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

 

    3 April 2007

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 10TH APRIL 2007 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

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

 

Quorum:                            Eight (8) members.

 

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

 

1     Apologies/Granting of leave of absences

 

2     Confirmation of the Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 13TH MARCH 2007.

 

3     Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4     Addressing of Committee by Members of the Public

 

5     Urgent Business

 

6     Development Applications

 

6.1                  

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 23 GARRET STREET, MAROUBRA.

2

6.2                  

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 125 AND 125A BOYCE ROAD, MAROUBRA JUNCTION

18

6.3                  

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 2-8 PINE AVENUE, LITTLE BAY

34

6.4                  

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT -1-9 PINE AVENUE, LITTLE BAY

94

6.5                  

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 33-99 BUNDOCK STREET, RANDWICK – 2002

154

6.6                  

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 33-99 BUNDOCK STREET, RANDWICK – 2003

195

6.7

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT – 155-157 ARDEN STREET, COOGEE.

219

 

 

 

7     Miscellaneous

 

7.1                

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 12/2007 - COUNCIL'S POLICY - FORMER INCINERATOR LAND, MATRAVILLE.

300

7.2                

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 13/2007 - USE OF STORMWATER DETENTION TANKS FOR WATER STORAGE AND ON-SITE REUSE.

302

7.3               

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 14/2007 - DESIGN IDEAS FOR REJUVENATING RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDINGS.

306

 

8     Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

9     Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

16 March, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/80/2007 & PROP036221

 

PROPOSAL:

 Ground level alterations and additions to existing dwelling, construction of pergola to rear and hardstand carspace to front of dwelling.

PROPERTY:

 23 Garret Street, MAROUBRA NSW 2035

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 P Moore

OWNER:

P Moore

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Chris Bastic, Dominic Sullivan, Paul Tracey.

 

The proposal is for ground level alterations and additions to the rear of the premises including a new hardstand car space to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling house. The alterations and additions comply with the relevant requirements under Councils Dwelling Houses and attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan (DCP).

 

The main issue with the application is that the proposed carspace would have a length of 4.68m which does not comply with the minimum requirement of 5.5m as indicated in Councils DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and DCP- Parking. This creates the potential for vehicles to overhang onto the footpath and therefore impede pedestrian traffic. It is therefore recommended the application be approved subject to the carspace being deleted from the application, as per Condition No. 2.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details alterations and additions to the dwelling including a reconfigured dinning, lounge and kitchen area to the rear ground level (resulting in an additional 16m² of floor space, three new windows to the side ground level, and a new carspace to the front of the site.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Garrett Street and is presently occupied by an existing double storey semi-detached dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 8.23m, a side boundary depth of 37.95m and has an overall site area of 303.5m². 

 

Neighbouring the property to the south is a pair of semi’s, to the north is the adjoining semi detached dwelling with a recently approved carspace and carport to the front and to the rear is a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of single and two storey semi-detached dwellings. The street contains numerous carspaces and carport structures to the front of these dwellings. It is noted, 16 Garret Street contains a carspace and carport measuring 4.5m, approved in 1993, which predates the current standards and policies. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Figure 2 and 3 are photos of the subject site and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area

 

Figure 2: Subject site 23 Garrett Street.

Figure 3: Adjoining semi at 21 Garrett Street

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification 1998. No submissions were received.

 

5.    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:-

 

5.1 Engineering Issues

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions at the above site including a hardstand car space.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

•  Dwg No 2/07 by P Banfield dated 15/.01.07

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

Car Space Comments

The assessing officer is advised that the proposed car space is shown as having a depth of only 4.68m which does not comply with the Australian Standard and thus is not supported by Council’s Development Engineering Team.

 

Should the assessing officer consider approving the car space then the application should be referred back to Development Engineering for appropriate conditions.

 

Should the application be approved (without the carspace) the following conditions shall apply:

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

6.    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.

-   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-   Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

-   Development Control Plan - Parking

-   Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

6.1 Policy Controls

 

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

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

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

45.9 % 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 88 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 8 x 11 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.

A substantial portion of the site is permeable and exceeds the preferred solutions. Complies.

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed FSR is 0.53.5:1 which accounts for 162.47sqm. Complies.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 3.3 metres. Complies

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

The extent of excavation which is limited to 400mm along the common southern boundary and does not extend beyond the adjoining semi detached dwelling and is therefore considered to not result in any adverse impacts. Complies

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

Not applicable.

S2

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

Complies.

S3

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

The proposed development is set back 1.185 metres from the northern side boundary and is consistent with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling on the southern boundary. Complies.

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.

 
 
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.

Not applicable.

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking space is 4.68m X 3m. Does not comply – see assessment in Section 7.1.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is set on the side boundary. Does not comply - see assessment in Section 7.1.

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.

S2

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

The proposed carspace occupies about 36.4% of the width of the site frontage. Does not comply – see assessment in section 7.1.

 

6.2 Council Policies
Development Control Plan –
Parking

 

CONTROLS

OBJECTIVES

DCP CONTROLS -

COMPLIANCE

DESIGN GUIDELINES: PARKING LAYOUT

To ensure parking facilities are efficient adequate and safe

To consider public safety and convenience in designing parking areas.

The length and width of carspaces may be varied from the 5.5m x 2.5m dimensions in the following circumstances:

 

Small carspace: in certain circumstances may be appropriate to provide spaces smaller than specified above, which are designated as small carspaces. The minimum dimensions are 4.9m long and 2.4 wide as per AS AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 which shows the base dimension for B85 vehicles as 4.910m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. as indicated the proposed carspace is 4.68 x 3m.  See assessment in section 7.1 below.

 

 

 

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

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

 

7.1    Development Control Plans – Dwelling Houses and attached dual-occupancies and Parking.

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCPs include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape; structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling; and provide convenient and safe car parking and access.

 

In terms of the hardstand taking up more than 35% of the frontage of the site, it is considered reasonable in this instance due to the narrowness of the site and consistent subdivision pattern shown along Garret Street where numerous carspaces and carparking structures are located to the front of sites. In addition, the sizable soft landscaping provided to the subject site is considered to be in keeping with the streetscape and the additional hardstand area will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling. It is considered the proposal meets the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP in relation to the extent of the hardstand area at the front of the dwelling.

 

In terms of non-compliance with the length of the carspace, the applicant has argued that a precedent exists for small carspaces at various properties on Garrett Street, in particular at 16 Garrett Street which measures 4.5m. It is noted this carspace was approved prior to the current standards and policies. In terms of the current policies, while compliance is achieved with the width of the carspace allowing for adequate manoeuvring, the depth however is 820mm short of a standard carspace (5.5m) and 220mm short of a small carspace (4.9m) as defined by the DCP – Parking. This shortfall in length creates the potential for cars to overhang onto the front public section of the grassed footpath, thus impeding safe and convenient pedestrian traffic. It is for this reason the proposed carspace is not considered to meet the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and attached Dual Occupancies or the DCP - Parking.

 

Figure 4 is a photo of the substandard carspace and carport located at 16 Garrett Street opposite the subject site.

Figure 4: 16 Garrett Street

 

 

8.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:    Integrated and accessible transport

Direction 9a:  A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycle ways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.

 

 

9.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

10. CONCLUSION

 

The proposed rear alterations and additions comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual-Occupancies DCP. However, the dimensions of the proposed carspace do not comply with the minimum requirements.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to condition No. 2 requiring the deletion of the carspace.

 

 

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/80/2007 for Ground level alterations and additions to existing dwelling, construction of pergola to rear and hardstand carspace to front of dwelling. at 23 Garret Street, MAROUBRA NSW 2035 subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 2/07, dated 15/1/2007 and received by Council on 5th February 2007, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       The proposed carspace and associated driveway to the front portion of the site shall be deleted from the subject application and plans accompanying the Construction Certificate are to be amended accordingly.

 

This condition has been included to ensure safe and convenient pedestrian traffic along Garret Street.

 

3.       Metal roof sheeting is to be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment.

 

4.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be sympathetic with the existing building.  Sections of unpainted brick must not be painted.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following condition is imposed to satisfy relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

9.       All building, plumbing and drainage work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

The approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre prior to commencing any building or excavation works, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au and go to the Building, Developing and Plumbing, then Quick Check or Building and Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The principal certifying authority is required to ensure that a Quick Check Agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before commencing works.

 

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

 

10.     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.

 

11.     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.

 

12.     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.

 

13.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

15.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

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

 

The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Details of the principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

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

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·         Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·         Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·         Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

24.     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.

 

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.

 

25.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

30.     Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

31.     Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

32.     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.

 

33.     The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.  Details of compliance are to be noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

36.     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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1      The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING &

 

 



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

27 March, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1151/2003/B & PROP038946

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Application to increase height, alter dwelling mix, change roof construction material and alter facade treatment.

PROPERTY:

 125 and 125A Boyce Road, Maroubra Junction

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Selleck Architects Pty Ltd

OWNER

Rustically Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This is an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to modify a previously approved development. The application is referred to Council because the estimated capital works value of the original development proposal exceeded $2M and there were objections to the original and amended application.

 

The approved development involves construction of 2, 7-storey buildings, each containing 2 commercial units at ground level with 10 residential units above. There is a 3-level basement car park with 36 parking spaces for residents, visitors and the commercial tenants. The approved development involves demolition of 2 existing dwellings.

 

The proposal seeks to modify the approved buildings by increasing ceiling heights, increasing the number of dwellings, altering the dwelling mix, changing the roof construction material and using glass-louvres instead of aluminium screens to enclose northern balconies.

 

The development has been modified previously under Section 96(1A). The previous modification involved various amendments to the layout of the proposed building. The amendments were aimed at improving circulation within the building and reducing construction costs.

 

The subject site is made-up of 2 sites known as 125 and 125A Boyce Road, Maroubra. The subject site is located a block north from the intersection with Anzac Parade and the centre of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

 

The proposed modifications were notified in accordance with Council Policy. One objection was received. The objection was concerned with overshadowing, outlook privacy and non-compliance.

 

The proposed modifications are secondary to the principle form and nature of the approved development and do not affect the way the development relates to the zone or the Maroubra-Junction Town-Centre objectives. The development, as modified, would contribute to the viability of the existing centre, minimise the impact on nearby residential zones and includes a mix of housing types to encourage affordability. The approved development, as modified, would adequately satisfy the design performance criteria in the Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP.

 

The proposed modifications (including those previously approved) relate to many aspects of the building. The development, as modified, would remain materially and substantially the same as the approved development and satisfies the relevant criteria in Section 96(2) of the Act.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

This is an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to modify a previously approved development.

 

 

 

 

The approved development

The approved development involves construction of 2, 7-storey buildings, each containing 2 commercial units at ground level with 10 residential units above. There is a 3-level basement car park with 36 parking spaces for residents, visitors and commercial tenants. The approved development involves demolition of 2 existing dwellings.

 

One building has frontage to Boyce Road and the other to Green Street. There is a communal open space between them comprising a landscaped podium over the basement parking and a small deep-soil zone. In total, there are 14 x 2-bedroom units, 5 x 3-bedroom units, 1 x 1-bedroom unit and 285.1 m2 of commercial space. Front and rear balconies are proposed for each unit. Balconies on the Boyce Road elevation are fitted with moveable aluminium screens that can enclose the balcony space.

 

The development requires site dewatering and General Terms of Approval for the necessary permit were granted to the original application.

 

The development was short of the minimum requirements for parking and was levied section 94 contributions for 1 car-parking space.

 

The proposal has previously been modified under Section 96(1A) and the details of that modification are described under the ‘History’ section of this report.

 

The proposed modifications

The proposal seeks to modify the approved buildings by increasing ceiling heights, increasing the number of dwellings, altering the dwelling mix, changing the roof construction material and using glass-louvres instead of aluminium screens to enclose some balconies. Table 1 shows the new unit mix. The proposed modifications are described in detail here:

 

Building Height

 

1.  Increase the finished floor level of the Boyce Road ground floor from RL26.6m above AHD to 27.8m above AHD. This is to provide adequate headroom to the basement car park areas beneath, in particularly the driveway access and garage storage areas where headroom as approved is inadequate.

 

2.  Increase in floor to floor height of Boyce Road building from 3.07 m to 3.6m, and increase in floor to floor height of the Green Street building from 3.3m to 3.6m. This is to provide adequate ceiling heights throughout the ground level commercial suites to promote flexibility of use and to allow for structural zone.

 

3.  Extension of lift shaft over-run to above roof height by approximately 1 metre for both buildings. This is to provide elevator access to Level 7.

 

Unit mix

 

4.  Inclusion of a 1 bed and 3 bed apartment configuration to level 4 and 7 of the Green Street building.

 

5.  Conversion of the 1 bed and 3 bed apartment to 2 x 2 bed apartments – Boyce Road building only.

 

6.  Conversion of the 4 double-level 3 bedroom apartments to 8 single level apartments.

 

Table 1 - New unit mix

 

Commercial

1 Bed

2 Bed

3 Bed

Total

Approved

4/285.1m2

1

14

5

24

Proposed

4/285.1m2

2

20

2

28

 

Façade treatment

 

7.  Addition of balconies to the level 7 dwellings on the northern façade of both buildings.

 

8.  Incorporate additional aluminium framed louvred glass walls to various levels of the building as shown in the photomontage in Figure 3. This is to improve the general amenity of the private outdoor space, to allow full utilisation of the balcony area in all weather conditions and to improve the presentation of the building to the street.

 

Roof construction

 

9.  Alter the roof construction from lightweight metal frame and roof sheet to reinforced concrete slab with water proof membrane. Construction preference for cost materials and program reasons.  Also minimises the increase in height.

 

Overall height

 

10. The changes described in 1, 2 and 9 increase the overall height of the Boyce Road building by 18cm and decrease the overall height of the Green Street building by 25cms.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is made-up of 2 sites known as 125 and 125A Boyce Road, Maroubra. The 2 sites are occupied by semi-detached dwellings fronting Boyce Road. The dwellings are dated from the 1940s and have been altered so that they are no longer visually integrated. The combined site area of 125-125A Boyce Road is 794.4 m2 with a frontage to Boyce Road of 13.72m and to Green Street of 13.72m, and a depth of 57.92m.

 

The subject site is located a block from the intersection with Anzac Parade and the centre of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre, To the west of the site from Boyce Road is a large development known as 832A Anzac Parade and 117 Boyce Road with shops facing Anzac Parade. There is an extensive car park over 5 levels to the rear of the site. The upper 2 storeys of this development are residential with units located up to 3m off the common boundary with extensive deck areas provided on the boundary. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site.

 

Figure 1 - Aerial photograph of the subject site

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

The subject development has previously been modified under Section 96(1A). The previous modification involved various amendments to the layout of the proposed building. The amendments were aimed at improving the circulation within the building and reducing construction costs. The modifications also sought to delete duplicate consent conditions. A detailed breakdown of the proposed amendments is described here:

 

Previously approved modifications

 

1.  Reconfiguration of parking layout and deep soil planting. The car park as originally design failed to comply with AS 2890.1-2004 and the BCA including ramping between levels, egress, headroom and facilities.

 

2.  Reconfiguration of entry areas, fire stair egress, internal layout and circulation. The proposed amendments improve the efficiency of circulation to and within the building. An accessible ramp has been introduced within the Green Street frontage providing equitable access through the building. This removes the requirement for wheelchair stair climbing platforms and associated maintenance/operation issues.

 

3.  Reconfiguration of stair and elevator in the Boyce Road building to provide a BCA complying elevator and to rationalise the circulation areas and to improve the circulation and parking in the basement levels.

 

4.  Reconfiguration of internal unit layouts to improve the efficiency of the circulation within each dwelling and to improve the general amenity provided for future occupants.

 

5.  Introduction of raised planting beds to internal courtyard area in lieu of non-trafficable roof over commercial tenancies below to increase the available landscape area overall and to improve the visual privacy between the two building by incorporating screen planting.

 

6.  Deletion of void from bedroom 1 to living room - Level 6 and 7 (fifth floor and fifth mezzanine) to increase the available floor space to the bedroom level and to provide separation of the main bedroom from the living room for acoustic and thermal performance.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with Council Policy. The following submissions were received:

 

Peter Hales, Strata Manager, 117 Boyce Road and 832 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

 

The existing approved D/A already impacts on residential units that directly adjoin the proposed structure. Owners who currently enjoy panoramic views will be facing either a roof line or the balcony of another unit. While level 5 of the property is already impacted, level 6 was not. Level 6 has open courtyards with units set back, with the exception of unit 16 that has windows and balconies at building alignment.

 

All the Owners at this site request that Council carefully consider proposed amendment to ensure that their personal amenity is not further significantly overshadowed and their privacy further eroded.

 

The Owner’s corporation object to this increase in height unless it meets the DCP for height restrictions.

 

Comment: The increase in overall building height is in the order of 18cm and not significant to the views or amenity presently enjoyed by the occupants on the adjoining property. The inclusion of a new balcony at the upper-most level would obscure the outlook, solar access and views from the east facing, upper most window on the adjoining lot. This window is located on the boundary line and thus highly vulnerable and difficult to protect.

 

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.

 

6.1 Environmental Planning Instruments

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Clause 13   Zone No 3A (General Business Zone)

 

The site is zoned 3A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The objectives of the zone are:

 

o   to maintain the viability of existing business centres, and

o   to facilitate development of land, in places identified by the Council as suitable to be used as business centres, for commercial, retail, residential and community purposes:

  by introducing appropriate floor space ratio controls, and

  by encouraging economically viable retail cores which are centrally located and in close proximity to public transport, and

  by enhancing employment opportunities and servicing the needs of the local and regional community, and

  by encouraging and facilitating the use of public transport, and

  by providing and enhancing pedestrian and public open space areas for shoppers and workers, and

  by maintaining and improving the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the City of Randwick,

o   to minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones, and

o   to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability

 

The proposed modifications are secondary to the principle form and nature of the approved development and do not affect the way the development relates to the zone objectives. The development, as modified, would contribute to the viability of the existing centre, minimise the impact on nearby residential zones and includes a mix of housing types to encourage affordability.

 

Clause 42D   Maroubra Junction Town Centre

 

The Council must be satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives for the land and the following objectives for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre:

 

o   to achieve high quality design in all new developments and improvements undertaken in the public domain,

o   to encourage a vibrant and active town centre that provides a range of facilities and services that benefit the locality and local government area,

o   to provide opportunities for residential development in the town centre that complement the primary business function of the town centre,

o   to encourage a variety of housing forms that complements development within the town centre and do not impact adversely upon the amenity of surrounding residential areas,

o   to ensure that social and cultural needs are considered with any development proposals in the town centre,

o   to encourage and facilitate the provision of vehicular access and off-street parking to support businesses in the town centre,

o   to ensure that public transport and associated facility needs are considered and promoted with any development proposals and public domain improvements in town centre,

o   to require and encourage environmentally sustainable approaches to future land use and development, and

o   to improve the overall environmental quality of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

 

The proposed modifications are secondary to the principle form and nature of the approved development and do not affect the way the development relates to the Maroubra Junction Town Centre objectives. The development, as modified, would contribute to the viability and vibrancy of the existing centre, minimise the impact on nearby residential zones and includes a mix of housing types to encourage affordability.

 

Clause 42D also establishes the maximum height and number of stories for a new building in Maroubra Junction. Tables 2 and 3 show the change in height of each building.

 

Table 2 - Change in Height, Boyce Road Building

 

RL

Height

Change

Approved Ceiling Height

47.89

20.77m

 

Proposed Ceiling Height

48.5

21.38m

+61cm

Approved Overall Height

48.62

21.5

 

Proposed Overall Height

48.8

21.68

+18cm

Table 3 – Change in Height, Green Street Building

 

RL

Height

Change

Approved Ceiling Height

47.87

21.59m

 

Proposed Ceiling Height

48.07

21.79m

+20cm

Approved Overall Height

48.62

22.34

 

Proposed Overall Height

48.37

22.09

-25cm

 

Height changes are affected by the new, narrower, roof construction material. The magnitude of height changes, over the 21-22 metres height of the building would be un-discernable from the street and insignificant to adjoining buildings of similar height.

 

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

 

A modification application under section 96 (2) of the Act must be accompanied by a design verification from a qualified designer, being a statement in which the qualified designer verifies that:

 

o   he or she designed, or directed the design, of the modification of the residential flat development, and

o   the residential flat development, as modified, achieves the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, and

o   the modifications do not diminish or detract from the design quality, or compromise the design intent, of the development for which the development consent was granted.

 

The proposal was accompanied by the requisite statement from John Selleck BA(Arch) Barch (hons) of Selleck Architects Pty Ltd.

 

The consent authority may also refer the proposed modification to the Design Review Panel. The proposed modifications were referred to a meeting of the Design Review Panel. The Panel’s written comments and Staff responses are shown in Table 4.

 

Table 4 - Design Review Panel Assessment

Panel’s Comments

 

Staff Response

The Panel has reviewed this project on several occasions and improvements recommended by the Panel have generally not been attended to.  Internal lift lobbies, over-shadowing of apartments, floor to floor heights, internal bathrooms, the roof design (in relation to ESD), the quality of the Boyce Rd and Green Street level, etc still remain a concern.  (see previous reports)

 

These issues relate to aspects of the development that have already been approved. Consideration of these issues falls outside Council’s scope of authority.

Enclosed balconies - With regard to the proposal to enclose balconies with un-shaded glass louvres to the external facades is not desirable due to increased heat load to apartments.  The initial proposal for aluminium louvres was acceptable as they do not seal the space when closed, they shade the balcony spaces, do not contribute to heat build-up and do not require anywhere near the amount of cleaning/maintenance that glass louvres would require.  Internal blinds do not satisfactorily reduce heat gain. The awning windows to the south will be subject to afternoon summer sun and there is no sun shading indicated.  As previously mentioned there is also the issue of fire separation between the floors. We suggest the applicant seeks advice from a well regarded environmental engineer (such as Che Wall from Advanced Environments or Barry Tam from Steensen Varming) to reach a workable solution.

 

The glass louvres would be wholly operable, allowing the occupants to partially or fully open them and control ventilation. The recommendation includes a condition that requires the louvres to be made of self cleaning glass (self cleaning glass has a very thin coating of titanium dioxide. This coating is photo-catalytic so that dirt dislodges in sunlight and hydrophilic so that rain slicks away the dislodged material). Fire separation in accordance with the Building Code of Australia would need to be achieved and this matter is included on the original approval.

Landscape elements in the courtyard - It is understood that the high level planting wall that screens the car park is not viable with regard to growing suitable plants and that the applicant is undertaking discussions with the Council to provide a more durable solution. Certainly low – to mid level planting in adequately sized soil reservoirs should be provided. A landscape architect should provide this input.

 

A high level planting wall was discussed, but did not become part of the final proposal. There are conditions on the previous approval that require landscaping to be designed by a landscape architect.

Other issues - Other Panel comments, such as day light and fresh air to foyers, better use of the roof for top light and ventilation, improved solar access to the south side units by cutting back the north side block, have not been addressed.

 

These issues relate to aspects of the development that have already been approved. Consideration of these issues falls outside Council’s scope of authority.

Summary and recommendations - The applicant has been unwilling to address the above design issues. The Panel indicated that revisions to the current DA would be required to achieve SEPP 65 compliance.

 

Many of the Panel’s comments fall outside the scope of the current section 96 application and cannot be considered. The issue with the proposed glass louvres has been addressed here and by way of a recommended consent condition.

 

6.2 Development Control Plans

(a)  Development Control Plan – Maroubra Junction

 

The Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP describes design performance objectives for new buildings. There are also ‘block’ specific controls. The subject site is located within ‘block 7’. The DCP relevantly provides design performance criteria for height, parking, apartment-mix, parking, balconies, roof design, internal circulation, landscaping, and façade treatments.

 

The proposed amendments are generally minor and would not materially alter the form or nature of the approved development. The proposal, as modified, adequately satisfies the design performance criteria in this DCP, albeit in a different way.

 

Figure 2 shows a photomontage of the approved development. Figure 3 shows a photomontage of the proposed modifications, demonstrating similar architectural styling.

 

Figure 2 - Photomontage of the approved northern (Boyce Road) elevation

 

Figure 3 - Photomontage of the proposed northern (Boyce Road) elevation

 

(a)  Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The proposal increases the parking demand on the site. There are 36 parking spaces provided in basement parking. The proposal has been previously levied Section 94 Contributions for 1 parking space. Table 5 shows the increase in parking demand for the proposal.

 

Table 5 - Change in parking demand

 

Commercial

Residential

Visitor

Provided

Deficiency

Approved

7

25

5

36

-1

Proposed

7

29

6

36

-5

 

The applicant offers the following in support of the non-compliance:

 

The proposed changes to the unit mix generate a numerical demand for 5 additional parking spaces (1 visitor and 4 residential spaces). The modified proposal results in a technical non-compliance with the numerical requirements of Council’s Parking DCP. However, the proposal is considered appropriate in the context of the site given the excellent proximity to public transport infrastructure available at Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road and associated services and facilities within the precinct.

 

In addition, the Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP actively encourages the minimisation of car usage and the encouragement to use public transport as opposed to the private car. There is also adequate on-street parking available to satisfy visitor parking demands without adversely affecting the availability of on-street parking for other users.

 

Council is also entitled to levy Section 94 contributions in respect of any numerical shortfall in parking.

 

The applicant’s case for the adequacy of on-street parking is unfounded and lacks empirical evidence. However, the remainder of the case is sound. Section 94 contributions are included in the recommendation to make-up for the deficiency in on-site parking. Developer contributions may only be levied in respect of commercial parking. There is a condition in the recommendation that requires the minimum amount of residential parking spaces to be properly allocated.

 

6.3 Council Policies

Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The proposed amendments change the Section 94 contributions that need to be levied on the proposed development. Table 6 shows the change.

Table 6 - Change in developer contributions

 

Open Space

Community Facilities

Administration

Townscape

Parking

Total

Rate[1]

$1195.25/1bed

$528.50/1bed

$425/DA

$27/m2

$11,125/

space

-

$1792.85/2bed

$792.72/2bed

$2732.00/3bed

$1208.00/3bed

Approved

$1195.25

$528.50

$425

$7697.70

$11,125

$76869.43

$25099.90

$11098.08

$13660.00

$6040.00

Proposal

$2390.50

$1057.00

$425

$7697.60

$55,625

$126786.60

$35857.00

$15854.40

$5464.00

$2416.00

 

7.    SECTION 96(2) ASSESSMENT

 

Council may approve an application to modify an existing Development Consent only if certain criteria are satisfied under the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.  Table 7 below outlines the criteria and provides comment.

 

Table 7 - Section 96 Assessment

Criteria

 

Comment

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

The proposed modifications (including those previously approved) relate to many aspects of the building. However, the scope and extent of the changes are secondary to the principle form and nature of the approved development. The development, as modified, would remain materially and substantially the same as the approved development. The proposal satisfies the requirements of this clause.

 

Council must consult with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body.

The proposed development is an Integrated Development for which the General Terms of Approval have been issued. The proposal does not change or affect the previously issued General Terms of Approval.

Council must notify the application in accordance with the regulations, if the regulations so require, or a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s ‘Public Notification of Proposals’ DCP.

Council must consider any submissions made concerning the proposed modification.

Submissions are considered under the ‘Public Consultation’ heading of this report.

Council must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 79C (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.

Relevant Section 79C matters are considered under the ‘Environmental Planning Instruments’ and ‘Environmental Assessment’ headings of this report.

 

 

8.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:      Excellence in urban design and development

Direction 4a:     Improved design and sustainability across all development

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

9.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10. CONCLUSION

 

This is an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to modify a previously approved development.

 

The proposal seeks to modify the approved buildings by increasing ceiling heights, increasing the number of dwellings, altering the dwelling mix, changing the roof construction material and using glass-louvres instead of aluminium screens to enclose some balconies.

 

The development has been modified previously under Section 96(1A). The previous modification involved various amendments to the layout of the proposed building. The amendments were aimed at improving circulation within the building and reducing construction costs.

 

The proposed modifications were notified in accordance with Council Policy. One objection was received. The objection was concerned with overshadowing, outlook privacy and non-compliance. These issues are addressed in the report.

 

The proposed modifications are secondary to the principle form and nature of the approved development and do not affect the way the development relates to the zone or the Maroubra-Junction Town-Centre objectives. The development, as modified, would contribute to the viability of the existing centre, minimise the impact on nearby residential zones and includes a mix of housing types to encourage affordability. The approved development, as modified, would satisfy the design performance criteria in the Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP.

 

While the proposed modifications (including those previously approved) relate to many aspects of the building, the development, as modified, would remain materially and substantially the same as the approved development. Therefore, the proposal satisfies the relevant criteria in Section 96(2) of the Act.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as grant approval under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No. 1151/2003, at 125-125A Boyce Road, Maroubra Junction, in the following manner:

 

1.         Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 0345 Sheet 01C through to 08C, 9C, dated 10 November 2003 and received by Council on 22 June 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as previously amended by the Section 96 plans numbered DA1.1-A DA1.2-A, DA1.3-B to DA1.6B dated November 2006 and received by Council on 29 November 2006 and 12 January 2007, and as further amended by Section 96 plans numbered DA1.1-C through DA1.7c dated February 2007 and received by Council 27 February 2007, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         Amend Condition No. 15 to read:

 

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

 

a)        for the provision or improvement of open space              $43,711.50

b)        for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $19,327.40

c)        for car parking                                                          $55,625.00

d)        for townscape improvements                                       $7697.70

e)        Administration fee                                                     $425.00

 

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

 

3.         Insert the following condition after condition 1:

 

1A.       To ensure allocation of parking is in accordance with Development Control Plan – Parking, twenty-nine (29) car parking spaces must be allocated to residential units, six (6) parking spaces must be allocated for visitors to the residential units and two (2) parking spaces must be allocated to the commercial units.

 

4.         Insert the following condition after condition 1:

 

1B.       To satisfy the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings, all glass louvres must be installed with self-cleaning glass (i.e. micro-crystalline titanium dioxide coating or similar). Specifications must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

29 March, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/616/2006 & PROP051704

 

PROPOSAL:

 Erection of a five storey mixed commercial/retail and residential development comprising 53 dwellings and basement carparking for 97 vehicles and strata subdivision.

PROPERTY:

 2-8 Pine

 Avenue, Little Bay

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Stockland Development(PHH) Pty Limted

OWNER:

Stockland Development(PHH) Pty Limted

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The subject application is for the erection of a five storey mixed commercial/retail and residential development comprising of 53 dwellings and basement car parking for 97 vehicles and strata subdivision. The subject site is located on the corner of Pine Avenue and Anzac Parade at the main entrance to the Prince Henry Site.  The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee as the proposed development is valued at $21.4 million.

 

The proposal is permissible under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal has an FSR of 1.43:1 which exceeds the maximum FSR control of 1.2:1. The proposal also breaches the maximum wall height control by 3.9m in the western elevation and 4.3m in the eastern elevation; and the maximum building height control by 3.1m in the western elevation and 3.5m in the eastern elevation. Objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) have been submitted in relation to the breach of these controls. The non-compliances have been assessed and found acceptable as the parts of the building affected by the breach will not be visually intrusive or bulky; the proposal provides an appropriate counterbalance in not utilising the maximum allowable building envelope throughout the designated building footprint but rather concentrating the building mass along the Pine Avenue builtform resulting in a public gathering space along the Pine Avenue frontage; and the additional density and height will not give rise to any detrimental impacts to surrounding uses in terms of solar access, ventilation, privacy and views.

 

The application complies with all the relevant prescribed controls in the Prince Henry Development Control Plan with the exception of the FSR, wall and building height, setbacks, soft landscaping and internal solar access. The breach in setbacks is localised along Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue and arises from the curved builtform of the proposal which, conversely, has provided opportunities to create open public areas along Pine Avenue appropriate for the expected degree of pedestrian movement associated with future neighbourhood hub. The shortfall in soft landscaping is reasonable because the forecourt of the proposed building along Anzac Parade wrapping around into Pine Avenue and then Jenner Street will be highly pedestrianised in the future given the commercial hub so that the use of paved all-weather surface is reasonable. The shortfall in units gaining adequate solar access is minor (3 out of the total 53 dwellings proposed) and arises from constraints imposed on the builtform imposed by the shape and configuration of the subject site such that these 3 dwelling units are located on the extreme south-eastern side of the proposed building with a southerly aspect.

 

The proposal was notified and advertised as “integrated development” for a period of 30 days in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). Submissions were received in response to the proposal.

 

The proposal is an “integrated development” as the subject site is located within the Prince Henry conservation area which has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register. Accordingly, the application was referred to the Heritage Council of NSW for approval, and notified and advertised for a period of 30 days in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). The Heritage Council has issued its General Terms of Approval for the proposed development which have been incorporated as conditions of consent. 

 

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 with the exception of the number of dwelling units which exceeds the Masterplan/Deemed DCP by 16 dwellings. As discussed in this report, the increase in number of dwellings arises from the design and layout of the proposed building (given the permissible envelope) in accommodating the number of dwellings proposed. Despite the increase in the number of dwellings, the proposal overall will not give rise to any adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views. In particular, the applicant’s traffic analysis indicates that the increase in number of dwellings in Lot 11 will not detrimentally affect the service levels of the surrounding roads and intersections because the traffic generation of Lot 11 when combined with that of the proposed development of the adjacent Lot 13 (DA 615/2006 which is subject of a separate report to Council) will have a reduced peak period traffic for the same combination under the Masterplan. This reduction in traffic generation under the combined Lots 11 and 13 developments results from the considerable reduction in retail/commercial floor area proposed under these combined proposals (the approved Master Plan envisaged some 2575 sqm of retail/commercial area for Lots 11 and 13 whereas the current proposals for Lots 11 and 13 will only generate a combined retail/commercial floor area of 1535 sqm). The lower traffic generation under the combined Lots 11 and 13 proposal will be readily catered for in the surrounding road network.

 

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

 

2.      THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the erection of a five storey mixed commercial/retail and residential development comprising of 53 dwellings and two basement car parking for 97 vehicles and strata subdivision.

 

Specifically, the proposed development will contain the following uses:

 

 

In terms of dwelling units, the proposal contains the following number and size of apartments:

 

·            21 x 1 bedroom apartments

·            28 x 2 bedroom apartments

·            4 x 3 bedroom apartments

 

Access to the basement carpark will be via an entry and exit point at Jenner Street.

 

A pedestrian thoroughfare and public gathering space will be provide along Pine Avenue. In addition, a private/communal landscaped open space will be provided in the north-western rear of the proposed building in accordance with the Prince Henry DCP.

 

On 8 March 2007, the applicant submitted amended building plans for the proposed development containing changes primarily to improve the waste collection area (following issues raised by Council’s Waste Officer), and lobby/foyer areas (following issues raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel). There were no changes to the envelope of the proposal as originally submitted. Accordingly, the changes were considered minor and not required to be readvertised/renotified.

 

3.      THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

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

 

The site that is the subject of the proposed development, forms part of a development precinct identified in the adopted Master Plan (now a Deemed DCP) for the Prince Henry site. The subject site is known as Lot 11 in DP 270427. The site is also referred to as Lot 18 in Council’s Prince Henry Site DCP (the DCP). The subject site is located on the north-eastern corner of Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue and bounded on the eastern side by Jenner Street. It comprises vacant land with an area of 4472 sqm. 

 

Development in the locality is predominantly comprised of residential uses as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

4.      SITE HISTORY

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A prelodgement meeting was held in June 2006 (PL 63/2005) to discuss development concepts for the proposed development.

 

5.      COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

5.1    Advertising/Notification

 

The proposal was notified as “integrated development” for a period of 30 days in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). A notice was placed in the local newspaper and on-site, and letters were sent to adjoining and adjacent landowners advising of the proposal and inviting comment and submissions. In response to the advertising/notification, submissions were received as follows:

 

A.      Individual submissions with original or proforma letters:

 

·    G, J & T Dalton, 27 Dawes Street, Little Bay

·    C Abela, c/- 1587 Anzac Parade, La Perouse (on behalf of La Perouse Precinct Committee)

·    D Condie, 6 Budd Avenue, Little Bay

·    D & K Haas, 179 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

·    D Anderson, 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

·    M McIntosh, 6 Murra Murra Place, Little Bay

·    S&J Kirk, 70 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay

·    G & U Hastings, 62 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay

 

B.      Petitions containing a total of approximately 323 signatures

 

5.2 Objections

 

The following relevant issues were raised in the individual submissions and petitions and are addressed by planning comments below referring where necessary to further assessments in the Environmental Assessment Section of the report (Section 10):

 

·         The DA proposal departs from the Prince Henry Master Plan and DCP

·         The proposal breaches the maximum wall and building height controls. 

·         The proposal breaches the maximum allowable floor space ratio.

·         Failure to adequately justify the departures from the height, FSR and density standards

·         Non-compliances with the Masterplan and DCP will create undesirable precedents.

·         Increase in floor area in Lots 11 and 13 are excessive.

·         Increases in building heights over the DCP is 30% and number of dwellings over the Masterplan is 50%, are unacceptable.

 

SEPP No.1 objections to the FSR and height controls have been submitted with the application and assessed in Section 10.1.2 below. Assessment of the SEPP 1 objections to the FSR and height controls have addressed the breaches of these development standards specific to the development proposal at hand. The objections have been well founded in the circumstances. In particular, the assessment finds that the proposal in its non-compliant form will still be consistent with the planning objectives for the locality and the purpose of the standards in that:

 

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10), namely to “Strengthen the town scape qualities of the Anzac Parade boundary of the site to the north and south of the existing gates”

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, in the case of Lot 11, for multi-storey mixed retail, commercial and residential development to form the local neighbourhood hub as envisaged in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

3.     It will implement the Prince Henry DCP Precinct P2 Performance Criteria (Section 7.2, page 54) that requires that “New buildings are to present a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue.”

4.     The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for urban consolidation in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses.

 

Should the DA be approved, it will not create an undesirable precedent because the proposal has been assessed on its merits and the SEPP 1 Objections have been adequately considered in relation to the specific circumstances of the subject site and the locality. Amongst other things, a development compliant with the prescribed maximum FSR and building, wall and storey height would be unreasonable in the subject site for the following reasons:

 

 

Consideration should also be given to the comments of the SEPP 65 Panel in relation to the scale of the proposal which are as follows: “The Panel has often expressed its concern that the densities on Prince Henry Site are not sufficiently high. The Panel supports the State Government’s desire for greater density within metropolitan Sydney. The density proposed is higher than indicated in the master plan however the Panel considers that higher densities on this part of the site, in close proximity to Anzac Parade are appropriate and will better ensure the viability of the entrance retail area as a social space.”

 

 

The underlying rationale for the redevelopment of the Prince Henry site is the provision of “a new population on the site that will have specific needs and requirements” (Prince Henry Masterplan Section 5.4 page 10) which will be catered for by a raft of Masterplan principles and strategies. The development of Lot 13 in the builtform proposed fits appropriately within the Masterplan strategy as it will contribute towards establishing an appropriate critical mass within the Prince Henry site to generate demand for businesses, employees and patrons, which will in turn encourage the location of services and facilities into the designated neighbourhood centre that Lot 11 forms part of. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of services and infrastructure primarily because the Masterplanning process including, amongst other things, the provision of a multi-purpose community centre to be built and provided by Landcom in the future, a civil works and infrastructure program implemented by Landcom, a variety of existing community groups housed in adaptable buildings including the Flowers Ward, a future neighbourhood centre in Lots 11 and 13 which will include mixed development (including retail and commercial uses), and a range of passive and recreational open-spaces, all constructed and provided by Landcom.

 

Section 10.4.2.4 below indicates that the increase in traffic generation in the proposed development (above that projected under the deemed DCP) is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network as the combined traffic generation of the current Lots 11 and 13 proposals will be significantly less than that assessed in accordance with the Master Plan.

 

·         There are no current buildings of the size and magnitude proposed along Anzac Parade.

·         Site has a higher elevation compared with other buildings and therefore create a huge building block.

·         Increase in height serves no benefit to the community.

 

Whilst the proposed building on Lot 11 will be one storey higher than the designated storey height control, there will not be an increase in the absolute height of the building by one full storey because of the compressed floor to ceiling height of each residential floor (the floor to ceiling height will still achieve a minimum 2.7m) and the use of the first floor level for residential use rather than commercial use which would have required a minimum floor to ceiling height of 3m (the DCP does not require first floors in building on  the subject site to be commercial use but only states that the non-residential use of a building is limited to the ground and first floor areas). The  increase in height is not considered excessive essentially because the resultant visual bulk and scale of the proposed building will not be visually intrusive or overbearing. The proposal is not a huge building block in the sense that it is an excessive multi-storey tower builtform. Rather the additional height and scale will be distributed over an appropriate building mass that achieves “the townscape qualities to the north and south of the existing entry gates” envisioned by the Masterplan. The elevated nature of the site being at the top of Pine Avenue serves to accentuate its significance as a focal point for the Prince Henry development precinct which is suitable for the proposal. The absence of any large buildings along Anzac Parade in the locality does not form an exclusion principle for redevelopment of the subject site to the scale that is permissible under Clauses 12A and 30A of the Randwick LEP 1998, that is, for a local neighbourhood activity centre. Furthermore, it should be noted that under these same clauses and the Prince Henry DCP, a number of lots (Lots 6, 18 and 24) fronting Anzac Parade to the north of the subject site and within the Prince Henry site have been designated for multi-unit residential buildings at a height of 5 storeys (4 storeys plus loft). Being in the northern part of the Prince Henry site, these lots have been identified for higher densities and heights precisely to “announce” the urban character of the overall Prince Henry site as one drives south along Anzac Parade and to act as “architectural precursors” of the urban redevelopment of the Prince Henry site in the sequence culminating in the townscape entry/gateway that is Lots 11 and 13. Consideration should also be given to the fact that the SEPP 65 Panel has also made the following comments on a key assessment criteria of SEPP 65, namely, the relationship of a proposal to its context: “Generally the proposal creates a suitable gateway to the PHH development, provides the potential for good quality urban space to Pine Avenue and addresses the issues of the proximity to the Flowers Wards.  The Panel reinforces its previous comments that the relationship and activation of the Anzac Parade frontage are important considerations, so that the site is not just conceived as a “gateway” to the PHH site, but as part of the new Anzac Parade precinct that has links from La Perouse through to Randwick.”

 

·         The “commerciality” of 3 and 4 storey building in Lots 11 and 13 already factored in the Masterplan.

·         The provision of a supermarket has been removed from the proposal.

·         Lack of shopping amenity due to absence of supermarket and low ceiling height in shops.

·         Proposal does not include retail elements and therefore dilutes the commercial presence intended under the Master Plan.

·         Removal of a supermarket discourages local community visits and therefore creates a gated community

·         The elimination of commercial use on the first floor in favour of residential use makes the commercial aspect of the proposed building of secondary concern.

 

As desirable as the proposition may be, there is no statutory requirement for a supermarket to be provided on site. Nor is it appropriate to legislate for such an outcome given that this is a market related issue and not a head of consideration under Section 79c of the EP&A Act. The ground floor retail level achieves a floor to ceiling height of 3m as required under the DCP which will be adequate to meet the operational needs or future retail uses. Whilst it is recognised that the absence of a anchor retail facility like a supermarket lessens the opportunities for local community patronage, the claim that this constitutes a plan to establish a “gated community” is considered spurious and erroneous. 

 

·         Increase in the number of apartments in Lots 11 and 13 is significant

·         The increase in number of apartments is not a minor increase.

 

The increase in the number of apartments by 16 units appears on face-value to be significant. However, appropriate recognition should be given to the competent architectural design of the proposed building and its internal layout in being able to accommodate this number of apartments without an unreasonable breach in the FSR and height standards (as considered in the SEPP 1 assessment) but with an environmentally sustainable design in terms of dual aspect and cross ventilation.   Despite the increase in the number of dwellings, the proposal overall will not give rise to any adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy, views and traffic generation as assessed in relevant parts of Section 10 below. 

 

·         Applicant’s claim of better design is flawed.

·         High quality architectural design does not justify departure from planning controls.

·         Inferior design of outer finishes including inappropriate materials.

 

Architectural design is only one of many factors that have been considered under Section 10 – Environmental Assessment of this report having regard to the heads of consideration under Section 79(c) of the EP&A Act. Similarly, architectural merit alone has not formed the basis for justifying the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objection as assessed in Section below. Accordingly, this assessment indicates clearly that the proposal in its non-compliant form is acceptable primarily because it will still be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that:

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10) , namely to “Strengthen the town scape qualities of the Anzac Parade boundary of the site to the north and south of the existing gates”

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, in the case of Lot 11, for multi-storey mixed retail, commercial and residential development to form the local neighbourhood hub as envisaged in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

3.     It will implement the Prince Henry DCP Precinct P2 Performance Criteria (Section 7.2, page 54) that requires that “New buildings are to present a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue.”

4.     The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for urban consolidation in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses.

 

The ability of the proposal to meet these principles/objectives forms the fundamental elements for justifying the proposal in its non-compliant form. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted also that the SEPP 65 Panel has recognised the architectural merits of the proposal in commenting as follows in its assessment: “The Panel would like to emphasize that the design is of high merit. A good amount of time has been given to design development. This, combined with a clearly supportive client … has given the Panel confidence that the project will continue to develop and eventually become a key contributor to the success of the whole Prince Henry project.”

 

·         No appropriate levels of parking have been provided given the part commercial nature of the area.

·         Parking will be converted into storage/operational areas due to small shop sizes thus further reducing availability.

·         Loss of street parking for residents and visitors to the site.

 

As discussed in Section 10.3.2, the proposal provides adequate numbers of carparking for the proposed retail/commercial use in accordance with the DCP – Parking. As such, to refuse the proposal on the basis of potential loss of street parking would be unreasonable. The inclusion of multi-level carparking in any proposal for the subject site as suggested by an objector would be contrary to objectives of the Prince Henry Masterplan and DCP and would constitute a poor planning outcome for the subject site in terms of design and function. 

 

·         A strengthened commercial and residential appearance inimical to heritage ambience and values of the subject site – core reasons why this is an integrated development.

·         The excess height and FSR does not in any way enhance the appreciation of the heritage items of the estate.

·         The design of the building lacks any heritage connection to the existing retained heritage structures on-site.

 

A Heritage Impact Statement (HIS), prepared by Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, was submitted with the application. The HIS indicates that “the potential negative impact on the adjacent Flowers Ward due to the additional height is mitigated by the strong horizontal line of the single storey podium, by the modulation of the east elevation and the slender footprint of the building”. This curved and slender builtform has resulted in two positive outcomes for the adjacent heritage buildings:

 

1.     It underpins the creation of open public gathering space along Pine Avenue that physically contributes to and enhances the existing curtilage and setting of the adjacent former Pathology Building, Entrance Gates and Gatehouse and Gateposts, the Avenue of Norfolk Pines within the Pine Avenue streetscape, Ensemble of Water Tower, Wishing Well and Clock Tower and their setting.

 

2.     It generates an open vista down Pine Avenue as the building wraps around the Anzac Parade, Pine Avenue and Jenner Street corners enhancing the view towards the Memorial Clock Tower, Entrance Gates and Gatehouse and Gateposts, the former Pathology Building, the Avenue of Norfolk Pines within the Pine Avenue streetscape, peeling back into Brodie Avenue to form an open public space that also provides a vista to the Flowers Ward.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner concurs with these positive impacts of the proposed building in relation to the adjoining and surrounding heritage items. It should also be recognised that the Heritage Council has approved the subject proposal and advised of its approval of the integrated development application in a letter dated 20 March 2007 with its accompanying general terms of approval. The general terms of approval have been included as conditions of consent. Finally, new buildings should not be required to mimic the design and materials of existing heritage items but rather be encouraged interpret and complement existing heritage items and elements in their design. The proposal exhibits these qualities adequately as assessed in Section 10.4.2.1 of this report.

 

·         Long monotonous wall of the proposed builtform detrimental to character of  suburb.

·         Overdevelopment of the site will be detrimental to the character of the Precinct

·         Driving along Anzac Parade is pleasant feeling of open ambience because of the decreasing heights of buildings  and residential densities in the area.

·         The proposed development are to a size and scale that will dramatically change the character of the coastal community.

·         Additional residential storey not akin to village-type strips intended under the DCP

·         Design increases visual obstruction into the site from the Anzac Parade frontage.

 

The proposal not only provides for a landmark building at this entrance corner to the Prince Henry site but also provides generous public gathering space along Pine Avenue. The proposal has a well considered articulation and modulation that not only breaks the bulk and scale of the proposed building but also provide for a reasonable builtform that allows for the future townscape character of the subject site to develop and grow as envisioned under the Masterplan. The open low-density character of Anzac Parade within Little Bay and La Perouse area is recognised. However, the absence of any large buildings along Anzac Parade in the locality is not of itself an exclusion principle for redevelopment of the subject site to the scale that is permissible under Clauses 12A and 30A of the Randwick LEP 1998, that is, for a local neighbourhood activity centre. Furthermore, it should be noted that under these same clauses and the Prince Henry DCP, a number of lots (Lots 6, 18 and 24) fronting Anzac Parade to the north of the subject site and within the Prince Henry site have been designated for multi-unit residential buildings at a height of 5 storeys (4 storeys plus loft). Being in the northern part of the Prince Henry site, these lots have been identified for higher densities and heights precisely to “announce” the urban character of the overall Prince Henry site as one arrives at the northern boundary of the site driving south along Anzac Parade, and to act as “architectural precursors” of the urban redevelopment of the Prince Henry site in the sequence culminating in the townscape entry/gateway that is lots 11 and 13. The future desired character of this townscape entry/gateway at the corner of Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue is that of a local neighbourhood activity centre which, as mentioned, is now statutorily enshrined in the zoning and builtform controls for the subject site under Clauses 12A and 30A of the Randwick LEP 1998. The increase in height and density beyond these controls under the proposal will serve to promote this character (as considered in the assessment of the SEPP 1 objections) in an area that has been designated for urban consolidation under the Prince Henry Masterplan.

 

·         The proposed buildings in lots 11 and 13 will create a canyon like effect due to proximity of excessively high buildings and in turn give rise to wind tunnel effect.

·         The proposed building in lot 11 will overshadow the alfresco eating and shopping area of the proposed building in Lot 13.

 

The curved nature of the proposed building along Pine Avenue as it “peels back” into Jenner Street combined with a similar curved arrangement for the proposed building on the opposite Lot 13 will be conducive to the free flow of air through the open public spaces between the two buildings. The absence of a straight corridor between the two buildings will reduce any potential wind tunnel effect. The shadow diagrams for the subject proposal indicate that there will be minor overshadowing of the future outdoor café and retail area of the adjacent proposal in Lot 13 but only in the winter mornings. However, the significant gathering/open space to be established as part of the proposal for Lot 13 on the corner of Pine Avenue and Brodie Street will not be overshadowed at all by the subject proposal.

 

·         Lack of designated outdoor drying area for residents and absence of rainwater storage tanks.

 

The environmental sustainability qualities of the proposal have been assessed in Section of this report. Amongst other things the proposal will meet energy efficiency, water conservation and thermal comfort targets under BASIX.

 

·         The applicant has not undergone the approval process of the Prince Henry Design Panel

 

Whilst the existence of the Prince Henry Design Panel provides a useful additional layer of design scrutiny and assessment for all development within the Prince Henry site, approval of the Panel is not a statutory or policy requirement of Council. More importantly, the assessment of the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel has been obtained and this Panel has supported the proposal subject to appropriate minor adjustments to its design (see Section 10.4.2.1 below).

 

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 Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.28.  The site and a number of buildings on it 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 and Development Control Plan for residential use of the previous hospital site. 

 

The Subject Site

The site is in the western part of the development area, with Lots 13 and 11 forming the entrance to the site from Anzac Parade.  The site is bounded by Anzac Parade to the west, Pine Avenue to the south, Jenner Street to the east and residential Lots 9 and 10 to the north.  The subject site is located within Precinct P2 as identified in the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan. 

 

Heritage element

Applies

Built elements in the vicinity

Clock and clock tower, water tower and wishing well

Entrance Gates, Gateposts and Gatehouse

Historic Precinct

Flowers Wards

Pathology Department Building

Artisans’ Cottages

Significant Road Alignment

Former water reservoir

Landscape elements in the vicinity

Landscape setting and curtilage associated with entrance elements

Avenue of Norfolk Island pines

Sandstone outcrops

Aboriginal archaeological zone

Zone 2- High Sensitivity

Aboriginal identified site

No

Historical archaeological zone

Zone 7- former Prince Henry Hospital Complex

Historical identified site

No

Little Bay Geological site

No

Remnant native vegetation in the vicinity

No

 

The Proposal

The proposal is for a four level mixed use development comprising ground level retail/commercial (facing south to Pine Avenue) and residential (facing north onto an open space area) with three residential levels above.  Car parking is provided in two basement levels. 

 

Submission

The development application submission includes a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Tanner Architects for Lots 11 and 13 which refers to relevant conservation policies contained in the Specific Elements Conservation Policies for surrounding built elements, and to the policies for new development contained in the DCP for the site.  The submission notes that the proposal will generally have either a neutral or positive impact on significant built elements in the vicinity.  In relation to Archaeology, the HIS notes that previous excavation work has been carried out under an Excavation Permit and that demolition may have disturbed or destroyed indigenous and non-indigenous relics.  The proposal would impact on the identified strip along Anzac Parade which requires further assessment, including archaeological supervision in accordance with the processes set out in the AMP.

 

Approvals

As the site is listed on the State Heritage Register, the proposal generally needs to be the subject of an Integrated Development Application.  As the NSW Heritage Office is the consent authority for the application, Council cannot issue development approval until the Heritage Office has provided conditions of consent.

 

Site specific exemptions for the Prince Henry site for new single residences and multi-unit residential buildings which comply with the Prince Henry site DCP were gazetted in June 2005.  Under the Prince Henry Site Specific Exemptions, development which complies with the identified sections of the Prince Henry DCP and the relevant heritage management plan does not need to be referred to the NSW Heritage Office for approval.  Exemptions apply to development outside the Historic Precinct where the proposal complies with the Height and Setback requirements of the DCP, and where non-compliance with a number of identified sections of the DCP will not result in heritage impacts.  It appears that the proposal does not comply with the DCP height requirements and that Heritage Office consent is required. 

 

DCP standard

Complies

Subject to

Site Specific Exemptions

Height

No

No

Setback

 

 

Comments

The proposal appears to be generally consistent with the siting requirements of the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan, although non-compliances have been identified relating height.  The footprint of the building defines an open space area on the corner of Pine and Brodie Avenues, allows views towards adjacent significant buildings and retains an open layout for these structures.  The finishes board and schedule indicate a combination of solid surfaces in rendered masonry and clay tiles, with glazed openings and balustrades screened by fixed and operable metal louvres.  Rendered masonry and metal louvres are neutral in colour with contrast provided by the clay tiles.  The proposed façade treatment, and colours and finishes to the building provide reasonable uniformity and compatibility with the design of the adjacent new building on Lot 13 on the opposite side of Pine Avenue, and with the adjacent building to the west on Lot 9. 

 

Recommendations

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

 

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

 

6.2    Development Engineering Comments

 

Council’s Development Engineer advises as follows:

 

“An application has been received for the construction of a five storey mixed commercial/residential building at the above site containing 53 units, 690m2 of retail/commercial floor space and 2 levels of carparking for 97 vehicles with associated strata subdivision.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

Drainage Comments

All stormwater leaving Lot 11 must be discharged to the new storage pond (located adjacent to Fairway 7 within the Coast Golf Course), via the underground drainage system in Pine Avenue. The site drainage system shall be connected directly into the underground street drainage system through a grated inlet pit.

 

All stormwater shall be taken through a sediment/silt arrester pit prior to being discharged from the site.

 

Traffic Comments

SEPP 11 Referral: As the proposed development includes less than 1000m2 of retail and commercial area, the application does not require referral to the Local Development Committee as a Schedule 2 development under SEPP 11; however it is understood the application has been referred to the Traffic Management Group for consideration. The Planning Officer shall ensure that all comments and conditions received from this group are incorporated into the development consent.

 

Traffic Generation: The proposal is for 53 residential units and 690m2 of retail/commercial area. This represents an increase of 11 residential units and a decrease of 1965m2 of retail/commercial area from the 42 units and 3500m2 of retail/commercial area proposed in the amended traffic report. (Note: The changes in retail/commercial figures are based on the total of Lots 11 and 13 together, as per the amended traffic report). The Traffic and Parking Report submitted with this application has analysed the effects of the amended proposal and determined that there will be a significant reduction in peak period traffic generation resulting from the changed configurations of both Lots 11 and 13, with some 155-165 vehicles per hour two way during peak periods (as opposed to the configuration approved in the amended traffic report which found 435-445 vehicles per hour two way during peak periods).

 

Parking Provisions According to Council’s DCP – Parking, a total of 88 car spaces shall be provided within the site (21 spaces for the 21 x 1 bdrm units, 34 spaces for the 28 x 2 bdrm units, 6 spaces for the 4 x 3 bdrm units, 13 visitor spaces for the 53 units and 14 spaces for the 6902 of retail/commercial area).

 

The submitted plans show a total of 97 spaces being provided within the site. It is noted that the Development Engineer does not object to this excess in the number of spaces provided, given the significant reduction in the configuration and hence, traffic generation, associated with the development site.

 

Access driveways: 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. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

Waste Comments

Residential waste: To minimise the number of bins presented at the kerb for collection, Council would generally require a development of this size to provide garbage chutes and compactors to reduce the required number of residential garbage bins by half. Under such an arrangement the residential garbage room/s would need to be sized to contain the compactor/s (with safe working area around) and an additional 14 x 240 litre bins. Recyclables cannot be compacted and the recycling room should be sized to contain a total of 27 x 240 litre recycling bins.

 

The provision of garbage chutes and compactors may be difficult to accommodate in the subject development given the number of cores that are proposed. Consequently, the applicant was requested to consider alternative waste management arrangements that will still meet the objective of minimising the number of bins that need to be presented at the kerb for collection. The arrangement proposed in the submitted development application is to provide waste storage areas within the site as well as a bin ‘holding’ area close to the site boundary, for transfer to the kerbside on the day of collection.

 

It is noted that the application was referred to Council’s Waste Compliance Officer and the following comments were received:

`

Further to the above, it is noted that although the two waste storage areas provided within Basement Levels 1 & 2 are sized to contain 53 x 240 litre bins as required, the collection area adjacent to the site boundary is shown to hold only 27 bins. It is assumed that the other 26 bins are being transported directly to the kerbside for collection (and thus ‘splitting’ the number of bins being presented at the kerb) however the Waste Management Plan does not appear to address this issue, and concerns are raised as to the logistics required for this arrangement to succeed on a weekly basis.

 

Commercial waste: A separate waste storage area shall be provided for the commercial/retail component of the development. The submitted Waste Management Plan states that 10 x 240 litre waste bins will be required based on weekly collection rate and that a private waste contractor will collect this waste from the kerbside adjacent to the bin holding area. It is noted that a suitably sized waste storage area has been provided on Basement Level 1 of the site.

 

General Comments: The submitted plans show the residential waste storage areas being located within the Basement Level, accessed through an internal driveway with grades of up to 1 in 5. This is too steep for the manual transporting of bins up to street level for collection, hence the applicant’s Waste Management Consultant has stated that “a motorised trolley system will be provided and utilised by the waste caretaker to assist with the transportation of bins”. Details of the proposed motorised trolley system shall be submitted to the Council for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Noting that a waste caretaker will be required to manage the waste storage and collection on the site as detailed in the submitted Waste Management Plan; a condition has been included in this report to ensure that a caretaker is employed as necessary.

 

Comments : The applicant has now provided additional information showing the co-location of all residential (27 general waste and 27 recycled waste bins) waste bins in a common area adjacent to the entrance driveway on the ground floor. This arrangement has been assessed and is considered adequate.

 

Geotechnical Comments

The applicant was advised at prelodgement stage to undertake suitable geotechnical investigation to determine whether the subject development site will be affected by continual seepage flows. A Geotechnical Report by Douglas Partners dated April 2005 has been submitted with the development application and states that permanent groundwater aquifers were not encountered on the subject site, although there is likely to be some minor seepage at the soil bedrock interface. However, noting that free groundwater was observed in two of the three test bores, indicating that there may be a shallow intermittent groundwater table present; it is recommended that the basement carpark be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A condition has been included in this report to the address the matter.

 

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

 

 

6.3    Environmental Health Comments

 

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

 

“Key Issues

 

Land contamination: SAS has been issued for this site by ERM, Paul Steinwede dated 25/05/05. Unexpected finds protocol exists for this site. Appropriate conditions are to be imposed on any consent to address this issue.

 

Acoustics: An acoustic report has been submitted with the proposal. The noise from the surrounding environment and the proposed development has been addressed. Appropriate conditions should be included in any proposal.

 

Grey water treatment and reuse: The proposal includes the treatment and reuse of grey water. Appropriate conditions are to be imposed to address this matter.

 

Commercial Occupancies: Shall be subject to separate applications for the use and operation of these units. Consideration should be given by the assessment planner as to restricting the hours of use for the proposed loading/delivery zone.

 

Recommendation

 

Should the application be approved, the following conditions should be included:”

 

6.4    Building Services Comments

 

“The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the construction of a new 5 storey mixed residential and commercial development with 2 levels of basement car park.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

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

Class   -        2        (Residential units)

Class   -        7a      (Carpark)

 

 

 

Background

 

Vacant land that is part of a recent crown land subdivision.

 

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, sanitary facilities for people with a disability and 1 accessible disabled unit per each 14 units is also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of Councils Multi-unit housing DCP, however, this is overridden by a separate DCP for this locality and allows 3 accessible units in this 53 unit development.

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.”

 

6.5    Heritage Council of NSW Comments

 

The Heritage Council advised of its approval of the integrated development application in a letter dated 20 March 2007 with its accompanying general terms of approval. The general terms of approval have been included as conditions of consent.

 

7.      MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

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

 

8.      RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

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

 

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

Clause 40      Excavation and filling of land

Clause 40A     Master plans

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

 

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

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum number of storeys

4 storeys 

 

5 storeys 

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum FSR

 

Maximum 1.2:1

1.43:1

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

Western Elevation  = max 17.9m

Eastern Elevation = max 18.3m

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Building Height

Maximum 15m

 

Western Elevation = max 18.1m (lift overrun)

Eastern elevation = max 18.50m (lift overrun)

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

 

Minimum Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 40%

41%

Yes

 

8.2    Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

9.      POLICY CONTROLS

 

9.1    Prince Henry Development Control Plan

 

The Prince Henry DCP applies to the developable land within the Prince Henry Site and contains controls that are specifically precinct based. The subject site lies within Precinct P2 and, as such, is subject to the following specific precinct controls:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum number of storeys

4 storeys

 

5 storeys

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum FSR

 

Maximum 1.2:1

1.43:1

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

Western Elevation  = max 17.9m

Eastern Elevation = max 18.3m

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Building Height

Maximum 15m

 

Western Elevation = max 18.1m (lift overrun)

Eastern elevation = max 18.50m (lift overrun)

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Minimum Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 40%

41%

Yes

 

 

 

Minimum Soft Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 20%

15.9%

No

Setbacks

Front Setback to Pine Avenue – unspecified dimension at Anzac Parade to decreasing to 6m in front of Gatehouse then reducing to 2m in the south western corner of the subject lot.

 

 

Setback from adjoining northern lot (Lot 9) of 12m comprising 6m Public Protected Covenant and 6m general building setback.

 

Setback from north-eastern lot (Lot 7) of 14m reducing to 10m near Jenner Street.

 

 

 

 

Setback from Jenner Street of 2m ending in an undimensioned pocket of open space at the corner of Jenner Street and Pine Avenue.

 

The south western edge of the building curves along Pine Avenue and a section of the curve encroaches into the 2m setback by a minimum 200mm to maximum 2.4m for a length of approximately 30m long.

 

12m setback is observed along the northern building edge.

 

 

 

 

 

Extreme north-western corner of the building encroaches into the 14m setback in a triangular configuration with a maximum distance of 4.2m.

 

2m setback is observed along Jenner Street with a pocket of open space provided at the corner of Jenner Street and Pine Avenue.

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

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

 

9.2    Development Control Plan - Carparking

 

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

 

USE

REQUIREMENT (DCP – Parking)

PROPOSED NUMBER AND/OR FLOOR AREA

REQUIRED PROVISION

PROPOSED PROVISION

Residential

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

21 x one bedroom dwellings

21 spaces

 

 

61 residential carspaces

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

28 x two bedroom dwellings

34 spaces

 

1.5 spaces per three bedroom dwellings

4 x three bedroom dwellings proposed

6 spaces

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 53

13 spaces

13spaces

Retail/Commercial

1 space per 40 sqm GFA

690 sqm

17

23 spaces

TOTAL

 

 

91 spaces

97  spaces

 

9.3    Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

Section 94 contributions are not payable for developments that meet the Deemed DCP standards as the open space and community facility provisions in the Deemed DCP were designed to meet the requirements of the projected number of residents established in the Deemed DCP. However, the proposal exceeds the projected number of dwellings established in the Master Plan/Deemed DCP by 16 units. As such, a Section 94 contribution is chargeable and a condition requiring this will be applied should approval be granted.

 

9.4    Rainwater Tanks Policy, 2003

 

Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy requires installation of rainwater tanks for all residential development. Council’s Strategic Planner has advised that the requirement for rainwater tanks does not apply in the subject site as the stormwater from the site will be harvested into designated storage ponds to contribute to the whole of Prince Henry site irrigation needs under the total water cycle strategy of the DCP. The Deemed DCP also recommends collection of roof water for irrigation as per the total water cycle strategy. Furthermore, the applicant has provided a BASIX report that shows that the proposal achieves the energy, water and thermal comfort targets of BASIX.

 

10.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1  Statutory Controls – S79C(1)(a)

 

10.1.1        Section 91 EP&A Act (Integrated Development)

 

Section 91 of the EP&A Act relates to development that requires development consent and one or more other approvals under relevant nominated Acts. The former Prince Henry Hospital site is located within a conservation area, which has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register, so that any development proposal requires the consent of the Heritage Council of NSW. Accordingly, the application was referred to the Council as integrated development. The Heritage Council advised of its approval of the integrated development application in a letter dated on 20 March 2007 with its accompanying general terms of approval. The general terms of approval have been included as conditions of consent.

 

10.1.2        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 21 Sub-division

 

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

 

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

                            Space Ratio)

 

A floor space ratio of 1.2:1 is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 30A (2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal development has a FSR of 1.43:1

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 30A (2) of Randwick LEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.      Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

 

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

 

2.      The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that: 

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10) , namely to “Strengthen the town scape qualities of the Anzac Parade boundary of the site to the north and south of the existing gates”

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, in the case of Lot 11, for multi-storey mixed retail, commercial and residential development to form the local neighbourhood hub as envisaged in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

3.     It will implement the Prince Henry DCP Precinct P2 Performance Criteria (Section 7.2, page 54) that requires that “New buildings are to present a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue.”

4.     The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for urban consolidation in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses and locating these in close proximity to public transport, regional centres and services.

 

The aims and objectives of SEPP No.1 are to provide:

 

“provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”

 

The objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

 

(i)       The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purposes of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and better environment;

(ii)      The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

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

 

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

 

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed FSR control would be unreasonable in the subject site in that it would not achieve a reasonable and efficient level of redevelopment for the subject land to provide a commercial hub for the Prince Henry site with the appropriate mix of commercial, retail and residential uses that is necessary to ensure feasibility and viability.

 

In contrast, the proposed development would allow for a reasonable redevelopment of the land but with a better urban outcome in terms of the following:

bulk and scale that would not be visually intrusive in the existing coastal and heritage setting given that the proposal will occupy a smaller footprint than that allowed for in the DCP (thus providing for larger public gathering places at ground level)

have an architectural urban design comprising primarily a slender, curvilinear builtform with a balance of vertical and horizontal elements to provide symmetry that crucially will strengthen the existing streetscape and future townscape of this corner of Anzac Parade as envisioned in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

siting and orientation of the proposed building to enhance views of adjoining heritage items including the adjacent former Pathology Building, the Gatehouse, Memorial Clock Tower, the Pine Avenue heritage streetscape and surrounding heritage and coastal landscape settings 

the proposal will also maintain adequate levels of amenity for the proposed development especially in terms of solar access, ventilation and landscaping.

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

 

In view of the above it is considered that the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the proposal meets with the purpose of Clause 30A(2).

 

5.         Whether the objection is well founded.

 

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

·    Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly.

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

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

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

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

·           The extent of the non-compliance is relatively minor and does not result in any substantive adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing of adjoining residential development or heritage items, traffic and acoustic/visual privacy nor do they compromise the amenity of adjoining development or the immediate locality.

·           The proposal will provide a high quality contemporary design that is sympathetic to the desired future character of the area and provides for the immediate needs of the existing and future residents of the locality.

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

 

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

 

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

                            building and wall height)

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

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

Western Elevation  = 17.9m

Eastern Elevation = 18.30m

No

Maximum Building Height

Maximum 15m

 

Western Elevation = 18.1m to top of lift-core

Eastern elevation = 18.5m to top of lift-core

No

 

Maximum number of storeys

4 Storeys

5 storeys

No

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 30A (4) of Randwick LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.      Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

The building and wall height controls in question are development standards contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.      The underlying object or purpose of the standard

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

 

" to set upper limits for the heights of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas”.

 

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

 

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that: 

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10) , namely to “Strengthen the town scape qualities of the Anzac Parade boundary of the site to the north and south of the existing gates”

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, in the case of Lot 13, for multi-storey mixed retail, commercial and residential development to form the local neighbourhood hub as envisaged in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

3.     It will implement the Prince Henry DCP Precinct P2 Performance Criteria (Section 7.2, page 54) that requires that “New buildings are to present a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue.”

4.     The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for urban consolidation in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses and locating these in close proximity to public transport, regional centres and services.

 

The aims and objectives of SEPP No.1 are to provide:

 

“provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”

 

The objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

 

(iii)     The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purposes of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and better environment;

 

(iv)     The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

It would preclude the redevelopment of the site for an effective neighbourhood hub with mixed retail, commercial and residential uses which collectively is of a “higher order” use than the other parts of the Prince Henry site.

 

 

 

 

In contrast, the proposed development would allow for a reasonable redevelopment of the land but with a better urban outcome in terms of the following:

 

 

 

5.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

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

 

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

 

·                The extent of the non-compliance in both instances is relatively minor and does not result in any substantive adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing of adjoining residential development or heritage items, traffic and acoustic/visual privacy nor do they compromise the amenity of adjoining development or the immediate locality.

 

·                The proposal will provide a high quality contemporary design that is sympathetic to the desired future character of the area and provides for the immediate needs of the existing and future residents of the locality.

 

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

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported as the height, bulk and scale of the proposal would not be visually intrusive in the existing coastal and heritage given the smaller footprint than that allowed for in the DCP, the proposal presents a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue in line with eth townscape principle of eth Prince Henry Masterplan, and the localised nature of the breach in the maximum building height control.

 

Clause 40           Excavation and filling of land

 

Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct the buildings and basement car parking areas. This work will not result in any significant impact on the topography of the site, is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

Clause 40A        Master plans

 

A Master Plan for the Prince Henry site, inclusive of the subject site, was adopted in December 2001 subject to a number of matters being addressed in a revised Master Plan and subsequent development applications for the subject site. A further revised Master Plan consistent with the required amendments was adopted by Council on 27 May 2003. The adopted Master Plan is now a Deemed DCP pursuant to amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gazetted on 16 June 2005. The Deemed DCP acknowledged the provision of residential apartments in the subject site. The proposal is consistent with the Deemed DCP with the exception of the number of apartments units which will exceed the required number by 38 units. Despite the increase in the number of dwellings, the proposal overall will not give rise to any adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views. In particular, the applicant’s traffic analysis indicates that the increase in number of dwellings in Lot 13 will not detrimentally affect the service levels of the surrounding roads and intersections because the traffic generation of Lot 13 when combined with that of the proposed development of the adjacent Lot 11 (DA 616/2006 which is subject of a separate report to Council) will have a reduced  peak period traffic for the same combination under the Masterplan. This reduction in traffic generation under the combined Lots 11 and 13 developments results from the considerable reduction in retail/commercial floor area proposed under this combined proposals (the approved Master Plan envisaged some 2575 sqm of retail/commercial area for Lots 11 and 13 whereas the current proposals for Lots 11 and 13 will only generate a combined retail/commercial floor area of 1535 sqm). The lower traffic generation under the combined Lots 11 and 13 proposals will be readily catered for in the surrounding road network.

 

Additionally, the increase in the number of dwellings is considered acceptable in view of the fact that the proposed building will not be visually intrusive (notwithstanding the exceedance of the FSR and height controls) as the building footprint will be significantly smaller than that allowable under the Prince Henry DCP thus allowing for larger public spaces at ground level; and the proposed development will not create any adverse impact on the amenity or visual quality of the locality. Furthermore, a Section 94 contribution will be applied for the excess number of dwelling units.

 

 

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

 

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

 

10.2           Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

 

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Contaminated Land

 

This SEPP provides a state wide practice for the remediation of contaminated land. In relation to Lot 11, the subject site, a site audit statement (SAS) has been issued on 25 May 2005 indicating that the site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council consent 1188/02 as amended (for the demolition of buildings and the remediation of the Prince Henry site was issued on 28 February 2003). Accordingly, the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards)

 

The Draft SEPP 2004 seeks to replace the provisions of SEPP 1 and has been publicly exhibited (concluding on 18 June 2004). The new SEPP will introduce new provisions for assessing whether flexibility of a planning standard are acceptable or not. The additional tests include whether the proposal will result in a better environmental outcome than a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the controls.  Notwithstanding, that the SEPP is a draft document requiring consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act, Clause 14 of the draft document includes savings provisions that any development application made and not determined when the draft SEPP is gazetted is to be assessed against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1.

 

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

 

10.3.1        Development Control Plan – Prince Henry Site

 

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

 

The subject site is located within Precinct P1 of the DCP and the application complies with all the relevant prescribed controls for this precinct with the exception of the FSR, building, wall and storey heights, setbacks, soft landscaping and internal solar access. The non-compliance in the FSR and building, wall and storey height is addressed in the SEPP 1 objections (see Section 10.1.2 above). The variations from the setback, soft landscaping and internal solar access requirements are assessed as follows:   

 

 

 

 

The proposal generally complies with the range of performance criteria for five key elements of the DCP namely site context, sub-division and amalgamation, building and site design, sustainable design, and facilities and access.

 

10.3.2        Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The Prince Henry DCP states that car parking is to be provided in accordance with the DCP - Car Parking. Applying the carparking rate for multi-unit development, the proposal will require 61 residential, 13 visitor carspaces and 17 retail/commercial spaces. The proposal provides for 61 residential carspaces and 13 visitor carspaces and 23 retail/commercial spaces. The proposal complies with the carparking requirements of the DCP with an excess of 6 retail/commercial spaces.

 

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

 

10.4.1        Natural Environmental Impacts

 

There is no land containing Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub located in the vicinity of the subject site with the closest bushland located at a significant distance of more than 230 m to the north-east. In addition, the subject site being a vacant lot, contains no endangered flora or fauna that will be affected by the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposal will be acceptable in terms of natural environmental impacts which will be minimal, if not, nonexistent.

 

10.4.2        Built Environmental Impacts

 

10.4.2.1    Urban Design

 

The architectural design essentially comprises a curved building wrapping around the Pine Avenue /Anzac Parade corner extending in a curved/sinuous form down Pine Avenue then peeling back into Jenner Street to form an open public space that also provides a vista to the Flowers Ward, the Clock Tower and down Pine Avenue towards Little Bay. The proposal will have a convex curvature along Pine Avenue provide an open space around the existing heritage gatehouse.

 

The proposal overall will have a combination of predominantly the following materials and finishes:

 

Type 1A -  Operable aluminium louvre panels and aluminium framed glazed balustrade behind the louvres denoting the external enclosures to each apartment.

 

Type 1B -  tile system fixed to regular panel module for solid sections of façade with colours in the terracotta range to relate to the facades of the Pathology Building, Clock Tower and Gatehouse and the overall coastal setting.

 

Type 2 -    paint finished masonry panels with vertical strip windows expressed also as a second layer behind the panelised façade of the Types 1A and 1B.

 

Type 3 -    Glazing between balconies and living areas and bedrooms typically comprising full height sliding doors.

 

Type 4 -    Shop front glazing on ground level.

 

Type 5 -    Paint finish masonry with vertical expression for non-glazed podium facades.

 

These materials and finishes have been provided in a sample board accompanying the DA. No objections have been raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel to the materials and finishes and, accordingly, these colours, materials and textures are considered acceptable.

 

The articulation of the building has been located predominantly within the building footprint set by the Prince Henry DCP with the exception a major portion of the allowable footprint left unused accounting for generous public gathering open space along Pine Avenue.  The applicant advises that the building form defines an entry to the Prince Henry site at Anzac Parade in conjunction with the proposed development on Lot 13 on southern the opposite side of Pine Avenue (which is the subject of a separate DA No. 615/2006 before Council). This design relationship is further reinforced by the shared palette of materials and modulation with this adjacent development on Lot 13. Together the proposed developments on Lots 11 and 13 will form the neighbourhood activity hub for the Prince Henry site.

 

Under the provisions of SEPP 65, a Design Review Panel reviewed the proposal on 8 August 2006 and has found the proposal satisfactory on all the SEPP 65 assessment criteria as detailed below. The Panel’s comments (in italics) are listed as follows (with Council’s comments included where necessary):

 

1.     Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

Generally the proposal creates a suitable gateway to the PHH development, provides the potential for good quality urban space to Pine Avenue and addresses the issues of the proximity to the Flowers Wards.  The Panel reinforces its previous comments that the relationship and activation of the Anzac Parade frontage are important considerations, so that the site is not just conceived as a “gateway” to the PHH site, but as part of the new Anzac Parade precinct that has links from La Perouse through to Randwick .

The Lot 13 residential entry should be clarified with regard to the retaining walls, street levels, and internal planning. It should also re-address the access between the subject site and super lot 20 to the South.

 

Comment: No design issues are raised by the Panel in relation to Lot 11 and its immediate context. The applicant has responded to the Panel’s concerns in relation to proposal on Lot 13 and these are addressed in the assessment of the DA (No. 615/2006) for Lot 13 which is the subject of a separate report to Council.

 

2.     The Scale of the Proposal

 

The proposal exceeds the DCP height controls for the site however the resultant increased density is supported by the Panel as the additional height does not negatively impact the surrounding development and has the potential to create a more successful and viable public realm and increase retail opportunities.

 

3.     The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The built form, materials and details of the external façade are considered to be of high quality, and provide flexibility for the building occupants. 

 

The outdoor eating area has yet to be clarified in the architectural drawings.  The general concept shown on the landscape plan is acceptable however its real success will rely on appropriate sun shading, weather protection and the design for the canopy to assist in reducing acoustic problems between the retail and residential areas

 

Comment: The applicant has responded to the Panel’s query regarding the outdoor eating area in the proposal on Lot 13 DA (No. 615/2006) which are the subject of a separate assessment before Council.

 

4.     The Proposed Density

 

The Panel has often expressed its concern that the densities on PHH are not sufficiently high. The Panel supports the State Government’s desire for greater density within metropolitan Sydney. The density proposed is higher than indicated in the master plan however the Panel considers that higher densities on this part of the site, in close proximity to Anzac Parade are appropriate and will better ensure the viability of the entrance retail area as a social space.

 

5.     Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

West and south west -facing bedrooms need a high level of insulation and sun shading, and opportunities for air movement.  Increased ventilation to bedrooms with only one window should be considered. Ceiling fans should be considered for the bedrooms.

 

Foyers that do not receive any natural light of ventilation do not meet the environmental and amenity objectives of SEPP 65.  It is desirable that ways of providing this be examined.

 

Comment : The applicant advises that the majority of bedrooms in the proposal are contained behind the proposed terracotta façade. This façade system comprises a rain screen façade on an insulated back-up wall. Sliding aluminium louvre panels protect all windows in the façade system from low angle sun.

 

The western and south-western facades of the proposal will be protected by fixed horizontal sunshade elements and this can be verified in the plans and elevations for the proposal. Furthermore, more than 90 per cent of bedrooms in the proposal will have two openable windows or sliding doors giving light and air to the room. In relation to foyers/lobbies, the applicant advises that lift cores in the proposal have been designed centrally to maximise the frontage of north-east facing living spaces and to provide a continuous active frontage to Pine Avenue at Level 1. The applicant has provided additional details to show that the design of lobbies in the proposal has been developed to ensure that more than 69 per cent of the lobbies receive natural light and ventilation. The amended floor plans confirm the applicant’s advice. Overall, the applicant’s advice is considered reasonable and acceptable in addressing the Panel’s concerns.

 

6.     The Proposed Landscape

 

The landscape proposal should be further developed to reduce the visibility of retaining walls by the wall design and selection of planting.  Usable space for the occupants should be increased and large beds of formally planted groundcover areas reduced.

 

Comment: These comments relate to the series of planting beds in the semi-enclosed internal landscaped podium courtyard of the proposal for Lot 13 which the applicant has responded to in DA (No. 615/2006) and is the subject of a separate assessment before Council.

 

7.     The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

Apart from the resolution of the provision of natural light and ventilation to foyers, and the acoustic treatment for the outdoor entertainment areas this development will provide a high level of amenity for the building occupants and the public.

 

As previously requested, clerestory roofs have been added to increase the amenity to top floor apartments that do not have a northerly aspect.

 

8.     The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

As acknowledged by the applicant, final resolution of the public pathway to the south needs to be done.

 

Comment: These comments relate to the proposal in Lot 13 under DA No. 615/2006 which the applicant has responded to and which are the subject of a separate assessment before Council.

 

9.     Social issues

The proposed development will enliven the entry to the Prince Henry redevelopment and should enhance the safety of the area.

 

10.   The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

Satisfactory.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel would like to emphasize that the design is of high merit. A good amount of time has been given to design development. This, combined with a clearly supportive client (Stockland), has given the Panel confidence that the project will continue to develop and eventually become a key contributor to the success of the whole PHH project.

 

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

 

10.4.2.2    Heritage Impact

 

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

 

In relation to the subject site, a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS), prepared by Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, was submitted with the application. The HIS indicates that the proposal will generally have either a neutral or positive impact on significant built elements in the vicinity, but that the potential negative impact on the adjacent Flowers Ward due to the additional height is mitigated by the strong horizontal line of the single storey podium, by the modulation of the east elevation and the slender footprint of the building. 

 

Council’s Heritage Planner advises that as the proposal appears to be generally consistent with the siting requirements of the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan, although non-compliances have been identified relating height.  The footprint of the building defines an open space area on the corner of Pine and Brodie Avenues, allows views towards adjacent significant buildings and retains an open layout for these structures.  The finishes board and schedule indicate a combination of solid surfaces in rendered masonry and clay tiles, with glazed openings and balustrades screened by fixed and operable metal louvres.  Rendered masonry and metal louvres are neutral in colour with contrast provided by the clay tiles.  The proposed façade treatment, and colours and finishes to the building provide reasonable uniformity and compatibility with the design of the adjacent new building on Lot 13 on the opposite side of Pine Avenue. 

 

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

 

The Heritage Council of NSW has provided appropriate conditions in its general Terms of Approval issued for the proposed development on 20 March 2007.

 

10.4.2.3    Sunlight, Privacy and Views

 

The DCP requires that solar access to at least 50% of the communal and private open space of adjoining properties must be achieved for at least 3 hours 9am to 3pm midwinter. The subject site is bounded by roads on the western, southern and eastern sides, and by the open areas of the St Lukes seniors living housing at Lot 9 to the north-west. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that at 9am in winter overshadowing will occur across Pine Avenue and on the northern facade of the proposed building on Lot 13 to the south. However, by 11 am this façade will be free from overshadowing so that by 12 noon shadows will be confined to Pine Avenue. The public gathering space in front of the proposed building in Lot 13 will be free from overshadowing from the proposal but the public space in front of Lot 11 will be predominantly in shadow. However, by 3:00 pm this public space will be free of overshadowing as the shadows from the proposed development shifts to the northern courtyard spaces of the proposal extending south-easterly across the Jenner Street and Pine Avenue intersection.

 

Overall, the external overshadowing impacts of the proposal will be acceptable as the site is largely bounded by roads and peripheral open space of the subject lot such that no significant overshadowing of surrounding residential properties will occur.

 

The DCP requires that all new dwellings must achieve 3 hours of solar access 9am to 3pm midwinter. Within the proposed development, of the 53 apartments proposed, all but 3 apartments will satisfy the DCP requirement. This shortfall occurs due to the configuration and depth of the subject site and the need to achieve a balance between urban design objectives and ESD targets (ie., a building that presents an attractive edge and builtform to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue whilst achieving solar access and natural ventilation targets for apartments internally). In this context, the shortfall is considered acceptable given that a significant majority of dwellings achieve dual aspect and natural ventilation, and the three apartments will achieve good daylight access through the size and configuration of openings and balconies.

 

North facing solar panels have been located on the roof of the development in accordance with the DCP.

 

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

 

 

 

Within the development itself, the upper floors of the proposal will be setback significantly from the rear northern boundary so overlooking from the north-facing balconies of these upper floor units into the courtyard of ground floor units will be minimised.

 

In terms of views, the proposal will maintain the view-sharing principles of the Prince Henry DCP as the proposal, whilst breaching the maximum wall and building height controls, is located at the top-end of Pine Avenue at the western-most border of the Prince Henry site to Anzac Parade.

 

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

 

10.4.2.4    Traffic and access

 

The proposal will have an increase of dwelling unit over that projected in the Master Plan/Deemed DCP. However, the traffic report advises that the expected traffic generation will be low (equivalent to on average only one vehicle every 2 to 3 minutes) which would not have a significant effect on the operation or amenity of the surrounding road network and its intersection.

 

The proposal will have an increase of 16 dwelling units over that projected in the Master Plan/Deemed DCP. The applicant’s traffic report indicates that the proposal is expected to generate approximately 20 to 25 vehicles per hour two-way during the morning and afternoon peak periods. This compares with the approved Masterplan traffic generation of 15-20 vehicles per hour two-way during peak hours. However, the traffic report advises that when the traffic generation of Lot 11 is combined with that of the proposed Lot 13 (under the current DA 615/2006) the peak period traffic will be 155-165 vehicles per hour two-way during peak hours which represents a reduction for the same combination under the Masterplan which was estimated at some 210-220 vehicles per hour two-way during peak hours. The report advises that the reduction in traffic generation under the combined Lot 11 and 13 proposals arises from the considerable reduction in retail/commercial floor area under these proposals. The approved Master Plan envisaged some 2575 sqm of retail/commercial area for Lots 11 and 13 whereas the current proposals for Lots 11 and 13 will only generate a combined retail/commercial floor area of 1535 sqm.

 

The applicant’s traffic report further advises that a previous traffic study undertaken in May 2005 which assessed the higher traffic generation projected by the Master Plan (under road network improvements approved under the Masterplan) found that the surrounding intersections will operate at levels of service B or better during peak periods which is a good level of intersection operation. Hence, by definition, the lower traffic generation under the combined Lots 11 and 13 proposals will be readily catered for in the surrounding road network.

 

The applicant’s traffic analysis considered reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, the increase in traffic generation in the proposed development (above that projected under the deemed DCP) is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network as the combined traffic generation of the current Lots 11 and 13 proposals will be significantly less than that assessed in accordance with the Master Plan.

 

 

10.4.2.5    Ecologically Sustainable Development

 

The Prince Henry DCP requires the preparation of a Sustainability Building Report by an appropriately qualified professional to improve the energy efficiency of the proposed building. The applicant has provided a Sustainability Report prepared by a consultant engineer, incorporating a BASIX assessment of the proposal in accordance with BASIX modelling requirements for multi-unit housing. The assessment shows that the proposed development will achieve a 37% energy saving target which would comply with the 30% saving target under BASIX, and a 49% water saving target which would comply with the 40% water saving requirement under BASIX. Accordingly, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of energy and water conservation.

The SEE states that the proposal will incorporate the following sustainability measures:

 

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

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

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

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

·      Building to be insulated with a minimum R1.0 roof insulation and R1.5 wall insulation as recommended in the BASIX Report

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

·      Landscaping designed to require minimal irrigation.

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

 

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

 

 

10.4.2.6    Facilities and Access

 

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

 

The applicant provided an access report prepared by an access consultant who considers the proposal against the relevant Australian Standard, BCA and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The report indicates the proposal complies with the accessibility and adaptability requirements of the Australian Standard 4299 – Adaptable Housing and AS1428 – Design for Access and Mobility. In addition, the consultant advises that the proposed development will provide the necessary visitability and adaptability design requirements to satisfy the Prince Henry DCP and  SEPP 65. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to wheel-chair and barrier free access.

 

 

 

10.5  Site Remediation

 

A site audit statement (SAS) has been issued for the subject lot, Lot 11, on 25 May 2005, indicating that the site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council development consent No. 1188/02 as amended (for the demolition of buildings and the remediation of the Prince Henry site was issued on 28 February 2003). Accordingly, the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

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

 

The proposal will provide a range of retail and commercial services to serve the needs of the local community. The residential component will increase the availability of housing and promote the objectives of the zone with the effect that it would bring more people to the site resulting in a new community likely to include young families and “empty nester” household. The added population will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons, which will in turn encourage the location of services and facilities into the broader area.

 

Overall the proposal presents a positive impact within the site and locality.

 

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

 

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

 

The site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council consent 1188/02 as amended. A site audit statement (SAS) has been issued for the subject Lot 11.

 

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

 

The proposal being integrated development was notified and advertised for a period of 30 days between 16 August 2006 and 15 September 2006. submission was received by Council during this notification/advertising period. The issues raised in submissions to this notification/advertising process have been addressed in Section 5 above.

 

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

 

The proposed development is consistent with the deemed DCP and the Prince Henry DCP and will provide the local community with a future neighbourhood centre in the subject lot as well as in the adjacent Lot 13 which will include mixed development (including retail and commercial uses). As a consequence, the proposal will have a positive social benefit for the local community and is considered to be in the wider public interest.

 

 

11        RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

11.1    Outcomes 

 

Outcome 5 : Excellence in urban design

 

The proposal has a superior architectural quality in that it has competently produced a modern and superior design and visual character that will enhance the entrance to the Prince Henry site on Anzac Parade (at the corner of Pine Avenue) thus contributing to the identified outcome for this major thoroughfare.

 

Outcome 11 : A healthy environment –

 

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

 

11.2    Directions and Actions

 

Direction 5a & associated key action : Improved design and sustainability across all development

 

The proposal will create a good contemporary architectural design for the subject site whilst maintaining the quality of the adjoining bushland and overall coastal setting. The proposal will therefore contribute to the overall pool of well-designed buildings in Randwick City that can be used as references for the development of design guidelines and programmes. 

 

Direction 11a & associated key action: Council is a leader in fostering sustainable practices  - 

 

The proposed development will be designed in accordance with ESD principles (including solar access, cross ventilation and energy efficiency) and will incorporate a number of sustainability measures to achieve ventilation, thermal comfort, water conservation and energy efficiency.

 

12.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the aims and objectives contained in the RLEP. The proposal does not comply with the maximum FSR and building, wall and storey height controls. SEPP No.1 objections to these standards have been submitted with the application and considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

The proposal complies with all the requirements of the Prince Henry DCP with the exception of setbacks, soft-landscaping and internal solar access. These non-compliances have been assessed in the relevant sections of this report and found to be reasonable and acceptable.

 

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

 

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

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 30A(2) and 30A(4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended), relating to maximum floor space ratio and maximum wall, building and storey height, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

AND

 

B.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0616/2006 for the erection of a five storey mixed commercial/retail and residential development comprising of 53 dwellings and basement car parking for 97 vehicles and strata subdivision at 2-8 Pine Avenue, Little Bay, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered LT11_DA003 to LT11_DA013, and LT11_DA015, all Issue B, all dated 6/2/2007 and stamped received by Council on 8 March 2007, the draft strata plans in 9 sheets prepared by Whelans,  Surveyor’s Reference C403-002a.dwg to C403-010a.dwg dated/printed 28 July 2006 and stamped received by Council 2 August 2006, the Sustainability Report No S4053 001, Lots 11 & 13, dated 25 July 2006 and received by Council on 2 August 2006, documents attached to the letter from Francis-Jones Morehen Thorp Pty Limited dated 7 March 2007, the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and the details approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

3.     Development consent is required to be obtained in relation to the specific ‘use and operation’ of commercial tenancies/occupancies and ‘shop fit out works’, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9.     Public access to the visitor’s carparking spaces is to be maintained at all times and, if required, an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the carpark, together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use. This approval does not include the installation of any roller doors or gates or the like to the carpark, without the prior development consent of Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  a)    for the provision or improvement of open space    $17,928.75

  b)    for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $1792.88

  c)    Administration fee $425.00  

 

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

 

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

 

15.   An archaeological assessment of the identified strip of land along Anzac Parade, is to be carried out including archaeological supervision in accordance with the processes set out in the AMP and the Archaeological Assessment Guidelines produced by the NSW Heritage Office.  The assessment should advise on the likelihood and potential significance of relics on the site and recommend appropriate action in the context of the proposed development. 

 

       Aboriginal Archaeology

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

       Historical Archaeology

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

21.   The development must be implemented in accordance with the General Terms of Approval issued by the Heritage Council of NSW as detailed in the letter from the Council dated 20 March 2007.

 

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

 

22.   A Site Audit Statement (SAS) and Summary Site Audit Report (SSAR) have been issued for this site. An “Unexpected Finds Protocol” forms part of these documents and shall be complied with as part of this consent. These documents shall be included in all leases and sales contracts.

 

23.   The builders, site workers and the Principal Certifying Authority for this development are to be made aware of this unexpected finds protocol and it requirements prior to any works commencing.

 

24.   Details of and unexpected finds, including the details of any investigation procedures, remedial actions and validation undertaken shall be forwarded to the Council accordingly.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

28.   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).

 

29.   The report titled “Lot 11, Corner of Anzac Pde and Pines Ave Little Bay – Acoustic Assessment” report number TB16-01F05 (rev 5) Lot 11 DA Report, prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates Pty Ltd dated 21st July 2005, and the recommendations contained within, form part of this consent.

 

30.   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.

 

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

 

32.   The applicant is to engage the services of a suitably qualified environmental consultant (or similar) to respond to enquiries and complaints made by the community, the general public or Council in relation to Contamination, remediation, excavation and construction site management matters.

 

A specific contact number is to be made available for such enquiries and complaints (including an after hours emergency contact number). A complaints register is to be maintained to record all such enquiries, complaints and actions taken in response to these enquiries and complaints. This register shall be made available to council officers upon a reasonable request.

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

36.   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.

 

37.   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.

 

38.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

40.   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.

 

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

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

o        name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

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

 

42.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Details of the principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

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.

 

46.   Fire safety notices must be provided to fire-isolated stairways, passageways or ramps in accordance with clause 183 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, at all times.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

48.   Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

49.   A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of potential vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises.

 

Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises, must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

A copy of the engineers report is to be submitted to the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

50.   Driven type piles/shoring must not be provided unless a geotechnical engineer’s report is submitted to the certifying authority, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, which demonstrates that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

Any practices or recommendations specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises or land must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

51.   The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises including (a public roadway or public place) must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises and (where applicable) details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

 

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

 

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

 

53.   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.

 

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

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

55.   If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

 

·       preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·       if necessary, underpin and support the building and excavation in an approved manner; and

·       at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), give notice of the intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining land. Particulars of the excavation are to be provided to the owner of the adjoining land and also the owner of the land where the building is being erected or demolished.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

57.   Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

58.   Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

a)       Prior to construction of the first completed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete), showing the area of land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being construction at the approved levels.

 

b)       On completion of the erection of the building showing the area of the land, the position of the building and boundary setbacks and verifying the building has been constructed at the approved levels.

 

60.   Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, to the satisfaction of WorkCover NSW and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

61.   Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like.

 

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

 

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.

 

63.   A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·       location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·       location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·       location of building materials for construction;

·       provisions for public safety;

·       dust control measures;

·       site access location and construction

·       details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·       protective measures for tree preservation;

·       provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·       location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·       details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·       construction noise and vibration management.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain adequate levels of public health and safety.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

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

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

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

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

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

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

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

·       Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in a site water management plan and must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction.  A copy of the approved details must be forwarded to the Council and a copy is to be maintained on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment, methods of sediment control, details of drainage systems and details of existing and proposed vegetation.

 

Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

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

 

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

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site. Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

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

 

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

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

67.   A ‘B Class’ overhead type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public, located adjacent to the development, prior to the commencement of any works on the site which comprise:-

 

·       any works or hoisting of materials over a public footway or adjoining premises, or

·       any building or demolition works on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6 metres of the street alignment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The following conditions are applied to provide access and facilities for people with disabilities:

 

69.   Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided to and within the building in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1 and relevant Council development control plans for the subject development, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

70.   The applicant shall:

 

a)    Construct a full width concrete commercial vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the proposed vehicular entrance to the site.

 

Note: should the new layback be located over an existing kerb inlet pit, the applicant will be required to:

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

·    Construct a new kerb inlet pit immediately adjacent to the new crossing to compensate for the lost inlet capacity.

 

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

 

71.   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. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

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

 

72.   The design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the proposed footpath levels along both the site frontages.

 

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

 

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

 

74.   A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

80.   All stormwater run-off naturally draining to Lot 11 must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

81.   All stormwater leaving Lot 11 must be discharged to the new storage pond (located adjacent to Fairway 7 within the Coast Golf Course), via the underground drainage system in Pine Avenue. The site drainage system shall be connected directly into the underground street drainage system through a new or existing kerb inlet pit.

 

Notes:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

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

 

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

 

86.   Four covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

c)        Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

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

e)        Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

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

 

89.   As the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation, the basement carpark is to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer/Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority. A copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)  Any subsoil drainage (from planter boxes etc) is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be discharged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

b)  Adequate provision is to be made for the groundwater / seepage water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the water through the development site).

 

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

 

90.   The residential waste storage areas shall be sized to contain a total of 53 x 240 litre bins (37 garbage bins & 37 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

91.   The retail/commercial waste storage area shall be sized to contain a total of 10 x 240 litre bins whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

92.   Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, a waste caretaker shall be employed on an on-going basis to manage the waste storage and collection of the development site in accordance with the Waste Management Plan by J D MacDonald Waste Management Consultants dated July 2006.

 

93.   Details of the proposed motorised trolley system shall be submitted to the Council for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

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

 

95.   The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

100.  Detailed landscape drawings and specifications which have been prepared in accordance with the landscaping performance criteria and controls for Precinct P2, as set out in the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan dated 8 December 2004, shall be submitted to, and be approved by the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued.  A copy of the approved plan shall be forwarded to Council if Council is not the certifier for the site.

         

The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

                  

Note: All species proposed for the landscaped areas shall be selected from the list of suitable native species provided in Appendix A of the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan, dated 8 December 2004.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

j.        Porous paving shall be used in all pathways. Details are to be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

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

 

101.  The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

a)     Part B1                  -     Structural provisions

h)     Part E1                  -     Fire fighting equipment

i)      Part E2                  -     Smoke Hazard Management

j)      Part E3                  -     Lift Installations

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

l)      Part F1                  -     Damp and weatherproofing

m)     Part F4                  -     Light and ventilation

n)     Part F5                  -     Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

28 March, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/615/2006 & PROP051806

 

PROPOSAL:

 Erection of a five storey mixed commercial/retail and residential development comprising 74 dwellings and ground and basement carparking for 124 vehicles and strata sub-division.

PROPERTY:

 1-9 Pine Avenue, Little Bay

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Stockland Development (PHH) Pty Limited

OWNER:

Stockland Development (PHH) Pty Limited

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The subject application is for the erection of a five storey mixed commercial/retail and residential development comprising of 74 dwellings and basement car parking for 124 vehicles and strata subdivision. The subject site is located on the corner of Pine Avenue and Anzac Parade at the main entrance to the Prince Henry Site.  The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee as the proposed development is valued at $26.5 million.

 

The proposal is permissible under Randwick Local Environmental Plan. The proposal has an FSR of 1.5:1 which exceeds the maximum FSR control of 1.2:1. The proposal also breaches the maximum wall height control by a maximum 1.2m in the western elevation and maximum 4.15m in the eastern elevation; the maximum building height control by a maximum 400mm in the western elevation and maximum 3.35m in the eastern elevation; and the storey height control by 1 storey. Objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) have been submitted in relation to the breach of these controls. The non-compliances have been assessed and found acceptable as the proposal will be consistent with the planning objectives for the locality; the parts of the building affected by the breach will not be visually intrusive or bulky; the proposal provides an appropriate counterbalance in not utilising the maximum allowable building footprint resulting in a generous public gathering space along the Pine Avenue frontage that also enhance the view of adjoining heritage buildings; and the additional density and height will not give rise to any detrimental impacts to surrounding uses in terms of solar access, ventilation, privacy and views.

 

The application complies with all the relevant prescribed controls in the Prince Henry Development Control Plan with the exception of the FSR, wall and building height, setbacks, soft landscaping and internal solar access. The breach in setbacks is localised along Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue and arises from the curved builtform of the proposal which, conversely, has provided opportunities for generous setbacks to be provided in the form of the large public gathering space in the north-east of the subject site along Pine Avenue. The shortfall in soft landscaping amounting to 0.4 per cent is minor especially given the need for paved surfaces to serve the pedestrian areas around the commercial/retail hub. The shortfall in units gaining adequate solar access is minor (6 out of the total 74 dwellings proposed) and arises from constraints imposed on the builtform by the shape and configuration of the subject site.

 

The proposal was notified and advertised as “integrated development” for a period of 30 days in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). Submissions were received in response to the proposal.

 

The proposal is an “integrated development” as the subject site is located within the Prince Henry conservation area which has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register. Accordingly, the application was referred to the Heritage Council of NSW for approval, and notified and advertised for a period of 30 days in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). The Heritage Council has issued its General Terms of Approval for the proposed development which have been incorporated as conditions of consent. 

 

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 with the exception of the number of dwelling units which exceeds the Masterplan/Deemed DCP by 38 dwellings.

As discussed in this report, the increase in number of dwellings arises from the design and layout of the proposed building (given the permissible footprint) in accommodating the number of dwellings proposed. Despite the increase in the number of dwellings, the proposal overall will not give rise to any adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views. In particular, the applicant’s traffic analysis indicates that the increase in number of dwellings in Lot 13 will not detrimentally affect the service levels of the surrounding roads and intersections because the traffic generation of Lot 13 when combined with that of the proposed development of the adjacent Lot 11 (DA 616/2006 which is subject of a separate report to Council) will have a reduced  peak period traffic for the same combination under the Masterplan. This reduction in traffic generation under the combined Lots 11 and 13 developments results from the considerable reduction in retail/commercial floor area proposed under this combined proposals (the approved Master Plan envisaged some 2575 sqm of retail/commercial area for Lots 11 and 13 whereas the current proposals for Lots 11 and 13 will only generate a combined retail/commercial floor area of 1535 sqm). The lower traffic generation under the combined Lots 11 and 13 proposal will be readily catered for in the surrounding road network.

 

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

 

2.      THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the erection of a five storey mixed commercial/retail and residential development comprising of 74 dwellings and basement car parking for 124 vehicles and strata subdivision.

 

Specifically, the proposed development will contain the following uses:

 

·         Retail/commercial floor space of approximately 845 sqm at ground level

·         Residential areas comprising 74 dwelling units over four levels above the ground level

·         Carparking on two levels

·       Ground level with 40 carspaces, as well as bicycle parking, switch room, storage spaces, fan room, MDF room and loading docks

·       Basement level with 84 carspaces, as well as bicycle parking, greywater plant and storage rooms, storage spaces, fan room.

 

In terms of dwelling units, the proposal contains the following number and size of apartments:

 

·            31 x 1 bedroom apartments

·            39 x 2 bedroom apartments

·            4 x 3 bedroom apartments

 

Access to the basement carpark will be via an entry and exit point at Brodie Avenue.

 

A generous public gathering space is proposed to the north-east of the subject site along Pine Avenue. In addition, a semi-enclosed central south-facing landscaped communal courtyard is proposed to the rear of the proposed building.

 

On 8 March 2007, the applicant submitted amended building plans for the proposed development containing changes primarily to improve the waste collection area (following issues raised by Council’s Waste Officer), and lobby/foyer areas (following issues raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel). There were no changes to the envelope of the proposal as originally submitted. Accordingly, the changes were considered minor and not required to be readvertised/renotified.

 

3.      THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

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

 

The site that is the subject of the proposed development, forms part of a development precinct identified in the adopted Master Plan (now a Deemed DCP) for the Prince Henry site. The subject site is known as Lot 13 in DP 270427. The site is also referred to as Lot 19 in Council’s Prince Henry Site DCP (the DCP). The subject site is located on the south-eastern corner of Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue and bounded on the eastern side by Brodie Avenue. It comprises vacant land with an area of 5874 sqm. 

 

Development in the locality is predominantly comprised of residential uses as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

4.      SITE HISTORY

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A prelodgement meeting was held in June 2006 (PL 63/2005) to discuss development concepts for the proposed development.

 

5.      COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

5.1    Advertising/Notification

 

The proposal was notified as “integrated development” for a period of 30 days in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). A notice was placed in the local newspaper and on-site, and letters were sent to adjoining and adjacent landowners advising of the proposal and inviting comment and submissions. In response to the advertising/notification, submissions were received as follows:

 

A.      Individual submissions with original or proforma letters:

·              G, J & T Dalton, 27 Dawes Street, Little Bay

·              C Abela, c/- 1587 Anzac Parade, La Perouse (on behalf of La Perouse Precinct Committee)

·              D Condie, 6 Budd Avenue, Little Bay

·              D & K Haas, 179 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

·              D Anderson, 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

·              M McIntosh, 6 Murra Murra Place, Little Bay

·              S&J Kirk, 70 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay

·              G & U Hastings, 62 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay

 

B.      Petitions containing a total of approximately 323 signatures

 

5.2 Objections

 

The following relevant issues were raised in the individual submissions and petitions and are addressed by planning comments below referring where necessary to further assessments in the Environmental Assessment Section of the report (Section 10):

 

·         The DA proposal departs from the Prince Henry Master Plan and DCP

·         The proposal breaches the maximum wall and building height controls. 

·         The proposal breaches the maximum allowable floor space ratio.

·         Failure to adequately justify the departures from the height, FSR and density standards

·         Non-compliances with the Masterplan and DCP will create undesirable precedents.

·         Increase in floor area in Lots 11 and 13 is excessive.

·         Increases in building heights over the DCP is 30% and number of dwellings over the Masterplan is 50%, are unacceptable.

 

SEPP No.1 objections to the FSR and height controls have been submitted with the application and assessed in Section 10.1.2 below. Assessment of the SEPP 1 objections to the FSR and height controls have addressed the breaches of these development standards specific to the development proposal at hand. The objections have been well founded in the circumstances. In particular, the assessment finds that the proposal in its non-compliant form will still be consistent with the planning objectives for the locality and the purpose of the standards in that:

 

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10) , namely to “Strengthen the town scape qualities of the Anzac Parade boundary of the site to the north and south of the existing gates”

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, in the case of Lot 13, for multi-storey mixed retail, commercial and residential development to form the local neighbourhood hub as envisaged in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

3.     It will implement the Prince Henry DCP DCP Precinct P2 Performance Criteria (Section 7.2, page 54) that requires that “New buildings are to present a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue.”

4.     The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for urban consolidation in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses.

 

Should the DA be approved, it will not create an undesirable precedent because the proposal has been assessed on its merits and the SEPP 1 Objections have been adequately considered in relation to the specific circumstances of the subject site and the locality. Amongst other things, a development compliant with the prescribed maximum FSR and building, wall and storey height would be unreasonable in the subject site for the following reasons:

 

 

Consideration should also be given to the comments of the SEPP 65 Panel in relation to the scale of the proposal which are as follows: “The Panel has often expressed its concern that the densities on Prince Henry Site are not sufficiently high. The Panel supports the State Government’s desire for greater density within metropolitan Sydney. The density proposed is higher than indicated in the master plan however the Panel considers that higher densities on this part of the site, in close proximity to Anzac Parade are appropriate and will better ensure the viability of the entrance retail area as a social space.”

 

 

The underlying rationale for the redevelopment of the Prince Henry site is the provision of “a new population on the site that will have specific needs and requirements” (Prince Henry Masterplan Section 5.4 page 10) which will be catered for by a raft of Masterplan principles and strategies. The development of Lot 13 in the builtform proposed fits appropriately within the Masterplan strategy as it will contribute towards establishing an appropriate critical mass within the Prince Henry site to generate demand for businesses, employees and patrons, which will in turn encourage the location of services and facilities into the designated neighbourhood centre that Lot 13 forms part of. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of services and infrastructure primarily because the Masterplanning process including, amongst other things, the provision of a multi-purpose community centre to be built and provided by Landcom in the future, a civil works and infrastructure program implemented by Landcom, a variety of existing community groups housed in adaptable buildings including the Flowers Ward, a future neighbourhood centre in Lots 11 and 13 which will include mixed development (including retail and commercial uses), and a range of passive and recreational open-spaces, all constructed and provided by Landcom.

 

Section 10.4.2.4 below indicates that the increase in traffic generation in the proposed development (above that projected under the deemed DCP) is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network as the combined traffic generation of the current Lots 11 and 13 proposals will be significantly less than that assessed in accordance with the Master Plan.

 

·         There are no current buildings of the size and magnitude proposed along Anzac Parade.

·         Site has a higher elevation compared with other buildings and therefore create a huge building block.

·         Increase in height serves no benefit to the community.

 

Whilst the proposed building on Lot 13 will be one storey higher than the designated storey height control, there will not be an increase in the absolute height of the building by one full storey because of the compressed floor to ceiling height of each residential floor (the floor to ceiling height will still achieve a minimum 2.7m) and the use of the first floor level for residential use rather than commercial use which would have required a minimum floor to ceiling height of 3m (the DCP does not require first floors in building on  the subject site to be commercial use but only states that the non-residential use of a building is limited to the ground and first floor areas). The  increase in height is not considered excessive essentially because the resultant visual bulk and scale of the proposed building will not be visually intrusive or overbearing. The proposal is not a huge building block in the sense that it is an excessive multi-storey tower builtform. Rather the additional height and scale is distributed over an appropriate building mass that achieves “the townscape qualities to the north and south of the existing entry gates” envisioned by the Masterplan. The elevated nature of the site being at the top of Pine Avenue serves to accentuate its significance as a focal point for the Prince Henry development precinct which is suitable for the proposal. The absence of any large buildings along Anzac Parade in the locality does not form an exclusion principle for redevelopment of the subject site to the scale that is permissible under Clauses 12A and 30A of the Randwick LEP 1998, that is, for a local neighbourhood activity centre. Furthermore, it should be noted that under these same clauses and the Prince Henry DCP, a number of lots (Lots 6, 18 and 24) fronting Anzac Parade to the north of the subject site and within the Prince Henry site have been designated for multi-unit residential buildings at a height of 5 storeys (4 storeys plus loft). Being in the northern part of the Prince Henry site, these lots have been identified for higher densities and heights precisely to “announce” the urban character of the overall Prince Henry site as one drives south along Anzac Parade and to act as “architectural precursors” of the urban redevelopment of the Prince Henry site in the sequence culminating in the townscape entry/gateway that is lots 11 and 13. Consideration should also be given to the fact that the SEPP 65 Panel has also made the following comments on a key assessment criteria of SEPP 65, namely, the relationship of a proposal to its context: “Generally the proposal creates a suitable gateway to the PHH development, provides the potential for good quality urban space to Pine Avenue and addresses the issues of the proximity to the Flowers Wards.  The Panel reinforces its previous comments that the relationship and activation of the Anzac Parade frontage are important considerations, so that the site is not just conceived as a “gateway” to the PHH site, but as part of the new Anzac Parade precinct that has links from La Perouse through to Randwick.”

 

·         The “commerciality” of 3 and 4 storey building in Lots 11 and 13 already factored in the Masterplan.

·         The provision of a supermarket has been removed from the proposal.

·         Lack of shopping amenity due to absence of supermarket and low ceiling height in shops.

·         Proposal does not include retail elements and therefore dilutes the commercial presence intended under the Master Plan.

·         Removal of a supermarket discourages local community visits and therefore creates a gated community

·         The elimination of commercial use on the first floor in favour of residential use makes the commercial aspect of the proposed building of secondary concern.

 

As desirable as the proposition may be, there is no statutory requirement for a supermarket to be provided on site. Nor is it appropriate to legislate for such an outcome given that this is a market related issue and not a head of consideration under Section 79c of the EP&A Act. The ground floor retail level achieves a floor to ceiling height of 3m as required under the DCP which will be adequate to meet the operational needs or future retail uses. Whilst it is recognised that the absence of a anchor retail facility like a supermarket lessens the opportunities for local community patronage, the claim that this constitutes a plan to establish a “gated community” is considered spurious and erroneous. 

 

·         Increase in the number of apartments in Lots 11 and 13 is significant

·         The increase in number of apartments is not a minor increase.

 

The increase in the number of apartments by 38 units appears on face-value to be significant. However, appropriate recognition should be given to the competent architectural design of the proposed building and its internal layout in being able to accommodate this number of apartments without an unreasonable breach in the FSR and height standards (as considered in the SEPP 1 assessment) but with an environmentally sustainable design in terms of dual aspect and cross ventilation.   Despite the increase in the number of dwellings, the proposal overall will not give rise to any adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy, views and traffic generation as assessed in relevant parts of Section 10 below. 

 

·         Applicant’s claim of better design is flawed.

·         High quality architectural design does not justify departure from planning controls.

·         Inferior design of outer finishes including inappropriate materials.

 

Architectural design is only one of many factors that have been considered under Section 10 – Environmental Assessment of this report having regard to the heads of consideration under Section 79(c) of the EP&A Act. Similarly, architectural merit alone has not formed the basis for justifying the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objection as assessed in Section below. Accordingly, this assessment indicates clearly that the proposal in its non-compliant form is acceptable primarily because it will still be consistent with planning objectives for the locality and the purpose of the standard in that:

 

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10) , namely to “Strengthen the town scape qualities of the Anzac Parade boundary of the site to the north and south of the existing gates”

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, in the case of Lot 13, for multi-storey mixed retail, commercial and residential development to form the local neighbourhood hub as envisaged in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

3.     It will implement the Prince Henry DCP DCP Precinct P2 Performance Criteria (Section 7.2, page 54) that requires that “New buildings are to present a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue.”

4.     The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for urban consolidation in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses.

 

The ability of the proposal to meet these principles/objectives forms the fundamental elements for justifying the proposal in its non-compliant form. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted also that the SEPP 65 Panel has recognised the architectural merits of the proposal in commenting as follows in its assessment: “The Panel would like to emphasize that the design is of high merit. A good amount of time has been given to design development. This, combined with a clearly supportive client … has given the Panel confidence that the project will continue to develop and eventually become a key contributor to the success of the whole Prince Henry project.”

 

·         No appropriate levels of parking have been provided given the part commercial nature of the area.

·         Parking will be converted into storage/operational areas due to small shop sizes thus further reducing availability.

·         Loss of street parking for residents and visitors to the site.

 

As discussed in Section 10.3.2, the proposal provides adequate numbers of carparking for the proposed retail/commercial use in accordance with the DCP – Parking. As such, to refuse the proposal on the basis of potential loss of street parking would be unreasonable. The inclusion of multi-level carparking in any proposal for the subject site as suggested by an objector would be contrary to objectives of the Prince Henry Masterplan and DCP and would constitute a poor planning outcome for the subject site in terms of design and function. 

 

·         A strengthened commercial and residential appearance inimical to heritage ambience and values of the subject site – core reasons why this is an integrated development.

·         The excess height and FSR does not in any way enhance the appreciation of the heritage items of the estate.

·         The design of the building lacks any heritage connection to the existing retained heritage structures on-site.

 

A Heritage Impact Statement (HIS), prepared by Tanner Architects Pty Ltd, was submitted with the application. The HIS indicates that “the potential negative impact on the adjacent Flowers Ward due to the additional height is mitigated by the strong horizontal line of the single storey podium, by the modulation of the east elevation and the slender footprint of the building”. This curved and slender builtform has resulted in two positive outcomes for the adjacent heritage buildings :

 

1.     It underpins the creation of a significant open public gathering space along Pine Avenue that physically contributes to and enhances the existing curtilage and setting of the adjacent Flowers Wards, the Memorial Clock Tower, Entrance Gates and Gatehouse and Gateposts, the former Pathology Building, the Avenue of Norfolk Pines within the Pine Avenue streetscape, Ensemble of Water Tower, Wishing Well and Clock Tower and their setting .

2.     It generates an open vista down Pine Avenue as the building wraps around the Anzac Parade, Pine Avenue and Brodie Avenue corners enhancing the view towards the Flowers Wards, the Memorial Clock Tower, Entrance Gates and Gatehouse and Gateposts, the former Pathology Building, the Avenue of Norfolk Pines within the Pine Avenue streetscape, Ensemble of Water Tower, Wishing Well and Clock Tower and their setting peeling back into Brodie Avenue to form an open public space that also provides a vista to the Flowers Ward, the Clock Tower and down Pine Avenue towards Little Bay.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner concurs with these positive impacts of the proposed building in relation to the adjoining and surrounding heritage items. It should also be recognised that the Heritage Council has approved the subject proposal and advised of its approval of the integrated development application in a letter dated 20 March 2007 with its accompanying general terms of approval. The general terms of approval have been included as conditions of consent. The general terms of approval have been included as conditions of consent. Finally, new buildings should not be required to mimic the design and materials of existing heritage items but rather be encouraged interpret and complement existing heritage items and elements in their design. The proposal exhibits these qualities adequately as assessed in Section 10.4.2.1 of this report.

 

·         Long monotonous wall of the proposed builtform detrimental to character of  suburb.

·         Overdevelopment of the site will be detrimental to the character of the Precinct

·         Driving along Anzac Parade is pleasant feeling of open ambience because of the decreasing heights of buildings  and residential densities in the area.

·         The proposed development are to a size and scale that will dramatically change the character of the coastal community.

·         Additional residential storey not akin to village-type strips intended under the DCP

·         Design increases visual obstruction into the site from the Anzac Parade frontage.

 

The proposal not only provides for a landmark building at this entrance corner to the Prince Henry site but also provides generous public gathering space along Pine Avenue. The proposal has a well considered articulation and modulation that not only breaks the bulk and scale of the proposed building but also provide for a reasonable builtform that allows for the future townscape character of the subject site to develop and grow as envisioned under the Masterplan. The open low-density character of Anzac Parade within Little Bay and La Perouse area is recognised.

 

The absence of any large buildings along Anzac Parade in the locality does not form an exclusion principle for redevelopment of the subject site to the scale that is permissible under Clauses 12A and 30A of the Randwick LEP 1998, that is, for a local neighbourhood activity centre.

 

Furthermore, it should be noted that under these same clauses and the Prince Henry DCP, a number of lots (Lots 6, 18 and 24) fronting Anzac Parade to the north of the subject site and within the Prince Henry site have been designated for multi-unit residential buildings at a height of 5 storeys (4 storeys plus loft). Being in the northern part of the Prince Henry site, these lots have been identified for higher densities and heights precisely to “announce” the urban character of the overall Prince Henry site as one drives south along Anzac Parade and to act as “architectural precursors” of the urban redevelopment of the Prince Henry site in the sequence culminating in the townscape entry/gateway that is lots 11 and 13. The future desired character of the townscape entry/gateway at the corner of Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue is that of a local neighbourhood activity centre which is now statutorily enshrined in the zoning and builtform controls for the subject site under Clauses 12A and 30A of the Randwick LEP 1998. The increase in height and density beyond these controls under the proposal will serve to promote this character (as considered in the assessment of the SEPP 1 objections) in an area that has been designated for urban consolidation under the Prince Henry Masterplan.

 

·         The proposed buildings in lots 11 and 13 will create a canyon like effect due to proximity of excessively high buildings and in turn give rise to wind tunnel effect.

·         The proposed building in lot 11 will overshadow the alfresco eating and shopping area of the proposed building in Lot 13.

 

The curved nature of the proposed building along Pine Avenue as it “peels back” into Brodie Avenue combined with a similar curved arrangement for the proposed building on the opposite Lot 11 will be conducive to the free flow of air through the open public spaces between the two buildings. The absence of a straight corridor between the two buildings will reduce any potential wind tunnel effect.

 

The shadow diagrams accompanying the DA No. 616/2006 for the adjacent Lot 11 indicates that there will be minor overshadowing in the winter mornings of the future outdoor café and retail area of the subject proposal. However, the significant gathering/open space to be established on the corner of  Pine Avenue and Brodie Street will not be overshadowed at all by the subject proposal.

 

·         Lack of designated outdoor drying area for residents and absence of rainwater storage tanks.

 

The environmental sustainability qualities of the proposal have been assessed in Section of this report. Amongst other things the proposal will meet energy efficiency, water conservation and thermal comfort targets under BASIX.

 

·         The applicant has not undergone the approval process of the Prince Henry Design Panel

 

Whilst the existence of the Prince Henry Design Panel provides a useful additional layer of design scrutiny and assessment for all development within the Prince Henry site, approval of the Panel is not a statutory or policy requirement of Council. More importantly, the assessment of the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel has been obtained and this Panel has supported the proposal subject to appropriate minor adjustments to its design (see Section 10.4.2.1 below).

 

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 Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.28.  The site and a number of buildings on it 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 and Development Control Plan for residential use of the previous hospital site. 

The Subject Site

The site is in the western part of the development area, with Lots 13 and 11 forming the entrance to the site from Anzac Parade.  The site is bounded by Anzac Parade to the west, Pine Avenue to the north, Brodie Avenue to the east and Lots 20 and 23 to the south.  The subject site is located within Precinct P2 as identified in the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan. 

 

Heritage element

Applies

Built elements in the vicinity

Clock and clock tower, water tower and wishing well

Entrance Gates, Gateposts and Gatehouse

Historic Precinct

Flowers Wards

Pathology Department Building

Artisans’ Cottages

Significant Road Alignment

Former water reservoir

Landscape elements in the vicinity

Landscape setting and curtilage associated with entrance elements

Avenue of Norfolk Island pines

Sandstone outcrops

Aboriginal archaeological zone

Zone 2- High Sensitivity

Aboriginal identified site

No

Historical archaeological zone

Zone 7- former Prince Henry Hospital Complex

Historical identified site

No

Little Bay Geological site

No

Remnant native vegetation in the vicinity

No

 

The Proposal

The proposal is for a four level mixed use development comprising ground level retail/commercial with three residential levels above.  Car parking is provided at ground level and in a basement carpark. 

 

Submission

The development application submission includes a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Tanner Architects for Lots 11 and 13 which refers to relevant conservation policies contained in the Specific Elements Conservation Policies for surrounding built elements, and to the policies for new development contained in the DCP for the site.  The submission notes that the proposal will generally have either a neutral or positive impact on significant built elements in the vicinity, but that the potential negative impact on the adjacent Flowers Ward due to the additional height is mitigated by the strong horizontal line of the single storey podium, by the modulation of the east elevation and the slender footprint of the building.  In relation to Archaeology, the HIS notes that previous excavation work has been carried out under an Excavation Permit and that demolition may have disturbed or destroyed indigenous and non-indigenous relics.  The proposal would impact on the identified strip along Anzac Parade which requires further assessment, including archaeological supervision in accordance with the processes set out in the AMP.

 

Approvals

As the site is listed on the State Heritage Register, the proposal generally needs to be the subject of an Integrated Development Application.  As the NSW Heritage Offie is the consent authority for the application, Council cannot issue development approval until the Heritage Office has provided conditions of consent.

 

Site specific exemptions for the Prince Henry site for new single residences and multi-unit residential buildings which comply with the Prince Henry site DCP were gazetted in June 2005.  Under the Prince Henry Site Specific Exemptions, development which complies with the identified sections of the Prince Henry DCP and the relevant heritage management plan does not need to be referred to the NSW Heritage Office for approval.  Exemptions apply to development outside the Historic Precinct where the proposal complies with the Height and Setback requirements of the DCP, and where non-compliance with a number of identified sections of the DCP will not result in heritage impacts.  It appears that the proposal does not comply with the DCP height requirements and that Heritage Office consent is required. 

 

DCP standard

Complies

Subject to

Site Specific Exemptions

Height

No

No

Setback

 

 

Comments

The proposal appears to be generally consistent with the siting requirements of the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan, although non-compliances have been identified relating height.  The footprint of the building defines an open space area on the corner of Pine and Brodie Avenues, allows views towards adjacent significant buildings and retains an open layout for these structures.  The finishes board and schedule indicate a combination of solid surfaces in rendered masonry and clay tiles, with glazed openings and balustrades screened by fixed and operable metal louvres.  Rendered masonry and metal louvres are neutral in colour with contrast provided by the clay tiles.  The proposed façade treatment, and colours and finishes to the building provide reasonable uniformity and compatibility with the design of the adjacent new building on Lot 11 on the opposite side of Pine Avenue

 

Recommendations

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

 

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

 

6.2    Development Engineering Comments

 

Council’s Development Engineer advises as follows:

 

An application has been received for the construction of a five storey mixed retail/residential building at the above site containing 74 units, 845m2 of retail/commercial floor space and 2 levels of carparking for 125 vehicles with associated strata subdivision.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

Drainage Comments

All stormwater leaving Lot 13 must be discharged to the new storage pond (located adjacent to Fairway 7 within the Coast Golf Course), via the underground drainage system in Pine Avenue. The site drainage system shall be connected directly into the underground street drainage system through a grated inlet pit.

 

All stormwater shall be taken through a sediment/silt arrester pit prior to being discharged from the site.

 

Traffic Comments

 

SEPP 11 Referral: As the proposed development includes less than 1000m2 of retail and commercial area, the application does not require referral to the Local Development Committee as a Schedule 2 development under SEPP 11; however it is understood the application has been referred to the Traffic Management Group for consideration. The Planning Officer shall ensure that all comments and conditions received from this group are incorporated into the development consent.

 

Traffic Generation: The proposal is for 74 residential units and 845m2 of retail/commercial area. This represents an increase of 30 residential units and a decrease of 1965m2 of retail/commercial area from the 44 units and 3500m2 of retail/commercial area proposed in the amended traffic report. (Note: The changes in retail/commercial figures are based on the total of Lots 11 and 13 together, as per the amended traffic report). The Traffic and Parking Report submitted with this application has analysed the effects of the amended proposal and determined that there will be a significant reduction in peak period traffic generation resulting from the changed configurations of both Lots 11 and 13, with some 155-165 vehicles per hour two way during peak periods (as opposed to the configuration approved in the amended traffic report which found 435-445 vehicles per hour two way during peak periods).

 

Parking Provisions: According to Council’s DCP – Parking, a total of 120 car spaces shall be provided within the site (31 spaces for the 31 x 1 bdrm units, 47 spaces for the 39 x 2 bdrm units, 6 spaces for the 4 x 3 bdrm units, 19 visitor spaces for the 74 units and 17 spaces for the 8452 of retail/commercial area).

 

The submitted plans show a total of 125 spaces being provided within the site. The Development Engineer doe not object to this slight excess in the number of spaces provided, however it recommended that the Planning Officer alter the proposed allocation of spaces to ensure that 19 visitor spaces are provided (as the submitted documentation suggests only 15 visitor spaces are to be provided, with the others proposed to be allocated to the commercial/retail component).

 

Loading Provisions: The applicant was advised at prelodgement stage that two loading bays were required to be provided within the development site, sized for the maximum size of service vehicle that will be required to service the site at any time.

 

The submitted plans show the provision of two loading bays as required, sized to accommodate small rigid trucks. In addition, the submitted Traffic and Parking Report provides swept path diagrams indicating demonstrating adequate area being available for these service vehicles to enter the site from Brodie Avenue, turn around within the site and exit in a forward direction.

Waste Comments

Residential waste: To minimise the number of bins presented at the kerb for collection, Council would generally require a development of this size to provide garbage chutes and compactors to reduce the required number of residential garbage bins by half. Under such an arrangement the residential garbage room/s would need to be sized to contain the compactor/s (with safe working area around) and an additional 19 x 240 litre bins. Recyclables cannot be compacted and the recycling room should be sized to contain a total of 37 x 240 litre recycling bins.

 

The provision of garbage chutes and compactors may be difficult to accommodate in the subject development given the number of cores that are proposed. Consequently, the applicant was requested to consider alternative waste management arrangements that will still meet the objective of minimising the number of bins that need to be presented at the kerb for collection. The arrangement proposed in the submitted development application is to provide waste storage areas within the site as well as a bin ‘holding’ area close to the site boundary, for transfer to the kerbside on the day of collection.

 

It is noted that the application was referred to Council’s Waste Compliance Officer and the following comments were received:

 

Further to the above, it is noted that although the three waste storage areas provided within the Basement Level are sized to contain 74 x 240 litre bins as required, the collection area adjacent to the driveway is shown to hold only 36 bins. It is assumed that the other 38 bins are being transported directly to the kerbside for collection (and thus ‘splitting’ the number of bins being presented at the kerb) however the Waste Management Plan does not appear to address this issue, and concerns are raised as to the logistics required for this arrangement to succeed on a weekly basis.

 

Commercial waste: A separate waste storage area shall be provided for the commercial/retail component of the development. The submitted Waste Management Plan states that 8 x 660 litre waste bins will be required based on 2 daily collection rate and that a private waste contractor will collect this waste from within the site. It is noted that a waste storage area has been provided on Level 1 of the site adjacent to the vehicular access and loading dock; however it appears to be sized for only 6 large bins.

 

General Comments: It is noted that the submitted plans show the residential waste storage areas being located within the Basement Level, accessed through an internal driveway with grades of up to 1 in 6. This is too steep for the manual transporting of bins up to street level for collection, hence the applicant’s Waste Management Consultant has stated that “a motorised trolley system will be provided and utilised by the waste caretaker to assist with the transportation of bins”. Details of the proposed motorised trolley system shall be submitted to the Council for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Noting that a waste caretaker will be required to manage the waste storage and collection on the site as detailed in the submitted Waste Management Plan; a condition has been included in this report to ensure that a caretaker is employed as necessary.

 

Geotechnical Comments

The applicant was advised at prelodgement stage to undertake suitable geotechnical investigation to determine whether the subject development site will be affected by continual seepage flows. A Geotechnical Report by Douglas Partners dated April 2005 has been submitted with the development application and states that permanent groundwater aquifers were not encountered on the subject site, although there is likely to be some minor seepage at the soil bedrock interface. However, noting that free groundwater was observed in one of the test bores, indicating that there may be a shallow intermittent groundwater table present; it is recommended that the basement carpark be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A condition has been included in this report to the address the matter.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply”

 

Comments : The applicant has now provided additional information showing the co-location of all residential (37 general waste and 37 recycled waste bins)  and commercial (8 waste bins)  waste bins in a common area adjacent to the entrance driveway on the ground floor. This arrangement has been assessed and is considered adequate subject to kerbside collection on Brodie Avenue which will be required in a condition should approval be granted.

 

6.3    Environmental Health Comments

 

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

 

“Key Issues

 

Land contamination: SAS has been issued for this site by ERM, Paul Steinwede dated 19/05/05. Unexpected finds protocol exists for this site. Appropriate conditions are to be imposed on any consent to address this issue.

 

Acoustics: An acoustic report has been submitted with the proposal. The noise from the surrounding environment and the proposed development has been addressed. Appropriate conditions should be included in any proposal.

 

Grey water treatment and reuse: The proposal includes the treatment and reuse of grey water. Appropriate conditions are to be imposed to address this matter.

 

Commercial/Retail Occupancies: Shall be subject to separate applications for the use and operation of these units. Consideration should be given by the assessment planner as to restricting the hours of use for the proposed loading/delivery zone.

 

Recommendation

 

Should the application be approved, the following conditions should be included:”

 

6.4    Building Services Comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the construction of a new 5 storey mixed residential and commercial development with 2 levels of basement car park.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

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

Class   -        2        (Residential units)

Class   -        7a      (Carpark)

 

Background

 

Vacant land that is part of a recent crown land subdivision.

 

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, sanitary facilities for people with a disability and 1 accessible disabled unit per each 14 units is also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of Councils Multi-unit housing DCP, however, this is overridden by a separate DCP for this locality and allows 3 accessible units in this 53 unit development.

 

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.”

 

6.5    Heritage Council of NSW Comments

 

The Heritage Council advised of its approval of the integrated development application in a letter dated 20 March 2007 with its accompanying general terms of approval. The general terms of approval have been included as conditions of consent.

 

7.      MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

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

 

8.      RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

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

 

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

Clause 40        Excavation and filling of land

Clause 40A     Master plans

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

 

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

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum number of storeys

4 storeys 

 

5 storeys 

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum FSR

 

Maximum 1.2:1

1.5:1

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

Western Elevation  = max 15.2m

Eastern Elevation = max 18.15m

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Building Height

Maximum 15m

 

Western Elevation = max 15.4m

Eastern elevation = max 18.35m 

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

 

Minimum Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 40%

65%

Yes

 

8.2    Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

 

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

 

Further, Council’s legal advice offers that the draft SEPP should not be given any significant weight, as its final form is neither imminent nor certain and would not apply given that it contains a provision saving the subject application.  As such, further consideration of the Draft SEPP is therefore not required, however, it is considered that the proposal results in a better environmental outcome on the site than that which could have been achieved had the standards been complied with due to its design quality, in particular its scale and form within the streetscape.

 

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

 

9.      POLICY CONTROLS

 

9.1    Prince Henry Development Control Plan

 

The Prince Henry DCP applies to the developable land within the Prince Henry Site and contains controls that are specifically precinct based. The subject site lies within Precinct P2 and, as such, is subject to the following specific precinct controls:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum number of storeys

4 storeys

 

5 storeys

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum FSR

 

Maximum 1.2:1

1.5:1

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

Western Elevation  = 15.2m

Eastern Elevation = 18.15m 

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Building Height

Maximum 15m

 

Western Elevation = 15.4m

Eastern elevation = 18.35m 

No (SEPP No1 Objection submitted)

Minimum Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 40%

65%

Yes

 

 

 

Minimum Soft Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 20%

19.6%

No

Setbacks

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

 

Front Setback to Pine Avenue – minimum 2m at the eastern end and increasing to an unspecified dimension at the corner of Pine Avenue and Anzac Parade.

 

Setback from Brodie Avenue ranging from 2m at the north-eastern corner to 10.5m at the south-eastern corner.

 

 

Front Setback to Anzac Parade –  3m landscape strip and no 4m general building setback.

 

 

Front Setback to Pine Street – minimum 2m at the eastern end is observed with minor encroachment in the unspecified setback portion at the corner of Pine Avenue and Anzac Parade.

 

Encroachment of  the lower four levels of the building in the south-eastern corner to Brodie Avenue.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

Articulation zone

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

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

Yes

 

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

 

9.2    Development Control Plan - Carparking

 

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

 

USE

REQUIREMENT (DCP – Parking)

PROPOSED NUMBER AND/OR FLOOR AREA

REQUIRED PROVISION

PROPOSED PROVISION

Residential

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

31 x one bedroom dwellings

31 spaces

 

 

84 residential carspaces

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

39 x two bedroom dwellings

47 spaces

 

1.5 spaces per three bedroom dwellings

4 x three bedroom dwellings proposed

6 spaces

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 74

19 spaces

15 spaces

Retail/Commercial

1 space per 40 sqm GFA

845 sqm

21

25 spaces

TOTAL

 

 

124 spaces

124  spaces

 

9.3    Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

Section 94 contributions are not payable for developments that meet the Deemed DCP standards as the open space and community facility provisions in the Deemed DCP were designed to meet the requirements of the projected number of residents established in the Deemed DCP. However, the proposal exceeds the projected number of dwellings established in the Master Plan/Deemed DCP by 38 units. As such, a Section 94 contribution is chargeable and a condition requiring this will be applied should approval be granted.

 

9.4    Rainwater Tanks Policy, 2003

 

Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy requires installation of rainwater tanks for all residential development. Council’s Strategic Planner has advised that the requirement for rainwater tanks does not apply in the subject site as the stormwater from the site will be harvested into designated storage ponds to contribute to the whole of Prince Henry site irrigation needs under the total water cycle strategy of the DCP. The Deemed DCP also recommends collection of roof water for irrigation as per the total water cycle strategy. Furthermore, the applicant has provided a BASIX report that shows that the proposal achieves the energy, water and thermal comfort targets of BASIX.

 

10.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1  Statutory Controls – S79C(1)(a)

 

10.1.1        Section 91 EP&A Act (Integrated Development)

 

Section 91 of the EP&A Act relates to development that requires development consent and one or more other approvals under relevant nominated Acts. The former Prince Henry Hospital site is located within a conservation area, which has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register, so that any development proposal requires the consent of the Heritage Council of NSW. Accordingly, the application was referred to the Council as integrated development. The Heritage Council advised of its approval of the integrated development application on 19 March 2007 with its accompanying general terms of approval. The general terms of approval have been included as conditions of consent.

 

10.1.2        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 21 Sub-division

 

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

 

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

                            Space Ratio)

 

A floor space ratio of 1.2:1 is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 30A (2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal development has a FSR of 1.5:1

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 30A (2) of Randwick LEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.      Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

 

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

 

2.      The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that: 

 

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10) , namely to “Strengthen the town scape qualities of the Anzac Parade boundary of the site to the north and south of the existing gates”

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, in the case of Lot 13, for multi-storey mixed retail, commercial and residential development to form the local neighbourhood hub as envisaged in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

3.     It will implement the Prince Henry DCP DCP Precinct P2 Performance Criteria (Section 7.2, page 54) that requires that “New buildings are to present a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue.”

4.     The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for urban consolidation in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses and locating these in close proximity to public transport, regional centres and services.

 

The aims and objectives of SEPP No.1 are to provide:

 

“provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”

 

The objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

 

(i)       The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purposes of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and better environment;

 

(ii)      The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

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

 

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

 

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed FSR control would be unreasonable in the subject site in that it would not achieve a reasonable and efficient level of redevelopment for the subject land to provide a commercial hub for the Prince Henry site with the appropriate mix of commercial, retail and residential uses that is necessary to ensure feasibility and viability.

 

In contrast, the proposed development would allow for a reasonable redevelopment of the land but with a better urban outcome in terms of the following:

 

 

In view of the above it is considered that the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the proposal meets with the purpose of Clause 30A(2).

 

5.      Whether the objection is well founded.

 

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

 

·                Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly.

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

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

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

 

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

·            The extent of the non-compliance is relatively minor and does not result in any substantive adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing of adjoining residential development or heritage items, traffic and acoustic/visual privacy nor do they compromise the amenity of adjoining development or the immediate locality.

·            The proposal will provide a high quality contemporary design that is sympathetic to the desired future character of the area and provides for the immediate needs of the existing and future residents of the locality.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

Western Elevation  = 15.2m

Eastern Elevation = 18.15m

No

Maximum Building Height

Maximum 15m

 

Western Elevation = 15.4m to top of lift-core

Eastern elevation = 18.35m to top of lift-core

No

 

Maximum number of storeys

4 Storeys

5 storeys

No

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 30A (4) of Randwick LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.      Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

 

The building and wall height controls in question are development standards contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.      The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

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

 

" to set upper limits for the heights of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas”.

 

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

 

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that: 

 

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10) , namely to “Strengthen the town scape qualities of the Anzac Parade boundary of the site to the north and south of the existing gates”

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, in the case of Lot 13, for multi-storey mixed retail, commercial and residential development to form the local neighbourhood hub as envisaged in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

3.     It will implement the Prince Henry DCP DCP Precinct P2 Performance Criteria (Section 7.2, page 54) that requires that “New buildings are to present a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue.”

4.     The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for urban consolidation in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses and locating these in close proximity to public transport, regional centres and services.

 

The aims and objectives of SEPP No.1 are to provide:

 

“provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”

 

The objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

 

(iii)     The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purposes of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and better environment;

 

(iv)     The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·        It would preclude the redevelopment of the site for an effective neighbourhood hub with mixed retail, commercial and residential uses which collectively is of a “higher order” use than the other parts of the Prince Henry site.

 

·                It would preclude the provision of a building with a distinct architectural urban design comprising primarily a slender, sinuous curvilinear builtform with a balance of vertical and horizontal elements to provide symmetry that crucially will strengthen the existing streetscape and future townscape of this corner of Anzac Parade as envisioned in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP.

 

·                It would preclude the provision of a landmark building  to mark the entry point of the Prince Henry site at Pine Avenue.

 

·                It would preclude the provision of proper lift access to the floor levels of the proposed building given that the maximum building height breach is localised at the lift over-runs of these buildings.

 

In contrast, the proposed development would allow for a reasonable redevelopment of the land but with a better urban outcome in terms of the following:

 

·                bulk and scale that would not be visually intrusive in the existing coastal and heritage setting given that the proposal will occupy a smaller footprint than that allowed for in the DCP (thus providing for larger public gathering places at ground level)

 

·                Siting and orientation of the proposed building to enhance views of adjoining heritage items including the Flowers Wards and surrounding heritage and coastal landscape settings 

 

·                The proposal will also maintain adequate levels of amenity for the proposed development especially in terms of solar access, ventilation and landscaping.

 

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

 

·                the proposed building will be one storey higher than the designated storey height control but will not be increase in absolute height by one full storey because of the compressed floor to ceiling height of each residential floor (the floor to ceiling height will still achieve a minimum 2.7m) and the use of the first floor level for residential use rather than commercial use which would have required a minimum floor to ceiling height of 3m (the DCP does not require first floors in building on  the subject site to be commercial use but only states that the non-residential use of a building is limited to the ground and first floor areas).

 

In view of the above it is considered that the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the proposal meets with the purpose of Clause 30A(4).

 

5.      Whether the objection is well founded.

 

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

·                Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·                The extent of the non-compliance in both instances is relatively minor and does not result in any substantive adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing of adjoining residential development or heritage items, traffic and acoustic/visual privacy nor do they compromise the amenity of adjoining development or the immediate locality.

 

·                The proposal will provide a high quality contemporary design that is sympathetic to the desired future character of the area and provides for the immediate needs of the existing and future residents of the locality.

 

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

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported as the height, bulk and scale of the proposal would not be visually intrusive in the existing coastal and heritage given the smaller footprint than that allowed for in the DCP, the proposal presents a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue in line with eth townscape principle of eth Prince Henry Masterplan, and the localised nature of the breach in the maximum building height control.

 

Clause 40           Excavation and filling of land

 

Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct the buildings and basement car parking areas. This work will not result in any significant impact on the topography of the site, is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

Clause 40A        Master plans

 

A Master Plan for the Prince Henry site, inclusive of the subject site, was adopted in December 2001 subject to a number of matters being addressed in a revised Master Plan and subsequent development applications for the subject site. A further revised Master Plan consistent with the required amendments was adopted by Council on 27 May 2003. The adopted Master Plan is now a Deemed DCP pursuant to amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gazetted on 16 June 2005. The Deemed DCP acknowledged the provision of residential apartments in the subject site. The proposal is consistent with the Deemed DCP with the exception of the number of apartments units which will exceed the required number by 38 units. Despite the increase in the number of dwellings, the proposal overall will not give rise to any adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views. In particular, the applicant’s traffic analysis indicates that the increase in number of dwellings in Lot 13 will not detrimentally affect the service levels of the surrounding roads and intersections because the traffic generation of Lot 13 when combined with that of the proposed development of the adjacent Lot 11 (DA 616/2006 which is subject of a separate report to Council) will have a reduced peak period traffic for the same combination under the Masterplan. This reduction in traffic generation under the combined Lots 11 and 13 developments results from the considerable reduction in retail/commercial floor area proposed under this combined proposals (the approved Master Plan envisaged some 2575 sqm of retail/commercial area for Lots 11 and 13 whereas the current proposals for Lots 11 and 13 will only generate a combined retail/commercial floor area of 1535 sqm). The lower traffic generation under the combined Lots 11 and 13 proposals will be readily catered for in the surrounding road network.

 

Additionally, the increase in the number of dwellings is considered acceptable in view of the fact that the proposed building will not be visually intrusive (notwithstanding the exceedance of the FSR and height controls) as the building footprint will be significantly smaller than that allowable under the Prince Henry DCP thus allowing for larger public spaces at ground level; and the proposed development will not create any adverse impact on the amenity or visual quality of the locality. Furthermore, a Section 94 contribution will be applied for the excess number of dwelling units.

 

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

 

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

 

10.2           Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

 

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Contaminated Land

 

This SEPP provides a state wide practice for the remediation of contaminated land. In relation to Lot 13, the subject site, a site audit statement (SAS) has been issued on 17 May 2005 indicating that the site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council consent 1188/02 as amended (for the demolition of buildings and the remediation of the Prince Henry site was issued on 28 February 2003). Accordingly, the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards)

 

The Draft SEPP 2004 seeks to replace the provisions of SEPP 1 and has been publicly exhibited (concluding on 18 June 2004). The new SEPP will introduce new provisions for assessing whether flexibility of a planning standard are acceptable or not. The additional tests include whether the proposal will result in a better environmental outcome than a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the controls.  Notwithstanding, that the SEPP is a draft document requiring consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act, Clause 14 of the draft document includes savings provisions that any development application made and not determined when the draft SEPP is gazetted is to be assessed against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1.

 

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

 

10.3.1        Development Control Plan – Prince Henry Site

 

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

 

The subject site is located within Precinct P1 of the DCP and the application complies with all the relevant prescribed controls for this precinct with the exception of the FSR, building, wall and storey heights, setbacks, soft landscaping and internal solar access. The non-compliance in the FSR and building, wall and storey height is addressed in the SEPP 1 objections (see Section 10.1.2 above). The variations from the setback, soft landscaping and internal solar access requirements are assessed as follows:   

 

 

 

 

The proposal generally complies with the range of performance criteria for five key elements of the DCP namely site context, sub-division and amalgamation, building and site design, sustainable design, and facilities and access.

 

10.3.2        Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The Prince Henry DCP states that car parking is to be provided in accordance with the DCP - Car Parking. Applying the carparking rate for multi-unit development, the proposal will require 84 residential, 19 visitor carspaces and 21 retail/commercial spaces. The proposal provides for 84 residential carspaces and 15 visitor carspaces and 25 retail/commercial spaces. The proposal complies with the carparking requirements of the DCP subject to a condition requiring 4 commercial spaces to be converted to visitor spaces.

 

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

 

10.4.1        Natural Environmental Impacts

 

There is no land containing Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub located in the vicinity of the subject site with the closest bushland located at a significant distance of more than 250 m to the north-east. In addition, the subject site being a vacant lot, contains no endangered flora or fauna that will be affected by the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposal will be acceptable in terms of natural environmental impacts which will be minimal, if not, nonexistent.

 

10.4.2        Built Environmental Impacts

 

10.4.2.1    Urban Design

 

The architectural design essentially comprises a curved building wrapping around the Pine Avenue /Anzac Parade corner extending in a curved/sinuous form down Pine Avenue peeling back into Brodie Avenue to form an open public space that also provides a vista to the Flowers Ward, the Clock Tower and down Pine Avenue towards Little Bay.

 

The proposal overall will have a combination of predominantly the following materials and finishes:

 

Type 1A -  Operable aluminium louvre panels and aluminium framed glazed balustrade behind the louvres denoting the external enclosures to each apartment.

 

Type 1B -  tile system fixed to regular panel module for solid sections of façade in natural colour ranging from sandstone to terracotta to relate to the facades of the Pathology Building, Clock Tower and Gatehouse and the overall coastal setting.

 

Type 2 -    paint finished masonry panels with vertical strip windows expressed also as a second layer behind the panelised façade of the Types 1A and 1B.

 

Type 3 -    Glazing between balconies and living areas and bedrooms typically comprising full height sliding doors.

 

Type 4 -    Shop front glazing on ground level.

 

Type 5 -    Paint finish masonry with vertical expression for non-glazed podium facades.

 

These materials and finishes have been provided in a sample board accompanying the DA. No objections have been raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel to the materials and finishes and, accordingly, these colours, materials and textures are considered acceptable.

 

The articulation of the building has been located predominantly within the building footprint set by the Prince Henry DCP with a major portion of the allowable footprint left unused accounting for generous public gathering open space along Pine Avenue.  The applicant advises that the building form defines an entry to the Prince Henry site at Anzac Parade especially in conjunction with the proposed development on Lot 11 on the opposite side of Pine Avenue (which is the subject of a separate DA No. 616/2006 before Council). This design relationship is further reinforced by the shared palette of materials and modulation with this adjacent development on Lot 11. Together the proposed developments on Lots 11 and 13 will form the neighbourhood hub for the Prince Henry site.

 

Under the provisions of SEPP 65, a Design Review Panel reviewed the proposal on 8 August 2006 and has found the proposal satisfactory on all the SEPP 65 assessment criteria as detailed below. The Panel’s comments (in italics) are listed as follows (with Council’s comments included where necessary):

 

1.     Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

Generally the proposal creates a suitable gateway to the PHH development, provides the potential for good quality urban space to Pine Avenue and addresses the issues of the proximity to the Flowers Wards.  The Panel reinforces its previous comments that the relationship and activation of the Anzac Parade frontage are important considerations, so that the site is not just conceived as a “gateway” to the PHH site, but as part of the new Anzac Parade precinct that has links from La Perouse through to Randwick .

The Lot 13 residential entry should be clarified with regard to the retaining walls, street levels, and internal planning. It should also re-address the access between the subject site and super lot 20 to the South.

 

Comment: The applicant has responded to the Panel’s concerns by advising that the focal point of the building at the corner of Pine Avenue and Anzac Parade will be the primary residential lobby directly on this corner to address the intersection. This lobby also opens into a sheltered path linking the bus-stop on Anzac Parade to the retail strip in Pine Avenue. Both the path and associated landscaping will extend the frontage of the lobby further along Anzac Parade and address the Panels concerns regarding the retaining walls on Anzac Parade. The applicant’s advice is considered reasonable and acceptable. 

 

2.     The Scale of the Proposal

 

The proposal exceeds the DCP height controls for the site however the resultant increased density is supported by the Panel as the additional height does not negatively impact the surrounding development and has the potential to create a more successful and viable public realm and increase retail opportunities.

 

3.     The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The built form, materials and details of the external façade are considered to be of high quality, and provide flexibility for the building occupants. 

 

The outdoor eating area has yet to be clarified in the architectural drawings.  The general concept shown on the landscape plan is acceptable however its real success will rely on appropriate sun shading, weather protection and the design for the canopy to assist in reducing acoustic problems between the retail and residential areas

 

Comment: The applicant has responded to the Panel’s query regarding the outdoor eating area by providing additional details of the design of this area which include the use of a light weight tensile fabric structure for shelter to the outdoor café area. The tensile fabric structure will have saw tooth configuration with white fabric supported by slender steel columns (through association with the white sheets and bed curtains of the old hospital and reference to Christo’s wrapping of Little Bay). In addition, an urban tree grove to the north of the seating area is proposed in the landscaping scheme which will provide further shelter to patrons and the public. In relation to potential acoustic impacts of the eating area, the applicant advises that the primary control of acoustic issues will be limited operating hours of the retail tenancies. Accordingly, a condition will be applied requiring separate development applications for the future retail tenancies which will assist in controlling hours of operation and public amenity.

 

4.     The Proposed Density

 

The Panel has often expressed its concern that the densities on PHH are not sufficiently high. The Panel supports the State Government’s desire for greater density within metropolitan Sydney. The density proposed is higher than indicated in the master plan however the Panel considers that higher densities on this part of the site, in close proximity to Anzac Parade are appropriate and will better ensure the viability of the entrance retail area as a social space.

 

5.     Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

West and south west -facing bedrooms need a high level of insulation and sun shading, and opportunities for air movement.  Increased ventilation to bedrooms with only one window should be considered. Ceiling fans should be considered for the bedrooms.

 

Foyers that do not receive any natural light of ventilation do not meet the environmental and amenity objectives of SEPP 65.  It is desirable that ways of providing this be examined.

 

Comment : The applicant advises that western and south-western facades of the proposal will be protected by fixed horizontal sunshade elements and this can be verified in the plans and elevations for the proposal. Furthermore, more than 90 per cent of bedrooms in the proposal will have two openable windows or sliding doors giving light and air to the room. In relation to foyers/lobbies, the applicant advises that each of the apartment lobbies will have access to natural light ventilation on each level from the external façade. The amended floor plans confirm the applicant’s advice. Overall, the applicant’s advice is considered reasonable and acceptable in addressing the Panel’s concerns.

6.     The Proposed Landscape

 

The landscape proposal should be further developed to reduce the visibility of retaining walls by the wall design and selection of planting.  Usable space for the occupants should be increased and large beds of formally planted groundcover areas reduced.

 

Comment: The applicant advises that the Landscape Plans for the proposal indicates the use of a series of planting beds in front of retaining walls to provide appropriate screening of walls. This can be verified from the submitted landscape plans especially for areas along Anzac Parade and within the semi-enclosed internal landscaped podium courtyard. The applicant has also provided a modified landscape plan that increases useable landscape area for residents by replacing the central zone of ground covers and low planting with a lawn area. These elements provide a transition from the building form to the external areas and assist in visually connecting the building with its landscaped surrounds. Accordingly, the applicant’s advice is considered reasonable and acceptable in addressing the Panel’s concerns.

 

7.     The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

Apart from the resolution of the provision of natural light and ventilation to foyers, and the acoustic treatment for the outdoor entertainment areas this development will provide a high level of amenity for the building occupants and the public.

 

As previously requested, clerestory roofs have been added to increase the amenity to top floor apartments that do not have a northerly aspect.

 

Comment: The panel’s concerns regarding acoustic impact of outdoor entertainment areas and natural lighting/ventilation of foyers and have been addressed by the applicant’s response to points 3 and 5 respectively above.

 

8.     The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

As acknowledged by the applicant, final resolution of the public pathway to the south needs to be done.

 

Comment: The applicant has provided additional information to address the Panel’s concerns regarding the security of the southern pathway as follows:

 

·                Provide appropriate lighting levels along the pathway

 

·                Provide tree planting in the pathway with appropriate scale and shelter.

 

·                Provide a stepped podium in the central courtyard where walls above 1.5m are kept to a minimum and generally setback from the easement boundary to allow broader planting areas.

 

·                Path levels to be designed to comply with AS 1428.

 

9.     Social issues

The proposed development will enliven the entry to the Prince Henry redevelopment and should enhance the safety of the area.

 

10.   The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

Satisfactory.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel would like to emphasize that the design is of high merit. A good amount of time has been given to design development. This, combined with a clearly supportive client (Stockland), has given the Panel confidence that the project will continue to develop and eventually become a key contributor to the success of