  As the application was lodged on 29 September 2005, a BASIX certificate is not required under the SEPP.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

a.    Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan, 2002


 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

COMPLIANCE

 

site amalgamation

i.  The minimum frontage for new development is 20 metres, except for corner sites.

Corner site so not strictly applicable, however site complies.

New built form

i.  Demonstrate that the achieved Gross Floor Area occupies no more than 80-85% of the Building Envelope.

Complies. 84% of building envelope filled.

articulation zone

i.  Physically articulate all facades to achieve an Articulation Zone with a minimum depth of 600mm and a maximum depth of 2.5 metres within the most extreme points of the Building Envelope.

 

ii.  Ensure that buildings along Anzac Parade reinforce the continuity of the street edge.

Does not comply. Minimum of 300mm and maximum of 2.92m for first four storeys.

 

 

Does not comply, building will be out of scale with neighbours.

building heights

i.  Comply with the maximum envelope heights specified in the Block by Block controls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii.  Achieve the minimum heights in respect of each storey.

 

iii. Achieve a built form which reflects the proportions of the Building Envelopes specified in the Block by Block controls.

 

iv. Comply with the maximum height of any building as a relationship between storeys and height to the underside of the ceiling of the topmost floor.

Maximum 21.55m (RL 48.23) for the six storey portion along Anzac Parade.

 

Maximum 17.78m (RL 44.63) for the five storey portion along Ascot Street.

 

Maximum 14.65m (RL35.93) for the four storey portion along Anzac Parade.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies. Amended development proposes 6 storeys

 

building zone

i.  Align buildings to the street and line of kerb.

Does not comply. The proposal does not comply with the maximum building depths of 18m (east to west) at first floor level for the Anzac Parade wing. In addition, the amended proposal also incorporates variations to the driveway location and eastern portion of the building.

setbacks

 

i.  Unless otherwise specified in the Block by Block controls, comply with the setbacks.

N/A Block by Block Controls Apply

 

 

BLOCK 02 CONTROLS

Anzac Parade (West)

i.  Nil setback for first 4 storeys

 

 

 

 

 

ii.  Setback 5th and 6th storeys 4m from street boundaries.

 

Ascot Street (East)

i.  Nil setback for first 3 storeys

 

a. Setback 5th storey 4m from street boundary

 

 

b. Minimum 7.5m setback to the eastern adjoining building.

Does not comply. Parts of the shopfronts at ground floor level are recessed.

Parts of the first 4 storeys relies on louvered screens to balcony for nil setback

 

5th and 6th storey complies

 

 

 

Ascot Street 4m Complies, but extent of building along this frontage breaches the envelope.

 

The proposed building incorporates a minimum 7.5m setback to the eastern boundary. Does not comply. However, it was agreed that the driveway should be located adjoining the site’s eastern boundary as the existing eastern adjoining site is currently occupied by a strata titled multi-unit building.

Accessibility

iii. Achieve building/retail/commercial entrances which are flush with the footpath/external ground level or provide a suitably ramped alternative.

Does not comply. A disabled access ramp is provided to the Ascot Street frontage. However, no disabled access is proposed to the lobby on the northern side of the building.

rights of carriageway

i.  Unless otherwise indicated on the Block by Block controls, direct vehicular access from Anzac Parade

is not permitted.

Complies. ROW provided but built over at the Ascot Street entry to the site – breaches DCP envelope.

 

 

on-site parking

i.  Minimum dimensions for carpark design and layout must be based on the dimensional requirements of a service van as described in the DCP – Parking.

 

ii.  Tandem or stack parking (maximum two spaces) is permitted where these spaces are attached to the same strata title comprising a single apartment, subject to the maximum parking limit applying.

 

iii. Council may consider:

 A limited number of stack parking spaces (maximum two spaces) for staff parking associated with retail uses

 Stack parking spaces (maximum two spaces) for other non-residential purposes subject to suitable management arrangements such as valet management of those spaces.

 

vii.      Carparking areas may be designed as semi-basement car parking provided that:

 The roof is not more than 1.5 metres above ground level;

 The roof is landscaped as communal and/or private open space;

 The design results in building frontages that are level with the street.

 

viii.     Where the roof to a semi-basement carpark abuts with a street frontage, ensure that the roof is no higher than 900mm above ground level, measured across any sloping frontage.

 

ix. Submit a Traffic and Parking Analysis prepared by a suitably qualified Traffic Engineer.

Complies.

 

 

N/A No tandem spaces proposed

 

 

 

 

N/A No tandem spaces proposed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A Basement parking provided

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A Basement parking provided

 

 

 

 

Complies

active frontages

iii. Minimise blank walls at ground level.

 

iv. Maximise glazing for retail uses, but break large glazed shopfronts into discrete sections.

Complies

 

Complies

 

 

awnings

i.  Provide continuous street frontage awnings to all new development to the extent indicated on the Block by Block controls.  Generally awnings should be 3 metres deep.

 

ii.  Setback awnings a minimum of 600mm from the kerb.

 

iii. Cantilever awnings from the buildings with a minimum soffit height of 3.5 metres.

 

viii. Colonnades are not permitted along Anzac Parade frontages.

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Colonnades proposed along Anzac Parade and Ascot Street shopfronts. Does not comply.

 

 

 

building entrances

i.  Provide clearly identifiable, sheltered, well-lit and safe spaces to enter the building, meet and collect mail.

 

 

 

 

 

ii.  Provide separate entrances, where possible, for pedestrians and vehicles, commercial and residential occupants and ground floor apartments.

Complies. The proposal incorporates two pedestrian entrances, one each from Anzac Parade and Ascot Street. The entries provide clearly identifiable, sheltered

 

Complies

 

 

 

Façade composition

i.  Ensure that each building has a unique identity.

 

 

 

ii.  Design buildings to address the street but ensure that the rear and side facades also provide visual interest to the street and surrounding neighbours.

 

iii. Compose the façade with an emphasis on vertical elements.

 

 

 

vi. Ensure that the façade expresses a tripartite arrangement which clearly indicates a bottom, middle and top related to the overall proportion of the building.  Generally, the bottom will read as the area below the awning, and the top will read as the uppermost, setback storeys.

 

xiv.To enhance articulation, lightweight structures, sunshading devices and balconies may penetrate the building envelope (but not the property line) by up to 600mm.

Does not comply. Concern raised regarding aesthetics of all elevations by Design Review Panel.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, proportions are inconsistent with overall vision for town centre.

 

 

Complies. The amended proposal incorporates a clearly defined base, middle and top levels.

 

 

 

 

Does not comply elements breach building envelope by over 600mm and do not enhance articulation.

materials & finishes

i.  Comply with colours, finishes and materials identified in the Randwick City Council Kensington Town Centre Style Guide.

 

ii.  Use high quality and durable materials and finishes.

 

iii. Use pastel or earthy colour schemes and avoid corporate and bright colours.

Does not comply. See Design Review Panel comments above.

rear colonnades

i.  Include rear colonnades where shown in the Block by Block controls.

Does not comply. Colonnades are provided at Anzac Parade and Ascot Street frontages.

roof forms

i.  Wholly contain lift over-runs and service plants within roof structures or roof lines.

 

ii.  Minimise the bulk and mass of roofs and their potential for overshadowing.

 

iii. Design roofs to generate an interesting skyline and enhance views from adjoining developments.

Does not comply

 

 

Complies.  

 

 

Complies. A simple slightly pitched roof proposed.

 

 

habitable roof space

ii.  Connect habitable roof space to an apartment below.

 

iii. Demonstrate that proposed habitable roof spaces optimise apartment mix and layout and assist to achieve dual aspect apartments with natural ventilation.

 

iv. Demonstrate that the total floor area devoted to habitable roof space does not exceed 40% of the floor below.

Not applicable.  

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

Not applicable.  

 

solar access

i.  Maintain sunlight access to private and public open spaces and habitable rooms of adjoining development for at least 3 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.  If existing sunlight access to adjoining development is already below this level, maintain whatever exists.

 

xi. Ensure that living spaces of at least 75% of apartments receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies. 75% of apartments receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

STREET CORNERS

ii. Emphasis verticality at corners, if possible by concentrating the tallest portion of the building on the corner itself.  Utilise design devices such as increased wall heights, splayed corner details, increased height, expression of junction of building planes and other architecture features to reinforce the way finding attributes of street corners.

 

iii. Design corners to add variety and interest to the street and clarify the street hierarchy.

 

iv. Present each frontage of a corner building as a main street frontage.

Complies.

visual privacy

i.  Organise the layout of spaces within the building to achieve visual privacy.

 

 

 

ii.  Unless otherwise indicated on the Block by Block controls, orient primary openings on all developments to the front and rear of the building.

 

iii. Where the separation between buildings is less than 12 metres, use screening devices such as louvres and opaque glass to maximise privacy.

Complies. Privacy screens are provided to improve the privacy of the dwellings.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

The proposed development has not proposed adequate screening devices to minimise overlooking to 5-7 Ascot Street from west facing windows and balconies of dwellings on the Ascot Street section of the building.

acoustic privacy

viii.     Comply with BCA requirements for acoustic control of airborne noise and impact noise between apartments.

Could be conditioned to comply

 

apartment layout

i.  Achieve apartments with dual aspect to allow direct flow of air from one side of the apartment to the other.

 

 

 

 

ii.  Use a variety of apartment styles to maximise natural ventilation and access to natural daylight.

Does not comply. 70% of dwellings with cross ventilation achieved and 75% of dwellings receives solar access between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

Does not comply. Unit layouts are unsatisfactory, as indicated by the Design Review Panel.

apartment mix

i.  Provide a mix of apartments.

 

ii.  Ensure that studios and one-bedroom apartments comprise no more than 40% of the total number of apartments.

 

vi. Ensure that ground floor apartments comprise a mix of apartment types, where gardens, adaptability and accessibility are more easily achieved for elderly people, families with children or people with disabilities.

 

vii.      Provide access for people with a disability to and within apartments at the following rates:

0-14 apartments   0

15-29 apartments   1

30-44 apartments   2

45-60 apartments   3

and so on.

Complies

 

Complies. 32.5% studio and one-bedroom apartments.

 

No ground floor apartments provided.

 

 

 

 

Complies 3 dwellings provided (i.e. Unit Nos. 17, 23 and 29).

 

 

 

apartment size

i.  Comply with the following minimum apartment sizes:

 

Studio   40m²

One-bedroom cross-through   50m²

One-bedroom cross-over   55m²

Two-bedroom corner   80m²

Two-bedroom cross-through   90m²

Two-bedroom cross-over   90m²

Two-bedroom corner with study   120m²

Three-bedroom   125m²

For each additional bedroom   20m²

 

iii. Comply with the following minimum apartment widths:

 Studios - 3.5m clear internal width

 One, two and three-bedroom apartments – 4.5m clear internal width

 Crossover/cross-through apartments more than 18m deep – 4m clear internal width

 

iv. Comply with the following minimum room dimensions:

 Main bedrooms – 12m² , shortest wall 3.0m

 Other bedrooms – 9m² , shortest wall 2.5m

 Living rooms – 15m² , shortest wall 3.5m

 Dining rooms – 9m² , shortest wall 2.5m

 

Complies. Details are as follows:

 

Studios = 51.87m2.

1 bed = 51.93m2 min.

 

2 bed = 81.02m2 min.

 

 

 

3 bed 125.42m2

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

building use

i.  Development fronting Anzac Parade & Doncaster Avenue:

 Ground floor – retail and commercial

 Storey 2 – commercial and residential (retail uses if justified by an economic impact study)

 Storeys 3 and above – residential

 

Complies, although ceiling heights to Storey 2 do not allow flexibility for commercial use.

 

 

 

floor to ceiling heights

ii.  Unless otherwise indicated on the Block by Block controls, comply with the minimum and maximum floor to ceiling heights and floor to floor heights.

 

iii. Ensure that no storey has a greater floor to ceiling/floor to floor height than the storey below.

Does not comply with floor to floor height at 1st and 5th floors.

 

 

 

Complies.

garden or ground floor apartments

v. Clearly define private and public spaces.

 

vi. Provide maximum flexibility for future alternative uses by complying with floor to ceiling height controls.

 

 

N/A No garden/ ground floor apartments provided.

 

 

stairs, lifts & corridors

i.  Maximise the amenity of circulation spaces by providing generous spaces, eg. high ceilings, wide corridors.

 

ii.  Provide at least one lift to service no more than 40 apartments over the full rise of the building.

 

iii. Optimise security by grouping apartments to a maximum of 10 around a common lobby.

 

vi. Ensure that no apartment is no more than 12 metres away from a lift.

Complies. Two lifts for 40 apartments. No more than 10 apartments access the lift on any one floor, and no apartments are more than 12m from the lift.

 

 

 

storage

i.  Provide accessible and adequate storage at the following rates per apartment:

Studio   6m²

One-bedroom   8m²

Two-bedroom   10m²

Three or more bedrooms  12m²

 

ii.  Provide at least 50% of this storage within the apartment accessible from either a hall or a living space.

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

energy efficiency

 

i.  Comply with a minimum 3.5 star House Energy Rating for the building envelope of each new apartment.

 

viii.     Where possible provide solar hot water heaters integrated into the design of each new development.

Does not comply. Units 11, 13, 14, 35, 39 and 40 are 3.0 star

 

 

Details not provided

 

 

lighting efficiency

i.  Design buildings to maximise available natural light without creating major heat gain pathways.

 

 

 

ii.  Optimise the number of north-facing windows.

Does not comply, glazing to western elevation is not well shaded as noted in Design Review Panel’s comments above.

 

N/A. Site is oriented east-west.

natural ventilation

i.  Ensure that all apartments are single-loaded or dual aspect to allow the direct flow of air from one side of the apartment to the other.

 

 

ii.  Consider the use of crossover apartments.

Does not comply. 30% of the total apartments are single aspect apartments.

 

Complies. Some crossover apartments provided

site servicing & waste management

i.  Incorporate all stages of waste management into new development.

 

iii. Design waste management so that residents find it convenient to use.

 

x. Provide adequate space within new development for the unloading and loading of service vehicles.

Conditioned to comply.

 

 

Conditioned to comply.

 

 

Loading bay provided.

space heating & cooling

i.  Use passive solar design to reduce the necessity for mechanical heating and cooling.

Does not comply. Inconsistent sun shading provided.

stormwater management

i.  Minimise runoff by the reuse of stormwater for irrigation.

 

vi. Set building floor levels with freeboard of at least 300mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level.

Conditioned to comply.

 

 

Complies. See Development Engineer’s comments above.

communal open space

i.  Maximise ground level communal open space.

 

ii.  Locate communal open spaces so they form a focus of the development.

 

iii. Avoid fragmenting communal open space.

 

iv. Design communal open spaces which provide a pleasant outlook for residents.

Does not comply

 

Complies. Communal open space provided at first floor level which incorporates a barbeque area and will include seating and landscaping within planter boxes to provide shading and amenity.

private open space

i.  Provide at least one balcony or terrace for each apartment directly accessible from the main living area.

 

ii.  Ensure that the main balcony extends the living space by being sufficiently well proportioned to accommodate a dining table and chairs, with additional space for flower boxes or potted plants.

 

iii. Ensure that the main balcony has a minimum depth of 2.5 metres and a minimum area of:

   6m² for studio/one-bedroom apartment

   10m² for two/three-bedroom apartment

   15m² for four/more-bedroom apartment

 

iv. Assist visual privacy by recessing and/or partially enclosing the main balcony.

 

v. Ensure that additional balconies have a minimum depth of 1.5 metres and a minimum width of 2.1 metres.

 

 

 

vii.      Orientate balconies to maximise solar access.

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

Complies. Privacy screens proposed where necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, some secondary balconies have minimum depth less than 1.5m (i.e. Units 19, 20, 25, 26, 31 and 32)

 

Complies. Majority of balconies facing north, east and west.

safety & security

iii. Orientate entrances towards the public street and ensure visibility between entrances, foyers and the street.

 

iv. Provide direct and well-lit access between carparks and apartments, between carparks and lift lobbies and to all apartment entrances.

 

xvii.    Submit a formal Crime Risk Assessment with every Development Application comprising 20 or more new apartments.

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

b.         DCP – Parking

 

Parking rates and layout requirements for development in the Kensington Town Centre are contained within the DCP - Parking.

Item

DCP Parking Requirement

Allocation

Complies

Residential

1 x Studio

12 x 1 b/r

24 x 2 b/r

3 x 3 b/r

 

1 x 0.5 = 0.5

12 x 1 =12

24 x 1.2 = 28.8

3 x 1.5 = 4.5

 

46

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Visitor

1 per 4 units

40/4=10

10

 

Yes

   Subtotal Residential

56 spaces

 

Yes

Commercial/ Retail

1 per 40m2

GFA

399.47m2= 10

9

 

 

Yes

Accessible Spaces

 

 

 

Residential

2

2

Yes

Commercial

0.2

1

Yes

Total

68 Spaces

68 Spaces

Yes

Bicycle Spaces

Residential

Visitor

Commercial/Retail

 

1 per 3 units = 13

1 per 10 units = 4

1 per 10 car spaces = 1

 

20

 

Yes

 

Total

18 Spaces

20 Spaces

Yes

 

8.2      Council Policies

(a)    Contaminated Lands Policy

 

As noted in the comments by the Manager, Environmental Health, the proposal has been assessed against Council’s Contaminated Lands Policy, subject to imposition of conditions of consent. As the recommendation is for refusal, conditions proposed by the Manager, Environmental Health have not been included in the recommendation section of this report.

 

(b)    Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes additional dwellings on the site. As a result of this assessment monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities, townscape improvements are payable (including administration charges) totalling $248,217.65 for the residential component of the development.

 

In accordance with the Section 94 Contributions Plan, the 399.47m2 commercial component of the development attracts an additional townscape improvements levy of $17,177.21.

 

As the recommendation is for refusal, the contributions are not payable.

 

(c)     Rainwater Tanks Policy

 

Council adopted a Rainwater Tank Policy on the 14th October 2003. The Policy encourages water conservation and reduce demand for potable (drinking) water. Installation of a rainwater tank would normally be conditioned upon consent being issued.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1    Building Zones

 

The amended proposal does not provide a rear colonnade as suggested by the block controls in clause 4.3.2 of the DCP. The proposal also fails to meet the objectives of the control, being to maximise opportunities for communal and private open space and articulation. No ground level communal open space has been provided on the site and no ground level private open space is provided to the development. In this instance the inclusion of a colonnade could suggest improved landscaping and ground level private and public open space to the rear of the development in accordance with the DCP. In addition, the building zone for Block 02 under the DCP requires the first floor of the building to have a maximum depth of 18 metres along the Anzac Parade with a 4m wide colonnade area provided at the rear. The amended proposal fails to comply with this requirement as it provides a depth of 22 metres for the entire first floor level along Anzac Parade with no colonnade area provided. The variation in this instance is considered unacceptable as it will set a poor precedent and fails to achieve the objectives of the DCP controls.  

 

The amended proposal includes variation with the vehicular access easement as shown in block 02 control. The block controls indicate a vehicular access easement that enters the property from Ascot Street, which would break the building into two parts. The amended proposal relocates the vehicular access point so that it is directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site, which still allows for a future link with the adjoining sites to the north, should they be redeveloped in the future. It is considered that the variation in vehicular access location is acceptable in the circumstances of the case as the proposed location would be the most ideal solution considering the eastern adjoining site is currently occupied by an existing strata subdivided multi-unit building which is unlikely to be redeveloped in near future. 

 

9.2    Articulation Zone

 

The amended proposal provides an articulation zone that ranges from 300mm to 2,920mm in depth. This does not comply with the required articulation being 600mm to 2,500mm. The lack of physical articulation has resulted in a bulky building which lacks human scale in the elevations and a sense of the overall proportions of the building and visual interest when viewed from the street. The aim of the articulation zone is to create a strong street edge punctuated by articulation elements such as recessed balconies and blade walls. The required depth of the articulation (600mm – 2,500mm) has been set to be compatible with the 6 storey scale of development on Anzac Parade. Larger buildings on wide streets require more significant articulation to distinguish the elevations than development with a lesser scale. Likewise, the Ascot Street and rear elevations of the development require improvement to provide a reduction in scale and to ensure the articulation provided achieves the objectives of the DCP and is consistent with the overall form, materials and character of the facades.

 

The development is unsatisfactory with regard to the articulation zone provided and overall streetscape presentation.

 

9.4    Accessibility

 

Disabled access to the proposed lobbies and ground floor retail shops is only available from a disabled walkway/ramp on the eastern side of the building via Ascot Street. Concern was raised regarding the lack of a clear and equitable disabled access to the northern lobby from the street and the northern door to Shop 1 at ground level. The objectives of the DCP requires that all residents and visitors, including wheelchair users and those with disability, are able to easily reach and enter all publicly accessible parts of a building. The amended proposal does not provide appropriate access and facilities for wheelchair users, and clearly fails to satisfy the objectives of the section 4.4 of the DCP.

 

9.5    Building Exterior

 

Retail frontages are proposed at ground floor level to Anzac Parade and Ascot Street. The commercial frontage is not aligned to the Anzac Parade kerb, being angled so that the setback of this wall increases towards the Anzac Parade/ Ascot Street corner of the building. This arrangement does not provide continuity to the street edge and a more traditional alignment to the street would improve the relationship between the ground floor and the street edge and adjoining/ future developments. The proposed shopfronts and glazing comply with the requirements for active street frontages.

 

An awning is proposed to the Anzac Parade frontage and Ascot Street frontage. The dimensions and setback of the awning match those specified by the DCP. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to awnings.

 

The proposed elevations have been composed with a vertical emphasis in accordance with the performance criteria in the DCP, however significant concerns have been raised by Council officers and the Design Review Panel with regard to the proposed aesthetics of the building and the overall character and identity of the building. The photomontage submitted with the amended application indicates little physical articulation and relief to the elevations. The materials and finishes chosen for the building do not appear to result in a high quality finish and the variety of finishes proposed is not well integrated with the architectural form of the building.

 

The current design of the exterior of the building is unsatisfactory and does not meet the requirements of the DCP.

 

9.6    Building Interior

 

Appropriate conditions of consent have been proposed by the Manger, Environmental Health and Building to ensure the proposal meets the requirements for acoustic insulation from traffic noise. The proposal will be required to meet BCA requirements for sound transmission between dwellings, as noted in the DCP. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to acoustics.

 

The proposal fails to meet the requirements for apartment layout under the DCP with a large number of single aspect apartments (approximately 30%). Where crossover apartments have been provided, the living areas are single aspect with many living areas facing west. The failure to comply with these requirements is considered to be a result arises from the poor consideration of the lift and stair cores. It is therefore considered that the interior of the building is unsatisfactory with regard to the Kensington Town Centre DCP.

 

9.7    Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

 

The proposal does not comply with the minimum NatHERs rating of 3.5 stars required under the DCP for all dwellings within the development. The proposal also fails to comply with the requirements for natural ventilation. Although the applicant has submitted a report indicating the solar access and ventilation provisions for the units is adequate, the internal planning of the dwellings incorporating Design Review Panel’s recommendations would improve the amenity of the development and environmental performance.

 

The proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to ESD.

 

9.8    Safety and Security

 

The proposal has not adequately addressed safety and security issues. The design of entrances, the location and number of lifts could be improved to ensure adequate safety for residents and visitors. The development provides opportunities for passive surveillance of the street via balconies however the proposed sun shading to the western elevation will largely obscure the outlook from balconies. In addition, as noted in the Design Review Panel comments, the open loading dock and undercroft creates safety and security concerns, as no adequate surveillance are being provided to these areas. 

 

The amended proposal is not satisfactory with regard to safety and security.

 

10. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11. 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.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The development proposes a building envelope and façade treatment that do not comply with the site specific controls of the Kensington Town Centre DCP. The proposal fails to fulfil the objectives contained within the DCP and RLEP. It is therefore considered that the proposed building is inappropriate on the site given the desired future character of the Kensington Town Centre and the objectives contained Clause 42C of the RLEP and the Kensington Town Centre DCP.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the desired future character of the town centre and would set a poor precedent for future development in accordance with the provisions of this document. The development will result in significant streetscape impacts and is deficient in terms of the residential amenity standards set by the Kensington Town Centre DCP and SEPP 65 (as noted by Council’s Design Review Panel).

 

As such 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/788/2005 & PROP019074 to Demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect a 6 storey mixed retail and residential development comprising 40 dwellings with 2 levels of basement carparking for a total of 68 vehicles. at 112-124 Anzac Parade, Kensington for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposal is inconsistent with the following specific objectives for the Kensington Town Centre pursuant to Clause 42C(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998:

 

(a)  To achieve high quality design in all new development and improvements undertaken in the public domain;

(d)  To encourage a variety of medium density housing forms which compliment the development within the town centre and does not impact adversely on surrounding residential areas;

(g)  To ensure that social and cultural needs are considered with any development proposals in the town centre;

(j)   To ensure appropriate conversation of the environmental heritage and recognition of the characteristics of buildings with architectural merit;

(k)   To require and encourage and environmentally sustainable approaches to future land use and development; and

(l)   To improve the overall environmental quality of Kensington Town Centre.

 

2.       The proposed development is unacceptable in that it does not achieve the design quality principles outlined in State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 in terms of context, scale, built form, density, energy efficiency, landscaping, amenity, security and aesthetics.

 

3.       The proposed development is unacceptable in that it is inconsistent with the performance criteria of the following parts of the Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan 2002:

 

Part 4.2.3      Articulation Zone

Part 4.2.5      Building Location Zone

Part 4.3.2      Block 2: Goodwood Street to Ascot Street

Part 4.4         Accessibility

Part 4.6.2      Awnings

Part 4.6.4      Façade Composition and Articulation

Part 4.6.5      Materials and Finishes

Part 4.6.9      Rear Colonnades

Part 4.6.10    Roof Forms

Part 4.6.14    Visual Privacy

Part 4.7.2      Apartment Layout

Part 4.7.6      Floor to Ceiling Heights

Part 4.8.2      Energy Efficiency

Part 4.8.3      Lighting Efficiency

Part 4.8.4      Natural Ventilation

Part 4.8.6      Space Heating and Cooling

Part 4.9.1      Communal Open Space

Part 4.9.3      Private Open Space

 

4.       The proposed development has not proposed adequate screening devices to minimise overlooking to 5-7 Ascot Street from west facing windows and balconies of dwellings on the Ascot Street section of the building. 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Director, City Planning Report 113/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

58 DUKE STREET, KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

28 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/718/2006 & PROP021885

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. DA/718/2006 for internal alterations, new rear ground floor extension and first floor rear addition including new front car space, side timber deck, new plunge pool and rumpus room/studio at the rear.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 24 November 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

24 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/718/2006 & PROP021885

 

PROPOSAL:

 Internal alterations, new rear ground floor extension and first floor rear addition including new front car space, side timber deck, new plunge pool and rumpus room/studio at the rear.

PROPERTY:

 58 Duke Street, Kensington

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr W W Waugh and Mrs R J Waugh

OWNER:

 Mr W W Waugh and Mrs R J Waugh

 

 

 

 

 

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, Chris Bastic, Dominic Sullivan.

 

The development application was lodged on 4 September 2006 and was notified from the 12 September to 26 September 2006. An objection was received from the rear adjoining property and raised concerns regarding the potential impact to solar access and visual privacy. A site visit to the objector’s property at 58 Todman Avenue concluded that the proposed rear studio/rumpus would have a significant impact to the amenity of the private open space and as such could not be supported in the application.

 

A site meeting was held at the subject site on 13 September 2006 and was attended by Council’s development engineers and the applicant. It was resolved at the meeting that the applicant would be required to submit a flood study to address the issue of potential flood inundation in a 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

It was confirmed on 24 November 2006 by the applicant that they had no intention of engaging a hydraulic engineer to prepare the flood study report. As such Council’s Development Engineer is unable to undertake a proper assessment of the application until a flood study is submitted. Council has previously received legal advice in relation to such matters. The advice from Council’s solicitors is that Council is obligated to properly consider the application and its likely impacts in terms of flooding and cannot indemnify itself from damages arising from stormwater inundation through restrictions on title and indemnities.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development involves the following works:

 

-   Relocation of the front driveway and on-site parking space from the western side to the eastern side of the site.

-   Demolition of the metal roof and fibro garage to rear of the dwelling and replacement with a rumpus/studio room.

-   Internal reorganisation of existing dwelling with new entry, bathroom, laundry.

-   New rear ground floor addition comprising of kitchen, dining and living rooms.

-   Rear ground floor terrace with alcove BBQ facility.

-   In-ground plunge pool (3.3m x 2.5m) in south eastern corner of site.

-   New first floor addition comprising of a bedroom, lounge, walk-in-robe and ensuite.

-   New rear first floor deck accessed from lounge room with privacy screens.

-   Minor alterations to the main roof of dwelling to accommodate first floor extension.

-   Roof extension of ground floor porch.

 

 

 

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Duke Street and is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling. The site is irregularly shaped and has an angled frontage to Duke Street. The site has a frontage width of 13.715m, an eastern side boundary depth of 39.91m, a western side boundary depth of 31.86m and has an overall site area of 377sqm.  Neighbouring the property to the south is a single storey dwelling, to the west is a single storey dwelling, to the east is a single storey dwelling and to the north is Duke Street.

 

Further to the east of the subject site is the Kensington Town Centre, to the south is the Australian Golf Club and to the north on the opposite side of Duke Street is the Wills Playground reserve adjoining a large strata subdivided town-house development. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of detached single dwellings.

 

Figure 1 is a photograph of the subject site from Duke Street. Figure 2 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

 

Figure 1: The subject site from Duke Street.

 

 

Figure 2: The subject site and surrounding area

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The development application was lodged on 4 September 2006 and was notified to the surrounding properties from 12 September to 26 September 2006. One objection was received during the notification period and raised concerns relating to the potential impacts to solar access and visual and acoustic privacy.

 

A site meeting was held at the subject site on 13 September 2006 and was attended by Council’s Development Engineer and the applicant. It was resolved at the meeting that the applicant would be required to submit a flood study to address the issue of potential flood inundation in a 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

The application was referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 21 November 2006. It was confirmed with the applicant that submission of the flood study was not imminent at the time of the call up and that the applicant had no intention of engaging a hydraulic engineer to prepare the report.

 

b.    HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

There is no site usage relevant to this application.

 


5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

 

A and J and J Awad – 58 Todman Avenue, Kensington

 

Objection

Comment

The proposed addition to the dwelling will have a significant adverse impact to solar access to the objector’s rear private open space and dwelling.

 

The proposed rear addition will have a modest height and will not result in a significant degree of overshadowing to the surrounding properties.

 

The rear studio/rumpus room will increase overshadowing to the objector’s property however the degree of overshadowing is consistent with the relevant preferred solution in the DCP.

 

The rear studio/rumpus room will have a significant impact to the amenity to the rear yard of the objector’s property due to a lack of side and rear boundary setbacks and excessive height. As such the application is recommended for refusal.

 

The proposed rear first floor balcony will provide direct viewing opportunity into the objector’s property and will have a significant adverse visual privacy impact.

 

If approved a condition should be included with the consent that requires the balustrade height to be increase to 1.5m and the width of the balcony reduced to 1m to reduce the potential overlooking from persistent to casual or intermittent.

 

To maintain the amenity of the objector’s private open space, the proposed rear studio/rumpus room should be set back from the rear boundary by 1m.

The rear studio/rumpus room will have a significant impact to the amenity to the rear yard of the objector’s property due to a lack of side and rear boundary setbacks and excessive height. As such the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

 


6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1 Engineering Issues

 

The application has been referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services for comment, conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted. The following comments were received:

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing residence including the construction of a hardstand car space at the front of the above site.

 

It is noted that the following issue is required to be addressed prior to any form of development consent being issued:

 

Drainage Comments

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the subject development site may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events.

 

The applicant shall submit a flood study (including plans and drainage calculations compiled by a suitably experienced and qualified Civil Engineer) which determines the 1 in 100 year flood level for the site.

 

The flood study should be undertaken using “DRAINS” Urban Drainage Simulation Model (and HECRAS for determining flow depths). Alternative flood modelling programs may be used, however, the applicant will be required to meet the full cost for an independent hydraulic consultant to review the model as Council does not have the computer software to run alternative flood modelling programs.

 

The following information must be submitted to Council with the flood study:

 

a)       All “DRAINS” and “HECRAS” data files on 3 1/2" MS-DOS formatted diskettes together with a suitable index to relate data files to the various run parameters.

 

b)       Plans showing:

·         All catchments and sub-catchments areas contributing to flows in the vicinity of the development site;

·         “DRAINS” sub-catchments and areas and nomenclature used to define the various piped reaches;

·         Overland flow paths;

·         Location and sections of all drainage lines showing pipe sizes and grades;

·         Pit/gully surface levels as well as invert levels of inlet and outlet pipes;

·         Proposed finished surface levels and 0.2m contours over the development site (it is noted that all levels shall be relative to the Australian Height Datum); and

·         Location of all “HECRAS” cross sections.

 

To minimise the possibility of localised floodwater entering the ground floor additions, all new ground floor areas shall be a minimum of 300mm above the calculated 1 in 100 year flood level. Further, the proposed hardstand car space shall be located a minimum of 150mm above the determined flood level.

 

Any queries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineers on 9399 0919 or 9399 0881.

 

Full engineering comments and conditions will be provided following the submission of the flood study and amended plans as required.

 

Once it was ascertained that the applicant would not be proceeding with the commissioning of a flood study, the application was referred to the development engineers for further comment. The following comments were received:

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing residence including the construction of a hardstand car space at the front of the above site.

 

Landscape Comments

 

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

 

Drainage Comments

 

Following an investigation of the site, the Development Engineer advised the Planning Officer that the subject development site may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events.

 

Council has commissioned a flood study to be undertaken in the area; however, as the study is not yet complete no detailed information regarding flooding of subject site is currently available. Consequently, the applicant was requested to either submit a privately commissioned flood study which determines the 1 in 100 year flood level for the site or withdraw the application until such time as the Council commissioned flood is complete.

 

It is understood the applicant has objected to both the completion of an independent flood study for the subject site and delaying the proposed works until such time as the Council commissioned flood study is complete.

 

Identification of a flood level is the first step in ensuring that suitable measures are taken to protect the new development from flooding. Consequently, it is not possible for Council to properly address the issue of flooding without a flood study.

 

Council previously received legal advice on the matter of approving development in areas that may be subject to flooding. The advise was obtained from Mr Greg Newport in the form of a memorandum titled ‘Advice on Flooding, Indemnification and Section 149 Certificate’ dated 30 April 2002. The advice states that “Council must not grant consent unless it has given full, proper and genuine consideration to the issue of flooding”.

 

As detailed in the comments above, Council is unable to give proper consideration to the issue of flooding without a flood study. Consequently, the Development Engineer is unable to support the application without the submission of a flood study.

 


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.

 

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

 

Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

 

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

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

41.7% 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 50.4 sqm. Complies.

S1

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

The above area has dimensions of 4.8m x 10.5 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.

27% of the site is permeable. Complies.

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

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

The proposal will increase the amount of landscaped area on the site and will generally improve the amenity of the private open space and usability for occupants of the dwelling. The most significant changes involve the demolition of the existing concrete driveway along the western side of the site and the construction of a slightly raised deck area with associated vegetated screening along the western boundary.

The modifications to the rear of the site will include a small inground swimming pool which will promote the use of the rear private open space of the site.

The proposed car parking gate at the front of the site will involve the demolition of the front fence and the removal of some sections of the established hedge. The removal of the hedge to accommodate the front gate is not likely to have a significant adverse impact to the character of the streetscape and is acceptable. Generally the proposal will satisfy the preferred solutions and performance requirements of the DCP.

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 0.56:1. Complies.

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

The proposed rear addition will have an external wall height, visual bulk and scale and massing that is minimised through the use of a low pitch roof and the siting of the additional floor area to the rear of the site. As such the proposal will have a minimal impact to the existing character of the street and will not become a prominent visual element to the adjacent dwellings.

It is considered the proposal has a bulk and scale that is commensurate with other dwellings in the surrounding area and will not be dissimilar to the established residential character of the area.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 6.7 metres. Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable.

S4

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

The entire southern elevation of the proposed dwelling is 8.3 metres from the southern side boundary at first floor level. Complies.

S5

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

Not applicable.

 

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

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

The height of the rear addition to the existing dwelling is consistent with the preferred solutions of the DCP and compatible with the scale of other residential dwellings in the area. The proposed first floor will become a noticeable built form to the surrounding area however will not become a visually disruptive element and is unlikely to adversely impact the amenity of the immediate area.

The proposed rear rumpus/studio room is located in the south western corner of the subject site and there currently exists an existing single storey fibro garage structure. The proposed studio/rumpus room will have no side and rear boundary setback and will have a maximum external wall height of 2.9m and a total height of 3.3m. Due to the lack of boundary setbacks, the visual impact of the structure is amplified and will result in a significant adverse impact to the amenity of the private open space of the adjoining rear property. Although the proposed studio/rumpus room will adopt a similar position at the rear of the of subject site, the proposed setbacks and height extend beyond the building envelope established by the existing building and results in a bulk and scale that is considered unreasonable.

Whilst the proposed studio/rumpus room satisfies the preferred solution external wall height it is considered that the impact to the amenity of the adjoining properties is significant. Due to the siting of the structure and the lack of adequate side and rear boundary setbacks the proposal cannot be supported. In this respect the proposal fails to satisfy the relevant performance requirements of the DCP.

As such the proposal is recommended for refusal.


Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed development does not alter the front setback of the dwelling.

S2

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

The proposed dwelling is 8.3 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

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

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

Western elevation

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

Eastern elevation

The proposed development is set back 1 metre from the side boundaries. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

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

The proposal will maintain the existing ground floor side boundary setbacks of the dwelling to the first floor. As such, the first floor setbacks will be 500 - 600mm less than required under the preferred solution. It should be noted that the rear of the first floor addition includes angled roofs that slope down to the south of the site and therefore will have less visual impact than a wall extending the full height for the length of the rear addition. The minimal visual impact of the side boundary setback will be mitigated by the sloped roof of the rear additions above the ground floor staircase and void and will result in a wall height that ranges from 6m to 3.3m at the southern end of the dwelling.

The side boundary setbacks of the proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling will have minimal visual impact to the adjoining properties and will not adversely impact solar access to living room windows or the private open space of adjoining properties. As such the setbacks of the additions to the dwelling are considered acceptable.

The proposed rear rumpus/studio room will have a siting that is similar to the existing fibro garage structure located at the rear of the subject site. The existing structure has a rear boundary setback of 200mm and a western side boundary setback of 100mm however the proposed rumpus/studio room will have no setback to the western side and rear boundaries and a greater height than the existing fibro garage. Therefore the increased height, and thus visual impact, of the structure is amplified due to its proximity to the adjoining property, particularly the rear adjoining property.

It should be noted that the proposed rear studio/rumpus will have a length of 5.25m along the rear boundary whilst the existing garage structure has a length of 4.65m. The proposed structure will have a similar height along the southern section however the increase length on the boundary will adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining rear property.

Figure 3 is photograph of the existing structure from 58 Todman Avenue.



Figure 3: The subject site viewed from the rear adjoining property of 58 Todman Avenue. Note the existing garage structure on the left.

The proposal fails to satisfy the preferred solutions and performance requirements relating to setbacks and as such the proposal is recommended for refusal.

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

S1

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

The proposal includes windows to the western elevation with sill heights of 1.8m. Complies.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

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

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

The proposed rear first floor balcony will provide direct overlooking opportunity into the rear private open spaces of the rear private open spaces of adjoining properties. This impact to the visual privacy is not consistent with the performance requirements of the DCP and will have a significant impact to the privacy of the adjoining properties.

A site inspection conducted on 28 November 2006 to the adjoining rear property at 58 Todman Avenue, Kensington revealed the potential impact of the rear first floor deck would result in some impact to visual privacy. If approved, a suitable condition should be included in the development consent requiring an increase in the height of the south facing balustrade to 1.5m to ensure casual overlooking is decreased. An additional condition should also be included in the consent that will reduce the width of the balcony to 1m which will result in the balcony becoming a more ancillary structure for the first floor bedroom.

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 1 car. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 5.6m x 2.5m. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 3 metres wide and is set back at least 0.6 metres from the side boundary. Does not comply – see assessment below

S1

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

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

S1

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

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

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed car parking space is forward 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 uncovered car parking space occupies about 18.2% 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 development involves the deletion of the existing western driveway and the relocation of on-site car parking to a hard stand parking space on the eastern side of the property, forward of the building line. This will result in a reduction in the number of on-site car parking spaces from 2 to 1 car parking space. Whilst inconsistent with the DCP – Parking, it is considered that the shortfall of parking is not likely to adversely impact the availability of on-street parking in the area and the conversion of the driveway along the western section of the site will significantly improve the amenity of the private open space for the occupants of the site. This improvement in the potential use of the site is considered to mitigate the numerical inconsistency of the proposed parking with the DCP.

The proposed car parking space will be set back 0.6m from the eastern side boundary which is 400mm less than the preferred solution. However the placement of the car parking space is not likely to result in a significant adverse impact to the amenity of the adjoining eastern property as the car parking space will not have an associated structure and will not obstruct any view corridor or impact solar access. As such the setback is considered acceptable.

The proposed front car parking space will be located at the front of the property and is not consistent with the preferred solution. The front car parking space will involve the demolition of part of the front fence and removal of some of the established hedge planting on the front boundary. However the proposal will also involve the conversion of the existing driveway to a timber deck area and the construction of a front boundary fence that will screen the front parking space to the street. As such the proposed location of the front parking space is considered to have a minimal impact to the streetscape and will not detract from the character of the surrounding area.

The front parking space is therefore considered acceptable.

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S1

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

The proposed front has a height of 1.2 metres. The design is generally open and will not adversely impact the streetscape. Complies.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

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

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

The proposed development will result in an increased amount of overshadowing to the surrounding properties, particularly the southern adjoining properties. The additional overshadowing will reduce solar access to the rear private open space of the adjoining western and eastern properties, whilst the proposed rear studio/rumpus room will overshadow the northern area of the private open space of the rear adjoining property.

Whilst there is some additional overshadowing to the rear of the adjoining properties, the increase is considered commensurate with the degree of overshadowing of existing dwellings in the immediate area and consistent with the preferred solutions and performance requirements of the DCP.

As such the overshadowing generated by the proposed first floor addition is considered acceptable.

It is noted that there is an existing rear structure on the subject site that provides overshadowing to the rear adjoining property and that the proposed rear studio/rumpus room will result in some increased overshadowing to the adjoining rear property.

The proposal will achieve numerical consistency with the preferred solution however due to inconsistencies regarding side and rear boundary setbacks the proposal is recommended for refusal.

9.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcomes 4: Excellence in urban design and development

 

The proposal has a good architectural quality that utilises an architectural style that will add visual interest and architectural diversity in the surrounding area. The proposal adds a first floor to the dwelling without a significant increase in height.

 

The proposed rumpus/studio room at the rear of the site will have a significant adverse impact to the visual amenity of the adjoining rear property and is not considered to be consistent with this outcome of the City Plan.

 

Outcome 10: A healthy environment

 

The proposal will promote the principles of environmental sustainable development including solar access, cross ventilation and energy efficiency.

 

Direction 4a & associated key action:

 

Improved design and sustainability across all development – The proposed modifications will improve the internal amenity of the dwelling whilst maintaining the character of the streetscape.

 

However the studio/rumpus room located at the rear of the site will adversely impact the amenity of the rear adjoining property due to the height and setbacks proposed.

 

Direction 10a & associated key action:

 

Council is a leader in fostering environmentally 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 including an increase in north facing windows to improve solar access and improved openings to increase natural ventilation.

 

10. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11. CONCLUSION

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies. Whilst the proposed rear first floor balcony will overlook the rear private open spaces of adjoining properties it is considered that generally the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

However the applicant has not provided Council with the required information pertaining to a flood study being undertaken to assess the potential impact of a flood to the proposed development. As such a full and proper assessment of the application is not possible.

 

Therefore 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/718/2006 for internal alterations, new rear ground floor extension and first floor rear addition including new front car space, side timber deck, new plunge pool and rumpus room/studio at the rear at 58 Duke Street, Kensington for the following reasons:-

 

1.     The application does not contain sufficient information in regard to stormwater inundation to allow a proper assessment of the proposal.

 

2.     The height, side and rear boundary setbacks of the rear studio/rumpus room are not consistent with section 4.4 Building Setbacks of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP, and will have a significant adverse impact to the amenity of the rear private open space of the adjoining rear property.

 

3.     The application fails to meet objective (c) of the Residential 2A zone as set by Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that it will compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON 

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 114/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

2 MAYO STREET, LITTLE BAY (LOT 27)

 

 

DATE:

29 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/674/2006 & PROP051777

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. DA/674/2006 Stage 2 redevelopment of Lot 27 at the Prince Henry site involving the refurbishment of the Matron Dickson Building including conservation works, alterations and adaptive reuse into 42 new dwellings landscaping, earthworks and strata subdivision.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 29 November 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

29 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/674/2006 & PROP051777 

 

PROPOSAL:

 Stage 2 redevelopment of Lot 27 at the Prince Henry site involving the refurbishment of the Matron Dickson Building including conservation works, alterations and adaptive reuse into 42 new dwellings landscaping, earthworks and strata subdivision.

PROPERTY:

 2 Mayo Street, LITTLE BAY (Lot 27)

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Stockland Development (Phh) P/L

OWNER:

 Landcom

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $14 million.

 

The subject application is for the Stage 2 redevelopment of Lot 27 at the Prince Henry site involving the refurbishment of the Matron Dickson Building including conservation works, alterations and adaptive reuse into 42 new dwellings landscaping, earthworks and strata subdivision.

 

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 heritage building envelopes control. The proposed development will result in additions to the heritage significant Matron Dickson Building that will breach the existing envelope of the heritage building. An objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) has been submitted in relation to the breach of this control. The objection has been assessed and found acceptable as the breach in the building envelope does not result in any increase in the height, bulk and scale of the Matron Dickson Building; arises from the need to adapt the existing heritage building for a residential use with the highest level of amenity;  will be sympathetic to the existing fabric and form of the heritage building; will not give rise to any detrimental impacts to surrounding uses in terms of solar access, ventilation, privacy and views; and is consistent with the Prince Henry Conservation Management Plan and the principles of the Matron Dickson Specific Elements Conservation Plan (SECP). The application complies with all the relevant prescribed controls in the Prince Henry Development Control Plan.

 

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. 

 

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 refurbishment of the Matron Dickson Building including conservation works, alterations and adaptive reuse into 42 new dwellings, landscaping, earthworks and strata subdivision. The proposal comprises Stage 2 of the redevelopment of the subject Lot 27 which contains the Matron Dickson Building (Stage 1 is the subject of a separate DA (DA No. 349/2006) for the excavation and construction of a basement car park under the Matron Dickson Building).

 

Specifically, the proposed development will involve the following:

 

·         Refurbishment of the Matron Dickson Building including conservation works comprising

 

o        repairs to external fabric including face brickwork, timber windows and doors, eaves and facias, cement roof tiles and copper gutters and downpipes.

o        repairs to the external structure including new stainless steel cavity ties, new galvanise steel roof straps and repairs to failed concrete slabs to Eastern Porch

o        repairs to the existing internal fabric including internal plaster to walls and ceilings to common areas and terrazzo paving and treads to existing stairs

o        retention of nominated original spaces, features and decoration including eastern, southern and northern entries to the building and the foyers

o        removal of window infill to openings in Eastern Porch and repairs of brickwork

o        removal of external wall mounted services and repair of brickwork

o        reconstruction of portion of West Wing at connection of former kitchen

o        reconstruction of entry stairs removed during the site remediation works

 

·         Adaptive re-use of the building for residential purposes, resulting in the creation of 42 new apartments through the following works:

 

·         Alterations to internal layout including removal of existing walls and construction of new walls to create residential apartments from existing single rooms

·         Internal structural alterations

·         Interior fitout of new apartments

·         Alterations to facades to create new doorways for access to new private open space

·         Introduction of new external balconies and courtyard gardens

·         Introduction of new inset balconies within the roof space of the East, South and North Wings.

 

·         Alterations and additions to the historic building fabric including:

 

·         new external balconies, decks and private courtyards

·         sun-shading devices to windows

·         new roof balconies and skylights to serve new loft rooms

·         new stairwell and 3 lift-cores in the central courtyard

 

·         Landscape works including the relocation of existing Phoenix canariensis palms to new locations within the boundaries of Lot 27

 

·         Earthworks associated with the footings for the external additions (balconies) to the building

 

·         Strata subdivision.

 

·         The proposed 42 new dwelling units comprise the following mix:

 

·         2 x 1 Bedroom dwelling (average size = 75m2)

·         23 x 2 Bedroom dwelling (average size = 100m2

·         17 x 3 bedroom dwelling (average size = 120m2)

 

It should be noted that the subject site contains areas of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) in the eastern and north-eastern portion. The existing brick retaining wall containing the ESBS area along the north-eastern, south-eastern and eastern sections of the boundary will not be affected by the proposal. However a new palisade fence is proposed behind this existing retaining wall as well as repairs to the existing stairs adjacent to the wall. 

 

Vehicular access will be provided to the proposed basement carpark (that is subject of separate DA 349/2006) via a 6m wide driveway off Mayo Street. Pedestrian access to and from the carpark will be via lifts located in the courtyard of the Matron Dickson building.

 

The proposed basement carpark provides a total of 57 resident carspaces, (including 2 disabled parking spaces) and 11 visitor parking spaces.

 

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 proposal is Lot 27 in DP 270427 located in the northern half of the Prince Henry site. It contains the existing heritage item, the Matron Dickson Building, which has a central courtyard and fronts an historic road alignment, Pavilion Drive. The building is located in a Historic Precinct as identified in the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the Prince Henry site. In the Plan, the existing building are identified as an item of ‘Exceptional’ significance comprising a brick masonry wall and tiled roof quadrangle building enclosing a courtyard and containing former nurses’ quarters.

 

The subject site is bounded to the north by an existing road (Mayo Street) and sites of buildings that have recently been demolished in accordance with previous Council’s consents; to the east by Pavilion Drive and the vacant superlot (Lot 28) for future multi-unit residential development; to the south by four level multi-unit development for seniors/older persons currently under construction (under approved DA No. 4/2005); and to the west by the existing heritage significant Artisans Cottages currently under reconstruction (under approved DA No.94/2006).

 

The subject land is irregular in shape with the western portion (upon which the existing building is located) relatively flat and the eastern portion (where the garden area of the existing Matron Dickson building is located) falling away at a significant slope towards Pavilion Drive

 

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.

 

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 separate DA (DA No. 349/2006) for the excavation and construction of a basement car park under the Matron Dickson Building, including water proofing and drainage works and stratum subdivision is currently being assessed.

 

A number of 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 33/2005) 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 from 5 September 2006 to 6 October 2006 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. One submission was received as follows:

 

C Abela, La Perouse Precinct Committee, 1597 Anzac Parade, La Perouse

 

  True appearance of original building would be lost by changes to the outer appearance of the building.

 

Comments: As indicated in Section below 10.1.2 below, the only significant changes to the outer appearance of the building comprise balconies on the external facades of the building; loft style accommodation in the roof voids with new roof balconies and/or skylights; and three lift towers and a stairwell in the central courtyard of the Matron Dickson Building. A SEPP No.1 Objection has been submitted in relation to these new elements which breach the existing building envelope, and as assessed in Section 10.1.2, the objection is considered well-founded as the breach in the building envelope does not result in any increase in the height, bulk and scale of the Matron Dickson Building; arises from the need to adapt the existing heritage building for a residential use with the highest level of amenity;  will be sympathetic to the existing fabric and form of the heritage building; will not give rise to any detrimental impacts to surrounding uses in terms of solar access, ventilation, privacy and views;

 

Furthermore, as assessed in Sections 10.4.2.1 and 10.4.2.2 below, the proposed changes to the exterior of the Matron Dickson Building are consistent with the Prince Henry Conservation Management Plan and the principles of the Matron Dickson Specific Elements Conservation Plan (SECP) being sympathetic to the significance of the original Matron Dickson Building.

 

  Changes to the roof brought about by the loft dwellings and external balconies will be alien to original building appearance.

 

Comments: As assessed in Section 10.4.2.1, the external balconies have been designed to be light in appearance with steel balustrades and concrete floor slabs so as not to detract from the original appearance of the Matron Dickson building. In addition, the introduction of loft style accommodation into the roof voids will not be visually intrusive in the existing form of the Matron Dickson Building because the habitable spaces will be set into existing roof voids with new roof balconies and/or skylights built within the roof planes. 

 

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 Prince Henry Hospital Heritage Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.28.  The site and a number of the buildings are listed on the State Heritage Register for its Aboriginal, natural, landscape and built heritage values.

 

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. 

 

A previous formal pre-lodgement meeting has been held in relation to the proposed adaptive reuse of the Matron Dixon building.  My comments on the pre-lodgement proposal noted that the required HIS would need to address the impacts of the proposed new balconies, enclosure of internal and external verandahs, removal of internal features, and the impact of the proposed stairways, lifts and exhaust stacks on the building fabric and courtyard. 

 

The Proposal

The proposal is for adaptive reuse of the former Matron Dixon Nurses Home building as residential apartments.  The building is in the northern part of the site and comprises a central courtyard enclosed by a three storey C-shaped section (north, east and south wings) and a single storey west wing.  The proposal includes internal and external changes, including the provision of a loft level above the single storey west wing, and above the three level north, east and south wings, as well as the provision of ground level terraces and upper level balconies to the external and internal (courtyard) elevations of the building.  Three lifts and a stair are proposed within the courtyard, with bridges connecting them from the building itself.  The existing palm trees located adjacent to the eastern elevation of the building area also to be relocated.

 

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 is 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 for new single residences and multi-unit residential buildings which comply with the Prince Henry site were gazetted in June 2005.  Exemptions do not apply to development within the Historic Precinct however. 

 

Submission

The submission includes a Specific Elements Conservation Policy (SECP) for Lot 27, dated May 2006, and a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) for Lot 27, dated August 2006, both prepared by Tanner Architects.  Lot 27 comprises the Matron Dixon Nurses Home and its courtyard, areas of Indigenous Vegetation, Phoenix palms to the east of the building, and brick retaining walls.

 

The SECP notes that the Matron Dixon building is of significance for its historic and aesthetic values in being the first purpose built nurses quarters on the site.  The SECP also notes that the setting of the building is significant for its relative isolation and elevation with the site, and that the curtilage of the building is important for its collection of built and landscape features. 

 

In terms of Grading of Significance, the SECP considers that the overall presentation of the building including its bulk, symmetrical design, and large and prominent roof are of an exceptional degree of significance, while the much of the detail of the building including original fenestration pattern, external face brick masonry walls, and east and west facing balconies of the eastern wing are of a high degree of significance. 

 

The Heritage Impact Statement which has been submitted assesses the consistency of the proposed works with the guidelines contained in the SECP. 

 

Comments

The SECP provides conservation policies for fabric and spaces, alterations/adaptation, landscaping and archaeological management which are relevant to the proposal.  Conservation policies are also provided in relation to moveable heritage, maintenance, archival recording, interpretation and management structures.

 

            Internal Works

Included in the SECP is a recommendation for fabric and spaces that the institutional character of the building are retained in any adaptation, including that the long central corridor arrangement be retained to the greatest extent possible.  A number of elements are to be removed, including the western-most stairs and the fireplaces in the former nurses’ sitting rooms, as well as large sections of the long central corridor arrangement.  It is noted however that nib walls are to be retained as evidence of the original spatial arrangement.

 

            External Works

The SECP suggests that alterations (including balconies, shading, skylights and changes to openings) to the highly visible “external” walls and roofs are to be carefully designed to respect the architectural and landmark qualities of the building.  Concerns were raised in relation to the pre-lodgement submission that proposed new balconies and partial enclosure of the existing central balcony in the main eastern façade will detract from the importance of this entrance feature and the symmetry of the eastern elevation.  Concerns were raised in relation to the pre-lodgement submission that the location of the ground level supporting columns for the balconies to the north and south elevations will give the balconies a top heavy appearance and that the proposed enclosed “wintergardens” to the southern elevation may detract from the simple massing of the building.  Appropriate changes have now been made to address these concerns.  It is considered that the proposed new balconies to eastern elevation moderate but do not overwhelm the simple massing of the main façade. 

 

The SECP suggests that the regular fenestration pattern should remain legible, but that original openings to the “external” elevation may be enlarged provided pattern of openings respects the original and that less than 50% of openings are altered.  It is considered that the insertion of additional openings for new doors allows existing window openings to be retained.

 

The SECP suggests that less visible “internal” walls and roofs can support a greater degree of change.  Concerns were raised in relation to the pre-lodgement submission that the provision of bedroom accommodation within the internal verandah space at the first and second level will detract from the strong linear character of the existing open verandahs.  Appropriate changes have now been made to address these concerns.

 

The SECP suggests that skylights or roof windows can be inserted into internal and external roof planes, and dormer windows can be inserted into internal roof planes, provided they are regularly arranged, are within the plane of the roof, do not dominate the roof and preserve the line of the Dining Block vaulted ceiling.  It is noted that roof terraces are proposed to the north facing roofs of the north and south wings and to the west facing roof of the east wing.  Skylights are proposed to the other roof planes.  It is considered that the proposed terraces and skylights affect only a small proportion of the area of the roof and will not significantly impact on the integrity of the existing roof and will not dominate the original roof form.

 

            Works to Courtyard

The SECP suggests that lifts could be located within service spaces provided they do not penetrate above the roof, or external lifts and stairs may be introduced, provided they do not obscure or confuse the architectural form of the building.  The proposed lift, stair and ventilation towers will somewhat obscure views of the internal elevations of the building and detract from the open and unobstructed character of the central courtyard.  It is noted however that the provision of “external” rather than “internal” lifts will minimise damage to original building fabric.  The proposed lifts and stairs will project above the existing eaves line but below the existing ridge line. 

 

            Landscape Works

In relation to landscaping, the SECP considers that relocation of the palm trees is permissible.  The existing palm trees along the eastern elevation of the building are to be relocated to have a minimum separation between the building and the trees of around 5m.

 

            Archaeological Management

In relation to archaeological management, the SECP provides guidelines for Aboriginal and Historical Archaeology (primarily related to the unidentified building adjacent to the west wing). 

 

Recommendations

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

 

Comment: The Heritage Planner’s recommendations will be addressed by way of recommended conditions should approval be granted.


6.2    Development Engineering Comments

 

Council’s Development Engineer advises as follows:

 

“An application has been received for the refurbishment and adaptive re-use of the existing Matron Dickson building as well as strata subdivision (to be ‘Stage 2’ of the staged development application 364/2006 currently under assessment).

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

  Statement of Environmental Effects by Helen Mulcahy Urban Planning dated August 2006;

  Geotechnical Report by Douglas Partners dated October 2005;

  Traffic and Parking Report Ref. 5838/8 by Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes dated August 2006;

  Waste Management Plan Rev 01 by Stockland Development undated;

  Plan of Existing Ground Floor and Level 1 by Whelans Operations dated 25 October 2005;

  Landscape Plan LA-01 Issue A by Oculus dated 15 August 2006.

 

Landscape Comments

There is a row of seven Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palms) growing along the eastern edge of the existing building which are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and vary in height from between 3-10 metres.

 

They were observed to be in a reasonable state of health and condition, and are deemed worthy of retention due to their association with the heritage character and values of the site.

 

While the prelodgement application proposed that only five of the seven would be relocated, this proposal shows that all seven will be transplanted elsewhere throughout the site, and is a course of action which is supported given that it is in accordance with the precinct objectives set out in the Prince Henry Masterplan.

 

A relevant condition has therefore been included requiring that a suitably qualified and professional Arborist be engaged to perform the work, as well as prepare a site specific program detailing the process and after care which is to be applied, together with certification upon completion, and will need to include precautions to be taken in order to avoid infection with which is common during such a process.

 

As areas of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) exist on the sloped embankment beyond the eastern edge of the existing building, special considerations will apply during the course of the proposed works in order to ensure that a high level of protection is provided, as well as to avoid any conflict with inappropriate species selection.

 

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 all stormwater leaving Lot 27 being discharged to the new storage pond (located adjacent to Fairway 7 within the Coast golf course), via the inter-allotment drainage system at rear of the site.

 

A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided within the site prior to stormwater discharging by gravity to the inter-allotment drainage system.

 


Traffic Comments

Parking provision: The plans submitted with this application indicate 2 x 1 bedroom units, 23 x 2 bedroom units and 17 x 3 bedroom units, totalling 42 residential units. This represents an increase of 7 units (from the 35 units in the approved masterplan) and may result in an increase in traffic generation over and above the traffic generation of the approved masterplan.

 

(It is also noted that this configuration is different from that proposed in the Stage 1 submission of DA364/2006 currently under assessment.)

 

Whilst the increase proposed in this application alone may not have a significant impact on the surrounding road network; a number of the development applications received for the Prince Henry site involve increasing the number of dwellings/beds above that approved in the Masterplan. 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 masterplan.

 

In response to these concerns, a ‘Supplementary Traffic and Parking Report’ by GSA Planning dated May 2005 was submitted. This assesses the impacts of increased traffic generation over and above the adopted masterplan and gazetted LEP by assuming an additional average dwelling yield of 22%.

 

The supplementary traffic report was considered at the July 21 meeting of the SRDAC, and whilst the SRDAC concluded that the proposal will not have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network, it is noted that this application is proposing one additional unit and a different configuration of bedroom types to that analysed in the supplementary report; such that an extra 5 car spaces would be required with an associated increase in traffic generation and potentially impacting on the adjacent classified road network.

 

Further to the above, it is understood that the applicant is not proposing to amend the Stage 1 basement carpark development application currently under assessment to show the reduced number of car spaces required by the lesser number of unit proposed in this application (as the Stage 1 concept approval is for 44 units).

 

It is noted however that the Development Engineer does not consider this will have a significant impact on the overall traffic generation in the vicinity of the site.

 

Bicycle parking: For a development of this size, a total of 18 secure bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Council’s DCP – Parking. It was assumed in DA364/2006 that these were to be provided at ground level as they were not shown on those submitted plans and hence no conditions were incorporated into that consent. The submitted plans for this application now show the provision of bicycle racks at ground level, adjacent to the driveway and hence a condition has been included in this report in regard to these spaces.

 

Waste Comments

Two waste storage areas have been shown on Basement Level 1, both sized to contain 23 bins, to be utilised in conjunction with the proposed refurbishment and adaptive re-use of the existing building into 44 residential units.

 

The arrangement shown is considered satisfactory based on Council’s waste requirements of 1 x 240 litre garbage bin and 1 x 240 litre recycling per two residential units (noting that chute feeds to garbage compactors are not required to be installed in the existing heritage building).

 

The Planning Officer is advised that as the proposed waste storage areas are located within the basement carpark covered in the Stage 1 development application; waste conditions have only been included in that report (DA 364/2006).

 

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:

 

“The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the following;

1.  Refurbishment of the existing historic Matron Dickson building for the creation of forty two (42) sole occupancy units.

2.  Construction of two (2) levels of basement car parking.

3.  Various site works and

4.  Strata subdivision.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class   -        2        (Residential Units)

Class   -        7a      (Carpark)

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a heritage listed building previously used for the accommodation of nursing staff.

 

Key Issues

 

Noise:

There is potential for the generation of noise from the proposed development due to the installation of plant and equipment, such as any mechanical exhaust system serving the basement car park. Conditions should be imposed on the consent to address potential noise emissions from the development.

 

Site Management:

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

The proposed development involves a change of use of the building which must comply with the Category 2 fire safety provisions (as defined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000) as applicable to the proposed new use , in accordance with Clause 93 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. 

 


Access for people with a disability:

Although access and facilities for people with disabilities is not required under the Building Code of Australia, wherever practicable the entrance to a multi unit housing development should aim to facilitate some degree of accessibility to the building.

 

It is recommended that the applicant comply with Council’s Development Control Plan for Multi Unit Housing in relation to the provision of adaptable housing for persons with a disability.

 

Conclusion:

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

6.4    Environmental Health Comments

 

No objection has been raised to the development application in relation to environmental health.

 

6.5    Heritage Council of NSW Comments

 

The Heritage Council advised of its approval of the integrated development application in a letter dated 14 November 2006 in accordance with 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 map applicable to the specific site (in this case the Prince Henry Site). This map requires that, for Retained Heritage Buildings such as the Matron Dickson building, development is to be “limited to existing envelope subject to Specific Element Conservation Policy (SECP) for each building” (Figure 6 Prince Henry DCP). The proposal breaches the existing envelope of the Matron Dickson Building in the following manner:

 

  The introduction of balconies with a depth of 2.5m located on the external facades of the building.

 

  The introduction of loft style accommodation into the roof voids with new roof balconies and/or skylights within the roof planes.

 

  The introduction of three lift towers and a stairwell in the central courtyard of the Matron Dickson Building.

 

An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) has been lodged in relation to these breaches in the building envelope and assessed in Section 10.1 below.

 

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

 

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 the Historic Precinct and, as such, is subject to the following specific precinct controls:


 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Built Form

 

 

 

 

New developments to be in accordance with the Conservation Management Plan (CMP), Archaeological Management Plan (AMP), and any relevant Specific Elements Conservation Policies (SECP).

The proposal is consistent with the Prince Henry site Conservation Management Plan (CMP) and Archaeological Management Plan (AMP), and the Matron Dickson Building Specific Elements Conservation Policies (SECP) dated 17 May 2006.

Yes

 

Development is to comply with the setbacks and ‘match building alignment’ controls identified on Figures 18-19 of the DCP.

The proposal maintains the existing setback of the Matron Dickson Building from the site boundary. No “match building alignment” control applies to the Matron Dickson Building.

Yes

 

Development is to demonstrate that views (both from the private and public domain) identified on Figures 18-19 are maintained.

The proposal will not impact upon any identified views and vista corridors in Figures 18-19 of the DCP.