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

 

 

7 August 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, 14TH AUGUST 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 10TH JULY 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 - 88 BEACH STREET, COOGEE.

2

6.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 80 VICTORIA STREET, MALABAR.

23

6.3                   

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 7 TOWER STREET, COOGEE.

35

6.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 51-53 ENDEAVOUR AVENUE, LA PEROUSE.

 

67

6.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 215A ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON.

101

6.6                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 18-20 ALISON ROAD, RANDWICK.

163

6.7                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 151 BEACH STREET, COOGEE.

167

6.8                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 138 COOGEE BAY ROAD, COOGEE.

176

6.9                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 109 PAINE STREET, MAROUBRA.

180

 

7           Miscellaneous

 

7.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 23/2007 - APEC PUBLIC HOLIDAY.

188

7.2                      

DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING REPORT 49/2007 - DRAFT DCP LICENSED PREMISES

190

7.3                      

DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING REPORT 50/2007 -   LEP AMENDMENT No. 40 - FORMER MATRAVILLE INCINERATOR LAND AND AMENDMENT TO DCP - EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT.

196

 

8           Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

……………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

7 May, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/912/2003/A & PROP019320

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(AA) - Internal and external modifications including a new bedroom to Unit 1, reconfiguration of existing units to levels 1, 2 and 3, new rear balcony to 2nd floor bedroom and new discharge point for mechanical ventilation stack of roof.

PROPERTY:

 88 Beach Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Seaside Developments Pty

OWNER:

 Proprietors Of SP 52277

 

 

 

 

 

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 make modifications to the approved development which was granted development consent to demolish the existing residential flat building and erect a new three and part four storey multi-unit housing development containing six dwellings and car parking for ten vehicles with access to Beach Lane. The modifications include various internal modifications, a new bedroom to Unit 1 located at basement level, a new third floor balcony to the rear of the building and an exhaust flue to the roof.

 

The Section 96 application was lodged on 11 April 2007 and notified to the surrounding properties and advertised in the Southern Courier newspaper from 2 May to 16 May 2007. Three objections were received during the notification period raising concerns that the proposed increase in the FSR of the site will adversely impact the surrounding properties, the proposed columns to the basement car parking will render several parking spaces inaccessible and that the proposed rear balcony would have a significant visual privacy impact. The application was referred to the 7 May 2007 SEPP 65 Design Review Panel (DRP) as the proposal involved changes that affected the external appearance of the building and made some changes to the internal configuration of the dwellings.

 

The DRP comments raised minor issues regarding the placement of the basement floor bathrooms and their lack of natural ventilation as well as other comments regarding the internal amenity of the proposed basement level living rooms. Generally the comments are supportive of the application and do not raise any significant issues that require further attention. As such, amendments to the proposal were not required.

 

The proposal will involve the creation of a new bedroom to Unit 1 at basement level resulting in an increase to the floor space ratio of the site from 0.91:1 to 0.97:1, or 60.4sqm. Although this is a further increase to an existing non-compliance, it is considered that the additional floor area is partially below ground level and will not contribute to the overall bulkiness of the building. The external modifications of the approved development are relatively minor and will not impact adversely upon the amenity of the area, visual privacy or solar access of neighbouring dwellings. The other changes proposed are generally internal reconfigurations that improve the accessibility within the units and make more efficient use of the internal space. As such the proposed modifications are considered acceptable.

 

The recommendation is for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application is seeking to make modifications to the approved development which  was granted development consent to demolish the existing residential flat building and erect a new three and part four storey multi-unit housing development containing six dwellings and basement car parking for nine vehicles with access to Beach Lane. The modifications include in detail the following works:

 

Basement level

-   Various new column placements;

-   Provision of a wall to enclose the garbage room;

-   Provision of a hose and tap to the garbage room;

-   Provision of two (2) vertical bike racks within the parking area;

-   Provision of a plant room and ducting adjacent to the lift;

-   Excavation to the north of Unit 1 (beneath first floor above), to incorporate a new bedroom, ensuite, laundry, bathroom, cloak/storeroom and terrace;

-   Internal reconfiguration of Unit 1;

-   Two (2) new columns to the living room external walls; and

-   Minor additional excavation in the lobby area to the north of the lift.

 

First floor

-   Raise the level of the car lift by 200mm to RL 50.500;

-   Internal reconfiguration of bedrooms 1 and 2 to Unit 2 to allow for the provision of a new walk-in-robe and study;

-   New column to Unit 2 dining room;

-   Reconfiguration to the shape of the planter bed to the south of Unit 2;

-   Reconfiguration of stair within the common circulation core and provision of new store;

-   Reconfiguration of kitchen to Unit 2a;

-   Reconfiguration of bathroom and laundry to Unit 2a;

-   Provision of built-in wardrobes to bedrooms 2 and 3 in Unit 2a;

-   Provision of a new sun hood adjacent to the northern side of the living room of Unit 2a;

-   Reduction in size of door between the upper deck and living room of Unit 2a;

-   Two (2) new columns to the decks of Unit 2a; and

-   Minor shift in location of stair between the lower and upper decks of Unit 2a.

 

Second floor

-   Provision of new single carport to the visitor/carwash bay fronting onto Beach Lane;

-   Conversion of western deck to Unit 3 to a robe and ensuite;

-   Provision of a new hood over part of the southern deck to Unit 3 for vertical fire protection;

-   Provision of flooring over the small void adjacent to the lift;

-   Relocation of built-in wardrobes in bedrooms 2 and 3 in Unit 3a;

-   Reconfiguration of kitchen to Unit 3a;

-   Reconfiguration of laundry and bathroom to Unit 3a;

-   Minor shift in location of stair between the lower and upper decks of Unit 3a; and

-   Reduction in size of door between the upper deck and living room of Unit 3a.

 

Third floor

-   Provision of a new west-facing deck off bedroom 1;

-   Change to floor covering adjacent to bedroom 2; and

-   Reconfiguration of door and built-in wardrobe locations to bedroom 3.

 

Roof level

-   Provision of discharge point for mechanical ventilation stack.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Beach Street slightly north of its intersection with Arcadia Street. The site contains a rectangular shaped allotment with dimensions 17.01m x 48.16m (southern side boundary)/48.925m (northern side boundary) with a total area of 820.3 sqm. The site level falls 8.5m from the rear to the front of the site and has a cross fall of 1.5m from the north to the southern boundary. The site contains a two storey residential flat building with a double garage at the rear which is accessed off Beach lane. The site is located behind a high retaining wall that fronts Beach Street and there is a considerable drop of some 4m – 5m from the footpath to the actual carriageway. Several large trees are located at the site including a pine tree at the front of the site and a palm tree at the rear of the site.

Development adjacent to the site is a three storey multi-unit housing development to the south which curves around the corner of Beach Street and Arcadia Street and a part three part/four storey residential flat building to the north known as “Wandal”. Both of these buildings have a front setback to Beach Street of approximately 6m – 6.5m. Development to the rear of the site across Beach Lane is a two storey dwelling which has a balcony that captures extensive views over the development at 90-96 Beach Street towards the Ocean and Coogee. Across Beach Street to the east are one and two storey dwellings. The area consists of a mix of residential uses and scales from single detached dwellings to four and five storey multi-unit housing developments.

 

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

 

Figure 1: The subject site from Beach Street, obscured by a large Pine tree. The building to the right is the adjoining residential flat building “Wandal” at 84 Beach Street.

4.    SITE HISTORY

4.1      Application History

The Section 96 application was lodged on 11 April 2007 and notified to the surrounding properties and advertised in the Southern Courier newspaper from 2 May to 16 May 2007. Three objections were received during the notification period raising concerns that the proposed increase in the FSR of the site will adversely impact the surrounding properties, the proposed columns to the basement car parking would render several parking spaces inaccessible and that the power pole to the rear of the site would not be placed underground as required in the original application. The application was referred to the 7 May 2007 SEPP 65 Design Review Panel (DRP) as the proposal involved changes that affected the external appearance of the building and made some changes to the internal configuration of the dwellings.

 

The comments received from the DRP are included in section 9.3.1 of this report. The comments generally raise minor issues regarding the placement of the ground floor bathrooms and their lack of natural ventilation as well as other comments regarding the internal amenity of the proposed ground level living rooms. Generally the comments are supportive of the application and do not raise any significant issues that require further attention. As such, amendments to the proposal were not required.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 10 July 2007 that made changes to the arrangement of parking spaces at basement level following concerns from Council’s Development Engineer that the proposed additional columns would restrict the movement and manoeuvrability of vehicles entering and leaving the basement car parking area. The amended plans were reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and no objection was raised to the amended layout as long as two conditions were included in the development consent requiring minor modification to some spaces and a transition section diagram to be provided prior to the construction certificate being issued.

 

Figure 2: The subject site and surrounding area.

 

4.2      History of Site Usage

Previous applications submitted for development on the site includes:

Development No.

Description

Determination

BC/111/1993

Two storey brick residential flat building with tile roof

Approved on 12 May 1993

DA/573/1995

Strata subdivide existing two storey residential flat building into 4 new allotments

Approved on 13 December 1995

DA/587/1998

New brick front retaining wall to residential flat building.

Approved on 7 August 1998

PL/14/2003

Demolish existing building and erect multi unit development of 7 units with basement parking.

Cancelled on 23 April 2003

DA/912/2003

Section 96(AA) - Internal and external modifications including a new bedroom to Unit 1, reconfiguration of existing units to levels 1, 2 and 3, new rear balcony to 2nd floor bedroom and new discharge point for mechanical ventilation stack of roof.

Refused by Council at the Ordinary Council meeting 14 December 2004. Appeal upheld by Land and Environment Court on 7 September 2005.

 

4.3      History of Previous Approval

 

The original development application was lodged on 7 October 2003 and was notified and advertised on 22 October 2003. The plans were similar to the pre-lodgement plans and Council officers held several meetings with the applicant after the end of the notification dates requesting amendments to the proposal to reduce the height, bulk, scale and associated impacts to adjacent and surrounding properties. In response to meetings with Council officers, several amendments were discussed and plans received on 1 April 2004 reducing the overall height of the proposal, reducing the upper level and number of apartments (This resulted in the deletion of 1 unit, a reduction in FSR from 1.02:1 to 0.91:1 and a reduction in height from 12.9m to 11.8m). The roof terrace was also deleted and the rear of the building further reduced by 570mm by way of amended plans submitted on 9 June 2004.

 

The application was referred to the 14 December 2004 Health, Building and Planing committee meeting where the recommendation of the officer for approval was overturned. The reasons for refusal focussed on the inconsistency of the proposal with the zone objectives, the significant non-compliant FSR and external wall height, poor relationship of the proposal with the subject site and surrounding area, and the general adverse impacts of loss of views, overshadowing and loss of privacy.

 

The applicants appealed Council’s decision at the Land and Environment Court in 2004. Senior Commissioner Dr John Roseth upheld the appeal and deferred commencement consent was granted by the Court on 7 September 2005. The four deferred commencement conditions required changes to the retaining wall to the rear lane, modification to the basement car parking and changes to increase the deep soil landscaped area. The deferred commencement conditions were satisfied by the plans received by Council on 6 June 2006 and the consent was made operable from 26 June 2006.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

M.C. Knibbs – 349A Alison Road, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The statement included with the application refers to a “west facing deck on the third floor, bedroom No. 1” however the objector states that the plans do not indicate this.

The plans indicate a deck to the third floor bedroom 1 and is clearly marked as a requested modification as part of this application.

The additional 60.4sqm of floor area does not consider the floor area of the proposed deck on the third floor and will impact upon the objector’s privacy.

The proposed deck to the rear does not project beyond the existing planter box whilst the proposed modifications will actually provide privacy screens where there were none originally. The additions are contained within the bulk of the approved development and are not considered to adversely affect the amenity of the area. It is noted that the western face of the rear decks will be a significant distance (18m) from the boundary of the objector’s property and the proposed privacy screens will maintain the existing privacy of Beach Lane.

 

John Buchanan – 83 Beach Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposal is not substantially the same development as the approved application.

The proposal is substantially the same as the approved development. See Section 9.1 of this report.

The proposal increases the FSR of the site beyond what is permitted in the zone and is not consistent with the FSR of other residential development in the area, particularly, 80, 82,  84, and 90 to 96 Beach St.

The proposed increase in the floor area is manifested primarily in the basement level of the development and will not contribute to an increase in the bulkiness or height of the approved development. It is not considered that the additional floor area of the development will adversely or significantly impact the amenity, visual or acoustic privacy and solar access of the neighbouring dwellings.

The proposal will result in two, two bedroom apartments, and four, three bedroom apartments, hence, “The deficit of parking space would be exacerbated.”

The proposed modifications will not result in a deficit in on-site parking. See Section 9.4.2 of this report.

The proposed columns to the basement parking spaces should be assessed against the stricter 2004 Australian Standards for off-street car parking as they do not comply.

The amended plans received by Council on 10 July 2007 have amended the basement parking configuration to Council’s Development Engineer’s satisfaction.

 

Joanne Harkness and Paul Worchester – Address not provided.

 

Issue

Comment

Concerned that the power pole near the site on Beach Lane will not be placed underground as required in the original application.

The proposed modifications do not relate to the existing power pole to Beach Lane.

 

 

 

 

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

6.1      Development Engineers

 

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

 

An amended Section 96 Application has been received to amend the development consent for construction of a multi unit development at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·         Plans by geoform design architects  issue g dated 10/7/07;

·         Covering letter / SEE prepared by SPD Town Planners.

 

General Comments

In response to concerns raised by the Development Engineer a meeting was held with the applicant’s architect, planning consultant and traffic consultant on 29/6/07.

 

Resulting from this meeting the amended application was developed and the following changes were made from the original Section 96 Application:

 

 

The amended Section 96 proposal relates to a large number of modifications to the development consent however the Development Engineer is of the opinion that the following amendments are the only ones particularly relevant to the development engineering section:

 

·         Basement Level

Reconfiguration of the basement carpark from that approved by L&E Court including:

 

1.  Various new column placements.

2.  Provision of a wall to enclose the garbage room.

3.  Relocation of bike storage racks.

4.  Variations to the configuration of the stairs and wall at the eastern end of the carpark, adjacent to the vehicle reversing bay.

 

·         First Floor

Alterations to the levels of the car lift, car waiting area and visitor parking space / carwash bay;

Bunding of the visitor parking space / carwash bay.

 

 

·         Second Floor

Provision of a new single carport to the visitor / carwash bay fronting onto Beach Lane.

 

General Comments

 

·         Basement level

The revised basement carpark has been certified by the applicant’s traffic Consultant for compliance with AS 2890.1-2004, (see copy attached to this report). Both the court approved layout and this amended layout cannot provide an aisle width of 5.8 metres as required in the Standard, (see Figure 2.2 of AS 2890.1-2004). Both the Court approved layout and this amended layout can comply with Appendix B Section B4.4 “Design of parking aisle for manoeuvring”, in particular the nominated parking space width / minimum aisle width including manoeuvring clearance relationship from Table B2 “Aisle Widths for 90 Degree Angle-Parking Manoeuvres (B85 Vehicle)”. The minimum clear width of any carspace within the amended application, (i.e. clear of structural columns or other obstructions), is 2.6metres, the minimum aisle width is 5.4 metres and the minimum length of the carspaces is 5.4 metres.

The Planning Officer is advised of the following when comparing the amended Section 96 carpark layout with the Court approved layout:

1.     Carspaces 1 and 9 on the amended layout are more difficult to enter/exit than the court approved layout given the realignment of the car elevator, the introduction of additional columns and the narrowing of the carspaces.

 

2.     Carspaces 2,3,6,7 and 8 are similar in many respects to the Court approved spaces. All spaces are 2.6 metres in width, clear of any structural column. Additional columns have been positioned within the carpark however none of the subject carspaces have columns on both sides and therefore it cannot be reasonably argued that any carspace is more difficult to enter/exit than carspaces within the Court approved layout. For example carspace 2 of the amended Section 96 layout is similar to carspace 3 of the Court approved layout, carspace 8 of the amended layout is similar to carspace 7 of the Court approved layout and similar comparisons can be found for all of the subject carspaces.

 

3.     The amended Section 96 Application has additional columns located on the western side of carspaces 8 and 6, towards the northern site boundary. The Planning Officer is advised that these columns are unlikely to significantly affect manoeuvrability when entering/exiting the referenced carspaces. The column locations also comply with Figure 5.2 of AS2890.1-2004, “Design Envelope Around Parked Vehicle to be Kept Clear of Columns, Walls and Obstructions”.

 

4.     Carspaces 4 and 5 are the equivalent or better than the Court approved layout.

 

5.     The amended Section 96 submission contains some dimensions from an earlier submission that are now redundant / irrelevant to this application. These dimensions should be deleted from the construction certificate application and the Planning Officer is requested to address this matter, (dimensions are shown outside the footprint of the structure, along the northern and southern site boundaries).

 

 

 

Summary on Parking Layout

(a)     Both the amended Section 96 application and the Court approved application have extremely tight carpark layouts that would comply with certain sections/requirements of AS 2890.1-2004 however could not comply with Figure 2.2 of AS 2890.1-2004 in that the circulation aisle is less than 5.8metres.

 

(b)     The carpark layout of the amended Section 96 Application is an improvement on the original Section 96 submission based on vehicular manoeuvrability.

 

(c)     The majority of carspaces within the amended Section 96 Application are at least the equivalent of, and in certain cases an improvement on, the Court approved layout.

 

(d)     Carspaces 1 and 9 would benefit from being widened and carspaces 5 and 4 could be reduced without having a marked affect on manoeuvrability into/from these end spaces. It is recommended that carspaces 4 and 5 be reduced in width by 200mm and that carspaces 1 and 9 be widened by 200mm. This variation should not be something that would impact on the final structural design of the development.

 

·         First Floor Level

Based on the levels provided with the Section 96 Application the Development Engineer raises no objection to the proposed design of the carwash bay / visitor space, car waiting area or car lift. The levels at the alignment appear to accurately reflect the Council approved design however it should be noted that the construction works in Beach Lane are well advanced and works as executed levels should be available to the applicant for the purpose of this design.

 

The operation of the car lift is critical to the development as a whole and the Development Engineer believes that the applicant should provide additional level details with any future construction certificate application. These level details should focus on the area immediately west of the car lift and should demonstrate the transition from the internal driveway, (which ramps down from north to south immediately adjacent to the car elevator), onto the car lift (which is level).

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the Development Engineer raises no objection to the amended Section 96 Application subject to the following:

 

1.  The proposed carpark layout being amended such that carspaces 1 and 9 are widened by 200mm to be a clear width of 3000mm and carspaces 4 and 5 are reduced in width by 200mm such that carspace 4 is a clear width of 3150mm and carspace 5 is a clear width of 3400mm. All other carspaces are to remain as shown on the amended Section 96 Application.

 

2.  Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant is to submit to the Certifying Authority for approval, and have approved, a detail showing the transition section from the proposed internal driveway onto the car lift. This condition is required because the proposed internal driveway, immediately west of the car lift, has a fall going from north to south of 200mm and the car lift is level.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject site has a total area of 820.3sqm. As such the Master Plan requirements contained within Clause 40A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 are not applicable.

 

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.

 

9.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

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

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

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-   Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

-   Development Control Plan – Parking

-   Building Code of Australia.

 

9.1      Section 96 Amendment

 

9.1.1   Substantially the same

The proposal involves internal modifications to each floor of the approved multi-unit housing building including a new flue to the roof. The internal modifications are generally to improve accessibility within the dwellings while the changes will also result in an increase to the gross floor area of the approved development. The proposed modifications will not alter the number of dwellings on the site or the number of car parking spaces allocated. As such the proposal is considered to result in substantially the same development.

 

9.1.2   Consideration of submissions

The Section 96 application was notified to the surrounding properties and three objections were received during this period. The objections raise a number of concerns and it is noted some are not relevant to the modifications sought by the applicant. A visit to the subject site was conducted during the course of the assessment in conjunction with consideration of the submissions received.

9.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

29 – Foreshore scenic protection area

The subject site is not located within the Foreshore scenic protection area.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

30 – Minimum allotment sizes

The clause does not apply to development for the purposes of multi-unit housing.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

31 - Landscaped area

50%

The modifications decrease landscaped area by 3.45sqm and results in 410sqm or 50%.

The proposal complies with the minimum landscaped area requirements of the RLEP 1998.

32 – Floor space ratio

0.65:1

0.97:1 (FSR of approved development was 0.91:1).

The proposed additional floor space is predominantly to the basement level and will not affect the appearance of the building to the surrounding area.

33 - Building heights

9.5m maximum building height, 7m maximum external wall height.

Approved heights: 4.5m - 11.4m (11.4m maximum at stairs to roof, average height between 8.5m and 10m).

The proposed mechanical ventilation discharge to the roof will exceed the 9.5m building height but not exceed the approved height of the building.

Given the central location of the exhaust vent on the roof and the visual impact will be negligible and will not impact upon the amenity of surrounding neighbours. The vent will not become a prominent visual element and will be an addition of minimal scale.

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

Vicinity of Heritage Item

The proposed modifications will not substantially alter the external appearance of the approved building.

The proposed modifications will not affect the heritage item at 143 Arden Street, located approximately 27m to the west and separated by Brach Lane and the dwelling at 349A Alison Road.

9.3      State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

This Policy applies to development being:

a.  The erection of a new residential flat building, and

b.  The substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing residential flat building, and

c.  The conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building.

d.  If particular development comprises development to which subclause (1) applies and other development, this Policy applies to the part of the development that is development to which subclause (1) applies and does not apply to the other part.

The guide stipulates that the SEPP is to be applied in accordance with the following:

 

Definition of residential flat building and application of SEPP No 65

The SEPP will apply to residential flat buildings of three or more storeys (not including levels that protrude less than 1.2m above ground level that are devoted to car parking and storage) and four or more self contained dwelling units. It will not apply to buildings classified as Class 1a or 1b under the Building Code of Australia.

 

The proposed works fall under SEPP 65 and as such the application was referred to the 7 May 2006 Design Review Panel. The comments are included below.

 

9.3.1   SEPP 65 Design Review Panel Comments

“Introduction

 

This was a Section 96 AA Application to modify a proposal that has been approved by the Land and Environment Court.

 

Note:  The Panel members’ written and verbal comments are their professional opinions, based on their experience.

 

Panel Comments

The modifications proposed to the building include:

·         The addition of a bedroom, two bathrooms and a laundry in previously unexcavated excavated space below the northern half of Unit 2a.

·         The addition of essential structure in the garage

·         Minor internal alterations to storage areas in various rooms

·         The replacement of a recessed balcony in the western façade on level 3 with an ensuite bathroom.

·         The addition of a hood over a balcony on the south side of Unit 3 to enhance privacy.

·         Provision of a carport roof over an approved parking place on the western side of the building.

It is the Panels opinion that as the proposed changes will improve the amenity of the building for its occupants and will have no adverse effects on adjoining property or the street, the proposed alterations are consistent with the principles of SEPP65.

The Panel has a concern in regards to the increase in floor space to unit 1. There is no reason why from a SEPP 65 point of view that unit 1 should not get more floor space, but there would be a benefit from a SEPP 65 point of view in increasing the landscape and deep soil planting area to compensate for the extra floor space.

There have been a number of substantial trees lost in the development with only smaller plant species proposed to replace them. It is possible to plan units two and three more efficiently and make them smaller to get more deep soil planting and a possibly a substantial tree or trees in the western garden.

 

It is apparent in the basement plan that there is about 600 mm of wasted space to the west of car spots 1 and 9 that could be further devoted to deep soil. If the levels above followed that line, then there may be no increase to the already very generous FSR that was approved by the L and E court. This may require, as suggested above, that units 2 and 3 be adjusted to accommodate an increased building setback from the western boundary.”

 

It is noted that the DRP comments are generally supportive of the proposed modifications and whilst the issues raised regarding the possibility of broadening the scope for deep soil on the site have some merit, it is considered that the approved landscape plan for the development provides a suitable amount of landscaped area that complies with the RLEP 1998 requirements and as such requiring further deep soil planting is unreasonable.

 

A statement responding to the DRP comments was received from the applicant on 23 May 2007 and argued against any further modifications to the proposal. The reasons provided included:

 

-   The approved landscape plan is compliant with the key objectives of the Residential Flat Design Code  (RFDC), in respect to privacy, outlook, views, storm water quality, improving microclimate and solar performance;

-   The approved landscape plan is consistent with the Better Design Practice guidelines and Rules of Thumb contained in the RFDC. Notably that the landscaping will: provide shade from western sun, soften the appearance of the proposed built form, assist in natural storm water infiltration and provide a pleasant outdoor environment;

-   Reduction of Units 2 and 3 is unreasonable as “car spaces 1 and 9 are wider than would normally be required, so as to allow for manoeuvrability into and out of them, given their proximity to western basement wall.”

-   Increasing deep soil area is unnecessary as “the proposal provides two (2) main areas of consolidated deep soil landscaping.”

-   “The proposal has been designed to minimise opportunities for privacy impacts in respect of neighbouring properties.”

 

Considering these points and the relatively negligible improvement that small increases in deep soil planting would have to the amenity of the site and surrounding properties, it is deemed that modifications to the proposal are unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. It is also noted that the proposal will not add substantial bulk or height to the building and that the current landscaping on the site is sufficient in providing necessary levels of visual softening and greenery.

 

As such the DRP comments are noted, however further consideration on this is not required.

9.4 Development Control Plans

9.4.1   Development Control Plan – 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 mechanical ventilation shaft to the roof will not cause substantial adverse impacts on streetscape or adjoining properties due to being centrally located and obscured by the existing roof structures.

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

 

The proposed modifications will not alter or diminish the degree of articulation that was present in the approved development. The proposed modifications will not adversely impact the streetscape or the amenity of the adjoining properties.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape/adjoining dwelling.

 

Not applicable.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

·         Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·         Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

·         Landscaping and private open space provided.

·         Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

The proposed addition to Unit 1 will be setback from the northern boundary by 1.5m, 1m less than the preferred solution. Whilst non-compliant it is deemed that the proposed addition is not immediately noticeable from the street or adjoining properties and will be excavated within the ground. As such the non-compliance is acceptable and strict compliance with the preferred solution is unreasonable given the performance requirements have been satisfied.

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

·         Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

·         Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

·         Landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces provided.

·         Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

No part closer than 4.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

The proposed roof structure over the rear visitor/wash bay will be setback 200mm from the rear boundary. However the structure is not considered to be inconsistent with the scale of other structures in the laneway and as such, the impact is minimal.

P4  General

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

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

Not applicable.


 

Density

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

 

The proposed modifications will increase the FSR of the development however it is noted that the building bulk will remain generally unaffected.

The additional floor area is concentrated primarily to the basement level and will involve excavation into the existing ground and will not be immediately noticeable from the surrounding properties, Beach Street or Beach Lane.

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.

The proposed rear balcony will have a fixed privacy screen from 1m above floor level to 2.5m above floor level. It should be noted that the new balcony is accessed via a bedroom and not a main living area. As such the proposed balcony is not considered acceptable.

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Not applicable.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

The proposed modifications will not result in an adverse impact to acoustic privacy on the surrounding neighbours.

P4  Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.4.2   Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The DCP – Parking requirements for the site are noted in the table below:

 

Use

Parking rate

Multi Unit Housing

 

 

 

1 space per two studio dwellings

1 space per 1 bedroom dwelling or bedsitter unit over 40 sqm

1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling

1.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom dwelling

Visitor Parking:1 space per 4 dwellings or part thereof, but shall not be required for a development containing less than 4 dwellings.

Service and Delivery Parking: See Section 3.4 of the DCP.

Bicycle Parking: 1 space per 3 units, plus 1 visitor space per 10 units.

Car Wash Bays: 1 car wash bay required per 12 dwellings. Note: Visitor spaces may be used as car wash bays.

 

The approved development provided ten (10) on-site car parking spaces and satisfied the numerical requirements of the DCP. The proposed modifications will alter the number of bedrooms to the approved number units and as such, the parking generation will increase from 9.6 spaces to 9.9 spaces. As the approved number of car parking spaces is not altered by the proposal and the number of on-site parking is compliant with the DCP requirements, the number of parking spaces for the development is acceptable.

9.5      Impact on Adjoining Properties

9.5.1   Bulk, Scale and Amenity

The approved development had an FSR of 0.91:1 resulting in a non-compliance of 0.26:1 or 213sqm. The SEPP 1 objection to Clause 32 “Building heights” of the Randwick LEP provided by the applicant noted that the additional bulk at the rear did not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjacent buildings in the form of privacy loss, overshadowing, overlooking, or significant view loss. It was deemed that the proposal was not excessive and that the bulkiness was acceptable in the context of development in the area.

 

The modifications are concentrated at basement level and will not be immediately noticeable to the street or to the adjoining properties. The extension to the basement level unit will increase the floor area by 60.4 sqm resulting in an FSR of 09.7:1, a non-compliance of 262sqm. The further non-compliance of the proposal is not considered significant and that the proposed increase in gross floor area represents a numerical non-compliance which does not translate to a perceptible increase to the bulkiness of the building or height of the building particularly from the street or immediately adjoining properties.

 

The modifications improve the internal amenity of Unit 1 by providing an addition bedroom, larger bathrooms and improving the useability of living rooms. The addition in floor area is not considered excessive and does not alter the built form of the building. The proposed modifications will not perceptibly alter the appearance of the building or the approved character of the development. The development is considered reasonable and minimises the potential adverse impacts of additional building bulk to the neighbouring dwellings by locating the additional floor area at basement level. The scale, massing and articulation of the approved development will be maintained.

 

 

 

Generally the amenity of surrounding properties is maintained as additions are relatively minor and do not significantly affect the appearance of the development. The external modifications do not increase the bulkiness of the building and will not result in an adverse amenity impact to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The additions to the rear of the site involving the new car port structure above the visitor parking/wash bay is an open and relatively light weight structure that does not contribute to the overall bulkiness of the building. The height of the structure, denoted as RL 54.275 on the plans ranges in height from 2.2m to 2.8m  (due to the cross fall of the rear of the subject site) which is reasonable and compatible with development that exists along Beach Lane. The new car port will not adversely impact upon the amenity of the surrounding properties.

 

Therefore the bulk and scale of the proposal is acceptable.

 

9.5.2   Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

The existing approval includes an open balcony at third floor level to the rear Bedroom 2 of Unit 4a. The existing balcony includes a solid 1m high brick balustrade with no privacy screening. The proposal will involve the creation of a new rear balcony to Bedroom 1 with a planter box separating the two balconies. The proposal will include privacy screens to the proposed balcony and the existing balcony, therefore significantly reducing direct western views to Beach Lane and the residential properties of 349A Alison Road and beyond.

 

The assessment of the original application concluded that west facing balconies did not have an adverse impact to the privacy of the nearest neighbouring properties. The assessing officer in relation to the western balconies stated:

 

“The west facing balconies to the rear at the first and second floors are attached to bedrooms. The second floor balcony is small and serves a light and ventilation purpose only while the first floor balcony is wedged in between two bedrooms and is not in alignment with the main east facing balcony to the adjacent property to the west.

 

The proposed balconies are designed with consideration of the neighbours’ privacy and overall will have very minimal adverse impact to the amenity and privacy of adjacent and surrounding residents.”

 

It is noted that the original balconies were not considered to pose a significant impact to the visual privacy of the surrounding properties and modifications including the erection of privacy screens was deemed unnecessary. As such the proposed modifications involving privacy screens to the western face of the existing and proposed balcony will improve any perceived visual privacy impact of existing balcony and will not create additional overlooking potential as a result of the new balcony to Bedroom 1. It should be noted that the objector’s property at 349A Alison Road is located approximately 18m to the west and separated by the rear private open space of the subject site and Beach Lane. As such the objections relating to visual privacy impacts are unsustainable due to the separation between the balconies and the objector’s windows significantly exceeding the minimum distance of 10m required in the Multi-unit Housing DCP for suitable maintenance of visual privacy.

 

As such, considering that the visual privacy impact of original proposal was deemed acceptable and the proposed modifications will provide additional visual barrier attenuation between the subject development and neighbouring properties; the proposed modifications are acceptable and do not result in any adverse or significant impacts to the privacy of surrounding dwellings.

 

10. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

10.1    Outcomes – Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development

The proposal maintains the built form and character of the approved development and as an appropriate level of articulation that addresses the significance of the location in the surrounding area. The proposal is sympathetic to the surrounding properties and minimises the adverse impacts of bulk by locating the majority of additional floor area at the basement level.

 

10.2    Directions and Key Actions – Direction 4a & associated key action: Improved design and sustainability across all development

The proposed modifications will improve the design and presentation of the development to the street and will not adversely impact the sustainability of the dwelling. The most notable modifications involving new external louvres to the west facing windows will reduce harsh western sunlight and promote a more amenable internal amenity.

 

11. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12. CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications to the approved development involve a number of relatively minor changes that improve the internal amenity of the building and will provide additional floor area at the lowest level of the building. The proposal will involve the creation of a new bedroom to Unit 1 at basement level resulting in an increase of 60.4sqm. Although this is a further increase to an existing non-compliance, it is considered that the additional floor area is partially below ground level and will not contribute to the overall bulkiness of the building. The modifications to the external portions of the approved development are relatively minor and will not impact adversely upon the amenity of the area or visual privacy or solar access of neighbouring dwellings. The other changes proposed are generally internal reconfigurations that improve the accessibility within the units make more efficient use of the internal space.

 

The proposed external modifications are generally minor and will not significantly affect the appearance of the building to the surrounding area or its presence on the streetscape. The rear car port structure and modifications involve the rear balconies at third floor level will not impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties or the character of Beach Lane.

 

As such the proposed modifications are considered acceptable and the development application 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.912/2003 on the property at 88 Beach Street, Coogee in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01, dated 01.04.04  and received by Council on 12 August 2004, and plans numbered  DA 02 – DA 10, dated 09.06.2004 and received by Council on 12 August 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the deferred commencement plans received by Council on 6 June 2006, numbered DA01 Issue J, DA02 and DA03 Issue K, DA04 and DA05, DA07 to DA10 Issue I all dated 16 December 2005 and DA11 Issue F dated 1 June 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application and as amended by the Section 96 plans dated numbered Sec 96 – 01, Sec 96 – 02,  Sec 96 – 03,  Sec 96 – 04,  Sec 96 – 05,  Sec 96 – 06,  Sec 96 – 07 and Sec 96 – 08,  received by Council on 10 July 2007, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application.

 

Add the following conditions:

 

99.       The proposed carpark layout being amended such that carspaces 1 and 9 are widened by 200mm to be a clear width of 3000mm and carspaces 4 and 5 are reduced in width by 200mm such that carspace 4 is a clear width of 3150mm and carspace 5 is a clear width of 3400mm. All other carspaces are to remain as shown on the amended Section 96 Application. The amended plans are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

100.      Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant is to submit to the Certifying Authority for approval, and have approved a transition section from the proposed internal driveway onto the car lift that allows safe and straightforward manoeuvring. This condition is required because the proposed internal driveway, immediately west of the car lift, has a fall going from north to south of 200mm and the car lift is level.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil .

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

25 July, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/272/2007 & PROP004390Nil

 

PROPOSAL:

 Use of the existing garage at the rear of the property for a home activity.

PROPERTY:

 80 Victoria Street, Malabar

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Elizabeth Petrilli

OWNER:

Elizabeth Petrilli, Ricky Somboli & Stephen Somboli

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Alan White, Paul Tracey & John Procopiadis.

 

It is proposed to change the use of the existing garage at the rear of property from a garage to a home activity.

 

The application was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners and two objections were received.  The main issues raised in the submissions related to parking and congestion problems for the rear laneway as a result of the use of the home activity.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to change the use of the existing garage at the rear of property from a garage to a home activity. The nature of the activity for the operation of a financial services business will require the provision of an office. The home activity provides for an office area to accommodate office furniture and equipment for use in the home activity, a storage area and amenities and bathroom facilities which may be used for the convenience and amenity of clients.

 

The applicant has advised that clients will be parking and enter the front of the dwelling via the existing driveway and side entrance.  The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Sunday 8am to 5pm. The home activity will be catering to up to 3 to 4 clients per day.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the south western side of Victoria Street between Raglan Street and Napier Street in Malabar.  The site is presently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling with a double garage at the lower level at the front of the dwelling.  A second garage is located to the rear of the property access off Victoria Lane.  The site has a frontage width of 10.098m, a side boundary depth of 50.29m and has an overall site area of 507.83m². 

 

Neighbouring the property to the north west and south east are two storey dwellings. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of two storey dwellings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Council has received a complaint regarding the unauthorised habitable use of the existing rear garage.  The applicant has subsequently lodged this application to formalise the use of the rear garage as a Home Activity.

 

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 submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

 

Suzanne Leal – 71 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

Issue

Comment

Parking and congestion problems will be increase at the rear of the laneway and the use in the residential zone would be inappropriate venue for a financial services home activity.

The proposed use satisfies the parking requirement for the site for the existing residential use and home activity.  The definition of Home activity outlined in Randwick Councils Local Environmental Plan 1998 is also satisfied.

 

It is not considered that this facility will have any significant impact on existing traffic or parking conditions.  The applicant has advised that parking for client will be from the front of the dwelling and access to the home activity will be from the paved side passage way.

 

A condition is also included requiring visitors to the home activity to be directed to park at the front of the dwelling and not in the rear Laneway.

 

S.M & D.A. Hume – 75 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

 

Issue

Comment

The garage has been used as an illegal and unapproved separate occupancy for many years.

Noted.  However, the garage currently is not used as a separate occupancy and therefore it is not necessary to refer the concern to the Manager of Environmental Health and building Services.

Due to the narrow width of the Victoria Lane it is impossible for the objector to enter the driveway if cars are parked behind the property.  Many times access has been blocked off to the objector’s garage.  Concerned that the home activity will further impact on the parking condition in the laneway and cause major traffic problems in an already congested back lane.

The applicant has advised that parking for clients will be from the front of the dwelling and access to the home activity will be from the paved side passage way of the dwelling.

 

Furthermore, a condition is included requiring visitors to the home activity to be directed to park at the front of the dwelling and not in the rear Laneway.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

6.1 Development Engineers

 

The application has been referred to Development Engineering for comment, conditions that have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.  The following comments were provided:

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

Architectural plan 030/07 by Classic plans dated 24 February 2006;

Statement of Environmental Effects by Willana associates dated March 2007.

 

Landscape Comments

 

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

 

Traffic comments

 

The assessing officer is advised that the application was reviewed on the basis that all vehicular movements associated with the site would occur within the site or on Victoria St, not in Victoria Lane. No parking for the site is to be provided in Victoria Lane.

 

All pedestrian movements associated with the site shall also take place within the site and site access shall be from the Victoria St frontage.

 

The assessing officer is advised that no condition regarding pedestrian and vehicular movements in Victoria Lane has been applied by the Development Engineer due to the perceived difficulty of enforcement. If a condition regarding this matter is deemed necessary, a condition may be applied to ensure all movement take place from the Victoria Street frontage.

 

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:

 

(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.

 

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.

 

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

 

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

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

-   Development Control Plan  - Parking.

-   Building Code of Australia.

 

a.     Randwick LEP 1998

 

Clause 10 Zone No 2A (Residential A Zone)

 

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

 

Home Activity

 

Home activity means any business, profession or industry carried on in a building or room or a number of rooms forming part of, attached to, or within the curtilage of, a dwelling, where:

 

a)  only goods made or produced, or services offered, as a result of the activity or pursuit are displayed, sold or provided, and

b)  the primary use of the dwelling is for residential purposes, and

c)  the activity or pursuit does not:

i.   interfere with the amenity of the locality by reason of the emission of excessive noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil or otherwise, or

ii.   involve exposure to view from any public place of any matter, or

iii.  require the provision of any essential service main of greater capacity than that available in the locality, or

iv.  generate traffic out of keeping with the surrounding area, and

v.  the activity is carried out by the permanent residents of the dwelling,

 

But (in Part 2) does not include any land use elsewhere defined in this clause.

 

The definition outlined in the RLEP 1998 is consistent with the proposed home activity at the subject site.

 

b.    Development Control Plan s

 

·         Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP

 

The DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding Preferred Solutions. 

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area (507.83m²) is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.56:1 applies. 

The existing FSR is 0.68:1 and will not be altered on the site.  See assessment below.

 

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

 

The existing Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is 0.68:1 and will not be altered on the site.  This FSR calculation takes into account the provision of two garages – one at the basement level to the front of the property and the other being the outbuilding (garage) to the rear of the property.  The total Gross Floor Area (GFA) for the garages is 118m².  The Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP allows for 40m² of garage space to be excluded from the GFA.  Therefore, the garages have already been included in the FSR and will not be increasing the FSR on the site.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

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

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

 

It is not considered that there will be any significant impact upon the privacy to the adjoining premises in that the level of activity is modest in scale and will be carried out towards the rear of the site within the garage, which is well away from the adjoining properties dwellings.  A condition is included restricting the hours from 8am to 5pm Monday to Sunday as advised by the applicant.

 

Parking DCP

Clause 2.3 of the Carparking DCP requires that 2 car parking spaces be provided for a dwelling with 3 or more bedrooms and that one space be provided in addition to the resident parking for a Home Activity.  The applicant has indicated that there is the provision of five cars parking space available on the subject property - 2 in the basement garage to the front of the dwelling, 1 tandem hardstand carspace on the driveway to the front of the basement garage and 2 spaces in the garage to the rear of the property. 

 

The change of use of the rear garage will not affect the parking demands on the site.  Three car parking spaces will be available for the site – 2 in the basement to the front of the dwelling and the existing driveway to the front which can be used as a tandem or stack parking when required for the clients. 

 

The proposed home activity is not considered to result in a significant increase in parking pressures and the parking requirements of the DCP will be met.  

 

Furthermore, it is considered that there is adequate off-street parking in the locality to facilitate and additional parking demand as a result of the home activity towards the front of the site.

 

Amenity Impacts

The proposed home activity is consistent with the objectives and assessment criteria of the RLEP 1998 for the Residential 2A zone and definition of Home Activity and the relevant Development Control Plans. The proposed home activity will be contained within the existing garage and no structural changes are proposed.

 

The home activity does not conflict with the residential use of existing dwelling and the procedure for welcoming clients via the driveway and side entrance provides for a separation between the home and professional activity.  The proposed home activity proposes 3 to 4 clients per day which would not result in an excessive amount of noise in the use of the driveway and side to enter the property.  Noise conditions and hours of operation have been imposed to ensure there is no nuisance caused to adjoining properties.

 

Site Suitability

The proposed use satisfies the definition of Home activity set out in Councils Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the parking provisions on the site is adequate. The home activity is suitable in the zone and is not considered to result in any significant adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

No signage or advertising has been indicated on the plan for this proposal.

 

10. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:        A Liveable City.

Direction 6f:       Distinct neighbourhoods that meet the needs of our community as places to work, shop, live and socialise.

Key action:        Take a comprehensive approach to town centre reviews.

 

11. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12. CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible with consent in the Residential 2A zone and complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998), relevant Development Control Plans and the merit-based assessment.  The proposed home activity will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. This application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/272/2007 for permission to use the existing garage at the rear of the property for a home activity at 80 Victoria Street, Malabar subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 030/07 sheet 1 to 3, dated 24/02/06 and received by Council on 13 April 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:

 

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

 

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

 

 

3.       The hours of operation of the home activity are restricted to:

Monday to Sunday: 8am to 5pm.

 

4.       The home activity must not to exceed a maximum of four (4) clients per day with maximum of one visiting client at any given time.

 

5.       The outbuilding to the rear of the property must only be used for the purposes specified in the development consent and the building must not be used for separate residential accommodation or as a separate residential occupancy at any time.

 

6.       Visitors to the home activity are to be directed to park at the front of the dwelling and not in the rear Laneway.

 

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

 

7.       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.

 

8.       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.

 

9.       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.

 

10.     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.

 

11.     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.

 

12.     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”.

 

13.     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.

 

14.     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.

 

15.     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.

 

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:

 

16.     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:

 

·       Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·       Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·                 Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

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

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

 

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

 

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:

 

17.     The use and operation of the home activity shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

19.     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.

 

20.     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:

 

21.     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 landscaping and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

22.     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 applicants expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In this regard, the development consent plans do not 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.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

CHAHRAZAD RAHE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

24 July, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/838/2006 & PROP002645

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and new first floor addition to the existing single storey semi-detached dwelling house including new first floor balconies, new front hardstand car space and associated landscaping.

PROPERTY:

 7 Tower Street, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANTS:

 Mr P Rinder and Ms J Chow

OWNERS:

 Mr P Rinder and Ms J Chow

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

The subject site is located on the western side of Tower Street in Coogee and is currently occupied by a semi-detached dwelling with 3 bedrooms (including one bedroom and an ensuite located in the attic). The front fence to the site is a 1.8m high thatch fence. Adjacent to the south of the site is the other half of the semi-detached dwelling. Further to the south is a part two part three storey dwelling house. The adjacent dwelling to the north is a two storey dwelling.

 

The subject application was submitted to Council on 18 September 2006 which sought consent for alterations and new first floor additions to the existing single story semi-detached dwelling house including new first floor balconies, new front hard stand car space and associated landscaping. The subject application was submitted concurrently with a Development Application (DA/837/2006) for the adjoining semi-detached dwelling house at 9 Tower Street, which also proposes an identical new first floor addition to the existing dwelling and both dwellings will share the same roof form.

 

Following the notification of the proposal, Council received two submissions from the owners of 5 Tower Street and a planning consultant acting on behalf of the owners of 5 Tower Street and a letter of support from the owners of 11 Tower Street. The main issues raised in the objections were view loss from 5 Tower Street and adverse visual & acoustic privacy impacts associated with the north-facing first floor balcony.

 

As a result of the notification, a meeting was held on the subject site with the applicants and the applicants’ consultants to discuss the issues raised by the objectors and height poles were requested to be erected on the site to allow an understanding as to the view-related impacts of the proposal on 5 Tower Street

 

Subsequent to this process, amended plans were lodged on 19 June 2007, which include the following changes to the proposal:

 

·       Deletion of the pitched roof overhang to the first floor east-facing balcony and replacement with a flat form with a louvred attachment to provide solar protection.

·       Deletion of the centrally located first floor north-facing balcony.

·       Reduction and repositioning of the study at ground floor level to provide greater setback from the northern side boundary.

·       Repositioning of the bathroom at ground floor to provide greater setback from the northern side boundary.

·       Replanning of the kitchen and living room at ground floor level to provide greater setback from the northern side boundary.

·       Reduction in the rear extent of the ground floor level to provide additional opportunities for landscaping.

·       Reduction in the length of the first floor level by replanning the master bedroom, so as to comply with the maximum 12m building length control.

·       Correct position of the existing dwelling at 5 Tower Street shown on the plans.

 

The applicants have also submitted view analysis diagrams prepared by Cad Draft on 25 June 2007, providing a comparison between the impacts of the approved and proposed developments.

 

The amended proposal generally complies with the preferred solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP except the side setback requirement at the first floor level. The assessment of the application reveals that whilst the proposal does not comply with setback preferred solution, the proposal is consistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development, is appropriate in the streetscape and will not result in adverse overshadowing, privacy, drainage or view loss impacts subject to conditions.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal seeks consent for the following works:

 

·    Demolition of the rear section of the existing dwelling and construction of new rear extension providing new living & dining areas, kitchen, study and bathroom.

·    Internal alterations to the existing ground floor involving reconfiguration of rooms, new laundry, staircase to new upper level, new walls to bedrooms and new wardrobes to Bedrooms 2 and 3.

·    Construction of new first floor containing a rumpus room with direct access to front balcony, a bathroom and a bedroom with direct access to rear balcony.

·    Construction of new hard stand car space at the front of the site.

·    Demolition of the existing front boundary fence and construction of new roller shutter door and associated structure on front boundary.

·    New rear paved courtyard area and associated landscaped works to the front and rear yards.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Tower Street slightly south of its intersection with Melrose Parade, Coogee. The site contains a rectangular shaped allotment with dimensions 40.53m x 6.165m/6.24m and an area of 240.3 sq.m. The site contains a semi-detached dwelling with 3 bedrooms (including one bedroom and an ensuite located in the attic). The front fence to the site is a 1.8m high thatch fence. Adjacent to the south of the site is the other half of the semi-detached dwelling. Further to the south is a part two part three storey dwelling at 11 Tower Street. The adjacent dwelling to the north is a two storey dwelling.

 

The area consists primarily of single and two storey residential dwellings exhibiting a variety of shapes and forms interspersed with three to four storey multi-unit housing developments. There is no consistent dwelling type, design or pattern in Tower Street.

 

Photo 1: View of the subject site from Tower Street

 

Photo 2: Adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 9 Tower Street, Coogee

 

Photo 3: Neighbouring dwelling to the south at 11 Tower Street

 

Photo 4: Dwelling adjacent to the north of the site at 5 Tower Street.

 

 

 

 

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

A.    HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

Previous prelodgement and development applications submitted for development on the site includes:

 

Application No.

Description

Determination

PL/105/2003

Proposed alterations & additions to existing dwelling.

Advice provided on 22 December 2003.

DA/188/2004

Demolish rear shed and attic, reconfigure ground floor and new first floor addition containing bedroom, study and ensuite

Approved at Ordinary Council meeting on 19 October 2004.

 

B.    PREVIOUS APPROVAL

 

As noted above, Council at its Ordinary Council meeting held on 19 October 2004 resolved to grant development consent to DA No. 188/2004 subject to conditions including the deletion of the metal awning to the upper level front balcony and roof overhang at the front elevation to preserve the predominant views from the side boundary living room window at first floor level of 5 Tower Street.

 

C.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The subject Development Application was submitted to Council on 18 September 2006 which sought consent for alterations and new first floor additions to the existing single story semi-detached dwelling house including new first floor balconies, new front hard stand car space and associated landscaping. Following the notification of the proposal, Council received two submissions from the owners of 5 Tower Street and a planning consultant acting on behalf of the owners of 5 Tower Street and a letter of support from the owners of 11 Tower Street. The main issues raised in the objections were view loss from 5 Tower Street and adverse visual & acoustic privacy impacts associated with the north-facing first floor balcony.

 

As a result of the notification, a meeting was held on the subject site with the applicants and the applicants’ consultants to discuss the issues raised by the objectors and the height poles were requested to be erected on the site to allow an understanding as to the view-related impacts of the proposal on 5 Tower Street

 

Subsequent to this process, amended plans were lodged on 19 June 2007, which include the following changes to the proposal:

 

·       Deletion of the pitched roof overhang to the first floor east-facing balcony and replacement with a flat form with a louvred attachment to provide solar protection.

·       Deletion of the centrally located first floor north-facing balcony.

·       Reduction and repositioning of the study at ground floor level to provide greater setback from the northern side boundary.

·       Repositioning of the bathroom at ground floor to provide greater setback from the northern side boundary.

·       Replanning of the kitchen and living room at ground floor level to provide greater setback from the northern side boundary.

·       Reduction in the rear extent of the ground floor level to provide additional opportunities for landscaping.

·       Reduction in the length of the first floor level by replanning the master bedroom, so as to comply with the maximum 12m building length control.

·       Correct position of the existing dwelling at 5 Tower Street shown on the plans.

 

The applicants have also submitted view analysis diagrams prepared by Cad Draft on 25 June 2007, providing a comparison between the impacts of the approved and proposed developments.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The initial and amended proposals have been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

 

A) Original Proposal

The following objection was received in respond to the notification of the original proposal:

 

1)  Planet Urban, acting on behalf of the owners of 5 Tower Street, Coogee.

2)  Jason Young & Catherine Downs, owners of 5 Tower Street, Coogee

 

The following issues were raised in the objection:

 

·       Loss of views

·       Excessive FSR

·       Privacy and overlooking from the northern side balcony at first floor level

·       Request to maintain precedent from DA No. 188/2004

 

B) Amended Proposal

The owners of the adjoining dwellings were renotified of the amended proposal and the following objections were received:

 

1)  Planet Urban, acting on behalf of the owners of 5 Tower Street, Coogee.


 

Issue

Comment

A four part assessment, using the planning principle established in Tenacity v Warringah 2004 proceedings, demonstrates that the amended proposal will still adversely affect the views from No. 5 Tower Street and suggested that a compliant side setback would result in a lesser view impact to No. 5 and the front first floor setback should be increased by 600mm to be consistent with the precedent set by the previous approved scheme for No. 7 and further reduces the FSR from 0.69:1 to 0.68:1.

An assessment of the reasonableness of the amended proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 9.3 of this report.

An assessment of amenity impacts on neighbouring properties using the planning principle established in Pafburn v North Sydney proceeding, demonstrates a reasonable and compliant development at No. 7 could avoid the view impact to No. 5 generated by the proposal.

The amended proposal generally complies with the relevant controls of the DCP except the side setback of the proposed first floor addition. The non-compliance is considered to be acceptable and any further setback without increasing the setback of the front wall from front boundary or altering the splay at the north-eastern corner of the first floor addition, would not improve the outlook/view from the side living room window of No. 5 Tower Street.  

 

2)  Jason Young & Catherine Downs, owners of 5 Tower Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

This proposal achieves greater view amenity for No. 7 Tower Street than the previous DA/188/2004 as purchased by the applicant.

The proposal has been revised to provide a reasonable view sharing for the occupants of subject and adjoining dwellings. An assessment of view loss is provided in Section 9.3 of this report.

The view amenity from No. 7 Tower Street is similar whether or not the front wall is altered in keeping with the setback from the previous DA approval.

The view from 7 Tower Street will be affected if the front wall is pulled back further from the front boundary and the design of the first floor addition at 9 Tower Street will need to be significantly altered to maintain the views across the front of the site.

It should be noted that the front wall of the previous approved scheme was set at the concession of the previous owner/applicant of the subject property.

In summary, a more skilful design, altering the position of the proposed first floor front wall to 1m behind the existing ground floor front wall, “could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity.” This amenity is significantly greater than that of the DA approval which was in place when this property was purchased by the applicant.

The suggested design would allow full retention of the views from the side living room window at first floor level of 5 Tower Street and taking away the opportunity of reasonable view sharing from 7 Tower Street unless the design of the proposed first floor additions at 9 Tower Street is altered as well to maintain the views across the front of the site.

The amended design incorporates only a minor alteration to the front of the roof and does not adequately address the view impact on 5 Tower Street. The front setback is unchanged and the awning has not been deleted despite this being a condition of consent in 2004.

The proposal has been revised to achieve the concept of view sharing. It is agreed that the deletion of the proposed louvered structure would improve the view/outlook from 5 Tower Street

The supporting photographic analysis and town planning report submitted by the applicant for this amended proposal carry multiple errors which result in the erroneous conclusion that the impact of this design is similar to that of 2004. In fact the impact is in excess of the previous approval.

The errors have been rectified and the amended view analysis diagrams and floor plans have also been submitted. 

A four part assessment, using Tenacity vs Warringah 2004 criteria, demonstrates that the existing views from No. 5 Tower Street impacted by this design are highly prized views from the main living area of our home, that these views are severely impacted by the current proposal and that a more skilful design would reduce the impact.

As noted previously, an assessment of the reasonableness of the amended proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 9.3 of this report.

 

5.2 Support

 

Two letters of support were received from the following residents:

      Jacki Goodridge and Rick Roberts, owners of 11 Tower Street, Clovelly

      Lynn Hunt, owner of 9 Tower Street, Clovelly

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Development Engineer

An application has been received for alterations and additions at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

Drwg No’s 2, 3, S & V1 by Carroll & Carroll Architects dated 28 Sept 2006

 

Landscape Comments

There is a Kentia Palm located in the front yard which is proposed for removal as its affected by the proposed works. The subject palm is not a significant specimen and thus its retention is not warranted. Permission is granted for its removal.

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

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Not applicable as the site is less than 4,000sqm.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

·       Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

·       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·       Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

No adverse impact, site minimally visible from foreshore but blends in with two storey context, shapes and forms.

 

9.2  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.

40% 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 approximately 60 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 6.165m x 9.3m. 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.

24% of the site is permeable. Complies.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 applies. 

The amended proposal has a FSR of 0.64:1 or approximately 154* sqm of gross floor area. Complies.

 

*The existing outbuilding at the rear of the site is to be altered and converted to a play area. This area is not included in the gross floor area calculation as a section of the eastern elevation of the outbuilding is open and therefore the inclusion is not required under the definition of “gross floor area” in the DCP. Notwithstanding, it should be noted that the outbuilding is an existing structure on the site and does not create any additional impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings. 

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution/Performance Requirement

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed development has a maximum external wall height of approximately 6 metres. Complies

S1

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

The rear extension has a maximum external wall height of approximately 2.7 metres. Complies.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable.

S4

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

The entire southern elevation of the proposed first floor addition is 12 metres in length and is to be built on the common boundary of the pair of semi-detached dwellings.

S5

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

The proposed first floor addition set in front of the roof pitch. Does not comply – see assessment below.

P6

Buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views.

See assessment in Section 9.3 below.

 

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

 

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

 

It should be noted that the subject application was submitted concurrently with a Development Application (DA/837/2006) for the adjoining semi-detached dwelling house at 9 Tower Street which also proposed to carry out alterations and new first floor additions to the existing dwelling. In addition, the proposed first floor additions for each dwelling have been designed by the same Architect and will read as a single built form similar to a two storey dwelling house. In this regard, given these applications are being considered concurrently and that by conditions of consent each application relies on the other for construction, the siting of the upper level to the front of the dwelling in the context of the development to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling is considered to be acceptable.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed first floor addition is setback a minimum of 400 mm behind the existing front building line at ground floor level. The north-eastern corner of the first floor addition is splayed to allow view sharing. 

S2

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

The proposed rear addition is approximately 12 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

The proposed rear addition is set back a minimum of 900mm from the northern side boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed first floor addition is set back a minimum of 900mm from the northern 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.

 

It is considered that the non-compliance with the first floor side setback requirement is acceptable as the separation between the two first levels (i.e. 5 and 7 Tower Street) where the non-compliance occurs is approximately 2m. Solar access to the northern side of the building would not be advantaged by a reduced setback as the adjacent dwelling to the north is a large two storey building sited on slightly higher ground therefore completely overshadowing the proposed first floor addition. The separation is considered sufficient in terms of ventilation given the site is located within 100m of the coast and is subjected to constant coastal winds and breezes year round. 

 

The non-compliance to the southern boundary is unavoidable given the house is one half of a semi detached dwelling. Complete compliance with the first floor setback requirements on both sides would result in an awkward shaped first level that would be too narrow to be rendered usable and would appear out of character in the streetscape which exhibits symmetrical two storey buildings.

 

The proposed setbacks are therefore considered reasonable and do not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjacent neighbours.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

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

S1

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

The first floor rear balcony will overlook the rear yard area of the northern adjoining dwelling at 5 Tower Street. A condition requiring the installation of 1.8m high privacy screen to the northern side of the balcony is included in the recommendation of this report.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The front door of the existing dwelling faces the street and will be retained.

S1,3

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

The proposal has windows and balcony that overlook the street. Complies.

S2

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

Suitable condition included.

 

 

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 proposal incorporates a single opened turfed/paved car parking area within the front setback.

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking space are 5.6m x 3m. Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed roller door and its associated structure at the street boundary occupy about 69% of the width of the site frontage. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

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

 

The proposed roller door and its associated structure at the front boundary having a width of 5.1m (including the supporting columns on both sides) is considered to be excessive and is not necessary for a single car parking space. The only roller door structure built on the Tower Street boundary is at No. 9 and is only 2.9m in width. The height of the proposed roller door structure further adds unnecessary bulk which will not be compatible with the height of the existing fencing along the western side of Tower Street and the overall character of the street. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed roller door structure should be deleted and any fence on front boundary should have a maximum height of 1.8m to ensure the proposed development complies with the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP.

 

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S1

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

The proposed roller door structure has a maximum height of approximately 3.2 metres. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

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

 

The front fence to the site currently contains a thatched fence of approximately 1.8m in height and the existing fencing along the western side of Tower Street is predominately open design fence of a maximum height of 1.8m. Photo 5 below shows the existing fence form in Tower Street

 

Photo 5: Existing fence form on the western side of Tower Street

 

The proposal involves the removal of the existing thatched fence and replaces it with a roller door structure having a maximum height of approximately 3.2m and a solid timber gate of maximum height of 1.7m. As noted previously, it is considered that the height of the proposed roller door structure is excessive and will not be compatible with the existing fence form in the street and therefore should be deleted or redesigned to minimise the impact of the character of the existing streetscape.

 

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 existing 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.

 

9.3      View Sharing

 

The proposal will result in view loss from the first floor of the adjacent building to the north, known as 5 Tower Street, Coogee. The dwelling at 5 Tower Street contains a first floor front balcony and a full height window to the living room facing the southern boundary. Concerns were raised by the owners of 5 Tower Street with respect to view loss of the coast, Gordons Bay and Wedding Cake Island to the south as a result of the proposed first floor addition. In response to this issue, the applicant has amended the proposal by deleting the pitched roof overhang to the first floor east-facing balcony and replaced it with a flat roof with a louvred attachment and retention of a splayed corner at the north-eastern part of the first floor level, to maintain views across the front of the site. The applicant has also erected height poles on the subject site showing the extent of the proposed first floor additions. The following photos show the views currently available from the front balcony and side living room window of the adjoining dwelling at 5 Tower Street.

 

Photo 6: Views from the first floor east-facing balcony of 5 Tower Street looking south over the front section of the subject site. 

 

Approximate height and extent of the roof of the initial proposal

 

Front building line and height of the roof gutter of the amended proposal

 

Previous approved front building line and building height

 

Photo 7: Views from the living area at the first floor level of 5 Tower Street looking over part of the subject site at standing position.

 

 

Photo 8: Views from the living area at the first floor level of 5 Tower Street looking over subject site at sitting position.

 

Photo 9: Views from the kitchen area at the first floor level of 5 Tower Street looking over subject site at standing position.

 

Performance Requirement P6 under section 4.3 Height, Form and Materials of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies requires that “buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”.

 

The concept of ‘view sharing’ was further defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004) proceedings. The Senior Commissioner’s discussion of the notion of view sharing is provided below as background:

 

“The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.) To decide whether or not view sharing is reasonable, I have adopted a four-step assessment.

 

(1)    “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. 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, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

Views available to 5 Tower Street are two-fold. Firstly, views are available to the southeast from the front east-facing balcony (shown in photo 6 above) to the ocean, Gordon Bay and Wedding Cake Island. Views to the south and southwest from the front east-facing balcony are largely obscured by 11 Tower Street. Secondly, views are available from the side boundary south facing living room window. Views from the living room window are mainly to the southeast and include the ocean, wedding cake island and part of the Gordons Bay as well as 11 Tower Street (depending on where you stand within the living room as shown in photos 7, 8 & 9 above). The water views and Wedding Cake Island views are considered to be valuable views.

 

(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 which will be partially affected by the amended proposal are views from various positions within the living room and kitchen looking out through a window on the southern side of 5 Tower Street near front balcony. There is no view loss to the first floor front balcony of 5 Tower Street.

 

It should be noted that the amount of views available from the affected window is dependant on where you stand in the living room/kitchen. In general, the views are only available from the front section of the living room towards the front balcony, as one moves further into the living room away from the front balcony, the extent of views obtained are reduced, due to the location of the window, views and line of sight. In the amended proposal, part of the views from the side window will be blocked by the front section of the proposed first floor additions (shown in photos 7, 8 & 9 above) but a reasonable level of outlook including the view of Wedding Cake Island can still be attained through the window and the views are available from both standing and sitting position as the window is full height.

 

Given that the primary views from the front balcony of 5 Tower Street are being retained and the line of sight to obtain views from the side living room window is entirely over the subject site at 7 Tower Street, it would be reasonable to expect a degree of view loss from the affected window. Further, as noted by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Proceedings, “the expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic”.  

 

(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.

 

As noted previously, the amended proposal will only affect the views from the side living room window and the primary views from the front balcony of 5 Tower Street will be retained. It is considered that the extent of the impact from the side living room window is minor as the views to Wedding Cake Island and ocean can still be attained from the window depending on where you stand in the living room/kitchen.

 

(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 proposed development generally complies with the relevant preferred solutions of the DCP except for the setback from the side boundary at the first floor level. However, the issue of view loss is not directly associated with side setback, rather it is the front setback. A development with a fully compliant side setback at first floor level (i.e. 1.5m from side boundary) could easily be subject to the same problem. The issue of view loss is therefore tied more closely in this instance with setback from front boundary. The performance requirement of the DCP requires the dwelling to maintain a consistent front building setback of adjoining development or the dominant setback along the street. To this end, the proposal has shown full compliance with this requirement.

 

It should be also noted that the proposal incorporates a splay at north-eastern corner of the first floor additions and further amendments were made to delete the pitched roof over the front section of the first floor addition and an overhang to the front balcony to further minimise the potential view loss from 5 Tower Street. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal has been revised to minimise view loss from No. 5, it is considered that the provision of an overhang to the front balcony will obscure the views and its deletion would improve the views to the ocean and Wedding Cake Island from most of the living room of No. 5 in either standing or sitting position. 

 

It is considered that the suggestion made by the objectors to pull the front wall of the proposed first floor back by 600mm to maintain the consistency with the previous approved development is unreasonable as this will allow full retention of the views from the side window of No. 5 Tower Street whereas the views from the proposed rumpus room at the first floor level of No. 7 Tower Street will be significantly reduced unless substantial alterations are made to the proposal at 9 Tower Street. The quantity and quality existent of the view available from the front living area of Nos. 5 and 7 Tower Street would be similar and therefore equitable if the front setback of the proposed addition of No. 7 Tower Street is maintained as per the current scheme. Whilst it is acknowledged that the existing views from No. 5 will be partially affected by the amended proposal, it is considered that the degree of the impact is reasonable and any further setback from the front boundary would conflict with the concept of view sharing as defined by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004) proceedings.

 

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed first floor setback should be supported subject to conditions requiring the deletion of the proposed overhang over the front balcony and ensuring the view is not further blocked by other structures such as privacy screens.

 

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 development is generally consistent with the aims, objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposed development is consistent with the bulk and scale of adjacent and surrounding buildings and does not result in adverse amenity impacts to neighbours by way of privacy, overshadowing or unreasonable view loss. The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 838/2006 to carry out alterations and new first floor additions to the existing single storey semi-detached dwelling house including new first floor balconies, new front hardstand car space and associated landscaping at 7 Tower Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans numbered 1b and 2b, dated 2 July 2007 and received by Council on 2 July 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:

 

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

 

2.       The first floor addition to the subject premises must be constructed at the same time as the adjoining dwelling at 9 Tower Street to the satisfaction of Council.

 

3.       A Construction Certificate for DA consent 838/2006 must not be issued by Council or an the Certifying Authority unless that Construction Certificate also incorporates DA consent 837/2006.

 

Reason:

Council is of the opinion that approval of both DA 838/2006 and DA 837/2006 is warranted only in circumstances where both semi detached dwellings, known as Nos 7 & 9 Tower Street, Coogee are acted upon concurrently. The condition is imposed to prevent the owner of either property engaging a private certifier to issue an individual construction certificate for their property. Failure to comply with this condition would amount to an offence pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In the absence of both consents being acted upon concurrently a streetscape issue may arise.

 

4.       An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the first floor addition to the subject development prior to the adjoining dwelling at 9 Tower Street (DA/837/2006) being constructed at least up to “lock up” stage (completion of all structural work, internal and external wall frame, roofing, guttering and drainage and external walls/cladding and finishes) to the satisfaction of Council.

 

5.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing and 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 Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

6.       At no time shall any privacy screening devices be placed or erected on the northern side of the first floor balcony. The glazing to the first floor balustrade shall be clear/transparent glass.

 

7.       The proposed sun louvres to the first floor level front balcony at the front elevation shall be deleted.

 

8.       A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m, measured from the finished balcony level, is to be provided to the northern side of the rear first floor balcony to minimise overlooking into the rear yard of 5 Tower Street. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

9.       The proposed roller shutter door and its associated structure on the front boundary are to be deleted and the fence on the street alignment is to be a maximum height of 1.8m at any point, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the streetscape.

 

10.     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.

 

11.     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.

 

12.     Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway or public place.

 

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

 

14.     The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.     Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter to the satisfaction of the certifying authority and details of the proposed stormwater drainage system are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

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.

 

19.     External paths and ground surfaces are to be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises in such a manner so as not to result in the entry of water into a 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:

 

20.     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.

 

21.     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.

 

22.     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.

 

23.     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.

 

24.     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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

26.     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.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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.

 

30.     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:

 

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

 

·       Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·       Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·                Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

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

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

 

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

 

32.     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.

 

33.     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.

 

34.     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.

 

35.     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.

         

36.     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.

 

37.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Civil Works Conditions

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

 

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

a.       Construct concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

44.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's roadway, 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.

 

45.     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.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

 

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

 

46.     The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveway and pathway entrances shall be as follows:

 

Driveway Entrance – match the existing Council kerb level at both the southern & northern edge openings of the driveway.

Pedestrian Entrance – match the existing Council footpath level.

 

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

 

48.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $121.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Drainage Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

50.     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.

 

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.

 

51.     Should a charged system be required to drain any portion of the site, the charged system must be designed with suitable clear-outs/inspection points at pipe bends and junctions.

 

52.     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 required 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 Randwick City Council's Stormwater Code.

 

53.     All pump out water must pass through a stilling pit prior to being discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter.

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

 

54.     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.

 

55.     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.

 

 

 

Landscape Conditions

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

 

Tree Management

 

56.     Approval is granted for the removal of the Kentia Palm located in the front yard of the site.

Advisory Conditions

 

A1      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 advised to ensure that the development is not inconsistent with Council's consent and if necessary consult with Council’s Building Certification Services or your accredited certifier prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

A2      The applicant 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

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

19 July, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/418/2006 & PROP026508

 

PROPOSAL:

Alterations and additions to the existing mixed use building comprising an addition of third storey containing an additional residential dwelling, addition of lift shaft, rear stairwell and reduction in ceiling heights of the existing dwellings on first floor level.

PROPERTY:

 51-53 Endeavour Avenue, La Perouse

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr H Dermatis

OWNERS:

 Mr H Dermatis and Mrs P Dermatis

 

 

 

 

 

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 Matson, Woodsmith and Notley-Smith.

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Endeavour Avenue and is presently occupied by an existing two storey building containing two shops at the ground floor level fronting Endeavour Avenue and two dwellings on the upper level. There is also a car park at ground level providing a total of seven parking spaces with access from Endeavour Avenue. Neighbouring the property to the north is a two storey dwelling, to the east and north east is two storey dwellings and to the south is land owned by Council. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character however contains some restaurants and shops associated with the local business zone.

 

The application seeks consent for alterations and additions to the existing building primarily involving the addition of a two bedroom dwelling above the existing building. 

 

The proposed development was subject to a substantial number of objections mainly concerned with view loss, visual bulk & scale and the impact of the proposal on the streetscape. The proposal has been substantially amended by reducing the floor to ceiling height of the existing dwellings at first floor level and reducing the size of the proposed upper level addition to address the issues raised by the objectors including minimising the extent of view loss from the immediate adjoining properties at Nos. 26 and 28 Goorawahl Avenue.

 

The amended proposal exceeds the maximum 9m building height limit by up to 500mm towards the front section of the building where the land slopes down to the street.  A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted for the building height standard and it is considered to be well founded in the circumstances.  In particular the scale and height is compatible with the adjacent development in the 3B Zone and there are no significant amenity impacts to surrounding properties in terms of loss of privacy and overshadowing.

 

The main issue of the amended proposal relates to the partial view loss from the adjoining properties at Nos. 26 and 28 Goorawahl Avenue. The reasonableness of the amended proposal, in terms of view loss, has been assessed using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council proceedings. The assessment of the proposal in accordance with the four step process established in the proceedings has demonstrated that the amended proposal is acceptable in terms of the concept of view sharing.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent for alterations and additions to the existing mixed use development that primarily involve the addition of a two bedroom dwelling above the existing building. The details of the proposed works are as follows:

 

Ground Level (Car park and Shops)

-     New sliding door to car park entrance off Endeavour Avenue

-     New mechanical lift and glazed door to existing pedestrian entrance

 

First Floor (Unit 1 and Unit 2 Residential Dwellings)

-     Demolition of the existing roof over the subject building.

-     Reduce the floor to ceiling height of Unit 1 and 2 from 3m to 2.5m by demolition of all external and internal walls by 500mm

-     Replacement of windows to Unit 1 and 2

-     Demolition of the western external wall to a bedroom at the north-western corner of Unit 1 to allow for lift access to top floor unit

-     New terrace area to lift with sliding doors for access in and out of Unit 1

-     Replacement of south facing windows to Unit 2 bedroom and living/dining room

-     Replacement of windows and doors to northern side of Unit 1 and 2

-     New external stair case in north-east corner of the site to the top floor unit

-     New riser extension through proposed floor for existing mechanical ventilation

 

Second Floor (Unit 3 – Proposed Residential Dwelling)

-     New residential dwelling comprising of two bedrooms, a kitchen, lounge room, an ensuite and bathroom. The proposal also includes a terrace along the southern side of the site, a balcony along the northern side of the site, a seating lounge and a spa to the western edge of the terrace area and a BBQ are adjacent to the lift

-     110mm high brick enclosure to riser for new mechanical ventilation exhaust, located adjacent to southern boundary

-     Mobile planter boxes along the eastern edge of the terrace area

 

It should be noted that the proposal has been amended a number of times throughout the course of the assessment of the application. The proposed changes above indicate the proposal as per the plans received by Council on 19 June 2007 and 26 July 2007.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Endeavour Avenue and is presently occupied by an existing two storey building. The site has a frontage width of 23m, a southern boundary depth of 15.2m, a northern boundary depth of 20.3m, an eastern side boundary depth of 23.8m and an overall site area of 407.5sqm.  Neighbouring the property to the north is a two storey dwelling, to the east and north east is two storey dwellings and to the south is a land reserve owned by Council and known as Lithuratiure Lane. The surrounding area is residential in character however contains some restaurants and shops associated with the coastal location of the area. The subject site contains two retail units on the ground floor and two residential dwellings on the first floor.

 

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

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area.

Figure 2: The subject site from Endeavour Avenue.

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The development application was lodged on 6 June 2006 and notified to the surrounding properties from 21 June to 5 July 2006. Fourteen objections were received during the notification period and raised a broad range of concerns from view loss, visual bulk and scale, the impact of the proposal on the streetscape.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 9 August 2006 and reduced the floor space of the proposal as well as reducing the height from RL 17.679 to RL 16.2. The amended plans were notified to the surrounding residents from 15 August to 29 August 2006. Three objections were received during this notification period, with the main concerns relating to the minimal improvement of the proposal in relation to the decrease of the building height. All objectors reiterated their original concerns.

 

A mediation session was organised for 20 September 2006 at Council’s administration building. The mediation session was attended by a number of residents from Goorawahl Avenue however no resolution to the outstanding issues was achieved.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 23 November 2006 that reduced the height of the proposal by 1.05m and made changes to the configuration of the proposed development. The surrounding neighbours were notified of the amended plans from 30 November to 14 December 2006. Twenty objections were received during the notification period and again reiterated the general concerns of the development. The amended plans were found to be inaccurate as the RLs of the existing building were shown incorrectly.  

 

The amended plans showing the actual RLs of the existing building and proposed upper level additions and the reduction in size and height of a section of the roof over the new terrace area were submitted to Council on 19 June 2007. The neighbours were renotified of the amended proposal and two objections were received reiterating the issues in previous submissions. Further amendments were made to reduce the gross floor area of the proposed upper level additions to achieve full compliance with the maximum FSR allowed for the site. 

 

b.    HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

Previous applications submitted for development on the site includes:

Application No.

Description

Determination

BA/1529/1988

A new car park to restaurant

Refused on 14 December 1988

DA/113/1992

Erection of mixed residential/                commercial development

Approved on 5 May 1992

BA/581/1992

New three storey residential/commercial development comprising three shops and three apartments

Approved on 4 March 1993

DA/428/1994

Construct 2 shops & associated  residences

Approved on 4 November 1994

BA/9/1995

Two shops & two units with car parking (2 storey)

Approved on 3 March 1995

BA/9/1995/Z

2 shops & 2 units with car park

Approved on 3 March 1995

DA/387/1996

Change of use - cafe, takeaway with seating for (16) sixteen persons

Approved on 1 October 1996

BA/804/1996

Fit out of existing shop

Approved on 16 October 1996

DA/160/1997

To erect a footway restaurant and associated awnings

Approved on 5 August 1997

DA/160/1997/A

Section 96(2) - Increase the outdoor seating and tables to ten tables and 30 chairs (presently 5 tables and 30 chairs). Original consent - To erect a footway restaurant and associated awnings.

Approved on 8 March 2005

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

5.1      Original Proposal

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 submissions were received:

Maurice J. Hume – 26 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Issue

Comment

The proposed development will have an adverse impact to views obtained from the rear (western) boundary from both sitting and standing positions from the lounge and living rooms, balcony, bedrooms and the objector’s backyard.

The applicant has agreed to reduce the ceiling height of the existing dwellings at the first floor level to minimise impact from the objectors’ properties. A full assessment of the potential view loss from the immediate adjoining dwellings is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

The extent of the view loss would be “severe” leading to “devastating” as per the Tenacity v Warringah planning principle.

An assessment of the reasonableness of the amended proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

The SEPP 1 objection provided with the application is “unreliable” and “not well-founded”.

The SEPP 1 objection is considered to be well-founded as the variation with the maximum building height only relates to the front section of the proposed upper level addition due to the sloping nature of the site. It is not considered that a fully compliant development would result in substantial difference in impact as the variation to the building height control is only up to 500mm towards the front of the building. 

Brett Neilson & Elisabetta Magnani – 27 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

B. Larrsen – 29 Dawes Street, Little Bay

C. Spicer – 32 Reservoir Street, Little Bay

G. Dalton – 27 Dawes Street, Little Bay

Richard Isles – 74 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay

John Kirk – 70 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay

Stephen Fisher – 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal will have an “excessive bulk” in the “local context”.

The amended proposal has a FSR of 1:1 which complies with the maximum FSR allowed.

The proposal will have “negative design impact on the streetscape and “iconic La Perouse beachfront”.

The proposal has been revised and will be compatible with the existing development in the locality in terms of building design, bulk and scale.

Objects to the “devastating view loss impact on neighbouring residences”.

An assessment of the reasonableness of the amended proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

The proposal has an “excessive floor space” and is substantially above what is permissible for the site.

As noted previously, the amended proposal has a FSR of 1:1 which complies with Clause 32 of the LEP.

The proposal will set an undesirable precedent of “over-development” in the area.

The amended proposal complies with the maximum FSR allowed for the site and does not represent an overdevelopment in the area.

“The proposal does not comply with the objectives of the neighbourhood business zone”.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the Local Business zone in that a new residential accommodation is proposed in conjunction with the existing mixed residential/commercial development fronting Endeavour Avenue and will not interfere with the primary business function of the zone.

 

Staffan Kjelleberg and Patricia Conway – 22 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Issue

Comment

The proposal will adversely impact iconic views of Botany Bay, Birdie’s Boatshed, La Perouse Museum and La Perouse Monument.

As noted above, an assessment of the view loss issue using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

The SEPP 1 assertion that the development will have no adverse impact is false as no view loss assessment has been undertaken.

The applicant has submitted a view loss assessment demonstrating the amended proposal will have minimal impact on neighbour’s views.

The claim that the proposal is consistent with other approvals for the site is false as no documentation of previous approvals has been found.

Council has previously approved a Building Application (BA/581/1992) for a new three storey mixed use development on the subject site. The proposed development appears to be similar to the approved development in terms of height, bulk and scale.

 

Charles Abela for the La Perouse Precinct Committee

 

Issue

Comment

The FSR of 1.14:1 is excessive and results in adverse impacts to views of adjacent dwellings.

The amended proposal has a FSR of 1:1 which complies with the requirement under LEP.

A portion of the car parking space should contribute towards the gross floor area as it is being used for uses other than parking vehicles.

This is a matter currently under investigation by Council’s Building Regulatory section.

The building is located in a scenic protection area and is a sensitive location.

The subject site is not located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

The sky light to the roof of the structure is excessive and the addition of balustrades indicates potential future use of the roof area as a separate development.

This issue has been addressed by the amendments made to the proposal.

It has not been demonstrated that the car park use will be appropriately monitored to restrict use for restaurant purposes.

This issue is not relevant as the proposal does not involve any works to the existing restaurant at ground floor level. It should be noted that the existing parking spaces provided in the car park will be sufficient to accommodate an additional parking demand generated by the proposal. 

 

David Anderson – resident at 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Issue

Comment

The proposal is inconsistent with the business zone objectives, primarily due to the development being mainly residential.

The proposed new residential accommodation is in conjunction with the existing mixed residential/commercial development fronting Endeavour Avenue and does not interfere with the primary business function of the zone.

The proposal is “completely out of character with surrounding development”.

The amended proposal will have the bulk and scale similar to other mixed use development recently approved in the immediate vicinity.

The proposal will have an adverse impact to views enjoyed by the objector.

An assessment of the reasonableness of the amended proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

The claims made in the SEPP 1 objection to floor space ratio are “false” as views are significantly impacted by the development.

SEPP 1 objection is not required as the amended proposal complies with the FSR standard.

The proposal includes habitable rooms within 3.5m of the objector’s balcony and 7m from the objector’s bedrooms. Privacy impacts have not been addressed by the applicant.

The amended proposal is unlikely to create any privacy concern as the RL of the proposed upper level addition is below the RL of the balcony at the rear of 28 Goorawahl Avenue.

George Wigan – 24 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Issue

Comment

The proposal has unreasonable bulk and scale that will adversely impact upon views to the Aboriginal Museum, The Convict Gaol and Birdie Boatshed.

The amended proposal complies with the FSR control. The bulk and scale of the amended proposal will be compatible with other mixed use development in the immediate vicinity.

Resident Watch – C/- P.O. Box 457, Matraville

Issue

Comment

The proposal will result in an overdevelopment of the site.

The FSR of the proposal has been reduced and is now fully complies with the LEP control.

John Ratcliffe – 14 Bellbird Close, Cooranbong. Owner of 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Issue

Comment

The proposal has unreasonable bulk and scale that will adversely impact upon views to the Aboriginal Museum, The Convict Gaol and Birdie Boatshed.

The amended proposal complies with the FSR control. The bulk and scale of the amended proposal will be compatible with other mixed use development in the immediate vicinity.

The building heights are inaccurate and do not use a standard height datum.

The height of the proposed development has been revised and verified by the registered surveyor.

 

5.2      Amended Plans Received 9 August 2006

Amended plans were received by Council on 9 August 2006 and reduced the floor space of the proposal as well as reducing the height from RL 17.679 to RL 16.2. The amended plans were notified to the surrounding residents from 15 August to 29 August 2006.

 

The following submissions were received during this notification period.

 

Irene Ratcliffe, owner of 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse (also on behalf of John Ratcliffe, the other owner of 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse)

Issue

Comment

The proposal would “completely block any westerly scenic views from the kitchen and living areas” of the objector’s dwelling.

An assessment of the reasonableness of the amended proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

The height of the proposal exceeds the 5m height limit of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Zone.

As noted previously, the subject site is not within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

The proposal will result in a non-compliant FSR that will affect “the privacy of nearby dwellings.”

As noted previously, the amended proposal has a FSR of 1:1 which complies with the LEP standard.

An increase in the size of the existing building would be “aesthetically unacceptable.”

The bulk and scale of the amended proposal is considered to be compatible with other mixed use development in the immediate vicinity.

 

Maurice J. Hume – 26 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Issue

Comment

The proposed development will have an adverse impact to views obtained the rear (western) boundary from both sitting and standing positions from the lounge and living rooms, balcony, bedrooms and the objector’s backyard.

As noted previously, a view loss assessment is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

 

David Anderson – 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

The issues raised in the submission received by Council on 1 September 2006 have been covered in the original submission by Mr Anderson, received by Council on 6 July 2006. It should be noted that the submission does mention the erection of height poles on the site and that they were inaccurate in representing the height of the proposal.

 

5.3      Amended Plan Received on 23 November 2006

Amended plans were received by Council on 23 November 2006 that reduced the height of the proposal by 1.05m and made changes to the configuration of the proposed development. The surrounding neighbours were notified of the amended plans from 30 November to 14 December 2006.

 

The following submissions were received during this notification period.

 

Rebecca Coutts – 24 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Michael Lee – 26 Dawes Street, Little Bay

G. Blaxland – 3 Endeavour Avenue, La Perouse

Bella Glenny – 10 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Ben Larssen – 17 Endeavour Avenue, La Perouse

Anna Ivanoff – 7 Endeavour Avenue, La Perouse

Claude Stubbley – 9 Endeavour Avenue, La Perouse

Neville Clay – 23 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Stephen Fisher – 28 Gooawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Yan Liang – 19 Endeavour Avenue, La Perouse

Yvonne Larssen – 17 Endeavour Avenue, La Perouse

G. Dalton and J. Dalton – 27 Dawes Street, Little Bay

Morris Larssen – 17 Endeavour Avenue, La Perouse

Michelle Morgan-Spooner – Address not provided.

Ehab Kamal Youssef and Marina Wan – 25 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

G & F Aielli – Address not provided.

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal is imposing upon the streetscape and is not “suitable for the generally low-density single residential development in La Perouse”.

The proposal is located within the local business zone and is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone.

The “building design is not suitable in the context of surrounding development and the important heritage and cultural setting”.

The proposal will be consistent with the design of the existing building. The proposed bulk and scale will be compatible with other mixed use development in the immediate vicinity.

“The proposal is an over-development of the site.”

The amended proposal complies with the maximum FSR required under the LEP and is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal has an adverse impact to views and solar access to adjoining residences.

The assessment of the view loss issue is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

“The parking provisions within the building are inadequate for any further development and have never been open and accessible for public use by the cafe patrons, as intended in the original approval.”

The existing on-site parking is intended to be used by the occupants of the building and is not available for public use.

 

Staffan Kjelleberg and Patricia Conway – 22 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Issue

Comment

The proposal will adversely impact iconic views of Botany Bay, Birdie’s Boatshed, La Perouse Museum and La Perouse Monument.

The view loss assessment is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

The proposal exceeds the maximum building height by 0.35m.

The amended proposal exceeds the maximum building height standard under the LEP and a SEPP 1 objection has been submitted, which demonstrates strict compliance with the standard is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Scott Nash, acting on behalf of his grandparents who are the owners of 26 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Issue

Comment

The proposal would result in an “unacceptable and unreasonable view loss impact.”

As noted previously, a view loss assessment is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

 

David Anderson – 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

Issue

Comment

The proposal is inconsistent with the business zone objectives, primarily due to the development being mainly residential.

This issue has already been addressed above.

The height poles erected on the site are “false and misleading” and are not accurately positioned.

The inaccurate height poles were replaced and verified by a registered surveyor and photos were taken to demonstrate the extent of view loss from neighbouring dwellings. 

The proposal will have an adverse impact to views enjoyed by the objector.

As noted previously, the view loss assessment is provided in Section 8.6 of this report.

The claims made in the SEPP 1 objection to floor space ratio are “false” as views are significantly impacted by the development.

This issue has already been addressed above.

The proposal includes habitable rooms within 3.5m of the objector’s balcony and 7m from the objector’s bedrooms. Privacy impacts have not been addressed by the applicant.

This issue has already been addressed above.

 

John Ratcliffe – 14 Bellbird Close, Cooranbong. Owner of 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

The issues raised in Mr Ratcliffe’s objection have been addressed in earlier submissions.

 

5.4      Amended Plan Received on 19 June 2007

Amended plans were received by Council on 19 June 2007 which shows the actual RLs of the existing building and the proposed upper level additions as well as a reduction in height of a section of the roof over the new front terrace area at the top floor level. The surrounding neighbours were notified of the amended plans from 27 June 2007 to 11 July 2007.

 

The following submissions were received during this notification period:

 

Scott Nash, acting on behalf of his grandparents who are the owners of 26 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

 

The objection as originally submitted is maintained by Mr and Mrs Hume.

 

Irene Ratcliffe, owner of 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse (also acting on behalf of John Ratcliffe, the other owner of 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse)

 

The issues raised in Mrs Ratcliffe’s objection have been addressed in earlier submissions.

 

David Anderson – resident at 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

 

The issues raised in Mr Anderson’s objection have been addressed in earlier submissions.

 

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      Environmental Health Services

 

“The proposal

The proposal involves alterations and additions to an existing two storey mixed commercial/residential building.

 

Key Issues

Noise from plant and equipment

 

The proposed lift may potentially impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residences and therefore an acoustic report/statement shall be provided should the application be approved.

 

Food requirements

 

There are no proposed alterations to the existing food premises and as such conditions have not been included in this consent.”

 

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

 

6.2      Building and Development Control Services

 

BCA Building Classification

Class 2 – Residential units

Class 7a- Carpark

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

 

  A ‘rise in storeys’ of three

  Masonry walls, tiled roof and concrete floors

  A total of 3 residential sole occupancy units, and 2 shops

  External balconies

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

-    Building Code of Australia.

-    Development Control Plan- Parking

-    Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned Local Business 3B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

29 – Foreshore scenic protection area

The subject site is not located within the Foreshore scenic protection area.

NA

NA

31 - Landscaped area

NA

NA

NA

32 - FSR

1:1

1:1

The break down of the gross floor area at each level is as follows:

Ground = 82.5sqm

First = 217.5 sqm

Second = 107sqm

Total = 407sqm

Yes

33(5) - Building Height

9m maximum building height.

The proposal has a maximum height of 9.5m, measured from the car park level to the parapet wall at the front of the building.

Does not comply. SEPP 1 objection submitted.

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

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

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes. The subject site is located approximately 36m from heritage item at 27 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse.

The subject site is not immediately noticeable from the heritage item and will not result in a noticeable impact to the heritage significance of the item. No further assessment is required.

 

Zone Objectives

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

The proposal is for new residential accommodation in conjunction with the existing mixed residential/commercial development fronting Endeavour Avenue and will not interfere with the primary business function of the zone which is maintained by the existing restaurant/café fronting Endeavour Avenue. It should be noted that there is no minimum or maximum proportion of floor space that is required to be allocated to a business or residential use on the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the zone.

 

8.2      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

 

a)      Building Height

 

Clause 33(5) of LEP 1998 requires that the maximum building height for a building, within Zone No. 3B be no more than 9m. The amended proposal has a maximum height of 9.5m approximately to the top of the roof parapet of the proposed upper level addition towards to the front of the building. 

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1) in respect to the non-compliance with the maximum permissible overall height limit and has argued that strict compliance with clause 33 (5) of LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

 

 

 

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

 

The building height control in question is a development standard as contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.        The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The 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 object specified in Section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.”

 

The objects of the Act referred to in the aims and objectives of SEPP no. 1 under Section 5 (a)(I)(ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

 

a.       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 a better environment; 

b.       the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land;”.

 

The proposed development will be consistent with the planning objectives for the locality in that the additional dwelling will allow for the development potential of the subject land to be further realised without creating any significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding developments. Furthermore, the proposal has been revised to minimise the view loss impact from the eastern adjoining dwellings by lowering the ceiling height of the existing dwellings at the first floor level to 2.5m and reducing the FSR to comply with the maximum control under the LEP.

 

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

 

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

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed height control would be unnecessary given the circumstances of the site topography. The proposed addition maintains compliance with the 9m building height limit along the rear (eastern) elevation and also predominately along the length of side (northern and southern) elevations of the building. In fact, the maximum height of the rear elevation of the proposal is only 5.5m, which is well below the 9m building height limit.

 

The non-complying section of the proposal is towards the front of the building where the land slopes down to the street and the variation is up to 500mm.

 

As noted previously, the proposal has been substantially amended by lowering the ceiling height of the existing dwellings at first floor level to 2.5m to reduce the overall height of the building and its impact on views from neighbouring dwellings to the east. It is considered that any further reduction in height will adversely affect the amenity of the occupants of the existing dwellings on the site and pulling the front section of the proposed addition back to comply with the building height will not make any significant improvement in terms of view. It should be noted that the impact of a development with a fully compliant building height at the rear of the subject site would be much worse than the development currently proposed. In addition, it should be also note that if the site was zoned Residential 2A (i.e. the same zone as the nearby residential area) the maximum building height allowed for development such as an attached dual occupancy would be 9.5m and the extent of view loss from the eastern adjoining dwellings would most likely to be the same. For these reasons, it is considered that strict compliance with the building height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as compliance would not introduce any substantial benefit to either the streetscape or neighbouring properties.

 

5.         Whether the objection is well founded.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

·                Orderly use of the land – in accordance with the objectives of SEPP No. 1, it is considered that the proposal promotes the orderly use of the land. The building will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents or the character of the area.

 

·                Zoning – the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Local Business zone. The development does not negatively impact upon the primary commercial function of the zone. Residential accommodation is provided without any adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

·          Streetscape/Design – the proposed design ensures that the new apartment will have minimal visual impact from Endeavour Avenue. To the rear the addition and the existing building will appear as a two storey structure, compatible with surrounding properties. The scale is also consistent with neighbouring developments of 3-storeys in the same zone. This also includes the recent approval of a part 3rd level at 1603 Anzac Parade and Danny’s, which has frontage to Endeavour Avenue.

 

·          Views and vistas – the proposed development and height does not unreasonably impact upon views or vistas in to or out of the site.

 

The non-compliance is relatively minor and is a result of the site topography. 

 

From Endeavour Avenue, it is considered that the additional height is sufficiently setback so as not to be visually prominent.  Therefore having regards to the merits of proposal, it is considered that the additional height of up to 500mm would not impinge on the objectives of the LEP, the specific objectives of the zone and the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

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

 

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

 

The additional tests include whether the proposal will result in a better environmental outcome than a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the controls.  Notwithstanding, that the SEPP is a draft document requiring consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act, Clause 14 of the draft document includes savings provisions that any development application made and not determined when the draft SEPP is gazetted is to be assessed against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1.

 

Further, legal advice provided to Council considers that the draft SEPP should not be given any significant weight, as its final form is neither imminent nor certain and would not apply given that it contains a provision saving the subject application.  As such, further consideration of the Draft SEPP is therefore not required, however, it is considered that the proposal will provide an appropriate built form to Endeavour Avenue and consistent with other mixed use development in the immediate vicinity of the site. 

 

8.4      Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The DCP – Parking requirements for the site include:

 

Proposed use

Parking requirement

Multi Unit Housing

1 space per two studio dwellings

1 space per 1 bedroom dwelling or bedsitter unit over 40 sqm

1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling

1.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom dwelling

Visitor Parking: 1 space per 4 dwellings or part thereof, but shall not be required for a development containing less than 4 dwellings.

Service and Deliver Parking: See Section 3.4

Bicycle Parking: 1 space per 3 units, plus 1 visitor space per 10 units.

Car Wash Bays: 1 car wash bay required per 12 dwellings. Note: Visitor spaces may be used as car wash bays.

Restaurants (e.g. coffee shops, restaurants, cafes, tea room).

1 space per 40 sqm GFA for the first 80sqm then 1 space per 20sqm thereafter

 

The restaurant component of the existing development requires a total of two parking spaces. The existing and proposed two bedroom dwellings require 1.2 spaces each, therefore requiring 3.6 spaces. In total, the development would require 5.6 spaces, which is rounded up to the nearest whole number, being six car parking spaces.

 

The amended plan shows an additional car space (i.e. space No. 8) to be provided to the eastern side of Shop 1 and a total of eight car spaces in the ground floor car park. It is noted that a vehicle parked in space No. 8 will restrict access to and the egress from space Nos. 4 to 7, as such, it is recommended that space No. 8 should be deleted as the additional car space is not required because the number of spaces currently available on the site already complies with the requirements under the DCP – Parking.

 

8.5    Section 94 Contributions Plan

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

 

Figure 9: Levies for additional residential dwelling

 

Units

Open space levy per unit ($)

Total open

Space

($)

Community facilities levy per unit ($)

Total community facilities ($)

1 x 2 Bedroom

1,792.88

-

792.72

-

TOTAL*

 

1,792.88

 

792.72

 

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

 

8.6    Impact on Adjoining Properties

 

8.6.1   View sharing

As noted previously, height poles were erected on site on numerous occasions to allow a better understanding of the view-related impacts of the amended schemes on the existing dwellings at 26 and 28 Goorawahl Avenue, to the immediate east of the site. The following photos show the views currently available from 28 Goorawahl Avenue.

 

       No. 28 Goorawahl Avenue

 

Existing tree obscuring views to La Perouse Memorial Monument

 

Approximate outline of amended proposal

 

Photo 6: Views from the rear ground floor balcony of 28 Goorawahl Avenue looking southwest over part of the subject site at standing position. 

 

Approximate outline of amended proposal

 

Photo 7: Views from the rear ground floor balcony of 28 Goorawahl Avenue looking west over part of the subject site at standing position.

 

Approximate outline of amended proposal

 

Photo 8: Views from the rear ground floor balcony of 28 Goorawahl Avenue looking northwest over part of the subject site at standing position.

 

The planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity v Warringah Council proceeding is used to make an assessment of the reasonableness of the amended proposal, in terms of view-loss. The following paragraphs provide an assessment of the proposal in accordance with the four (4) step process established in the proceedings.

 

(1)    “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. 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, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

No. 26 Goorawahl Avenue currently enjoys the following views:

 

  views of part of the La Perouse museum, La Perouse memorial monument and parkland, looking south-west from the rear ground floor balcony;

  views of the Boatshed, Frenchmans Bay, Yarra Bay and Port Botany, looking west from the rear ground floor balcony and rear living room window; and

  views of part of La Perouse memorial monument, looking southwest from the living room window at the rear.

 

No. 28 Goorawahl Avenue currently enjoys the following views:

 

  views of part of La Perouse memorial monument, Botany Bay, part of Boatshed, looking southwest from the rear ground floor balcony; and

  views of Frenchmans Bay, Yarra Bay and Port Botany, looking west from the rear ground floor balcony.

 

The views obtained from Nos. 26 and 28 Goorawahl Avenue is considered to be valuable, insofar as they relate to La Perouse museum, La Perouse memorial monument and the Boatshed. The remainder of the views (i.e. Port Botany, Yarra Bay, Frenchmans Bay and parkland) are considered to be of little to moderate significance as some of these views are partially obscured by existing trees and buildings.

 

The views towards the water from the rear balcony of 26 Goorawahl Avenue are considered to be “whole” views, in that there are no major impediments or interruptions. However, part of the water views from the rear balcony of 28 Goorawahl Avenue is already obscured by the existing building at the subject site and a tree on the south-western corner of 28 Goorawahl Avenue (see Photos 6, 7 & 8).

 

(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.

 

As noted previously, views from Nos. 26 and 28 Goorawahl Avenue are currently available from the balconies and west facing living room windows at the rear of each dwelling. The views can be attained from standing or sitting position.

 

(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.

 

It is considered that the extent of view loss from 26 Goorawahl Avenue is minor as the majority of the valuable views to La Perouse museum, La Perouse memorial monument, parkland, Frenchmans Bay, Yarra Bay and Port Botany will be retained. The only view that will be partially affected is the filtered view to the lower section of the Boatshed and a portion of the beach adjacent to it.

 

As illustrated in photo Nos. 6, 7 and 8 above, the proposal has been revised by moving the upper level addition further towards the northern side boundary of the site to maximise the view corridor from the rear ground floor balcony of 28 Goorawahl Avenue. As a result, the views to the Boatshed, La Perouse memorial monument and Port Botany from the rear ground floor balcony will be fully retained. It is considered that the extent of the impact from the rear ground floor balcony of 28 Goorawahl Avenue is minor as the views that will be partially affected relates only to a portion of water views to the west. 

 

(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.

 

As noted previously, the proposal has been substantially amended by reducing the ceiling height of the existing dwellings at first floor level to 2.5m and the size of the proposed upper level additions to minimise the extent of view loss from the eastern adjoining dwellings at Nos. 26 and 28 Goorawahl Avenue.

 

The proposed addition generally maintains compliance with the 9m building height limit except for a section of the northern and southern elevations towards the front of the building which has a maximum height of up to 9.5m. The variation is due to the sloping nature of the site.

 

It is not considered that a fully compliant building would result in any substantial difference in terms of the impacts as the variation to the building height control is only up to 500mm towards the front of the building. It should be noted that the rear section of the building is only 5.5m in height which is well below the maximum building height limit applicable to the site. A development with a fully compliant building height at the rear of the site would be worse than the development currently proposed. In addition, it should be noted that the eastern adjoining sites (i.e. 26 and 28 Goorawahl Avenue) are also zoned  Local Business 3B and the development potential of these properties must also be taken into consideration in terms of the concept of view sharing. In this regard, it is considered that the amended proposal is more skilfully designed than the original scheme, such that the view-related impacts of the proposal are acceptable, having regard to the planning principle discussed herein.

 

10.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:            Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

11.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.      CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible in the 3B Local Business Zone with the consent of Council and is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone. 

 

The amended proposal exceeds the maximum 9m building height limit by up to 500mm towards the front section of the building where the land slopes down to the street.  A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted for the building height standard and it is considered to be well founded in the circumstances.  In particular the scale and height is compatible with the adjacent development in the 3B Zone and there are no significant amenity impacts to surrounding properties in terms of loss of privacy and overshadowing.

 

In terms of view loss, the amended proposal has been assessed using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council (2004) proceedings and was found to be acceptable in regards to the four steps assessment set out by Senior Commissioner Roseth. 

 

For the above reasons, the amended proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to vary the provisions of Clause 33(5) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to building height for Development Application No. DA 418/2006 on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality, and that Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

AND

 

B.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 418/2006 to carry out alterations and additions to the existing mixed use building comprising an addition of third storey containing additional residential dwelling, addition of lift shaft, rear stairwell and reduction in ceiling heights of the existing dwellings on first floor level at 51-53 Endeavour Avenue, La Perouse, subject to the following conditions:

 

REFERENCED PLANS:  

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans numbered DA03A and DA04A, dated December 2005 and received by Council on 19 June 2007 and amended plans numbered DA02B, DA05B to DA12B, dated December 2005 and received by Council on 26 July 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:

 

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

 

2.       The existing ground floor car park must incorporate the provision of one (1) car parking space for the new residential dwelling at the second floor level.

 

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

 

4.       The proposed car space No. 8 shall be deleted as it will restrict access to and egress from space Nos. 4 to 7 when the proposed car space is occupied. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

10.     The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  The details and samples of the glass to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of City Planning, prior to the commencement of works.

 

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

 

12.     Solar hot water heaters or other structures are not permitted to be installed on the roof of the building unless the prior written approval of Council’s Director of City Planning has been obtained beforehand.

 

13.     Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following condition is applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

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

 

a)     for the provision or improvement of open space                  $1,792.88

b)     for the provision or improvement of community facilities          $792.72

c)     Administration fee                                                            $425.00

 

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

 

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

 

Regulatory

 

19.     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.

 

20.     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.

 

21.     Prior to the commencement of any building, 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 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

 

22.     Prior to the commencement of any building, 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.

 

23.     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.

 

24.     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,

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

 

25.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

27.     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.

 

Structural adequacy

 

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

 

29.     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 the structural adequacy of the building.

 

Construction site management

 

30.     Demolition work and the removal, 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:

 

·       Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·       Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·                  Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

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

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

 

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

 

31.     In accordance with Council’s Asbestos Policy, the following requirements are to be satisfied if any materials containing asbestos are present in the building:

 

  A Demolition Work Plan must be developed and implemented in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

 

  A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 200 m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation). Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence. It is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

32.     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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

35.     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.

 

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

 

a)  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.

b)  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.

c)  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.

d)  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. Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

e)  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. Sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction. 

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

g)  Temporary fences or hoardings or the like 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.

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

i)   If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing 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.

j)   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.

k)  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.

 

37.     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, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

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

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

·       Placement of a waste skip, container or other article.

 

Fire safety

 

38.     The existing levels of fire and safety within the building are to be upgraded in accordance with the following requirements and the fire safety certificate provisions of Part 9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 must be complied with, prior to issuing an occupation certificate:

 

a)       The following works are to be undertaken in accordance with the specified provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), as applicable:

 

(1)    Install a smoke detection and alarm system throughout the building in accordance with specification E2.2a of the BCA,

 

(2)    Provide emergency lighting system to the carpark, in accordance with clause E4.2 & E4.4 of the BCA,

 

(3)    Provide illuminated exit signs to the carpark , in accordance with clause E4.5 & E4.7 of the BCA,

 

(4)    Provide portable fire extinguisher/s within the carpark and shops  and adjacent to any internal electrical switchboard, in accordance with clause E1.6 of the BCA,

 

(5)    Balustrades and handrails to stairway/s, balconies, decks or the like are to be designed and constructed to satisfy clause D2.16 & D2.17 of the BCA,

 

(6)    Prior to commencing  the abovementioned 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.

 

39.     All new building works (including the proposed alterations/additions) must satisfy the relevant performance or deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

40.     All of the fire safety upgrading works and new building work must be detailed in the Construction Certificate for the development.

 

The fire safety upgrading works must be carried out prior to issuing of an Occupation Certificate for the development and written confirmation must be provided to Council which confirms that all of the upgrading works have been carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent.

 

41.     Upon completion of the fire safety upgrading works and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, a single, complete, fire safety certificate is to be submitted to Council. A copy of the fire safety certificate and fire safety schedule are to be displayed in a prominent position within the building (i.e. entrance area) and a copy must be provided to the NSW Fire Brigades, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

42.     Hazardous or intractable wastes arising from the demolition process being removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environment Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·         New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000;

·         The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001;

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

·         Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and

·         Environment Protection Authority's Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non Liquid Wastes (1999).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

2 August, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/421/2007 & PROP051975 & PROP011258

 

PROPOSAL:

 The construction of a part-3 and part-7 storey development comprising 319 bed post-graduate student accommodation with retail shop and communal facilities at ground floor, basement carparking, landscaping and new bus shelter on Anzac Parade.

PROPERTY:

 215A Anzac Parade, Kensington

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 New College Post Graduate Village Pty. Limited

OWNER:

University of New South Wales

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $28,000,000.

 

The proposal is for the construction of a part 3 and part 7 storey development comprising 319 bed post graduate student accommodation with retail shop and communal facilities at ground floor, basement car parking, landscaping and a new bus shelter on Anzac Parade.

 

The proposed post-graduate student accommodation development is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the aims and objectives contained in the RLEP.

 

The proposal complies with all the requirements of the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus with the exception of maximum building height and retention of an existing tree. The non-compliance in building height will be addressed by way of condition requiring a reduction in the building height to the maximum control while the removal of one tree listed as significant under the DCP is justified on the grounds of safety and suitability as addressed in an arborist report and subject to condition.

 

The proposal is also consistent with the adopted Master Plan/Deemed DCP which contains similar controls as the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus given that the DCP, in essence, adopts most of the controls formulated in the Master Plan.

 

The subject proposal has been referred to the Urban Design Review Panel for comment in relation to its design quality as the proposal is for a multi-storey residential building albeit for student housing (rather than strata sub-division) and given that the proposal will have a bearing on the urban design considerations of a Master Plan site, that is the UNSW Kensington Campus. The Panel has raised a number of concerns generally in relation to the design of the proposal. The applicant has considered the Panel’s concerns and amended the proposal where applicable and provided written advice addressing these concerns.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. As the proposal is a Crown application pursuant to Section 116 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), the University has concurred with the conditions included in the recommendation.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for construction of a part 3 and part 7 storey development primarily for student accommodation as follows:

 

Basement

 

  21 carparking spaces

  30 bicycle spaces

  wc

  common laundry area and linen store

  waste and recycling

  storage spaces

  mechanical services/plant rooms

  rainwater and retention tanks

 

 

 

Ground floor

 

  retail/convenience store

  central courtyard

  common space (140 seats)

  common area adjacent to lift

  reading, business, work and TV/games rooms

  kitchen

  lobby/reception area

  wc

  1 x Dean’s Residence

  1 x 5 bedroom unit

  1 x 6 bedroom unit

  13 x studio units

 

First and second floors

 

  2 x common area adjacent to lift

  1 x Tutor’s Studio

  3 x 5 bedroom unit

  1 x 6 bedroom unit

  32 x studio units

 

Third floor

 

 roof terrace (over two-storey “bridge” section fronting the University Mall)

  2 x common area adjacent to lift

  1 x Tutor’s Studio

  3 x 5 bedroom unit

  1 x 6 bedroom unit

  24 x studio units

 

Fourth, Fifth & Sixth floors

 

  2 x common area adjacent to lift

  1 x Tutor’s Studio

  3 x 5 bedroom unit

  1 x 6 bedroom unit

  24 x studio units

 

The proposal also includes the following works/structures:

 

  Construction of a glazed acoustic screen along the Anzac Parade frontage approximately 15m high and 32m long screening the whole of the first floor to the fifth floor of the east elevation.

 

  Provision of a new bus shelter integrated into the building façade on the Anzac Parade frontage

 

  Landscaping works on-site.

 

Vehicular access into the basement carpark of the proposed development will be via a new driveway on the existing western laneway known as Western Campus Drive.

 

 

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on Anzac Parade, at the intersection of Day Avenue and Anzac Parade, Kensington (see Figure 1 below). The subject site is located within the Western Campus of the University of New South Wales (UNSW).  To the north of the subject site is a UNSW temporary carpark and educational buildings of the UNSW Western Grounds Area; to the east is Anzac Parade and the UNSW main campus on the other side of this road; to the south is Day Avenue with a mix of 3 to 6 storey residential flat buildings fronting this road on the other side; to the west is an internal driveway known as Western Campus Drive and the existing UNSW Regiment facility across this driveway.  

 

Figure 1 : Aerial view of subject site

 

The subject site is relatively square in shape except for the splayed south-eastern corner at Day Avenue and Anzac Parade and falls gently from north to south. It has a site area of 2,597m2. Existing on-site is a number of outmoded educational buildings comprising the following:

 

  A T-shaped part 1 & part 2 storey cement-rendered tile roof building with frontage to Western Campus Drive.

 

  A single storey weather board metal roof building with frontage to Western Campus Drive.

 

  A part 1 & part 2 storey cement-rendered tile roof building with frontage to Day Avenue.

 

The subject site also has a number of significant trees and garden beds.

 

4.       SITE/APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A Master Plan/Deemed DCP was approved for the UNSW campus site on 13 August 2002 subject to revision to incorporate a range of issues required by Council. Accordingly, a revised Master Plan/Deemed DCP was adopted by Council in November 2005. This revised Master Plan/Deemed DCP was incorporated as a new DCP for the University of NSW, Kensington Campus which was adopted by Council on 27 March 2007 and came into effect on 16 April 2007

 

A prelodgement meeting was held on 12 March 2007 (PL 7/2007) to discuss development concepts for the proposed development.

 

Council is currently in receipt of a Development Application (DA No. 386/2007) for the demolition of the existing buildings on-site which has been assessed and recommended for  approval.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised from 13 April 2007 to 2 May 2007, and referred to Precinct Committee, in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. Four submissions were received in response to the notification/advertising:

 

W. Dewar, 6/47 Day Avenue, Kensington

 

  Overdevelopment of site given size of Day Avenue and suburban context

 

Comment: The DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus allows the subject site to be developed to a maximum wall height of 24m with appropriate setback of 6m from Day Avenue. The DCP states that a maximum height of this order, in appropriate locations (as defined by the DCP), can accommodate an appropriate number of storeys and is the “…most suitable for campus buildings and the amenity of their adjoining spaces”.  The building exceeds this 24m maximum wall height limit by 600m on account of a parapet wall to the tower element. As discussed in Section 10.3.1 below, a condition will be applied to reduce the height of the tower element by 600mm should approval be granted. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the subject site, having a scale and builtform that provides for an appropriate edge to Anzac Parade and suitable amenity impacts on nearby residential development.

 

  Inadequate setback and inconsistent with those existing in Day Avenue

 

Comment: The DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus requires a 6m setback from the street alignment for a building adjoining residential precinct. The proposal does not directly adjoin a residential precinct being bounded by the UNSW Regiment building to the west, the UNSW Campus grounds to the north, and Anzac Parade and Day Avenue to the east and south respectively. Notwithstanding this, a 6m setback has been provided which is considered adequate and appropriate for the campus-setting of the development site and its corner location to Day Avenue and Anzac Parade; and which does not vary significantly from established setbacks on Day Avenue.

 

 

  Tower with projecting stairwell is bad design

 

Comment: The tower section of the proposal provides an appropriate builtform to give prominence to the corner of Anzac Parade and Day Avenue. The stairwell within the tower component does not excessively project beyond the building line of the tower component but rather aligns consistently with the building line of the main accommodation block fronting Day Avenue. Furthermore, the stairwell with accompanying blade wall helps to break and bulk and scale of the tower element especially as this element addresses the prominent corner of Anzac Parade and Day Avenue.

 

  Loss of views

 

Comment: Some loss of northern district views will occur for the dwelling units on the upper floor of No. 47 Day Avenue. These views, however, are not considered to be iconic or significant to warrant refusal of the DA. Accordingly, refusal of the proposed development on the basis of this quality of view loss is considered unreasonable and inappropriate. Furthermore, the proposed development provides an appropriate balance to any potential view loss by providing for an architectural design that is visually agreeable for an institutional site such as the UNSW and for Day Avenue given the proposed tree retention and appropriate landscape treatment along this street; and given the open and uncluttered design treatment to Day Avenue and Anzac Parade as an appropriate interface with these streets. It should also be noted that the proposed development complies with the maximum wall height in the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus subject to condition.

 

  Loss of solar access

 

Comment: Loss of sunlight to this property is addressed in Section 10.4.2.2 below.

 

  Threat to existing trees along Day Avenue

 

Comment: The applicant has provided appropriate information and details to indicate that the proposal will allow for protection and viable retention of the bulk of the existing trees along Day Avenue. In addition, conditions will be applied to ensure the protection and viability of these trees both during construction and operation of the proposed development.

 

M & M McLean, 2/47 Day Avenue, Kensington

 

  Loss of sunlight

 

Comment: Loss of sunlight to this property is addressed in Section 10.4.2.2 below.

 

  Inadequate setback which should be increased

 

Comment: The DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus requires a 6m setback from the street alignment for a building adjoining residential precinct. The proposal does not directly adjoin a residential precinct being bounded by the UNSW Regiment building to the west, the UNSW Campus grounds to the north, and Anzac Parade and Day Avenue to the east and south respectively. Notwithstanding this, a 6m setback has been provided which is considered adequate and appropriate for the campus-setting of the development site and its corner location to Day Avenue and Anzac Parade; and which does not vary significantly from established setbacks on Day Avenue.

 

  Increased noise from basement carpark.

 

Comment: The basement carpark will serve a maximum of 21 cars which results in a traffic generation that is considered moderate (see Section 10.4.2.3 below) as indicated in the applicant’s traffic report with traffic generated at an average of less than one vehicle per minute in both directions in peak hour. Accordingly, this moderate traffic generation is not considered to give rise to any detrimental impact in terms of noise. Furthermore, the location of the driveway entrance within the existing western laneway, Western Campus Drive, removes the potential noise impact further away from the existing residences on Day Avenue.  

 

  Increased traffic congestion and lack of carparking.

 

Comment: The basement carpark will serve a maximum of 21 cars which results in a traffic generation that is considered moderate (see Section 10.4.2.3 below) as indicated in the applicant’s traffic report with traffic generated at an average of less than one vehicle per minute in both directions in peak hour. Accordingly, the proposed development in the peak hour is not expected to compromise the safety or functioning of the surrounding road network. It should be noted that the DA was referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority for comments and no objections in relation to traffic were raised subject to appropriate conditions requiring upgrade works to the intersection of Day Avenue and Anzac Parade.

 

  Noise from students accommodated in the proposal.

 

Comment: The proposal is for the accommodation of mature/post-graduate students under the supervision of a Dean and tutors in accordance with the New College Charter. This College environment will inherently allow for internal control of noise given that the future College will be primarily for students to reside and study in conjunction with courses in the University. Notwithstanding this, conditions will be applied requiring the use and operation of the student accommodation to be conducted such as not to give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.  Appropriate restrictions on sound pressure levels from the proposed development in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance) will also be applied by condition. Furthermore, another condition will be applied to prohibit the communal external balcony located on level 4 from being used between the hours of 10.00 pm– 7.00 am.

 

M & M McLean, W. Dewar, E. Bonnet, A. Zaks and M Vainstein, 47 Day Avenue, Kensington (residents of apartment block at this address)

 

  Proposal is massive in scale

 

Comment: The DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus allows the subject site to be developed to a maximum wall height of 24m with appropriate setback of 6m from Day Avenue. The DCP states that a maximum height of this order, in appropriate locations (as defined by the DCP), can accommodate an appropriate number of storeys and is the “…most suitable for campus buildings and the amenity of their adjoining spaces”.  The building exceeds this 24m maximum wall height limit by 600m on account of a parapet wall to the tower element. As discussed in Section 10.4.2.2 below, a condition will be applied to reduce the height of the tower element by 600mm should approval be granted. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be massive in scale but rather provides for a builtform that will address the corner of Anzac Parade and Day Avenue and will be an appropriate edge to University precinct along Anzac Parade.

 

  Noise from students accommodated in the proposal.

 

Comment: The proposal is for the accommodation of mature/post-graduate students under the supervision of a Dean and tutors in accordance with the New College Charter. This College environment will inherently allow for internal control of noise given that the future College will be primarily for students to reside and study in conjunction with courses in the University. Notwithstanding this, conditions will be applied requiring the use and operation of the student accommodation to be conducted such as not to give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.  Appropriate restrictions on sound pressure levels from the proposed development in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance) will also be applied by condition. Furthermore, another condition will be applied to prohibit the communal external balcony located on level 4 from being used between the hours of 10.00 pm– 7.00 am.

 

  Overshadowing in winter

 

Comment: Loss of sunlight to this property is addressed in Section 10.4.2.2 below.

 

  Entrance on Day Avenue is dangerous to pedestrians and drivers.

 

Comment: The applicant has provided a Traffic Assessment Report that indicates that traffic generation from the proposal will be moderate (see Section 10.4.2.3 below) with traffic generated at an average of less than one vehicle per minute in both directions in peak hour. The report indicates further that this traffic generation is not expected to compromise the safety or function of the local road network, which includes the Western Campus  Drive. Overall, there will be adequate capacity in the surrounding road network to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development to allow for adequate and safe pedestrian and vehicular environments. It should be noted that the DA was referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority for comments and no objections in relation to traffic were raised subject to appropriate conditions requiring upgrade works to the intersection of Day Avenue and Anzac Parade.

 

  Threat to existing trees along Day Avenue

 

Comment: The applicant has provided appropriate information and details to indicate that the proposal will allow for protection and viable retention of the bulk of the existing trees along Day Avenue. In addition, conditions will be applied to ensure the protection and viability of these trees both during construction and operation of the proposed development.

 

  Hotel-style accommodation for postgraduate students inappropriate.

 

Comment: The proposal is to be used and operated by the existing New College body in the UNSW Campus for postgraduate student accommodation. It will be run and controlled under the New College Postgraduate Village Charter which contains appropriate structures and principles for operating the College as a student accommodation. This structure and control provides for a live-in Dean and tutors to supervise and mentor students on-site with student residents having appropriate responsibilities to abide by the Charter in return. Accordingly, the proposed development will not be a run as a “hotel-style” accommodation.

 

  Devaluation of properties

 

Comment: There are numerous environmental factors that can have an effect on the value of properties such that an assessment of the subject proposal in relation to its impact on the value of surrounding properties would be impractical, tenuous and unwarranted. Accordingly, the impact of development proposal on the valuation of properties is not a head of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

Mr J. Shiell, Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct Committee, Kensington

 

    Zero setback to eastern (Anzac Parade), western (internal road) northern (West Mall) boundaries.

 

Comment: The DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus does not prescribe any setbacks to Anzac Parade, Western Campus Drive and the future University Mall but only requires a 6m setback from the street alignment for a building adjoining residential precinct. The proposal does not directly adjoin a residential precinct being bounded by the UNSW Regiment building to the west, the UNSW Campus grounds to the north, and Anzac Parade and Day Avenue to the east and south respectively. Notwithstanding this, a 6m setback has been provided on Day Avenue and a 2m setback on Anzac Parade (to the glazed acoustic screening structure) which are considered adequate and appropriate for the campus-setting of the development site and its corner location to Day Avenue and Anzac Parade.

 

  the increase in the quantum of open space has not been achieved.

 

Comment: The DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus does not prescribe any specific quantum of open space for the subject site. Rather, the DCP indicates a building footprint to maximum 24m wall height over the entire site with the exception of a setback area from Day Avenue. Notwithstanding this, the proposal has not used the whole of the designated footprint but rather provides for a generous central courtyard and smaller eastern courtyard on-site.

 

  The proposed development does not differentiate from the “built to property line” of the adjacent town centres of Kensington and Kingsford.

 

Comment: The subject site lies within the applicable area of the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus and not that of the Kensington Town Centre DCP or the Kingsford Commercial Centre. The DCP - UNSW Kensington Campus does not prescribe a “built to property line” along Anzac Parade. Notwithstanding this, the proposal’s glazed acoustic screening structure is setback by 2m parallel from the Anzac Parade boundary (the actual building behind the glazed acoustic screening structure is in fact setback by approximately minimum 4m and maximum 13.5m). This proposed setback arrangement to Anzac Parade is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

  it will provide a strong yet complementary built edge to the Anzac Parade streetscape in the University precinct along this significant thoroughfare commensurate with the design, form and function of the proposed development.

 

  it will reinforce and give prominence to the corner of Day Avenue and Anzac Parade 

 

  Loss of trees and lack of any replacement. 

 

Comment: The proposal will involve the loss of existing trees on-site. Of the trees that will be affected, the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus identifies 2 categories of trees on-site that have “highest retention priority” – a line of brush boxes along Day Avenue and a Bunya Pine in the north-western corner of the subject site. The proposal will retain the line of trees on Day Avenue but has requested the removal of the Bunyah Pine. An arborist report has been submitted in support of this request indicating the potentially hazardous nature of the tree from falling pine-cones. Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the arborist report and finds the assessment adequate and reasonable subject to condition requiring a suitable replacement tree. The officer has also assessed and found reasonable the proposal to remove other trees in the site subject to appropriate conditions regarding replacement landscaping works.

 

  Council’s preferred arrangement for garbage collection from this development on-site will not be possible.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the arrangement for garbage/waste collection from the proposed development and raises no objections for collection internally within the site. A condition will be applied requiring details of the garbage collection arrangement to be submitted to and approved by Council.  

 

  Bus shelter integrated into the building is questionable.

 

Comment: The provision of a new bus shelter integrated into the design of the proposal is considered appropriate and reasonable as an enhancement of public bus travel to and from the subject site and surrounding area. This accords with the requirements of the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus in relation to promoting spatial legibility of the campus which states specifically that development proposal should “provide for transport stops on Anzac Parade to reinforce campus gathering space and threshold” (Section 5.3, page 11).

 

  Excessive FSR sets a future precedent.

 

Comment: No FSR control is applicable on the subject site which is zoned Special Uses 5A. However, building envelope controls (that is maximum wall height and setback requirements) are applicable under the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus which the proposal will comply with by way of design and through the application of appropriate conditions of consent should approval be granted.  

 

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    Environmental Health Comments

 

The Environmental Health Services raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions should approval be granted. 

 

 

 

6.2    Building Comments

 

“Key Issues

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate. It is noted that the design does not meet the deemed to satisfy requirements of the BCA in relation to a number of matters and the applicant will rely on alternative solutions to be provided at construction certificate stage.

 

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 BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Standard conditions should be included to confirm these requirements.

The applicant or other person having the benefit of the consent is also advised to fulfil their obligations under the DA.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

6.3    Development Engineer’s Comments

 

The Development Engineer Advises as follows:

 

“An application has been received for the demolition of all existing structures and removal of numerous trees, as well as construction of a part 3 and part 7 storey student accommodation development comprising 310 bedrooms, ground floor community facilities, retail premises, landscaping, new bus shelter on Anzac Parade and associated basement car parking for 40 cars and 63 bicycles at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

  Plans by Allen Jack + Cottier, drawing numbers (0000 series):DA0001-DA0004, (1000 series):DA1001 & 1101, (2000 series):DA2001-2108, (300 series): DA3100-3202, project number 06074, issue A dated 26.03.07;

  Hydraulic Design  by Warren Smith & Partners Pty Ltd, drawing numbers DAH-01 – 09, job number H063039, issue 04, dated 16.04.07; 

  Civil Works Plans by Woolacotts Consulting Engineers, drawing numbers C1-2, job number 06-243, dated 22/03/2007;

  Statement of Environmental Effects, Volumes 1-2, by Deborah Sutherland & Associates Planning + Design, dated March 2007;

  Landscape Plans by Site Image Pty Ltd, drawing numbers LADA101-103, LADA201-203, sheets 1-5, job number Y1541, issue 04, dated 10/01/2007;

  Arboricultural Assessment by Hayden Coulter, UNSW Arborist, Grounds Facilities Management, dated 17th April 2007-07-23.

 

Landscape Comments

Previous advice provided to the applicant for this specific site includes a pre-lodgement in March 2007, as well as an application for demolition of all existing structures (DA/386/2007) dated 9th July 2007, both of which identified those existing landscape features which would need to be considered as part of any future development at the site due to their significance and the contribution they make to both the subject site and surrounding public domain.

 

The first of these includes an avenue of nine, 8-10 metre tall Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box’s) along the length of the southern boundary, fronting Day Avenue, in which the UNSW own planning document, the 2020 Masterplan, assigns the “highest retention priority”, identifying them as “significant trees which are to be fully protected within an ongoing Arboricultural management program”.

         

While two separate Arboricultural Assessments have been submitted with this application, the report from the UNSW Site Arborist, Hayden Coulter, dated 17th April 2007 relates specifically to a large Bunya Bunya Pine located towards the northwest corner of the site (which is discussed in greater detail later), with a second report from an independent consultant, Treescan Urban Forest Management, dated March 2007, discussing both this row of Brush Box’s as well as the Bunya Bunya Pine.

This independent report details that despite the new seven storey structure being located closer to the Brush Box’s than the existing two storey building, investigative trenching undertaken along the line of excavation required for the basement level beyond the northern sides of their trunks, as well as for the sub-station shown in the southwest corner of the site, an absence of major, structural roots was confirmed, and is likely due to the sandy soil which has allowed roots to search deeper into the soil profile, possibly in an attempt to access groundwater, while still being able to maintain the required rate of gaseous exchange with the atmosphere.

 

While retention is possible and will therefore be required, this application still poses a threat to this group due to the significant amount of pruning that would be required from their northern aspects in order to avoid damage/conflict with the southern edge of the new structure, and while they will be able to sustain such work as they are one of the most resilient tree species, it will need to be performed in accordance with recognised Arboricultural practices in order to manage the impact such a loss of photosynthetic area would have on their long term health.

 

Additional impacts on this group not yet discussed includes installation of stormwater lines from the southwest corner of the proposed structure to the southern boundary, to the west of the most western tree, a set of pedestrian stairs/steps from the southern side of the structure to the public footpath, to the east of the most eastern tree, as well footings for the elevated decks beneath their driplines (shown only on one of the Landscape Plans).

 

However, the recommendations provided in the independent Arborists Report have been incorporated in the form of conditions, and providing they are adhered to throughout the course of the proposed works, are deemed sufficient to ensure this significant row will be preserved.

 

While neither Arborists Report discusses the applicant’s intentions towards another row of fifteen (15), Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box’s), which vary in height from 5-10 metres along the length of the eastern boundary, fronting Anzac Parade, between the intersection of Day Avenue and the northeast corner of the H3 Building, the UNSW 2020 Masterplan gives a lower, “high retention priority” to this group.

 

Of these, only one large specimen is shown as being retained just beyond the northeast corner of the proposed building, for incorporation into a landscaped area which will form part of the future Mall extension for the Western Campus, which is intended to provide a link with the Eastern Campus Mall entry on the opposite side of Anzac Parade.

 

The remainder of trees in this group, to the north and south of the tree described above (identified as Tree 26 on the Landscape Plan), are shown for removal in order to accommodate the new building and acoustic screening wall, as well as the proposed streetscape improvements which include the relocated bus stop/shelter and street tree plantings, all of which are in accordance with the UNSW higher density vision along Anzac Parade, as outlined in the adopted Masterplan.

 

Ordinarily, the removal of such a prominent row of established trees would not be justified when assessed purely on their existing health and condition alone; however, the regional context of this proposal also needs to be given equal consideration, with the retention of the whole group not feasible given the significant impact this would have on one of the main design philosophies for the site, which attempts to strengthen this important edge of the Campus as a landmark in the area.

 

Therefore, removal is justifiable in this instance for the reasons outlined above, with permission provided on the basis that the one large Brush Box beyond the northeast corner of the proposed structure is protected and retained, together with new/replacement landscape treatment being installed as has been shown.

 

Lastly, there is one large and mature, Araucaria bidwilii (Bunya Bunya Pine) of about 20 metres in height against the northwest corner of the existing H3b building, which is identified in Council’s Draft Significant Tree Register as having ornamental and amenity value, and “may have associations with the voluntary army unit stationed in these grounds in the 1940’s”.

 

The 2020 Masterplan also recognises its importance to both the landscape design and history of the UNSW grounds, assigning its “highest retention priority”, and that such “significant trees are to be fully protected within an ongoing Arboricultural management program”, with new buildings not to “impinge or harm” such specimens, as they are to “form the basis of landscape designs”.

 

However, in cases such as this where removal of an identified significant tree is being sought, it will only be considered when it is “based on detailed Arborists Assessments, if there are no other design options, and in conjunction with agreed replacement or compensation strategies”.

 

It has been made clear that the location of this tree is a constraint to the level of development being sought, with the two separate Arborists Reports both presenting similar cases for its removal.

 

The basis of these are not related to health, condition or structure, but more so a combination of the fact that such significant amendments to the plans would be required to retain this tree that it would no longer be economically feasible to proceed with such a proposal, as well as the hazard posed by the large seed cones.

 

From a purely Arboricultural/Landscape perspective, such issues may not be considered valid given the significance of the tree to the locality and environment, as well as the fact that removal of these cones can be performed using an elevated work platform and extendable pole saw.

 

However, approximately 30-50 cones are produced at different stages of development between November-January each year, weighing up to 10kg each, and can fall from as high as 18 metres above ground, which has the potential to be fatal, and deserves to be regarded as a realistic and ongoing liability for the UNSW.

 

The current low level land use in this area of the Campus would make isolation of the tree during the period of cone production possible, but the intended future use will see a substantial increase in pedestrian and vehicular movements due to the presence of over 300 permanent students, together with the upgraded staff carpark and Mall extension, all in the vicinity of this tree.

 

While there are countless other examples elsewhere throughout the UNSW where established trees are growing immediately adjacent similar sized buildings, and have been managed appropriately over long periods of time to see them develop into some of the largest, most significant trees in the whole City of Randwick, the hazard posed by this particular species is unlike almost any other, in that it is annual occurrence for the rest of its life term.

 

In this particular case, the applicant is deemed to have presented a reasonable case that would justify removal, consistent with the requirements of the adopted Masterplan, as it has been demonstrated that its retention would not feasible in the context of the application, and further, is incompatible with the intended future use.

 

Consistent with previous advice, no objections are raised to removal of the hedge of Murraya paniculata (Murraya) along the eastern boundary, fronting Anzac Parade, as well as the group of four, 6 metre tall trees within the existing courtyard between the H3b Building and eastern boundary, comprising three Robinia psuedoacia ‘Frisia’ (False Acacia’s) and one Stenocarpus sinuatus (Queensland Fire Wheel Tree), to accommodate the proposed works, subject to replacement landscape treatment being provided as has been shown.

 

The plans show streetscape improvements to both the Day Avenue and Anzac Parade frontages; however, bus stops/zones exist in both locations, and while the species proposed on the submitted plans are consistent with those nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan, it may not be possible given ‘line of sight’ requirements.

 

Drainage Comments

An amended drainage concept plan was submitted showing the provision of a stormwater infiltration system within the basement carpark area. There were no accompanying calculations however conditions relating to the design of this infiltration system have been included within this report. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall be required to provide certification for elements of the design of the infiltration system, (in particular the location of the base of the system with respect to groundwater levels within the site and the infiltration rate).

 

Stormwater runoff from the UNSW Kensington Campus is to be managed in accordance with the Stormwater Strategy prepared for UNSW by ANA Technical Services Pty Ltd dated 28/11/2005.

 

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

 

 

Traffic Comments

Based on the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment Report submitted with the Development Application, (prepared by GTA Traffic and Parking Consultants), the proposed development is supportable based on traffic generation and traffic impact considerations, (i.e. impact on the surrounding road network).

 

The applicant has previously submitted a concept plan relating to external works at Day Avenue required for the new temporary carpark serving the western campus, (this concept plan was prepared in consultation with Council and relevant traffic committees). Works in Day Avenue have already been carried out in general accordance with the subject concept plan. Conditions have been included to cover any areas where additional works are required, (e.g. construction of the concrete blisters where currently painted islands have been provided).

 

  Western Campus Driveway Comments

Entry to the proposed basement carpark is via Day Avenue and the Western Campus Driveway. Exit movements from the basement carpark occur via the Western Campus Driveway to Day Avenue. The application therefore relies directly on the Western Campus Driveway for all vehicular entry/exit movements including loading operations and possibly waste collection.  Conditions relating to the reconstruction of the Western Campus Driveway and establishing the development site’s use rights over same have been included within this report.

 

This report also looks at issues relating to ensuring access to the Western Campus Carpark and the UNSW Regiment Carpark during the proposed reconstruction of the Western Campus Driveway.

 

 

  Parking Provision / Carpark Layout

The application proposes 40 carspaces within the basement carpark and the proposed parking provision is in accordance wit the requirements set out in “Campus 2020” UNSW Kensington Campus DCP.

 

The applicant’s traffic consultant has certified that the carpark layout complies with the relevant sections of AS 2890.1 – 2004.

 

Service Authority Comments

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, it was resolved by Council 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.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

6.4    Roads Traffic Authority

 

The proposal was referred to the Roads Traffic Authority for comment in relation to traffic impact. The RTA comments were received in a letter dated 20 June 2007 and has been considered in this DA assessment as described in Section 10.4.2.1 below. The RTA requirements have been included as a condition of consent.

 

6.5      Sydney Airport Corporation

 

The proposal was referred to the Sydney Airport Corporation (SAC) for comment in relation to potential impact of the proposed building height on the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) of the Sydney Airport which prescribes the airspace protection area required for safe aircraft operation around the airport. No response has been received from the SAC to date. Notwithstanding this, a deferred commencement condition requiring the concurrence of the SAC to be provided to Council will be applied should approval be granted for the proposed development.

 

7.      MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Clause 40A of Randwick LEP requires the preparation and adoption of a master plan for the redevelopment of sites having an area in excess of 4,000 square metres and which must be adopted and in force prior to the grant of development consent. The University of NSW complex site is approximately 38.99 hectares in area. In accordance with Clause 40 of the Randwick LEP 1998, a Master Plan was prepared and adopted for the UNSW campus on 13 August 2002 subject to appropriate revisions to the Master Plan. A revised Master Plan was subsequently adopted in November 2005. Following amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, gazetted on 16 June 2005, the UNSW Master Plan is now designated as Deemed Development Control Plan.

 

8.      RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The subject site is zoned Special Uses 5 under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The proposal is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

 

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

 

Clause 37A     Development in Special Uses Zone

Clause 40        Excavation and filling of land

Clause 40A     Master plans

 

9.       POLICY CONTROLS

 

9.1    Development Control Plan – UNSW Kensington Campus

 

The DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus applies to the subject site and contains the following key/prescriptive controls:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum Wall  Height

Max 24m 

 or

Max 12m within 25m from the western boundary of the campus

 

Max 24.6m to tower roof parapet

No – see assessment in Section 10.3 below.

Setback

 

6m from street alignment (for building adjoining residential precinct)

 

10m from the western boundary of the Campus

 

 

6m setback from Day Avenue

 

 

 

Approximately 85m from the western boundary of the Campus

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

Parking

1 space per 15 students/staff for student accommodation at or within 800m of the campus

21 carspaces for 319 students/staff.

Yes

 

The DCP also contains a range of campus design principles and provisions namely in terms of sense of place, legibility, clusters & hubs, landscape, buildings, housing, retail & services, recreation and cultural facilities and transport & parking.  Relevant principles are assessed in Sections 10.3 and 10.4 below where any inconsistencies between the proposal and these performance criteria are discussed accordingly.

 

9.2    Development Control Plan – Parking

 

Under the DCP – Parking, the retail component of the proposal requires carparking spaces to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 40 sqm GFA (see assessment in Section 10.3.2 below).

 

10.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1  Statutory Controls – S79C(1)(a)

 

10.1.1 Crown development applications (Section 116).

The proposal is development under Section 116 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (Crown development).

 

A Consent authority, in respect of a development application made by or on behalf of the Crown or a prescribed person, must not:

 

(a)    refuse its consent to the application, except with the written approval of the Minister, or

(b)    impose a condition of its consent, except with the written approval of the Minister or applicant.

 

As the proposed consent for this application will impose a number of conditions to ensure that the development complies with all controls and relevant standards, these conditions have been referred to the applicant for comment in August 2007 for concurrence of the University. The University has responded to the draft conditions of consent and given its concurrence.

 

10.1.2             Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 37A Development in Special Uses Zone

 

Clause 37 ensures that consideration is given to the impact of development within the Special Uses Zone on nearby development and uses in the locality. The proposed student housing development is a compatible use within the UNSW Campus and a use identified under the DCP - UNSW Kensington Campus. The potential impact of the proposal has been adequately assessed in relevant sections of this report and found not to have any significant impact on nearby development and uses.

 

Clause 40      Excavation and filling of land

 

Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct the building and basement car parking areas. This work will not result in any significant impact on the topography of the site, is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site subject to appropriate drainage works (as addressed by Council’s Development Engineer in Section 6.3 above) or result in soil instability and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

Clause 40A    Master plans

 

The UNSW Kensington Campus Master Plan was adopted on 13 August 2002 subject to a revision of the Master Plan to include, amongst other things, planning details, an urban design strategy and parking and transport study. The adopted Master Plan is now a Deemed DCP pursuant to amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gazetted on 16 June 2005. A revised Master Plan/Deemed DCP was lodged with Council in October 2005 and, subject to appropriate amendments, was adopted in November 2005. The provisions of the UNSW Master Plan/Deemed DCP became the template for, and was incorporated into, the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus which was adopted by Council on 27 March 2007 and came into effect on 16 April 2007.  Accordingly, the assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus (as undertaken in Section10.3 below) provides an indication also of the proposals compliance with the Master Plan. In this regards, as assessed in Section 10.3.1 below, the proposal is generally compliant with the principles and controls in the DCP and hence by extension the Master Plan. 

 

10.2    Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies – Section 79C(1)(a)

 

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

 

SEPP 55 –      Remediation of Contaminated Land

 

This SEPP provides a state wide practice for the remediation of contaminated land. The applicant has provided a preliminary Site Contamination Report prepared by Douglas Partners. The applicant advises that the separate DA lodged for demolition of existing buildings on-site (DA 386/2007) will enable a Phase Two Contamination Assessment to be undertaken. Furthermore, as the subject site is to be significantly excavated, any remediation works required will be done as part of this excavation works. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the preliminary Site Contamination Report and raises no objections to the remediation strategy proposed in the report subject to appropriate conditions requiring the land to be remediated to meet the relevant criteria in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) 1999 and ensure the site, ultimately, is suitable for its intended use pursuant to SEPP 55.

 

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

 

10.3.1 Development Control Plan – UNSW Kensington Campus

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to the Development Control Plan - UNSW Kensington Campus.  The DCP provides a framework for the redevelopment of the Prince Henry site containing performance criteria and controls to guide builtform, provide environmental and amenity standards, and give appropriate heritage protection for the site both on a precinct-by-precinct basis as well as a general overview. The subject site lies within the western campus of the UNSW and complies with the relevant prescriptive controls for the site with the exception of maximum wall height. The proposal exceeds the 24m maximum wall height by 600mm at the parapet wall to the tower component of the proposal. This exceedance of the maximum wall height control is considered unnecessary and should be deleted by a reduction in the parapet wall to this tower component. A condition will be applied requiring the reduction of the tower component by 600mm should approval be granted.

 

Apart from the relevant specific prescriptive controls, the DCP also contains a range of performance criteria for campus design principles and provisions namely in terms of sense of place, legibility, clusters & hubs, landscape, buildings, housing, retail & services, recreation and cultural facilities and transport & parking. The proposal compares with these performance criteria as follows:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

5.1   Sustainability

Environmentally sustainable design in accordance with the UNSW Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

 

The proposal incorporates a range of ESD measures in line with the UNSW EMP as outlined in Section 10.3.2.5 below.

Yes

5.2   Sense of Place

 

1.  High quality built and landscape response to the future University West Mall, Main Campus and Day Avenue.

 

 

 

2.  Retention of existing trees along Day Avenue.

 

1. Building has been design to appropriately address the  future University West Mall, Main Campus and Day Avenue see Section 10.3.2 below).

2. Existing trees on Day Avenue retained and augmented by building and landscape design.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.3   Legibility

1. Existing and potential views into main campus towards Village Green retained.

2. Reinforce the role of the future university West Mall as a gathering and connective space

3. Provide for transport stop on Anzac Parade to reinforce campus gathering space and threshold.

1. Existing and potential views into main campus towards Village Green retained.

2. Building has been design to reinforce the role of future University West Mall.

3. New bus shelters integrated into building façade on Anzac Parade.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.4  Hubs

Support future focus of the western end of the future University West Mall for a activity/retail/recreation hub.

Proposal provides for a retail shop addressing the future mall – appropriate condition requiring strict visual, signage and lighting controls for the convenience store to ensure design integrity to the Mall. 

Yes

5.5   Landscape

1.  Retain existing trees Day Avenue.

2.  Retain existing  Bunyah-bunyah Pine Tree in north-western corner of subject site

 

 

 

1. Existing trees on Day Avenue retained.

2. Arborist report provided indicating tree should be removed due to  high potential hazard. 

Yes

 

 

No – see assessment below

5.10  Housing

Provision of multi-storey campus housing with outward focussed uses at ground floor.

Proposal is for a 7 storey post-graduate student housing development with retail shop on ground level and partially open courtyard to the future University West Mall.

Yes

5.11  Retail & Childcare

Provision of retail facilities along the future university Mall frontage

Proposal provides for a retail shop addressing the future mall – appropriate condition requiring strict visual, signage and lighting controls for the convenience store to ensure design integrity to the Mall. 

Yes

5.13 Transport

1.  Provide for transport stop on Anzac Parade to reinforce campus gathering space and threshold.

2.  Carparking not to occupy ground level.

3.  DA to be supported by Traffic Report addressing, amongst other things, impacts on campus parking demand and reduction in carparking demand across campus.

4.  Maintain provision of disabled parking and  loading zones throughout campus.

1.  New bus shelters integrated into building façade on Anzac Parade.

2.  Carparking will be provided at basement level.

3.  A Traffic Report has been provided with the DA adequately addressing carparking and traffic as discussed in Section below. 

4.  One disabled carspace and a loading dock will be provided.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

The proposal complies with all the performance requirements of the DCP with the exception of the removal of an existing tree which is marked as significant in the DCP - UNSW Kensington Campus. The applicant has provided an Arborist report indicating that the tree, a native pine species, has high potential hazard due to its large seasonal cones (weighing upto 10 kgs) falling to the ground. In addition, the report states that the removal of cones from the tree difficult due to the prickly nature of its leaves and braches. Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the report and raises no objections to removal of tree subject to replacement. Appropriate conditions will be applied should approval be granted.

 

10.3.2             Development Control Plan – Parking

Under the DCP – Parking, the retail component of the proposal requires carparking spaces to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 40 sqm GFA (see assessment in Section 10.3.2 below). The proposal will provide 21 carparking spaces in accordance with the parking requirements for university accommodation (that is, for both student and staff) under the DCP- UNSW Kensington Campus (a condition will be applied to allocate the carparking between student and staff).

 

The proposal however has a shortfall of two carparking spaces for the proposed retail convenience store under the DCP - Parking. This shortfall can be addressed by a condition requiring one student accommodation carspace to be allocated to the proposed retail shop. The consequent shortfall of two carspaces (that is, one student accommodation and one retail car spaces) is considered acceptable in that the reduction assists in addressing the broader issues of University traffic given that the campus is a major traffic generator that attracts people from the whole of the Sydney region by restricting the use of the motor car together with positive step to ensure a shift to sustainable travel modes such as public transport, cycling and walking. In this regard, good public bus services are readily available on Anzac Parade and the proposal includes the provision of bus shelters integrated within the development at Anzac Parade.

 

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

 

10.4.1             Natural Environmental Impacts

 

The development site lies within the existing built-up area of the UNSW. As such, there are no threatened species, populations or ecological communities or habitats that would be affected by the proposed development in the vicinity of the development site.

 

10.4.2             Built Environmental Impacts

 

10.4.2.1         Urban Design

 

The proposal essentially has a “quadrangular” theme which fits in well with its Campus location and which forms the basis for its design and layout with the following key characteristics:

 

In particular, the proposed construction of a glazed acoustic screen along the Anzac Parade frontage approximately 15m high and 32m long screening the whole of the first floor to the fifth floor of the east elevation raises potential visual issues. Following a series of discussion with Council officers over the potential visual impact of the screening structure, the applicant has refined the visual presentation of this structure to ensure it will not be visually intrusive and unsightly by including the following features:

 

 

These amendments to the proposed glazed acoustic screen wall are considered significant in ensuring that the wall will be visually complementary to the existing streetscape.  Additionally, conditions will be applied to augment these amendments requiring the following treatment to the proposed wall:

 

 

Apart from the proposed glazed acoustic screen, the external treatment of the other parts of the proposed building will be punctuated by projecting vertical sunshades to the east, west and internal courtyard facades to provide weather protection and visual interest; provide a series of neat but varying bays to frame relevant openings in all facades; and incorporate sunshades on the northern facade in recognition of its northern orientation.

 

The proposal also involves the provision of a retail shop in the north-eastern corner of the proposed building. Concern has been raised regarding the visual impact of such a use on the future University Mall. It should be noted that the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus specifically identifies the whole northern boundary of the subject site as it wraps around the eastern boundary along Anzac Parade as “desirable location for future retail” (Section 5.11, page 30). The location of the proposed retail shop accords with the DCP. The applicant has addressed the visual concerns relating to the shop by advising that the design of the retail store has been integrated into the design of the overall building so that in terms of material and external finishes the shop will, like the overall building, complement and enhance the Anzac Parade and future University Mall frontages. More significantly, the applicant has recommended strict visual, signage and lighting controls for the convenience store to ensure design integrity to the Mall. A condition will be applied requiring the applicant to provide a list of controls and a plan of management for limiting signage to all external surfaces of the retail shop and which will be required to form part of the lease of the retail store.

 

As the proposal is for student accommodation, it does not fall within the provisions of SEPP 65, and accordingly, does not require a review by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. Nevertheless, the proposal was referred to the Panel for comments on 4 June 2007 in view of its bulk and scale along Anzac Parade and within the UNSW campus. The Panel’s comments are listed (in italics) below (followed by Council’s comments wherever necessary):

 

1.         Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

 

The Panel’s previous comments about context were concerned with the building’s presence on Anzac Parade, defining the street corner, the interface with the Mall and the architectural quality of the project. The presence on the street corner could be improved.  In this proposal there seems to be a business centre set back from the street frontage, with mostly toilet facility windows facing the street and one full height window that has desks up the glass. The architectural quality of the project is acceptable however the white blade walls as viewed in the photo montage along Anzac Parade and Day Street are considered unnecessary and overstated. The whole the building is well considered however, the blue form on the prominent corner of Anzac and Day Avenues should be improved with regard to façade design and colour.  The extra height of this element has no articulation and the Panel would like other alternatives of screening the plant areas investigated. The windows to the southern rooms in the ‘blue form’ still seem small in relation to façade area. They in fact appear much bigger in the photo montage along Anzac Parade to the north east. This may be that the elevations do not show the windows as their actual size with the hoods covering them. There are solar impacts on apartments on the south side of Day St.  Morning winter sun is reduced substantially to the buildings towards Houston Street afternoon winter sun to the apartments towards Anzac Parade is also reduced.  Elevations of these buildings, showing the extent of overshadowing in winter should be made available for assessment. The interface with the Mall is further discussed under item 3.

 

Comment : The applicant has amended the design of the proposal to address the Panel’s comments regarding the proposals interaction with Anzac Parade by introducing glazed openings into the proposed ground floor wall below the acoustic screen (in the form of select between vertical gaps in between precast concrete and block-base panels) to allow for some transparency to the ground floor to address Anzac Parade and break the potential bulk and scale of the masonry wall. Additionally, the following conditions will be applied to address the Panel’s concerns and improve the visual presentation of the building to Anzac Parade and Day Avenue:

 

·         The windows in the south elevation of the tower component are to be suitably enlarged and their attendant hoods suitably redesigned to improve the visual presentation of the building by providing more articulation to the building.

 

·         The blade wall in the south elevation of the tower component of the proposal shall be reduced in size and surface area to improve the visual presentation of the building.

 

·         Improved landscape treatment to the front of the ground level of the tower component of the proposal fronting Day Avenue to screen the ground floor business centre and toilet facility windows in the south elevation facing Day Avenue.

 

2.      The Scale of the Proposal

 

The Campus plans envisage a 24 metre building scale to the street front, with some higher elements to provide articulation.  The scale of the building is consistent with the scale of new buildings realized and proposed along Anzac Parade however the extra blank façade to create height and the white blade walls are not considered the best architectural gestures for the corner element.

 

There appears no compelling justification to go beyond the 24 metre height limit. However, the Panel would be supportive of it if better justification can be given by the applicant.

 

Comment : The extra blank façade referred to by the Panel is confined to the top of the tower component with the remainder of the tower building punctuated by windows with vertical hoods on the Day Avenue frontage (which will be further improved by way of a condition to enlarge these windows as discussed in the previous point above) and the glazed acoustic screen along the Anzac Parade frontage. Accordingly, the articulation in the main body of the tower component will considerably off-set the remaining blank façade at the top. Notwithstanding this, a condition requiring a reduction in the height of the proposed development by 600mm in the tower component will further reduce any potential visual impact of this blank wall. 

 

3.      The Built Form of the Proposal

 

Generally the proposed built form is satisfactory, however the Panel still has concerns about:

 

 

The Panel has previously suggest that an alternative acoustic treatment based on the use of double glazing and acoustically damped ventilation be investigated however the applicant prefers the separate acoustic wall solution.  It will be essential that the detail of the coloured glass and structural frame be very well resolved for this façade to be a success and have longevity as an architectural idea.  The colours selected are not reflected in the coloured elevations and should be reviewed and alternatives presented.

It may still be worth considering the colours of the façade as looked at through clear glass. It may be a more timeless solution and allow a better outlook from the rooms that look over the court below.

The Panel also considers that damage and vandalism to the glass wall is highly possible.

Jean Nouvel has recently completed the Quai Branly Ethnographic Museum in Paris. The glass wall that separates the traffic from the inner court Is for all intents and purposes a noise barrier. This allows for a brilliantly abstract reading of the cars and traffic whilst creating a sunlit court within the complex.

The Panel suggests that you look at this and the type of glass used as this would be a vandal environment as well and may assist with the concern for vandalism.

As previously noted the proposed treatment of the space of the Mall needs further resolution with the University. Detailed alignments, levels, relationship of ramps and walls, and tree planting should be resolved as part of this application, as well as appropriate functions facing the Mall. The indented form and lower height to the Mall is supported.

 

In the Panel’s opinion it is of high importance that a well designed laundry be positioned on the ground floor with direct and visual connection to a possible coffee shop, e-library or other student space, as it will be a primary social focus in the building.  The current laundry position in the basement and without any windows or connections to activity is unacceptable for social and surveillance reasons.

 

The reduction of car parking numbers due to soil contamination has resulted in 15 car spaces being accommodated under the building and 5 other required student spaces and further staff spaces to be provided elsewhere.  The position has not been nominated on the drawings however the report states that they are contained in a separate traffic report.

 

The site is well serviced with public transport.

 

Comment: The applicant has made visual and functional improvements to the proposed glazed acoustic screen as described above to ensure that it will not be incompatible in the streetscape. Additionally, the solid masonry wall originally proposed on the Anzac Parade frontage (below the proposed acoustic screen) has been amended to include vertical glazed openings to allow for some transparency to the ground floor to address Anzac Parade and break the potential bulk and scale of the masonry wall. In relation to the potential for the glass to be vandalised and damaged, a requirement for these issues to be addressed in the Plan of Management for the acoustic screen will be included in the relevant condition. In relation to the location of the proposed retail/convenience store, Section 10.4.2.1 above indicates that the location complies with the DCP – UNSW Kensington Campus, and strict controls regarding signage will be applied. The applicant advises that the proposed location of the retail store at the Mall interfaces appropriately with the future bus shelter on Anzac Parade in conjunction with the main residential entry to the development via the mall. In relation to the location of the laundry, the applicant advises that, in terms of priority, the ground floor has been allocated to communal spaces for residents (including common rooms, games room, reading room all linked to the central and eastern courtyards) to maximise these spaces as the main social hubs of residents. The applicant advises that the provision of a laundry amongst these spaces is physically constrained, and as such, can only be accommodated in the basement level. The applicant’s advice is considered acceptable and reasonable especially given the broader implications of the visual and maintenance issues of a laundry at ground level.  

 

4.      The Proposed Density

 

The density proposed is satisfactory.

 

5.      Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The opportunities for cross ventilation have been improved however there are further corner rooms that could have second windows to reduce the possibility of air conditioning being used.

 

A substantial number of single rooms do not appear to enjoy cross ventilation and consideration should be given to employing a system that achieves this.  As discussed and as is partially illustrated on the drawings, it is expected that superior environmental performance including suitable methods of providing solar protection will form part of the formal DA. 

 

Ceiling fans should be provided to all bedrooms.

Natural daylight to bathrooms where possible should be incorporated into the design – top floors in particular are an obvious position for ventilating skylights to bathrooms. The use of operable glazed fanlights and individual exhaust fans to bathrooms should also be investigated.

 

The roof design could also be used to get winter sun and cross ventilation into south facing apartments and to long corridor spaces.