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

 

 

4th September, 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, 11TH SEPTEMBER, 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, 14TH AUGUST, 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 –

86 HOUSTON ROAD, KINGSFORD.

2

6.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

42 CLIFFBROOK PARADE, CLOVELLY.

37

6.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

14-16 DAINTREY CRESCENT, RANDWICK.

74

6.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

3A GORDON AVENUE, COOGEE.

100

6.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

143 - 147 COOGEE BAY ROAD, COOGEE.

151

6.6                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

26 MAWSON PARADE, CHIFLEY.

168

6.7                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

44 HOOPER STREET RANDWICK.

173

6.8                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

45 EARL STREET, RANDWICK.

203

6.9                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

8 SHAW AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

230

6.10                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 65/2007 –

7 TOWER STREET, COOGEE. (DEFERRED)

252

6.11

1408 ANZAC PARADE, LITTLE BAY. (Report to be separately circularised prior to Meeting.)

 

 

7           Miscellaneous

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 66/2007 - USE OF STORMWATER DETENTION TANKS FOR WATER STORAGE AND ON-SITE REUSE.

297

7.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 67/2007 - DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN - TELECOMMUNICATION AND RADIOCOMMUNICATION FACILITIES - REPORT ON RECENT PUBLIC EXHIBITION 

303

7.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 68/2007 - DRAFT PLANNING AGREEMENT POLICY.

346

7.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 69/2007 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS - PRINCE HENRY AT LITTLE BAY DEVELOPMENT SITE.

362

 

8           Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

29 August, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/899/2006 & PROP047632

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing buildings at the site and construction of a residential flat building comprising of 6 x 2 bedroom dwellings, landscaping and basement car parking accessible from Houston Street.  The application also necessitates the removal and replacement of existing landscaping on the Council owned car park adjoining the subject site to the south.

PROPERTY:

 86 Houston Road, Kingsford

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 ABC Planning Pty Ltd

OWNER:

Holds Creek Holding P/L

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $2.5 million.

 

The application lodged on 19 October 2006 proposes demolition of existing structures at the site and construction of a residential flat building comprising of 6 x 2 bedroom dwellings, landscaping and basement car parking accessible from Houston Road. The application also necessitates the removal and replacement of existing landscaping on the Council owned car park adjoining the subject site to the south.

 

The application has been reviewed by the Urban Design Review Panel with few reservations raised. The panel suggests Council officers determine the likely use of the adjoining car park site.

 

The application was notified and advertised for 14 days in accordance with Council’s DCP Public Notification during which no submissions were received.

 

The application proposes significant variations to the landscaping, wall height and floor space ratio clauses within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Similarly, the application also proposes to vary numerical guidelines with Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing.

 

The built form of the proposal raises some concern, particularly the placement of an 11.5m high and 26.5m long wall on the common boundary, which provides a poor vista and unsatisfactory interface with the public domain.

 

Accordingly, it is recommended Development Application 899/2006 be refused.

 

2.      THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the following development:

 

 

3.      THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is rectangular in shape being 9.6m in width, 51.5m in length and 494.4m2 in area with a fall of approximately 4m from Houston Lane to Houston Road (east to west).

 

Vehicular access is currently provided from both Houston Road and Houston Lane at the rear of the site. A single storey dwelling, detached outhouse and garage currently occupy the site while no vegetation of significant species exists.

 

The immediately surrounding locality is residential in nature and consists predominantly of established residential flat buildings up to four (4) storeys in height. Several larger residential flat buildings up to fifteen (15) storeys in height front Anzac Parade while the Kingsford Shopping area is also within walking distance of the subject site.

 

A reasonably sized Council owned car park for public use adjoins the subject site directly to the south. The car park is accessible from both Houston Road and Houston Lane and has established landscaping particularly along its northern boundary which interfaces with the subject site.

 

4.      HISTORY

 

4.1    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The development application was lodged at Council on 19 October 2006. The development was referred to the Design Review Panel for consideration at its November 2006 and April 2007 meetings. The amended plans submitted at the April 2007 meeting generated the following comments:

 

 

The applicant has also approached Council to purchase the adjoining carpark with a view to consolidating both sites. Council has advised the applicant that the carpark is classified as community land and Council is not in a position to sell the land.

 

5.      HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

The site has principally been used for residential purposes and more recently, as a health consulting room.

 

6.      COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

The proposal had been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans from 14 November 2006 to 29 November 2006. No submissions were received by Council during this period.

 

 

7.      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:-

 

7.1    Building Comments

 

Key Issues

 

Noise:

There is potential for the generation of noise from the proposed development due to the installation of plant and equipment, such as any mechanical exhaust system serving the basement car park. Conditions should be imposed on the consent to address potential noise emissions from the development.

 

Site Management:

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Conclusion:

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Should the approval be granted to the application, the appropriate conditions as indicated should be included in the development consent.

 

7.2    Landscape Comments

 

The assessing officer is advised that Council’s landscape development officer does not support this application in its current form as excavations associated with the basement level and the three storey privacy wall, both proposed along almost the entire length of the southern boundary, would affect several established trees within the adjoining council owned car park (identified as 88-90P Houston Road), to the point where they could not be reasonably or safely retained and would therefore need to be removed should construction proceed as shown.

 

While replacement landscape treatment to the this carpark has been indicated as part of the proposal, it is still deemed an unacceptable situation to allow the development of private property to impact the public domain to such an extent, which will also result in a reduction of one car space available to the community from a total of 19 spaces to 18.

 

The excessive nature of this proposal is further evidenced by its failure to adhere to council’s numerical control for the minimum amount of deep soil to be provided from multi unit housing, zone 2C, in that no more than 50% of the landscaped area is to be provided over podium.

 

However, due to the extent of the basement level occupying the majority of the site, 70% of the landscaped area will be situated over the podium, resulting in a non compliance of 45% (or 50.5sqm), and when viewed together with its inability to comply with Council’s controls for wall height, F.S.R and side setbacks, is seen to constitute an over development of the site.

 

Ordinarily in this situation, conditions would not be provided as large scale amendments would be required in order to get this proposal to the desired/required standard, to the point where it may no longer be economically feasible to pursue the level of development that is being sought.

 

However, it is understood that this application will be referred to a future council meeting for consideration, and in the case that approval is forthcoming as a result of this process, relevant landscape conditions have been included, with the main issue being that as part of developing the subject property, the applicant will also be responsible for covering all costs associated with the tree removals, replacement landscaping and any reinstatement works in the adjoining council car park, to council’s satisfaction.

 

7.3    Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

7.4    Flooding Comments

 

The Planning Officer is advised that as part of the assessment process the Development Engineer considered whether the site may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events; however noting the relatively small flows expected in Houston Lane and the existing ground levels fronting Houston Lane, it is considered that no flood study is required for this development application.

 

7.5    Traffic Comments

 

Vehicular Access - All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

The driveway opening at the Houston Road street frontage must be 3.50 metres wide and is generally required to be located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property. The applicant shall amend the plans to show compliance with this requirement, or alternatively, submit documentation detailing how satisfactory sight distance can be achieved for vehicles exiting the site from the vehicular access location currently proposed.

 

Parking Provisions – For a development of this size, Council’s DCP – Parking specifies a parking requirement of 9 car spaces (6 spaces for the 5 x 2brm, 1.5 spaces for the 1 x 3 brm & 1.5 spaces for visitor parking). The submitted plans show 9 spaces within the basement carpark demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

 

 

 

7.6    Service Authority Comments

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

An inspection of the site revealed that with the exception of the feeder lines into the subject site there are no overhead cables along the Houston Road site frontage. Consequently, the applicant will only need to underground the cables servicing the subject development site together with the overhead cable located along the Harbourne Lane site frontage.

 

7.7    Geotechnical Comments

 

The applicant shall carry out sufficient Geotechnical investigation to determine if the proposed development will have any affect on, or be affected by groundwater. The bore holes for the Geotechnical report are to be drilled to a depth of 2.00 metres below the proposed basement carpark level.

 

Pending the results of the geotechnical report, the above site may be present within a fluctuating water table and/or affected by the movement of seepage water, hence any basement carpark may need to be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

Furthermore, should groundwater be encountered within the depth of the proposed basement excavation, the application may require referral to the Department of Natural Resources as integrated development.

 

7.8    Design Review Panel

 

As noted previously, the application has been considered by the Design Review Panel on two occasions. The following comments were received from the panel at its last meeting dated 2 April 2007 in relation to amended plans submitted by the applicant:

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

As noted by the Applicant the context is one of mixed residential and commercial, in close proximity to shops, services and public transport, and is well placed to contribute to urban consolidation.

 

 

2.           The Scale of the Proposal

Following its previous meeting with the applicant, the Panel’s view was that the scale of the proposal would be improved by the removal of the fourth accommodation level.  This floor has been eliminated.  The Panel considers that the scale is now satisfactory.

 

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal

As previously noted, by locating the building on the southern boundary the amenity of the apartments is maximized, exposure to northern winter sun increased and the distance to the neighbors to the north increases privacy.  The resultant slim-line built form of the building is considered to be satisfactory.

The Panel nonetheless considered that raising the building by a small amount and reducing the extent of excavation and retaining wall construction at the rear would be a positive.

Simplification of the area between the building and the street and modification to the entry stair is discussed below.

 

4.         The Proposed Density

The Panel has not been advised of the FSR of the proposed building, however in its context it is not considered to be excessive.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Window operation should be designed to optimize cross ventilation, and must be indicated on the DA drawings.  Adequate sun shading is proposed.

 

Internal bathrooms on the top level should be provided with ventilating clerestory roof lights and ceiling fans should be provided to the bedrooms.

 

6.         The Proposed Landscape

It is suggested that the car space in the northeast corner of the basement should be eliminated to allow for an increased area of deep soil planting.  The placement of the rainwater tanks under the building footprint or driveway should be correspondingly adjusted and the landscape plan modified to suit the reduced excavation.

More intensive landscaping to the long north side with for example some deciduous trees and lush under storey planting would assist in creating visual interest and privacy between the proposed building and the bland unit block next door.

It is noted that rainwater storage is to be provided for garden irrigation.

It is suggested that the area between the building and Houston Road should be redesigned to make it much simpler: there is no need for the driveway and the car park exit to be separated by a wall or for the landscaping to be in a built up planter (this would be a good location for a tree).  The main entry stairs from the street should commence at the building line: they would be more user-friendly if broken by a landing.  The entrance to unit 1 could, with benefit to its interior layout, be relocated to the east between the kitchen and bedroom 2 to make room for this.

It is suggested that the rear garden could be terraced and sloped to eliminate or substantially reduce the retaining wall shown on Section AA: this provides an excellent location for trees.  A rear entry should be provided to Houston Lane, planned to provide the opportunity for wheelchair access. This would provide a convenient shortcut for the building’s residents to the shops.

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

The units are generally efficiently planned. Generally the proposal provides a framework for high amenity for the occupants.  The provision of some solid up stand below the proposed glass balustrades to balcony fronts would increase privacy. 

It would be preferable to gain more light and air from the articulation of the carpark side, using the strategies already being tried (indents, slot windows, etc) on the upper floors. This is particularly the case at lower levels.

It is suggested that a lightweight roof construction be considered, as this would be very much easier to effectively insulate.  The minor additional height involved would not be inappropriate and, as noted above, roof lighting and ventilation should be provided to internal rooms on the top floor.

8.      The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

Satisfactory.

 

9.      Social issues

 

The location, close to shops and transport is suitable for development of this kind.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

Generally the proposed design is well considered, however the elevations will require modification to address the suggested changes levels.  The reduction of the length of the wall to the car park has been an improvement. 

The height of the ground floor balcony screen should be reduced.

It is suggested that the louvres on the north façade should be operable.  A horizontal division at second floor level would improve their scale.

 

The metal panels nominated on the drawings are not included in the sample board and should be clarified.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposal displays sensible planning and potential for good levels of livability. The Panel looks forward to reviewing the scheme again when changes, in line with this report, are done and further supporting information provided.

 

Council should give some consideration as to what the future of the adjacent council car park might be. The Panel views the car park as a potential development site albeit one that is likely to maintain public parking access at ground level.

 

Comment:

 

The panel has considered the proposal’s architectural and amenity merits. That is, the proposal’s integration with the Council owned car park on the adjoining site to the south is to be investigated and considered principally by the appropriate Council staff and branches.

 

Construction of a residential flat building along the common boundary of the car park is inappropriate as the wall is 11.5m in height and 26.5m in length, and will result in a poor interface with a public facility. Additionally, such a wall will have an overbearing impact and represents a poor transition between private property and public land and importantly, will affect the ability to provide an appropriate level of amenity for any potential medium density residential development on the carpark site.

 

8.      MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site is less than 4,000m2 in area, clause 40A of RLEP 98 does not apply.

 

9.      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 (RLEP 98)

 

The RLEP 98 defines multi-unit housing as “two or more dwellings, whether or not attached.”

 

The proposal is consistent with the abovementioned definition as it contains 6 attached dwellings.

 

Multi – unit housing is permitted in the 2C – Residential zone the site is subject to, pursuant to the RLEP 98.

 

The objectives of Zone No 2C are:

 

(a)  to allow a variety of housing types within residential areas, and

(b)  to allow a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors, and

(c)  to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas, and

(d)  to allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality, and

(e)  to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability.

The proposal represents a medium density form of residential development hence, satisfies objective A.

 

The proposal provides opportunities for housing for members of the community hence, satisfies objective B.

 

The proposal would affect the amenity of any residential dwellings developed on the adjoining, residentially zoned car park site in terms of over shadowing and visual outlook. The proposal’s nil setbacks from the southern boundary is inconsistent with existing development in the locality and would interrupt the streetscape rhythm. The proposal would therefore, not satisfy objective C of the zone. The compliance table below indicates that the proposal is significantly below the minimum landscaped area or landscaped area over podium requirements within RLEP 98 as well as significantly in excess of its floor space ratio requirements. The extent of such non-compliances, together with the minimal width of the site, indicate the site is significantly constrained and that conventional residential flat development will detrimentally affect the streetscape and amenity of the locality.

 

The proposed dwellings provide ample internal space to permit occupants to carry out a variety of activities at reasonable levels. Objective D is therefore satisfied.

 

The proposal represents a higher density form of development at a limited scale. The proposal therefore satisfies objective E.

 

The following Clauses of the RLEP 98 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Clause 31(2) Landscaped Area

Min 50% of site area to be landscaped (ie: 247.2m2)

76m2

No – SEPP1 submitted and discussed below.

Clause 31(3) Landscaped Area Over Podiums

Maximum 50% of the landscaped area requirement over podiums or excavated basement areas

70% (53.2m²)

No – SEPP 1 submitted and discussed below.

22 – Services

Adequate provision for water, sewerage and drainage.

Adequate facilities exist in locality and applicant is required to consult with relevant service authorities.

Yes

32(1) – FSR

0.65:1

1.27:1

No – SEPP 1 submitted and discussed below.

33(2) Building Height

12m building height

11.7m

Yes

33(3) External Wall Height

10m external wall height

 

11.5m

No – SEPP 1 submitted and discussed below

40 – Excavation and Filling of Land

Effects of excavation must be considered.

Suitable provisions can be implemented to accommodate change in subsurface drainage.

Yes

 

(b)      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP1)

 

SEPP 1 aims to provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

 

The aims of the act can be summarised as being to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land while having consideration for the environmental, social and economic impacts of carrying out the development.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to SEPP 1 to the site landscaping,   floor space ratio and maximum external wall height provisions within RELP 98.

 

(b)(i) SEPP 1 objection to Clause 31(2) – Landscaping of RLEP 98.

Clause 31(2) of the RLEP requires that 50% of the site area shall be landscaped which in this case, equates to 247.6m2 of area. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted as the application provides for 76m2 of landscaping. 

 

What is the object or purpose of the standard?

The purpose of the standard as stated in RLEP 98 is to establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes.

 

Is compliance with the standard unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

A principle purpose of the landscaping requirement as stated in the RLEP 98, is to soften the visual impact of development.

 

The application proposes the positioning of the southern elevation of the development along the common boundary of the subject site and the adjoining property to the south. This property is a car park owned by Council and which is zoned for residential purposes.

 

The southern elevation is 11.5m in height and 26.5m in length. The elevation does include some articulation, however, it will remain overbearing due to its length, height and positioning on the boundary and primarily relies on landscaping along the boundary on the car park site to soften the impact of the proposed development. It is considered that the reliance on the adjoining properties landscaping would set an unreasonable precedent, and any future development on the adjoining property may require the removal of such landscaping.

 

As on neighbouring land, it is not considered unreasonable or unnecessary to expect the provision of landscaping along the southern boundary to soften the impact of the development.

 

Would compliance with the standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objective of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (the Act)?

 

A principle objective of the act is to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land while having consideration for the environmental, social and economic impacts of carrying out the development.

 

The interface between the southern elevation of the proposal and the adjoining car park site is inadequate due to its height and length. Such an outcome provides an unsatisfactory outlook from the adjoining car park site not only in its current form, but particularly if the car park is re-developed for residential purposes which its current zoning permits. Such an elevation would also adversely affect the general amenity of potential future residential dwellings on the car park site. Alternatively, any potential building footprint on the car park site may have to be limited to compensate for such circumstances. Such an outcome is inequitable and does not represent the orderly or economic development of land.

 

Further, the car park were to maintain its current use, the proposed elevation represents an unsatisfactory view from a public domain for the reasons mentioned above.

 

(b)(ii) SEPP 1 objection to Clause 32(1) – Floor Space Ratio of RLEP98.

 

Clause 32(1) of RLEP98 states that the maximum floor space ratio in the applicable 2C zone is 0.65:1. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted as the proposed floor space ratio is 1.27:1.

 

What is the object or purpose of the standard?

 

The purpose of Clause 32(1) as stated in RLEP 98 is to establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special uses zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment. 

 

Is compliance with the standard unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

Considering the visual and amenity impacts of the proposal from the perspective of both the car park outlook and the streetscape, as discussed above, it is considered compliance with the standard would not be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

The overall scale of the development appears to be a factor necessitating the location of the southern elevation of the proposal entirely on the common boundary between the subject site and the car park site to the south. The adverse impacts of which have been detailed above.

 

Compliance with the standard in question will significantly reduce the gross floor area of the development and hence, its overall scale. A reduction in scale will reduce the adverse amenity impacts of any development on the adjoining residentially zoned car park site, provide a less over bearing outlook from the car park, as well as effectively mediate the difference in scales between the subject site and the car park from a streetscape perspective. Such an outcome is achieved by the existing flat building adjoining the southern boundary of the car park site.

 

Would compliance with the standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objective of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (the Act)?

 

Compliance with the standard would improve the visual outlook from the car park site, particularly if the car park is re-developed in accordance with its residential zoning. Similarly, appropriate amenity of any residential re-development would be facilitated.

 

In this regard, compliance with the standard would assist in achieving orderly development which is sensitive towards the environmental aspects of adjoining properties and hence, achieve the objectives of the Act.

 

 

 

(b)(iii) SEPP 1 objection to Clause 33(3) – External Wall Height of RLEP 98.

 

Clause 33(3) of the RLEP98 states that the maximum external wall height shall be 10m from natural ground level. The application includes a SEPP 1 objection as the proposed external wall height is 11.5.

 

What is the object or purpose of the standard?

 

The purpose of the standard as stated in RLEP 98 is to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

Is compliance with the standard unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

The variation proposed is minor and the SEPP 1 objection justifiably states that the proposed building height remains consistent with various other flat buildings in the locality as well as that existing directly to the north of the subject site.

 

However, the southern elevation of the proposed development is overbearing and represents an unsatisfactory outlook from the car park principally due to its height, length and limited articulation. The outlook is particularly unsatisfactory as an interface to potential future residential development, which the adjoining site is zoned to accommodate.

 

In conjunction with the shadow impacts the proposal would generate on any residential development to the southern property, principally due to wall height, length and the overall scale of the development, the objection raised is considered unjustifiable.

Similarly, such an outlook is an unsatisfactory interface with the public domain.

 

Would compliance with the standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objective of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (the Act)?

 

Compliance with this standard and the various others discussed above, would improve visual outlook from the carpark as well as streetscape. Importantly, compliance would also ensure any residential development on the adjoining residentially zoned property to the south, could generate suitable amenity for likely occupants.

 

Accordingly, it is considered compliance with the standard would satisfy the objectives of the Act.

 

(c)         State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

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

 

As the site has been used principally for residential purposes, the likelihood of contamination is minimal.

 


(d)      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. Principally, SEPP 65 aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development by providing 10 design principles which new residential flat development is required to be consistent with. The principles and the manner in which the subject proposal complies with such principles is indicated below:

 

Principle 1: Context

 

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area.

 

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

 

If the proposal is to be considered in the context of the existing surrounding flat developments only, it does in fact satisfactorily responds to such development as its height and composition is similar to that which exists.

 

However, the site directly adjoins a public car park owned by council to the south. The car park has no other improvements other than road surfacing and landscaping. The application proposes construction of a wall 11.5m high wall for a length of 26.5m along the common boundary between the subject sites at the adjoining car park. A wall of such a height and length, with no setback is an abrupt and unsatisfactory transition to the public domain and to any future residential redevelopment of the carpark.

 

Principle 2: Scale

Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings.

 

Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

 

The proposed scale is in keeping with existing flat development in the immediate locality as its height and width are numerically similar to existing flat developments in the street. Additionally, the arrangement of the front elevation in terms of balcony and glazing reflects surrounding developments. This assists in generating a scale that is similar to that of existing flat buildings.

 

However, as indicated previously, the site to the south is a car park with no development in terms of scale. Such circumstances require an approach which is sympathetic to the obvious change in scale between the two sites. Additionally, the potential for substantial residential development on the car park site should also be considered. Construction of an 11.5m high wall on the common boundary represents poor transition between the varying scales of development. Additionally, such a wall generates overshadowing and a visual outlook that would be inappropriate for any adjoining residential development.

 

 

 

Principle 3: Built form

Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements.

 

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

 

The proposed built form is consistent with existing surrounding flat developments due to its 3 storey height, narrow footprint and composition of elements on the front elevations.

However, the adjoining property to the south does not contain a flat development and includes no built form. As such, it is considered the location of the proposed development on the common boundary between the car park and the subject site represents a poor transition between the two sites. Additionally, the proposed built form may restrict built form entitlements on the car park site. 

 

Principle 4: Density

Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents).

 

Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

 

The proposed density is considered to be proportional to the limited site area and that contained within existing surrounding flat developments.

 

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including construction.

 

Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

 

The proposal employs passive solar design with northerly orientated residential floor plans, conventional corner unit ventilation, window shading devices and stormwater harvesting tanks.

 

Principle 6: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain.

 

Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-coordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character.

 

All existing flat developments in the street are setback from all boundaries creating a notable rhythm in built form. Although most side setbacks provide for vehicular maneuvering, the proposal can maintain this rhythm by having landscaping along the boundary as it has included along the northern boundary. 

 

Principle 7: Amenity

Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.

 

Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

 

The proposed units will provide satisfactory internal amenity with appropriately dimensioned, ventilated and orientated rooms.

 

However, the amenity of any residential development on the adjoining car park may be compromised due to the placement of the entire southern elevation of the proposal on the common boundary of the two properties. Such a wall may generate unsatisfactory over shadowing and vistas for any future residential development on the car park. Alternatively, any development may not realize its maximum potential in order to compensate for such characteristics.

 

Principle 8: Safety and security

Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain.

 

This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

 

The proposal includes balconies and windows which satisfactorily overlook the public streets and private domain in north, south and west directions. The adjoining public car park represents an opportunity to provide essential casual surveillance over a public facility. This has not been capitalized as no windows or balconies are provided on the southern elevation of the proposed development. 

 

Principle 9: Social dimensions

Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities.

 

New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

 

The limited density and scale of the development would consolidate the existing social dimensions of the locality.

 

Principle 10: Aesthetics

Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development. Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

Other than the southern elevation of the development, the proposed aesthetic treatment is considered acceptable. For example, window and balcony composition particularly on the front (west) elevation as well as the narrow building footprint, replicate that of existing surrounding development, consolidating the character of development in the locality.

 

The southern elevation proposed on the common boundary between the subject site and the adjoining car park represents poor aesthetic treatment as it includes limited articulation in comparison to its extensive height and length.

 

Additionally, the elevation is reliant upon landscaping on the adjoining car park site. Such a practice is considered unsustainable as the permanency of the landscaping or any feature on any site, is difficult to determine.

 

Summary:

 

The proposal does satisfactorily address various aspects and principles of SEPP 65. However, as the site directly adjoins a public car park which currently includes no built form and is zoned for residential purposes, it is considered that the circumstances are irregular and that any proposed development should develop site specific solutions.

 

It is considered the proposal does not do so, failing to mediate between the varying scales of the two sites and providing no casual surveillance throughout a public facility. Most importantly, the positioning of an 11.5m high and 26.5m long wall wholly along the common boundary of the two sites, is likely to have an adverse impact on any residential development on the adjoining car park site in terms of amenity and visual outlook,  nor does it represent a satisfactory outlook from a public facility.

 

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

 

Basix compliant certificates have been submitted with the application.

 

10.    Policy Controls

 

a Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

 

The manner in which the proposal complies with Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing is indicated in the table below:

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 

site planning

P1  All development applications must be accompanied by a Site Analysis Plan which identifies development opportunities and constraints for the site.  The plan is to demonstrate that these factors have been instrumental in shaping the design of the proposed development.

 

P2  Development sites have appropriate areas and dimensions to allow for the satisfactory siting of buildings and ensure adequate separation between buildings.

Building design is related to the size, shape and dimensions of the site.

 

Submitted – COMPLIANT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Application proposes 11.5m high and 26.5m long wall on common boundary which is due to the narrowness of the site and inability to provide setbacks all round – NON-COMPLIANT.

 

The location of the entire southern elevation on the common boundary suggest the proposal is too large for the site – NON-COMPLIANT.

building height

P1  Heights of walls, their location and orientation do not cause substantial adverse impacts on the streetscape or adjoining properties, particularly in relation to privacy, solar access and building bulk.

 

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

 

Proposal includes an 11.5m high and 26.5m long wall along the common boundary which will affect the development potential or amenity of the adjoining car park zoned for residential purposes as well as creating a poor vista from both a  public and private domain – NON-COMPLIANT.
North, east and west elevations employ variation in massing and create visual interest and appropriate bulk. South elevation utilises minimal variation in mass and creates an unsatisfactory vista – NON-COMPLIANT.

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Boundary Setbacks

P1      The front setback is determined by the existing and desired character of the streetscape.

The setback is to be consistent with the setback of adjoining development or the dominant setback along the street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed front setback is in keeping with adjoining flat developments – COMPLIANT.

 

Side Boundary Setbacks

P2  Buildings are set back from the side boundary to ensure that:

·         there is adequate separation between buildings to maintain reasonable levels of solar access and minimise overshadowing.

  • reasonable levels of privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces are provided.
  • opportunities for landscaping and private open space are provided.
  • streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

 

S2 Zone 2B

Buildings (including balconies) maintain a

minimum average setback of 4

metres from any side boundary. No part of the building is closer than 2.5 metres from any side boundary. The maximum length of any one section of wall (without any articulation) is 10 metres. The minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Zone 2C

Buildings (including balconies) maintain a

minimum average setback of 5

metres from any side boundary.  No part of the building is closer than 3.5 metres to any side boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed average setback along northern boundary = 3.4m. 17m long portion of northern elevation within 3m of northern boundary.

Southern elevation proposed entirely on southern boundary – UNSATISFACTORY.

 

Proposal is not excessively affected by shadows generated from existing flat development to north. Proposal would adversely affect any residential development on adjoining property to the north which is currently a car park but zoned for residential purposes.

 

Reasonable separation/privacy generated between proposal and flat development to the adjoining northern property.

 

No landscaping proposed along southern boundary as building proposed on boundary.

 

 

Rear Boundary Setbacks

P3      Buildings are set back from the rear boundary to ensure that:

·         There is adequate separation between buildings to maintain reasonable levels of solar access and minimise overshadowing.

  • reasonable levels of privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces are provided.
  • opportunities for landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces are provided.
  • Buildings are built across a site rather than down its length.

S3 Zone 2B

Buildings (including balconies) maintain a minimum average setback of 6 metres from the rear boundary.

 

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

 

The maximum length of any one section of wall (without any articulation) is 10 metres. The minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Zone 2C

Buildings (including balconies) maintain a minimum average of 8 metres from the rear boundary.

 

No part of the building is closer than 6 metres from the rear boundary.

 

 

The maximum length of any one section of wall (without any articulation) is 10 metres. The minimum length of any step is 3 metres from any side boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed rear setback = 4m from balcony.

 

 

 

Minimal rear setback will contribute to excessive shadow generation on adjoining southern property, particularly when combined with southern elevation proposed to be built along common boundary (ie : no setback) – UNSATISFACTORY.

 

 

 

Reasonable level of communal landscaped open space provided at rear – SATISFACTORY.

 

 

P4      The provision of eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection devices demonstrates that no significant adverse impact on adjoining properties would occur.

 

S4 Eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection devices may encroach no more than 25% of the Preferred Solution for the building setback at that point.

Eaves and sun shading devices contained within building footprint – SATISFACTORY.

DENSITY

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

 

 

Building bulk compatible with existing surrounding flat development however, proposal demonstrates poor transition to adjoining southern car park, particularly due to no setback along southern boundary – UNSATISFACTORY.

FENCES

P1  Front fences integrate with the local streetscape, complement the architectural design of the building and fence design features of the locality.

Entrances to the site and buildings are highlighted.

Planting is used to soften impacts of front fences and provide additional privacy.

 

S1 Solid front fences facing the street are no higher than 1.2 metres. This may be increased to 1.8 metres where the fence has openings that make it at least 50 % transparent.

No front fences proposed. 600mm raised planter box proposed along front boundary however. No need for raised planter box and can be reduced to ground level to reduce masonry element and improve public visual access to landscaping and assist in softening masonry component of proposal – UNSATISFACTORY.

Front entry not highlighted – UNSATISFACTORY.

LANDSCAPE AND private OPEN SPACE

P1   Landscaped areas are of sufficient size to enable the space to be used for  recreational activities, or be capable of growing substantial vegetation.

 

P2  Landscaped areas around flat buildings are treated as communal open space for use by all residents of development.  Common open space is not divided up and allocated to individual dwellings within a development to the exclusion of other users on upper levels.

 

S1 The minimum dimension for an area of land included in calculations for the landscaped area requirements is 2 metres.

Communal landscaped courtyard provided and with adequate space for passive recreation – SATISFACTORY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Private Open Space

P3  Private open space:-

  • provides privacy;
  • is readily accessible from the main living areas of the dwelling so that it can become an extension of the dwelling,
  • provides opportunities for outdoor recreation and living.

P4      Private open space may only be provided between the front of the building and the street where building setback and front fence design achieve a sympathetic relationship with the street.

 

POS provides privacy and serves as an extension to main living areas – COMPLIANT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No POS within front setback at ground level.

 

Flats and apartments:

P6  Each dwellings has access to an area of private open space in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden, accessible from within the dwelling.

 

 

S6 Private open space for flats and apartments has a minimum area of 8 m2 and a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

 

Each unit has access to a POS area ranging from 15m2 to 7.2m2 – SATISFACTORY.

Minimum dimensions range from 0.8m to 7m - UNSATISFACTORY

PRIVACY

Visual Privacy:

P1  Windows and balconies of main living areas are located to avoid overlooking of similar windows in adjoining dwellings and areas of private open space (whether part of the development or on adjoining properties).

 

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Acoustic Privacy:

P3  Building layout and design minimises transmission of noise.  Development is designed to separate “quiet areas” such as bedrooms from common recreation areas, parking areas, vehicle access ways and other noise generating activities.

 

 

S1 Where there is a horizontal separation of less than

10 metres between windows, they should offset,

angled or screened to reduce potential privacy

impacts.

 

A sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level provides

satisfactory protection for overlooking.

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors between dwellings are constructed

in accordance with the requirements of the Building

Code of Australia regarding sound transmission and

insulation.

 

 

Windows on adjoining flat development are relatively small while bedroom windows of proposed development include fixed louvers. SATISFACTORY privacy generated.

 

 

 

Main balconies do not face existing development, rather face public roads  - SATISFACTORY.

 

 

 

 

 

Bedrooms located away from communal recreation area and their windows provided with fixed louvers – SATISFACTORY.

VIEW SHARING

 

P1  The design and location of buildings takes existing topography, vegetation and surrounding development into account as a basis for assessing effect on view.

P2  Development minimises effects on views and demonstrates steps that have been taken to mitigate view loss, in particular view loss of significant features such as the ocean, coastline, nearby open space areas and significant landmarks or buildings.

 

P3  Buildings and dwellings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any development on adjoining public car park will be affected by the proposed developments wall location on the common boundary – UNSATISFACTORY.

 

 

 

 

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties:

P1  The design, orientation and siting of new buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.

 

P1.1   Solar access to existing solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each day, throughout the year.

 

P1.2  Living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day.

 

P1.3  At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings does not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day.

 

 

 

Proposed 11.5m high and 26.5m long wall along common southern boundary will affect solar access to any likely development on adjoining southern property – NON – COMPLIANT.

 

 

Adjoining southern property currently does not contain solar collectors and proposal will have nil effect on existing northern flat development – SATISFACTORY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal will have nil effect on northern property. However, proposal will affect amenity of southern property of affect its amenity or its development potential will be required to be reduced to compensate – UNSATISFACTORY.

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction:

P4  Buildings and outdoor spaces are designed to be protected from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather conditions.

·         Living areas are orientated to the north with access to winter sun and summer shade.

·         Larger windows are located on the north side where they are exposed to the lower winter sun, but can be shaded by roof eaves, verandahs or balconies from high summer sun.  Windows are protected with effective shading devices such as verandahs, hoods and external screens.

P5  Buildings have an area of roof with appropriate orientation and pitch, suitable for the installation of solar collectors.

 

P7  Adequate space is provided for outdoor clothes drying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Living areas of proposal oriented north and contain appropriately sized windows. Balcony windows include fixed sun shading devices – COMPLIANT.

 

Proposal likely to impact solar access to any likely development on adjoining southern property – NON – COMPLIANT.

 

 

 

Proposed roof can accommodate solar collectors – COMPLIANT. 

 

 

Units 4 and 6 have balconies 7.2m2 in area (ie: < than recommended 8m2 minimum) which is insufficient for clothes drying and general use. All other units have satisfactory balcony space – UNSATISFACTORY.

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1  Building and landscaping design allows casual surveillance of footpaths and driveways.

 

P2  Approaches to the site and the entries of each dwelling are visible from within that dwelling.

 

P3  High walls and parking structures which obstruct views into the development are avoided.

 

P4  Resident car parking are equipped with security grilles or doors.

 

P5  Visitor parking spaces are clearly identifiable and located to facilitate surveillance by some units.

 

P6  Visitor entry to all units and internal common areas is controlled by intercom and remote locking systems.

 

P7 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security is provided in common and access areas of the development.

P8 External lighting is neither intrusive nor creates a nuisance for nearby residents.

 

 Raised planter box at front boundary (Houston Road) unnecessarily diminishes pedestrians sight lines and provides area attractive for graffiti. Can be reduced to ground level to create openness and facilitate more view – UNSATISFACTORY.

 

Balconies provided on both front and rear elevation provided casual surveillance to public street/lane as well as communal landscaped court yard at rear – COMPLIANT.

 

 

 

Entry to car park equipped with security garage door – COMPLIANT.

 

 

Basement car park reasonably small and easily legible by visitors – SATISFACTORY.

 

 

No indication as to provision of intercom or similar – UNSATISFACTORY.

 

 

 

No indication as to provision of lighting – UNSATISFACTORY.


PARKING

P1  Garages and parking structures are sited and designed to not dominate the street frontage by:

·         minimising frontage width;

·         ensuring that the form, materials and detailing complement the associated building;

·         being excavated or setback further from the street than the associated building.

 

P3  Accessible, safe and secure storage for bicycles are provided.

 

Basement entry garage is relative in size to width of proposed building and recessed beneath balcony to not visually dominant front elevation – COMPLIANT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No storage areas indicated on plan – NON-COMPLIANT.

 

DRIVE-WAYS AND turning AREAS

P1  Site planning and building layout minimise the amount of driveways and manoeuvring areas.

 

P2  Vehicles are able to enter and leave the site in a forward direction at all times.

 

P3  The alignment of driveways and access roads is varied to create visual interest and avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

 

P4  Clearance between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces is of sufficient width to enable landscaping and screen planting.

 

P5  Surface materials and external finishes are consistent and compatible with those used throughout the development.

 

P6  Driveway gradients are designed for vehicle and pedestrian safety.  Potential for vehicles to scrape at gradient changes is avoided.

 

Number of driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised – COMPLIANT.

 

 

 

Vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction – COMPLIANT.

 

 

 

Driveways are short in distance – COMPLIANT.

 

 

 

 

Basement can be reduced in size to permit further ground level landscaping – UNSATISFACTORY.

 

 

 

 

 

Material usage consistent throughout – COMPLIANT.

 

 

1:8 gradient provided for ramp – COMPLIANT.

 

 

STORAGE

 

 

 

 

P1  Development provides for readily accessible and separately contained storage areas for each dwelling.

 

 

Proposal does not include appropriate amount of readily accessible separate storage areas – NON – COMPLIANT.

UTILITIES/ SITE FACILITIES

P7  An internal laundry is provided in each dwelling.

 

 

An internal laundry is provided in each dwelling – COMPLIANT.

 

WASTE

P1  Waste collection and separation facilities are provided for each dwelling.

 

P2  Waste storage facilities are provided either as a centralised garbage /recycling room accessible to garbage compactors or in a facility where bins can be easily wheeled to the street for collection.  The facilities are of a sufficient size to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage /recycling collection service.

 

P3  The location and design of waste collection facilities complements the design of the development and is not visually obtrusive in the streetscape or from any public places.

 

 

Waste separation facilities not provided – NON-COMPLIANT.

 

 

 

Waste storage facilities are centralised in basement and can be wheeled to street – COMPLIANT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Waste storage facilities provided in basement – COMPLIANT.

 

The compliance table above indicates the proposal is not consistent with various aspects of the DCP. The inconsistencies of the greatest impact are considered to be the height and side setbacks. The proposed height of the southern elevation of the development, combined with the lack of landscaping along the southern boundary, generate an unsatisfactory vista from a public domain or particularly, if the site if developed for residential purposes which its zoning permits.

 

b.         DCP – Parking

 

Parking rates and layout requirements for residential development are contained within the DCP - Parking.

 

Item

DCP Parking Requirement

Allocation

Complies

Residential

6 X 2 Bedroom units

 

 

1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit = 7.2 (8) spaces  

 

8

 

Yes

Visitor

1 space per 4 dwellings = 1.5 (2) spaces

 

1

No

Subtotal Residential

8.7 (9)

9

Yes

 

 

 

 

11.    RELEVANT PLANNING PRINCIPLES

 

On 27 April 2004, Senior Commissioner Roseth provided judgement on an appeal to the Land and Environment Court regarding development of a narrow allotment in the Randwick Local Government Area.

 

In this particular case, the application proposed a three (3) storey residential flat building on an allotment 13m wide.

 

In providing his judgement SC Roseth determined that when assessing development applications involving small or narrow sites, the following questions should be asked:

 

“Would approval of the application result in the isolation of neighbouring sites?

Would it render the reasonable development of neighbouring sites difficult?

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

 

SC Roseth also provides that the main criteria for assessing such applications with respect to the site itself, is whether the proposal “meets other planning controls, eg:

 

Does the proposal meet density, setback and landscaping controls? The most critical control for small and narrow sites is that for setbacks.

Is its impact on adjoining properties and the streetscape worse because the development is on a small or narrow site?”

 

In noting this SC Roseth indicates that if a proposal satisfies the other relevant planning controls and does not adversely affect adjoining properties, the inability to achieve a preferred lot width does not warrant refusal.

 

With respect to the first question above, the proposal would not result in isolation of neighbouring sites as the adjoining car park benefits from ample area to accommodate residential flat development.

 

The provision of an 11.5m high wall with minimal articulation, for a length of 26.5m on the common boundary is likely to provide difficulties for any possible residential development on the adjoining car park site. This is particularly with regard to providing acceptable vistas from the possible dwellings as well as ensuring an overbearing dominance is not created.

 

It should be noted that the application proposes a rear setback of 4.5m which is not compliant with the 8m rear setback preferred by the applicable Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing (MUH DCP), despite surrounding development complying with such a requirement. The likely result being that any residential development on the adjoining car park site complying with the 8m setback, will have a greater portion of the southern elevation of the proposed development to view, exaggerating the poor vista as well as the overbearing visual impact.

 

The MUH DCP also provides that preferably, a minimum average side setback of 5m should be maintained, with no buildings being within 3.5m of side boundaries. It is unlikely any residential development on the car park site could achieve the minimum requirement (hence, achieve its maximum developable potential) as the proximity of such a large, minimally articulated wall on the common boundary does not provide appropriate amenity for possible residential dwellings in terms of vista, ventilation or access to sunlight.

 

Therefore, the proposal would render the development of the car park site for residential purposes, difficult. With reference to the third question raised by SC Roseth, the matters raised above would not permit the orderly or economic development of the adjoining car park.

 

Additionally, the proposal relies heavily on the provision of landscaping on the car park site to soften the impact of its southern elevation. This is considered to be an unsustainable precedent as the permanency of such landscaping is unknown or cannot be enforced. Alternatively, it may force the owner of the car park site to retain such landscaping their wishes, in order to mediate the poor vista and over bearing nature of the proposed elevation. This may have detrimental impacts on the developable potential of the car park site. Such an outcome is also considered to be unorderly and uneconomic.

 

With regards to whether the proposal meets other planning controls as specified by SC Roseth, the RLEP 98 and MUH DCP compliance tables in section 8 above indicates that the proposal does not comply with clauses 31(2) landscaped area, 31(3) landscaped area above podiums, 32(1) floor space ratio and 33(3) external wall height while the side and rear setback controls within MUH DCP are also not complied with.

 

12.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) contains various considerations which a consent authority is required to take into account the following matters of relevance, when considering a development application:

 

(a)  the provisions of:

 

(i)  any environmental planning instrument, and

 

The environmental planning instruments applicable to the site are the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) and State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65).

 

Such instruments have been previously addressed in section 8 of this report. In summary, the proposal does not comply with various objectives or numerical requirements of the RLEP98 as well as various principles of SEPP 65 without meritorious justification. 

 

 (ii)   any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the draft instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

 

No draft environmental planning instruments apply to the site or the proposal.

 

(iii)  any development control plan,

 

The applicable development control plans are Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing as well as Development Control Plan – Parking. Such plans were addressed in section 8 of this report and it was found that the proposal does not comply with several components of Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing.

 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F,

No planning agreements apply to the site or the development.

 

(iv)  the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

No components of the regulations apply to the development.

 

(b)  the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

The inclusion of a wall 11.5m high and 26.5m long along the common boundary between the subject site and the adjoining car park will generate adverse impacts upon the built and social environments.

The positioning of the building footprint and the southern elevation on the common boundary is abrupt and fails to mediate between the two varying scales of development while it also represents an unsatisfactory outlook from a public domain.

Additionally, the residential zoning of the adjoining car park must be respected. The positioning of such a wall on the common boundary will either unduly limit the residential development potential of the car park or affect the amenity of any dwelling in proximity to the boundary. Specifically, the southern elevation of the proposal will generate unsatisfactory shadow impacts upon any dwelling in proximity to the boundary as well as provide an unsatisfactory outlook.

While the wall does include articulation, its significant height and length will create a monolithic and hence, unsatisfactory view.  Considering the adjoining property is a public facility, albeit a car park, development should create a pleasing and visually interesting elevation of a suitable scale.

(c)  the suitability of the site for the development,

The requirement for the provision of an 11.5m high wall for a length of the 26.5m along a common boundary, and the subsequent impacts in terms of streetscape appearance, shadow generation on the adjoining southern property, amenity impacts if the adjoining residentially zoned property were re-developed for residential purposes as well as the potential for the proposed development to limit the potential of development on the adjoining property, indicates that the subject site is not suitable for the scale of the proposal.

 (d)              any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

No submissions were made in relation to the application.

(e)      the public interest,.

The proposal is not in the public interest for the following reasons:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

14.    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.

 

15.    CONCLUSION

 

Assessment of the application indicates the proposal does not comply with various aspects of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings; objectives and numerical requirements of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as well as various provisions with Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing. The proposal does not satisfactorily respond to the questions and principles raised by SC Roseth in his judgement of CSA Architects v Randwick Council.

 

Most importantly, the proposal unsatisfactorily integrates with the adjoining car park and the general streetscape in terms of built form and scale. Additionally, the proposal fails to respect the residential development potential of the adjoining car park site or provide a suitable interface with the public domain.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/899/2006 for Demolition of existing buildings at the site and construction of a residential flat building comprising of 6 x 2 bedroom dwellings, landscaping and basement car parking at 86 Houston Road, Kingsford for the following reasons:-

 

1.     The proposal is not in the public interest pursuant to Section 79C(iii)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

2.     The provision of an 11.5m high wall for a length of the 26.5m along a common boundary generates an unsatisfactory streetscape outcome. That is, the wall fails to mediate between the varying scale of the proposed development and the limited scale on the adjoining car park site (ie: landscaping on the subject site or graduation in building heights would remove the abrupt change in scale).

 

3.     Locating the southern elevation on the boundary is unlike other development in the immediate locality which include reasonable side setbacks and hence, the proposal would interrupt the streetscape rhythm.

 

4.     The southern elevation, due to its length and height, represents an unsatisfactory vista from the public domain.

 

5.     The proposal would unreasonably limit the residential development potential of the adjoining car park site. That is, the shadow cast by the development and the southern elevation would affect the amenity of any residential dwellings on the car park site and provide an unsatisfactory visual outlook. Alternatively, any development on the car park site may not be able to utilise fully its entitled floor area in order to compensate for such matters.

 

6.     The proposal is reliant upon landscaping on an adjoining property to soften its visual impact, such an approach would represent an undesirable precedent.

 

7.     The proposal is inconsistent with the principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development in terms of safety and security, amenity, landscape, built form, scale and context.

 

8.     The proposal is inconsistent with objective C of the 2C Residential zone pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that it will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding development due to its excessive bulk and scale.

 

9.     The proposal is inconsistent with the purposes of clauses 31(2) Landscaped Area; 31(3) Landscaped area over podiums; 32(1) Floor Space Ratio and 33(3) External wall height of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

10.   The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Development Control Plan – Multi unit housing in relation to density, height, landscaping, setbacks and solar access.

 

11.   The subject site is not suitable for the scale of the proposed development.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

WILLANA ASSOCIATES PTY LDS



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

21 August, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/347/2007 & PROP003635

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to existing residential flat building including part storey on southern side of building, new windows on east and west sides, new deck on south side and replacement of existing decks, new balustrade to roof terrace, reconfiguration of units 7 & 8 and alterations to units 3 & 4.

PROPERTY:

 42 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Form Architecture

OWNER:

 Proprietors of SP 1669

 

 

 

 

 

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 Hughes, Matson and Woodsmith.

 

The development application is seeking development consent to make alterations and additions to the existing multi-unit housing building involving the construction of a roof top addition comprising of new bedrooms, kitchen and living room accessed from the units from the level below (level four), demolition of internal walls at each level to improve internal amenity, enlarge living space, enlarge south facing balconies to levels three and four, new windows to level four and roof level and general refurbishment works to the units located on levels one, two and three and landscaping to the rear yard area. It is noted that the subject site is located within the 2A residential zone and as such, development for the purposes of multi-unit housing is prohibited. The application relies upon existing use rights as defined in the Environmental Planing and Assessment Act and Regulation for development consent.

 

The development application was notified to the surrounding properties for two weeks and four objections were received during this notification period, all from no.44 Cliffbrook Parade, the adjacent property to the east. The objections raised concerns regarding visual privacy, potential for increased noise from larger balconies, loss of amenity and sunlight from roof level addition, the intensification of the use of the site and the lack of any provision for on-site car parking.

 

The development application was referred to the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel meeting, held on 4 June 2007. The panel was generally supportive the application, however did raise some concerns in respect to the bulk and scale of the development and internal arrangement of units. In response to these concerns the applicant submitted an amended design for the room level structure, which reduces the total height by 350mm whilst maintaining the same form and design and made changes to the internal configuration of the residential dwellings.

 

The proposed development is considered to greatly improve the internal amenity of the building and will significantly increase internal useability of the units. The proposal will also involve the rendering and painting of the building and other external works, such as integrated landscaping to the rear of the site that will significantly improve the presentation of the building to the surrounding area and its contribution to the foreshore. Some of the objections relating to visual and acoustic privacy, landscaping and bulk and scale have been addressed by the applicant, however some other issues relating to parking, solar access and intensification of use are not supported by the assessing officer and did not require the proposal to be amended. Generally the proposal is acceptable in respect existing use rights.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves internal and external alterations and additions to the existing three storey multi-unit housing building and will reconfigure the arrangement of units from 8 x  1 bedroom units to 4 x 1 bedroom and 4 x 2 bedroom units. The works involve in detail:

 

Ground Floor (level 1)

 

-   Relocation of laundries from roof level to rear of ground floor.

-   New external path and steps along western side of site.

 

First floor (level 2)

 

-   Garbage bin storage area to the front boundary of the site.

-   Internal demolition works and rear extension of dining room.

-   New timber terraces to the rear of the building, accessed via the new dining rooms.

-   New internal stairs to level above.

 

Second Floor (level 3)

 

-   New rear terraces to rear of building with planter box to eastern side of terrace.

-   Internal demolition and refurbishment of rear units.

-   New entry deck to main pedestrian access on western side of building.

-   New external privacy screens to windows along the elevation.

-   New court area incorporating planter boxes and garbage storage area.

-   New feature wall along the western boundary.

 

Third Floor (level 4)

 

-   New rear terraces to rear units with planter box to eastern side of terrace.

-   New stairs to level above.

-   Demolition of internal walls and general refurbishment.

 

Fourth Floor (level 5 – existing roof terrace)

 

-   Demolition of existing laundry structure.

-   New structure comprising of WC, kitchen, dining and living rooms to unit 7 (eastern unit) and two bedrooms and bathroom to unit 8 (western unit).

-   New deck to rear of building with privacy screens and planter boxes to western and eastern sides.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Cliffbrook Parade and is accessed via a right of way that extends from Lowe Street to the west of the subject site. The site has a rear frontage to Lowe Lane (right of way) of 13.105m and a site length of 42.73m and 46.6m with the eastern side boundary being the greater. The southern boundary adjoins Cliffbrook Pde in a section that comprises the coastal walkway and has a width of 13.63m. The site is currently occupied by a three storey multi-unit development comprising of a roof top terrace with current laundry access and balcony areas to the southern elevation. The site has an area of 584.35sqm.

 

To the east of the site is a terraced multi-unit development containing a maximum of three storeys. To the western elevation is a two to three storey dwelling house. Semi-detached dwellings run perpendicular to the subject site along the northern boundary. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Figure 2 is the subject site from the rear.

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

4.1      HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

Previous applications submitted for development on the site includes:

Development No.

Description

Determination

DA/318/1989

Erect four balconies at the rear of the existing residential flat building.

Approved on 12 December 1989

DA/426/2004

Incorporate subfloor area to Unit 3 of the existing residential flat building and modify strata plan to incorporate the new area. Amended plans received - bedrooms on existing level and living areas at lower level.

Approved on 3 September 2004

DA/942/2004

Demolish existing balconies and make alterations and additions including new balconies, extend dwellings 3 and 4, replace existing openings, new laundry and upgrading of common areas.

Approved on 28 April 2005

DA/455/2006

Alterations and additions to existing residential flat building including additional level to units 7 and 8 and new upper level decks on southern elevation.

Withdrawn on 27 November 2006

 

Development application 455/2006 was withdrawn at the request of Council as it was considered that approval of the development application with two active consents may result in cumulative impacts of each development adversely impacting the amenity of the adjoining properties. As such, the applicant withdrew the application and lodged this development application including elements of the previously approved developments to provide a cohesive and comprehensive application.

 

Figure 2: The subject site from the rear, on the coastal walkway that passes the site. The dwelling on the left (west) of the photo is no.40 Cliffbrook Pde.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

Merryn Burrowes – Unit 3, 44 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly.

Issue

Comment

The roof top level addition will increase the height of the building and adversely impact the appearance of the building.

It is considered the height of the roof level addition is acceptable and is integrated with the design of the building. An assessment of the height of the building is contained in the report below.

The proposal is not consistent with the NSW Land and Environment Court planning principle of Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council [2005] specifically in respect to existing use rights and redevelopment of the site.

The proposal is consistent with the planning principle. See section 11 of this report for an assessment of the application in regards to the planning principle.

The proposal will “result in significant loss of privacy particularly to Units 4 and 5” therefore privacy screens should extend the full width of the rear terraces.

The proposal will not adversely impact upon visual privacy as a condition has been included requiring details of the external louvres to be provided for approval by Council prior to a construction certificate being issued. A condition has also been included requiring the terraces to level 4 and 5 to be reduced to the width of the existing balconies and planter boxes to be structurally fixed to the building.

Martin and Nadia Bloom – Unit 5, 44 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly.

Issue

Comment

The proposal will adversely affect privacy to the indoor and outdoor living areas. The roof level addition will provide a perceived sense of overlooking and overbearing.

The louvres to the east facing windows of the roof level addition can be designed in a manner than prevents downwards overlooking. As noted above, a condition has been included requiring details of the external louvres to be provided for approval by Council prior to a construction certificate being issued.

Louvres or screens to the east facing windows and balconies may not be suitable as future occupants may be able to look through the gaps of the louvres or screens.

See comments above. Louvres are appropriate as they can designed to significantly minimise overlooking in a downwards direction.

The roof level addition will overshadow no.44 Cliffbrook Pde and adversely impact views.

Given the orientation of the sun, the roof level addition will not adversely impact solar access from sunrise to mid afternoon.

The subject site does not provide on-site parking or delivery areas and the addition of bedrooms will further increase parking demand.

The site currently does not provide on-site parking and the proposal will increase the parking demand. This issue is discussed in section 9.5 of this report.

The bin storage doors swing over the right of way adversely affecting other users of the easement.

A condition has been included requiring the doors of the bin storage area to be sliding.

Carolyn Mathews – Unit 4, 44 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly.

Issue

Comment

The proposal does little to improve the external appearance of the site to the surrounding properties and coastal pedestrian walk.

The proposal enhances the appearance of the building and the associated landscape plan will significantly improve the appearance of the site to the foreshore area.

The site provides no on-site parking and the proposal will further increase parking demand.

This issue is discussed in section 9.5 of this report.

The roof level addition results in excessive height for the building affecting solar access.

The increase in height is considered acceptable in the context of development in the surrounding area and the solar impact of the roof level addition will be negligible.

The proposed terraces and balconies will significantly impact upon the visual privacy of the residents of no.44.

A condition has been included requiring the balconies to be reduced to match the depth of the existing balconies on the subject site. Blade walls and privacy screens feature along the eastern side of each balcony to minimise potential overlooking.

The garbage bin storage area to the front of the site includes doors that may impinge access to the right of way.

A condition has been included requiring the doors of the bin storage area to be sliding.

The planter boxes to the terraces should be structurally integrated with the building to ensure they are permanent fixtures and cannot be removed by future occupants.

A condition has been included in the consent requiring the planter boxes to be fixed to the balcony structure and not to be removed.

Gordon Edgar of Credence Planning – on behalf of owners of 44 Cliffbrook Parade.

Issue

Comment

The proposal will increase the height of building so that it will be 3.45m higher than the multi-unit housing building at no.44 Cliffbrook Pde and 5.42m higher than the detached single dwelling at no.40 Cliffbrook Pde. The proposal is out of context and is not compatible with the surrounding development and will “further increase this disparity in height.”

The roof level addition is located to the southern most area of the roof and will not be immediately noticeable from the nearest streets (Lowe Street, Victory Street or Melrose Parade). The roof level addition will be most visible from the top level rear terrace of no.44, however it will located above eye level and will not obstruct the sweeping ocean and coastal views obtained by each unit of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade.

The proposal does not have a stepped built form akin to no.44 Cliffbrook Pde and the roof level addition further exacerbates this incompatible built form.

The proposal will improve the articulation and aesthetic presentation of the building to the foreshore area. Requiring a stepped built form akin to no.44 is unnecessary considering the proposal involves relatively minor change to the building envelope. The roof addition will not visually dominate the vista of the area and does not represent an incompatible built form.

The floor area is “twice the density of any future development and existing compliant development.”

Floor space ratio controls do not apply. A merit based assessment on the physical character of the development is contained in section 10.1 of this report.

The proposal is not consistent with the NSW Land and Environment Court planning principle of Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council [2005] specifically in respect to existing use rights and redevelopment of the site.

The proposal is consistent with the planning principle. See section 11 of this report for an assessment of the application in regards to the planning principle.

The proposal will have the potential to adversely impact the privacy of the occupants of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade.

As noted above, conditions will be included requiring the depth of the proposed balconies to be reduced and details of louvres to the roof level addition to be provided prior to construction.

The proposal will generate additional car parking where no additional on-site parking spaces have been provided.

This issue is discussed in section 9.5 of this report.

The swinging garbage bin storage doors illegally encroach upon the right of way.

A condition has been included requiring the doors of the bin storage area to be sliding.

There is opportunity for more substantial plantings to the rear yard to provide additional privacy.

A condition has been included in the consent requiring the details of the landscaping along the eastern side of the site to be agreed upon by the owner’s corporation of no.44.

 

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      Building and Development Control Services

 

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

Alterations and additions to the existing three storey residential flat building to create another storey at rooftop level on the existing trafficable roof/laundry area.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class 2 – Residential units

 

Description of the Building

 

In summary, the building incorporates:

 

·         A ‘rise in storeys’ of 4

·         Masonry walls, trafficable roof and timber floors

·         One exit stairway, of concrete construction

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

Full details of compliance with BCA 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.

 

Recommendation

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, the conditions included with the officer’s memorandum should be included in the development consent

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site has a total area of approximately 584.35sqm and is therefore exempt from the master plan requirements of Clause 40A of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-   State Environmental Planning Policy No.10 – Retention of Low-Cost Rental Accommodation.

-   State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

-   State Environmental Planning Policy No.71 – Coastal Protection.

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-   Development Control Plan – Parking

-   Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans

-   Randwick City Council Section 94 Contributions Plan – (including amendment for Kensington Town Centre).

-   Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

9.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A (Residential A Zone) under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and as such the proposal for multi-unit housing is a prohibited use in the zone.  However, under Section 41 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the non conforming use may be enlarged, expanded, intensified, altered, extended or rebuilt.  Hence, notwithstanding that the proposal is prohibited within Zone 2A, it may be approved by development consent under the existing use rights provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

As the proposal is a prohibited use in the 2A Zone, other provisions such as aims and objectives and development standards regarding floor space ratios, building heights and landscaped areas are not applicable and do not require objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards.  Similarly, the Development Control Plan – Multi-unit housing is also not applicable to the proposed development. Nevertheless, aims and objectives, development standards and development controls can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal as contained in section 10 of this report.

 

The following clauses of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 are applicable for development other than dwelling houses in the zone:

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

29 – Foreshore scenic protection area

The subject site is located within the Foreshore scenic protection area.

The development increases the height of the building however its overall appearance is considered to result in an improved presentation to the foreshore area.

The development significantly improves the aesthetic attributes of the existing building. Complies.

31 - Landscaped area

50% of the total site area as landscaped area. Landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas must not exceed 50% of the landscaped area requirements.

49% of the site is landscaped; 38% is soft landscaped.

Development for multi-unit housing is prohibited in the zone. The application relies upon existing use rights and therefore Clauses 31, 32 and 33 of the LEP are not applicable to the development application. A merit based assessment has been undertaken in respect to landscaped area, floor area and building heights.

32 – Floor space ratios

0.5:1

1:1.

33 - Building heights.

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

Maximum building height of 10.9m, maximum external wall height of 10.6m.

9.2      State Environmental Planning Policy No.10 – Retention of Low-Cost Rental Accommodation.

The multi-unit housing building located on the subject site has been strata subdivided pursuant to the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 and as such, pursuant to section 6(2)(c) of the SEPP, is exempt from consideration of the Policy.

9.3      State Environmental Planning Policy No.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 box:

 

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 4 June 2007 Design Review Panel. The comments are included below.

 

9.3.1   SEPP 65 Design Review Panel Comments

 

This is the first time that the Panel has viewed this application, although the Panel understands that a previous application has been approved by Council for works to the lower floors.

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The proposal is located in a prominent stretch of waterfront at Gordon’s Bay. The context is diverse, in terms of scale, types and materials.

 

The proposal transforms the southern half on an existing apartment building. This building, which currently contains 8 small flat floor units, is in a somewhat dilapidated state, due to its extremely exposed position and age. The proposal refurbishes and enlarges the 4 south facing units, making them all 2 storeys.

 

In the Panel’s opinion, the proposal significantly improves the building’s scale and presentation to the public waterfront. The retention of the generous landscaped sloping garden to the waterfront is strongly supported, as it is contiguous with neighbouring gardens and remnant rock shelves to the west and south.

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The new rooftop elements increase the scale of the building. However, as there are a number of existing structures on the rooftop, the new form does not significantly add to the height or bulk and is considered acceptable in this dramatic setting.

 

The balconies terrace down the slope, mitigating the vertical scale of the rear façade.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

Acceptable, as the design is a clear improvement over the existing conditions.

The detail of the retractable awnings should be indicated on the elevations.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

Acceptable. A modest increase in density allied to physical and environmental improvements.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

All apartments are cross-ventilated, and the 4 modified apartments also benefit from stack effect ventilation.

 

The top floor apartments benefit from some northern sun through the hi-light windows.

 

The provision of rainwater tanks in the base is supported.

Windows should be provided to the level 1 laundry for environmental reasons as well as amenity.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

The retention of the large deep soil garden on the south side of the building is strongly supported. A landscape plan has been submitted by a landscape architect.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The Panel suggested a number of potential improvements could be made to the internal planning to improve amenity;

 

-   Unit 7, with the living room at the upper level, has a much better plan than Unit 8. This Unit should be approached to suggest this change as the rooftop position with improved light and views will be a much better place for a kitchen, living and dining area.

-   Some of the bathrooms, laundries and kitchens are a little awkward, and would benefit from further planning refinements. For example the toilet off the kitchen in Unit 8 is highly undesirable. The laundry off the lounge is not ideal in Unit 8.

-   In the lower units, the internal stairs are not always as well integrated with the planning as could be achieved. It may also be better to keep some of the wall to say 1200 high between the lounge and the kitchen. This will help with the placement of furniture in the lounge area.

-   The amount of natural light should be improved to the entry corridors and stairs of units 3 and 4

-   The planters / privacy screens on the sides of the balconies need further refinement

-   The scale of the openings to the waterside would be improved if they were floor to floor, with top light windows to allow the occupants more options for natural ventilation in this windy and exposed site.

-   The generous new balconies to the water side are supported.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

Acceptable – improved overlooking of Cliffbrook Parade.

 

A BCA report should be supplied that considers the windows and egress within 3 meters of the property boundary, and any other fire safety issues.

 

9.       Social issues

 

The Panel supports the improved mix of apartments provided, and the retention of the common roof terrace. The new communal laundry adjoining the common garden is also supported.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The Panel suggested that the steel frame on the rear façade could have a stronger reading to the waterside, to better match the scale of the elevation. The balconies would be improved with a matching steel handrail to cap the glass balustrade.

 

Further work on the steel structure may give greater legibility and improve the aesthetics of the proposal The steel post that comes out half way to unit three and four’s terrace and continues up to Units seven and eight may be better pushed out to the edge of the terrace. Consideration could also be given to the dimension of the steel. The posts appear a little thin in the montage.

 

The laundry / masonry base would benefit from some well-scaled openings, that retain the monolithic scale of the base.

 

Narrow deep windows with recessed glass would be suitable on the south stone elevation. This would ensure that the monolithic nature of this wall remains. Alternatively larger openings, which are permanently ventilated, could be considered on the east and west. Permanent ventilating larger windows on these two sides will assist in this area remaining dry and natural light will also reduce the need for lights to be turned on during the day.

 

The re-worked openings in the side elevations at upper levels are well handled.

 

The Panel considers that the roof design could be further refined, particularly if issues of bulk or overshadowing are a concern. The important consideration for the roof design is providing north light and memorable volumes for the top floor apartments.

 

The durability of materials is a major consideration, given the exposure of the site.

 

9.3.2   Applicant’s response to SEPP 65 DRP Comments

 

As stated above, the panel held concerns regarding the roof level addition, stating that the “roof design could be further refined, particularly if issues of bulk or overshadowing.” As such, the applicant amended the height of the proposed roof level addition by reducing the total height of the structure by 350mm. The other issues raised by the panel involved internal reconfiguration to the residential apartments to improve the internal amenity for future occupants of the building. The issues have been addressed by the applicant and incorporated as amended internal configurations to the dwellings and do not affect the appearance of the building to the street.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 23 August 2007 and made the following modifications to the proposed development:

 

-   Windows added to northern, eastern and southern elevations of the proposed laundry area.

-   The floor plan to Unit No. 8 has been amended to match that of Unit No. 7.

-   Plan layouts to Unit no. 3 & 4 have been amended to improve pantry & fridge layouts to the kitchens.

-   Windows have been added to the stairwells of Units 3 & 4 to improve natural light / ventilation.

-   The windows to the south elevation have been amended, to incorporate highlight panels to assist in cross ventilation, as discussed in the meeting.

-   The steel frame has been amended to incorporate more substantial steel framing the south elevation.

-   New window openings have been incorporated into the bathroom and bedroom of Level 4 to the south elevation.

 

The issues raised by the panel in respect to the planter boxes and privacy screens is noted, and a condition has been included in the consent requiring the privacy screens to the northern sides of the rear terraces to be extended to cover the full depth of the terraces. A condition has been included in the development consent requiring the extended window to the northern elevation of level 3 to be provided with external fixed louvres to minimise potential privacy impacts and the new bathroom windows to the southern elevation to fitted with obscured glazing to maintain the amenity of the adjoining property to the south.

 

The amendments were considered relatively minor and as they will not impact upon the amenity or privacy of the adjoining properties renotification to the surrounding properties was not undertaken.

 

9.4      State Environmental Planning Policy No.71 – Coastal Protection

 

The subject site is located within the area specified under the SEPP. The main aim of the policy is to protect and manage the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the New South Wales coast, and to protect and improve existing public access to and along coastal foreshores to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore.

 

Pursuant to clause 8 of SEPP 71 the relevant matters of consideration include:

 

(d) The suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area.

 

The proposed development involves the internal reconfiguration and refurbishment of an existing three storey multi-unit housing building and the construction of a roof level addition comprising of two bedroom, a kitchen, WC, living room and new balconies. The type of development is not permissible in the zone however is consistent with surrounding development is not considered to be incompatible with development in the area. The design of the proposal is considered contemporary and compatible with the style of other dwellings in the area and generally the development will significantly improve the presentation of the site to the foreshore area, notably the coastal walkway that passes the rear of the site. It is considered the proposal will have a positive relationship with the development in the surrounding area and will not become a prominent or distracting visual element when viewed from the foreshore area. As such it is considered the proposal is consistent with the relevant clauses of this SEPP.

 

9.5 Development Control Plans

9.5.1   Development Control Plan – Parking

The DCP – Parking does not apply to the site however the table below is included as a guide to indicate the level of parking generated by the development.

 

Use

Parking rate

Requirement

Proposed

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

4 x 1 bedroom apartments = 4 spaces

4 x 2 bedroom apartments = 4.8 spaces

Total residential = 8.8 spaces required.

Nil. The site currently does not provide on-site parking and the proposal will not include provision for any on-site parking.

 

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

2 spaces required.

 

 

 

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

Not required.

 

 

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

3 spaces required.

 

 

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

Not required.

 

 

 

The current building if subject to the DCP requirements would generate a total of 10 car parking spaces. The proposal will involve a reconfiguration of the number of bedrooms provided in the building, however will not increase the total number of units. Generally a development of this nature in a 2B or 2C zone would generate a total of 10.8 car parking spaces, an increase of 0.8 spaces. The issue of increased car parking generation and the lack of on-site car parking has been raised frequently by the objections received during the notification period. The issue of parking has been addressed in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) and main justification provided in the SEE revolves around the relatively close access to public transport for future occupants to access and the relatively minor increase that the proposed development will result.

 

The issue of parking is also addressed in the section 11 of this report as part of the assessment undertaken in respect to the existing use rights and the Land and Environment Court planning principle applicable to the development application.

 

10. Likely Impacts

10.1    Height, Bulk, Scale and Streetscape

The proposal will increase the floor space ratio (FSR) of the site from approximately 0.83:1 to 1:1, an increase of 99sqm that predominantly results from the new floor area to the roof level of the building with 13sqm to the new level 1 laundry. The general appearance of the building will be altered and overall height increased however it is considered that the scale of the residential building will be maintained and that the numerical increase in the gross floor area (GFA) of the site is a poor measure of the increase in respects to the perceptible impacts to the adjoining properties and to the foreshore area. As such it is considered more appropriate to make an assessment of the increased GFA in respect to the performance requirements of the Multi-unit housing DCP, objectives of the 2A zone, the purpose of clause no.32 of the LEP and the context of the development in relation to surrounding development of a similar nature.

It is noted that the main performance requirement of the Multi-unit housing DCP in relation to FSR/density is to ensure building bulk is “compatible with the surrounding built forms and minimises impact of building bulk on nearby buildings, open spaces and the streetscape”. The roof level addition will contribute to an increased building bulk, however the increase is considered acceptable as the addition only covers a portion of the entire roof level, is located to the rear away from the street, is lower in height at the southern edge than the existing laundry building, features a low pitch skillion roof which slopes to the north and away from the rear terraces of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade which generally gives the addition a modest bulk and scale and will be consistent with the bulk and scale of other buildings in the area as seen in Figure 4 below which is a photograph taken from the roof level of the subject site showing two, three and four storey residential flat buildings within the vicinity of the subject site.

Figure 4: Photograph from the roof level of the subject site looking north-west to existing two, three and four storey multi-unit housing buildings.

The addition will have an appropriate degree of articulation, use a mix of materials (rendered and painted walls, glazing, metal louvres, metal privacy screens) and will be integrated with the building as the proposal also includes works to the rear of the entire building and landscaping that will substantially improve the presentation of the entire site to the foreshore area. The adverse impact of building bulk to the adjoining properties will be minimised through keeping the height of the roof level addition lowest at its southern end and where it will be most visible from the rear terraces of the occupants of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade. The purpose of clause no.32 of the LEP seeks to “reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.” The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the purpose of the clause in respect to providing a appropriate and relatively modest increase in floor area to improve the internal amenity of the building while being sensitive to the amenity of the adjoining properties and the foreshore area.

It should be noted that the applicant amended the total height of the roof level addition, resulting in a decrease of 350mm of the structure, which results in the new structure being 200mm to 300mm above the existing laundry structure at the southern end of the roof having an height of RL 24.095 at the southern end and an RL of 25.025 at the northern end, which represents a height range of 2.895m to 3.825m above the floor level of the roof and above the height of the existing laundry structure of approximately 2.745m. The proposed roof level addition results in a maximum building height of 10.9m (an increase of 1.7m) and an external wall height increase from 6.9m to 10.6m. A condition has been included in the development consent requiring the reduction of the height of the roof level structure by 350mm to be implemented as part of the construction certificate plans.

The broad objectives of the 2A zone require development to maintain the amenity of the area through sensitive development that is compatible with the dominant character of the area. The subject site is surrounded by a variety of residential development with a predominance for larger residential buildings comprising of two, three and four storeys and residential dwellings of one, but mainly two storeys. Figure 4 above clearly indicates that development within the relative vicinity of the subject site comprises of multi-unit housing buildings with built forms that are similar to the building that exists upon the subject site. It is therefore considered that the proposed development maintains the character of the area and will enhance the presentation of the building improve the internal amenity for future occupants.

Considering this amendment and the general issues of potential impacts of bulk, scale, and visual amenity to the adjoining properties, it is deemed that the proposal is reasonable and will not adversely impact upon the area. Therefore the proposed GFA of the building is considered acceptable.

 

10.2    Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

The proposal involves the creation of new openings to the existing building, with new windows to the eastern and western sides to level 4 and new sliding doors to the south facing rooms to the roof level of the building. The proposed rear terraces will maintain the dimensions of the existing balconies and a condition has been included in the development consent that requires the privacy screens to extend the full length of the northern side of the terraces to minimise direct overlooking into the rear terraces of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade.

 

The objections received from the adjoining property to the east, no.44 Cliffbrook Parade, raised a number of concerns that the proposal may result in a significant reduction in the privacy of the rear terraces of each of the objectors units. A visit to the objectors’ units ascertained that there would be a potential for increase overlooking as a result of the increased size of the terraces and therefore it was considered pertinent to include a condition that would reduce the proposed terraces to be the same depth as the existing terraces and for the privacy screens to extend the full length of the northern side of the terraces. As such the overlooking potential from the rear terraces would not be increased beyond the existing site conditions.

 

The proposed roof level addition will include windows to the eastern and western elevations (both with sill heights of 1m) and will provide the potential to overlook into the adjoining properties adjoining the site, particularly the rear open terrace of unit 5 (topmost unit) of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade. It is noted however that the existing roof terrace to the building located upon the subject site provides ample and expansive overlooking opportunity into the aforementioned rear terrace and is accessible by all owners of the building as the laundry facilities of the building are located at the roof level. As such, considering this existing potential for overlooking the inclusion of the windows, particularly to the eastern elevation, is deemed acceptable and especially noting the inclusion of external horizontal louvres that will significantly mitigate any potential overlooking from the unit 7 kitchen and dining rooms. To further ensure the privacy of the rear terrace to the topmost level of no.44 is preserved or improved, a condition has been included with the development consent requiring additional detail specifying the gaps, length and angle of the louvres demonstrating that overlooking in a downwards angle is not possible.

 

The works to the roof level will effectively reduce the accessible floor area by approximately half and thus reduce significantly the potential for use of the roof for entertainment or noisy activities such as parties or the like. The new habitable space to the roof level will include terraces facing south, however their size and orientation is entirely commensurate with the other terraces on the site and consistent with the terraces in the area that share outlooks to the water of Gordons Bay and to Wedding Cake Island in the distance. It is considered likely that the terraces will not be conducive to large congregations of people for entertainment purposes as their size is considerably smaller than the terraces to each unit at no.44 Cliffbrook Parade. As such any noise emanating from the terraces will be characteristic to the noise level the other terraces in the area have to potential of producing.

 

As such the proposal, with the inclusion of conditions in the consent as discussed above, is considered to have a satisfactory degree of measures that will reduce and mitigate any adverse privacy impacts upon the adjoining properties.

 

10.3    Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

The proposal includes a landscape plan that will significantly improve the amenity of the rear private open space and contribute to the overall aesthetic appearance of the building to the foreshore area and the surrounding properties. The current site features an uninspiring rear yard area that is relatively open and does not promote use by the occupants. The proposal will provide greater visual screening from persons using the coastal walkway at the rear of the site, provide an attractive green space for future occupants and also the views from the adjoining properties.

 

The landscape plan will generally provide a substantial improvement over the current landscaped areas on the site and will benefit the amenity of the occupants of the subject site and those adjoining the site. A condition has been included in the development consent requiring the applicant to liaise with the body corporate of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade to agree to greater landscaping along the eastern boundary to provide greater degree of visual screening and reduce potentially hazardous coastal winds.

 

The proposal is considered to have an appropriate degree of landscaped area and will significantly improve the amenity of the area, benefiting the amenity of the adjoining properties and the appearance of the site from the foreshore area.

10.4    Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

The proposed development mainly involves works related to residential development confined to the rear of the subject site whilst some works, relating to garbage bin storage area, to the front of the site. The subject site and those adjoining the site, have a north to south orientation which is favourable when considering potential impacts to solar access as the eastern and northern elevations and northern and western elevations of the eastern and western adjoining properties respectively will not be affected.. The works being at the rear of the site will have a reasonable impact upon solar access and will not significantly impinge upon solar access for the adjoining properties to the east and west. The objections received from no.44 Cliffbrook Parade raised concerns regarding significant and adverse losses of sunlight, however it is deemed that the proposed development does not involve excessive increase in the height, bulk or scale of the building and as such, any solar access impacts are reasonable and acceptable with consideration to the character of development in the area, which is predominantly multi-unit housing buildings.

 

The overshadowing diagrams submitted with the development application indicate that the additional shadow cast by the roof level addition will add shadow to the extremities of the existing shadows and as such, will affect solar access generally at the southern end of the adjoining properties. It should be noted that the proposal does not affect sunlight to solar collectors of the adjoining properties, overshadow landscaped areas and due to the relatively favourable orientation of the subject site and adjoining sites, the overall impact to solar access will be minimal or negligible.

 

10.5    Utilities/Site Facilities

 

The relocation of the garbage bins to the northern section (front) of the site is considered an acceptable location as it provides level access to Lowe Street for waste collection. A condition will be included requiring the swinging doors to be made into sliding doors to avoid conflicts with the right of way.

 

11. PLANNING PRINCIPLE – FODOR INVESTMENTS V HORNSBY SHIRE COUNCIL [2005]

 

As noted above in this report, the subject site is zoned as 2A (Residential A Zone) and development for the purposes of a multi-unit housing building is prohibited. As such, the development relies upon existing use rights to be considered as part of the assessment of the application. An existing use as defined in section 106 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘the Act’) is a use that is lawfully commenced but subsequently become prohibited use under a new local environmental plan or other environmental planning instrument. Development relating to existing use rights is pursuant to the following sections of the Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (‘the Regulation’):

 

Section 108(3) of the Act states:

 

An environmental planning instrument may, in accordance with this Act, contain provisions extending, expanding or supplementing the incorporated provisions, but any provisions (other than incorporated provisions) in such an instrument that, but for this subsection, would derogate or have the effect of derogating from the incorporated provisions have no force or effect while the incorporated provisions remain in force.

 

And;

 

Section 41(1) of the Regulation states that:

 

(1) An existing use may, subject to this Division:

 

(a) be enlarged, expanded or intensified, or

(b) be altered or extended, or

(c) be rebuilt, or

(d) be changed to another use, but only if that other use is a use that may be carried out with or without development consent under the Act, or

(e) if it is a commercial use-be changed to another commercial use (including a commercial use that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act), or

(f) if it is a light industrial use-be changed to another light industrial use or a commercial use (including a light industrial use or commercial use that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act).

 

(2) However, an existing use must not be changed under subclause (1) (e) or (f) unless that change:

 

(a) involves only alterations or additions that are minor in nature, and

(b) does not involve an increase of more than 10% in the floor space of the premises associated with the existing use, and

(c) does not involve the rebuilding of the premises associated with the existing use, and

(d) does not involve a significant intensification of that existing use, and

(e) relates only to premises that have a floor space of less than 1,000 square metres.

 

It should be noted that amendments were made to the existing use provisions in the Regulation on 29 March 2006 so that it was no longer possible to change from one prohibited use to another prohibited use without a rezoning of the site being made first. On 9 February 2007 the NSW Government further amended the Regulation to include transitional provisions to development involving subdivision and fit-out of shops that relied upon existing use rights.

The Land and Environment Court provides two court decisions as planning principles to aid in the assessment of development relying upon existing use rights, they are the Stromness Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council decision of 2006 and the Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council decision of 2005. The Stromness decision reinforced each of the four principles of the Fodor decision with particular note that presiding commissioner Pain of the Stromness case affirmed that “care must be exercised in the application of the principles to ensure that there is not a de facto application of standards in environmental planning instruments as that is prohibited by s 108(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.” Commissioner Pain also stated that the planning principles were intended to be applied “as guidelines to assist resolution of issues that commonly arise in merits review cases”. Notwithstanding this cautionary note, it is considered the planning principle of Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council is pertinent to the this proposed development.

 

Whilst the Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council Land and Environment Court decision (and subsequent adoption as a planning principle) predates the significant amendment of 29 March 2006 to the Regulation, it is considered a pertinent apparatus to aid in the assessment of this development application. Senior Commissioner Roseth presents four questions that should be asked of any development seeking consent relating to existing use rights:

 

[Question 1] How do the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to what is permissible on surrounding sites?

 

While planning controls, such as height, floor space ratio and setbacks do not apply to sites with existing use rights; they have relevance to the assessment of applications on such sites. This is because the controls apply to surrounding sites and indicate the kind of development that can be expected if and when surrounding sites are redeveloped. The relationship of new development to its existing and likely future context is a matter to be considered in all planning assessment.

 

The existing building has a built form that is commensurate with the surrounding development in the area and is an older structure than what exists on the adjoining properties to the west and east. The development further from the site, but still in the vicinity of the area, contains a variety of multi-unit housing buildings or similar scale, bulk and height especially along the northern parts of Lowe Street and the southern side of Melrose Parade, approximately 40m to 50m to the north of the subject site. The adjoining development to the subject site consists of a dwelling house to the west, and a multi-unit housing building to the east. The dwelling is a two storey structure that has a lower height than the building on the subject site and is generally considered to have a lesser scale. The multi-unit housing to the east of the subject site (no.44 Cliffbrook Pde) has a stepped built for that extends from the north to the southern part of the site, giving the appearance of being a larger structure when viewed from the foreshore area to the south. The total height of the structure of no.44 may be lower than the building on the subject site, however it is deemed that the building of no.44 extends closer to the foreshore and the rear setback of no.44 is significantly less (approximately 10 to 15m) than the building on the subject site. As such, when considering the issue of bulk and scale it is pertinent to consider that the buildings adjoining the subject site are not necessarily relevant indicators of what may or may not be acceptable development on the subject site, particularly when the adjoining property to the east contains a similar prohibited use. Figure 3 below is a photograph of the adjoining property to the east and its visual impact created by a built form that stretches significantly greater than the building on the subject site, and it is considered, has a more immediate and dominant presence when viewed from the foreshore area, and particularly the coastal walkway.

 

Figure 4: The western wall of no.44 Cliffbrook Pde as viewed from the rear boundary (near the coastal walkway) of the subject site. Encouraging a similar stepped form to the subject site is not deemed appropriate.

 

The FSR of the proposal reaches approximately 1:1 and would exceed the LEP requirement for development other than the purposes of a dwelling house to have an FSR of no greater than 0.5:1. The degree of non-compliance with the LEP FSR requirements aside, it is considered that the overall character of the building will be maintained and that the roof level addition will be most noticeable from the adjoining dwellings and the dwellings located to the north west that essentially look down onto the subject site. The streetscapes of the nearest street of Lowe Street, Melrose Parade and Victory Street are unlikely to be adversely impacted by the proposed development.

 

The degree of work proposed on the subject site is considered relatively minor in the context of the development that exists currently and it is deemed that similar refurbishment works resulting in additional floor area to improve the amenity of future occupants of the site would not be uncharacteristic in the area and would maintain the amenity and prevailing built form of the area which predominantly consists of multi-unit housing buildings. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the character of the area and that relationship of the new development to its existing and likely future context is deemed acceptable.

 

[Question 2] This question relates to change of use and is not applicable to this assessment.

 

[Question 3] What are the impacts on adjoining land?

 

The impact on adjoining land should be assessed as it is assessed for all development. It is true that where, for example, a development control plan requires three hours of sunlight to be maintained in adjoining rear yards, the numerical control does not apply. However, the overshadowing impact on adjoining rear yards should be reasonable.

 

After consideration of the objections received it is deemed that the most significant impacts of the proposal involves visual privacy impacts such as direct overlooking,  excessive bulk and scale of the roof level addition resulting in visual amenity impact and overshadowing and increased generation for on-site parking spaces where the current site provides no on-site parking resulting in increased demand for on-street parking spaces and adversely affecting availability for parking for existing residents in the area.

 

The issue of visual privacy loss as a result of potential increased overlooking from new windows to the roof level addition and the balconies to the rear of the site has been addressed by the applicant through the implementation of privacy screens and angled external louvres to minimise or completed reduce overlooking. Following a site visit to the units of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade it was determined that the balconies to the rear of the subject site would be required to be reduced in depth to match the existing balconies and that privacy screens should extend the full length of the balconies. Appropriate conditions to this effect have been included in the development consent. The issue of overlooking from the eastern windows of the roof level addition has also been addressed by the applicant through the use of fixed angled external louvres to the southernmost side window (to the living room of unit 7). Objections received regarding resizing the window or deleting the window are not supported as it is considered a appropriate design of the louvres can effectively limit all downward overlooking into the rear terrace of the topmost unit of no.44 whilst also preserving the internal amenity of the proposed living spaces to the roof level addition. As such, a condition has been included in the development consent requiring details of the louvres to be provided and approved by Council prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

The issue regarding visual amenity and overshadowing impacts as a direct result of the roof level addition has been raised also by the SEPP 65 DRP members and as such resulted in an amended design for the roof level addition being reduced in height by 350mm. The height reduction aids in reducing the perceived bulkiness of the structure when viewed from no.44 Cliffbrook Parade whilst possibly reducing the potential for the roof level addition to impact upon the solar access to the terrace areas of the adjoining eastern property. It is important to note that as no DCP applies to the site for this development, no prescriptive controls regarding solar access are applicable to the proposed development. Regardless, the Multi-unit housing DCP requires consideration of solar access to adjoining properties and specifically seeks to maintain solar access to solar collectors of adjacent buildings, to the living areas of neighbouring properties and to at least 50 per cent of the principal landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings. In respect to these controls, the proposal will not impinge upon solar access from sunrise to until the mid-afternoon for the adjoining property to the east. It is possible that the proposal will affect afternoon solar access to the top most terrace of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade; however the orientation of the subject site is such that any impact is solely after 12pm and does not impinge upon access to sunlight prior to that time. This question of the planning principle acknowledges that development may adversely impact upon the solar access of another property, as such it allows for impacts provided that the impact is reasonable. In this instance the proposal is considered reasonable.

 

The issue regarding on-site parking provision has been addressed in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) and stated that the development application is acceptable in respect to car parking for the following reasons:

 

-      “The proposed increase of 0.6 of a space is negligible given the location of the subject site to local services;

-      The site is within level walking distance to local beaches;

-      The site is within 200 metres level walk to a frequent bus service (buses every 3-5 minutes during peak hours) to the Sydney CBD and Central Railway;

-      The site is in close proximity to the public car park at Clovelly Beach which contains approximately 300 spaces;

-      There is street parking available in the area along streets with not residential frontage.”

 

It is considered the abovestated reasons provided by the applicant in respect to parking availability are well founded in respect to the availability of public transport within walking distance of the subject site and car parking spaces available on-street and at the Clovelly Beach car parking area to the east of the site. The applicant states in the SEE that the DCP – Parking does not apply to the development and any impact of the development to car parking availability is a reasonable impact for the abovestated reasons. Provision of on-site parking is not deemed reasonable for two main reasons, the first being the potential difficulties in providing adequate space for cars to park on the site without significantly altering the configuration of the building on the subject site, and the second reason being that the subject site does not currently provide any parking on the site and that the proposal does not increase the number of units, thus, resulting in a minor increase in the generation of parking spaces.

 

It is noted that the issue of car parking and on-site parking has been addressed in the report above and generally the proposal is considered acceptable when considering the current provisions of the site to provide for on-site parking and the significant logistical issues that would be present if it was required for all on-site parking to be provided on-site.

 

It is evident that the impacts of the proposal will be generally minor especially considering when appropriate conditions are included in the development consent. The issues of visual privacy impacts, potential loss of solar access and on-site car parking availability are valid concerns that have been addressed via the applicant in the supplied SEE and submitted plans. The inclusion of the conditions relating to reduction balcony depth and increasing privacy screens to the width of the balconies, increasing plantings along the eastern boundary to improve the amenity of the adjoining property, greater detail in respect to external louvres

 

[Question 4] What is the internal amenity?

 

Internal amenity must be assessed as it is assessed for all development. Again, numerical requirements for sunlight access or private open space do not apply, but these and other aspects must be judged acceptable as a matter of good planning and design. None of the legal principles discussed above suggests that development on sites with existing use rights may have lower amenity than development generally.

 

The design of the roof level addition will include windows to the south, east and west to and highlight windows to the northern elevation. The internal amenity of the units to the roof level will be acceptable and will promote useable spaces for future occupants. The alterations to the site will involve the southern units, with the rear units of level two, three and four receiving refurbished balconies and the rear units on level four receiving new windows to the eastern and western external walls. The internal configuration of the units is considered to result in an markedly improved amenity for future occupants of the rear units and as such will be consistent with the aims of this planning principle.

 

Generally the proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the planning principal and the impact to the surrounding properties, specifically no.44 Cliffbrook Parade, is acceptable with the inclusion of conditions in the development consent. Amendments to the proposal to address the other issues raised in the objections is considered particularly  onerous and unnecessary as the proposal is commensurate with the scale of other residential buildings in the immediate area and in some instances has a lesser visual impact than that of no.44 Cliffbrook Parade.

Therefore the development application is recommended for approval.

12. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development

The proposal maintains the built form and character of the approved development and has an appropriate level of articulation that addresses the significance of the location in the surrounding area and its proximity to the foreshore area. The proposed modifications are sympathetic to the surrounding properties and minimises the adverse impacts of bulk by implementing a skillion roof and modest built form. The proposal will significantly improve the appearance and internal amenity of the building.

 

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

The proposed modifications will not adversely impact upon the design and presentation of the development to the street, foreshore and adjoining properties and will improve the sustainability of the residential units by increasing openings and promoting greater natural ventilation. The modifications will promote a more amenable internal amenity for future occupants of the site.

 

13. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

14. CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing residential building will significantly improve the internal spaces of the residential units, promote a more amenable internal amenity for future occupants of the site and maintain the character of the existing building. Whilst the proposed development will further increase the floor space ratio of the building, the addition to the roof level is considered appropriate in form and scale and will not dominate the appearance of the building to the neighbouring properties, surrounding dwellings or the foreshore area. The proposed alterations and additions will have a consistent height and bulk with surrounding development, will preserve or improve the privacy of the adjoining properties and will not be out of scale or context with adjacent development or the streetscape. The proposal results in minor additional overshadowing in the afternoon during the winter solstice to the adjacent eastern buildings however the impact is minor and reasonable when considering the degree of overshadowing other buildings in the area contribute. The overall impact to the amenity of adjacent residents will be minor and the proposed development is therefore supported 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.347/2007 for Alterations and additions to existing residential flat building including part storey on southern side of building, new windows on east and west sides, new deck on south side and replacement of existing decks, new balustrade to roof terrace, reconfiguration of units 7 & 8 and alterations to units 3 & 4. at 42 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plan numbered DA/01, dated 23 November 2006, received by Council on 10 May 2007, the plans numbered DA/02, DA/03, DA/04, DA/05, DA/06, DA/07 and DA/08, DA/09, and DA/10, drawn by Form Architecture, dated 23 November 2006 and received by Council on 23 August 2007, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.       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.

 

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

 

6.       The level 5 roof level addition shall be reduced in height by 350mm in accordance with the sketch diagram received by Council on 2 August 2007. Details of compliance are to be noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

7.       The south rear boundary setback of the southern terraces to levels three (3) and four (4) shall be increased by 1m and result in the terraces to these levels not projecting more than 2m from the southern face of the existing building. Details of compliance are to be noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

8.       Privacy screens and planter boxes shall extend the full length of the northern elevation of each terrace to the rear of the building. Details of the privacy screens is 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

 

9.       Detail of the louvres to the eastern and western elevations of the roof level addition to level 5 is 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

 

10.     The landscaping plan detail to eastern side of site to be shall be amended along the eastern boundary to include larger native plant species that will provide visual screening and will have the potential reduce harsh southerly winds. The amended landscape plan is 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

 

11.     The doors to the garbage bin storage area to the front of the site shall be sliding doors that do not impinge upon the right of way to the northern boundary of the site. Details of this amendment is 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.

 

12.     The windows to the bathrooms on level 4 to unit 7 and 8 are to be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing. Details of compliance are to be noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

13.     The window to bedroom 1 and the northern staircase of level 3 shall be fitted with an external privacy screen to limit views to the adjoining northern property.  Details of compliance are to be noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 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

 

18.     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.

 

19.     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.

 

20.     Prior to the commencement of any building or fire safety 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 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

 

21.     Prior to the commencement of any building or fire safety 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.

22.     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.

 

23.     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”.

 

24.     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.

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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

 

29.     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.

 

30.     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.

 

31.     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.

 

32.     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.

 

33.     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.

 

34.     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.

 

35.     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.

 

36.     A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities 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

 

37.     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 [or strata subdivision certificate]:

 

The following fire and safety works are to be undertaken in accordance with the specified provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) :

 

(1)      Provide a -/60/30 fire door set, with a self-closing device, to the front entry of each sole-occupancy unit in accordance with clause C3.11 of the Building Code of Australia (BCA),

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

(3)      Provide emergency lighting system to the common stairway and corridor/s, in accordance with clause E4.2 & E4.4 of the BCA,

(4)      Provide a non-combustible enclosure (ie a metal cabinet) with seals to prevent the passage of smoke to any electricity meters or switchboards located in corridors, exits and within stairways etc,

(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)      The main entry/exit door is to be self closing, have an FRL of  -/30/60 and be provided with a ‘hold-open’ device, or swing in the direction of egress, to facilitate people seeking egress from  the building in the event of an emergency,

          Details of the required fire safety upgrading works are to be included in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate and written confirmation of completion of the works is to be provided to Council accordingly.

The upgrading works are to be included in the construction certificate and be implemented prior to issuing an occupation certificate for the new building or part and written confirmation is to be provided to Council accordingly.

 

38.     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.

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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 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:

 

41.     Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

Absorption pits must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed or flow onto any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

 

42.     External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

44.     Any air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

45.     The installation of rainwater tanks shall comply with the following noise control requirements:-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

        ●          before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

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:

 

46.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

49.     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.

 

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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

23 August, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/197/2003/A & PROP052087

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 (A) Modification including increase in gross floor area of development by 118.5sqm by amending exterior wall locations, increase in size of some balconies & internal alterations.

PROPERTY:

 14-16 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Smyth Planning

OWNER:

 Mr N Stromer and Mr T Stromer and Dr S Stromer

 

 

 

 

 

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 as the original application was determined by Council and at the request of Councillors Paul Tracey, John Procopiadis and Alan White.

 

The Section 96 application is seeking development consent to modify the Land and Environment Court approved multi-unit housing development comprising of two detached buildings with a total of eighteen units with basement car parking for 32 vehicles accessed from Dudley Street. The modifications involve the increase of the gross floor area of the development by 118.5sqm and resulting in a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.20:1, further increasing the non-compliant FSR of 1.12:1. The proposed increase in floor area will be distributed across the site at separate levels and will not be concentrated within certain areas of the site. The surrounding properties were notified of the proposal for a two week period and several objections were received during this period. The main issues raised included general concerns regarding loss of visual privacy, increased overshadowing as a result of additional floor area and an intensification of the use of the site and its potential adverse and significant impact to on-street parking and accessibility for neighbouring residents to their sites. The application was referred to the State Environmental Planning Policy no.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) Design Review Panel held on 4 June 2007. The panel’s comments were generally supportive of the proposal however did raise some concerns that the development may adversely impact upon visual privacy of dwellings within the site, increase the bulkiness of the buildings when viewed from adjoining site, reduce solar access to the surrounding properties and did not appropriately explore increasing the permeable landscaped area of the site.

 

Amended plans were received on 3 August 2007 and made several modifications to the originally submitted plans, mostly addressing the comments provided by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel (DRP) and generally reducing the potential for the modifications to increase overshadowing, improve visual privacy of units and reducing potential overlooking into adjoining properties. The modifications are considered to satisfy the main issues raised by the DRP members however the amended plans did not increase the amount of permeable landscaped area provided by the development. As the modifications in the amended plans generally reduced the potential impact of the development and were relatively minor in scale, it was not deemed necessary to renotify the amended plans to the surrounding properties.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed modifications will increase the gross floor area of the site; however it is deemed that the modifications will improve the internal amenity of the dwellings on the site whilst not significantly increasing the bulk and scale of the approved development and will not increase the overall height or increasing the generation of on-site car parking spaces. The objections received regarding intensification of the use of the site are not supported as the additional floor area is distributed throughout the site and is not concentrated in one particular area and the proposal does not result in increased number of dwellings, as such, there will be no increase in parking demand on Dudley Street or Daintrey Crescent.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is seeking development consent to modify the Land and Environment Court approved multi-unit housing development comprising of two detached multi-unit housing buildings with a total of eighteen units with and basement car parking for 32 vehicles accessed from Dudley Street by increasing the gross floor area of the site from 2119.6sqm to 2238.1sqm or 118.5sqm. The proposal involves in detail the following works:

 

Level 1 (vehicular entry from Dudley Street and lower level basement car parking)

 

-   No modifications to this level.

 

Level 2 and 3

 

Apartments 3.1 and 3.2.

 

-   Increase floor area to living room and kitchen of apartment 3.1 (southern apartment) and 3.2 (northern apartment) by extending external walls to the south and north respectively.

-   Increase size of ensuite and bedroom 1 of apartments 3.1 and 3.2 by extending external walls to the west.

-   Translucent glass fitted to the ensuite window of apartment 3.1.

 

Level 4 and 5

 

Apartments 4.1 and 4.2.

 

-   Increase floor area to living room and kitchen of apartment 4.1 (southern apartment) and 4.2 (northern apartment) by extending external walls to the south and north respectively.

-   Increase size of ensuite and bedroom 1 of apartments 3.1 and 3.2 by extending external walls to the west.

-   Translucent glass fitted to the west facing ensuite windows and south and north facing windows of bathrooms of apartments 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.

-   New timber and steel privacy screen fitted to ensuite window of apartment 4.1 to restrict views from southern properties.

 

Apartments 5.1 and 5.3.

 

-   Increase size of bedroom 1 of apartment 5.1 by extending external wall southwards.

-   Reconfigure the entry to unit 5.3 to provide additional floor area and additional storage and bench space for kitchen.

 

Level 6 and 7

 

Apartment 6.1.

 

-   Extend external northern and southern walls of living room apartment to increase floor area of kitchen and study rooms.

 

Apartments 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.

 

-   Extend western external wall to bedrooms 1, 2 and 3 to increase floor area of those rooms.

-   Extend southern external wall to increase bench space for kitchen.

-   Increase area of eastern external balcony to be more comparable in area with balconies to the northern apartments of 7.2 and 7.3.

-   Extend eastern external wall of bedroom 1 of apartment 7.2 to increase floor area and fit external operable sun shading louvres.

-   Extend eastern external wall of bedroom 1 of apartment 7.3 to increase floor area and fit external operable sun shading louvres.

-   Extend portion of northern external wall to apartment 7.3 to increase kitchen bench space.

 

Level 8

 

Apartments 8.1 and 9.1.

 

-   Bathroom and ensuite windows to apartment 8.1 facing Daintrey Crescent fitted with translucent glazing.

-   Extend western wall to increase floor area of bedroom 1 of apartment 8.1 and bedrooms 1 and 2 of apartment 9.1.

 

Level 9 and 10

 

Apartments 9.1, 9.4 and 11.1

 

-   Extend portion of northern external wall to apartment 9.4 to increase kitchen bench space.

-   Extend western wall of apartment 11.1 to increase floor area of bedroom 1 and ensuite.

-   New window to southern stair case of apartment 11.1 with steel and timber louvred screen.

-   Extend external southern wall to increase kitchen bench space of apartment 9.1.

-   Increase area of eastern external balcony to be more comparable in area with balconies to the northern apartments of 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4.

 

Level 11 and 12

 

Apartments 11.2 and 11.1

 

-   New steel and timber privacy screen to the northern section of the terrace area.

-   Extend eastern external wall of apartment 11.2 to increase floor area of living room and bedroom floor areas.

-   Extend external western wall of apartment 11.1 to increase floor area of bedrooms 2 and 3.

-   Extend external southern wall to increase kitchen bench space of apartment 11.1 with new window to eastern side of kitchen.

-   Increase area of eastern external balcony of apartment 11.1.

 

Roof Level

 

-   Parapet relocated to the north to reduce area of roof terrace of apartment 11.1.

-   Increase of roof area above terrace on level below.

-   Extend western external wall to continue modifications on floors below.

 

The table below indicates the proposed distribution of the proposed increased floor area

 

 

 

 

 

GFA of approved development (sqm).

Proposed GFA of s.96 application (sqm).

Change in floor area.

Level 1

76.6

76.6

Nil.

Level 2 and 3

202

221

+ 19

Level 4 and 5

500

515

+ 15

Level 6 and 7

504

538.5

+ 34.5

Level 8

200

206

+ 6

Level 9 and 10

337

353

+ 16

Level 11 and 12

300

328

+ 28

Total

2119.6

2238.1

118.5

FSR

1.12:1

1.20:1

FSR Increase of 7 per cent.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Dudley Street and the eastern side of Daintrey Crescent, Randwick and has frontages to both streets. The site is comprised of three allotments and is L shaped with a 35.5m frontage to Daintrey Crescent, an 18.5m frontage to Dudley Street, a 61.6m length on the southern boundary and a 39m length on the northern boundary with a total area of 1867 sqm. There is a considerable fall on the site from the Daintrey Crescent boundary to the Dudley Street Boundary of approximately 9m. The site contains three substantial buildings comprising a former three storey nursing home on the northern side of the site and two residential dwellings on the southern side of the property with one fronting Dudley Street and the other fronting Daintrey Crescent.

 

The surrounding area is a mix of single dwellings and multi unit housing varying in size from single storey to 5 storeys. Along Daintrey Crescent, the adjacent building to the south is a four storey multi unit development and the adjacent building to the north is a two storey residential dwelling. Along Dudley Street, the adjacent building to the south contains a three storey dwelling including a garage at street level and the adjacent building to the north contains a four storey multi unit housing development including garages at street level. The subject site is located approximately 90m north east of The Spot heritage conservation area and approximately 90m east of the heritage item site Brigidine Convent and chapel site known as “Aeolia”.

 

Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Figure 2 is the subject site from Daintrey Crescent. Figure 3 is a photograph of the subject site from Dudley Street.

 

 

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

4.1      Application History

 

The original development application was lodged on 12 March 2003 and sought development consent to construct a multi-unit housing development comprising of two detached buildings with a total of eighteen units with basement car parking for 32 vehicles accessed from Dudley Street. The application received a number of objections from the surrounding residents which raised concerns regarding the bulk and scale of the development, solar access impacts, view loss and other impacts such as increased traffic movement in Dudley Street, impact upon the amenity of the area and a disruption of the character of the Dudley Street and Daintrey Crescent streetscapes.

 

The application contained several non-compliances with Council’s LEP in respect to floor space ratio (FSR), landscaped area and building height and other inconsistencies with the preferred solutions of the Multi-unit housing Development Control Plan. State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1) objections were submitted with the application and the variations to the LEP clauses were supported by the assessing officer. Generally the proposal was considered to be a development that was suited to the site and would not result in significant or adverse impacts to the neighbouring properties or to the character of the locality.

 

Figure 2: The subject site from the opposite side of Daintrey Crescent.

As such, the application was recommended for approval; however the Councillors at the Health, Building and Planing Committee meeting of 18 November 2003 resolved to defer the application for mediation between the applicant and the surrounding neighbours of whom objected to the development application. The outcome of the mediation resolved three options, with the third option being preferred by the applicants, whilst Option 1 was favoured by Council and the opposing parties. The development application was referred to the Extraordinary Council Meeting of 16 December 2003 where the assessing officer presented Option 1 as the option that produced the most balanced outcome for preserving the amenity of the neighbouring properties and provided an appropriate financially viable development for the applicant. Council endorsed Option 1 and resolved to approve the application, issuing a deferred commencement consent with a sole condition that stipulated that:

 

“The height of the proposed building fronting Daintrey Crescent (Daintrey Block proposed at RL 70.75 and RL 70) shall be lowered such that the maximum RL shall be 68.75m. This may be achieved by one or more of the following options:- excavating the development further into the ground, Amended plans detailing compliance with this condition shall be submitted for approval by the Director Planning and Community Development changing the roof pitch and/or having a flat roof.”

 

Figure 2: The subject site from the opposite side of Dudley Street.

The applicant appealed Council’s deferred commencement condition and on 24 August 2004, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court upheld the appeal and approved the development. The Court deleted the deferred commencement condition from the development consent and approved the development in accordance with the plans submitted by the applicant.

 

4.2      History of Site Usage

Previous applications submitted for development on the site includes:

Development No.

Description

Determination

BA/868/1964

Additions

Approved in 1964

BA/604/1965

Additions to private hospital

Approved in 1965

BA/619/1977

Alterations

Approved in 1977

BA/1043/1979

Alterations to nursing home

Approved in 1979

BA/30/1982

Alterations

Approved in 1982

BA/811/1985

Alterations and additions

Approved in 1985

DA/81/1989

Alterations and additions to the existing nursing home

Approved on 12 December 1989

BA/1102/1990

Alterations and additions to nursing home

Refused on 19 November 1990

BA/1102/1990/A

Alterations and additions to nursing home

Approved on 13 February 1991

DA/197/2003

Demolition of existing buildings on site and erection of a multi unit residential development containing 18 units and 34 car parking spaces

Recommended for approval, Council at its 18 November 2004 Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

 

Andrew Tosti – Chairman of The Spot Precinct Committee

Issue

Comment

The proposal to add an additional 127sqm of gross floor area “cannot be considered a minor change” and will be “significantly over the allowable FSR” for the site.

In the context of the entire development, the proposed increase in floor area is considered relatively minor and will not significantly increase the perceptible bulk and scale of the development. The modifications will increase the building envelope, however generally, the increases are mitigated through a design that successfully integrates with the approved development.

The proposal will “severely” impact the residential amenity and “can only exacerbate negative issues such as traffic congestion, noise, rubbish and parking difficulties.”

The proposal will not increase the number of residential units or increase the generation for on-site car parking spaces. The proposal is not considered to result in additional impact upon the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

 

Proprietors of Strata Plan No. 6417 – 18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick, including:

Mr. Dudley Williams – Unit 1/18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

Mrs. R. Lissing – Unit 2/18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

Mrs. Carole Guiry – Unit 3/18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

Ms. Lynette Pierse – Unit 4/18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

Mrs. R. Lissing for Ms. Denise Pritchard – Unit 5/18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

Mr. Holger Ohnesorge – Unit 6/18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

Lyn Pierse for Mr. and Mrs Brad and Charity Downing – Unit 7/18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

Mrs. T. Marchandeau – Unit 8/18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

 

 

 

 

 

Body Corporate SP 6417

Issue

Comment

The approved development is overdeveloped and the proposal will cause a “loss of sun light, overshadowing and loss of privacy” and there will be additional adverse overshadowing impact to units 1, 3 and 5.

The proposal will not significantly alter the approved solar access diagrams submitted with the original application. The design of the new floor area has considered overlooking and arranged windows to the sides of the site, rather than across boundaries. As such, this objection is not supported.

The proposal “increases the floor space from 2247.1 sqm to 2284.5 sqm”, “altering the distance between the Daintrey building on the southern wall and creeps closer to our building on our northern wall.”

The proposal will decrease the setback of portions of the development to the southern boundary by 1m to 1.2m. The modifications to the setback are generally considered minor and will not reduce the visual amenity or privacy of the adjoining southern property.

The proposal to increase windows and convert obscured glass windows to clear glass will impact upon visual privacy.

The plans indicate that all south facing bathroom windows to level 2 and 4 are to be made obscure. The windows to level 8 and 10 will have fixed external screening to prevent direct overlooking, as such, conditions requiring obscured glass will not be required.

As a result of the proposed modifications of Amendment 6 and 7, Units 1, 3, 5 on the northern side, the eastern aspect of units 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will all be significantly impacted by overshadowing.

The modifications to the southern side of the approved development do not involve increasing the height of the residential buildings but do reduce the setback of the building in some areas by 1m to 1.2m. As such there will be not significant impact to solar access of the surrounding properties.

 

The proposal will adversely impact upon the Daintrey Crescent streetscape.

The proposed modifications visible from Daintrey Crescent include the increase of the southern portion of the Daintrey Crescrent building by 0.8m closer to the street boundary. The changes will maintain the appearance of the building and are not considered to adversely impact upon the bulk, mass or proportion of the development. It is deemed that the impact  of the proposed modification on the Daintrey Crescent streetscape will be negligible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planet Urban Planning and Development Consultants – On behalf of the Body Corporate of Strata Plan 6417 – 18 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal reduces the landscaped area from 433sqm to 401sqm (21.5%) and increases the built upon area from 1434sqm to 1463sqm (78.4%) which is excessive.

The proposal reduces landscaped area from 50.6% to 48.9%, (approx 31sqm) resulting in a further non-compliance. The general approved landscaped plan will not be significant affected by the proposal and as such, the minor reduction in landscaped area is not likely to impact upon the amenity of the future occupants of the site, the neighbouring properties or the character of the streetscapes of Daintrey Crescent and Dudley Street.

The proposal will increase the approved FSR from 1.12:1 to 1.20:1, with the increase in floor area occurring above ground resulting in “greater mass and bulk with reduced setbacks from the site’s boundaries.”

The proposal will not contribute significantly to the overall bulk and scale or mass of the approved development. The proposed increase in floor area is distributed across a number of floors and throughout the Daintrey Crescent and Dudley Street buildings, and is not concentrated in a sole location on the site. As such, the increased area will not result in a bulk and scale that is disproportionate with the approved development or will result in a significant or adverse impact to the adjoining properties.

The approved average setback is 4.5m and the proposal will result in “a further non-compliance with the preferred setback solutions” of the Multi-unit housing DCP.

The reduction in the southern boundary setbacks ranges from 1m to 1.2m. The non-compliance is not considered to adversely impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties or be inconsistent with the performance requirements of the DCP. This issue is discussed further below in this report.

The proposed modifications will result “in additional impacts of visual mass and bulk, and of loss of light and reduced solar access” and should not be supported.

The proposed modifications are relatively minor additions that are distributed across the site and throughout the two buildings. The modifications are compatible with the approved built form and will not adversely impact upon the amenity, privacy or solar access of the adjoining properties. The potential impact of the development is discussed in this report below.

 

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

This Section 96 application did not require any referrals.

 

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site has a total area of approximately 1850 sqm and is therefore exempt from the master plan requirements of Clause 40A of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

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

-   Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans

-   Randwick City Council Section 94 Contributions Plan – (including amendment for Kensington Town Centre).

-   Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

9.1      SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1.1   Substantially the same

 

The proposed development will involve additional floor area to levels 1 to 12 of both approved buildings on the site. The proposal will not alter the number of residential units on the site, the allocation of bedrooms to each unit, reconfigure the on-site car parking, or affect the building height of the approved development. The proposal will make relatively minor internal alterations and some external changes as a result of additional floor area to the residential units. The external modifications are consistent with the form and scale of the buildings and will not detract from the appearance of the approved development, or significantly impact upon the streetscape of Daintrey Crescent or Dudley Street. The proposed modifications are therefore considered to comprise of relatively minor changes and are deemed to result in a development that is substantially the same as the approved development.

 

9.1.2   Consideration of submissions

 

The Section 96 application was notified to the surrounding properties in accordance with the DCP - Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Three objections were received and consideration of these submissions is contained within Section 5.1 of this report.

 

9.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 2C (Residential C 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

31 - Landscaped area

50% of the total site area as landscaped area. Landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas must not exceed 50% of the landscaped area requirements.

The proposal reduces landscaped area from 50.6% to 48.9% and soft landscaped area from 23% (433sqm) to 21% (401sqm). The proposal does not alter the percentage landscaped areas above podiums.

Does not comply – see assessment below.

32 – Floor space ratios

0.9:1

1.20:1 (The proposal increases the floor area by 118.5sqm).

Does not comply – see assessment below.

33 - Building heights

12m maximum building height, 10m maximum external wall height.

The proposal does not alter the building height of the approved development.

Not applicable.

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

Vicinity of Heritage Item

The subject site is located approximately 60m from the Aeolia heritage item and 90m from The Spot heritage conservation area.

The subject site is considered to be sufficiently distanced from the heritage items and conservation areas to absolve any further consideration of this clause.

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 box:

 

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 4 June 2007 Design Review Panel. The comments are included below.

 

9.3.1   SEPP 65 Design Review Panel Comments

 

The Panel has previously viewed this application which was first submitted to Council in 2003.  The current submission is a Section 96 Application.

 

 RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The majority of the amendments are increases to the internal area of the apartments.  The increase is in the order of 140m2 of additional accommodation, equivalent to a large apartment. While the Panel generally is not concerned by the extra floor area per se, the additional space being sought could give rise to some negative consequences;

 

-   It may reduce the angle of view from neighbouring windows, from that of the current approval

-   It may increase privacy issues between apartments, and reduce separation between buildings

-   It may increase to a minor extent, overshadowing of neighbours relative to the approved DA

-   There are also varying degrees of improvements to amenity with each proposed increase in floor area. For example bedroom 1 in apartment 8.1 need not get any wider. It appears to be 6 m wide already.

-   The increase in kitchen width noted as change number 4 in the legend does improve the amenity though it would function adequately in its court approved form.

 

The proposal is pushed down into the site rather than being terraced to assist in view retention of neighbours, As a result, the site is deeply excavated and piled. The negative aspect of this is the disruption to natural sub-soil water flows and a reduction in the capacity of the site to support a successful landscaped environment with significant trees.

 

While the extra internal areas clearly improve the amenity of the apartments the Panel would like the applicant to consider increases that can be made to soft landscape and deep soil areas as a balance to the increased built form.

 

The impact of a wider balcony (such as Apt 9.1) to the neighbour should also be reviewed.

 

The glazing area on the most eastern face of Apt 11.2 is not considered acceptable as it has no roof overhang or sun shading.

 

The operation of any new windows should also be indicated on the drawings.

 

The Panel need not review this Section 96 application again if the above issues can be resolved satisfactorily.

 

The applicant was requested to provide a statement that addressed the concerns of the DRP comments. A response from the applicant was received by Council on 3 August 2007 and raised the following arguments in respect to the comments above:

 

 

 

 

DRP Comment

Applicant’s response

It may reduce the angle of view from neighbouring windows, from that of the current approval

Southern external walls reduced or “pulled back” for bedroom 1 to apartment 5.1 and kitchens of apartments 7.1, 9.1 and 11.1.

It may increase privacy issues between apartments, and reduce separation between buildings.

The additional openings to the non-habitable ensuites in apartments 3.1, 4.1 and 4.2 are provided with obscured glazing and can only be opened partially to minimise potential overlooking.

It may increase to a minor extent, overshadowing of neighbours relative to the approved DA

The applicant claims that “there is only a very minor change to overshadowing which generally does not affect the glazing of the property at 18 Daintrey Crescent and the change is negligible in comparison with the approved scheme.” The applicant further claims that “we have reviewed the neighbours’ concerns regarding loss of light on the eastern outlook of their building. We believe that our proposed section 96 modifications do not represent any change to the approved proposal in this respect.”

There are also varying degrees of improvements to amenity with each proposed increase in floor area. For example bedroom 1 in apartment 8.1 need not get any wider. It appears to be 6m wide already.

The applicant states that the increase in bedroom 1 of apartment 8.1 is dictated by the need to make the bedroom accessible for wheelchairs (apart. 8.1 is designated as the adaptable apartment) and continues the changes to bedroom 3 on the floor below.

The increase in kitchen width noted as change number 4 in the legend does improve the amenity though it would function adequately in its Court approved form.

This issue was not addressed by the applicant in the information received on 3 August 2007.

The proposal is pushed down into the site rather than being terraced to assist in view retention of neighbours, As a result, the site is deeply excavated and piled. The negative aspect of this is the disruption to natural sub-soil water flows and a reduction in the capacity of the site to support a successful landscaped environment with significant trees.

The proposal increases the built upon area of the site and results in a decrease of landscaped area of the site by approximately 33sqm. The applicant states that the “alignment of the external walls... are spread around the edges of the building rather than being at just one location so the small overall reduction in landscaped area will not be noticeable and is negligible.

While the extra internal areas clearly improve the amenity of the apartments the Panel would like the applicant to consider increases that can be made to soft landscape and deep soil areas as a balance to the increased built form.

See comment above.

The impact of a wider balcony (such as Apt 9.1) to the neighbour should also be reviewed.

The applicant has responded to the general concerns regarding overshadowing to the southern adjoining property by stating “there is only a very minor change to overshadowing” and that “overshadowing of unit 1 at 18 Daintrey Crescent will not be significantly altered.”

The glazing area on the most eastern face of Apt 11.2 is not considered acceptable as it has no roof overhang or sun shading.

“The eastern face of Apartment 11.2 has now a roof overhand of approximately one (1) metre... Additional sun shading has been achieved by the inclusion of external operable vental [sic] type louvre system.”

The operation of any new windows should also be indicated on the drawings.

This issue was not addressed by the applicant in the information received on 3 August 2007.

 

The response from the applicant in regards to the DRP comments is considered to address the main concerns of visual bulk and scale, inter-apartment privacy and solar access to the property adjoining the site to the south. The rationale provided by the applicant in respect to the DRP are deemed to be well founded and it is noted that the proposal has reduced the degree to which some elements, such as balconies and extensions of external walls, impact upon the adjoining properties. The issues that have not been addressed above, in relation to the additional floor area to the kitchen and operation of windows being marked on the plans, are not considered to be issues that require further amendments to the plans. The additional floor area to the kitchens results in a decrease in the setback of the building to the southern boundary however the visual impact is considered negligible when considering the external alteration of the building will be contained within the bulk of the building and will not be immediately perceptible from the adjoining property to the south. In respect to the second unaddressed matter, no issue is raised by the assessing officer regarding the depiction of windows on the submitted plans.

 

9.4 Policy Controls

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 proposal will not alter the approved height of the development. Not applicable.

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 development will increase the floor area of the residential dwellings and extend beyond the external walls of the approved building however the additional bulk is distributed over the two buildings and not concentrated in particular areas. The additional building bulk is minimal and contained within the mass and proportion of the approved development, therefore the modifications will not adversely impact adjoining properties.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

The proposed modifications decreases landscaped area for the site by approximately 31m2, however the loss is distributed across the entire site and involves losses that affect the periphery of the landscaped and private open spaces.

As such, the use of these areas for recreational activities remains viable and the proposed modifications do not affect deep soil planting or potential for substantial vegetation to be grown on the site.

 

 

 

The reduction in landscaped area is deemed acceptable and will not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties.

P2 Areas around multi-unit buildings are communal open space and not divided up for allocation to individual units.

 

The configuration of and the access to areas around the building, either private or communal have not been altered.

P3  Private Open Space

Provides privacy for its users, is readily accessible, and provides opportunities for outdoor recreation / living.

 

The proposed modifications do not alter the useability or access for future occupants to enjoy the private open spaces of the site. The modifications will continue to allow for an acceptable degree of open space for private use and passive recreation.

 

P4 Is located in front of the building only where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

The proposal does not affect the landscaped areas to the street frontages of Dudley Street or Daintrey Crescent.

P6  Flats and apartments

Each dwelling has direct access to an area of private open space.

S6 Minimum of 8 m2 and minimum dimension of 2 metres.

Each unit will be provided with a minimum 8sqm. It should be noted that the plans have been amended in accordance with condition no.5 of the development consent requiring the balcony to apartment 8.1 to be enlarged to be a minimum of 8sqm.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

The modifications to the Daintrey Crescent building will reduce the setback of the building to the front boundary by 0.8m, or from 2.9m to 2.5m. This reduction in the front setback is not considered to result in an adverse impact to the character of the area or established streetscape. The site at the Daintrey Crescent frontage slopes down from the roadway and as such, the building will not have a dominant presence in the street.

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 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

The setback to the southern boundary will be reduced in some areas to 3m, which is less than the preferred solution, however it is noted that the original setback of the approved development was non-compliant, however deemed acceptable as the design had a good degree of articulation and use of materials that mitigated the adverse impacts of building bulk and mass. Does not comply – see assessment below.

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 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

The subject site has a dual frontage to the western and eastern boundaries, and as such, does not have a rear boundary. Not applicable.

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 be compatible with the bulk and scale of the approved development and minimises the impact on nearby buildings by distributing the additional floor area throughout the two buildings on the site. The modifications do not alter the height of the approved development.

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 new windows that overlook into adjoining properties will be primarily to bathrooms or ensuites and as such a condition has been included requiring these windows to be made obscure or fitted with frosted glass. There will be new windows to the western studies, bedrooms and ensuites that will overlook Danitrey Crescent, however it is deemed that these windows will not impact the privacy of adjoining properties.

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

The modifications will not affect the design and location of private open space.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Not applicable.

P4  Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Not applicable.

View Sharing

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

 

The proposed development will increase gross floor area however the additional floor area maintains the scale and proportion of the approved development. The modifications to not affect the height of the buildings and are not considered to interrupt significant view corridors.

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

 

The modifications are generally contained within the building envelope of the approved development and will not impact upon direct view corridors.

P3  Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

The proposed modifications do not alter the alignment of buildings on the site. Not applicable.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

The amended plans received on 3 August 2007 make reductions to the scale of the additions and also reduces the balcony to apartment 6.1 from 49sqm to 30sqm. Generally the modifications will not adversely impact solar access beyond that of the approved development.

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

 

Complies.

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

 

The proposal will maintain solar access to the north facing windows of no.18 Daintrey Crescent and does not reduce solar access beyond the approved development.

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

 

The accompanying shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the proposal does not reduce solar access to the neighbour’s principal outdoor open space.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·         Living areas are orientated to the north.

·         Larger windows are located on the north.

S4  75% of dwellings achieve 3.5star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars. The NatHERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

The amended proposal incorporates sun shading devices to certain windows to reduce the head load and maintain the internal amenity for future occupants.

P5  Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

S5  Adequate area of roof between 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west or north, and a slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal for installation of solar collectors.

The proposed modifications do not affect the roof form of the approved development. Not applicable.

 

9.4.2   Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The proposed development will increase the floor area of the development by 118.5sqm however will not increase the number of bedrooms to each unit or increase the total number of residential units provided on the site. Therefore the proposed modifications will not generate additional on-site car parking demand.

9.5      Floor space ratio and increases in GFA

The proposed modifications will not significantly increase the overall bulk and scale of the development, nor will the modifications increase the height of the buildings that front to Dudley Street and Daintrey Crescent. Whilst the proposal increases the gross floor area (GFA) of the site however it is pertinent to note that the additional floor area is distributed across a number of levels throughout the site, to both buildings, and is not concentrated in one particular location on the site. As such, the modifications are considered to result substantially the same development and will not, it is considered, result in a development that is perceptibly bulkier, larger in scale or inconsistent with the scale of the approved development and the relationship of the development with other multi-unit housing buildings in the vicinity.

The proposal increases the non-compliant FSR for the site from 1.12:1 to 1.20:1, an increase of approximately 7 per cent and 118.5sqm. The non-compliance of the approved development was considered in the original assessment report where it was stated by the assessing officer at the time, that the development included 373sqm of floor area located below current ground level and that the above ground portion of the development had an FSR of 0.92:1 and therefore exceeded the LEP controls by approximately 37sqm. The SEPP 1 objection submitted by the applicant was supported by the assessing officer and it was stated that “manipulation of the building to effect strict compliance with the FSR standard would not necessarily result in a building that would appear any less bulky from either streetscape.” The assessing officer concluded that strict compliance with the LEP requirements in respect to FSR “would result in a small loss to the floor space within the proposed units, resulting in diminished amenity to the proposed units without any greater benefit to adjacent residents.” As such, the SEPP 1 was supported and it was deemed that the development was a compatible development in the context of the surrounding area and the character of the Dudley Street and Daintrey Crescent.

The proposal involves increasing the floor area of the development that is located above ground level and therefore a similar assessment is undertaken in respect to what portion of the proposal will be visible from the surrounding properties. The proposal modifications will increase the total above ground portion of the development by 112.02 sqm and is a 6 per cent increase in GFA of the site resulting in an above ground FSR of 0.98:1, exceeding the maximum FSR as stipulated in the LEP for the site by 8 per cent.

A more useful analysis of the increase in floor area is possible when an assessment of the additional floor area is undertaken, particularly when it is observed that the increases in the floor area are a result of relatively minor reconfigurations to the external envelope of the building without resulting in additional bulk that would be perceptible from surrounding properties. The property most likely to be affected by any increase in bulk, scale or height is the adjoining property to the south, no.18 Daintrey Crescent. A number of objections were received during the notification period that raised specific concerns regarding further loss of solar access, impacts to visual amenity and the reduction in the side setbacks. An assessment of these potential impacts is contained below.

9.6      Bulk, Scale and Streetscape

The proposed increase in GFA is a result of increasing the floor area of certain apartments located throughout the site. The proposal does not concentrate the additional floor area within one specific apartment, but rather, distributes the increases by expanding the external envelope of the approved development outwards, generally ranging from 0.5m to a maximum of 1.2m. As such it is considered that the general appearance of the buildings will remain consistent with the approved development and will not result in any significant departures in terms of the bulk and scale. The proposal will not increase the height of the development however will result in reduced side setbacks in segments of the southern boundary. It should be noted that approved development incorporates a highly articulated design with a visually interesting form that will contribute to the Dudley Street and Daintrey Crescent streetscapes. The proposed modifications will not significantly alter or detrimentally affect the degree of articulation; rather, the proposal will generally maintain the articulation present in the approved development and will not significantly increase the perception of bulkiness or mass to the adjoining property to the south. The reduction in the side boundary setback has been raised in the objections received as potentially resulting in an adverse impact to visual amenity, solar access and privacy impacts. While it is acknowledged that the proposal will reduce the setback in certain portions of the site, the reconfiguration of the external envelope of the building will not reduce the minimum setback of the approved development for both buildings. The modifications to the Daintrey Crescent building will not alter the angle of the southern wall which slopes away from the southern boundary and as such the visual impact of the modification will be mitigated. As such, the proposal will decrease the setbacks to the southern and Daintrey Crescent boundaries by 0.5m to 1.2m, however such decreases are negligible in the context of the development on the site, will not result in a adverse impact to solar access (as discussed below in section 9.6.4) and will not perceptively increase the bulkiness or scale of the development when viewed from Dudley Street or Daintrey Crescent or more importantly the residential dwellings of no.18 Daintrey Crescent.

As such the proposed increase in floor area is supported.

9.7      Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

The modifications proposed will alter the external appearance of both approved buildings and will include additional floor area to some east facing balconies and new windows to the northern, western, southern and eastern elevations of the approved development. The proposal includes new windows to selected bedrooms including bathroom windows at levels 3 and 4 and a window to the stair case on level 11. The bathroom windows will be made obscure while the window to the stair case will include external louvres to restrict views. Other windows will be treated with external louvres while the windows to bedrooms will either face west or east and will provide oblique views southwards, and are not considered to significantly result in any adverse impact to visual privacy to the adjoining dwellings to the south at no.18 Daintrey Crescent.

 

The additional floor area to the balconies at levels 7 and 9 (the east facing balconies to the Daintrey Crescent building) will generally maintain the outlook to the east and it is considered that increased floor area of the balconies will not perceptibly increase the degree of overlooking or reduce the visual privacy of the adjoining properties or other dwellings located within the subject site.

 

Therefore the proposed new windows and increased area to balconies is considered acceptable.

 

9.8      Solar Access

 

The assessment undertaken for the approved development indicated that the development would have some solar access impact to the adjoining property to the south. The assessing officer concluded that “the impact of overshadowing from the proposed development to the adjacent southern properties at 9am and midday is similar to that for the existing buildings” and that the “proposed development complies with Council’s performance requirements of maintaining 3 hours of sunlight to adjacent dwellings and open spaces throughout the year.” The overshadowing diagrams submitted with the development application indicated that the proposal will affect two windows of no.18 Daintrey Crescent at 12pm on the winter solstice. The degree of the impact however is such that the window will continue to maintain sunlight and will not result in a complete loss of sunlight. The additional solar access impact of the development at 9am and 3pm will negligible as the shadows cast will either be to portions of open space or to portions of wall not containing windows. As such the proposed modifications are considered to maintain the solar access of the approved development.

 

10. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

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 proposed modifications are sympathetic to the surrounding properties and minimises the adverse impacts of bulk by distributing the additional floor area throughout the two buildings and on separate levels.

 

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

The proposed modifications will not adversely impact upon the design and presentation of the development to the street and will not adversely impact the sustainability of the residential units. The modifications will promote a more amenable internal amenity for future occupants of the site.

 

11. CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications to the approved development will generally improve the internal spaces of the residential units and promote a more amenable internal amenity for future occupants of the site. Whilst the building further exceeds the floor space ratio of the approved development, most of this is on excavated ground and the proposal maintains compliance with the height controls. The proposed modifications will have a consistent height and bulk with surrounding development and will not be out of scale or context with adjacent development or the streetscape. The proposal results in minor additional overshadowing in the afternoon during the winter solstice to the adjacent southern buildings however the impact is minor and maintains consistency with the solar access provisions of the Multi-unit housing DCP. The bulk, scale and articulation of the approved development will be generally maintained and the reduction of setbacks to the southern boundary does not adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining properties. The overall impact to the amenity of adjacent residents will be minor and the proposed development is therefore supported subject to conditions.

 

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.197/2003/A on the property at 14 – 16 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA-01 issue A, DA-03 issue A, DA-05 issue A, DA-06 issue A, and DA-08 issue A to DA 11 issue A, dated 23.04.2002 and received by Council on 12 March 2003, DA-00 issue B, dated 02.09.2003 and received by Council on 10 September 2003, DA-02 issue B dated 02.09.2003 and received by Council on 10 September 2003, DA-04 issue C dated 09.09.2003 and received by Council on 10 September 2003, and DA-07 issue B dated 02.09.2003 and received by Council on 10 September 2003, LA01 issue B received by Council 12 March 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered A00, A01, A02, A03, A04, A05, A06 and A07, dated 1 August 2007, drawn by Allen Jack + Cottier  and received by Council on 3 August 2007, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

30 August, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1110/2006 & PROP038352

 

PROPOSAL:

 New 3 storey single dwelling house, new swimming pool and garage

PROPERTY:

 3A Gordon Avenue, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr C Darvall & Mrs B Darvall

OWNERS:

 Mr C Darvall & Mrs B J Darvall

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposed development involves demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new 3 level dwelling house plus a double garage at street level and a new swimming pool and associated pool house comprising two levels and replacement of the existing tennis court and associated landcaping

 

The site has a long development application history which has involved approval for a new dwelling house in mid 2000 and subsequent court proceedings which were later withdrawn and another approval of a new dwelling house in late 2000 which has since lapsed.

 

The site is unusual compared to its residential neighbours given its large size and irregular shape. It is also located in a visually prominent area adjoining the foreshore when viewed from Gordons Bay.

 

The main planning issue involves the potential loss of views from adjoining properties. In that regard the applicant was requested to erect height poles to enable a proper assessment of the view impacts. The proposal will result in view loss from adjoining properties however, when assessed in accordance with the view loss principles established by the Land and Environment Court, it is considered the view sharing is reasonable and would not warrant refusal of the application.  

 

The amount of floor space proposed is reasonable given it is well below Council’s preferred solution for floor space. The critical issue is the distribution of floor space across the site and how that affects adjoining properties and the scenic quality of Gordons Bay and the foreshore.

 

To that end this assessment identified a number of areas of concern with the original proposal and some of those issues have been addressed by the applicant and/or by way of conditions of consent.

 

The appearance of the site will change when viewed in the context of Gordons Bay. The proposal will sit below the balcony at the first floor of No. 3 and steps down the site to the existing stone wall bordering the tennis court. The proposal will read as three residential levels similar to other development and in keeping with the visual qualities of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the proposal is considered suitable for approval subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

Approval is sought for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new 3 level dwelling house plus a double garage at street level and a new swimming pool and associated pool house comprising two levels and replacement of the existing tennis court and associated landcaping. The proposal will comprise 3 distinct building elements:

 

1.    The main dwelling house will comprise of 3 levels:

-   3 x bedrooms, study, ensuite, lobby and bathroom (first floor)

-   Family, dining, kitchen, living, laundry and lobby (ground floor)

-   Cellar, bathroom, guest bedroom and gym (lower ground floor)

 

2.    The pool house (and adjoining swimming pool) will be located on the northern side of the dwelling house. It will comprise 2 levels as follows:

-   2 x bedroom and adjoining ensuites (first floor)

-   Pool house and open porch (ground floor)

 

3.    A double garage at street level which will be accessed via a driveway off Gordon Avenue. The main entry will be provided adjacent to the garage. A lift will allow access to each level of the main house.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 12 DP584076.  The battleaxe allotment has a 9.25m frontage to Gordon Avenue and site area of 2,30m2

 

The site sloped down steepy from west to east representing a change in level of about 13m.

 

A Right of Carriageway (ROW) 6.055m wide) burdens the subject property in favour of the adjoining property at No. 3 Gordon Avenue.

 

A The subject site contains a 1 and 2 storey dwelling house at the northen end of the site and a detached two storey brick garage for two cars at the southen end of the site and a tennis  court.

 

The adjoining property to the north contains the UNSW Cliffbrook campus (45 Beach Street). It is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Inventory No.90).

 

Adjoining to the south is a 3 level dwelling house under construction (DA 1087/2002).

 

Land adjoining to the northwest contains a a freestanding building used in conjunction with the residence at No. 1 Gordon Avenue.

 

The adjoining property to the east contains a 2 storey dwelling house at No. 3 Gordon Avenue. Further east is a recreational reserve and coastal walk and a fishing club and boats at the waters edge. Beyond is Gordons Bay.

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A DA (No. 1632/1999) for the partial demolition of the existing building and erection of a dwelling house and double garage was approved by Council on 23 June 2000.

 

The owner of No. 1 Gordon Avenue subsequently instituted Class 4 proceedings with the Land and Environment Court under Section 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act against Council’s decision. The proceedings were in relation to the accuracy of the information submitted and procedural fairness in the Council’s assessment of potential impacts on views from No. 1 Gordon Avenue.

 

A new application (DA No. 872/2000) seeking approval to partially demolish the existing dwelling house and erect part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house was lodged in September 2000 and the legal action over the first approval was withdrawn. DA No. 872/2000 was subsequently approved by Council on 15 December 2000.

 

A section 96 application was lodged in May 2001 which sought changes to the approved building design. The Section 96 application was approved by Council in August 2001. That consent was not acted upon and has since lapsed.

 

Development application No. 1110/2006 was lodged with Council on 19 December 2006 for the erection of a new 3 storey single dwelling house, new swimming pool and garage.  The application was subsequently amended on 16 August 2007 to delete the proposed roof garden and reconfigure the entry to the lobby. Given that the amendments lessen the amenity impacts on adjoining properties and do not represent a significant change to the nature of the application, the amended plans were not re-exhibited.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified for a period of 14 days from 13 February 2007 until 27 February 2007 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. The submissions received are summarised in the table below.

 

5.1 Objections

 

3 Gordon Avenue

Issue

Comment

Legibility and accuracy of plans

 

The plans are considered satisfactory to undertake a proper assessment of the proposal

 

Drawings are difficult to read

 

The multiple interconnecting levels associated with the proposal make the plans difficult to read however clarification has been sought where necessary. 

Natural ground level shown is not verifiable from survey plan

 

Cross sections do not show relationship with neighbouring buildings

 

The Survey Plan Issue A dated 13 June 2007 shows levels across the site and natural ground level shown on the section plans. 

 

The outline of buildings on adjoining properties is shown on Section Plans.

Site plan does not show planting, pathway, stairs below roof level

 

The information on the Site Plan is adequate to enable a proper assessment of the proposal.

Inconsistencies between what is shown as an overhang element in relation to external stairs on north-west elevation but no overhang shown on the north-eastern elevation or plans

 

Refer to comment above.

View loss

Views from the ground floor and private open space will be completely lost.

Refer to Section 8 View Loss

Views from upper level will be obscured to a critical degree

As above

The balustrading to the roof terrace does not comply with the height controls and adds to the amount of view loss

The amended proposal has deleted the roof terrace.

Roof terrace will be elevated above the level of existing terrace and open space at No. 3 and result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts

As above

Plantings on the eastern (sic) western edge of roof terrace would further block views and have little effect to mitigate privacy impacts

As above

Proposed trees along the common boundary will further add to view loss.

 

Cantilevered roof extending north from the garage adjacent to the proposed roof terrace has little practical function and adds to extent of view loss

This can be dealt with by condition of consent.

 

 

The amended plans show the cantilevered roof over the entry as reduced in size to provide greater setback to No. 3.

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Overall height and bulk will result in detrimental impact to the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

Refer to Section 8 Visual Impact/Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The dwelling sits significantly higher at an artificial level above what would have been the natural ground level due to a retaining wall along the FBL which will read as part of the building and appear as 4 storeys when viewed from the foreshore.

 

 

The proposed dwelling house will read as 3 residential levels above the existing stone wall to be retained. The adjoining property to the south also contains 3 residential levels above landscaped terrace areas.

The main building will be 20-25m wide at the upper levels and the pool house and garage that are constructed of similar materials will read as part of the overall development and ad to the bulky appearance of the proposal.

 

Refer to Section 8 Visual Impact/Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

Nos. 1 & 1A Gordon Avenue

Issue

Comment

Inadequacy of documentation

 

Sufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of the application.

Survey plan does not provide info in respect of RLs.

The Survey Plan Issue A dated 13 June 2007 shows levels across the site

No overlay of the existing house.

The footprint of the existing house is shown on the architectural plans

No long cross section.

Long cross sections have been provided

Site analysis plan does not show adjoining private open space

 

The Site Analysis Plan is sufficient to enable a proper assessment of the application.

Landscape plan does not provide spread and height of trees.

Suitable conditions are included in the recommendation requiring any new trees to be of a height and species that will not adversely impact on views.

 

Two coastal banksia trees block the view

The absence of height poles do not enable a proper assessment of the view impacts

The applicant erected height poles registered by a Surveyor

View loss from planters on roof terrace of main house

The amended plans delete the roof terrace

Roof terrace will result in acoustic and visual impacts

A above

Light spill from roof terrace and garden on main dwelling house

As above

Proposal is inconsistent with objectives of the 2(a) zone because it is significantly higher, more bulky and forward of prevailing building alignments

Refer to Section 7 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

5 Gordon Avenue

Issue

Comment

Height, setback, scale and bulk of the proposed building along the common boundary will result in negative impacts.

 

Refer to the discussion in Section 7 of this report. 

South facing exterior wall which encloses the first floor study and bathroom and ground floor living area have excessive bulk and scale and exceed Councils 7m height standard by 1.84m.

 

See above.

Proposal will result in 3.57m deep excavation to enable construction of southern exterior wall and extends within 0.9m of a side boundary.

 

See above

The side setback of southern exterior wall at the third storey is 2.4m which does not comply with 3m minimum.

 

See above

 

The southern exterior wall of the existing garage at 3A Gordon Avenue abuts the side boundary and is non-compliant with the DCPs standard required to be 0.9m.

 

 

The nil setback of the garage wall is appropriate given the existing garage also has a nil setback.

The concentration of bulk in close proximity to and abutting the boundary creates significant visual amenity impacts

 

 

See comments in Section 7 – Setbacks.

View from the bedroom window in the northern side of the lower level will be obscured by the proposal

 

Refer to Section 8 Visual Impact/Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The non-compliances with setbacks, height and excavation significantly impact on solar access on northern side of lower floor deck and the lower floor bedroom window

 

Refer to Section 7 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

The window from the proposed study located in the south facing exterior wall will result in overlooking of the pool and lawn terrace.

 

See comments in Section 7 – Setbacks

Appropriate separation and screening has not been provided.

 

See comments in Section 7 – Setbacks.

Potential impact of emissions from the chimney on the adjoining property.

 

The proposed heating system stipulated under the BASIX Certificate is a gas fixed flued heater and must be designed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.

The south east elevation in drawing no. 0613/8 shows two windows in the southern exterior wall to the west of the proposed chimney.

 

These windows do not appear on the plans

 

 

The windows are shown in plan.

Proposed planting of 8 Angophora tree along the boundary between 3a and 5 Gordon Avenue will create overshadowing and cause structural damage to walls and landscape features

 

The amended landscape plan has reduced the number of Angophora trees to a single tree.

Plans and elevations that accompany DA 1110/2006 underestimate building heights

 

The proposed building heights are accurately drawn.

The street elevation on drawing number 0613/8 fails to detail the garage

 

 

The garage will not be readily visible from the street.

Ground levels shown on the south east elevation are inaccurate. Ground levels used in the elevation reflect those on the boundary between 3a and 5 Gordon Avenue and not those at the foot of the proposed exterior walls

 

The ground levels appear to be correct based on the survey plans submitted with the DA.  The elevation drawing shows the ground level at the boundary.

Elevations do not make it clear that the southern exterior walls are 3 storeys high

 

See comments in Section 7 – Setbacks

 

9 Gordon Avenue

Issue

Comment

The property looks across into other properties in Gordon Avenue

 

There will be no adverse  visual impact to properties to the south fronting Gordon Avenue

The south elevation exceeds Councils 7m external wall height

 

See comments in Section 7 – Height.

Proposal will have an adverse visual impact when viewed from the foreshore

Refer to Section 8 Visual Impact/Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

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:-

 

Landscape Comments

 

The previous landscape report (dated 9th May 2007) was forwarded to the applicant in the form of an issues paper, given that a total of 16 separate points had been identified relating to Council’s concerns for hard and soft landscape works, tree and bushland protection and preservation, as well as site and area amenity issues due to the prominent location of the site and the impact such a proposal could have on the public domain.

 

The required amendments and additional information has now been received as requested, and as it is deemed to satisfactorily address the issues, conditions can now be provided, and have been included in this report.

 

Drainage Comments

 

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage and construct a new garage at its current location, adjacent to the southern site boundary.

 

There is a Council controlled stormwater pipeline located adjacent to the southern site boundary and therefore under the existing and proposed garage. Council’s Drainage Investigations Engineer, in consultation with the Development Engineer and the applicant’s hydraulic consultant, has agreed to allow the new garage to be constructed over the existing pipeline subject to a number of conditions/requirements. The required conditions have been included within this report.

 

Any footings of any proposed structure adjacent to/over the pipeline and associated drainage easement must be founded on rock, or; extend below a 30 degrees line taken from the level of the pipe invert at the edge of the easement (angle of repose). The building works must be inspected by the applicant's engineer to ensure that these footings and/or piers extend below the "angle of repose" and documentary evidence of compliance is to be submitted to Council, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction.

 

Environmental Health

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer considered the potential noise impacts from the pool plant and equipment and air-conditioning units and is satisfied there will be minimal impact to surrounding properties subject to the imposition of conditions.  

 

The proposal

 

Council is in receipt of a development application for the above mentioned property requesting approval for a new two storey dwelling with a new swimming pool, basement cellar, gym, double garage, separate pool house, retention of tennis court and new roof garden.

 

Key Issues

 

Noise

 

Spoke to applicant Luigi 9281 1498 on 16/01/07, who advised:

·                that the plant and equipment for the swimming pool are going to be located in the basement,

·                air conditioning unit will not be installed as the house is not been cooled and is heated through a gas system,

 

It is considered the proposed location of the swimming pool pump and submersible pump located in the retention tank underneath the tennis courts are likely to have a minimal potential to impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residences due to the location of the units.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

7.1        Statutory Controls

(a)  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection (SEPP 71)

 

The subject site adjoins the foreshore at Gordons Bay and is contained within a coastal zone and therefore SEPP 71 is relevant to the proposal. The Council is required to consider the aims of the policy and other environmental criteria when considering a development application in the Coastal zone. The aims of the policy seek to minimise the impact of development on the coastal zones and ensure their ongoing protection. The matters contained in clause 8 are as follows:

 

(a)  the aims of this Policy set out in clause 2,

(b)  existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be retained and, where possible, public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be improved,

(c)  opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability,

(d)  the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area,

(e)  any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore,

(f)  the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities,

(g)  measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats,

(h)  measures to conserve fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats

(i)  existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors,

(j)  the likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards,

(k)  measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities,

(l)  measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals,

(m)  likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal waterbodies,

(n)  the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance,

(o)  only in cases in which a council prepares a draft local environmental plan that applies to land to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities,

(p)  only in cases in which a development application in relation to proposed development is determined:

(i)  the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment, and

(ii)  measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is efficient.

 

The proposal is considered generally consistent with the relevant aims of the policy given it will not affect the existing public access along the Gordons Bay foreshore or result in additional overshadowing to the coastal foreshore or a significant loss of views from a public place.

 

The amended proposal is considered to be an appropriate design, bulk, scale and size considering the large and irregular shape of the allotment. The existing tennis court (to be replaced) and the existing retaining stone wall to be mostly retained on the site will provide a buffer between the proposed dwelling house and the foreshore boundary.

 

The proposal is considered generally acceptable with respect to the matters for consideration under SEPP 71.

 

The requirements under the NSW Coastal Policy are also similar to those contained in SEPP 71. The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with NSW Coastal Policy. 

 

(b)  State Environmental Planning Policy No. BASIX 2004

 

A BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application. The proposal satisfies the water and energy targets required for new dwelling houses. If approved, a condition should be imposed requiring compliance with the various commitments identified in the BASIX assessment.

 

(c) Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2(a) Residential 'A' under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed dwelling house is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The objectives of the 2(a) zone are as follows:

 

(a) to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

(b)  to allow for a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors, and

(c) to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development, and

(d) to allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality, and

(e) to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability.

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone in that the proposed dwelling house will maintain the residential character of the area. The proposed built form is consistent with other multi-level dwelling houses on sloping sites that are orientated to Gordons Bay. The proposal will not have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties (refer to discussion below under Section 7 and 8).

 

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

 

Clause 29 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

The subject site is contained in a Foreshore Scenic Protection area. Council is required to consider the aesthetic appearance of the proposed development in relation to the foreshore.

 

The existing house is located at the northern end of the site and is partially obscured by landform and vegetation. The southern end of the site contains a garage at street level. Therefore the proposal will change the appearance of the site when viewed from Gordons Bay.

 

The horizontal form of the proposed dwelling house and the pool house will contrast with the more vertical forms of residential development to the south of the site.  The large and irregular shape of the lot affords a degree of flexibility in the design and location of the buildings on the site.  The building steps down the site and is below the height of the first floor balcony at No.3 Gordon Avenue. In that regard the proposal combined with appropriate landscaping is acceptable and will not have any significant adverse impact on the visual quality of the foreshore when viewed from Gordons Bay.  

 

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

 

The northern boundary of the site adjoins Cliffbrook at No. 45 Beach Road which is listed as a heritage item under Schedule 3 of LEP 1998. Due to distance separation to the original Cliffbrook cottage and intervening development the proposal is not likely to have any adverse impact on the item or its setting. 

 

7.2     Policy Controls

(a)      Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

 

Clause 2.1 & 2.2 - Good Site Planning and Neighbourhood Character

 

The DCP requires an understanding of the development context of the site in the design process.  The site is unusual compared to its residential neighbours as it is a battleaxe shape with a narrow access handle to Gordon Avenue. It is considerably larger than surrounding residential properties and the proposed horizontal form that steps down the site will not have any adverse impact on the neighbourhood character.

 

Clause 2.3 - A Vision for Randwick Desired Future Character

 

The proposed contemporary infill development does not fit into the building categories identified in the DCP. The design features of the proposal and its suitability for the site is discussed throughout this report.

 

Clause 2.4 - Site Analysis

 

A Site Analysis Plan was submitted with the development application. The site plan identifies the constraints and opportunities associated with the site. The proposal is generally consistent with the requirements for site analysis.

 

 

 

 

Clause 3.1 – Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

The design and siting of new buildings is to minimise the loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.  In that regard the north facing living room windows on the adjoining properties are to receive a minimum 3 hours solar access during the winter solstice between 9:00am and 3:00pm.

 

The proposal will not overshadow the principal living areas at the upper levels of the dwelling house to the south at No. 5 Gordon Avenue.

 

The principal private open space on adjoining properties is also required to have a minimum 3 hours of solar access during the winter solstice between 9:00am and 3:00pm.

 

The revised hourly shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that the additional shadow cast by the proposal will affect one window at the lower level and a small part of the swimming pool deck at 9:00am at No. 5 Gordon Avenue.

 

At 10:00am the shadow starts to encroach upon the northern end of the pool and between 11:00am and 12 noon approximately 25% of the swimming pool and its deck are affected by the proposal.

 

At 1:00pm approximately 50% of the swimming pool and its adjoining deck and the lower open terrace are affected by the proposal.

 

At 2:00pm the swimming pool is overshadowed due to landform and existing buildings and the lower terraces are subject to additional shadow from the proposal.

 

At 3:00pm the entire property at No. 5 is overshadowed by existing buildings and the landform to the north and there is no additional overshadowing as a result of the proposal.

 

The majority of the swimming pool and its adjoining deck will receive a minimum of three hours sunlight in the morning at the winter solstice. In that regard the proposal is considered acceptable.

 

Clause 3.2 – Water Management

 

The sustainable water management practices contained in the DCP are now covered by BASIX.

 

Clause 4.1 Landscaped Area and Private Open Space

 

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

 

A minimum of 40% of the site area is required as landscaped area. The proposal will have a landscaped area of 1,736m2 which equates to 75% of the site and therefore complies with Council’s requirement.

 

A minimum of 20% of the landscaped area is to be permeable (soft landscaped) treatment. The proposal will have a soft landscaped area of 874m2 which equates to 38% and therefore complies with Council’s requirement.

 

A dwelling house is required to have 25m2 of useable private open space with a minimum dimension of 3m x 4m. The proposal will provide alternative areas of private open space both covered and uncovered. The terrace on the northern side of the family room has an area of about 90m2. Approximately 50% of this area is covered by the balcony and awning above. The additional open space areas are adjacent to the living room and the balcony adjacent to the master bedroom plus a swimming pool and tennis court. The proposal is acceptable in terms of the provision of useable private open space.

 

Clause 4.2 – Floor Area

 

Building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms and minimise impacts on neighbours, streets and public open space.

 

The floor space ratio of the new dwelling is not to exceed 0.5:1. The proposed dwelling house will have a gross floor area of 742.33m2 which equates to an FSR of 0.32:1 and therefore is below Council’s maximum requirement.

 

Clause 4.3 – Height, Form and Materials

 

The objectives seek to ensure development is not excessive in height and scale and compatible with the existing character of the locality. The relevant performance requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and 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, faced articulation, window and door location and proportions, verandahs, eaves and parapets.

 

The proposed dwelling will not exceed Council’s 9.5m maximum height control. The roof of the dwelling house will be below the balcony on the first floor at No. 3 Gordon Avenue when viewed from Gordons Bay. The horizontal form of the building is different to other residential properties to the south which are vertical in nature. The sloping roof and combination of materials and finishes including render, stone and metal will create visual interest.

 

The pool house although sits in approximately the same position as the existing dwelling house but with a footprint about a third the size. Its height is about 2m higher than existing dwelling house and is slightly higher than the boundary adjacent to the existing bluestone wall but lower than the outdoor terrace and swimming pool deck adjoining the house.

 

The external wall height is not to exceed 7m.  The proposal exceeds Council’s preferred wall height solutions in the following locations:

·         Part of the balustrade of the roof terrace along the north east elevation;

·         Part of the southern wall to the study;

·         The eastern facing wall to the study; and

·         The south eastern balustrade to the roof terrace.

 

The maximum external wall height departure is 900mm. The purpose of the control is to ensure development does not exceed a height and scale that is compatible with the character of the locality. In that regard development is required to relate to the desired built form character and minimise impacts to adjoining properties. The height is satisfactory and similar to its neighbours which also read as 3 residential levels. The additional height is attributed to the steep site topography. There will be no significant material impact to the adjoining properties in terms of solar access, privacy or view loss due to the departures from the maximum wall height.

 

Cut and fill is not to exceed 1m to ensure the development responds to the topography of the site. The proposed development involves excavation up to 6.5m which is a significant departure from Council’s control. Development should maintain the visual impression of the natural ground level when viewed from Gordons Bay. It is considered that the development generally steps down the site and sits below the first floor level of the existing dwelling house at No. 3 Gordon Avenue. The main excavation below natural ground level makes way for the plant room, cellar and guest bedroom which is not visible from Gordons Bay as it will be obscured by the existing stone wall to the tennis court. The extent of cut is therefore satisfactory. 

 

Clause 4.4 – Setbacks

 

The irregular shape of the site is unusual compared to its residential neighbours which are generally rectangular or square and have a primary frontage to the street. The subject site has a narrow access handle and is not readily visible from the street. The front setback requirement is therefore not relevant to this proposal.

 

The side setback control requires any part of the building at ground level to be setback 900mm and 1.5m at first floor level, and 3m above 2 storeys and that no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The Performance Requirements for side boundary setbacks under the DCP are criteria for ensuring the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of solar access and access to natural light, daylight and fresh air. The proposed garage with a bathroom and laundry below will have a nil setback to the southern common boundary with No. 5.

The non-compliance is acceptable given the existing garage is situated in the same location. The proposed garage will be 2.5m longer and about 300mm higher, however, it will not have any additional adverse impacts to the adjoining property at No. 5 because it does not adjoin any windows at that elevation.

 

The southern wall to the living room and study will be setback 2.4m from the boundary. If approved, a condition should be imposed requiring suitable species along the southern boundary to assist in screening the building when viewed from the adjoining property at No. 5.

 

The northwest elevation of the pool house will be between 3m and 8m from the boundary with No. 1 and its rear stair will be setback 2.3m. The southern end of the pool house will be 3.24m from the boundary with No. 3. The setbacks of the pool house are considered acceptable.

 

The original plans showed the entry stairs and roof over within 900mm of the boundary to No. 3. Council issued a letter to the applicant requesting the roof over the entry lobby be reconfigured and the stairs modified so as to provide a greater setback and allow for some landscaping along the boundary adjacent to the entry lobby.  The applicant submitted amended plans which show the roof over the entry lobby 1.8m from the boundary. The entry door to the lobby was reconfigured to create a greater setback and a 0.5m planter box provided along the boundary. This change is considered acceptable.

 

Clause4.5 – Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

The objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy. The performance requirements seek to minimise overlooking of internal private living areas through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and where necessary, separation, screening and devices and landscaping.

 

The site is generally lower than adjoining properties and therefore the potential for overlooking is limited. Notwithstanding, the roof terrace shown on the original plans was at RL27.2 with a setback between 5.5m and 12m from the common boundary with No. 3. Due to potential privacy impacts to the ground floor and adjoining private open space of No. 3 (RL 26.60) the Council requested the applicant delete the roof terrace altogether. The amended proposal removes the roof terrace over the main dwelling house.

 

There will be no overlooking from the pool house upper floor bedroom window to Nos. 1 and 1A given it is at a lower level at RL24.3 and the ground floor of No. 1A is at RL27.6.

 

The potential for overlooking from the study window to No. 5 is minor given its small size.

 

The views from bedroom 2 are orientated to the southeast and may result in oblique views the rear of No. 5. However, due to distance separation (minimum 10m from the common boundary) there will be no adverse overlooking impacts which are otherwise captivated towards Gordons Bay.

 

The proposed development is not considered to result in any adverse noise impacts to adjoining properties. If approved, a condition should be imposed requiring all plant and equipment associated with the swimming pool and air conditioners to be noise mitigated in accordance with Australian Standards.

 

Clause 4.6 – Safety and Security

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that a safe physical environment and crime prevention is promoted through design, including that buildings are designed to face the street and other public areas to provide for surveillance, dwellings and their entrances are readily identifiable by street numbering and design of front fences and landscaped areas allows for safe access to the dwelling.

 

The site is a battleaxe shape with a narrow access handle fronting Gordon Avenue. Therefore the front door is not visible from the street. However, a direct and obvious pedestrian entry will be provided to the dwelling house. A security controlled vehicular entry will be provided for the garage.

 

The upper levels of the dwelling house will allow for casual surveillance of the adjoining foreshore area.

 

The proposal is acceptable with regard to safety and security.

 

Clause 4.7 – Garages, Carports and Driveways

 

The garage design/location controls are not applicable as they apply to more conventional lots which have a primary frontage to a street. A double garage will be provided forward of the dwelling house however, it will not be readily visible from the street due to its setback and intervening fence. The garage is in the same location as the existing garage and is considered a satisfactory response to the characteristics of the site.

 

Driveway and parking spaces are not to occupy more than 35% of the width of the site. The proposed double garage will have a width of 4.7m when viewed from the street which equates to 38% of the width of the boundary frontage. This is considered acceptable given the unique characteristics of the site. 

 

Driveways are to have a minimum width of 3m and setback minimum 1m from the boundary. The proposed driveway will be 5m in width and is setback 1m from the side boundary and therefore complies with Council’s requirement.

 

Clause 4.8 – Fences

 

The front fence is required to be integrated with the streetscape at a preferred maximum height of 1.2m when solid but allowed up to a maximum of 1.8m so long as he upper two thirds is at least 50% open. A curved 1.8m high solid fence will be provided along the street boundary. If approved, a condition should be imposed requiring the upper two third to be at least 50% open.

 

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.

 

Visual Impact/Foreshore Protection Area

 

The existing view of the site from the waterway and foreshore areas comprises a two storey detached dwelling house at the northern end of the site and a detached 2 level garage at the southern end of the site and a stone wall largely obscured by existing vegetation. The view of the site from the foreshore and Gordons Bay will change compared to the existing situation.

 

The site is unusual compared to its residential neighbours in that it is a larger with an irregular shape that has only a small frontage to the street. Therefore the built form is also likely to be different to its neighbours as there is more flexibility in the design process and varying site constraints. The linear configuration of the house will be massed towards the southern end of the site and combined with the proposed pool house will appear as more built form compared to the existing situation.

 

For a new development to be visually compatible with its context, it should contain, or at least respond to, the essential elements that make up the character of the surrounding urban environment. In this case the critical determinant is how the building relates to its context and its physical impact on adjoining properties.

 

In that regard the proposal will sit below the first floor balcony at No. 3 and step down the site above the existing stone wall. It is proposed to provide a range of material and finishes such as metal, render, stone and, timber and glass. This will add visual interest and subject to those material and finishes being appropriate for the character of the area the proposal will be in keeping with the visual qualities of Gordons Bay.

 

Impacts to adjoining properties

 

View Loss

 

The applicant was requested to erect height poles to ensure an accurate assessment of the view related impacts of the proposed scheme from surrounding residential properties.

 

Certification as to the accuracy of the placement of the poles was provided by Rygate & Company Pty Ltd.

 

In order to make an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view-loss, we refer to the Planning Principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council.

 

The following paragraphs provide an assessment of the proposal in accordance with the four (4) step process established in these proceedings.

 

What is the value of the view?

 

The Court said:

 

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

 

No. 3 Gordon Avenue currently obtains the following views:

 

·         Full views of Gordons Bay when standing at ground level in the rear yard adjacent to the bluestone wall;

·         Partial views of Gordons Bay from inside the ground level bedrooms due to intervening vegetation and landform;

·         Full views of Gordons Bay when standing on the terrace outside the first floor lounge and dining room;

·         Full views of Gordons Bay when standing inside the first floor lounge and dining room close to the window;

·         Partial views of Gordons Bay when sitting at table in lounge room and dining room due to intervening balcony;

 

No. 1 & 1A Gordon Avenue currently obtains the following views:

 

·         Partial views of Gordons Bay when standing in rear yard proximate the bluestone wall including the southern land/water interface and both headlands and ocean (horizon) beyond. The views of the northern and foreground land/water interface are mostly obscured by the existing dwelling house at No. 3A and existing vegetation.

·         Partial views of Gordons Bay from the swimming pool deck and the outdoor terrace including both headlands and the ocean (horizon) beyond. The views of the northern and foreground foreshore are obscured by the existing dwelling house at No. 3A, vegetation, the bluestone wall and landform.

·         Partial views of Gordons Bay when sitting and standing in the living areas inside the dwelling including both headlands (depending on which side of the dwelling) and the ocean (horizon) beyond. The views of the northern and foreground land/water interface are obscured by the existing dwelling house at No. 3A, vegetation, the bluestone wall and landform.

 

No. 5 Gordon Avenue currently obtains the following views:

 

·         Full views of Gordons Bay at each level of the dwelling house.

 

No. 9 Gordon Avenue currently obtains the following views:

 

·         Full views of Gordons Bay at each level of the existing dwelling house.

 

From what part of the property are views obtained?

 

The Court said:

 

“     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 from No. 3 Gordons Bay are as follows:

·         Views of Gordons Bay are across the eastern rear boundary.

·         Views are obtained in both sitting and standing positions within the living room and dining room at first floor. Sitting views are limited due to existing vegetation and the intervening terrace balustrade and landform.

 

The views from Nos. 1 & 1A Gordons Bay are as follows:

·         Views of Gordons Bay are across the eastern rear boundary.

·         Views are obtained in both sitting and standing positions from the outdoor terrace, pool deck and living areas inside the dwelling. Sitting views are limited due to existing vegetation, the intervening terrace/ bluestone wall and landform.

·         The views from inside the dwelling are limited more so when sitting than standing.

 

The views from No. 5 Gordons Bay are as follows:

 

·         Views of Gordons Bay are across the eastern rear boundary.

 

The views from No. 9 Gordons Bay are as follows:

 

·         Views of Gordons Bay are across the eastern rear boundary.

 

What is the extent of the impact?

 

The Court said:

 

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

 

The table below provides an assessment of the impact on views from No. 3 and No.5. The proposal will not result in any adverse loss of views of Gordons Bay from surrounding properties.

 

Impacts on views from No. 3 Gordon Avenue

Location Of View

Existing Views

Proposed Views

Level Of Impact

Figure 1

Standing inside the bedrooms at ground level

 

Image 7020

 

  Gordons Bay, the southern land/water interface, the headlands, ocean and horizon is visible

  The Gordons Bay northern land/water interface and foreshore in the foreground is obscured by existing vegetation and landform

 

  Gordons Bay and the headlands are obscured but horizon is visible.

 

Severe.

 

 

Figure 1:  View standing inside the bedrooms at ground level

 

Location Of View

Existing Views

Proposed Views

Level Of Impact

Figures 2, 3 & 4

Standing on terrace at first floor

 

Image Nos. 7046, 7047 & 7049

  Gordons Bay including southern and northern land/water interface and foreground foreshore and headlands and horizon is unobscured

 

  About 1/3 third of the foreground of Gordons Bay and part of southern land /water interface is obscured, and northern land/water interface and the headlands and horizon remains unobscured.

Moderate

 

 

Figure 2: View standing on terrace at first floor

 

 

Figure 3: View standing on terrace at first floor

 

 

Figure 4: View standing on terrace at first floor

 

Location Of View

Existing Views

Proposed Views

Level Of Impact

Figures: 5,6 & 7

Standing inside the living areas at first floor close to the window

 

Image Nos. 7027 7029 & 7030

  Gordons Bay and headlands and horizon is unobscured

 

The foreshore foreground is visible though the balustrade.

 

   About 30% of the view of Gordons Bay and foreshore will be obscured.

  

   The headlands and horizon remain visible

Moderate

 

 

Figure 5:  View standing inside the living areas at first floor close to the window

 

 

Figure 6:  View standing inside the living areas at first floor close to the window

 

 

Figure 7:  View standing inside the living areas at first floor close to the window

Location Of View

Existing Views

Proposed Views

Level Of Impact

Figures: 8

Sitting inside the living areas at first floor

 

Image 7044

  Gordons Bay in the foreground is obscured

  The headlands and horizon are unobscured

 

   About 30% of the view of Gordons Bay and foreshore will be obscured.

  

   The headlands and horizon remain visible

Minor

 

 

Figure 8:  View sitting inside the living areas at first floor

 

Impacts on views from No. 1 Gordon Avenue

Location Of View

Existing Views

Proposed Views

Level Of Impact

Figures: 9 & 10

Standing at outdoor area next bluestone wall

 

Image Nos. 7009 & 7010

Full views of Gordons Bay are available except the foreshore foreground which is obscured by existing dwelling house at No. 3

Gordons Bay headlands are unobscured however part of Gordons Bay and southern land/water interface is obscured.

Moderate

 

Figure 9:  View standing at outdoor area next bluestone wall

 

 

Figure 10:  View standing at outdoor area next bluestone wall

Location Of View

Existing Views

Proposed Views

Level Of Impact

Figure 11

Standing at outdoor terrace

 

Image No. 7015

Northern headland and southern land/water interface of Gordons Bay and

horizon is unobscured

 

Gordons Bay foreshore in foreground is obscured by the terrace and landform

Northern headland and part of the southern land/water interface to Gordons Bay and horizon remain unobscured

 

More of the Gordons Bay is obscured compared to existing situation

Minor

 

 

 

Figure 11:  View standing at outdoor terrace

 

Location Of View

Existing Views

Proposed Views

Level Of Impact

Figure 12

Standing on pool deck

Image No 7018

Southern foreshore and northern headland and horizon is unobscured

 

Gordons Bay foreground foreshore is obscured

The majority of the southern foreshore and northern headland and horizon is unobscured

 

Gordons Bay foreground foreshore remains obscured

Minor

 

 

Figure 12:  View standing on pool deck

 

Location Of View

Existing Views

Proposed Views

Level Of Impact

Figure 13

Standing in living area

 

Image No. 7016

Gordons Bay southern and northern headland and horizon is unobscured

 

Gordons Bay foreground foreshore is obscured by landform

Gordons Bay southern and northern headland and horizon is unobscured

 

Gordons Bay foreground foreshore is obscured by landform

Negligible

 

 

Figure 13:  View standing in living area

 

Location Of View

Existing Views

Proposed Views

Level Of Impact

Figure 14

Sitting in living area

 

Image No. 7017

Gordons Bay southern and northern headland and horizon is unobscured

 

Gordons Bay foreground foreshore is obscured

Gordons Bay southern and northern headland and horizon is unobscured

 

Gordons Bay foreground foreshore is obscured

Negligible

 

Figure 14:  View sitting in living area

 

The proposal will result in a loss of existing views enjoyed from the ground level and partial loss of views from first floor terrace and living areas of Gordons Bay from the property at No. 3.

 

There will be partial loss of foreground foreshore/water views from the pool deck the view loss from the outdoor terrace and living area inside the dwelling is negligible from the property at No. 1.

 

What is the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact?

 

The Court said:

 

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

 

The proposal generally complies with Council’s planning controls, applicable to the site:

·         maximum FSR;

·         minimum landscaped area; and

·         maximum height.