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 July 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 JULY 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 12TH JUNE, 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 - 351 RAINBOW STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.

2

6.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 45 MILITARY ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

22

6.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 29 PARK STREET, CLOVELLY.

61

6.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 260 - 260A MAROUBRA ROAD, MAROUBRA.

71

6.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 19 PACIFIC STREET, CLOVELLY.

79

6.6                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 17 CHURCH STREET, RANDWICK.

 

 

 

86

6.7                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 135 DONCASTER AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

108

6.8                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 112 - 124 ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON.

132

 

7           Miscellaneous

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 44/2007 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR GARAGES/CAR SPACES AND LOCAL FLOOD STUDIES.

200

 

8           Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

……………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

4 June, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1114/2004/C & PROP042071

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2) - Modification of approved development by increase in height by 200mm and increase in roof area over first floor balconies on eastern elevation.

 Original consent: Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a new dwelling house and swimming pool.

PROPERTY:

 351 Rainbow Street, South Coogee

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 X Pace Design Group

OWNER:

 Mrs I Dermatis

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The Section 96 application was lodged on 15 March 2007 and seeks development consent to increase the ceiling height of the first floor bedrooms to improve the internal amenity of the rooms thus resulting in an increase of the roof height from RL 51.45 to RL 51.65, an increase of 200mm. The proposed modifications also seek to reinstate roofing over the eastern first floor balconies that are accessed via the eastern bedrooms. It should be noted that the building height was required to be reduced to RL 51.45 and that the roofing above the first floor bedroom balconies was to be deleted as per the deferred commencement conditions of the original approval.

 

The proposal was notified to the surrounding properties from 28 March to 19 April 2007 and three submissions were received during this period. Two of the submissions were written on behalf of the adjoining western neighbour at 349 Rainbow Street and one submission was received from the owners of 1 Garnet Street, which adjoins the subject site to the south.

 

The objections generally raise concerns regarding the excessive nature of the previous approvals on the site and the incremental, yet significant, increase in the existing non-compliances, resulting in adverse impacts to views, solar access and visual amenity. The objections are supported insofar as the application has failed to demonstrate how the proposed modifications are an improvement to the appearance of the development and has failed to address the erosion of the quality of views currently enjoyed by the adjoining properties. It is noted that the proposed reinstatement of roofing above the eastern first floor balconies was included as a deferred commencement condition as part of Council’s resolution at the Council meeting where the application was approved.  The roofing above the balconies was not considered inappropriate by the assessing officer at the time.

 

During the assessment of the application, a Class 1 Appeal was received by Council on 18 May 2007 from Abbott Tout Lawyer acting on behalf of the applicant seeking to have the application referred to the Land and Environment Court as a deemed refusal pursuant to section 113 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. The matter is still before the Court.

 

Whilst the modifications appear to be relatively minor, they represent “development creep” and are unreasonable and unnecessary.  The proposed development involving modifications to the approved dwelling will result in a detrimental impact to the amenity of the neighbouring properties and of the street and does not address the impact of the quality of the views enjoyed by the adjoining western neighbour or adverse bulk created by the roof over the first floor eastern balconies. The proposal is deemed not to satisfy the relevant performance requirements and preferred solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies DCP in respect to Part 4.3 “Form, Height and Materials” and is considered to be an unreasonable and unnecessary modification to a development with existing significant non-compliances. The modifications effectively reinstate elements that were removed through deferred commencement conditions of the original application and the justification supplied with the application is not well considered and fails to address the impacts of the modifications to the amenity of the neighbouring properties. The additional height and bulk of the modifications have not been mitigated or ameliorated through a more skilful design, perhaps with greater articulation or thoughtful use of materials, and as such proposal fails to address the cumulative adverse impact that the modifications will have to the bulk and scale of the dwelling.

 

It is recommended that the application be refused.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development seeks development consent to increase the ceiling height of the first floor bedrooms to improve the internal amenity of the rooms and thus resulting in an increase of the roof height from RL 51.45 to RL 51.65, a total increase of 200mm.

 

The proposal also involves the reinstatement of roof above the first floor eastern balconies and includes openings, denoted as “Cutouts” on the plans, measuring 715mm x 500mm over each separate balcony area.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Rainbow Street, Coogee, between Garnet Street to the west and Wolseley Road to the east (refer Figure 2) and is identified as Lot  1 in DP 434975.  Rainbow Street rises steeply from Wolseley Road to its closed off section with Garnet Street (adjacent to its western neighbour - No. 349 Rainbow Street).  The area is characterised by the sweeping views to the South Pacific Ocean, particularly those to Wedding Cake Island and Coogee Beach and its northern headland. 

 

The site is fairly regular in shape, with a frontage of 13.485m to Rainbow Street; a depth of 29.125m along its eastern boundary with No. 353 Rainbow Street; 28.99m along its western boundary with No. 349 Rainbow Street; and 13.485m along its rear (southern) boundary with No. 1 Garnet Street.  The site has a total area of 391.8m2 approximately and a topography that falls from its south-west corner to its north-east corner with a level differential of approximately 4.6m.

 

Previously existing on the site was a part one/part two storey brick and tile dwelling house, with a garage located under the house on its eastern side. Located on the neighbouring property to the east at No. 353 Rainbow Street is a part one/part two storey dwelling house while on its western side is a part three/part two storey dwelling house with an elevated swimming pool to the rear.

 

Located to the rear at No. 1 Garnet Street is a two storey dwelling house which has a current approval (DA No. 955/2003) for alterations and a new third storey addition.

 

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

 

Figure 1: The subject site from the opposite side of Rainbow Street.

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

4.1      History of Site Usage

Previous applications submitted for development on the site includes:

Development No.

Description

Determination

DA/1114/2004

Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a new dwelling house and swimming pool.

Approved at Ordinary Council meeting on 23 August 2005.

DA/1114/2004/A

Section 96 (2) modification to extend the basement carpark, reinstate roof over east facing bedroom balconies, addition of spa to the swimming pool and provide new skylights, fireplace and flue.

Recommended for approval. Council’s Health, Building and Planning committee resolved to refuse the application on 9 May 2006.

DA/1114/2004/B

Section 96(2) application to extend the basement carpark with the provision of a 3rd car parking space, addition of a spa and deck along the southern boundary, addition of 1 new operable skylight, and addition of a natural gas fireplace and associate flue.

Approved at 11 July 2006 Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting.

 

Figure 2: The subject site and surrounding area. The diagonal hatching indicates the area covered by Cl. 29 of the LEP.

4.2      Application History

4.2.1   Original Application

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 August 2005 resolved to grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application 1114/2004 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new dwelling house and swimming pool at 351 Rainbow Street, South Coogee.

 

The deferred commencement condition related to the submission for approval of details of external colours, materials and amended plans detailing the following:-

 

“2.    Amended plans shall be submitted detailing the following:-

 

i)      deletion of the secondary front terrace area over the driveway entrance to the basement carpark;

ii)      deep soil landscaping within the front setback;

iii)     the overall height of the building shall be lowered by 300mm, with the top of the roof being RL (AHD) of 51.450;

iv)     the skylight shall be shown flush with the top of the roof;

v)     deletion of first floor level eastern balconies of Bedrooms 1 and 2;

vi)     driveway gradient in accordance with Australian Standard (AS) 2890.1 (2004);

vii)    all the energy commitments submitted in a BASIX certificate for the proposal as amended, including an alternative hot water system to a solar hot water system.”

 

The determination was the subject of an appeal in the Land and Environment Court which was subsequently discontinued. Amended plans were received that satisfied the deferred commencement conditions and the consent became operable on 27 January 2006.

 

4.2.2   Section 96(2) Application “A”

 

A Section 96 (2) application was lodged on 7 February 2006 and sought development consent to reinstate the roof over the east facing balconies of Bedrooms 1, 2 and 3, which was removed in accordance with the deferred commencement conditions of the development consent. The application also proposed to:

 

-   Extend the basement car parking area to provide an additional (third) car parking space;

-   Add a spa and deck along the southern boundary adjacent to the approved swimming pool;

-   Add four new operable skylights, and;

-   Include a natural gas fireplace and associated flue.

 

Objections received from adjacent properties to the east, 349 Rainbow Street, and to the south,1 Garnet Street, raised concerns relating to potential view impacts arising from the modifications; increase in bulk from the garage extension, glare from the skylights, noise from the spa; and fumes from the fireplace flue.

 

It was considered that the degree of view loss resulting from the reinstatement of the eastern balcony roof was minimal with the iconic views to Wedding Cake Island and the northern headland of Coogee Beach remaining unaffected and the issues regarding view loss with respect to the flue and skylights were unsustainable. 

 

The applicant agreed to a condition deleting three of the proposed skylights above first floor corridor on the western side of the building in favour of making part of western window operable with frosted louvres fixed to an angle of 45 degree, thus alleviating any privacy impacts to the neighbouring property to the west (349 Rainbow Street).  In addition a condition within the consent required the flue for the natural gas fireplace to be reduced in height and diameter to minimise any impact to the neighbouring property. 

 

The assessing officer in his report concluded that the reinstatement of roof over the first floor eastern balconies would be beneficial in reducing solar access during summer months and would not adversely impact upon the views enjoyed by the adjoining property at 3 Garnet Street. The assessing officer supported the inclusion of roofing above the balconies and stated that “roof to the eastern balconies adjoining Bedrooms 1, 2 and 3 be reinstated.” It was generally considered that the proposal did not significantly change the proposal’s compliance as previously assessed with regard to Council’s Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and the proposal was recommended for approval subject to conditions. However, Council at its Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting of 9 May 2006 resolved to refuse the application, providing the following reasons of refusal:

 

1.       “The proposed development will have an intrusive impact on the view from adjoining properties.

2.       The proposal will result in intrusive noise impacts from the swimming pool spa.

3.       The proposal will result in an unacceptable increase in floor space of the building.”

 

4.2.3   Section 96(2) Application “B”

 

A second Section 96 (2) application was lodged on 11 May 2006 and sought development consent to:

 

-   Extend the basement car parking area to provide an additional (third) car parking space;

-   Add a spa and deck along the southern boundary adjacent to the approved swimming pool;

-   Add a new operable skylight;

-   Include frosted glass louvres to the stairwell window on the western elevation of the new dwelling house

-   Inclusion of a natural gas fireplace and associated flue, similar to previously applied for.

 

It was noted that the modifications proposed were similar to those previously sought in the first Section 96 application, however the application did not seek the a extension of the roof over the east facing balconies, due to the issues of view loss as previously raised by the owner of 349 Rainbow Street.

 

Objections were received from adjacent properties to the east, 349 Rainbow Street and to the south, 1 Garnet Street. The submissions generally related to the objectors’ opinion that the original proposal was over generous and any increase in size or further modification was unwarranted; potential view impacts arising from the proposed fireplace flue as well as health impacts associated with fumes emanating from the flue; potential glare from the new skylight; noise from the spa; and potential damage from increased excavation. 

 

A mediation meeting took place on the 8 June 2006 however no successful outcome was achieved. The applicant agreed to reduce the size of the new skylight, reduce the height of the flue to 350mm and to colour the flue similar to the roof with heat resistant paint to reduce reflection. These changes were included as conditions of consent.

 

It was considered, as per the recommendation of the report of the previous Section 96 application to Council, that there was minimal impact of the changes to adjoining properties and the proposal did not significantly change the proposal’s compliance as previously assessed with regard to Council’s Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The recommendation for approval was endorsed by Council at its Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting of 11 July 2006.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan - Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

Susan Hill + Associates Lawyers Pty Ltd on behalf – Mrs Tadros – 349 Rainbow Street, South Coogee

 

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed modifications “effectively reinstate” the portions of the development deleted by the original deferred commencement approval, notably the reduction of the ceiling height.

The proposed increase in building height will contribute to the bulk of the dwelling and is considered unreasonable and unnecessary.

The approved dwelling is non-compliant in terms of height, FSR and rear setback and the proposal “will unreasonably detract from the amenity” of the objector’s property.

The proposal will further increase the non-compliant building height at the north-east corner of the dwelling to 10m. It is noted however the western external wall height will remain within the preferred solution.

The proposed modification “is solely to achieve increased floor to ceiling heights” and there is no justification for the increase.

The justification provided by the applicant is to improve the amenity of the occupants of the first floor bedrooms. However the ceiling height of the approved development is 2.5m, which is considered to provide an appropriate level of amenity. It is also noted that the assessing officer of the original application concluded that there was scope for reductions in the ceiling height of the lower floors, and stated that a change in the design, by decreasing the floor to the underside of the ceiling for the entry foyer from 2.7m to 2.4m could provide the applicant with the same development potential.” As such, the increase in ceiling height is unreasonable and is not supported.

The eastern view including views of Wedding Cake Island will be “obstructed from various vantage points”and any “further exceedence [sic] of Council’s controls should be permitted.”

The proposed building height increase will impact upon the quality of views enjoyed from the objector’s property. See Section 9.5.1 of this report.

 


Samir Malik on behalf – Mrs Tadros – 349 Rainbow Street, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Further increasing the wall height is unreasonable and will adversely impact upon views to the east.

See comments above.

“Raising the building another 200mm would worsen the ventilation and would bring any vents or approved flues closer to the windows of no 349.”

The approved flue to the roof extended 350mm above the roof line. The plans submitted with the proposed modifications do not indicate the flue on the section or elevation diagrams and no modification is being sought.

The proposal will “reduce morning sun from the lower floor (bedrooms) of No 349.”

The proposal will have a minor impact to solar access at ground floor level to the objector’s eastern windows. The objector’s north facing windows will remain unaffected by the proposal.

The proposal does not address the non-compliant rear setback.

The proposed modifications will not modify the rear setback of the dwelling.

Nigel and Claude Stoker - 1 Garnet Street, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposal will result in an external wall height of 9.2m in the north-east corner and “will add to the already large bulk of the building.”

The proposal will contribute to the further non-compliant external wall height of 10m above driveway ground level at the front of the dwelling. As the increase in height contributes to the bulkiness of the building, the proposal is not supported.

The increase of the roof over the first floor eastern balconies, further adding to the visual bulk of the building.

The roof area above the eastern balconies was removed through a deferred commencement condition on the original consent. The reinstatement of the roof area adds to the bulkiness of the building and is an unreasonable modification. As such the proposal is not supported.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application did not require any referrals.

 

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.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1      Substantially the same

 

The proposed modification involves the raising of the ceiling to the first floor bedroom resulting in an increase to the approved roof height of the dwelling including the reinstatement of roof above the first floor eastern bedroom balconies. The changes are considered to be modifications of a minor nature and will result in substantially the same development.

 

8.2      Consideration of submissions

 

Consideration of the submissions received has been addressed in Section 5.1 of this report.

 

9.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

9.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

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

 

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

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

-   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-   Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

-   Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. SEPP: BASIX requirements for alterations and additions came into force on 1 October 2006 and apply to:

 

-   Renovation work valued at $100,000 or more, or

-   The installation of a swimming pool (or pool and spa) with a capacity greater than 40,000 litres.

 

A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved. The original application was lodged on 23 December 2004 and was applicable to the BASIX requirements.

 

Due to the relatively minor alterations it is deemed that the submission of a BASIX certificate is not required. The proposed modifications will not increase the floor area, alter the amount of glazing, affect eaves or awnings and will not modify the number or size of openings approved in the previous development applications.

 

As such, further consideration of the SEPP: BASIX is not required.

 

9.3 Policy Controls

 

9.3.1   Draft Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy Development Control Plan (Draft DCP)

 

The key changes in the Draft DCP include, and are not limited to:

 

-   Increasing the maximum FSR for sites less than 300sqm from 0.65:1 to 0.7:1.

-   Increasing the rear boundary setback from 4.5m to 9m.

-   Increasing the minimum landscaped area from 40% to 50% of the site.

-   Increasing the minimum soft landscaped area from 20% to 25% of the site.

 

The proposed modifications do not affect the landscaped area, FSR or rear setback of the approved development. It should be noted that the Draft DCP has been given minimal weight in this assessment as it is neither imminent nor certain at this point in the policy approval process.

 

9.3.2   Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

 

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

 

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 approximately 10 metres at the north-east corner of the site. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable.

S4

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

Not applicable.

S5

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

Not applicable.

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

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

The external wall height of the front of the dwelling will exceed 10m from the ground level of the driveway. Whilst the front wall is not a contiguous wall from ground level the proposed increase in building height will have an adverse impact to the presentation of the building to the street and will detract from the amenity of the surrounding properties, particularly in respect to view sharing and visual bulk and scale. It is noted that the western wall along the boundary to 349 Rainbow Street remains compliant with the DCP external wall height preferred solutions.

The proposal is fails to satisfy the performance requirements of the DCP particularly in respect to enhancing the desirable built form character of the street and adopting appropriate levels of mass and proportion. The proposed increase in building height and reinstatement of the roof above the eastern balconies is incommensurate with the intent of the deferred commencement conditions of the original application and are considered unnecessary additions and exacerbate the bulkiness and visual mass of the non-compliant FSR of the dwelling. The proposed modifications also fail to address the performance requirements in respect to providing improved articulation of the dwelling and are not considered to enhance the appearance of the dwelling to the surrounding area. The justification provided with the application to seek and increase in the first floor ceiling height from 2.5m to 2.675m is inadequate and does not consider the existing non-compliances of the development or the requirements of the deferred commencement conditions. As such the increase in height is considered unreasonable and unnecessary.

The proposed increase in building height is inconsistent with the relevant performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP and is not supported.

Foreshore Development

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

Not applicable.

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

The proposal does not alter the colour or materials of the approved development. The modifications will make some modification to the form of the building, however the changes will not be perceptible form the foreshore area.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

Not applicable.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

The proposal infringes upon the deferred commencement condition that required that the building be reduced in height to preserve the quality of the views enjoyed from the first floor eastern windows of 349 Rainbow Street. The justification provided with the proposed development is not supported and the modifications are unreasonable.

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

Not applicable.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

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

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

The increase of the building does not adversely impact the solar access to the east facing windows of the adjoining property to the west (349 Rainbow Street) or the north facing windows of the adjoining rear property at 1 Garnet Street.

9.4 Council Policies

None applicable.

9.5      Impact on Adjoining Properties

9.5.1   View sharing

Performance Requirement P6 under Part 4.3 “Height, Form and Materials” of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP requires that “Buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”. Notwithstanding this performance requirement an additional assessment of the impact on view sharing has been undertaken. The NSW Land and Environment Court judgment by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] sets down four steps that should be undertaken to reach a decision whether a view impact is reasonable. 

 

[Step 1] “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

It should be noted that the erection of height poles was not requested for the assessment of this application as the Council report for the original application provided a thorough and detailed assessment of the potential view loss as a result of development application. The assessment undertaken at the time of the original application, determined that the proposed development would result in an adverse impact to the views enjoyed from the first floor eastern windows of the adjoining western property at 349 Rainbow Street (henceforth referred as “the affected property”). The view loss assessment contained within the Council report explicated that the areas of the affected property where views are obtained consisted of:

 

“a family area at the southern end with panoramic views over the subject property to the east to the ocean and Wedding Cake Island

 

And;

“…a more formal sitting area at the northern end of the house with views to the ocean, Wedding Cake Island and to Coogee Beach and its northern headland.  While the family area and the formal sitting area are separated by doors they are able to be opened up to form a continuos area. Wedding Cake Island forms an iconic view and is valued highly as part of the view panorama.”

 

As noted above, the affected property enjoys relatively significant and iconic views. Height poles were erected on the subject site to aid the assessment of view loss and it was noted by the assessing officer at the time that the impact of views of Wedding Cake Island from the southern sitting room of the affected property was “moderate” whilst the impact when seated was “more severe”. The views from the sitting room at the northern end were not affected to the same degree and would remain “largely unaffected by the proposed new building”.

The view loss assessment conducted for the original application considered the impact of view loss to other properties in the area including 1 Garnet Street, however it was deemed that the adjoining property at 349 Rainbow Street would be most affected be the proposal. As per the assessment of the original proposal, it is considered that there is a reasonable expectation for coastal views obtained from the first floor of the affected property to be maintained or not significantly impacted.

 

[Step 2] “The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

The views obtained from the affected property are from the eastern side boundary at first floor level. The principle is unambiguous in stating that the retention of views from side boundaries is more difficult to retain than views enjoyed from the front or rear boundaries. The principle also seeks to establish whether the views are obtained in a seated or standing position. In this instance, the views are enjoyed at both seated and standing positions.

 

The assessment of the original proposal sought to preserve the seated views of Wedding Cake Island due to the relatively high iconic status of the view given that the rooms would mostly be used in a seated position.

 

Figure 3 and Figure 4 below, taken during the assessment of the original application, indicate the views of Wedding Cake Island at seated and standing positions.

 

Figure 3: View from the family room in a standing position to Wedding Cake Island with height pole in the foreground.

Figure 4: View to Wedding Cake Island from the family room in a sitting position.

 

Despite the planning principle stating that the retention of views from side boundaries is more difficult, the height reduction of the building by 300mm was deemed appropriate to ensure that the seated view was unaffected by the development. As such the qualities of the views enjoyed by the affected property are likely to be adversely impacted by the proposed increase in building height. The expectation that sitting views be protected was supported by the assessment of the original application and as such any erosion of the quality of the views enjoyed by the affected property is not supported, particularly where insufficient justification has been provided for any increase to building height.

 

Therefore the expectation for the retention of views from the side of the affected property is supported.

 

[Step 3] “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

The original application with a building height of RL 51.75 was deemed to have a severe impact to the views obtained from the eastern side of the affected property. The extent of the impact was significant and the reduction in the height to RL 51.45, as required through deferred commencement condition, was reasonable without compromising upon the internal amenity of the development. The proposed modifications would result in a building height of RL 51.65, 100mm less than the original proposal. As the deferred commencement included with the original consent required a total reduction by 300mm it is inconsistent for Council to allow the increase in height of the building when the required reduction was sought to improve view sharing to a reasonable degree.

 

A more skilful design could be sought through the reallocation of floor to ceiling heights and a more efficient use of excavation on the site to reduce the overall height of the building without compromising the floor to ceiling heights of the habitable rooms. It should be noted that the ceiling height of the approved development at first floor level is 2.5m and is not considered cramped or resulting in a poor amenity. Whilst views of the coast are attainable from the northern sitting room of the affected property, the extent of the impact of the development is significant. The proposed increase in building height erodes the quality of the view enjoyed by the adjoining western neighbour and fails to address the concerns presented by the assessment of the original application.

 

[Step 4] “The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.”

 

The assessment of the original application concluded that:

 

“A change in the design, by decreasing the floor to the underside of the ceiling for the entry foyer from 2.7m to 2.4m could provide the applicant with the same development potential and similar amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours by lowering the overall height of the building by a further 300m. This would improve the view from the sitting position in the family area and would be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable, especially as the view from the formal sitting area is to the north and north-east is largely unaffected by the proposal.”

 

It should be noted that the reduction in the height of the building was enforced through the inclusion of a deferred commencement condition. The deferred commencement condition 2(iii) stated that:

 

“2.   Amended plans shall be submitted detailing the following:-

 

iii)    the overall height of the building shall be lowered by 300mm, with the top of the roof being RL (AHD) of 51.450;”

 

The deferred commencement conditions were satisfied and the consent became operable on 27 January 2006. This step of the planning principle requires an assessment as to the reasonableness of the proposed development and whether the impact to views is a result of a non-compliance with the development standards applicable to the development. The approved development, as noted in the assessment of the original application, provided an FSR of 0.98:1 which significantly exceeded the preferred solution FSR for the site of 0.61:1. Other non-compliances with the DCP included permeable landscaped area, rear and side boundary setbacks, external wall height, and overshadowing to the adjoining western neighbour. The non-compliances, particularly in respect to FSR, rear setback and external wall height were not considered to result in an adverse impact to the adjoining property provided that the entire building was reduced by 300mm in height from RL 51.75 to RL 51.45, the roof over the first floor eastern bedroom balconies was deleted, the front terrace over the driveway was deleted and the skylight was made flush with the roof level. It was clearly noted in the assessment of the original application that the deferred commencement condition requiring the reduction in the height of the building by 300mm was linked with the reasonableness of the development. It was noted that the external wall height of the western elevation was compliant with the DCP preferred solution and that the flat roof reduced excessive bulkiness, however a reduction in height by 300mm was reasonable and would not detrimentally impact upon the internal amenity of the habitable rooms of the subject development.

 

The reasoning provided by the applicant to raise the height of the building to RL 51.65 is solely to improve the internal amenity of the bedrooms located on the first floor of the dwelling. The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) prepared by Brian Kirk of Redmane Pty Ltd, states that the “visual impact of the increase in height will... be negligible and it will have a marginal effect on the overall scale or character of the building.” Whilst the 200mm increase is not numerically significant when considered in isolation; in the context of the height of the dwelling, it is considered the increase will contribute to the overall sense of bulkiness and mass and scale to Rainbow Street and the neighbouring properties. The reduction in building height by 300mm was a balanced outcome and provided a relatively significant improvement to views for occupants of the affected property whilst not adversely affecting the internal amenity of the subject dwelling. The reduction to RL 51.45 was well considered and took into account the conditions of the subject site and the ability for the development to reduce more substantially in height without reduction to the number of rooms, the basement car parking arrangement and the internal amenity of the dwelling. The reduction in height was not arbitrarily chosen, and rather, represented the culmination of site visits to the subject site and the affected property. The reduction in height was also weighed against the non-compliances presented by the proposal, including the significantly non-compliant FSR, and the reasonableness of the proposal in respect to development adjoining the subject site and other development in the area. It should be noted that the additional roof area, required to be deleted by deferred commencement condition of the original application, have been included with this Section 96 application. The roof area above the balconies increases the roof area and bulk of the dwelling and the deletion of the roof area intended to reduce the bulkiness of the dwelling and improve the visual amenity of the surrounding properties. It should be noted however, that the roofing above the balconies was not considered inappropriate by the assessing officer at the time and that the deferred commencement condition was included as part of Council’s resolution.

 

It is considered that the proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the planning principle and that the impact of views enjoyed by the surrounding properties, specifically 349 Rainbow Street, is unacceptable. Amendments to the proposal increasing the height of the building on the basis of improving internal amenity are unnecessary and unreasonable given the approved non-compliances of FSR, setbacks and external wall height. The reduction in the height of the building as required by deferred commencement condition was a reasonable outcome which balanced the view loss of the adjoining western neighbour and internal amenity of the habitable rooms of the subject dwelling.

As such any increase to the height of the building is unacceptable and the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

 

10. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

10.1    Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development

The proposed modifications involving the increase in the height of the building and reinstatement of roof over the eastern balconies fails to address the view sharing issues experienced by the adjoining western property. The proposal will contribute to the overall sense of bulk, does not improve the articulation of the design and is an unreasonable modification that will not significantly improve the internal amenity of the bedrooms to the first floor.

 

The proposal does not satisfy this Outcome.

 

10.2    Direction 4a & associated Key Action: Improved design and sustainability across all development

The proposed modifications will not improve the articulation of the dwelling or the design and presentation of the dwelling to the street and surrounding properties. The proposal will also will have a minor increase to the solar access to the east-facing windows of the adjoining western neighbour and the north-facing windows of the adjoining property to the south. The proposal does not result in an improved design and fails to address this Direction and Key Action.

 

11. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12. CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development involving modifications to the approved dwelling will result in a detrimental impact to the amenity of the adjoining properties and does not address the impact of the quality of the views enjoyed by the adjoining western neighbour. The proposal does not satisfy the relevant performance requirements and preferred solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies DCP in respect to Part 4.3 “Form, Height and Materials” and is considered to be an unreasonable and unnecessary modification to a development with existing significant non-compliances. The modifications effectively reinstate elements that were removed through deferred commencement conditions of the original application and the justification supplied with the application is not well considered. The additional height and bulk of the modifications have not been mitigated or ameliorated through a more skilful design, perhaps with greater articulation or thoughtful use of materials, and as such the proposal fails to address the cumulative and detrimental impact that the modifications will have to the bulk and scale of the dwelling and the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

Therefore the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to modify Development Application No.1114/2004/C for increasing the height of the building by 200mm and increasing the roof area over first floor balconies on eastern elevation at 351 Rainbow Street, South Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal involving the increase in building height is inconsistent with the objectives and performance requirements of Part 4.3 “Height, Form and Materials” of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan in that it will result in excessive height and scale.

 

2.     The proposed development is inconsistent with Part 4.3.3 “Performance Requirements and Design Solutions” of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan insofar that it will have an intrusive impact on the view enjoyed from the adjoining property at 349 Rainbow Street, South Coogee.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR OF CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

15 June, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1101/2006 & PROP042452

 

PROPOSAL:

Burial crypts and mausoleum

PROPERTY:

45 Military Road, Matraville

WARD:

South Ward

APPLICANT:

Botany General Cemetery & Eastern Suburbs Crematorium Trust

OWNER:

Crown Land

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The development application is referred to Council because the estimated value of work exceeds $2M.

 

The proposal involves the construction of new above-ground burial crypts and a mausoleum at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park. The proposed buildings are located as an extension to the existing crypts adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the site. The development would be carried out in stages and includes reconfiguration of access, parking and landscaping.

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Military Road between Bumborah Point Road and Bunnerong Road, Matraville. The proposed development relates to an area of land adjoining Military Road that is approximately 5,000 square metres in area. The subject site is nearby to the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium, which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The application was exhibited in accordance with Council policy. No submissions were received.

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers. There are consent conditions in the recommendation dealing with colour schemes and building materials, potential contamination, car parking and accessibility.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves the construction of new burial crypts and a mausoleum at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park. The proposed buildings are located as an extension to the existing crypts adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the site.

 

Vehicular access is proposed in the north east of the existing carpark and there is a pedestrian entry to be provided directly from Military Road.  The proposed buildings are in the area which includes the existing vehicular exit from the carpark to Military Road and this vehicular exit is to be made redundant as part of the proposal.  The crypts will be constructed in stages 1, 3 and 4 and the vehicular entry would be constructed in stage 2.

 

The Architect’s design objectives are shown below in figure 1.

 

Figure 1 - The Architect's design objectives

                                               Source: Habitat Architects, 24 November 2006

                                                             Statement of Environmental Effects

 

The proposal includes the following passive climate design features:

 

o               The mausoleum roof is oriented to allow winter solar access while minimise summer solar access.

 

o               Roof overhangs are provided on the mausoleum for sun control

 

o               The mausoleum is designed for cross ventilation.

 

o               Passive heating and cooling are utilised in the mausoleum. No air conditioning will be provided.

 

o               Natural lighting is used to reduce reliance on artificial lighting.

 

o               Roof water is to be captured for reuse for landscape irrigation and toilet flushing.

 

A site plan showing the stages of construction is shown in Figure 2. The front elevation of the mausoleum is shown in Figure 3. The front elevations of the burial crypts are shown in figure 4.

 

Figure 2 - Site plan of proposed development

                                                  Source: Habitat Architects, September 2006

                                                                                                  Site Plan

Figure 3 - Front elevation of the proposed Mausoleum

                                                  Source: Habitat Architects, September 2006

                                                                                             Stage Three

Figure 4 - Front elevations of the proposed burial crypts

                                                  Source: Habitat Architects, September 2006

                                                                                                Stage One

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Military Road between Bumborah Point Road and Bunnerong Road in the south of Matraville. The Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park is an extensive site of approximately 30 hectares. The proposed development relates to an area of land adjoining Military Road that is approximately 5000 square metres in area. This site has a gentle southerly aspect and street frontage of approximately 120 meters. An aerial photograph of the site is shown in figure 5.

 

The subject site is nearby to the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The crematorium is an intact example of an Inter-War Art-Deco building. The site is over the road from the former Bunnerong Power-Station Conservation-Area, which has now been redeveloped as part of the cemetery site. An industrial building immediately adjoins the site to the north-east.

 

Figure 5 - An aerial photograph of the subject site

                                                  Source: Randwick City Council, 19 June 2007

                                                                                                     E-View

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

The subject site is part of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park and has been so used since the late 1800s. The northern-most part of the site, upon which many burial crypts would be located, is a former road reserve that was gazetted for cemetery use in February of 2006. The site of the proposed development is nearby to the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium, which was constructed during the inter-war period. Council have recently approved a development application for condolence rooms for the memorial park approximately 200 metres south-west of the site of the proposed crypts.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was exhibited in accordance with Council policy for 14 days ending 31 January 2007. No submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

Heritage Officer

 

The subject site is adjacent to the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The crematorium is an excellent and largely intact example of an Inter War Art Deco building of its type and is representative of this class of buildings form the period.  The site is on the opposite side of Military Road to the site of the former Bunnerong Power Station Conservation Area which has now been redeveloped as part of the Cemetery site.

 

The application proposes construction of a series of burial crypts along the north eastern edge of the site.  The site for the burial crypts has a north western boundary to Military Road and a north eastern boundary to adjoining industrial development.  The burial crypts will have a new vehicular entry from the north eastern end of the existing carpark and a pedestrian entry will also be provided directly from Military Road.  The crypts are in the area which includes the existing vehicular exit from the carpark to Military Road and this vehicular exit is to be relocated as part of the proposal.  The crypts will be constructed in three stages with the vehicular entry comprising an additional stage (Stage 2).  Stage 1 will comprise the crypts furthest from Military Road, followed by Stage 3 and Stage 4.  The burial crypts will be located around 75m from the Crematorium building. 

 

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which includes a section addressing Conservation.  The SEE notes that the proposal is remote from the heritage item and the heritage conservation area, that materials are consistent with the context and that there will be adverse heritage impact. 

 

The new building will be adjacent to the site boundary around 75m away from the Crematorium, in an area which is currently occupied by an existing driveway and a landscaped edge to the adjacent industrial development.  It is at a higher level, but well screened from the Crematorium building by the existing landscaped area of “The Glade”.  The main elevations of the Crematorium building which include the entrances to the two chapels, face south and west.  The northern elevation of the Crematorium which faces the area to be occupied by the crypts is a minor one.  The plantings within “The Glade and the carpark area will retain the garden backdrop setting of the Crematorium when it is viewed from the south.  The crypts in Stage 1 and Stage 4 are in the form of groupings of separate small-scale structures while the Stage 3 crypts are within a building which has been articulated by the use of separate roofs and variation in wall finish.  It is considered that the form and massing of the proposed structures will not challenge the dominance of the Crematorium building on the site.

 

Comment: The Officer’s recommended consent conditions are included in the recommendation.

 

Engineering Development Assessment Officer

 

An application has been received for new burial crypts, mausoleum & associated landscaping at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park at its northern side boundary fronting Military Road.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

•        Drwg No 0334 DA01- 10 by Habitat Architects dated Sept 2006;

•        Drwg No LSC01-03 Issue A by Habitat Architects dated 4.10.06.

•        SEE prepared by Habitat Architects and dated 24/11/2006.

 

General Comments on submission.

 

The application is very general in nature with no concept drainage plan and Stage 4 works not reflecting the actual property boundary, (Council’s plans indicate that the common boundary with 31-41 Military Road is curved adjacent to Military Road whereas this application tends to imply that the boundary is a straight line).

 

The submission provides very limited traffic generation / parking details and does not make reference to the reconstruction of Military Road.

 

Traffic / Civil Works Comments

 

The Planning Officer is advised of the following:

 

•        The proposed removal of an existing internal roadway to facilitate construction of Stages 1, 3 and 4 will remove some existing carspaces. As referred to below, the Development Engineer is of the opinion that the applicant should not be conditioned to increase parking numbers in conjunction with the proposed development however it is considered appropriate that there either be no net loss of spaces as a result of the development or that appropriate analysis be undertaken to demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed parking provision. A condition to this effect has been included within the report.

 

•        The two spaces adjacent to “The Glade” cannot be entered and exited in a forward direction unless provision is made for a turning area adjacent to the proposed Stage 1, 3 and 4 works.

 

•        The SEE says that the proposal will not generate any additional demand for parking, however the proposed development does create a net loss of on-site parking spaces, (approximately 8-9 spaces are removed and two spaces adjoining the north-east edge of “The Glade” cannot be entered / exited in a forward direction). The Development Engineer is of the opinion that, for the majority of cases, the proposed parking arrangements will adequately meet the parking demand generated by the proposed development. Peak times for visitors to the proposed development are likely to occur on the weekend and this is unlikely to clash with services at the crematorium. There will be some instances when the visitors to the proposed development, or services at the proposed development, will coincide with services at the Crematorium. Potential exists for there to be an on-site parking shortfall on these occasions and a condition addressing this issue has been included within this report.

 

•        The surrounding road network will accommodate any extra vehicle movements associated with the proposed development.

 

•        The proposed application does not make reference to the reconstruction of Military Road however John Earls has indicated that that the proposed new exit and pedestrian entrance have been reviewed and incorporated into Council’s design plans for the subject section of Military Road, (John Earls also indicated that the Cemetery Trust and Council have both signed off on the proposed works in Military Road).

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

Stormwater discharge from the proposed development must either be discharged to Military Road or to a suitably designed infiltration system. Bore holes taken within the site indicate that weathered sandstone may be encountered within 2 metres of the surface so any infiltration system will need careful assessment prior to any approval being granted.

 

Service Authority Comments

 

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, it was resolved on the motion of Councillors Nash and Belelli that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Given that the proposed works will be in excess of $2 million the applicant will be required to meet all costs associated with replacing the overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site.

 

No condition relating to the applicant obtaining a Section 73 Compliance Certificate has been included within this report. The Planning Officer is requested to consider if the subject Section 73 certificate is required and to advise the Development Engineer accordingly.

 

Comment: The Officer’s recommended consent conditions are included in the recommendation.

 

Landscape Technician

 

There are a large number of trees of varying age, size and condition within the site, some of which will be directly affected by the works contained in this application, and while many are technically too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO), they provide a substantial contribution to the overall character and ‘feel’ of the site as they help to define entries/exits and vehicular/pedestrian passages due to their structured layout throughout the grounds.

 

Given the impacts the proposed works and associated tree removals would have on both the appeal and function of the site, a condition has been included requiring that landscape plans of similar detail as the one submitted for Stage 1 works be provided for the three subsequent stages.

 

In order to avoid confusion during both the site planning and construction phase,  a relevant condition in this report requires that the applicant submit a tree survey/plan which clearly represents those trees to be retained and removed as outlined in this report, together with the extent of protective fencing to be provided. the applicant may wish to contact council’s landscape development officer on 9399-0613 to discuss these requirements further.

 

Military road nature strip & northern boundary

 

There is one small and insignificant Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) about halfway along the length of Council’s Military Road nature strip in front of the site which will remain unaffected, with conditions relating to it not necessary.

 

At the western edge of the internal carpark, fronting onto Military Road, there is a row of nine Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box’s) of around 3-5 metres in height which while presenting a structured landscape element to the streetscape, are actually too small to be covered by the provision of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

 

Regardless, all will be able to be retained within the existing garden bed, and would remain unaffected provided the protection measures provided in this report are adhered to, with only the most eastern tree in this group to require removal to accommodate the new vehicle exit as shown, with approval for this included in this report.

 

Near the northwest corner of the site, there is one Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) of approximately 8 metres in height which appears in reasonable condition, is covered by the TPO and displays an existing lean to the southwest.

 

While an endemic species to the area, providing a food and habitat source for native fauna, it is not significant, with consent therefore granted for its removal to allow construction of Stage 4 works as shown.

 

Eastern boundary, adjacent 33-41 military road

 

About halfway along the eastern boundary of the site, there is a row of six Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Trees) of around 6 metres in height against the eastern boundary, which despite affording screening and privacy between the subject site and the adjoining industrial factory, are considered an environmental weed in the Randwick LGA due to their ability to spread vegetatively and invade areas of remnant native bushland.

 

It would not be physically possible to retain any of these trees and proceed with construction as shown, with a re-design to accommodate their retention not warranted, and as such, consent has been granted for their removal on the basis that replacement screen planting which will attain a similar height at maturity be provided back in this specific area of the site (as has been shown) in order to provide a sense of enclosure and privacy.

 

Further to the east of this group, against the western edge of the existing Memorial Grove Crypts, there is one Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbark) of approximately 5 metres in height, as well as another of the same species of similar size on the opposite side of the existing internal roadway.

 

Both are technically too small to be covered by the TPO; however, the plans show them as being retained and incorporated into this part of the proposal, which will be feasible given the relatively minor works proposed in these respective areas, with relevant conditions included in this report to ensure this.

 

To the southeast of these two trees, adjacent the eastern side of the proposed new toilet block, there is another Erythrina x sykesii (Coral tree) of around 9 metres in height which Council has approved for removal in order to allow the planting of more desirable replacement tree species in this area.

 

Adjacent existing internal roads

 

Running in a north-south axis along the western edge of the existing internal road, there is a row of 10 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) of between 4-6 metres in height which appear in reasonable condition and are covered by the TPO, with the six most northern trees of this group proposed for removal in order to accommodate construction of the new crypts and roadworks associated with Stage 3 & 4 of the proposed development.

 

While visually prominent as a group not so much for their size but the avenue effect that has been created due to the quantity provided, none could be described as individually significant, and as a redesign to allow their retention is not justified given the impact this would have on the rest of the proposal, approval is granted for the removal of these six trees on the basis that six replacement trees of the same species are provided in order to reinstate this avenue, as has been shown on the plans, with protection measures included to preserve the remaining three in this group.

 

While the loss of these six trees will undoubtedly impact the amenity/appearance of the site, a concept plan detailing a comprehensive landscape strategy has been provided, and should mitigate any such loss, perceived or otherwise, within a reasonable period of time, given that a substantial amount of existing vegetation will still be able to be retained at the site as part of this application.

 

To the east of the trees described above, on the opposite (eastern) side of the internal road, within an existing garden bed at the western edge of “The Glade”, there is one Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum) of approximately 6 metres in height which appears in reasonable condition, with an existing lean to the north, and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

This tree is also endemic to the Randwick LGA, providing a food and habitat source for native fauna, and while not represented on any of the plans, it would need to be removed to accommodate the additional car parking bay, due to both the level and proximity of works proposed adjacent the eastern side of its trunk.

 

A redesign of the internal road and carpark arrangement would be required should retention of this single tree would be sought; however, five new trees which would attain similar dimensions are indicated for use in this specific area, and therefore, removal is justified in this instance.

 

There is another established Gum tree further to the south of the tree described above, within the existing garden bed, which would likely remain unaffected given the absence of any works in this area, and while it will need to be retained, conditions relating to it are not deemed necessary.

 

Western internal carpark

 

There is a stand of 4 metre tall Melaleuca armillaris (Bracelet Honey Myrtles) at the western end of the most eastern garden bed of this part of the carpark which will need to be protected so that they are retained as has been shown on the submitted, with one Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) and one Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Ironbark) to the north of this group of 6 and 8 metres in height respectively, as well as a further two 6 metre tall Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) to the north of this stand, shown for removal at the expense of the re-configured carpark layout and internal road network.

 

While retention of the majority of trees in this area is preferable given that they provide valuable shading for parked vehicles, none of these four trees could be described as significant, and as such, permission has been granted for their removal on the basis that those shown for retention are protected in accordance with the measures described in this report.

 

To the west of this group, within the central garden strip running in a north-south direction, there is a row of five 4-5 metre tall Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) which despite being technically too small for the TPO, contribute to the well landscaped, ‘green’ setting of the grounds. As the plans show this garden and trees remain as is, protection measures to prevent damage during the course of the works will still be required, and have therefore been included in this report.

 

Eastern internal carpark

 

The same situation as described in the paragraph above applies to the row of five Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) between 3-5 metres in height, within the existing garden bed at the western edge of this area, with the same conditions included.

 

Towards the northeast corner of this area, there is one Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) of approximately 6 metres in height which is covered by the TPO and appears in average condition with dieback to its growing tips. It is growing in an area that would not be affected by the proposed works, with minimal protection measures to ensure its retention as has been shown included in this report.

 

To the south of this tree, within individual tree squares in the existing carpark, there is from north to south another Brush Box of around 4 metres in height and an Araucaria columnaris (Cooks Pine) of similar dimensions, which have both been shown as being replaced to accommodate new trees in accordance with the overall landscape treatment.

 

If they were left to mature they could develop into significant specimens; however, given their small size, Council does not object to their removal to accommodate new tree plantings as shown.

 

Further to the south, at the western end of this carpark, there is a row of three more Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) of between 4-6 metres in height running in an east-west direction within an existing garden bed which have been shown for retention, and will be possible as none of the proposed works would affect these trees, with only minimal protection measures required.

 

Comment: The Officer’s recommended consent conditions are included in the recommendation.

 

Building Services Officer

 

The proposal provides for the construction of approx. 120 above ground burial crypts and a mausoleum at the cemetery site.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class   -         10a    ( Mausoleum)

Class   -        10b     (Crypts)

 

Background

 

Cemetery site

 

Key Issues

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

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

 

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.

 

Access for people with a disability:

 

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

 

Access for people with a disability is not required to be provided to the mausoleum, however, it is noted that the applicant has stated that access will be provided in accordance with AS 1424.

 

Comment: The Officer’s recommended consent conditions are included in the recommendation.

 

Environmental Health Officer

 

Council is in receipt of a Development Application regarding the proposed burial crypts and mausoleum situated in the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, Matraville.

 

After discussions with Council’s Environmental Health Unit, it has been decided that additional information, other than what has been provided, is required to assess the application.

 

A preliminary investigation contamination report was not submitted with the Development Application; therefore the following additional information must be included and submitted into Council prior to a determination being made.

 

A history of the surrounding area suggests that the proposed development site may be contaminated. Possible sources of contamination include the Bunnerong Power Station, neighbouring market gardens and the chemicals that they use and potentially contaminated groundwater from past land uses.

 

It is considered that further information is required in relation to land and groundwater contamination prior to a consent being issued as Council needs to ensure that the land is suitable for the proposed development, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, SEPP 55, Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999.

 

Comment: A contamination study was submitted for an earlier proposal nearby on the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park. While that study did not focus specifically on the subject site, it found that the part of the site then under application had been part of the cemetery since 1886 and was suitable for the proposed use. The present site is also part of the cemetery and partly a former road reserve. The site is nearby to the earlier site and similarly proximate to the Bunnerong Power Station, the market gardens and potentially contaminated ground water. These factors are not considered to pose a significant risk to the intended use. The recommendation includes a consent condition that requires a detailed contamination investigation prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The Council may waive the requirement for a master plan if there are adequate guidelines and controls that already apply to the land. Council have prepared a Development Control Plan for the site that applies adequate guidelines and controls. The proposal is assessed against these controls in the Development Control Plan section of this report and found to be satisfactory. The recommendation includes a Masterplan waiver for the proposed development.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a) Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 5 Special Uses under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:

 

PART 2 - ZONES

 

Clause 17 Zone No 5 (Special Uses Zone)

 

The objectives of Zone No 5 are to:

 

  accommodate development by public authorities on publicly owned land,

  accommodate development for educational, religious, public transport or similar purposes on both publicly and privately owned land,

  allow appropriate community uses,

  enable associated and ancillary development,

  identify and protect land intended to be acquired for special uses,

  allow for the redevelopment of land no longer required for a special use.

 

The proposed development is permissible as a cemetery and satisfies the objectives of the zone.

 

PART 3 – SPECIAL PROVISIONS

 

Relevant special provisions are considered in table 1

 

Table 1 - Special provisions assessment

 

Provision

Comment

Clause 22 Services - The Council may consent to the carrying out of development on any land only where it is satisfied that adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal or disposal of sewage and drainage are available to that land.

 

The site is adequately serviced by water, stormwater and sewer infrastructure.

Clause 37A - Development in Special Uses Zone - The Council may grant consent to the development of land within Zone No 5 only if it is satisfied that the proposed development is compatible with the character of the locality and will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development.

 

The proposed building satisfies the requirements of Council’s site specific DCP for the land. The proposed building is considered to be compatible with the character of the locality and would not adversely affect the amenity of development and land-uses nearby.

Clause 40A Master plans

See the Master-planning section of this report.

 

Clause 42B Contaminated land

The provisions of Clause 42B are similar to the provisions of SEPP 55 and are considered under that section of this report.

 

 

PART 4 – HERITAGE CONSERVATION

 

The subject site is over the road from the former Bunnerong Power Station Conservation Area and nearby by to the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Crematorium. Council must take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage items or conservation areas. Council’s Heritage Officer has reviewed the proposal and found the impact to be acceptable. The Heritage Officer’s comments are included in full in a separate section of this report.

 

(b) State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

 

The Council must be satisfied that the land is suitable or will be suitable, after remediation for the proposed development. A contamination study was submitted for an earlier proposal nearby on the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park. While that study did not focus specifically on the subject site, it found that the part of the site then under application had been part of the cemetery since 1886 and was suitable for the proposed use. The present site is also part of the cemetery and partly a former road reserve. The site is nearby to the earlier site and similarly proximate to the Bunnerong Power Station, the market gardens and potentially contaminated ground water. These factors are not considered to pose a significant risk to the intended use. The recommendation includes a consent condition that requires a detailed contamination investigation prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

 

(a) Development Control Plan: Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park

 

The purpose of this Development Control Plan is to provide development guidelines for the refurbishment of part of the existing Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park and for extension of the operations of the Memorial Park to part of the old Bunnerong Power Station site. Development on the subject land should maintain the positive elements of the site character and correct the negative elements by:

 

o        Maintaining the open landscape character,

o        Achieving a legible coherent layout,

o        Fitting buildings, structures and the access/circulation system within the landscape and garden framework,

o        Using a consistent design language based on;

§         Unifying the two sites,

§         Recognising and, where appropriate, incorporating major elements of the previous use

§         The major existing site axis

§         Rectangular building forms, solid structural elements in light coloured masonry,

§         Minimising changes to the existing landform, except over the former Switch House platforms, which may be raised to accommodate burial.

 

Table 2 outlines the design controls for the site and provides comment on the proposed development.

 

Table 2 – Design Control Assessment

 

Development Controls

Comments

DESIGN CONTROLS

Site planning

The proposed buildings would give the site a defined edge and screen views to the adjacent industrial building. While not significant to the streetscape, the proposed buildings properly respond to the height, scale, layout and style of the existing buildings on the site.

 

Conservation

The new building will be adjacent to the site boundary around 75m away from the Crematorium, in an area which is currently occupied by an existing driveway and a landscaped edge to the adjacent industrial development.  It is at a higher level, but well screened from the Crematorium building by the existing landscaped area of “The Glade”.  The main elevations of the Crematorium building which include the entrances to the two chapels, face south and west.  The northern elevation of the Crematorium which faces the area to be occupied by the crypts is a minor one.  The plantings within “The Glade and the carpark area will retain the garden backdrop setting of the Crematorium when it is viewed from the south.  The crypts in Stage 1 and Stage 4 are in the form of groupings of separate small-scale structures while the Stage 3 crypts are within a building which has been articulated by the use of separate roofs and variation in wall finish.  It is considered that the form and massing of the proposed structures will not challenge the dominance of the Crematorium building on the site.

 

FACILITIES AND ACCESS

Military Road and access to the site

The surrounding road network will accommodate any extra vehicle movements associated with the proposed development. The proposed new exit and pedestrian entrance have been reviewed and incorporated into Council’s design plans for the subject section of Military Road.

 

Internal Roads and manoeuvring area

 

The proposed development creates a net loss of on-site parking spaces, (approximately 8-9 spaces are removed and two spaces adjoining the north-east edge of “The Glade” cannot be entered / exited in a forward direction). The proposed parking arrangements will generally meet the parking demand generated by the proposed development. However, there will be some instances when the visitors to the proposed development, or services at the proposed development, will coincide with services at the Crematorium. Potential exists for there to be an on-site parking shortfall on these occasions and a condition addressing this issue has been included within this report.

 

Parking

Barrier-free access

The proposal appears to demonstrate compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability. Access for people with a disability is not required to be provided to the mausoleum, however, it is noted that the applicant has stated that access will be provided in accordance with AS 1428.

 

SITE MANAGEMENT & SERVICES

Contamination

A contamination study was submitted for an earlier proposal nearby on the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park. While that study did not focus specifically on the subject site, it found that the part of the site then under application had been part of the cemetery since 1886 and was suitable for the proposed use. The present site is also part of the cemetery and partly a former road reserve. The site is nearby to the earlier site and similarly proximate to the Bunnerong Power Station, the market gardens and potentially contaminated ground water. These factors are not considered to pose a significant risk to the intended use. The recommendation includes a consent condition that requires a detailed contamination investigation prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

Erosion and sediment control

There is a condition of consent in the recommendation that requires the proper management of erosion and sedimentation.

 

Excavation and fill

The proposed development has been designed so that major earthworks are not necessary. The development application was accompanied by the requisite geo-technical survey.

 

 

8.2 Council Policies

 

Rainwater tanks

The proposal does not require a rainwater tank..

 

Asbestos Policy

There is no demolition work proposed.

 

9.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:      Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

10. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11. CONCLUSION

 

The development application is referred to Council because the estimated value of work exceeds $2M.

 

The proposal involves the construction of new above-ground burial crypts and a mausoleum at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park. The proposed buildings are located as an extension to the existing crypts adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the site. The development would be carried out in stages and includes reconfiguration of access, parking and landscaping.

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Military Road between Bumborah Point Road and Bunnerong Road, Matraville. The proposed development relates to an area of land adjoining Military Road that is approximately 5000 square metres in area. The subject site is nearby to the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium, which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The application was exhibited in accordance with Council policy. No submissions were received.

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers. There are consent conditions in the recommendation dealing with colour schemes and building materials, potential contamination, car parking and accessibility.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority waive the requirement for masterplan under Clause 40A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 because adequate guidelines and controls applying to the land are already in place.

 

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 DA/1101/2006 to construct burial crypts and a mausoleum including landscaping and access construction at 45 Military Road, Matraville subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01 to DA10 received by Council on 18 December 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

3.     Prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development, a detailed site contamination investigation must be undertaken by an independent appropriately qualified environmental consultant in order to provide information on land and ground water contamination and migration in relation to past and current activities and uses that may have occurred on the site.

       

The report is to be prepared in accordance with Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and relevant Guidelines made or approved by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly EPA), including the Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites and the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) 1999.  Also, as detailed in the Planning Guidelines to SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land, the report is to assess the nature, extent and degree of contamination upon the land.  The detailed site contamination report must be sufficiently detailed and be submitted to and accepted by Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Should the Detailed Site Investigation Report demonstrate that the land and groundwater is not contaminated, the conclusion to the report must clearly state that ‘the land is suitable for its intended land use, posing no immediate or long term risk to public health or the environment and is fit for occupation by persons, together with clear justification for the statement.  The report must demonstrate that any site contamination satisfies the relevant criteria in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999.

 

The written concurrence of Council must be obtained before a construction certificate is issued for the development.

 

4.     Should the Detailed Site Investigation Report identify that the land is contaminated and the land requires remedial works to meet the relevant criteria in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) 1999, the following matters must be complied with:-

 

a.     A Remediation Action Plan (RAP) is required to be prepared and be submitted to Council prior to commencing remediation works.  The RAP is also required to be reviewed by an independent NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) Accredited Site Auditor.

 

b.    The RAP is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant Guidelines made or approved by NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), including the Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites.

 

This RAP is to include procedures for the following:

 

i.   Excavation of Hydrocarbon-contaminated soil,

ii.   Validation sampling and analysis,

iii.  Prevention of cross contamination and migration or release of contaminants,

iv.  Site management planning,

v.  Ground water remediation, dewatering, drainage, monitoring and validation,

vi.  Unexpected finds.

 

c.    Prior to commencing any remediation works, a written statement is to be provided to the Council by the Site Auditor, which confirms that the Remediation Action Plan satisfies the relevant legislative guidelines and requirements and that the land is able to be remediated to the required level and be suitable for the intended development and use.

 

d.    The applicant is to engage a NSW Department of Environment and Conservation Accredited Site Auditor, accredited under sections 49 & 50 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. The Site Auditor is to assess the suitability of the site for its intended development and use.  The Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report is to be submitted to Council and must verify that the land has been remediated and the site is suitable for the intended development and satisfies the relevant criteria in the NEPM 1999.

 

Any requirements contained within an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which forms part of the Site Audit Statement and Site Audit Report, form part of this consent and Council must be consulted with prior to the development of the EMP.

 

The Site Audit Statement must be submitted to Council, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the development.

 

e.    Remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, environmental planning instruments applying to the site, guidelines made by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation and Department of Infrastructure Planning & Natural Resources, Randwick City Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

f.    The site remediation including ground water must fully comply with all relevant Commonwealth and State Legislation, Regulations and Standards.

 

g.    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’.

 

h.    A Site Remediation Management Plan must be prepared prior to the commencement of remediation works by a suitably qualified environmental consultant and be implemented throughout remediation works. A copy is to be forwarded to Council. The Site Remediation Management Plan shall include measures to address the following matters:

ogeneral site management, site security, barriers, traffic management and signage

ohazard identification and control

oworker health & safety, work zones and decontamination procedures

ocross contamination

osite drainage and dewatering

oair and water quality monitoring

odisposable of hazardous wastes

ocontingency plans and incident reporting, and

odetails of provisions for monitoring implementation of remediation works including details of the person/consultant responsible.

 

i.     Remediation must be completed to the satisfaction of the Accredited Site Auditor and the written concurrence of Council must be obtained prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.

 

j.     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).

 

5.     An Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan is required prior be developed prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

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

 

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

 

a)        $2000.00       -        Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

7.     The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon:

 

a.     A satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge; and

b.     Completion of the civil works as conditioned in this development consent by Council.

 

8.     The applicant is to advise Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

9.     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.

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

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

 

10.    Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, the applicant must meet the full cost for Council to undertake civil works including, but not limited to:

 

a.  Construction of a vehicular crossing, parking lane, concrete kerb and gutter, central median, footpath and roadworks, together with the installation of landscaping, signposting and linemarking along the Military Road site frontage going from the north-east corner of the development site for a distance of approximately 106metres in a south-west direction, (i.e fronting all of Stage 2 and Stage 4 and extending to the tangent point intersection of the development site with 31-41 Military Road). The applicant must contact Council’s Development Engineer to discuss the extent of works prior to lodgement of a Construction Certificate application.

 

b.  Removal of the existing road pavement in Military Road at the intersection of Military Road and the redundant access roadway located adjacent to the common boundary with 31-41 Military Road.

 

11.    The applicant shall liaise directly with Council’s City Services Department in regard to the design of, and Council’s requirements for, the reconstruction of Military Road fronting the development site.

 

12.    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.

 

13.    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.

 

14.    The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

15.    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.

 

16.    Prior to the lodgement of a Construction Certificate Application the applicant must either:

 

a.  submit to the Certifying Authority for approval, and have approved, detailed traffic and parking studies that demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed parking provision given both the loss of existing on-site parking as a result of the development and the potential for the development to generate parking demand at a time when there is demand associated with services at the crematorium; OR

 

b.  amend the proposed internal parking layout and road network to provide compensatory parking for those spaces lost by the construction of the proposed Stages 1, 3 and 4 works. The compensatory parking must comply with the relevant provisions of AS 2890.1-2004 and must not impact on any trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. The amendments must be shown on the Construction Certificate Application for approval by the Certifying Authority.

 

17.    The applicant must liaise with Council’s Development Engineer prior to undertaking the traffic/parking studies or amending the internal parking layout.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

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

 

18.    The design alignment level for the Military Road property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be obtained in writing from Council’s Coordinator of Assets, (9399 0928), prior to lodgement of a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

20.    The above alignment levels will be issued at a prescribed fee of $121.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

21.    The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

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

 

22.    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.

 

23.    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.

 

24.    The applicant shall meet the full cost of the overhead power lines and telecommunication cables located in the vicinity of the development site to be relocated underground and all redundant power poles to be removed. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the wires/cables to be relocated. All wires cables must be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

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

 

25.    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.

 

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

 

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

 

28.    All site stormwater from the redeveloped portion of the site must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

a.  The kerb and gutter or drainage system in Military Road at the front of the property ; OR

 

b.  A suitably sized infiltration system (subject to geotechnical investigation confirming that the ground conditions are suitable for an infiltration system).

 

29.    Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, on-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during 1 in 10 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 100 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by Council. Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible the detention tank must have an open base to infiltrate stormwater to the groundwater. Note that the ground water and any rock stratum has to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

30.    Should stormwater be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

31.    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.

 

32.    The detention area/infiltration system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

33.    The maximum depth of ponding in above ground detention areas (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) shall be as follows:

 

a.  150mm in uncovered carparking areas (with an isolated maximum depth of 200mm permissible at the low point pit within the detention area)

 

b.  300mm in landscaped areas (where child proof fencing is not provided around the outside of the detention area and sides slopes are steeper than 1 in 10)

 

c.  600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10.

 

d.  1200mm in landscaped areas where a childproof fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

 

Notes:

o         It is noted that above ground storage will not be permitted in basement carparks or in any area which may be used for storage of goods.

 

o         Mulch/bark must not be used in onsite detention areas

 

34.    Any above ground stormwater detention areas (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

35.    The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level in the detention area for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be constructed.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

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

 

37.    A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

38.    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.

 

39.    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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

c.  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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

g.  A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

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

 

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

 

41.    Prior to occupation of the development, a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention/infiltration system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention/infiltration system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

o     The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

 

o     If new linen plans are being prepared for the site, the plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

o     The works as executed drainage plan and hydraulic certification must be submitted to Council prior to the “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” being executed by Council.

 

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

 

a.  The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

b.  Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

c.  Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

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

e.  The orifice size(s) (if applicable);

f.   Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

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

 

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

 

44.    Landscaping for Stage 1 of the proposed development shall be installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared by Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, drawing number LSC01, job number 051004, issue A, dated 04.10.06, and stamped received at Council on 18th December 2006 subject to the following additional requirements being shown on an amended landscape plan :

 

a.  Deletion of Ralphiolepis indica (Indian Hawthorn) from the planting plan and planting schedule due to the ability of this species to be spread by birds and invade areas of remnant native bushland, and shall be replaced with a suitable alternative species of similar form and function. The same applies to any plans submitted for subsequent stages.

 

45.    Detailed landscape plans, of a similar style and level of detail as to what has been provided for Stage 1, shall be provided for Stages 2, 3 & 4 of the proposed development, and shall be approved by the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The plans are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA), and shall include the following:

 

a.  A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site/stage boundaries, existing trees within the site/stage (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites/stages within 6 metres of the site/stage boundary, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site/stage boundaries, and at the base of the trees to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

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 or feature plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved, with plant spacings to be clearly indicated.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

f.   The plan shall respect the aspect and exposure of the site/stage, with species selection to contain a predominance of indigenous coastal species which require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

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

 

h.  All detention tanks and below ground stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping.

 

46.    Upon completion of all site works, and prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate, documentary evidence is to be obtained from a qualified Landscape Architect, and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA), and Council, if Council is not the PCA, which confirms that the landscaping works have been installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent.

 

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

 

Tree Management

 

48.    Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees:

 

a.  One Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) towards the northwest corner of the site to accommodate Stage 4 works in the location shown.

 

b.  The row of six Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Trees) about halfway along the eastern boundary of the site to accommodate Stage 3 works as shown.

 

c.  Six of the most northern Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box’s) in the group of 10 Brush Box’s, located on the western side of the internal roadway, running in a north-south direction, in order to accommodate the reconfigured roadway associated with Stage 3 & 4 of the proposed works as shown.

 

d.  One Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum) to the south of the trees described above, on the opposite/eastern side of the existing internal roadway, within an existing garden bed within “The Glade” to accommodate the new car parking bay as proposed.

 

e.  Two Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) further to the west of the tree described above, beyond the southern end of the group of three Brush Box’s to be retained, to accommodate the reconfigured internal roadway and carpark as shown.

 

f.   Another Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) and one Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Ironbark) to the west of the two trees described above, currently within the garden bed containing a stand of Melaleuca armillaris (Bracelet Honey Myrtles), to accommodate the reconfigured internal roadway and carpark as shown.

 

g.  One Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) along the western boundary, at the northwest corner of the existing carpark on the western side of the site, to accommodate the proposed vehicle entry/exit as shown.

 

h.  One Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) and one Araucaria columnaris (Cooks Pine) located centrally within individual tree squares in the most eastern carpark area to accommodate the reconfigured carpark and associated replanting as shown.

 

49.    This approval is subject to the following requirements being shown on the relevant landscape plans for Stages 2, 3 & 4, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a.  A minimum of six 75 litre (pot size at the time of planting) Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) along the western edge of the internal roadway, to the north of the remaining three Brush Box’s in this group which are to be retained, as well as a further two to the south of this group, in order to maintain this formal avenue planting (to be shown on Stage 3 landscape plan).

 

b.  A minimum of five 75 litre (pot size at the time of planting) tree species (not palms) within the garden bed between the internal roadway and the western edge of “The Glade”, as has been shown on the submitted plans, using those species which will attain a minimum height at maturity of 6 metres (Stage 2 & 3 landscape plans).

 

c.  A minimum of four 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) trees (not palms), located in individual tree squares, centrally wuthin the most eastern carpark, running in a north-south direction as has been shown, using those species which will attain a minimum height at maturity of 6 metres (Stage 2 plan).

 

50.    Given the substantial contribution these trees provide to the environmental amenity and character of the site, a separate tree survey/plan prepared by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level 4 in Arboriculture or equivalent, and is a member of a nationally recognized association, shall be submitted, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate, which accurately locates and identifies those trees listed for retention in this consent, together with the extent of protective fencing that is to be provided.

 

This plan is required both due to the number of trees to be retained at the site, and to avoid confusion during the site planning and construction phases of the proposed development.

 

51.    Should the pruning of any lower growing branches from any of the trees to be retained be required in order to avoid damage/conflict from site machinery or similar during the course of the proposed works, it shall only be performed by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level 4 in Arboriculture or equivalent, and is a member of a nationally recognized association, to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees’, with the level of pruning not to substantially alter the habit or form of the subject trees.

 

NOTE: SHOULD THE APPLICANT SEEK CLARIFICATION ON ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OR PROTECTION OF TREES AT THE SITE, THEY MAY CONTACT COUNCIL’S LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ON 9399-0613.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

52.    The following trees shall be retained as part of the proposed development:

 

a.  The three most southern Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box’s) in the row of 10 Brush Box’s running in a north-south direction along the western side of the existing internal roadway.

 

b.  The row of five Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) running in an east-west direction at the northern end of the most western carpark.

 

c.  The row of eight Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) running in an east-west direction along the western edge of the most western carpark, fronting onto Military Road.

 

d.  The row of five Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box’s) running in an east-west direction, within the centrally located garden bed in the most western carpark.

 

e.  The stand of Melaleuca armillaris (Bracelet Honey Myrtles) within the most eastern garden bed within the most western carpark.

 

f.   The two Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbarks) at the northeast corner of the site, on either side of the internal roadway, beyond the western edge of the Memorial Grove Crypts.

 

g.  The row of five Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) running in a north-south direction, within the most western garden bed in the eastern carpark.

 

h.  One Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) in the northern garden bed of the eastern carpark.

 

i.   The row of three Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) running in an east-west direction within the existing garden bed at the southern end of the eastern carpark.

 

53.    In order to ensure the retention of the trees listed above in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.  The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing which shall be installed around each individual tree or a group of trees, at minimum to the extent of their driplines, or, along the back of existing kerb and gutter/roadways as applicable, in order to completely enclose the subject trees.

 

c.  This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed, with the words “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER" clearly displayed.

 

d.  Within these zones there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble, or any works listed in Point b.

 

e.  Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, services, pipes, detention tanks, stormwater infiltration systems, paving etc beneath the extent of the driplines of any of the subject trees shall be initially undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, the site Arborist, with all roots to be cut cleanly by hand, and the affected area backfilled as soon as practically possible.


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

 

54.    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.

 

55.    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.

 

56.    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.

 

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

 

58.    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.

 

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

 

a.  appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work, and

 

b.  appoint a principal contractor for the building work and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing, and

 

c.  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

 

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

 

60.    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.

 

61.    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).

 

62.    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.

 

63.    The principal contractor 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.

 

64.    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:

a.  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,

 

b.  name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

 

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

 

65.    An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

66.    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.

 

67.    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.

 

68.    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.

 

69.    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.

 

70.    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):

 

a.  has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

71.    Details of the principal building contractor 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.

 

72.    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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

75.    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:

 

76.    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.

 

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

 

78.    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.

 

79.    Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the buildings 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.

 

80.    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.

 

81.    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.

 

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

 

83.    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.

 

84.    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.

 

85.    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.

 

86.    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.

 

87.    A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented 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:

 

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

b.  location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

c.  location of building materials for construction;

d.  provisions for public safety;

e.  dust control measures;

f.   site access location and construction

g.  details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

h.  protective measures for tree preservation;

i.   provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

j.   location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

k.  details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

l.   construction noise and vibration management;

m.  construction traffic management provisions.

 

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

 

89.    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.

 

90.    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.

 

91.    Dust control measures and practices may include:-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

f.   Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

92.    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.

 

93.    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.

 

94.    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.

 

95.    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.

 

96.    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.

 

97.    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.

 

98.    A temporary timber, asphalt or concrete crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, to the satisfaction of Council, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

99.    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.

 

100.  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.

 

101.  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.

 

102.  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.

 

103.  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.

 

104.  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.

 

105.  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.

 

106.  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.

 

107.  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 upon any part of the footpath, road or nature strip or in any public place:-

 

a.  Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

b.  Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

c.  Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article in a public place.

 

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

 

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

 

a.  Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

b.  Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

c.  Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

d.  WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

e.  Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

110.  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.

 

111.  The applicant and developer is 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.

 

112.  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.

 

113.  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.

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

6 June, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1082/2005/A & PROP034164

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2) - Application to modify approved development by replacing external louvres to 3 windows with external blinds, altering shape of dining room window on northern elevation, altering external finishes on southern elevation, extending kitchen into subfloor area, altering the paved area in rear courtyard, constructing new front gate, deleting sunshades over bedroom 2 window and altering fretwork on front verandah

 

PROPERTY:

 29 Park Street, Clovelly

 

WARD:

 North Ward

 

APPLICANT:

 B J Kirkman

 

OWNER:

 Mr W S Owens and Mrs S A Owens

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The application is seeking to modify the approved development which included development consent to construct a ground floor rear addition to the existing single dwelling house with a new double car space garage to the rear lane. The proposed modifications include replacing the louvres to the rear east-facing windows with a screen mesh, modifying the shape of the north-facing window to the dining room, increasing the kitchen area to provide a fridge/pantry area, replacing the rendered brickwork to the south elevation with face brick and changes including a new front timber picket gate, fretwork changes to the rear verandah, deletion of battens to the south-facing bedroom 2 and increasing the paved area to the rear private open space.

 

The proposal was notified to the surrounding properties from 23 May to 6 June 2007 and no submissions related to the proposed modifications were received. Generally the proposed external modifications will have minimal impact to the appearance of the dwelling and will not adversely or significantly affect the surrounding properties. The proposed internal modification is minor and does not materially increase the floor space of the dwelling. The proposed increase to the paved area to the rear of the site reduces the total permeable landscaped area however it is considered the reduction will not adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties and satisfies the relevant performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal seeks to make internal and external modifications to the approved alterations and additions to the existing dwelling. The proposal involves the following works in detail:

 

Internal Modifications

 

-   Fridge/pantry area expanded through excavation into existing subfloor area.

 

External Modifications

 

-   The adjustable external louvres have been changed to adjustable external Helioscreen blinds due to the overhead pelmet being too large resulting in door openings being affected.

-   Northern dining room window modified in shape and reduced in size.

-   Change the approved rendering to the southern elevation to face brick.

-   Replace existing front gate with timber picket pedestrian gate.

-   Fretwork modification to southern verandah.

-   Increased paving area to northern section of rear private open space.

-   Deletion of battens to southern facing window of Bedroom 2.

 

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Park Street, Clovelly and is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling.  The site is regular in shape, has a frontage width of 9.1m, a side boundary depth of 36.25m and has an overall site area of 331.6m².  The site slopes steeply to the rear with the Park Street frontage being approximately 5 metres higher than the rear of the site at Campbell Lane. Neighbouring the property to the north is a two storey dwelling, to the south is a three storey multi-unit residential building and to the rear is Campbell Lane. Campbell Lane provides vehicular access for the dwellings along this section of Park Street and the adjacent Campbell Street. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of detached residential dwellings; however there are a number of multi-unit residential buildings located relatively close to the east and south of the subject site.

 

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

 

Figure 1: The existing dwelling located on the subject site.

4.    SITE HISTORY

4.1      APPLICATION HISTORY

The application was lodged on 11 May 2007 and notified to the surrounding properties from 23 May to 6 June 2007. No submissions relating to the proposal were received. There is no other relevant application history.

4.2      HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

Previous applications submitted for development on the site includes:

Development No.

Description

Determination

BA/410/1995

Retaining walls to dwelling

Approved on 4 May 1995

BA/1281/1995

New deck to dwelling

Approved 11 December 1995

BC/222/1998

Single storey semi-detached brick dwelling with tile roof

Approved on 12 October 1998

DA/1082/2005

Alterations to the existing dwelling including a rear split level addition with skillion roof, a new double garage at the rear (off Campbell Lane) with paved terrace above, new front fence and additional detail to the street façade

Approved at Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 12 September 2006.

 

Figure 2: The subject site and surrounding area

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification. No submissions relating to the proposed modifications were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application did not require any referrals.

 

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.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1      Substantially the same

 

The proposed modification involves external and internal modifications that will not alter the height, bulk or scale of the approved development. The proposed changes are relatively minor, are well considered and will integrate with the dwelling and will not adversely impact upon the existing built character of the area. The changes are considered to be a minor modification to the original development and will result in substantially the same development.

 

8.2      Consideration of submissions

 

No submissions were received in regards to this proposed modification.

 

9.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

9.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

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

 

-   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

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

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-   Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

-   Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. SEPP: BASIX requirements for alterations and additions came into force on 1 October 2006 and apply to:

 

-   Renovation work valued at $100,000 or more, or

-   The installation of a swimming pool (or pool and spa) with a capacity greater than 40,000 litres.

 

A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

The original application was for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and was lodged prior to 1 October 2006. Therefore Section 96 application is exempt from the SEPP: BASIX requirements and further consideration on this matter is not required.

 

9.3 Policy Controls

 

9.3.1   Draft Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy Development Control Plan (Draft DCP)

 

The key changes in the Draft DCP include, and are not limited to:

 

-   Increasing the maximum FSR for sites less than 300sqm from 0.65:1 to 0.7:1.

-   Increasing the rear boundary setback from 4.5m to 9m.

-   Increasing the minimum landscaped area from 40% to 50% of the site.

-   Increasing the minimum soft landscaped area from 20% to 25% of the site.

 

The proposed modifications do not affect the minimum landscaped area, FSR or rear setback of the approved development. The proposal will reduce the soft landscaped area however, as discussed in Section 9.3.2 of this report, the reduction is not considered to adversely impact upon the adjoining properties or impinge upon the enjoyment of the subject site’s rear private open space. It should be noted that the Draft DCP has been given minimal weight in this assessment as it is neither imminent nor certain at this point in the policy approval process.

 

9.3.2   Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

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

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

52% 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 53.55 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 8.5 x 6.3 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.

15% of the site is permeable. Does not comply – see assessment below.

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

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

The proposed modifications to the approved development will involve new paved areas to the rear private open space located above the approved garage which will result in a reduction of the permeable landscaped area of the site. The original approval provided 19% permeable landscaped area which was 1% less than preferred solution, however it was noted in the Council report that the

“inconsistency [in landscaped area] has a minimal impact to the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the landscaped area successfully addresses the landscaping and open space performance requirements of the DCP, specifically to provide suitable space for outdoor recreation whilst minimising adverse impacts to solar access and access to views.”

The proposal will reduce the provision of permeable landscaped area from 19% to 15% which is a shortfall of 16.58sqm against the requirement of the preferred solution. It should be noted that the proposed modifications to the permeable landscaped area will not affect the amount of total landscaped area provided on the site and remains consistent with the relevant performance requirements of the DCP. It is also noted that the proposed increase in paving to the northern section of the rear private open space of the subject site will not adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining northern neighbour and will not be immediately visible to the properties to the north, street level from the rear laneway or private open space of the adjoining southern neighbour due to the differences in the ground level and the elevation of the private open space above the rear lane ground level. As such the visual impact of the proposed modification to the rear private open space will is not considered to affect the appearance of the approved development to the surrounding area nor adversely or significant impact upon the amenity or views enjoyed by the adjacent residences.

Whilst the proposed reduction in permeable landscaped area is not consistent with the preferred solutions, it is considered that the increased paved area will not detrimentally impact upon the surrounding area or reduce the potential for soft landscaping to be provided on the site, considering any vegetation planted along the northern section of the site would be overshadowed by the 2.6m high retaining wall and any plantings would have to maintained at a height that would not restrict coastal views enjoyed by the adjoining northern neighbour at 31 Park Street. It is also noted that the proposal will be relatively consistent with the degree of permeable landscaping of adjoining private open spaces which generally have lawn and paved areas and a conspicuous lack of any significant vegetation such as shrubs or trees. Therefore it is considered that the proposed modifications will not result in a poorer visual presentation, adversely impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties or diminish the potential for the site to provide soft landscaping for occupants of the subject site to enjoy the rear private open space. The landscaped area will have a size and dimensions that are considered to suit the needs of the occupants and satisfy the relevant performance requirements of the DCP.

Therefore the proposed modifications to the landscaped area are acceptable.

 

Height, Form & Materials

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

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

The proposed modifications will not alter the height or form of the approved development or affect the existing compliances with the preferred solutions of the DCP. The proposed modifications will however alter the materials originally approved; most noticeable will be the replacement of the rear metal louvres with a fabric cloth known commercially as “Helioscreen” and the alterations to the front and northern sides of the site, including the a new front pedestrian gate which was not included in the original approval and the modification to the north-facing dining room window.

The Helioscreen fabric which will replace the metal louvres to the east-facing windows will provide a suitable level of visual privacy to the rear private open space of the adjoining properties whilst reducing harsh solar penetration during the summer months. The replacement of the metal louvres with the Helioscreen fabric will not affect the appearance of the dwelling to the primary street frontage nor have any impact to the established streetscape of Park Street or the amenity of the rear lane. The Helioscreen fabric will not become a dominant visual element to the surrounding area and will not detract from the appearance of the site to the neighbouring dwellings.

The sample of the selected Helioscreen fabric provided by the applicant indicates that the colour will integrate well with the selected colours and will not affect the built form character of the dwelling. It should also be noted that the inclusion of a front gate, change of rendered brickwork to face brick to the southern elevation, modifications to the rear balcony fretwork and removal of battens to the window of bedroom 2 will not adversely or significantly impact upon the established character of the streetscape.

As such the proposed modifications are considered acceptable.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

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

S1

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

Not applicable.

S1

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

The proposed modification to the north facing window will decrease the size and height of the approved window. The proposed sill height of 0.8m matches the sill height of the approved window.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

Foreshore Development

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

Not applicable.

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

The proposed external modifications to the southern and eastern elevations will integrate with the dwelling, are sympathetic to the surrounding area and will not be noticeable from the foreshore area. Complies.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

Not applicable.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

The proposed modifications will not diminish the views enjoyed by adjoining properties.

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

Not applicable.

 

9.4 Council Policies

 

None applicable.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

The proposed modifications will continue to maintain the articulation and mix of materials of the approved development. The proposed modifications affecting the external appearance of the dwelling to the surrounding area are acceptable and will maintain the amenity of the surrounding area.

 

Direction 4a & associated key action: Improved design and sustainability across all development.

The proposed modifications will improve the internal design by providing additional kitchen space without adding to the bulk of the building, maintain a high level of amenity to the east facing rooms by reducing the severity of summer sunlight and will not adversely impact the sustainability of the dwelling or that of neighbouring dwellings.

 

 

 

10. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11. CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications will not affect the approved development’s compliance with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The proposed external modifications will not have an adverse impact to the visual privacy, solar access of access to views to the surrounding dwellings. The reduction to the permeable landscaped area of the site will not adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the detrimentally affect the use of the rear private open space of the subject site and satisfies the relevant performance requirements for landscaped area.

 

Therefore the proposed modifications are recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.1082/2005 on the property at 29 Park Street, Clovelly in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DRG.2511 DA1 B, dated 23 December 2005 and received by Council on 26 June 2006, the sample of colours and external finishes and landscape plan received by Council on 19 March 2007 that satisfied the deferred commencement conditions of Development Consent No.1082/2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered Drg. 2511 DA C and received by Council on 11 May 2007, the sheet titled “Colour Schedule Part 2” received by Council 11 May 2007, and the sample of “Helioscreen - Gold” fabric received by Council on 23 May 2007, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

26 June, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/472/2005/B & PROP13474 & 80

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to raise floor slab levels and part of the ridge of the roof.

PROPERTY:

 260 - 260A Maroubra Road, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 CSA Architects Pty Ltd

OWNER:

Salina Holding Pty

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council as it is a section 96(2) modification of a development application which was previously determined by the Health, Building and Planning Committee.

 

The application was submitted on 16 February 2007 and has been assessed as Integrated Development as it required licensing under Part V of the water Act, 1912. The application was referred to the Department of Natural Resources who have advised that the conditions issued for the original consent are adequate to also cover the present application.

 

Five objections were received to the proposed modification.

 

The recommendation is for approval.

 

2.      THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal as submitted involved modification of the approved development in the following manner:

 

o        Raising the floor slab levels by 600mm and consequently window levels by 600mm;

o        Raising the over-all height of the middle, two storey portion of the development by 600mm;

o        Altering the roof form over the three storey sections of the development so that a portion is raised by 300mm;

 

Following submission of the application, the applicant has advised that the floor to ceiling height of the first floor of the middle, two storey portion of the development can be reduced by 100mm thereby reducing the height increase of this portion of the building to 500mm, an amended plan has been submitted detailing this change.

 

3.      THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Maroubra Road between Cooper Street to the west and Flower Street to the east and is identified as Lots X and Y in DP 40251. Existing buildings on the site have been demolished and construction on the new development has commenced.

 

The site is rectangular in shape with dimensions of 13.715m by 67.07m, with an area of approximately 920m². The site generally slopes from the rear (Galvin Street) to the Maroubra Road frontage.

 

This portion of Maroubra Road is characterised by a mixture of  single, two, three and four storey residential buildings in various architectural styles. The site immediately to the east, No. 262 Maroubra Road, contains a three storey brick and tile residential flat building with undercroft ground level carparking. Adjacent sites to the west include a pair of single-storey semi-detached dwellings (owned by the Department of Housing and upgraded for disabled access and use) at No. 258 Maroubra Road. No.21 Galvin Street also abuts the subject property to the west and contains a two storey dwelling.

 

A mixture of multi-unit housing, single dwellings and commercial uses are located on the opposite side of Maroubra Road.

 

4.      SITE HISTORY

 

o        DA/387/198 was refused for a proposed 3 storey Residential Flat Building containing 12 dwellings and parking for 16 vehicles;

o        DA/1068/2002 was refused by Council on 2 December 2003 for a 3 storey Residential Flat Building containing 9 dwellings and parking for 13 vehicles;

o        Land and Environment Court (case 1155/2003) upheld Council’s refusal of DA/1068/2002. The decision detailed the following concerns with the proposal:

 

-   Narrowness of site and consequent inability to comply with guidelines for setbacks from side boundaries;

-   Amalgamation with No. 258 Maroubra Road was not possible;

-   Proposal had significant non-compliance with side setback controls;

-   Precedence in permitting a 3 storey development on a single allotment;

-   Impact on No. 262 Maroubra Road may be reduced by a lower building.

 

o        The Land and Environment Court has formulated a “planning principle” for the development of narrow sites using the above. These will be discussed in the assessment of the proposal.

o        DA/472/2005 was granted deferred commencement approval at the Health Building and Planning Committee meeting on 11 July 2006 for demolition of the existing two dwellings on the site and the construction of a part 2 / part 3 storey  multi unit housing development containing 8 x 2 bedroom dwellings with car parking for 12 vehicles.   

 

5.      COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposed modification was notified and advertised for 14 days until 21 March 2007 with 5 submissions in opposition being received.  The application was re-notified and advertised as Integrated Development on receipt of shadow diagrams in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans until 11 May 2007. Five (5) submissions in opposition to the proposal were received from the following:

 

o        C Greene, 2/244 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

o        H Efstathiou, 2 & 6/262 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

o        S Leong, 21 Galvin Street, Maroubra

o        R Grammat, 7/262 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

o        E Job, 10/262 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

o         

5.1      Objections

 

Overshadowing:

Shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that the proposed modification will result in minimal additional shading of adjacent sites.

 

Until midday in mid-winter, 22 June, there will be some minimal additional shading on the east facing wall of the adjacent dwelling at No. 21 Galvin Street. This would not impact upon living areas of this dwelling.

 

At 3pm in mid-winter, 22 June, the additional height will result in some minimal additional shading on the façade of the residential flat building at No. 262 Maroubra Road, below the window level of the ground floor units. 

 

At 3pm in on 22 March there is some minimal additional shading on the façade of No. 262 Maroubra Road, generally near ground level.

 

      Privacy

      The proposal includes the raising of all windows by 600mm, however privacy impacts will not be altered from the approved development as window locations and the floor plan of the proposed building are not otherwise altered. Windows facing east have mainly small highlight windows, narrow windows or obscure glazing. Those facing west are either highlight  windows or have screening.

 

       Impact on aspect/ amenity of adjacent units and contrary to objectives of Residential 2c Zone

      It is considered that the increase in height of the middle portion of the development by 500mm or the 300mm increase in height of a portion of the three storey section of the development will not noticeably alter impacts of the development on adjacent properties. Setbacks from boundaries and floor area are not changing in the development and as detailed, shadow impacts are also acceptable. As such, it is considered that the proposed modification is not contrary to the objectives of the Residential 2C Zone. 

 

      Other options are available to the applicant including reduction in internal floor to ceiling heights of units

      The architect for the development has advised that it is possible to reduce the ceiling height for the first floor of the centre section of the building by 100mm, thereby reducing the increase in height of this portion of the development to 500mm from the 600mm proposed in the section 96 application. An amended plan has been submitted detailing this height reduction.

 

Inadequate information submitted with the application

Additional information was requested in the form of shadow diagrams indicating only increased shadow impacts as a result of the increase in height of the development. The application was re-advertised and notified on the receipt of this information.  

 

Proposed changes are not a modification to DA/472/2005  and do not constitute a minor amendment

The proposed changes do qualify as a modification to the original DA. As detailed in this report, it considered that impacts of the proposed modification will be relatively minor and are supportable.

 

Work should be stopped on site until s96 determined

Work on the site may continue in accordance with approved development application and associated construction certificate while the subject application is being assessed.

 

Non-compliance with Condition of Consent No. 103 in DA/472/2005

The objector states that condition 103 in DA/472/2005 states : “Any variation to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended Development Consent” .  

 

Condition 103 related to the provision of minimum floor levels for habitable and storage areas above the maximum water level in the stormwater detention area.  This is not of particular relevance to this application. However, it is noted that the proposal to increase the height of a portion of the building is being made by way of a section 96 application, which is an amendment to the original development consent and should therefore satisfy the concerns of the objector.. 

 

Approved plans omit reference to the sewer pipe

The correct location of the sewer pipe was not known previously. The application seeks to resolve any implications from the location of the sewer.

 

Developer is damaging adjacent property

Any impacts that building work on the subject property is having on adjacent sites is not a matter for consideration here. Council’s building compliance section has forwarded these concerns to the private certifier overseeing the development.

 

6.      TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the NSW Department of Natural Resources as it is a modification of an Integrated Development Application which required licensing under Part V of the Water Act, 1912.  The Department of Natural Resources has given concurrence to the section 96 application subject to the conditions placed on the original consent.

 

7.      MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (920 m²) is less than required for submission of a master plan (4000 m²).

 

8.      RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

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

 

o        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

o        Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

o        State Environmental Planning Policy No.65

o        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

o        Randwick Development  Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing 

 

9.     ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The section 96 application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

9.1      State Environmental Planning Policy No.65

The development on the site is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65). The proposed modification does not significantly alter the design of the development from the approval under DA/472/2005. Internal floor to ceiling heights are proposed to be reduced at the first floor level in the middle section of the block to 2.6 metres from 2.7 metres. SEPP 65 stipulates a 2.7 metre internal floor to ceiling height; a reduction to 2.6 metres is considered acceptable in the circumstances of this application.

 

9.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 2C Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 are relevant to the proposed modification:-

 

Table 1

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

 30 – Min Lot size

N/A

920m²

Yes – No Change

31 – Landscape area

31 (2) – Total area

 

31 (3) – Podium area

 

 

50% or 460m²

 

 

 

25% 0r 230m²

 

 

60%/554m²

 

 

 

30%/284m²

 

 

Yes – No Change

 

 

 

No – No change

32 - FSR

0.9:1

0.78:1

Yes – No change

33 – Building height

33(2) – Overall

33(4) –Wall

 

 

12m

10m

 

 

11m

10m

 

 

Yes – No change

Yes

 

9.3      Policy Controls

 

9.3.1   Development Control Plan  - Multi Unit Housing

Table 2

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

3.2.3 Height

        - Overall

        - Wall

 

12m

10m

 

11m

10m

 

Yes - No change

Yes

3.3.4          Setbacks

         - side

         - rear

 

3.3 – 5m

6 – 8m

 

3.5-4m

11.14m

No change from approved

3.4.4   FSR

0.9:1

0.78:1

Yes – No change

4.4.4   Solar            Access

3hrs to units

2.5 hrs

No change from approved

 

9.3.2   Solar Access

As detailed in Paragraph 5.1, the proposed modification will result in minimal additional shading of adjacent sites.

 

Until midday in mid-winter, 22 June, there will be some additional shading on the east facing wall of the adjacent dwelling at No. 21 Galvin Street. This will not impact upon living areas of this dwelling.        

 

At 3pm in mid-winter, 22 June, the additional height will result in some additional shading on the façade of the residential flat building at No. 262 Maroubra Road, below the window level of the ground floor units. 

 

At 3pm in on 22 March there is some additional shading on the façade of No. 262 Maroubra Road, generally near ground level.

 

Given the above, the proposed modification does not significantly increase overshadowing or alter the degree of non-compliance with the solar access standard in the Multi Unit Housing DCP from the approved development.

 

9.3.3   Height

The 500mm height increase of the middle two storey section of the development and the 300mm increase in height of a portion of the three storey sections of the proposal will not significantly impact on the amenity of adjacent properties. As detailed above, additional shading from the proposed amendments does not alter the degree of non-compliance with the solar access standard in the Multi Unit Housing DCP.

 

Privacy impacts as a result of the increase in height are not altered from the approved development as privacy protection measures such as obscure glazing, highlight windows and privacy screens remain unchanged.

 

9.3.4   Land & Environment Court Planning Principle for Development on Narrow or Small Sites

This  Planning Principle arose from the Land & Environment Court’s refusal of the earlier DA for the development of the subject site, D/1068/2002 on 27 April 2004. The following questions are to be asked in regards of development on narrow or small sites:

 

(i)       Would approval of the application result in the isolation of neighbouring sites?

 

Comment:

The proposed modification and specifically the increase in height of the middle two storey portion of the development by 500mm would not result in the isolation of neighbouring properties. The proposed modification would not alter the impact on adjacent sites from the approved development in this regard.

 

(ii)      Would it render reasonable development of neighbouring sites difficult?

 

          Comment:

The proposed height increase would not impact on the development potential of adjacent sites. Further, it is unlikely that No. 262 Maroubra Road would be redeveloped in the future.

 

(iii)     Can orderly, economic and appropriate development of the subject site as well as neighbouring sites be achieved?

 

          Comment:

As above, the modification will not alter the situation in regard to the development of adjacent sites.

 

10.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:          Excellence in urban design.

Direction:          Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

 

11.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification is considered to be acceptable. The increase in over-all height of the middle two storey section of the development by 500mm and increase in height of a portion of the three storey sections of the proposal will not significantly impact on the amenity of adjacent properties or more specifically result in increased shading of living areas of neighbouring residential units. Privacy impacts will not be altered from the approved development.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent DA/472/2005 to raise floor slabs by 600mm and ridge height of middle two storey section of development by 500mm and a portion of the three storey sections of the development by 300mm at 260-260A Maroubra Road, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered KRO-01 to KRO-01, dated 1st April, 2005 and received by Council on 15th June, 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application,  as amended by the:

 

  Section 96 ‘B’ plans numbered ANC-96-01 to ANC-96-04 dated 18 June 2007 and received by Council on 19 June 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 on the attached plans. 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ROGER QUINTON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

COORDINATOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

22 June, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/285/2007 & PROP032760

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a hardstand car space with dimensions 4.75m x 2.7m to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling and associated works.

PROPERTY:

 19 Pacific Street, Clovelly

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 R Morgan

OWNER:

 Ms R N Morgan

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Committee meeting for determination at the request of Councillors Bastic, White, Procopiadis and Tracey.

 

This application proposes the construction of a hardstand car space with dimensions 4.75m x 2.7m in front of one half of a pair of existing semi-detached dwellings and associated works including alterations to the front fence and removal of the existing porch to accommodate the car space.

 

One objection was received raising concerns about the impact of the proposal on the disabled driver’s car parking space in front of No. 17 Pacific Street, Clovelly.

 

The proposed hardstand car space is considered to be unacceptable for a number of reasons. The presence of the hardstand car space to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling is considered to potentially detract from the appearance of the existing semi-detached dwelling and to detract from the streetscape. Rear lane access to the subject property is available and the preferred location for off street car parking. No front car parking spaces are present in the streetscape.

 

The proposed front hard stand car parking space does not comply with the minium dimensions of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and the DCP for Parking and also does not comply with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

The proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the construction of a hardstand car space in front of one half of a pair of existing semi-detached dwellings. The proposed car space has dimensions 4.7m x 2.7m. Associated works include demolition of a component of the front fence and alterations to the front of one half of the pair of semi-detached dwellings including removing the existing porch and steps, concrete pavers and a new step to the front entry way.

 

An amended plan and statement was received by Council on the 21st June 2007 which increased the depth of the hardstand car space to 4.75m from 4.7m in the original plans, and included a security mirror at the front boundary for pedestrian safety.

 

Photo 1: The subject site.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located at the end of the cul-de-sac of Pacific Street in Clovelly and is presently occupied by one half of a pair of existing two storey semi-detached dwellings. The site has a frontage width of approx. 5.2m, a side boundary depth of approx. 39m and an overall site area of 210m².  Neighbouring the property to the north is a pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings, to the south is Burnie Park and the Community Centre and to the rear is Burnie Lane. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of a mixture of dwelling houses and residential flat buildings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

There is no relevant history applicable to the proposed development.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

 

5.1 Objections

 

One submission raising concerns against the proposal was received:

 

Mrs. C Geering – 17 Pacific Street, CLOVELLY NSW 2031

 

Issue

Comment

Query whether the proposed hard stand car space would impact on the disabled driver’s parking space located in front of no. 17 Pacific Street, Clovelly.

The proposal will not impact the disabled driver’s parking space as that space is located in front of No. 17 Pacific Street and not the subject property.

 

5.2 Support

 

No submissions in support of the application were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1 Engineering Issues

 

An application has been received for the construction of a driveway and hardstand car space at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 Statement of Environmental Effects by Ms Rae Morgan;

 Architectural plan 1A by Rae Morgan dated 18 April 2007.

 

Car space Comments

The assessing officer is advised that the Development Engineer does not support the application due to the non compliance of the proposed car space to Australian Standards and the relevant Council’ DCP’s.  The submitted plans show the car space with a length of 4.7m, this dimension is too small and may lead to cars overhanging onto council property and imposing onto the abutting footpath.

 

The assessing officer is advised that the plans do not display dimensions for the driveway, however it should be noted that the driveway must have a minimum width of three metres. Also, an offset of 1m is usually required from the side boundary alongside the carspace; in this case the Development Engineer will support an offset of 0.5m.

 

6.2  BCA Classification

 

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

Dwelling House – Class 1a,

Non-habitable building/structure – Class 10a/10b.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-       Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended;

-      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998;

-      Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, Parking;

-      Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

The DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding preferred solutions. Therefore, the assessment below assesses the proposal against the preferred solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant objectives and performance requirements.

Landscaping

The proposal is considered to be acceptable as the proposal will not significantly reduce landscaping to the subject site and does not propose to remove any trees. Useable outdoor recreation space is available to the rear yard of the subject site and the size and dimensions of landscaping suits the requirements of building occupants.

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The application proposes 1 car parking space; Complies.

S1

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

The proposed dimensions of the car space are 4.75m x 2.7m; Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

No details have been provided for the driveway however the driveway should have a minium width of 3m; Complies.

S1

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

As above: 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.

Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

Car parking is available to the rear of the allotment; Does not comply.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed garage occupies about approx. 51% of the width of the site frontage; Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

The proposed hardstand car space is considered to detract from the character and appearance of the existing pair of semi-detached dwellings and therefore does not comply with the objectives of the DCP. The car space does not comply with the minimum dimensions for a car space and the driveway width occupies 51% of the site frontage which will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and streetscape. Rear lane access is available and it is possible to provide on-site parking at the rear of the subject site. 

 

Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The proposal does not meet the minimum dimensions of 5.5m x 2.5m for a car space as outlined in the DCP for Parking.

 

As there are no existing off street car parking spaces located on the subject site the proposal for one (1) car space for a dwelling house with 3 or more bedrooms is considered to be acceptable.

 

9.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:          Excellence in urban design 

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

 

10. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11. CONCLUSION

 

While the application is permissible with consent in the Residential 2A zone the application is considered to have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the existing pair of semi-detached dwellings and will also have a detrimental impact on the streetscape. Numerous neighbouring properties have utilised the rear lane access via Burnie Lane and Pacific Lane and this is considered to be the preferred solution for the subject site. It is considered that the application will have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties and the streetscape.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/285/2007 for Construction of a hardstand car space with dimensions 4.75m x 2.7m to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling and associated works. at 19 Pacific Street, Clovelly for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed car space does not meet the minimum dimensions for a car space contained in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, and the DCP for Parking;

2.         The proposed dimensions for the hardstand car space do not comply with the relevant Australian Standard;

3.         The proposed car space does not meet the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies – Part 4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways.

4.         The proposal will detract from the appearance of the existing semi-detached dwelling and streetscape.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil .

 

 

 

………………………………

 

 

 

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

MR. SACHA KALESS

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

STUDENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

20 June, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1007/2006 & PROP003171

 

PROPOSAL:

Section 82A Review of Council's decision to refuse the application for attic additions to the approved multi-unit development and amendments which include a reduction in the roof ridge height by 0.250m and the attic ceiling height by 0.3m.

PROPERTY:

 17 Church Street, Randwick NSW 2031

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr J Spiteri

OWNER:

Mr A Gilsenan & Mrs Y Gilsenan

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Section 82A Review application is referred to the Health Building and Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

The original proposal involved the addition of two attics located on the northern and southern side elevations of the roof and a 500mm increase in the overall height of the roof in order to accommodate two attics with 2.4metre high floor to ceiling heights. The application was refused at Councils Health Building and Planning Committee on 27th March 2007 where it was determined that the proposal did not comply with Clause 32- (Floor Space Ratio) of the Randwick Local Environment Plan and the SEPP 1 objection was not well-founded. It is noted Councils Development Assessment officer recommended an approval of the application subject to conditions.

 

The applicant has submitted a review of the refusal on 17th May 2007. The review contains minor modifications to the proposed development via a 250mm reduction in the overall height and incorporation of a slight angle to the attic roof which progressively reduces the floor to ceiling height to 2.1m.

 

The review application was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners and a number of objection letters were received from the northern and southern properties at 15 & 19 Church Street.  The main issues raised in the objections were related to the non-compliance with the floor space ratio, overshadowing, privacy and the general obtrusiveness of the attic additions. These objections are addressed below and should be read in conjunction with the relevant assessment carried out under Clause 32 of RLEP, the accompanying assessment of the SEPP 1 objection to this standard and the assessment under Councils Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

Overall, the bulk and scale of the proposal is considered appropriate having regard to the configuration of the site, the context of the surrounding area and the minimal environmental impacts. As a result it is considered the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the RLEP and Councils Multi Unit Housing DCP.

 

The recommendation is for the original decision for refusal to be rescinded and an approval granted subject to conditions.

 

2.    STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 82A:

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, enables an applicant to request a Review of a Determination of a Development Application or condition/s of Development Consent. Council may accept amendments to the original development proposal if the proposed amendments result in substantially the same development as that originally described in the development application. Council may review the Determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the Determination.

 

3.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The current application seeks a review of the refusal for DA/1007/2006 in conjunction with the following modifications:

 

  a reduction in the main roof pitch which results in an overall building height of 8.95m (RL18.5) or 250mm above the current consent - DA/258/2004 (RL18.25).

  A progressive reduction in the attics floor to ceiling height from 2400mm to 2100mm which results in a maximum external wall height of 8.55m.

 

4.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Church Street between the intersecting streets of Church Street and Cowper Street. The site has a total area of 338.2sqm and is currently occupied by partially constructed multi-unit development containing an attached dual occupancy.

 

The neighbouring property to the south, No. 19 Church Street is a four-storey multi unit development located on the corner of Church and Cowper Street, to the north is a relatively new two storey detached dwelling and to the rear the property adjoins the side elevation of a multi storey flat building fronting Cowper Street (47 Cowper Street). The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of large multi-storey residential flat buildings, detached residential dwellings and smaller scale semi-detached dwellings that range from 1 to 2 storeys. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and the surrounding area. Photo 1 shows a side ways view of the block looking up towards Cowper Street.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of the subject site and the surrounding locality.

 

Photo 1: Photo looking south towards the corner of Cowper and Church Street. This photo shows the corner site at 13 Church Street, 15 Church Street, the subject site (surrounded by scaffolding) and 19 Church Street on the corner of Cowper Street and Church Street.

Photo 2: Northern elevation of 19 Church Street - a part 4/5 level red-brick walk up flat building with ground level garages and units above.

 

5.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

Approval was granted under DA/258/2004 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey attached dual occupancy with two single garages and balconies to the northern and southern elevations. It is noted the original dual occupancy approved an overall height of 8.7m (RL18.25).

 

Subsequent to the above, the application which is the subject of this review (DA/1007/2006) was lodged on 22nd November 2006 and notified to the surrounding properties from 27th November 2006 to 28th February 2007.  Several objections were received during the notification period and each raised concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposal on the character of the established streetscape, the inappropriateness of the proposal specifically with regard to the bulk of the attic additions, overshadowing and privacy impacts.

 

The application was subsequently refused on 8 March 2007 at Council for the following reasons:

 

1.  The proposal has a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.87:1 which exceeds the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1 pursuant to clause 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

2.  The proposal is inconsistent with the stated purpose of Clauses 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (maximum permissible floor space ratio), and the State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection in relation to the proposal’s departure from Clauses 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 is not well founded.

 

3.  The proposed dormers and roof form are excessive in bulk and scale and result in adverse overshadowing impacts on the adjoining property at No. 19 Church St, Randwick.

 

A Section 82A application to review the above determination was lodged on 17th May 2007. The review was notified to the surrounding properties from 28th May 2007 to 6th June 2007. Several objections were received during the notification period and each raised concerns regarding concern the modifications did not go far enough in ameliorating their concerns or the reasons for refusal and the proposal will continue to have excessive overshadowing and privacy impacts. These submissions are addressed below along with an independent assessment of the proposal with particular regard to the potential impact of the proposal on the character of the established streetscape, the appropriateness of the proposal specifically with regard to the FSR standard, the accompanying SEPP 1 objection and Councils Multi-unit Housing DCP.

 

6.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

 

M & S Tanti of 15 Church Street Randwick NSW 2031

Issue

Comment

Not enough space between the buildings

Although side boundary setbacks do not strictly comply with the DCP preferred solution, they are however significant at 2.8m from the side boundaries which, ensures that the overshadowing and visual impact of the attic additions are kept to a minimum thus maintaining reasonable levels of amenity to the objectors premises. It is considered the 2.8m setback provides adequate separation.

The application significantly increases the floor area of the building above the standard

It is acknowledged the proposal results in non-compliance with Councils Floor Space Ratio standard and an assessment has been carried out under Section 9b.

The modifications are not significant enough in order to address Councils reasons for refusal.

Whilst, it is acknowledged the modifications proposed are quite minor there is an improvement to amenity of the adjoining premises, and the proposal under review is reasonable and meets the relevant objectives of the RLEP and Multi-unit Housing DCP.

 

P Morahan 8/19 Church Street Randwick NSW 2031

Issue

Comment

The plans don’t address the issues regarding FSR non-compliance and the reasons for refusal

The shadow diagrams and accompanying statement submitted with the review should be read in conjunction with the originally submitted plans and information and is sufficient to provide an adequate representation of the proposal for an assessment to be carried out.

Loss of privacy

A condition is included requiring the attic windows to be fixed and obscured to a minimum height of 1.6m above the floor level.

Loss of outlook

It is not considered that the proposal will have significant impacts on the outlook of the adjoining property, given the generous separation between the buildings and pattern of development in the area.

Too bulky

Whilst the proposed development may be seen from Church Street, it is not considered to represent a visually dominating presence given the size and stepping of the attics from the side elevations.

The extra floor space should be accommodated within the garages and occupants made to park their vehicles on the street

This is not a reasonable solution as it would place greater reliance and pressure on on-street parking and may lead to an undesirable precedent given that new infill development should accommodate its parking on-site.

The extra floor space should be accommodated within balconies 

This is not an appropriate solution given this will result in a “bulky building with minimal articulation and depth in the facades.

 

 

 

 

W Borg 3/19 Church Street NSW 2031

Issue

Comment

Overshadowing and loss of sunlight

The proposal complies in terms of maintaining at least 3 hours of direct solar access to at least a portion (half) of the objectors north facing windows.

Privacy

As indicated above, privacy concerns are addressed by the inclusion of an appropriate condition.

 

Committee member of SP 8934 – 47 Cowper Street Randwick  NSW 2031

 

Issue

Comment

Overshadowing and loss of sunlight to back units 7, 8, 9 & 10.

It is not considered the proposal will have any appreciable adverse impacts on levels of sunlight on these units. The additional overshadowing continues to comply with Councils Multi Unit Housing DCP controls.

Block views

It is not considered the proposed attic additions will have any appreciable adverse impacts on the views for the following reasons:

  The proposal seeks a minor increase in overall height which remains well within the maximum permissible limits

  the area covered by the attic additions is minimal and current  district views are somewhat obscured by vegetation

 

D Rosenfeld 5/19 Church Street Randwick NSW 2031

Issue

Comment

Amendments don’t provide sufficient attention as to why the proposal was refused that excessive Floor space ratio.

Assessment of the proposal has been carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and attention to the reasons for refusal have been addressed by virtue of this merit based assessment. In particular consideration is given to:

  the stated purpose and objectives of the floor space ratio standard,

  the accompanying SEPP 1 objection and

  Councils DCP - Multi Unit Housing.

 

 

R Sheppard GK Strata Management Pty Ltd on behalf of the owners of 19 Church Street Randwick NSW 2031

Issue

Comment

Overshadowing impacts on the lower level units at 19 Church Street

The proposal complies in terms of maintaining at least 3 hours of direct solar access to at least a portion (half) of the objectors north facing windows along these units

Privacy on the lower level units at 19 Church Street.

Whilst the 8.4m separation between the dwellings does not comply with the preferred solution it is considered  to be adequate separation in combination with a condition requiring the attic windows to be fixed and obscured to a minimum height of 1.6m above the floor level.

It is considered this will alleviate any privacy impacts to a reasonable level.

Garages should incorporate the additional floor space

As discussed above this is an inappropriate solution.

 

P de Permentier 9/19 Church Street Randwick NSW 2031

Issue

Comment

Excessive FSR

These issues are addressed above. Concerns regarding the outlook of the particular unit, loss of sunlight and privacy concerns are relatively similar to those identified by the owners of unit 8/19 Church Street.

Loss of privacy

Loss of outlook

Loss of sunlight

Convert garages into habitable space

 

7.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was not required to be referred to any technical officers

 

8.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

9.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

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

 

-   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-   Building Code of Australia.

-   Development Control Plan– Multi Unit Housing

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 – FSR

0.65:1

0.866:1

No1

33 - Building Height

12m overall

 

8.55m

Yes

 

10m external wall height

7.85m

Yes

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

No

NA

43

Heritage Item of Conservation Area

No

NA

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

No

NA

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

 

(b)          State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards

 

Floor Space Ratio

The proposed development provides a floor space ratio of 0.866:1, which does not comply with the limit of 0.65:1 required under Clause 32 of the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998 (RLEP). The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 32 of RLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

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

The floor space ratio control in question is a development standard contained in RLEP.

 

2.         The purpose of the standard, as outlined in RLEP, is:

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

 

3.        Consistency of the development with aims of the policy and objects of the Act

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the purpose of the clause, in that:

 

i.        The proposal represents a suitable in-fill development of the site acting as a transition from the larger development from the south at 19 Church Street to 15 Church Street which is occupied by a two storey dwelling whose garage is built along the adjoining side boundary. To achieve this, the attics are constrained to the sides of the roof line with a minimal increase in the overall height of the roof so as not to dominate the front elevation or create excess bulk. As such the overall bulk and scale of the development is consistent with surrounding development.

 

ii.       The proposed density of the attic can be accommodated on the site and will provide good amenity to future residents without impacting significantly or unreasonably on the amenity of adjoining residents with respect to loss of privacy and overshadowing which are generally indicative of the adverse impacts of excessive floor space.

 

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

 

“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 and would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii), specifically, in that the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic development of the subject land.

 

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

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed floor space ratio control would be unreasonable and unnecessary on the subject site given that the additional floor space continues to achieve the associated objectives of the standard in that:

 

o        The attached attics step-in which breaks down the elevations into well proportioned elements that reduce the scale of the building in the street from the side elevations. This means they will not be immediately noticeable from the street and therefore not causing any dominating influence along the Church Street frontage.

 

o        The increase in overall height is minimal and the development as a whole substantially complies with the overall and external wall height standards in the RLEP

 

o        The proposal generally complies with Council’s DCP policy controls with particular regard to overshadowing. It is noted that although side boundary setbacks do not strictly comply with the DCP preferred solution, they are however significant at 2.8m from the side boundaries which ensures reasonable levels of  solar access lowest level units north facing windows at 19 Church Street.

 

o        There are no significant views affected by the proposal.

 

o        There would be no public benefit in ensuring compliance with the development standard in this particular instance given the bulk and scale and nature of the dwellings on surrounding sites means that it is unlikely to lead to an undesirable precedent

 

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

 

5.         Whether the objection is well founded

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

 

o       Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly

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

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

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

 

o    the proposed non-compliance does not result in any inconsistencies with the objective for the 2C Zone in which the site is located or the general objectives for the built and natural environment and amenity, or the assumed objectives of the floor space ratio standard

o    the extent of the non-compliances and the additional floor area does not result in any substantive adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing to adjoining developments

o    the developments approach best addresses the sites context and the proposal will provide a design that is sympathetic to the existing character of the area

 

On the basis of the above, it is considered that the applicants SEPP 1 objection to the maximum floor space of 0.65:1 is well founded and should be supported considering the proposed attic addition satisfies the objectives of the 2C Zone of the RLEP, and that under the above circumstances of the case compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, legal advice provided to Council considers that the draft SEPP should not be given any significant weight, as its final form is neither imminent not certain and would not apply given that 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, in particular its scale and form within the streetscape. A thorough assessment of the proposal against the existing provisions of SEPP No.1 and against Council’s statutory control and its objectives has been made in Section 9 (b) ) of this report.

 

9.1 Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan No. Multi Unit Housing

 

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

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Height

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

The proposed development has an overall building height of 8.95m (RL18.5). Complies

The proposed development has an external wall height of 8.55m. Complies.

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

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

Behind the main building line

Complies.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

o        Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

o        Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

o        Landscaping and private open space provided.

Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

The setbacks do not achieve the preferred solution with a maximum setback of 2.8m with an average of 1.8m and 1.64m to the northern and southern boundaries respectively. Whilst numerically this does not satisfy the preferred solution, it is considered that  the setbacks are significant given the narrowness of the site at only 13.87m and

 

 

adequate separation exists between the northern and southern buildings in terms of visual and acoustic privacy.

In addition, the proposal satisfies Councils requirements for solar access and general amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

Therefore the proposed development is considered satisfactory in relation to the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for building setbacks.

Density

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

0.65:1

0.866:1. Does not comply. See assessment above in Section 9(b).

 

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

Windows and balconies of main living areas are located to avoid overlooking windows in adjoining dwellings and private open space.

S1  Offset, angle or screen windows with less than 10m separation. Sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level.

Southern elevation

 

Given the attic windows on the southern elevation are primarily at similar levels to the lowest level units at 19 Church Street, it is considered that in order to maintain reasonable levels of privacy that these windows shall be fixed and obscured to 1.6m height above the attic floor level. 

 

 

Northern elevation

There are no privacy concerns regarding the north facing windows given that if any overlooking is to occur, it will primarily be either over the adjoining dwelling or onto to the adjoining dwellings roof.

View Sharing

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

Given the overall maximum building height of 8.95m (RL18.5) will only result in an increase of 250mm above the currently approved height under DA/258/2004 (RL18.25), and the minimal scale of the attic additions, it is considered the proposal will continue to comply with the relevant performance requirements and objectives of the DCP.

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

P3  Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

Complies.

The shadow elevations submitted with the review indicate that overshadowing will fall over the northern elevation of No. 19 Church Street. Whilst the shadow elevations do not show the exact shadow cast along the northern face of No. 19 Church Street, they do give an accurate representation of the suns angle and the shadows cast at certain points throughout the day at 9am, 10am, 12noon and 3pm.

 

At 9am and 3pm the angle of the sun will result in overshadowing to the entire elevation of the lowest level units at 19 Church Street. From 10am to 2pm, the suns angle indicates that the proposed additions will provide solar access to at least the upper-half of north facing windows within these units. Complies

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

P1.2  Living areas of neighbours’ dwellings receive 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface throughout the year. If less currently available, the amount is not reduced.

P1.3  Neighbour’s principal private outdoor open space receives 3 hours of sunlight over at least 50% of its area throughout the year. If less currently available, the amount is not reduced.

 

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.

 

11. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:   Excellence in Urban Design & Development.

Direction:    Improved sustainability and design across all development.

 

12. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13. CONCLUSION

 

It is noted the original consent issued for the multi-unit development did not comply with the standard with an FSR of 0.766:1. In this respect, the original consent provided justification on the basis that the 2C zoning generally allows for larger types of developments and that the scale of the proposed development fitted in with the existing flat buildings in the surrounding area namely that of 19 Church and those north and east of the subject site. As a result, it was considered unnecessary and unreasonable for the standard to apply.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged, the subject application for an attic addition considerably increases the variation to the FSR standard, it is considered unnecessary and unreasonable for the standard to apply and for the application to be refused on the basis of non compliance with the development standard due to the following reasons:

 

 

 

 

 

It is therefore considered the proposed attics will not have any adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the character of the locality and the bulk and scale is considered to be consistent with the surrounding locality. On review of the determination of the development application particularly in regard to a merit based assessment and the reasons for refusal, it is recommended that the original determination be rescinded and the proposal be approved subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council support objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the objective of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     THAT Council’s original Determination of Development Application No DA/1007/2006, dated 27th March 2007 for Section 82A Review of Council's decision to refuse the application for attic additions to the approved multi-unit development and amendments which include a reduction in the roof ridge height by 0.250m and the attic ceiling height by 0.3m.  be rescinded.

 

C.     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/1007/2006 & PROP003171 for Section 82A Review of Council's decision to refuse the application for attic additions to the approved multi-unit development and amendments which include a reduction in the roof ridge height by 0.250m and the attic ceiling height by 0.3m.  at 17 Church Street, Randwick NSW 2031 subject to the following conditions:-

 

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

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 04.116A, dated April 2004 and received by Council on the 22nd November 2006 as amended by “Shadow Elevation” plans received by Council on the 17th May 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 colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape

 

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

 

3.     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.     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.

 

5.     To maintain a reasonable level of privacy to the adjoining properties the attic windows shall be fixed and obscured to a minimum height of 1600mm as measured from floor level.  Details shall be provided on the plans accompanying the Construction Certificate application.

 

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

 

6.     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.

 

7.     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.

 

8.     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.

 

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.

 

9.     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.

 

10.    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.

 

11.    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:

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”.

 

12.    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 relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

13.    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.

 

14.    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):

 

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

o        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:

 

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

o        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.

 

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:

 

15.    The storage, handling and disposal of building 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:

 

o        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

o        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

o        Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

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

o        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.

 

16.    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.

 

17.    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.

 

18.    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.

 

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.

 

19.    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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

21.    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:-

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

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

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

ELIAS COOREY

DIRECTOR,  CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

21 June, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/211/2007 & PROP018339

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and rear ground and first floor additions to existing dwelling including new double garage at rear.

PROPERTY:

 135 Doncaster Avenue, KENSINGTON  NSW  2033

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Archman Design Services

OWNER:

Miss L W Y Lo

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The application was lodged on 22nd March 2007 and notified to the surrounding properties from 27th March 2007 to 18th April 2007. Two submissions were received raising concerns regarding overshadowing and privacy impacts.

 

In regard to overshadowing, it is considered that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on this basis or to require large scale amendments for the following reasons:

 

o        the proposal is considered to fit in reasonably well with the scale of other developments within the immediate locality

o        the proposal largely complies with Councils preferred solutions for the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP, in particular Height, Landscaped area and Floor Space Ratio.

o        the east-west or orientation of the site and the sloping nature of the site mean that solar access to subfloor areas of adjoining development are difficult maintain

 

In regard to privacy impacts, conditions have been included in order to mitigate privacy impacts.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered a reasonable development of the site and the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to carry out alterations and rear ground and first floor additions to existing dwelling including new double garage at rear.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Doncaster Avenue between Roma Avenue and Koorinda Avenue in Kensington and is presently occupied by an existing split level part one part two storey dwelling as a result of the sites down slope from street level.  The site has a frontage width of 14.325m, a side boundary depth of 42.720m and has an overall site area of 611.5m².  Neighbouring the property to the north is a single storey dwelling, to the south is split level dwelling house and to the rear is a 6.05m wide stormwater channel easement which also runs across the rear of adjoining sites. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of single and two storey dwellings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

The application was lodged on 22nd March 2007 and notified to the surrounding properties from 27th March 2007 to 18th April 2007.  Two (2) objections were received during the notification period. Concerns were raised regarding the potential impact of the proposal with regard overshadowing and privacy impacts.

 

It is noted a submission from the neighbouring southern site at 137 Doncaster Avenue proposed modifications in order to maintain solar access to the rear ground level and sought mediation with the applicants who subsequently indicated they did not feel it was necessary on the grounds the proposal was considered reasonable. All submissions are addressed below along with an assessment of the development with particular regard to the appropriateness of the proposal in terms of compliance with the objectives of RLEP and Councils Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

 

C Dodgson – 137 Doncaster Avenue Kensington NSW 2033

Issue

Comment

Privacy impacts from proposed first floor balcony

In order to minimise privacy impacts, 1.8m privacy screens shall be installed on the balconies northern and southern sides.

12noon shadow is lower than the 3pm shadow

The shadow diagrams have been checked and provide an accurate representation of the overshadowing impact.

The family room on the first floor level at the rear enjoys solar access from 9am to 12noon and the proposal will completely cut out solar access during this time to the upper level bedroom and subfloor study room windows.

An assessment of overshadowing to these windows is contained in Section 8.1 under Solar Access and energy efficiency.

 

Mr P J Whitty – 21 Mooramie Avenue Kensington NSW 2033

Issue

Comment

Privacy concerns

It is considered there is more than adequate separation of 22m between the balcony and the objectors property to provide reasonable levels of privacy.

Excessive removal of trees will create a sterile back yard

Councils Landscape Engineer has carried out an assessment in Section 6.1 below, which includes the requirement for planting of replacement trees.

Relocate the garage to opposite side of back yard

Siting the garage at its currently proposed north-western corner is preferred, as the opposite corner will require the driveway to either dissect the private open space or have to wrap around the perimeter of the private open space and will result in a significant reduction of private open space and permeable treatment to the site.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1 Engineering Issues

The application has been referred to Development Engineering for comment, and the following were provided:

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions including the construction of a two storey addition to the rear of the existing house and the construction of a double garage at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

o        Survey plan 7698 by CBD Surveying Services dated 22 February 2007;

o        Architectural plan 07/009-01 by Archman Design Services dated 01 March 2007;

o        Statement of Environmental Effects by Archman Design Services dated March 2007

 

o     Landscape Issues

While there are no existing trees on Council’s Doncaster Avenue nature strip in front of the subject site, Schinus areira (Peppercorn Tree’s) have been planted elsewhere along the length of this street, and in order to maintain consistency in the streetscape, the requirement for the applicant to cover Council’s costs for installing a new street tree has been included in this report.

 

There is one Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) in the front yard, near the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, as well as another one in the rear yard, in the southwest corner of the site. This species is exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and while consent is not required for their removal, irrespective of the proposed works, permission has still been included for the information of the applicant.

 

In the rear yard, at the western end of the existing internal driveway, there is one Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) of about 4 metres in height which is too small to be covered by the TPO, and appears in poor condition with a large amount of deadwood as a result of poor past pruning methods, and as such, Council would not object to its removal to accommodate the proposed works as shown.

 

In the rear yard of the adjoining property to the south, 137 Doncaster Avenue, against the common boundary, there is one Eucalyptus cinerea (Argyle Apple) of approximately 8 metres in height which appears in reasonable condition, with an amount deadwood throughout its canopy which is considered normal with this species, and is covered by the TPO.

 

The southwest corner of the proposed dwelling encroaches slightly beneath the northeast quarter of its canopy, and in order to avoid interference and possible damage during the course of construction, permission has been included for minimal pruning by a qualified Arborist, as the amount required was not assessed to pose a threat to the health or stability of this tree.

 

Similarly, only minimal excavation will be required for the brick pier associated with the stairs off the rear of the proposed addition, with protection measures not required.

 

On the opposite side of the rear yard, towards the northwest corner of the site, there is one Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel) of approximately 8 metres in height with a canopy spread of 6 metres, which while appearing in reasonable condition and being covered by Council’s TPO, is considered an environmental weed in most instances in the Randwick LGA due to its weed like properties and ability to spread and invade areas of remnant native bushland.

 

Concurrence of the adjoining property owner to the north, 133 Doncaster Avenue, would be required should removal be sought given that the site inspection appeared to show the trunk of this tree growing right on the common boundary (given the irregular placement of the existing timber pailing fence).

 

However, the submitted site survey actually shows the trunk being located wholly within the subject site, and while being a reasonably sized specimen, which provides partial screening of between the subject site and those properties on the opposite side of the drainage canal, Council would not raise any objections to its removal in order to accommodate the proposed garage and associated driveway as shown, subject to a more appropriate native specimen being provided elsewhere within the rear yard in order to maintain a reasonable level of environmental amenity at the site.

 

o     Drainage Issues

Council’s Assets Drainage Engineer has advised that the Kensington Flood study is still a while off being completed, as the proposed garage at the rear of the site is to be constructed approximately 0.80m – 1.00m above the top of the drainage canal at the rear of the site and due a flood study was not requested. The application has been conditioned to ensure the top of the footings for the garage are at least 200mm below the existing ground level to ensure scouring/undermining of the footings does not occur.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

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

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

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

-   Building Code of Australia.

-   BASIX

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

The site is zoned Residential No. 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

 

Clause 10 Residential 2A zone

The objectives of the 2A Zone as detailed in Clause 10 of the LEP are that the character of established residential areas are maintained, the redevelopment for low density housing forms will not compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential areas and will be compatible with the dominant character of existing development and that a range of activities may be carried out from residents homes which will not likely adversely affect the environment of the locality.

 

It is considered the proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed residential activity and built form will be compatible with the established pattern of development along this stretch of Doncaster Avenue whereby land levels slope away from the street, and the environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality will be reasonably maintained.

 

(b) State Environment Planning Policy (Building sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for alterations and additions valued at $100,000 or more and where development applications were lodged on or after 1 October 2006.

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions valued at $100,000 or more and the applicant has provided a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP.  The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development. The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction.

 

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

 

8.1 Policy Controls

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

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

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

41.8 % 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 147.1m². 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 19 x 7.5 metres. Complies

S1

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

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

The majority of the sites landscaped open space is permeable. Complies

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

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

The proposed development is considered satisfactory in relation to the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Landscaping.

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed FSR is 0.408:1. Complies

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

The proposed development is considered satisfactory in relation to the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Floor area.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 5.25 metres. Complies

S1

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

The external wall height of the garage to the rear is a maximum of 4.9m along the western rear elevation, does not comply. See assessment below

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Complies.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Excavation for the garage footings occurs at 250mm from the northern side and western rear boundary, does not comply. It is considered acceptable as an appropriate condition is included to ensure the excavation works are executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards, and that excavations are properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

As indicated above in Section 6.1 - Drainage issues:- The application has been conditioned to ensure the top of the footings for the garage are at least 200mm below the existing ground level to ensure scouring/undermining of the footings does not occur. This will ensure no undermining of the surrounding ground levels.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

See above.

S4

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

The entire upper level is setback 1.14 metres from the southern side boundary and it has an overall length of less than 12metres and therefore partly complies. A discussion on non-complying side setbacks is contained below under Building setbacks.

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

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

The non-complying external wall height of the garage to the rear is considered acceptable given a significant amount of landscaped screening is located on the adjoining site, and the fact that the rear boundary is bounded by 6.1m wide stormwater channel. It is considered the non-compliance will not have any adverse impacts on the adjoining properties.

The proposed development is considered satisfactory in relation to the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Building Heights, form and materials.

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.

The proposed rear subfloor and upper level addition is 16.7 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

The proposed garage is approximately 250mm from the rear boundary and does not comply. However given the garage adjoins a stormwater channel at the rear and structures are generally located at the

 

 

rear of adjoining sites it is considered to meet the relevant performance requirements and objectives of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

S3

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

The proposed development is set back at least 1.14 metres from the side boundaries. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 1.14 metres from the southern side boundary. Does not Comply. See assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

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

The proposed upper level addition is setback 1.14m from the southern side boundary which does not comply with the preferred 1.5m setback.

It is considered that were the proposed rear additions required to be setback 1.5m from the side southern side boundary, there would be not be any appreciable benefits of solar access given that the cause of the overshadowing is primarily a result of the orientation of the site. Furthermore, in order for solar access to be maintained to the subfloor areas of the adjoining property the proposal will need to increase the side setback beyond the 1.5m preferred solution and a significant portion of the upper level addition would need to be deleted.

It is therefore considered that in this instance the non-compliance with the preferred solutions is reasonable as the proposal meets the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses.

 

 

 

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 have habitable room windows (W3 & W4) that overlook those of adjoining dwellings within 9 metres. Does not comply. See assessment below.

S1

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

The upper level rear balcony will overlook the rear yard areas of the adjoining property at 137 Doncaster Avenue. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

The proposal has kitchen windows (W3 & W4) with sill heights less than the preferred solution. Does not comply. See assessment below.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

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

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

The proposed rear upper level balcony has a direct outlook into the rear yard areas and habitable rooms of the adjoining properties. In order to mitigate any unreasonable privacy impacts, a condition is included requiring 1.8m privacy screens be installed along the balconies eastern and western side elevations.

In respect to the kitchen windows (W3 and W4), a condition is included requiring that they be fixed and obscured to a height of 1.5m in order to maintain reasonable levels of privacy to the adjoining premises.

As a result, the inclusion of these conditions will mitigate any privacy concerns and ensure the proposal meets the relevant performance requirements and objectives of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Complies.

S1

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

Complies.

S1

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

The proposed extended driveway complies.

S1

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

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

S1

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

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

S1

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

Complies.

S2

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

Complies.

S2

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

The proposed garage is located behind the building line. Complies.

S2

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

Complies

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

BASIX.

A BASIX certificate has been submitted with the proposal.

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

The proposal will not reduce solar access to less than 3 hours on north-facing upper level bedroom window to the neighbouring dwelling at 137 Doncaster Avenue. Complies.

The proposal however will reduce solar access to less than 3 hours to the lower subfloor level study window of the adjoining premises at 137 Doncaster Avenue. Does not comply. See assessment below.

S9

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

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

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

In respect to the subfloor study window of the adjoining property, the shadow diagrams indicate the proposal will result in complete overshadowing. Notwithstanding this, east-west configured sites invariably cause overshadowing to properties to the south, and overshadowing becomes significantly more severe where developments are for upper level additions. In respect to the subject proposal, it is considered that overshadowing to the subfloor study window is largely unavoidable and is not considered to provide sufficient grounds to warrant significant amendments or a recommendation for refusal for the following reasons:

  Subfloor areas are generally not areas that receive large levels of solar access

  the rear extent of the proposal is generally compatible with the existing rear setback of buildings along this stretch of Doncaster Avenue (see aerial photo below)

  the proposed development complies with the key controls of Height, Landscaped area and Floor Space Ratio contained in Councils DCP-Dwelling Houses.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in urban design.

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

 

11. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12. CONCLUSION

 

The main issue in the assessment of the proposal is the overshadowing impact on the adjoining property to the south. The impact is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

  the subject site is configured in an east-west direction and combined with its split level at the rear means that overshadowing to properties to the south and particularly subfloor areas are unavoidable and difficult to prevent due to the building envelope envisaged under the DCP-Dwelling Houses.

 

  the proposed development is relatively in line with the existing rear setbacks and rear bulk of developments along this stretch of Doncaster Avenue,

 

  The proposal is compliant within the DCP-Preferred Solutions for Floor Space, Height and Landscaped Area.

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA/211/2007 for Alterations and rear ground and first floor additions to existing dwelling including new double garage at rear. at 135 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 07/009-01 to 07/009-04, all dated 1 March 2007 and received by Council on 22nd March 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.       Privacy screens having a height of 1.8m shall be provided to the northern and southern edges of the proposed upper level rear balcony. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

3.       The sill height of windows W3 and W4 to the kitchen along the southern elevation and window W1 along the northern elevation shall be increased to be a minimum height of 1.5m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8.       The proposed rumpus room shall not be let, adapted or used for separate residential occupation or commercial purposes at any time.

 

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

 

9.       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

 

10.     The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works

 

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

 

11.     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 drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

12.     The top of the footings for the rear of the garage are to be constructed at least 200mm below the existing ground level at this location which is approximately RL 21.70 AHD

 

13.     Stormwater runoff from the site shall be discharged either

 

a.       To the kerb and gutter along the site frontage by gravity (without the use of a charged system); OR

 

b.       Through a private drainage easement(s) to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system); OR

 

c.       To a suitably sized infiltration area. As a guide the infiltration area shall be sized based on a minimum requirement of 1 m2 of infiltration area (together with 1 m3 of storage volume) for every 20 m2 of roof/impervious area on the site. Infiltration systems shall be located a minimum 2.1 metres from any side or rear boundary and 3 metres from adjoining structures.

 

Prior to the use of infiltration in rear draining lots (where there is no formal overland escape route to Council’s kerb and gutter/street drainage system),  a geotechnical investigation will be required to determine whether the ground is suitable for infiltration. Should rock and/or a water table be encountered within two metres of the proposed base of the infiltration pit, or the ground conditions comprise low permeability soils such as clay, infiltration may not be appropriate.

 

NOTE: Should the applicant be unable to obtain a private drainage easement over properties to the rear of the development site (to facilitate stormwater discharge in accordance with option b)); and ground conditions preclude the use of infiltration (Option c), consideration may be given to the use of a charged system or a pump out system to drain that portion of the site that cannot be drained by gravity to the kerb and gutter at the front of the property.

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management

 

15.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $107.25 (including GST) to Council:

 

a.       Being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre street tree, Schinus areira (Peppercorn Tree) to the south of the existing vehicular crossing at the completion of all works ($97.50 + GST).

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income account no 4001.768401 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant will be required to contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613, giving at least two working weeks notice, to arrange for the provision of a replacement street tree upon completion of all site works.

 

16.     Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 1 x 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) broad canopied replacement tree (not a palm) within the rear yard of the site, using a native species which will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity. The selected species and its proposed location shall be clearly represented on the plans submitted for the construction certificate application, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority:

 

a)       One Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) in the front yard, near the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, as well as another one in the rear yard, in the southwest corner of the site, as this species is exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

 

b)       One Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel) in the rear yard, towards the northwest corner of the site, hard up against the common boundary, due to being listed as an environmental weed in the Randwick LGA, as well as to accommodate the proposed garage and driveway in the location shown.

 

17.     Permission is granted for the minimal and selective pruning of only those lower growing, overhanging branches from the northeast quarter of the Eucalyptus cinerea (Argyle Apple) located in the rear yard of the adjoining property to the south, 137 Todman Avenue, close to the common boundary, which need to be specifically removed in order to avoid damage/conflict during the course of the proposed works

 

18.     This approval does not imply any right of entry onto a neighbouring property nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary; however, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, it shall be necessary for the applicant to negotiate with the tree owner

 

19.     All pruning must be undertaken by a professional Arborist, who holds a minimum of AQF Level IV in Arboriculture, and is a registered member of a nationally recognized organisation, to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

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

 

20.     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 imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

•        Stormwater management (i.e. rainwater tanks)

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

•        Landscaping provisions

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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.

 

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.

 

30.     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.

 

31.     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.

 

32.     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”.

 

33.     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.

 

34.     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.

 

35.     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.

 

36.     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.

 

37.     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:

 

38.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials (including asbestos) 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:

 

o        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

o        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

o        Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

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

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

 

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

 

39.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

         

42.     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.

 

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.

 

43.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

45.     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:-

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

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

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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