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 December, 2007

 

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 11TH DECEMBER, 2007 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Prayer & acknowledgement of local indigenous people

 

Prayer

“Almighty God,

We humbly beseech you to bestow your blessings upon this Council and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of the City of Randwick and Australia.

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of local indigenous people

“I would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the land of the Bidjigal people of the Dharwahal Nation. The Bidjigal people are the traditional owners and custodians of this land and form part of the wider Aboriginal nations of the Sydney area. On behalf of Randwick City Council I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Elders both past and present.”

 

1           Prayer & acknowledgement of local indigenous people

 

2           Apologies/Granting of leave of absences

 

3           Confirmation of the Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER, 2007.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addressing of Council by Members of the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

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

 

7           Urgent Business

 

8           Director City Planning Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 119/2007 –

42 - 48 PINE AVENUE, LITTLE BAY.

2

8.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 120/2007 –

60 DENNING STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.

66


 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 121/2007 –

13 BUMBORAH POINT ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

82

8.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 122/2007 -

5-9 WOLSELEY ROAD, SOUTH COOGEE.

97

8.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 123/2007 –

200 - 210 ARDEN STREET, COOGEE.

120

 

9           General Manager's Report

 

9.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 51/2007 - PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MEDIA POLICY.

134

 

10         Director City Services' Report

 

10.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 88/2007 - COMMUNITY HERITAGE GRANT.

137

 

11         Director Governance & Financial Services' Reports

 

11.1                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 82/2007 - REVIEW OF CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE.

140

11.2                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 83/2007 - BLENHEIM HOUSE OPEN DAYS.

143

 

12         Petitions

 

13         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

14         Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

15         Notices of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Planning Report 119/2007

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

42 - 48 PINE AVENUE, LITTLE BAY

 

 

DATE:

27 November, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/815/2007 & PROP051986

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for erection of part 3/part 4 storey multi-unit housing building comprising of fifteen (15) apartments, basement car park for 30 vehicles, 4 at-grade visitors car parks, earthworks, landscaping, civil works, driveways & strata subdivision at No. 42 – 48 Pine Avenue, Little Bay.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 13 November 2007

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

13 November 2007

FILE NO:

DA/815/2007 & PROP051986

 

PROPOSAL:

 Erection of part 3/part 4 storey multi-unit housing building comprising of fifteen (15) apartments, basement car park for 30 vehicles, 4 at-grade visitors car parks, earthworks, landscaping, civil works, driveways & strata subdivision.

PROPERTY:

 42-48 Pine Avenue, LITTLE BAY  NSW  2036

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Stockland Developments (Phh) Pty Ltd

OWNER:

 Landcom – Little Bay

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The development application is seeking development consent for the erection of a part 3/part 4 storey multi-unit housing residential building comprising of 15 apartments, basement car park for 30 vehicles, 4 at grade visitors car parks accessed from the Lister Avenue driveway, earthworks associated with the basement excavation and general site levelling, site landscaping with provision for private open space and communal areas, various civil works, driveway works and the  strata subdivision of the site into fifteen (15) lots. The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $10,800,000.

 

The development application was lodged on 27 September 2007 and notified and advertised for a two week period from 16 October 2007 to 15 November 2007. No submissions related to the proposed development were received during this period. The development application was referred to the NSW Heritage Office on 9 October 2007 with the General Terms of Agreement received on 28 November 2007. No objection was raised by the Heritage Office in respect to the proposed development.

 

The internal referrals to Council’s Development Engineer, Heritage Assessment officer, Environmental Health Officer and Building Surveyor raised no objection to the proposed development and provided conditions to be included in the development consent.

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the development standards contained in the LEP and Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan with the exception to controls relating to maximum building and external wall height and floor space ratio. The proposed development will exceed the maximum external wall height and building height by 0.8m and the maximum permissible floor space ratio for the site by 4.6 per cent which is equivalent to 105sqm. A SEPP No.1 objection to address the non-compliances with the LEP clause has been submitted by the applicant and is considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

The proposed development is generally consistent with the Prince Henry master plan provisions although particularly notable is the proposed unit yield for the building is 6 units less than prescribed for the site. The shortfall in the number of units is not considered to detrimentally affect the proposal’s relevance to the Prince Henry site and will not derogate the proposal’s compliances in other aspects of the master plan and Prince Henry DCP. The proposal provides a built form that is consistent with the DCP and will incorporate an acceptable degree of articulation and facade treatment, through the use of external louvres and screens, to provide a visually interesting and thoughtful design sympathetic to the heritage buildings located to the north of the subject site. The proposed development also provides an acceptable degree of landscaped areas to both visually soften the proposal and to also provide private and communal open space for the enjoyment of the site’s future occupants. The proposed development also demonstrates that its design integrates ecological sustainable development principles into the building without compromising the internal amenity of the units or detracting from the amenity of adjoining properties or diminishing the ecological sustainable development potential for the adjoining lot to the north.

 

The proposal complies with the numerical controls stipulated in the DCP – Parking and although is inconsistent with the some controls in the LEP and Prince Henry DCP, the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties of amenity of the surrounding area. The proposed development is deemed to be sensitive to the heritage buildings that form part of the Institute of Tropical Medicine complex that adjoins to the north of the subject site and will integrate with the site designs for the other residential development proposed on Lots 28 and 29. It is considered that the proposed development presents a cohesive and coherent urban form that relates appropriately with the desired future character of the Prince Henry site and is consistent with the desired future character of the site as outlined in the master plan and Prince Henry DCP.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development involves:

 

-   Erection of a part 3/part 4 storey multi-unit housing building comprising fifteen (15) self contained dwellings.

-   Development comprises of 2 x 2 bedroom units and 13 x 3 bedroom units.

-   Basement car parking providing 30 resident parking spaces.

-   Provision of 4 at grade visitor parking spaces accessed via Lister Avenue from the main driveway.

-   Bulk earthworks associated with the construction of the development.

-   Landscaping works to the site.

-   Various civil works and service installations.

-   Strata title subdivision of the site to create 15 individual lots.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The former Prince Henry hospital site is listed on the NSW State Heritage Register and is described by the Heritage Office as containing “a variety of buildings in an open landscape setting, as well as archaeological features and artefacts that provide evidence of its continuous use as a hospital for over 120 years.” The subject site has a street address of 42-48 Pine Avenue is also known as Lot 30, is located on the eastern side of the Prince Henry Site, on the northern side of Pine Avenue (being its primary frontage) and has secondary frontages to Lister Avenue to the east and Pavilion Drive to the west. The site is currently vacant, is trapezoidal in shape and has a moderate fall from west to east. The western (Pavilion Drive) boundary has a depth of approximately 23m, the eastern (Lister Avenue) boundary has a width of approximately 22m, the southern (Pine Avenue) boundary has a length of approximately 96m and a northern boundary 89m to the adjoining Lot 29. Site has a total area of approximately 2280sqm.

 

Adjoining the subject site to the north is Lot 29 which contains the former Institute of Tropical Medicine complex which is the subject of a separate development application seeking development consent for refurbishment and adaptive re-use for residential purposes. Further to the north, and adjoining Lot 29, is Lot 28 which is currently a vacant lot that is also subject to a development application for residential uses. These three lots, Lots 28, 29 and 30 form a roughly triangular site that is bounded by Lister Avenue to the east, Pine Avenue to the south and Pavilion Drive to the west. The site forms an important visual element to the Prince Henry site and serves as a transition site from the larger, dominant forms of the Flowers Wards and the Matron Dickson Nurses Home buildings, to the relatively smaller lots to the east designated for detached dwelling development.

 

The surrounding area is mainly recently subdivided and includes a number of residential and mixed use developments under construction. In a regional context, the Price Henry site is located in the south eastern section of the Local Government Area and sits adjacent to the established suburbs of Chifley and Malabar, located to the west and north-west respectively. The subject site is located within the Historic Precinct as defined by the Prince Henry Development Control Plan. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Figure 2 is a photograph of the subject site from the eastern side of the site.

 

Figure 1: The subject site (edged in black) and surrounding area. The horizontal hatching indicates the area covered by SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

4.1      Application History

 

The development application was lodged on 27 September 2007 and notified and advertised for a two week period from 16 October 2007 to 15 November 2007. No submissions related to the proposed development were received during this period. The development application was referred to the NSW Heritage Office on 9 October 2007 with the General Terms of Agreement received on 28 November 2007. No objection was raised by the Heritage Office in respect to the proposed development.

 

The internal referrals to Council’s Development Engineer, Heritage Assessment officer, Environmental Health Officer and Building Surveyor raised no objection to the proposed development and provided conditions to be included in the development consent.

 

4.2      History of Site Usage

As noted above in this report, the entire Prince Henry site at Little Bay has been used as a hospital site for over 120 years. Since 2002, the entire site has undergone a number of significant site-wide civil works in accordance with the Prince Henry deemed DCP, including road building works and the provision of services. The most relevant and recent applications submitted for development on the site includes:

Development No.

Description

Determination

DA/274/2005

Community title sub division to create 14 allotments in Release Areas 2 and 3 in the former Prince Henry site (Part Lot 23 DP 270427) including one lot for the beach (Lot 33), one lot (Lot 36) to be subject of a Neighbourhood Plan to provide 17 lots for detached housing and one lot (Lot 38) for residual land.  (DA 8)

Approved on 20 July 2005.

DA/595/2007

Erection of a single storey demountable building for temporary use as a Marketing Suite until approximately November 2008

Approved on 8 August 2007.

 

A pre-lodgement application (PL/29/2007) was lodged on 25 June 2007 by the applicant for the proposed development on this site. Council’s advice was provided on 16 August 2007 that was generally supportive of the applicant however cited several issues relating to access to the site in respect to the visitor car parking spaces, the use of the landscaped areas for private or communal use and the need for further investigation in relation to the materials and external finishes that the building would utilise.

 

The pre-lodgement application was reviewed at the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel meeting of 2 July 2007 and the panel members emphasised the importance for the design of this site to be integrated with the developments on Lots 28 and 29 to the north. The panel also sought modifications to be made to the proposal in respects to basement car parking “to lower the apartment building on Lot 30 to the extent possible that would still avoid full car park mechanical ventilation” and that “Lot 30 would ideally attempt to have more natural light and ventilation in the centre of the unit plans.”

 

The panel’s comments have been incorporated into the plans submitted for this development application and this is reflected by the highly positive Design Review Panel comments included in Section 7.1.5 of this report.

Figure 2: The subject site from Lister Avenue. The structures to the north (right side) are part of the former Institute of Tropical Medicine complex.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified to the surrounding property owners and advertised in the local newspaper in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No objections were received as a result of the advertising and notification period.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1      Development Engineer

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

 

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

 

An application has been received for the construction of a residential flat building at the above site containing 15 units with associated strata subdivision.

 

The proposed development consists of the following:

•        Erection of a part 3 / part 4 storey residential flat building containing 15 apartments.

•        Basement carpark providing a total of 30 resident parking spaces.

•        Provision of 4 at grade visitor parking spaces.

•        Bulk earthworks

•        Associated landscape works

•        Various civil works within the lot boundary

•        Utility service installation

•        Strata Title subdivision.

 

Landscape Comments

 

Standard Prince Henry development site landscape conditions have been included within this report.

 

Drainage Comments

 

Standard Prince Henry development site drainage conditions have been included within this report.

 

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

 

Traffic Comments

 

The proposed parking provision is supportable.

 

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 Lister Avenue frontage must be a minimum of 5.5 metres wide and located at least 1.0 metre clear of the side property.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 6 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay.

 

6.2      Environmental Health Services

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

 

Proposal

 

This application seeks approval for the redevelopment of Lot 30 in DP270427 of the Prince Henry site at Little Bay which includes:

 

·                          Up to 4 storey Residential Flat Building (15 apartments)

·                          Basement parking for 30 spaces

·                          Bulk earth works

·                          Landscaping

·                          Utility services

·                          Strata subdivision

 

Key Issues

 

Land contamination: SAS has been issued for this site by ERM, Paul Steinwede dated, 5/07/06. An unexpected finds protocol exists for this site. Appropriate conditions are to be imposed on any consent to address this issue.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

Should the application be approved, the conditions included with this memorandum should be included.

 

6.3      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:

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition construction of a new 4 storey Multi Unit Housing residential development with basement car parking and containing 15 sole occupancy units.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class     -        2        (Residential Units)

Class     -        7a      (Carpark)

 

Background

 

The existing site is vacant land.

 

Key Issues

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

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.

 

Access for people with a disability:

Access to all units via a lift and an adaptable unit are proposed.

 

Recommendation:

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, the conditions included with this memorandum should be included in the development consent.

 

6.4      Heritage Assessment Officer

 

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

 

Background

 

The subject site is located within the Prince Henry Hospital Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.28.  The site and a number of buildings on it are listed on the State Heritage Register for its Aboriginal, natural, landscape and built heritage values.

 

The site has been the subject of a Conservation Management Plan (CMP), Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) and Heritage Impact Assessment carried out by Godden Mackay Logan (GML) in conjunction with the preparation of a Master Plan and Development Control Plan for residential use of the previous hospital site. 

 

The Subject Site

The site is in the eastern part of the development area.  The site has a southern boundary to Pine Avenue, an eastern boundary to Lister Avenue, a western boundary to Pavilion Drive, and a northern boundary to the former Institute of Tropical Medicine Complex.  The subject site is located within the Historic Precinct as identified in the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan. 

 

Heritage element

Applies

Built elements in the vicinity

Institute of Tropical Medicine complex

Matron Dixon Nurses Home

Significant road alignment

Significant retaining wall

Landscape elements in the vicinity

Avenue of Norfolk Island pines

Phoenix reclinata

Groupings of phoenix palms

Aboriginal archaeological zone

High Sensitivity

Aboriginal identified site

No

Historical archaeological zone

Sanotorium, Female Lazaret site

Historical identified site

No

Little Bay Geological site

Within the Palaeovalley area

Remnant native vegetation in the vicinity

No

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal is for a four storey residential development over basement carparking.  The site slopes gently from west to east and the proposed building has a split level form to step down the site.  The western end of the building steps back to three levels.  The main pedestrian entrances to the building are from Pine Avenue with the vehicular entry from Lister Avenue

 

Submission

 

The proposal has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Tanner Architects which refers to the policies for new development contained in the DCP for the site.  The submission notes that the proposal will provide a positive contribution to the Prince Henry site and will have no potential impact of the identified heritage values of the site, including the Matron Dixon Nurses Home, Pine Cottage and the Institute of Tropical Medicine Complex. 

 

Approvals

 

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

 

It is not clear whether any prior consultation has occurred with the Heritage Office in relation to the proposed design.

 

Comments

 

The proposal is generally consistent with the siting and envelope requirements of the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan, although non-compliances have been identified relating to maximum building height and maximum wall height.  The footprint of the buildings assists in defining the edge of Pine Avenue, and the setbacks of the eastern and western ends of the building match those of the adjacent Institute of Tropical Medicine buildings to the north, as required by the DCP.  The DCP requires a step in scale between that the 4 storey eastern section and the 3 storey western section to occur in line with the eastern wall of the former Kitchen Block.  The application proposes a considerably more extensive four storey section, somewhat adding to the bulk of the building.  There are concerns that non-compliance with this height control is will adversely impact on the single storey Institute of Tropical Medicine immediately to the north.  The footprint of the building retains views and vistas west along Pine Avenue towards the coast.  The materials and finishes board submitted indicates consistency between the subject site (Lot 29), the Institute of Tropical Medicine site and Lot 28 further to the north.  The proposed wall surfaces are neutral in colour, providing a recessive setting for the Institute of Tropical Medicine complex. 

 

As the site has been remediated, it is unlikely that further items of Aboriginal or Historical significance remain. 

 

The extent of the Paleaovalley area is clearly defined in this area of the site by the lines of Lister Avenue and Pavilion Drive.  As the site is within the possible extent of the Palaeovalley Area, any excavation below RL 26, will require endorsement by Council and the Heritage Office.

 

Recommendations

 

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

 

Aboriginal Archaeology

 

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

 

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

 

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

Historical Archaeology

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

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

 

Geological Heritage

Excavation within the possible extent of the Palaeovalley Area should not be below RL 26 unless endorsed by Randwick City Council and the NSW Heritage Office.

 

6.5      External Referral - New South Wales Heritage Office

 

The Prince Henry site is listed by the NSW Heritage Office as a site of State significance and as such any development application on the site is classified as an integrated development pursuant to Section 91 of the EP&A Act 1979, and requires consent from the Heritage Office.

 

The development application was referred to the Office on 9 October 2007 and a response received in the form of General Terms of Agreement on 28 November 2007. No objection from the Office was raised in respect to this development application and the General Terms of Agreement have been included in the development consent.

 

 

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments – S79C(1)(a)

 

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 No. 1 – Development Standards

-   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas (SEPP 19)

-   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

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

-   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

-   Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 (‘Draft SEPP 2004’)

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (‘the LEP’)

-   Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan

-   Development Control Plan – Parking

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

-   Randwick City Council Section 94 Development Contributions Plan

-   Prince Henry Site Master Plan 2003

-   Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

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

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for multi-unit housing where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2005. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

The proposal is for a new multi-unit housing development and the applicant has provided a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development. The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction.

The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX have been included in the recommendation section of this report.

7.1.2   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, specifically Clause 30A – “Development of certain Land in Zone No 2D”.

7.1.2.1    SEPP 1 Objection to Clause 30A - Development of certain Land in Zone No 2D

Clause 30A of the LEP specifies the maximum floor space ratio, minimum landscaped areas and maximum building and external wall heights for development within the Zone No 2D. The proposal is seeking a variation to the maximum wall height, maximum building height and maximum permissible floor space ratio (FSR) for this site. The table below outlines the numerical non-compliances of the proposal against the development controls applicable for this site:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum FSR

1.0:1

1.046:1

Does not comply.

Minimum Landscaped Area (% of site area)

40% total site landscaped area, 20% soft landscaped area.

 

Total landscaped area:  46%, soft landscaped area 27.8%.

Complies.

Maximum Wall Height

14m

14.8m

Does not comply.

 

Maximum Building Height

15m

15.8m

Does not comply.

 

 

The applicant submitted one SEPP 1 encompassing each of the three non-compliances of the proposal as they relate to a single LEP clause. To remain consistent with the approach and as the issues of building height and FSR are inexorably linked, this assessment of the SEPP 1 objection has adopted a similar ‘three-in-one’ approach. An assessment of the SEPP 1 objection against the provisions of the Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 (Draft SEPP 2004) is contained in Section 7.1.7 of this report.

 

First, is the planning control in question a development standard?

Clause 30A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (‘the LEP’) as amended, is expressed as numerical controls relating to maximum permissible external wall height, building height, minimum landscaped areas and maximum FSR. As such the planning control is a development standard.

 

Second, what is the underlying object or purpose of the standard?

The purpose of the clause is establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping, maximum building and external wall heights of buildings and the maximum permissible FSR of development within the areas identified in the built form control maps applicable to the land contained within the LEP. Whilst a specific purpose is not provided in the LEP for this clause it is considered that the underlying object of the clause (and subclauses) are commensurate with the purposes of clauses 31, 32 and 33 within the LEP, which relate to landscaped area, floor space ratios and building heights respectively. It is therefore not unreasonable to assess this SEPP 1 objection with consideration of those related clauses.

 

Third, is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular does compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act?

 

The proposed development would be consistent with the aims of the Policy, and would not tend to hinder the objects specified in the EP&A Act for orderly and economic use of the land.

Fourth, is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

i.          Maximum building height

The Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan stipulates that buildings for site shall have a maximum building height of 15 metres and that the building envelope limits a structure on the site to having three storeys along the western side of the site and remainder of the site being four storeys. Due to the slope of the site from west to east and a slight cross fall, the maximum building height of the proposal varies at different areas of the site, and ranges from 15.2m along the western side of the site to 15.8m on the eastern side of the site. This building height represents a non-compliance with the controls for this site of a maximum of 0.8m. The applicant notes that the maximum heights are measured from the top of the lift overrun of the building.

The subject site is located in a visually prominent area of the Prince Henry site, is located adjacent to the historically significant former Institute of Tropical Medicine complex and is subject to heritage views and vistas from the west and south. The subject site is located within the Heritage Precinct as defined in the Prince Henry Site - DCP and as such any development within this defined area should respect the “historic structure and layout of the precinct and relates sympathetically to significant built and landscape elements within the precinct.” Generally the proposed maximum building height is not considered excessive and will not result in the proposed multi-unit housing building become a dominant or distracting visual element on the Pine Avenue streetscape.

The proposal incorporates a flat roof form structure that minimises the bulkiness of the building and the proposal adheres to the setback requirements of the DCP. As such, the siting of the building is such that it will not become a dominant structure on the streetscape. Strict compliance with the development control for maximum building height in this instance is considered unreasonable as the degree of non-compliance is relatively minor and the extent of the non-compliance is isolated to a few sections of the proposed development. The proposal, in its current form, will not detract from the appearance of the site and is considered to satisfy firstly the objectives of the precinct and secondly the performance criteria and controls contained within Section 7.6 of the Prince Henry Site – DCP, as such, strict compliance with the development control is considered unnecessary.

ii.         Maximum external wall height

The proposed development has an external wall height of 14.8m which constitutes a non-compliance of 0.8m from the Prince Henry Site - DCP control of 14m. The non-compliance of the external wall height is a result of the slope of the site and is not necessarily a result of a poor or less skilful design. Similar to the non-compliant maximum building height, the non-compliance of the proposal with the maximum external wall heights of the Prince Henry Site – DCP is derived primarily from the same issue of the topography of the site. As such it is deemed that the proposed external wall height is not considered to contribute to an overly or excessively bulky building or a built form that dominates Pine Avenue or the secondary frontages of Pavilion Drive or Lister Avenue to the west and east respectively. The built form of the structure embodies a scale that is compatible with the recently completed buildings to the south west and will respond sympathetically with the desired future character of the area and that of the Historic Precinct. It is important to note that the proposed external wall heights, and built form in general, is considered to satisfy firstly the objectives of the Historic Precinct and secondly the performance criteria and controls contained within Section 7.6 of the Prince Henry Site – DCP and will not directly impact the only adjoining property, Lot 29.

As such strict compliance with the development control for maximum external wall height is unreasonable as the degree of the non-compliance is relatively minor and will not result in a building that dominates the appreciation of the surrounding area, either from the surrounding streets or the residential buildings in the vicinity of the subject site. Strict compliance with the development control is considered to be unnecessary as the proposal does not deviate substantially from the desired built form for the site as outlined in the Prince Henry Site – DCP.

The external wall height of the proposal generally satisfies the relevant performance criteria of the DCP and the proposed development is consistent with the built form controls as outlined in the DCP, specifically noting that the relatively minor non-compliance does not derogate the proposal’s inherent compliance with the desired built form that the DCP outlines for the site.

iii.        Floor space ratio

The proposed development will have a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.046:1 which exceeds the permissible FSR for the site (1.0:1) by 4.6 per cent or 105sqm. Similar to the external wall and maximum building heights, the degree of non-compliance is deemed relatively minor and the potential for the non-compliance to result in an undesirable built form is unlikely as the proposal exhibits a thoughtful design that implements an appropriate degree of articulation and facade treatment that ameliorates the built form’s presentation to the northern (and sole) adjoining property and lessens the visual impact of the proposal on the streetscape. As such, the non-compliant FSR is not considered to contribute to a built form that is excessive or dominates the surrounding area.

The proposal is deemed to be compatible with the development in the area and will have a positive contribution to the desired future character of Historic Precinct and the Prince Henry site in general. The proposal presents a built form that is not inconsistent with the development in the surrounding area of the Prince Henry site and satisfies the relevant performance criteria and controls contained in Section 7.6 of the Prince Henry Site – DCP, particularly in respect to “Built Form”. It is pertinent to note that this section of the DCP states that the “maximum height and FSR may not be able to be achieved in all instances; however the requirements for minimum landscaped areas must be achieved in all instances.” In this respect, the proposal generally provides for maximum building height and FSR that is numerically inconsistent with the DCP’s preferred controls however this numerically non-compliance is not considered to translate to a perceptibly bulky, excessively scale structure or a building that does not relate appropriately with the context of the surrounding development natural environment. Furthermore the proposal exceeds the minimum landscape area requirements for the site.

The non-compliant FSR does not contribute to an unacceptable degree of overshadowing to the surrounding properties or impinge upon coastal, heritage or district views enjoyed by the residential properties in the vicinity of the subject site. The overshadowing pattern of the structure will be primarily to the Lister Avenue, Pine Avenue and Pavilion Drive and onto the open space of the northern extent of the St Michael’s Golf Course. Some loss of easterly coastal views will be experienced by the residential dwellings located in the lower levels of the multi-unit housing building located to the west of the subject site on the opposite side of Pavilion Drive, however such an impact is considered be acceptable and wholly reasonable as the siting of the building and the overall bulk and scale is commensurate with the built form envelope development controls contained in Figure 18 within the Prince Henry Site – DCP.

Fifth, is the objection well founded?

The applicant makes the following points of objection, in respect the proposed building and external wall heights and FSR,

-   “The architecture of the proposed apartment building is responsive to this environment through use of materials and form of design.”

-   The proposal “responds to the constraints imposed by the physical configuration of the lot, proximity of the heritage building(s) on Lot 29, build-to lines established by the heritage buildings; and exposed nature of the site in terms of prevailing winds.”

-   The proposed building form “conforms to the building typology contemplated for this site set out in both the master plan and the site specific DCP.”

-   “The non-compliance with the height controls is in direct response with the topography of the site and a desire to create an appropriate urban design outcome.”

-   “The proposed building relates well with the surrounding development, demonstrated by the fact that it does not overshadow any adjoining buildings or heritage items.”

-   The bulk and scale of the development is acceptable as “both the adopted master plan and Council’s DCP makes provision for a built form of part 3/part 4 storeys on Lot 30.”

-   The building bulk is compatible with the surrounding built form as the “development has been designed with finely articulated screened balconies on all facades detailed with timber and metal screens to reduce the extent of solid vertical surface area, supplemented with extensive horizontal sun shades.”

-   “The width of the Pine Avenue road reservation (20m) has the physical and visual capacity to accommodate built form of the bulk and scale proposed, particularly in view of the fact that there is no built form on the southern side of Pine Avenue.”

-   The “proposed non-compliances do not result in any inconsistencies with the objectives of either the 2D Zone in which the site is located or the general objectives for the built and natural environment and amenity, or indeed, the assumed objectives of the FSR development standard.”

 

It is considered the points raised by the applicant are valid and demonstrate that the proposal will not have a significant impact to the adjoining properties. The assessing officer concurs with the applicant’s claim that the “extent of the non-compliances in both instances are relatively minor and do not result in any substantive adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing of adjoining residential development or heritage items, traffic and acoustic or visual privacy.” The assessing officer also agrees with the assertion made by the applicant that the proposal will provide a “high quality contemporary design” that the design of the building incorporates a sufficient degree of articulation and thoughtful use of materials that will provide a positive contribution to the developing streetscape and will not adversely impact the heritage buildings located to the north of the subject site.

 

As such the objection is well founded, noting that the proposed building and external wall heights will not adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area, the proposed FSR does not translate to a perceptibly bulky or excessive built form, that design responds appropriately with the site constraints, that the proposal is consistent with the desired built form outlined in the Prince Henry Site master plan and DCP, that the proposal will not result in adverse impacts such as overshadowing and views and that the non-compliances are relatively minor and will not detract from the adjoining heritage items or character of the surrounding area.

 

As such the variation of the development standards is supported.

 

7.1.3   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

 

SEPP 19 requires the consent authority to consider the potential impact of the development on and the proposed management of “bushland” within or adjacent to the land. Remnant stands of native bushland including Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) are not included in the area the subject of this application. Land containing ESBS is located northwest of the subject site across Pavilion Drive and would be considered bushland for the purposes of the policy.

 

Whilst the land is not zoned or reserved under an environmental planning instrument for open space purposes, the objectives for the protection of the bushland are still relevant. The proposed development is consistent with the aims of the SEPP as it will not affect the bushland in terms of overshadowing or construction impacts given that the considerable distance between the subject site and the bushland (i.e. the subject site is remote from the bushland such that it would not be affected by the proposed development).

 

7.1.4   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

 

Clause 7(1) of the SEPP requires the applicant of a development application to provide evidence that either a site is not contaminated, or if it is, provide evidence that the remediation of the site will occur prior to the use of the site for which consent is sought. The Prince Henry Site is subject to two separate remediation action plans, those being for chemical and asbestos soil contamination. The matter of soil contamination has been addressed by the development application (DA/948/2002) for demolition and site remediation works, approved by Council on 17 December 2002. The applicant has provided a Site Audit Statement (SAS) dated 5 July 2006 stating that the site is suitable for development for the purposes of residential dwellings.

 

As no other development on the site has occurred since the SAS was completed, no further consideration is required under this SEPP.

 

7.1.5   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.

 

It is noted that the proposal is subject to the provisions of the SEPP and as such the development application was referred to the 15 October 2007 Design Review Panel meeting. Given the interrelationship between the subject site and Lots 28 and 29 to the north, the development applications were provided as a combined submission to the Panel. The following comments were provided by the panel members and relate to all three development applications:

 

1.            Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

The proposed development on the three sites is in one of the best locations within the Prince Henry redevelopment and includes a former hospital building complex.  The context has been well described and the proposed buildings relate to it very well and to the historic buildings that are being refurbished as part of the development. The proposal very well interprets and delivers the DCP intent and building envelopes.

2.            The Scale of the Proposal

The scale of the three parts of the development responds well to nearby buildings and the streets that define the three contiguous sites.  At the south end, the four storey apartments continue the scale and alignment of Pine Avenue. The buildings forming the courtyard behind the former hospital building relate well to it. At the north end, the townhouses on lot 28 at the north end form a clean edge to Lister Avenue and do not impede views from the former nurses home to their west.

3.            The Built Form of the Proposal

The three building types that comprise the development have been considered as a group and complement each other excellently and there is nicely scaled diversity of building type.

The Panel suggests that the floor levels of the townhouses on site 28 could be slightly raised (say 2 or 3 steps) as this would strengthen the edge to the street, allowing higher planting, and improve the privacy of and views for the occupants.  It is understood that this could be achieved within the overall height limit (as opposed top the wall height) on the site and would not impede views from behind.

The Panel also considered that a straightened alignment for the three townhouses on Pavilion Drive would be preferable to the current stepped alignment. This would create a better internal courtyard space and street presentation, and better contrast to the sweep of the curves along Lister Avenue.

The parking is relatively unobtrusively handled, and its footprint largely concentrated under the building footprint, which increases the area available for deep soil planting.

4.            The Proposed Density

The proposal is consistent with the DCP, which has set a suitable standard for this site.

5.            Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

All units would enjoy cross ventilation; windows are well screened and openable with security.  Provision has been made for the retention of water.

6.            The Proposed Landscape

The landscape concept proposes a suitably different landscape for the various courtyard and external spaces within and around the buildings. The Panel particularly appreciates the consistent landscaped setback along the entire eastern frontage, which has been well considered by the landscape design.

The Panel suggested that the layout of the main courtyard on site 29 could benefit from some simplification. Otherwise the landscape architecture is thoughtfully considered.

7.            The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

The units are all well planned and would offer a high level of amenity throughout.

8.      The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

Most units overlook the public domain and pedestrian ways through the development are clear.

9.      Social issues

The development offers a good mix of dwelling and unit types and sizes.

10.       The Aesthetics of the Proposal

Excellent.  The design combines diversity of building types that relate very well to the historic building at the center of the development, to each other and to the surrounding streets - united by a careful consideration of alignment and architectural treatment.

Summary and Recommendations

The design fully complies with the aims and best practice design advocated in SEPP 65 and associated documents.

The proponents and architects are to be congratulated on their achievement of a very fine design that the Panel fully supports.

 

 

 

 

7.1.6   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

 

The subject site is located adjacent to, but not within, the area defined by this SEPP. As such the proposal is not pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP.

 

7.1.7   Draft State Environmental Planning Policy Application of Development Standards 2004

 

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

 

Clause 7 of the Draft SEPP specifies that an application for departure from a development standard must demonstrate that the departure will result in a better environmental planning outcome than that which could have been achieved on the site had the standard been complied with and that the proposed development will be in the public interest by being consistent with any aims and objectives expressed or implied from the zone, the development standard, or any relevant environmental planning instrument. The additional tests include whether the proposal will result in a better environmental outcome than a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the controls.  Notwithstanding, that the SEPP is a draft document requiring consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act, Clause 14 of the Draft document includes savings provisions that any development application made and not determined when the draft SEPP is gazetted is to be assessed against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1.

 

Further, legal advice provided to Council considers that the draft SEPP should not be given any significant weight, as its final form is neither imminent nor certain and would not apply given that it contains a provision saving the subject application.  As such, further consideration of the Draft SEPP is therefore not required, however, it is considered that the proposal results in a better environmental outcome on the site than that which could have been achieved had the standards been complied with due to its design quality, in particular its scale and form within the streetscape and sizeable residential units for future occupants. In this instance, strict adherence with the development controls applicable for the site is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

An assessment of the proposal against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1 and against Council’s statutory control and its objectives has been made in Section 7.1.2 of this report.

 

7.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

The following clauses of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 are applicable to the proposed development:


 

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

12A - Zone No 2D (Residential D Zone)

Any development must comply with the relevant zone objectives contained in subclause (1). Any development not included in subclause (2) or (3) of this clause is prohibited.

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

The proposal is classified as “multi-unit housing” and is permissible in the zone.

Complies.

22 - Services

The Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on any land only where it is satisfied that, when relevant to the proposed development, adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal or disposal of sewage and drainage are available to that land.

The subject site is currently vacant and as such will require additional services associated with a multi-unit development. The provision of services will be undertaken prior to and during construction of the development, if approved.

Complies.

30A - Development of certain Land in Zone No 2D

Maximum FSR, landscaped area, building height and external wall height are identified in the built form control maps applicable to the land supporting this plan.

The proposal does not comply with the maximum external wall height, maximum building height and maximum permissible FSR for the site.

Does not comply. A SEPP 1 objection has been lodged addressing each non-compliance. See Section 7.1.2 of this report for the SEPP 1 objections.

30B - Traffic and transport measures for Zone No 2D

Despite any other provision of this plan, the Council must not grant consent to development of land within Zone No 2D unless it is satisfied that any relevant traffic or transport measures that may apply will be met.

The proposed development requires 27 on-site parking spaces. The proposal provides on-site parking for 34 vehicles.

Complies.

40 - Excavation and filling of land

 

 

Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land.

 

The proposal will involve excavation to accommodate the basement car parking, footings and bulk earthworks including landscaping. This will not have any detrimental effect on the soil stability and scenic quality of the subject site and locality.

Complies.

40A - Master plans

 

A revised Master Plan consistent with the required amendments was adopted by Council on 27 May 2003.

The proposed development is considered to satisfy the broad requirements of the objectives and aims of the Master Plan, namely Site Design, Building Design, Landscape, Bushland Management, ESD and Geological Management.

Complies.

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

Vicinity of Heritage Item

The entire Prince Henry Site has been designated as a heritage conservation area and all applications require thoughtful site planning in accordance with the DCP requirements.

The proposal does not affect heritage items in the Prince Henry site. Complies.

 

 

 

7.3      Master Planning Requirements

 

A Master Plan for the Prince Henry site, inclusive of the subject site, was adopted in December 2001 subject to a number of matters being addressed in a revised Master Plan and subsequent development applications for the subject site. A further revised Master Plan consistent with the required amendments was adopted by Council on 27 May 2003. The adopted Master Plan is now a Deemed DCP pursuant to amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gazetted on 16 June 2005. The Deemed DCP acknowledged the provision of a 21 unit multi-unit housing building comprising of part 3/part 4 storeys. The proposal is consistent with the Deemed DCP with the exception of the number of dwellings and mix of dwelling types. The variation is considered acceptable and the proposal is generally consistent with the desired future character as specified in the master plan. The following table outlines the numerical controls applicable to this site:

 

Master plan requirements

Proposed development

Complies

Building Height

Four (4) storeys maximum building height

Part 3/part 4 storey building

Complies.

Maximum building height at western end RL 39.5

RL 39.3 at the western end of building.

Complies.

Maximum building height for remainder RL 42.5

RL 40.10/RL 41.80 parapet heights

Complies.

Apartment Mix

19 x 2 bedroom apartments

2 x 2 bedroom apartments

Does not comply – see assessment below.

2 x 3 bedroom apartments

13 x 3 bedroom apartments

Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

7.4      Policy Controls

 

7.4.1   Prince Henry Site – Development Control Plan

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

 

Control

Required

Proposal

Complies

Height

Maximum number of storeys

4 (limited to 3 on western side)

Part 3/part 4 storey limited to 3 storeys along western side

Complies.

Maximum Wall Height

14m

14.8m

Does not comply.

Maximum Building Height

15m

15.8m

Does not comply.

 

Density

Maximum FSR

 

1.0:1

1.046:1

Does not comply.

Setbacks

Front Setback to Pine Avenue

2m

2m

Complies.

Side Setback

Match the setbacks of the Institute of Tropical Medicine complex.

Setback matches eastern setbacks of the Institute of Tropical Medicine.

Complies.

Rear Setback to northern boundary

4m

4m

Complies.

Landscaped Area

Minimum Landscaped Area

40%

46%

Complies.

Minimum soft landscaping

20%

27.8%

Complies.

The other relevant Performance Controls and Criteria of the DCP are as follows (note: some compliances have been omitted for brevity):

 

Performance Control and Criteria

Proposal

Complies

4.1 Building Envelope

i: New buildings comply with the requirements in the built form control table. The building envelope is specified in the DCP.

The proposal is consistent with the building envelope as defined in the DCP.

Complies.

4.2 Height

i, ii &  iv: Maximum external wall height of 14m. Maximum building height of 15m.

Maximum storeys must not exceed 4 storeys. Maximum 3 storeys along western side.

Part 3/part 4 storeys. External wall height of 14.8m. Building height of 15.8m.

Complies with maximum number of storeys. Non-compliances with building and external wall heights. See section 7.1.2 of this report for SEPP 1 objections.

 

4.3 Building Depth

i & ii: Multi-unit housing provides dual aspect apartments allowing for optimal ventilation.

All proposed apartments have dual or triple aspects.

Complies.

4.4 Density

i: The maximum FSR for the site is 1.0:1.

1.046:1. Exceeds control by 4.6 per cent or 105sqm.

Does not comply. See section 7.1.2 of this report for SEPP 1 objection.

4.5 Setbacks

i & ii: Southern boundary (Pine Avenue) setback of 2m. Northern boundary setback of 4m. Side setbacks to Lister Avenue and Pavilion Drive shall match setbacks of Institute of Tropical Medicine buildings.

Southern setback 2m. Northern setback of 4m. Side setbacks generally conform to former Institute of Tropical Medicine buildings.

Complies.

iii: New buildings are to be sited and designed to form a strong predominantly continuous built edge to the primary street frontage and public parks and pathways.

The building has a strong frontage to Pine Avenue and to the public thoroughfares and green space to the east.

Complies.

4.6 Building Articulation

i – xv: The building design is to respect the building articulation controls specified in Part 7 and should consider the use of louvres, fins and facade modulation through use of a considered built form.

The design The proposal is considered to achieve an appropriate level of building articulation that satisfies the performance criteria i to xv of this section of the DCP.

Complies.

4.7 Landscaped Area and Private Open Space

a) ii: Minimum 40% of the site shall be landscaped. iii: Minimum 20% of the site must be designated as permeable landscaped area.

46% of the site is landscaped. 27.8% of the site is permeable landscaped.

Complies.

c) i: Each balcony should have at least 1 balcony or courtyard area. iiix: various controls relating to minimum balcony area and balcony design.

Each unit is provided with a minimum of 1 balcony.

The proposal generally complies with the criteria numbered ii to ix including minimum balcony depth, minimum balcony size and the balconies consider solar access for units below. The eastern balconies are continuous wrap-around however implement appropriate use of louvres and are compatible with the scale and proportion of the building.

 

Complies. The issue of wrap-around balconies has been successfully addressed in the design of the building.

4.8 Landscape Design and Biodiversity

i: Landscaping must include a predominance of native plant species and species that are drought resistant. ii – xi:

The proposed landscape plan incorporates use of native plant species.

The proposed landscape plan is considered to satisfy the performance criteria from ii to ix.

Complies.

4.9 Development Adjacent to Watercourses

Not applicable.

4.10 Activity Strip

Not applicable.

4.11 Solar Access

iii: The principle living room/s of a new dwelling must be designed to achieve not less than three (3) hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. v: Sunlight access to at least 50% of the primary private and communal open space areas of adjoining properties must be achieved for at least three (3) hours between 9am to 3pm on 21 June.

The apartments will each receive not less than three hours of sunlight during the winter solstice.

The proposal will not restrict solar access to the primarily private open spaces of the adjoining property to the north.

Complies.

4.12 Acoustic Privacy

The recommendations included in the noise impact assessment prepared by Vipac Engineers and Scientists have been incorporated into the design of the proposed development.

No objection has been raised by Council’s environmental health officer.

 

4.13 Visual Privacy

i: Direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces of other dwellings is to be minimised by building layout, location and design of windows and balconies, screening devices, high sills or obscured glass.

The proposed north facing balconies will feature fixed privacy screens to the north western corner of each balcony. Operable privacy screens are located off windows to bedrooms to northern elevation.

Complies.

ii: Habitable room windows with a direct outlook to the habitable room windows of any floor above ground floor in an adjacent dwelling within 12m:

-   are to be offset from the edge of one window to the edge of the other by a distance sufficient to limit views into the adjacent windows;

-   have an appropriate permanent privacy screening;

-   have sill heights of 1.6m above floor level; or

-   have fixed obscured glazing in any part of the window below 1.6m above floor level.

The nearest residential dwellings adjoining development to Lot 29 will include timber privacy screens to all south facing windows. As such direct views between the developments on Lots 29 and 30 will not be possible.

Complies.

iii: The outlook from windows, balconies, stairs, landings, terraces and decks or other private or communal areas within a development is to be screened where a direct view is available into the private open space of an existing or other proposed dwelling.

 

The proposal incorporates a suitable degree of fixed and operable screening to balconies and windows to each elevation to prevent direct overlooking. The privacy of adjoining dwellings will be maintained.

Complies.

4.14 Dwelling Layout and Mix

i – xi: Dwelling layouts respond to the natural environment, maximise opportunities for natural ventilation, provide a mix of apartment types and building layouts maximise multiple access cores.

 

The proposal satisfies the performance criteria in this section of the DCP.

Complies.

4.15 Roof Design

i – ix: Roof design must relate to the size and scale of proposed development and all service equipment should be integrated with the design of the building.

x: Lift over-runs and service plant equipment must be contained within roof structures and within the maximum building height stipulated by the precinct controls.

 

The proposal is generally compliant with the performance criteria and the roof design is integrated with the design of the building.

The proposed plant equipment exceeds the maximum building height.

Roof design and form is acceptable. Complies.

Building height does not comply. See section 7.1.1 of this report for SEPP 1 objections.

4.16 Fences

ii: Side boundary fences are to have a maximum height of 1.8m.

The proposed landscape plan shows palisade fencing along the western and northern sides of the site to 1.8m high.

 

Complies.

4.17 Safety and Security

ii: Buildings must be designed to enable occupants to overlook streets and public open spaces to provide casual surveillance.

The proposal provides for openings, window and balconies, that will overlook each street frontage.

 

Complies.

v: Entrances to dwellings and buildings must be clearly visible from the street. vi – x: Proposal exhibit clear demarcation between public, communal and private areas, shared entries are able to be locked, large expanses of wall and fences which may attract graffiti are to be avoided.

The two pedestrian accesses to the building off Pine Avenue are highly visible.

The proposal is generally compliant with the performance criteria.

 

Complies.

4.18 Materials and Finishes

The proposed development utilises an appropriate mix of stone and metal finishes that will compliment the design of the building and will be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant performance criteria for this section.

4.19 Signs

Not applicable.

5 Sustainable Design

The proposal is compliant with the SEPP: BASIX requirements and is considered to satisfy the various requirements contained within this section of the DCP.

6 Facilities and Access

The issues of barrier free access, vehicle access and parking, driveway design, utilities and site facilities and storage have been appropriately addressed in the proposed development’s design. 

 

7.6 Historic Precinct

 

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

 

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Built Form

iii: New developments to be in accordance with the Conservation Management Plan (CMP), Archaeological Management Plan (AMP), and any relevant Specific Elements Conservation Policies (SECP).

The proposal is consistent with the Prince Henry site Conservation Management Plan (CMP) and Archaeological Management Plan (AMP), and the Specific Elements Conservation Policies (SECP) for Lot 29 dated 6 June 2007.

Complies.

iv: Development is to comply with the setbacks and ‘match building alignment’ controls identified on Figures 18-19 of the DCP.

The proposal generally adheres to the building setback of the former Institute of Tropical Medicine.

Complies.

v: Development is to demonstrate that views (both from the private and public domain) identified on Figures 18-19 are maintained.

The proposal will not impact upon any identified views and vista corridors in Figures 18-19 of the DCP.

Complies.

vi: New buildings should respect the blocky rectilinear form of the most significant buildings such as the Flowers Wards and the Matron Dickson Nurses Home without mimicking their character or appearance.

The proposed new dwellings have been designed to respect the blocky rectilinear form of the existing Matron Dickson Building located on the north-western side of the site. 

Complies.

vii: New buildings should be designed so they are appropriate in terms of their character, scale and other built form characters.

The proposal has been designed to complement and respect the heritage value of the existing buildings on adjoining site to the north and the character of the area.

Complies.

Landscaping

viii: Landscape planting is to complement and not compete with the highly significant plantings of Norfolk Island Pine trees along Pine Avenue.

The subject site implements modest plantings along Pine Avenue that will not diminish the visual importance of the Norfolk Pine trees.

Complies.

ix: The historically open character of the landscape in the precinct should be retained.

The landscape proposed will respect the historic importance of Lot 29 and will maintain the strong open character of the existing landscape of Prince Henry.  

Complies.

x: New planting should be in accordance with the suggested species list included as Appendix A of the DCP. 

Plant selection for the proposed landscaped works will be in accordance with the species list included as Appendix A of the DCP. 

Complies.

Heritage

xi: All development must be accordance with the Conservation Management Plan (CMP), Archaeological Management Plan (AMP), and any relevant Specific Elements Conservation Policy (SECP).

 

The proposed works will maintain the heritage items located to the Institute of Tropical Medicine complex which adjoins the site to the north. A heritage impact assessment submitted with the DA confirmed that there would not be any impact upon the items listed in the Conservation Management Plan (CMP), Archaeological Management Plan (AMP), and the Lot 29 Specific Elements Conservation Policy (SECP).

Complies.

Parking

Where surface parking is provided within private lots within this precinct, it is not to detract from the setting of significant buildings.

As noted previously, all resident parking is to be provided in the basement with 4 at-grade parking spaces off Lister Avenue.

Complies.

 

7.4.2   Development Control Plan - Parking

The DCP – Parking requirements for the site include:

 

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

2 x 2 bedroom units = 2.4 car spaces.

13 x 3 bedroom units = 19.5 car spaces.

Total car spaces generated = 21.9 resident spaces required.

Proposed development provides 2 car spaces per each unit with a total of 30 basement resident car spaces. Complies.

 

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

 

3.75 visitor car spaces required.

4 at grade parking spaces are provided. Complies.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

 

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

 

5 resident bicycle spaces plus 1.5 visitor bicycle spaces required.

7 bicycles spaces provided.

 

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

 

1.25 car wash bay spaces required.

1 car wash space can utilise 4 at grade spaces accessed off Lister Avenue.

TOTAL

27 car spaces required. 7 bicycle spaces required.

Development provides 34 car spaces (30 resident, 4 visitor). 7 bicycle spaces provided.

Complies.

 

7.5    Council Policies

 

7.5.1   Section 94 Contributions Plan

Section 94 contributions are not payable for developments that meet the LEP built form development controls outlined in Clause 30A of the LEP. The proposed development will exceed the permissible FSR for the site by 105sqm and as such it is considered that the proposal results in a net enlargement beyond what is provided in the LEP for this site.

 

Clause 4.2 of the Deed of Agreement for the Prince Henry site at Little Bay entitles Council “to review the Section 94 contribution situation for any subsequent development application in respect of a development lot or lots which exceeds the LEP’s Built Form Numerical Controls for the development of that lot or lots prescribed in the Master Plan, LEP and/or the DCP.” As such, the a condition has been included within the development consent requiring a contribution for the amount of floor area that exceeds the LEP’s controls in accordance with Council’s Section 94 contributions plan made effective on 2 July 2007.

 

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

 

7.6.1   Urban Design

The proposal for the subject and adjoining sites (i.e. Lots 28 to 30) was referred to the Design Review Panel for comments in view of its location within the Prince Henry site and the requirements under the provisions of SEPP 65. The Panel has found the proposal satisfactory on all the SEPP 65 assessment criteria, as outlined in Section 7.1.5.

 

7.6.2   Heritage Impact

The Prince Henry site and a number of the buildings on it were listed on the State Heritage Register in May 2003. The site has been the subject of a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) and Archaeological Management Plan (AMP). In addition, a Specific Elements Conservation Policy (SECP) and Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) have been prepared by Tanner Architects.

 

The SECP has been reviewed by the Heritage Council of NSW and its application in the terms of the proposal has been accepted. The HIA indicates that the site has been extensively excavated during its remediation phase and that the proposed development “has no impact in consideration on the identified heritage values of the Prince Henry site in general” and has “no impact in consideration of heritage related issues.”

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has raised no significant concerns to the proposed development (as outlined in Section 6.4) in relation to heritage significance of the subject site to the adjoining Institute of Tropical Medicine complex and the overall Prince Henry site.

 

7.6.3   Solar Access

The subject site is bounded by roads on the eastern, western and southern sides. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that at 9am (mid-winter) overshadowing will occur onto Pavilion Drive and Pine Avenue and to the northern reaches of the golf course to the south. By 12pm, the site will be primarily overshadowing Pine Avenue. The private open space or habitable room windows of adjoining properties and residential buildings will not be affected at this time. By 3pm, the shadow cast by the proposed development will fall Lister Avenue and Pine Avenue. There are no residential properties to the east of the subject site and as such the proposal will have no adverse impact to the solar access enjoyed by surrounding properties.

 

The DCP requires that new dwellings must achieve 3 hours of solar access 9am to 3pm midwinter and that solar access to at least 50% of the communal and private open space of adjoining properties must be achieved for at least 3 hours 9am to 3pm midwinter. All dwellings in the proposal will have dual aspect, with some having three aspects, so that most dwelling units within the proposed development will have access to the minimum 3 hours solar access between 9am and 3 pm in mid-winter.

 

7.6.4   Visual and Acoustic Privacy and Views

In terms of privacy, the proposal will perform well in that the visual privacy for upper levels is achieved through the use of various architectural devices including external louvres and highlight windows. The positioning of balconies and windows incorporates a staggered style that will limit the direct views possible into the adjoining northern property. It should be noted that all dwellings will face the relevant street frontages of Pavilion Drive, Pine Avenue and Lister Avenue.

 

In terms of views, the proposal will maintain the view-sharing principles of the Prince Henry DCP as is consistent with the maximum storeys and setbacks stipulated in the master plan and DCP. The non-compliant building and external wall heights and floor space ratio are not considered to detract from views enjoyed by other properties in the area. As covered earlier in this report, the proposal, in general, is not considered excessive in height, bulk and scale.

 

Generally the proposal is considered to be a sensitive development that will not adversely impinge upon the privacy and views of adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

7.6.5   Parking, Traffic and Access

The applicant’s traffic report prepared by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes indicates that the proposal is expected to generate approximately 10 vehicles per hour two-way during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The proposal a lower yield of apartments for the site than what was stipulated in the master plan/Deemed DCP. The traffic report states that “the traffic generation has previously been assessed in the traffic report prepared in association with the Prince Henry master plan. Nonetheless, it is a very low traffic generation, equivalent to on average only one vehicle every six minutes during peak hours.”  The report concludes that the proposed development will “not have a significant effect on the operation or amenity of the surrounding road network and its intersections.” It is notable that the proposed development will provide a surplus of on-site car parking, providing 34 car parking spaces against the 27 spaces required under the DCP – Parking.

 

It is noted that Council’s Development Engineer does not raise concerns regarding the potential impact of the development in respects to the traffic flow and parking availability in the area. As such the proposal is considered to be a development that will have an acceptable impact to the parking, traffic and vehicular access in the Prince Henry site.

 

7.6.6   Ecologically Sustainable Development

Consistent with the concurrent multi-unit housing development applications for Lots 28 and 29, the applicant has stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects that a range of design initiatives and elements have been employed to ensure the proposed development optimises its sustainability. In accordance with this brief, the proposal will incorporate the following sustainability measures:

 

-   All practical water saving measures will be adopted, including monitoring and education;

-   Installation of water efficient fixtures and fittings;

-   Water efficient design;

-   Rainwater harvesting has been implemented across the entire Prince Henry site by Landcom;

-   Cross ventilation has been achieved wherever possible (in 81% of dwellings – Dwelling Nos. 05 and 06 do not achieve full cross ventilation);

-   All common area lighting will be provided with compact fluorescent lamps and the car park will be provided with high efficiency fluorescent lamps;

-   Time clock/PE Cell and movement sensor control of lighting; and

-   The dwellings will be supplied by 5 star gas boosted solar hot water system;

-   The adaptive re-use of existing buildings represents significant savings in terms of embodied energy; and

-   CR monitoring and variable speed mechanical ventilation.

 

These measures are considered appropriate in achieving ESD objectives.

 

As noted previously, the applicant has also provided a BASIX assessment of the proposal in accordance with BASIX modelling requirements for multi-unit housing showing that the proposed development will achieve a 41% energy saving target which would comply with the 40% saving target under BASIX, and a 40% water saving target which would comply with the 40% water saving requirement under BASIX. Accordingly, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of energy and water conservation.

 

In addition, the applicant has also provided a draft Environmental Education Toolkit which contains the information about the environmental features of the housing product and heritage elements and the transport options for the site including bus connections, timetables, cycle paths/routes, distances to shops and facilities, etc. A condition is to be included in the consent requirement a copy of the Environmental Education Toolkit to be provided for all residents. 

 

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

 

7.6.7   Site Remediation

A site audit statement (SAS) has been issued for the subject lot, Lot 29, on 8 December 2006, indicating that the site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council development consent No. 1188/02 as amended (for the demolition of buildings and the remediation of the Prince Henry site was issued on 28 February 2003). Accordingly, the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

7.6.8   Social and Economic Impacts

The proposal will increase the availability of housing and promote the objectives of the zone. The added population will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons, which will encourage the location of services and facilities into the broader area. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of services, especially given that the overall development precinct will have a multi-purpose community centre to be built and provided by Landcom in the future, a future neighbourhood centre in Lots 11 and 13 which will include mixed development (including retail and commercial uses), and a range of passive and recreational open-spaces, all constructed and provided by Landcom.

 

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

 

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

The subject site is part of the developable land within the Prince Henry Site which is identified in the revised Master Plan adopted by Council on 27 May 2003 (now referred to as a Deemed DCP). In doing so, Council considered the suitability of a range of proposed land uses and their location within the Prince Henry site. The subject site is specifically identified in the Deemed DCP as a location for a part 3/part 4 storey multi-unit housing residential building. In this regard, the proposal generally is consistent with the terms of the Deemed DCP and as demonstrated above the development will not have an adverse impact on any item of environmental, archaeological, heritage or cultural significance.

 

Additionally, the subject site is zoned to accommodate the proposed type and form of development with a scale and size that will be compatible with existing and anticipated future development in the locality.

 

The site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council consent 1188/02 as amended.

 

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

The proposal being integrated development was notified and advertised for a period of 30 days in accordance with the Development Control Plan - Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submission was received by Council during this notification/advertising period.

 

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

The proposed development is consistent with the deemed DCP and the Prince Henry DCP and will provide the local community with an option of adaptive re-use heritage housing that complements other forms of residential development in the Prince Henry site. As a consequence, the proposal will have a positive social benefit for the local community and is considered to be in the wider public interest. Overall, the development application will be in the public interest as it will facilitate future residential development in accordance with the Randwick LEP 1998, the Prince Henry DCP and adopted Master Plan/Deemed DCP.

 

8.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development

The proposal has a good architectural quality that addresses the significance of the location on Anzac Parade and will contribute to the identified outcome for this thoroughfare

 

Outcome 10: A healthy environment

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

 

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

The proposed development represents a contemporary design that is well considered in respects the surrounding development, the objectives and future desired character of the Prince Henry site and will incorporate appropriate passive solar design and good orientation for all dwellings to facilitate positive sunlight access and natural ventilation.

 

Direction 10a & associated key action: Council is a leader in fostering environmentally sustainable practices.

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

 

9.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10. CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the development standards contained in the LEP with the exception to controls relating to maximum building and external wall height and floor space ratio. A SEPP No.1 objection to address the non-compliances with the LEP clause has been submitted by the applicant and is considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

The proposed development is considered to have a contemporary design that will provide a positive contribution to the Pine Avenue streetscape and the subject site’s secondary frontages to Pavilion Drive and Lister Avenue. The proposal provides a built form that is consistent with the DCP and master plan provisions for the site and will incorporate an acceptable degree of articulation and facade treatment, through the use of external louvres and screens, to provide a visually interesting and thoughtful design sympathetic to the heritage item located to the north of the subject site. The proposed development will also provides an acceptable degree of landscaped areas to both visually soften the proposal on the streetscape and to also provide private and communal open space for the enjoyment of the site’s future occupants. The proposed development has also demonstrated that its design integrates worthwhile ecological sustainable development principles into the building without compromising the internal amenity of the units or detracting from the amenity of adjoining properties or diminishing the ecological sustainable development potential for the adjoining lot to the north.

 

The proposal complies with the numerical controls stipulated in the DCP – Parking and although is inconsistent with the some controls in the LEP and Prince Henry DCP, the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties of amenity of the surrounding area. The proposed development is deemed to be sensitive to the heritage item that adjoins to the north of the subject site and will integrate with the site designs for the other residential development proposed on Lots 28 and 29. The proposed development presents a cohesive and coherent urban form that links appropriately with the desired future character of the Prince Henry site.

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     That Council assume the concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning to vary the provisions of Clause 30A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to maximum building height, maximum external wall height and floor space ratio under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 and, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/815/2007 at 42-48 Pine Avenue, Little Bay subject to the following conditions:-

 

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

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered in the following table except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

Plan reference no.

Revision no.

Date on plan or document

Date received by Council

Site plan, Building envelope diagram, A31-01

I

19 September 2007

27 September 2007

Basement and ground floor, A31-02

J

19 September 2007

27 September 2007

Level 1, 2 and 3, A31-03

J

19 September 2007

27 September 2007

Roof plan, A31-04

J

19 September 2007

27 September 2007

North/south elevation, A32-01

J

19 September 2007

27 September 2007

Section A, B and C, A33-01

J

19 September 2007

27 September 2007

Section D and E, East and west Elevation, A33-02

J

19 September 2007

27 September 2007

Landscape plan, 30-DA01

-

25 September 2007

27 September 2007

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building must be implemented substantially in accordance with the external finishes sample board prepared by Architectus titled “Prince Henry Little Bay – Lot 30”, dated September 2007 and received by Council on 27 September 2007.

 

3.       There must be no encroachment of the structure/s onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless written permission has been obtained from the Council beforehand.

 

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

 

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

 

6.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents.

 

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

 

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

 

8.       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 must ensure that a Quick Check Agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before commencing any works.

 

The following condition is applied to meet additional demands for public facilities;

 

9.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, the following monetary levy must be paid to Council.

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

Not applicable.

0.5%

Not applicable.

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$241,500

1.0%

$2,415

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development. The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

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

 

10.     In accordance with Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all of the required commitments listed in the relevant BASIX Certificate for this development are fulfilled.

 

11.     In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a relevant BASIX Certificate and associated documentation must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application for this development.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate are to be included on the plans, specifications and associated documentation for the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

12.     The following provisions are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant BASIX Certificate and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate documentation (as applicable), to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority:

 

·            Stormwater management (i.e. rainwater tanks)

·            Water efficiency (i.e. triple A rated taps and showers, dual flush toilets and water re-use)

·            Landscaping provisions

·            Thermal comfort (i.e. construction materials, glazing and insulation)

·            Energy efficiency (i.e. cooling & heating provisions and hot water systems)

 

13.     In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue a final Occupation Certificate for this development, unless it is satisfied that each of the required BASIX commitments have been fulfilled.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Council upon issuing the final Occupation Certificate.

 

The following conditions have been applied to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

14.     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 (excluding plant and equipment during the construction phase) 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.

 

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

 

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

The following conditions are applied to maintain the heritage significance and amenity of the premises and locality:

 

Aboriginal Archaeology

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

 

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

 

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

 

Historical Archaeology

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

 

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

 

Geological Heritage

22.     Excavation within the possible extent of the Palaeovalley Area should not be below RL 26 unless endorsed by Randwick City Council and the NSW Heritage Office.

 

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

 

23.     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.

 

24.     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.

 

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

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

iii)       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.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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”.

 

29.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

32.     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.

 

33.     A Fire Safety Certificate must be submitted to Council prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

A single and complete Fire Safety Certificate must be provided which includes details of all of the fire safety measures contained in the building and as detailed in the fire safety schedule attached to the Construction Certificate.

 

Prior to issuing any Occupation Certificate the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that all of the relevant fire safety measures have been included and are sufficiently detailed within the Fire safety Certificate.

 

A copy of the fire safety certificate must be displayed in the building near the entrance and a copy must be forwarded to the NSW Fire Brigades.

 

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

 

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

 

35.     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 must ensure that a Quick Check Agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before commencing any works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

40.     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 occupation of the building, which certifies that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

41.     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.

 

42.     The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

        If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of any building located 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

·       effectively support  the excavation and building; 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 and particulars of the works to the owner of the adjoining land.

 

Notes

 

·    This consent and condition does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the principal contractor or owner-builder must obtain:

a)     the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

b)     an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

c)     an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

d)     an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

·    Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

43.     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.

 

44.     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.

 

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

 

45.     A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and a copy is to be provided to Council upon commencement of works or as otherwise specified by the PCA or Council, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the construction of the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Councils conditions of consent and relevant Standards relating to noise and vibration.  In support of the above, it is necessary to submit all relevant readings and calculations made.

 

Any recommendations and requirements contained in the report are to be implemented accordingly and should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to the PCA and Council.

 

46.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with:

 

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)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other materials or articles 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.

 

c)     Bulk bins, waste containers or other articles 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 or other articles in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services department.

 

d)     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

·       Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article on the road, nature strip or footpath.

 

g)     The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $10 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council.

 

h)     A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate for the development.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

48.     A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

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

·       location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·       location of building materials for construction;

·       provisions for public safety;

·       dust control measures;

·       site access location and construction

·       details and methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·       protective measures for tree preservation;

·       provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·       location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·       details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·                construction noise and vibration management;

·                construction traffic management provisions.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

 

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

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

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

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

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

·       Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

52.     The demolition, removal, storage, handling and disposal of  materials and all building work must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements (as applicable):

 

·         Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·         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 – Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·         Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

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

 

53.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

 

The Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

 

·                 The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·                 Details of hazardous materials, including asbestos

·                 Method/s of demolition and removal of asbestos

·                 Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·                 Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne asbestos and dust

·                 Methods and location of disposal of any asbestos or other hazardous materials

·                 Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented as identified in the Asbestos Survey

·                 Date the demolition and removal of asbestos will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition works.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be forwarded to Council and a copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

54.     Any work involving the demolition, storage and disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a)     Randwick City Council’s 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.

 

b)     A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 50 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.

 

c)     On 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.

 

d)     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.

 

e)     A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. 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 asbestos material have been removed appropriately and 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.

 

The following condition is applied to provide reasonable levels of access for people with disabilities:

 

55.     Access and provisions for people with a disability are to be provided to the development generally in accordance with the relevant requirements of Section 6.2 of Council’s Development Control Plan for The Prince Henry site, AS 1428.1 – Design for Access and Mobility and AS 4299 – Adaptable Housing. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

64.     The acoustic report titled “Super lot 30 Prince Henry at Little Bay – Acoustic Report for DA Submission” report number 20C-07-0122-TRP-247201-1, prepared by Vipac Engineers and Scientists Ltd dated 20 September 2007, and the recommendations contained within, form part of this consent.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

Security Deposit Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

1.  $2000.00       -        Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Traffic Conditions/Civil Works Conditions

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

 

71.     Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

1.   Construct a full width concrete heavy duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

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

 

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

 

73.     The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works".

 

74.     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.

 

75.     The driveway opening at the Lister Avenue frontage must be a minimum of 5.5 metres wide and located at least 1.0 metre clear of the side property.

 

76.     The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 6 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay.

 

77.     The vehicular access, ground level visitor carparking and the basement carpark (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004. The Construction Certificate plans must demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

78.     A Works Zone is to be provided in Lister Avenue for the duration of the construction works.  The ‘Works Zone’ shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee and shall have a minimum length of 12 metres. The prescribed fee for the Works Zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site.

 

It is noted that the requirement for a Works Zone may be waived if it can be demonstrated (to the satisfaction of Council’s traffic engineer) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) may be undertaken wholly within the site.

 

79.     Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, the applicant shall submit for approval and have approved by Council's Traffic Engineer a detailed construction traffic management plan. The plan shall demonstrate how construction and delivery vehicles will access the development site during the demolition and construction phase of the development.

 

All traffic associated with the subject development shall comply with the terms of the approved construction traffic management plan.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

 

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

 

80.     The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundaries for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full Pine Avenue, Lister Avenue and Pavilion Drive site frontages.

 

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

 

Service Authority Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Drainage Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

88.     Stormwater runoff from the site shall be managed in accordance with the Prince Henry drainage strategy prepared by Connell Wagner. This shall involve stormwater runoff from Lot 30 being discharged through the site’s underground drainage system into the underground drainage system in Lister Avenue, (connect into the existing drainage pit located in Lister Avenue, adjacent to the vehicular crossing).

 

89.     A reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over any pipelines discharging from the site into the future Council controlled drainage system to ensure that stormwater from the future Council controlled drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·                A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

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

 

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

 

94.     One covered car washing bay shall be provided for this development.

 

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

 

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

 

c)       The car washing bay may be located within the visitor parking spaces provided they are signposted with Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

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

 

e)       A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bay/s.

 

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

 

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

·         Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

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

 

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

 

Notes:-

 

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

 

b)  Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site). Seepage water is not to be collected and discharged from the site.

Waste Management Conditions

 

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

 

98.     The garbage room areas will have to be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 16 x 240 litre bins (8 garbage bins & 8 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

100.    The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

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

 

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

Strata Subdivision Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

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

         

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

                  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and the Council, if the Council is not the PCA) prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

110.    Landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

111.    The applicant shall be required to ensure the retention and long term health of all trees located on adjoining properties adjacent to the proposed development. As a general guide there shall be minimal excavation or root pruning within the dripline/s of the subject tree/s.

 

NSW Heritage Office General Terms of Agreement

 

All work shall comply with the following documentation:

 

-   Survey Plan Drawing No. D322-001 by Whelans dated 2 February 07; Drawing Nos A30-01, 02, 03 and 04; A31-01, 02, 03, 04; A32-01; A33-01, 02 by Architectus dated 17 September 2007; Landscape Plan No.30-DA01 by Architectus dated 25th September 2007.

 

-   Heritage Impact Statement, Lot 30, Prince Henry Site by Tanner Architects dated September 2007.

 

-   Development Application Statement of Environmental Effects by Stockland dated September 2007.

 

AND EXCEPT AS AMENDED by the following conditions of this consent:

 

Site Protection

 

112.    Significant landscape elements are to be adequately protected during the works from potential damage. Protection systems must ensure that the works do not generate any adverse impacts on the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrubs. A methodology describing the protection of significant  landscape elements during the work is to be prepared and included in a Master Program and Site Co-ordination Plan (or Work Plan) and submitted to Randwick Council for approval with the Construction Certificate.

 

Aboriginal Archaeology

 

113.    Any ground disturbance and excavation undertaken as part of the proposed works is to be undertaken in consultation with the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council (LPLALC) and, where requested, be subject to LPLALC and archaeological monitoring.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Historical Archaeology

 

117.    If any relics of state significance are uncovered, further excavation must stop and the Heritage Office notified immediately.  Further approval will need to be obtained from the NSW Heritage Council as changes to the design and scope of the proposed works may be required depending upon the significance of the relics found.

 

118.    Suitable clauses are to be included in all contractor and subcontractor contracts to ensure that on-site personnel are aware of their obligations and requirements in relation to the relics provisions of the Heritage Act.

 

119.    Prior to the commencement of the proposed works, all those involved are to be made aware by way of an induction of the existence of historical archaeological remains at the Prince Henry site.

 

Landscape

 

120.    Seed stock indigenous to the site and/or locality (the Prince Henry site, being weed affected, may not be able to provide sufficient stock) should also be used to generate the proposed new landscaping.  This should include seed of species forming the Sandstone Heaths, Woodlands and Forests, and the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub vegetation types.  Written confirmation of compliance with this requirement is to be submitted to the Heritage Office with the section 60 application.

 

S60 application

 

121.    An application under section 60 of the NSW Heritage Act is be submitted for approval by the Heritage Office prior to work commencing.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1      The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

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.

 

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

 

A2      The applicant/owner is advised that this approval does not guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the applicant should therefore consider their liability under the Act.  In this regard, the applicant is advised that compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility does not necessarily satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

The applicant/owner is requested to give consideration to providing access and facilities for people with disabilities in accordance with Australian Standard 1428 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Design for Access and Mobility, which may be necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 120/2007

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

60 DENNING STREET, SOUTH COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

29 November, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/419/2007 & PROP015551

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for demolition of the existing dwelling-house and construction of a new part two (2) and three (3) storey attached dual occupancy at 60 Denning Street, South Coogee.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SIMON BENNETT

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SPD TOWN PLANNERS

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

29 November, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/419/2007 & PROP015551

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing dwelling-house and construction of a new part two (2) and three (3) storey attached dual occupancy.

PROPERTY:

 60 Denning Street, South Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Charleston Homes Pty Ltd

OWNERS:

 Joanne Marry Kenny

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as the owner of the subject site is a relative of a Randwick City Councillor.

 

The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new part two (2) and three (3) storey attached dual occupancy.  The proposed attached dual occupancy is configured with one dwelling orientated to Denning Street and the other dwelling located towards the rear of the site.

 

A shared driveway is proposed along the northern boundary of the site and provides access to the garages which are located in the centre of the site between the two dwellings.

 

The DA was publicly notified between 5 June 2007 and 21 June 2007.  Three (3) letters of objection were received from the neighbouring properties.

 

The main planning issues with the proposal are:

·                     non-compliance with the 7m maximum wall height and 9.5m maximum building height controls in Clauses 33(1) and 33(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (“LEP 1998”);

·                     non-compliance with the 0.5:1 maximum floor space ratio (“FSR”) in Clause 32(1) of LEP 1998;

·                     the resulting visual bulk and scale impacts of the additional height and FSR non-compliances on the streetscape and adjoining properties;

·                     potential overshadowing impacts on the adjoining property to the south, No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee;

·                     potential visual and acoustic privacy impacts on the adjoining property to south, No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee resulting from the first floor terraces located above the garages of each dwelling; and

·                     potential view loss impacts on the study of the adjoining property to the north at Unit 7, No. 58 Denning Street, Coogee.

 

Amended plans were submitted on 5 November 2007 and lowered the height of the building parapet by 300mm and provide drop edged beam construction.  The amended plans have not adequately resolved the fundamental planning issues with the proposal or the resulting amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Accordingly, the DA is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The DA seeks consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new part two (2) and three (3) storey attached dual occupancy.  The proposed dual occupancy is configured with one dwelling (“Unit 1”) at the front of the site facing Denning Street and one dwelling (“Unit 2”) located at the rear of the site.

 

A shared driveway is proposed along the northern boundary of the site and provides vehicle access to two (2) double garages, one for each dwelling.

 

Each of the dwellings in the proposed attached dual occupancy has four (4) bedroom.  The dwellings are configured with a garage, two (2) bedrooms, laundry, shared bathroom and an ensuite bathroom at ground floor level, an open plan kitchen, living and dining area, one (1) bedroom and a bathroom at first floor level and one (1) bedroom with walk-in robe and bathroom at second floor level.

 

The open space provided for Unit 1 includes the front setback area at ground level, a 18.7m2 terrace off Bedroom 4 and a 19.1m2 balcony off the living/dining room at first floor level, and a 3.7m2 balcony off Bedroom 1 at second floor level.

 

The open space provided for Unit 1 includes the rear setback area of approximately, a 22.3m2 terrace off the living/dining room at first floor level, and a 3.7m2 balcony off Bedroom 1 at second floor level.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is legally described as Lot 3 DP 10140 and is known as No. 60 Denning Street, South Coogee.  The site has frontage of 13.41m to Denning Street and an area of approximately 571.1m2.

 

The site slopes from Denning Street to the rear boundary and has a total fall of approximately 2.2m from the south-eastern corner to the north-western corner.

 

A single storey brick dwelling house with tile roof and a freestanding brick garage are located on the site.  Two (2) trees are planted along the rear boundary and are 6m and 8m in height.

 

The adjoining property to the north at No. 58 Denning Street, Coogee accommodates a part three (3) and four (4) storey brick residential flat building.  The adjoining property to the south at No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee accommodates a two (2) storey brick dwelling-house.  Immediately adjoining the site to the rear is a three (3) storey residential flat building.

 

Notwithstanding the two (2) residential flat buildings which immediately adjoin the site to the north and west, the prevailing character of Denning Street are single dwelling houses which are two (2) storeys in scale.

 

4.    DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION HISTORY:

 

There is no relevant DA history.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified for a period of 14 days from 7 June 2007 until 21 June 2007 in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998.  Three (3) submissions were received and are summarised in the table below.

 

47 Denning Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

Overshadowing impact at 3pm at mid-winter.

 

The shadow cast by the proposal does not result in an adverse impact on No. 47 Denning Street which is located on the opposite side of the street.

The proposal does not comply with the 7m maximum wall height control.

 

Agreed.  The proposal has an external wall height of 9m to Denning Street and 10.2m at the rear and is excessive in its height, bulk and scale.

The 3 storey height of the building is out of character with the one (1) and two (2) storey dwellings in the area.

Agreed.  The height, bulk and scale of the proposal is out of existing and desired future character of the area.

The proposal exceeds the 0.5:1 maximum floor space ratio.

Agreed.  The non-compliance with the maximum floor space ratio is not supportable given the breach of the height controls and the adverse impacts resulting on the streetscape and amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

7/58 Denning Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The 3 storey height of the proposal does not comply with Council’s controls.

Agreed.  See above.

The non-compliance with the external wall height control will impact on ocean views from the windows along the southern side of the apartment (bedroom, kitchen and study).

Based on an inspection/analysis of the property and the photos submitted by the neighbour, the proposal would result in some loss of ocean views from the study and a complying scheme would have a lesser impact.

The 3 storey height of the building is out of character with the one (1) and two (2) storey dwellings in the area.

Agreed.  See above.

The proposal exceeds the 0.5:1 maximum floor space ratio.

Agreed.  See above.

The proposal will result in a loss of property value.

No evidence has been submitted to support this claim and ultimately changes in property value are not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979.

 

62 Denning Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

Height of southern elevation has visual impact on private open space area.

Agreed.  The height of the proposal is excessive and will be overbearing on the private open space of 62 Denning Street, Coogee.

Overshadowing impact on the private open space area.

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application are insufficient to make a complete assessment of the shadow impact of the proposal.  Nevertheless, it is evident that the proposal will result in a substantial increase in the shadow cast at 9am, 12 noon and 3pm at midwinter compared to the existing dwelling.  It is unlikely that 3 hours of solar access will be maintained to 50% of the private open space of 62 Denning Street, Coogee.

The first floor balcony to the Denning Street elevation allows views into the bay window.

The first floor balcony overlooking the street is not unacceptable and promotes passive surveillance of the street.  Screening could be provided along the southern edge of the balcony in the form of a landscape planter or solid screen to minimise opportunity for overlooking.

Noise and acoustic impacts from the elevated terraces.

A 1.8m high masonry wall is proposed along the southern side of the terraces and ensures that a reasonable degree of private amenity is maintained to the adjoining property.  However, the privacy walls contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the building, which is considered unsatisfactory as stated above.

 

The terrace located at the rear of Bedroom 4 (Unit 1) appears large for the use of the room.

As stated above, it is considered that sufficient privacy screening is provided to the terrace to satisfy the requirements of Council’s DCP.

 

Unit 2 has adequate ground level open space and therefore the terrace above the garage is unnecessary.

The indoor living areas have a direct connection to an outdoor area, being the terrace and this satisfies the DCP.  Nevertheless, it would be desirable to have a direct connection between the indoor living areas and the private open space at the rear of the site.

 

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

Development Engineer

 

The proposal is satisfactory subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

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. 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.

 

 

(b)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

The site is zoned 2A (Residential A) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed attached dual occupancy 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.

 

As stated below, the height, bulk and scale of the proposal is not consistent with the surrounding residential area which is characterised predominantly by two (2) storey dwelling houses.  The non-compliances with the height and FSR controls contained in LEP 1998 result in adverse and unacceptable visual impacts on the streetscape and on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, overshadowing and potential view loss impacts.

 

Therefore, the proposal does not satisfy the zone objectives contained in sub-clauses (a) and (c).

 

Clause 30 – Minimum Allotment Sizes

 

Clause 30(4) of LEP 1998 prescribes a minimum allotment size of 450m2 and a minimum frontage of 12m for the erection of an attached dual occupancy in Zone 2A.  The site has an area of 571.7m2 and a frontage to Denning Street of 13.41m and complies with these requirements.

 

Clause 31 – Landscaped Area

 

Clause 31(1) of LEP 1998 prescribes a minimum landscaped area equal to 40% of the total site area.  The proposal provides a total landscaped area of 233m2 which equals 40.8% of the site and complies with this requirement.

 

Clause 32 – Floor Space Ratio

 

Clause 32(1) of LEP 1998 prescribes a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 for the erection of an attached dual occupancy in Zone 2A.  The site has an area of 571.7m2 and therefore a maximum gross floor area of 285.85m2 is permitted on the site.

 

The proposed attached dual occupancy has a total gross floor area of 392.98m2 and results in an FSR of 0.69:1.  The proposal exceeds the maximum FSR by 107.13m2.

 

A SEPP No. 1 objection was included with the application and submits that the non-compliance is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·            “Although the proposal does not strictly comply with the relevant floor space ratio design standard it remains consistent with the zone objectives in that the proposed dual occupancy is compatible with the surrounding residential development of the locality;

·            The development as proposed is consistent with the relevant zone objectives, particularly in maintaining the predominant residential character of the locality;

·            The extent of the non-compliance does not hinder the proposal from complying with the landscape area provision;

·            In whole the extent of the non compliance is not obvious to the naked eye when adjoining residential unit buildings are taken into consideration; and

·            The development as proposed will have no adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding properties or detrimentally impact on the existing streetscape.”

 

The proposal also exceeds the maximum wall height control by 2m to 2.9m which is roughly equivalent to one (1) storey of the building.  In this regard, the second floor level of the building which exceeds the 7m wall height control represents 84.52m2 out of the 107.13m2 (78.9%) of the additional GFA sought above the maximum FSR.

 

The second floor level contributes to the majority of the additional FSR, would be visually obvious from the street and result in a form of development which is not in keeping with the predominant character and scale of development on Denning Street which is characterised by two (2) storey dwellings.

 

Furthermore, the additional FSR which contributes to the breaches of the wall height and building height controls in Clause 33 of LEP 1998 results in adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining properties, particularly in terms of visual bulk and scale, overshadowing and potential view loss impacts.

 

The SEPP No. 1 objection is not well founded and the proposed non-compliance with the 0.5:1 maximum FSR in Clause 32(1) of LEP 1998 is not supported.

 

Clause 33 – Building Heights

 

Clause 33(1) of LEP 1998 prescribes a maximum building height of 9.5m in the 2A Zone.  Clause 33(3) of LEP 1998 prescribes a maximum wall height of 7m in the 2A Zone.

 

The proposed attached dual occupancy has a parapet wall to the top of the building and thus the external wall height and building height are the same.  In this regard, the maximum external wall height and building height is 9m at the front of the building to Denning Street and increases to a maximum of 10.2m towards the rear of the building.

 

A SEPP No. 1 objection was included with the application only in respect of the non-compliance with the maximum external wall height control in Clause 33(3) of LEP 1998.  The SEPP No. 1 objection submits that the non-compliance is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      “Although the proposal does not strictly comply with the relevant maximum external wall height design standard it remains consistent with the zone objectives in that the proposed dual occupancy is compatible with the surrounding residential development of the locality;

·      The development as proposed is consistent with the relevant zone objectives, particularly in maintaining the predominant residential character of the locality;

·      The extent of the non-compliance does not hinder the proposal from complying with the landscape area provision;

·      In whole the extent of the non compliance is not obvious to the naked eye when adjoining residential unit buildings are taken into consideration;

·      The extent of the non-compliance provides a transition in height between adjoining development;

·      The stepped design of the dual occupancy provides visual interest to the development and avoids a box like appearance; and

·      The development as proposed will have no adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding properties or detrimentally impact on the existing streetscape.”

 

As stated above in relation to FSR, the proposed height of the proposal is out of character with the predominantly two (2) storey dwellings along Denning Street and results in unacceptable impact on the streetscape and adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing and potential view loss impacts.  These adverse impacts are directly attributable to the breaches of the height controls in Clauses 33(1) and 33(3) of LEP 1998.

 

The SEPP No. 1 objection is not well founded and fails to address Clause 33(1) at all.  The proposed non-compliance with the 9.5m maximum building height control and 7m maximum external wall height control contained at Clauses 33(1) and 33(3) of LEP 1998 are not supported.

 

Clause 40 – Excavation and filling of land

 

The proposal involves some cutting and filling of the site up to a depth of 1m.  Drop edge beam construction is proposed for the dwellings to reduce the need for retaining walls.  The proposed cut and fill is not anticipated to disrupt existing drainage patterns or soil stability and does not affect the likely future use or redevelopment of the land.  The development is satisfactory with regard to Clause 40 of LEP 1998.

 

7.2    Policy Controls

 

(a)    Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

 

Part 2 – Designing in Context

The DCP requires an understanding of the development context of the site in the design process.  The site is located in an established residential area which is characterised by two (2) storey dwellings.  Whilst it is noted that there are some three (3) and four (4) storey residential flat buildings in the locality, including the building immediately adjacent the site at No. 58 Denning Street, Coogee, such development is not representative of the existing or desired future character and generally is considered unsympathetic to the visual qualities of the neighbourhood.

 

As stated above, the proposed development does not comply with the height and FSR controls contained in LEP 1998 and it is considered that a three (3) storey form of development on the site is not consistent with the desired future streetscape character.

 

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 this 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 shadow plans submitted with the DA are prepared for three (3) hourly intervals and not at hourly intervals and therefore it is not possible to make a complete assessment of the shadow impact on the neighbouring property to the south, No. 62 Denning Street, South Coogee.

 

Based on the information submitted with the DA, the following conclusions are made in respect of the existing level of solar access enjoyed by No. 62 Denning Street, South Coogee between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter:

 

·      At 9am, the adjoining dwelling receives solar access to the rear corner of the private open space, which is equal to approximately 25% of the open private open space;

·      At midday, the adjoining dwelling currently receives solar access to the majority of its private open space (approximately 90%); and

·      At 3pm, the adjoining dwelling receives solar access to approximately one third of the private open space.

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate that 3 hours of solar access is maintained to at least 50% of the private open space of the adjoining dwelling, No. 62 Denning Street, South Coogee.  Whilst the shadow diagrams are not sufficient in detail, the following conclusions are made in relation to the overshadowing impact of the proposal at mid-winter:

 

·      At 9am and 3pm, approximately 90% of the private open space of the adjoining dwelling is overshadowed; and

·      At midday, approximately 40% of the private open space of the adjoining dwelling is overshadowed.

 

The development results in a substantial reduction in the amount of solar access that is achieved to the private open space of No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee and the level of impact is considered unacceptable given the significant non-compliances with the building height controls in LEP 1998.  In this regard, a proposal which complied with the 7m maximum external wall height would result in a significantly lesser shadow impact on the adjoining property compared to the current proposal.

 

The proposed development is considered unacceptable in terms of its overshadowing impact on the private open space to the rear of the adjoining dwelling at No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee.

 

 

 

 

Clause 3.2 – Water Management

The sustainable water management practices contained in the DCP are now covered by BASIX.  A 1,500L rainwater tank and 3 star rated showerheads, toilets and taps are provided.  The proposal is satisfactory in this regard.

 

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 233m2 which equates to 40.8% 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 190m2 which equates to 33% 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 DCP also requires that any private open space proposed at the front of an attached dual occupancy be located behind the required front building line.

 

In this regard, the ground level courtyard and first floor balcony at the front of Unit 1 is not considered private open space and the terrace over the garage, which is 18.7m2 in area, is located off a bedroom as opposed to a primary living area.  Therefore, the proposal fails to provide sufficient private open space to Unit 1.

 

In relation to Unit 2, the rear setback area is proposed as private open space for the dwelling and is in excess of 25m2 and meets the requirements of the DCP.  However, only bedrooms are located at ground floor level and a solid wall presents to the private open space.  Whilst a sufficiently sized area of private open space is provided at the rear of Unit 2, there is no direct connection to it from the primary indoor living areas (or the ground floor bedrooms for that matter) and this represents a poor solution which could be addressed by a more considered design and planning of the development.

 

The proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to the inadequate size and location of the private open space provided to Unit 1 and the lack of any direct connection between the primary indoor living areas of Unit 2 and its outdoor 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.

 

As stated earlier, a maximum FSR of 0.5:1 is permitted on the site pursuant to Clause 32 of LEP 1998.  The proposed FSR of the attached dual occupancy is 0.69:1 and results in adverse bulk and scale impacts on the streetscape and unacceptable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.  The proposed FSR is unacceptable.

 

Clause 4.3- Height, Form and Materials

The DCP 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.

 

As stated earlier, the attached dual occupancy exceeds the 7m maximum external wall height and 9.5m maximum building height controls in Clause 33 of LEP 1998.  The proposed building is three storeys in scale and is out of character with the prevailing two (2) storey streetscape in Denning Street and results in adverse amenity impacts.

 

The proposed non-compliances with the numerical height controls are not supported.  Furthermore, the building is poorly articulated and its visual bulk and massing to the street is exaggerated by the blank 3 storey facade to the northern elevation of Unit 1. 

 

The non-compliance with the numerical height controls potentially impacts upon the ocean views from the study window of Unit 7, No. 58 Denning Street, Coogee.  A detailed view analysis has not been submitted with the DA to demonstrate that the additional wall height sought above the 7m limit does not adversely affect existing views.

 

Clause 4.4 – Building Setbacks

The DCP requires that the front setback be equal to the average of the setbacks of the adjoining dwellings or 6m where there is no adjoining dwelling.  In this regard, the adjoining residential flat building at No. 58 Denning Street has a minimum front setback is 3.29m at it southern corner and the adjoining dwelling at No. 62 Denning Street has a front setback of 5.85m at its northern corner.

 

The proposed building has a minimum front setback of 3.4m and is generally consistent with the front building setback line drawn between the southern corner of No 58 Denning Street, Coogee and the northern corner of No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee.

 

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 minimum side boundary setbacks for the attached dual occupancy are 900mm at ground floor level, 1.5m at first floor level and 3.7m at second floor level.  A minimum rear boundary setback of 6.663m is provided.

 

The proposal has a minimum complies with the side and rear setback controls in the DCP.

 

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.

 

Roof top terraces are proposed above the garages of each dwelling.  A 1.8m high masonry wall is provided along the southern edge of the terraces and is sufficient to prevent overlooking into the private open space of No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee. However, the bulk and scale of these structures would detract from the visual amenity of the adjoining property to the south and also increase overshadowing.

 

Balconies are also provided at the front of Unit 1 facing the street.  Concern was raised in one of the objections that the first floor balcony was adjacent to the bay window of No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee and created opportunity for overlooking and privacy impacts between the two properties.

 

The potential privacy impacts from the street facing balcony is considered to be negligible, however should the DA be capable of being approved, a 1m wide landscape planter could be provided along the southern edge of the first floor balcony.  This would prevent access to the edge of the balcony and to provide some screening between the properties without adding more bulk to the building (ie if a privacy screen were provided).

 

The proposal does not give rise to any adverse visual or acoustic privacy impacts on the adjoining properties which could not be addressed by appropriate conditions of consent as described above.  The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the privacy.

 

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 entrance to each dwelling in the attached dual occupancy is located on the side and is accessed from the shared driveway.  The dwelling entrances are visible from the street and this is satisfactory.  Habitable living areas and balconies face Denning Street and promote passive surveillance of the public domain.

 

The proposal is acceptable with regard to safety and security.

 

Clause 4.7 – Garages, Carports and Driveways

The proposed garages are located in the centre of the site between the two (2) dwellings in the attached dual occupancy.  The garages are accessed from a shared driveway along the northern boundary of the site which has a minimum width of 3m.

 

Two (2) car parking spaces are provided for each dwelling in the attached dual occupancy in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Parking DCP.

 

The garage doors face the side boundary and as such the car parking provided for the dual occupancy does not result in an adverse impact on the streetscape.  The garages have internal dimensions of 5.7m by 5.6m and are sufficient.

 

The proposed car parking for the attached dual occupancy is satisfactory.

 

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.

 

The information submitted with the DA is unclear as to the height and type of fencing proposed.  Nevertheless, should the DA be capable of being approved, a condition of consent could be imposed requiring the front fence to be a maximum height of 1.2m and the side/rear boundary fences to be a maximum height of 1.8m.

 

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.

 

Streetscape impact

The streetscape of Denning Street is characterised by two (2) storey dwellings.  The proposed three (3) storey attached dual occupancy exceeds the height and FSR controls in LEP 1998 and is out of character with the locality and results in an unacceptable streetscape impact.

 

It is noted that the adjoining residential flat building at No. 58 Denning Street is part three (3) and four (4) storeys in scale.  However, this building is complementary or contributory to the streetscape character of the area and is the exception rather than the typical pattern of development in Denning Street and as such, its presence in the streetscape does not justify the proposed non-compliances.

 

View Loss

The proposed attached dual occupancy exceeds the 7m external wall height control by between 2m and 3.2m.  The additional height of the building has a potential impact upon views of the ocean from the study of the adjoining apartment at Unit 7, 58 Denning Street, Coogee.

 

A view impact analysis has not been submitted with the DA and the proposal fails to demonstrate that the views from this window will be substantially maintained.  In the absence of such information, it is considered that the proposed non-compliances with the height controls in LEP 1998 are unacceptable.

 

Overshadowing

The proposal results in a substantial overshadowing impact on the private open space area of No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee.  The DA fails to demonstrate that 3 hours of solar access will be maintained to the private open space of the adjoining dwelling, No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter.

 

The proposal has an unacceptable overshadowing impact which is largely attributable to the excessive height, bulk and scale of the proposal.

 

Visual Privacy

Adequate privacy screening is provided to the roof top terraces above the garages.  A landscape planter could be provided along the southern edge of the first floor balcony at the front of Unit 1 to address the concerns raised by the neighbour about the potential for overlooking from the balcony into the first floor bay window at the front of the property.

 

8.1   Site Suitability

 

The proposed attached dual occupancy development is not suitable for the site and should be reconfigured and reduced in scale.

 

9.    RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:    Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

10. CONCLUSION

 

The heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as of relevance to the application have been taken into account in the assessment of the application.

 

The proposal results in substantial non- compliances with the height and FSR controls contained in Clauses 32 and 33 of LEP 1998 and results in unacceptable impacts on the streetscape and residential amenity of the area, particularly in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing and potential view loss impacts.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.       That Council, as the responsible authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/419/2007 for demolition of the existing dwelling-house and construction of a new part two (2) and three (3) storey attached dual occupancy. at 60 Denning Street, South Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not comply with the 0.5:1 maximum floor space ratio control contained in Clause 32(1) of Randwick LEP 1998 and results in unacceptable amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

2.       The proposal does not comply with the 9.5m maximum building height control contained in Clause 33(1) of Randwick LEP 1998 and results in unacceptable amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

3.       The proposal does not comply with the 7m maximum external wall height control contained in Clause 33(3) of Randwick LEP 1998 and results in unacceptable amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

4.       The proposal does not satisfy objectives (a) and (c) of the 2A (Residential A) zone contained in Clause 10 of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

5.       The height, bulk and scale is out of character with the area and is unsatisfactory with regard to Part 2.3 of Randwick Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

6.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance criteria for floor area contained in Part 4.2 of Randwick Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

7.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance criteria for height, form and materials contained in Part 4.3 of Randwick Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

8.       The proposal fails to maintain a minimum of three (3) hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter to the private open space of No. 62 Denning Street, Coogee and is unsatisfactory with regard to the requirements of Part 3.1 of Randwick Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

9.       The proposal fails to provide 25m2 of useable private open space at ground level behind the front building line for Dwelling 1 and does not comply with the requirements contained in Part 4.1 of Randwick Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

10.     The proposal has potential adverse impacts on the views from the study window of Unit 7, No. 58 Denning Street, Coogee and is unsatisfactory with regard to the performance criteria for view sharing contained in Part 4.3 of Randwick Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SIMON BENNETT

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SPD TOWN PLANNERS

 



 

Director, City Planning Report 121/2007

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

13 BUMBORAH POINT ROAD, MATRAVILLE

 

 

DATE:

28 November, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/53/2007/A & PROP048095

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Section 96(2) - Modification of approved development by extension of female locker area, conversion of storage area to office and alteration to parking at 13 Bumborah Point Road, Matraville.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 10 October 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

10 October 2007

FILE NO:

DA/53/2007/A & PROP048095

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2) - Modification of approved development by extension of female locker area, conversion of storage area to office and alteration to parking.

PROPERTY:

 13 Bumborah Point Road, Matraville

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Australian Customer Service

OWNER:

 Sydney Ports Corporation

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The approved development received Council’s consent on 1 June 2007 for alterations and additions to the existing Australian Customs Service container examination facility. The Section 96 application is seeking development consent to make modifications to the approved development by modifying the northern car park by reducing the number of approved car parking spaces from 119 to 102, convert the use of the first floor storage room to office space and expand the ground floor women’s locker room by 12.7sqm. The application is referred to Council as the original application was determined by Council.

 

The proposal is permissible in the Industrial 4B zone with Council’s consent and complies with the relevant statutory controls in the Randwick LEP 1998. The proposed modifications to the buildings on the site will not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties or detrimentally affect the appearance of the building to the street. The reduction of the approved on-site car parking from 119 to 102 spaces was not initially supported by Council’s Development Engineer however additional information and justification provided by the applicant and applicant’s traffic consultant has been supported as it demonstrates the proposed modifications are unlikely to adversely impact the operation of the site or the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the subject site.

 

Pursuant to Council’s Section 94 plan, the proposed modifications are considered an “expansion” and a condition has been included requiring payment of the contribution prior to construction commencing. The proposal is a Crown Application, requiring concurrence of the Australian Customs Service to the condition of consent. No objection is raised in respect to the condition relating to the Section 94 contribution.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The Section 96 application is seeking to make the following modifications to the approved development:

 

External

-   Modification to the northern car parking area to accommodate the proposed new access driveway (currently under assessment as per development application no.807/2007).

-   Reduction of on-site car parking spaces to the northern car parking from 119 to 102.

-   Increase area of hardstand container storage.

 

Ground Floor – Customs Building

-   Extension to the southern side building to accommodate expansion of the existing women’s locker room (an additional 12.7sqm of floor area).

 

First Floor – Customs Building

-   Conversion of the approved first floor storage space into office space.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Bumborah Point Road, directly opposite the intersection of Friendship Road and Bumborah Point Road. The subject site originally formed part of the land that contained the Bunnerong Power Station and is located within the Port Botany industrial area.

The site is irregular in shape with a frontage to Bumborah Point Road of 155m. The site is relatively flat and has a total site area of 2.66 ha. The site contains existing buildings comprising the Australian Customs Service container examination facility. A substantial part of the site is paved, to provide for manoeuvring and parking of container vehicle and container storage.

The subject site is located close to the existing container handling facilities in Port Botany which are located immediately to the west of the subject site on the opposite side of Bumborah Point Road and on the southern side of Brotherson Dock. The rear of the site to the east is bounded by a very high concrete wall that lines the existing cliff-line separating the former power station from its former administration building off Military road. The rear boundary of the site also abuts the Eastern suburbs crematorium complex to the east.  To the south of the site is vacant land owned by Landcom. To the north is also vacant land and the STA Bus Depot beyond.

The locality predominantly is characterised by port-related industrial uses, namely, container handling, oil tanking, chemical storage and handling, gas storage and container handling, concentrated in the section of Port Botany south of Brotherson Dock.

 

Figure 1 below is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

Figure 1: The subject site (edged in black) and surrounding area.

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

4.1      Application History

 

The Section 96 application was lodged on 26 September 2007 and was notified to the surrounding properties and advertised in the local newspaper for two weeks. No objections were received during this period. The development application was referred internally to Council’s Development Engineer and comments were received that raised concern regarding the proposal’s reduction of on-site car parking and apparent intensification of the use of the site, mainly due to the conversion of first floor storage space into “technical office space”. The Development Engineer stated in his comments dated 16 October 2007 that “the carpark [should] be redesigned to ensure a minimum of 119 spaces is provided as per the existing DA approval. Compliance with the approved DA is suggested due to the lack of on-street parking in surrounding streets, the potential for increase in staff using the site and an overlap in staff shifts due to overtime. Furthermore, there is insufficient argument as to why the carpark cannot be expanded to ensure that 119 on-site spaces are provided.”

 

The applicant provided additional information prepared by its traffic consultant in response to Council’s concerns. This information was received on 16 November 2007 and after a review by Council’s Development Engineer, no further objection was raised.

 

4.2      History of Site Usage

There have been a large number of development applications lodged for this site over the past forty to fifty years, mostly relating to its use for storage and other port related activities. The most recent applications submitted for development on the site includes:

Development No.

Description

Determination

DA/30/1967

Erect bulk liquid storage tank.

Refused 6 June 1967.

DA/170/1967

Erect bulk liquid storage tank.

Refused on 17 October 1967.

DA/436/2002

Subdivision of Part Lot 1 in Lot 103 into two allotments.

Approved on 20 August 2002.

DA/438/2002

Subdivision of one lot into two.

Approved on 20 August 2002.

DA/53/2007

Alterations and additions to existing Australian Customs Service Container Examination Facility.

Approved at Ordinary Council meeting of 22 May 2007.

 

The following development application is currently under assessment:

 

Development No.

Description

Lodgement date

DA/807/2007

New driveway access off Bumborah Point Road to serve the existing Australian Customs facility & installation of associated traffic control measures in the roadway.

26 September 2007.

 

The above development application relates to the car parking to the northern corner of the subject site and is currently under assessment. It is deemed that approval of this Section 96 application will not affect the determination of the above development application relating to the vehicular access off Bumborah Point Road or result in cumulative impacts that may adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans from 3 October 2007 to 17 October 2007. No submissions were received as a result of this notification period.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1      Development Engineers

The application has been referred to the Development Engineer for comment and as noted previously in this report, the parking arrangement on the site and the reduction of approved car parking spaces was not supported. However Council received on 16 November 2007 additional information from the applicant elucidating the issues pertaining to the provision of on-site parking, the requirement for the facility to accommodate for periods during the year when a backlog of shipping containers required on-site storage adjacent to the northern parking area and justification that the parking rate applied by Council (1 space per 40sqm) was not suitable for the Customs facility. After a review of the additional information Council’s Development Engineer concurred that the proposed reduction in the number of approved car parking spaces would not significantly or adversely impact on-site parking for staff or affect the availability of on-street parking in the surrounding road network.

 

As such no conditions or further concerns are raised by Council’s Development Engineer.

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments – S79C(1)(a)

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. 55 - Remediation of Land

-   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 Development Contributions Plan

-   Development Control Plan No. 13 – Bunnerong Power Station Site

-   Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

7.2      Section 96 Amendment – S96(2)

 

7.2.1   Substantially the same

The proposed modifications will involve some relatively minor internal and external works to the Customs building and some other external works to the approved car park to the northern side of the site including some minor modifications to the car parking area located adjacent to the main building. The proposal’s change of use of the first floor storage space to a technical office space will not alter the appearance of the building and the use will remain consistent and compatible with the use of the site.

 

As such the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same as the approved development.

 

7.2.2   Consideration of submissions

No submissions were received during the two week notification period.

 

7.2.3   Modification of Crown development consents - S116F

The proposed modification is a development under Section 116F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (Crown development).

 

A Consent authority, in respect of a development application made by or on behalf of the Crown or a prescribed person, must not:

 

(a)      refuse its consent to the application, except with the written approval of the Minister, or

(b)      impose a condition of its consent, except with the written approval of the Minister or applicant.

 

As the proposed consent for this application will one condition to ensure that the development complies with all controls and relevant standards, these conditions have been referred to the applicant for concurrence. The Australian Customs Service has responded to the draft condition of consent and given its concurrence.

 

7.3      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

The applicant’s environmental consultant, Environ Australia Pty Limited, provided advice during the assessment of the approved development that the site was suitable for its intended use subject to compliance with two site management plans applicable to the site. Conditions were be applied accordingly to the approved development ensure that all works in relation to the proposal will be undertaken in accordance with these site management plans and in doing so meet the requirements of SEPP No. 55. As the works are generally consistent with the approved development and will not involve works that involve significant excavation, no additional conditions are required.

 

7.4      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 4B (Port Botany 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

14 - Zone No 4B (Port Botany Zone)

Any development must comply with the relevant zone objectives. Any development not included in subclause (2) or (3) of this clause is prohibited.

The proposal satisfies the zone objectives and is permissible in the zone.

Complies.

22 - Services

The Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on any land only where it is satisfied that, when relevant to the proposed development, adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal or disposal of sewage and drainage are available to that land.

The proposed modifications will not generate or require any additional services to the site.

Complies.

32 – Floor space ratios

The maximum floor space ratio for buildings within Zone No 4A or 4B is 1:1.

The new floor area to the women’s locker room will contribute an additional 12.7sqm to the site or 0.04% of the site area. The conversion of storage space to technical office use will not add floor space to the site.

As such the approved FSR of 0.32:1 will remain relatively unchanged.

Complies.

36 - Additional development in industrial zones

Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on land within Zone No 4A or 4B for the purpose of business premises, provided subclauses (a) or (b) or both have been satisfied.

The proposal will continue the approved use of the site and will be compatible with the industrial zone.

Complies.

37 - Development in the Port Botany industrial area

The Council may grant consent to the development of land within Zone No 4B only if it is satisfied that the proposed development is, by virtue of the nature of the activity or activities involved, suited to being in close proximity to Port Botany and will not adversely affect the continued operation of the port.

The proposal is considered to maintain the use of the site and will be suited to its close proximity to the Port Botany industrial area.

Complies.

40 - Excavation and filling of land

An application for consent required by subclause (1), the Council must have particular regard to:

(a) the likely disruption of, or detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, and

(b) the effect of the proposed works on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land.

The only works on the site requiring excavation relate to the expansion of the women’s locker rooms (additional 12.7sqm of floor area). The works are minor and will not disrupt drainage patterns or affect the likely future use of the site.

Complies.

40A – Master plans

This clause requires the submission of a master plan for any site with an area exceeding 4000sqm and grant consent only where “the development is not inconsistent with the provisions of that master plan.” Council may “waive the requirement for a master plan, but only if it is satisfied:

(a) That the proposed development is of a minor nature only or is ancillary to the current use of the land, or (b) that adequate guidelines and controls applying to the land are already in place.”

The proposal will make relatively minor amendments to the approved development. Considering that the approved development involved larger scope of works and did not require a master plan, it is deemed that a master plan will not be required to be lodged and the requirements of this clause waived.

The proposed works are ancillary in nature and a master plan is not required pursuant to clause 40A(2)(a).

Complies.

 

7.5 Policy Controls

 

7.5.1   Development Control Plan No. 13 – Bunnerong Power Station Site

Development Control Plan No. 13 – Bunnerong Power Station Site has not been repealed and therefore is still applicable over the subject site.

Development Control

Provided

Compliance

Landscaping at 10m wide provided on all public road frontages to screen industrial development

Submission plans indicate that proposed extension and new carpark will be setback at least 6m from road frontage retaining existing landscaping within the existing setback area. This reduces the setback of the approved development from 10m.

Does not comply, however the proposed car parking area will not become a prominent visual feature on the streetscape.

Industrial development restricted to maximum height of 12m.

The proposed women’s locker room extension will have a maximum height of 3.6m.

Complies.

Shipping containers not to be stacked more than 3 high and not more than 2 high at periphery of site.

Proposal is for building extension to the women’s locker room and conversion of the use of a room within the complex not related to storage of containers. 

Complies.

Applicant to demonstrate that there will be no significant effect on traffic movement in the area.

A traffic study has been prepared generally indicating that traffic impacts of the proposal will be acceptable (see Section 7.5.2 below).

Complies.

Significant adverse noise impact should be avoided including curfew on truck movements between 11pm and 6am.

Proposal is only for operational and administrative uses associated with the existing Container Examination Facility and not industrial uses or container handling or storage.

Complies.

Compliance with risk acceptability criteria.

The proposal relates to operational and administrative uses associated with the existing Container Examination Facility and not the manufacture, handling, and storage of hazardous goods.

Complies.

 

7.5.2   Development Control Plan – Parking

The DCP – Parking states that parking requirements for facilities associated with the port are to be assessed on the basis of transport surveys. A traffic report prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering received by Council on 26 September 2007 has been prepared for the proposal which contains an analysis of the car parking requirements of the combined existing, approved and proposed development in relation to the retained existing and additional new, car parking in the proposed development. The report indicates that the proposed reduction of approved parking spaces from 119 to 102 will not result in any additional car parking impacts to the surrounding areas or the parking availability in the surrounding roads. The parking and traffic report notes that:

 

-   “The total on-site parking supply will increase from 68 to 102 spaces as a result of the proposed development.” This refers to the approved development, not this Section 96 application.

-   “Three distinct parking areas will be provided” and will allocate dedicated spaces for visitors and staff. Thirty four (34) spaces will be allocated to staff and visitors whilst sixty eight (68) spaces will be allocated to the northern corner of the site and will be restricted to authorised staff vehicles only.

-   That Council should “favourably consider this level of on-site parking supply” as it is provided for the Australian Government customs personnel and “should not be compared to a generic office building that can be used by commercial operators as well as the general public.”

-   The additional level of traffic generation as a result of this Section 96 application “equates to a moderately low traffic generation level” that will have “a negligible effect on the performance of nearby intersections and driveways, which will continue to operate at their existing levels of service.”

-   “The surrounding road network can adequately accommodate the subject proposal without the need for any improvements to the nearby key intersections or site driveways.”

 

It should be noted that the traffic and parking study submitted with the approved development established that the combined car parking requirement for the site (i.e., staff and visitors for the existing and proposed development) would be 102 car parking spaces. As such, the approved development provided 119 car spaces on-site which was an excess of 17 car spaces. Accordingly it was considered that proposal provided for adequate car parking on-site.

 

The Section 96 application seeks to not increase the amount of floor area (apart from the 12.7sqm to the women’s locker room) however will alter the use of 352sqm of storage space into an office use, therefore intensifying the use and possibly increasing the parking demands of the site. The DCP – Parking does not provide numerical controls in respect to the use for this site and requires the applicant to provide a parking and traffic study to address potential impacts of a development. Council’s Development Engineer originally expressed concern regarding the proposed reduction in approved parking spaces on the site from 119 to 102 car spaces however following the submission of additional information from the applicant in respect to these initial concerns, the Development Engineer raises no further objection to the proposed modifications to the approved development.

 

7.5.3   Randwick City Council Section 94 Development Contributions Plan

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, the following monetary levy must be paid to Council.

 

Category

Cost

Applicable

Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

$23,960

0.5%

$119.80

Development Cost

More than $200,000

Not applicable.

1.0%

Not applicable.

                                               

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

 

7.6.1   Bulk, Scale and Streetscape

The proposed modifications to the northern car parking site and women’s locker rooms will be relatively minor is scale and will adversely or significantly affect the appearance of the site to Bumborah Point Road or the heritage significant site which adjoins the subject site to the east. The proposal will not add additional building bulk to the site or affect the amenity of the adjoining sites or the streetscape.

 

7.6.2   Operation and Management

Generally the change of the use of the storage room, additional floor area to the women’s locker room, modification to the on-site parking and provision of increased hardstand area for container storage will not significantly alter the use of the site and will not affect the overall operation or management of the site. Egress and ingress to the site will not be affected by the proposal and proposed works will continue the use of the site substantially in accordance with the approved development.

 

As such the proposed modifications are considered compatible for the site are supported.

 

7.6.3   Traffic and Parking

The proposal will affect the approved parking spaces by a reduction of 12 spaces and potentially increase the parking demand of the site by conversion of a 352sqm storage room into a technical office space. As noted above in Section 7.5.2 of this report, the reduction of approved on-site parking spaces is supported by the applicant’s traffic consultant and the potential increase in on-site parking as a result of the change in use will be accommodated by the proposed modification to the on-site parking.

 

The applicant, in response to the Development Engineer’s initial concerns regarding the reduction in on-site parking, provided additional justification and information focussing upon the proposal’s reduction of on-site parking from 119 to 102 spaces. The main reason for the reduction in on-site parking is to allow space for storage of shipping containers that are required to be inspected by Customers staff. Whilst the site generally can accommodate with the generally modest amount of shipping containers that are stored temporarily, the applicant claims that there are times throughout the year where an overflow of containers is experienced and additional space on site is required for the storage of the containers while the backlog is reduced. The applicant’s traffic consultant in an email received by Council on 9 November 2007 provided the following justification regarding the reduction of the approved number of on-site parking spaces:

 

“The Traffic and Parking Assessment lodged with development application DA/53/2007 included a table identifying the staff that may be on the premises at any one time. It includes details of staffing levels during the shift changeover period, however does not include provision for annual leave, which for Customs shift workers is five (5) weeks, meaning an average of 10% of staff are on leave at any one time. It also does not include provision of the possible extra staff in the converted office area.

 

The worst case scenario, between 13:30 and 14:30 the maximum number of parking spaces required is 90, increasing to 94 on Wednesday’s. This requirement is only for an hour per day, the shift changeover period, and the next largest requirement is 65. These scenarios provide a parking space for every staff member on duty and the supply of 102 spaces would still provide ample overflow for visitors and other ad hoc requirements. Extra attendance due to overtime could not reason in a larger attendance than that experienced due to the shift changeover.

 

Customs is aware of the environment that surrounds our facility at Bumborah Point Road and acknowledges the lack of on street parking and the difficulties many staff encounter in attempting to access the premises by public transport. It is not Customs intention to restrict access to parking for the staff employed on this facility. Customs is also concerned with the efficient operation of the facility and the aim of the proposal is to retain additional area on the current hardstand, where the majority of parking spaces are to be located, to temporarily stand containers awaiting examination in busy periods. By providing 102 parking spaces Customs believes we have sufficiently catered to the needs of staff without unnecessarily impeding the operations of the facility.

 

The Development Engineer states there is insufficient argument as to why the carpark cannot be expanded to ensure 119 spaces are provided on site. There is sufficient space on the hardstand to provide 119 spaces. However, as mentioned above to provide this number of spaces would impact upon Customs ability to temporarily stand containers awaiting examination when busy periods may cause backlogs. Customs does not wish to be placed in a position of having a parking area never fully utilised, whilst trying to find alternative storage areas to stand containers for a few hours to overnight whilst backlogs are cleared.  

 

Customs acknowledge the Council Development Engineers reasoning for the requirement for 119 parking spaces, however we believe that in providing 102 parking spaces we have sufficiently catered for the requirements of the facility. The operations of the Customs facility are very different to the operations of a business premises and access to people other than Customs staff is restricted. Access to the parking areas will also be restricted by physical barriers. The provision of parking spaces has been determined by the actual requirements of the facility and Customs request that Council reconsider the recommendation to provide 119 parking spaces.” 

 

Further to this information, the applicant stated in an email sent to the assessing officer on 16 November 2007 that:

 

“The purpose of reducing the car parking area is to provide more area to store containers, as most of what is currently used is to be lost. It is not possible to use other areas of the hardstand for temporarily storing containers for the following reasons:

-   Containers stand at the door of the examination warehouse whilst being unpacked/repacked;

-   The containers are delivered/returned on B Double trucks through the access at Golden Grove Road and sufficient space is required to enable these vehicles to access through the site;

-   There is a security fence inside the facility to restrict access to the site from Golden Grove Road to authorised vehicles only;

-   Part of the hardstand is used for the transfer of containers from trucks to the examination warehouse by a mobicon, mobile container lift. This also happens in reverse when containers are transferred back to trucks for return from the facility.

 

For these reasons the only place to temporarily stand containers is in the area immediately adjacent the proposed car parking area. I would also like to reiterate that Customs is not a container storage facility. The purpose of this area is to provide an area to stand containers where backlogs or increased workload require containers to be held awaiting examination or for return after examination. Containers may only be held there for a number of hours, it would be unusual to stand any more than twenty four hours.”

 

Considering this information, which was also provided to Council’s Development Engineer, it is evident that proposed reduction in the number of approved car parking spaces would not adversely impact upon the ability for the site to cater for parking for staff and visitors. It is considered that the applicant’s traffic consultant and the applicant have provided appropriate and sound justification in respect to the proposed modifications related to the on-site parking provisions of the Section 96 application. It is deemed that the proposed reduction in on-site parking from 119 to 102 will not adversely impact the functioning of the site or create additional pressure on the availability of on-street car parking spaces.

 

As such the modifications to the on-site parking are supported.

 

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

The proposed modifications will have a positive social and economic impact primarily as a consequence of the increased employment opportunities that will be available from the diversification of the use of the subject site and from the overall development of infrastructure in the subject site.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to present a positive social and economic impact within the site and locality.

 

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

The subject site is located within Port Botany and is zoned for industrial port-use (Industrial 4B). The subject site has an approved Container Examination Facility which the proposal seeks to make relatively minor modifications through changes to the northern on-site car parking area, women’s locker rooms and first floor storage space. In this context, the subject site is suitable for the proposed development.

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

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans from 3 October 2007 to 17 October 2007. No submissions were received as a result of this notification period.

 

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

The proposed modifications are consistent with the zoning of the subject site and will strengthen the role of Port Botany by facilitating continued container examination services and other Customs support services in the port sector. It will also provide increased employment opportunities both locally and in the wider Sydney Region. As a consequence, the proposal will have a positive social and economic benefit and is considered to be in the wider public interest.

 

8.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8:  A Strong Local Economy

The proposal will continue to promote a vibrant and secure port industrial sector through improved employee facilities and diversifying the use of the site through technical office space which additionally will provide ongoing and diverse economic and employment opportunities.

 

Direction 8a & associated key action: Industrial land within our City supports a range of industries and employment opportunities.

The proposal will diversify the use of the site through additional technical office space and further strengthen the economic base of the port which will in turn support a broader range of local businesses and employment.

 

9.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10. CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible in the Industrial 4B zone with Council’s consent and complies with the relevant statutory controls in the Randwick LEP 1998. The proposed modifications to the buildings on the site will not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties or detrimentally affect the appearance of the building to the street. The proposal will reduce the amount of approved on-site car parking however it has been appropriately justified by the applicant that the reduction will not adversely impact the site’s ability to provide for staff parking and will not impact upon availability of on-street car parking spaces in the vicinity of the subject site. The subject site is located at a significant distance from residential properties and will therefore have no amenity impacts on any residential properties. The proposed modifications are considered an “expansion” under Council’s Section 94 contributions plan and a condition has been included requiring payment of the contribution prior to construction commencing. The proposal is a Crown Application, requiring concurrence of the Australian Customs Service to the condition of consent. No objection is raised in respect to the condition relating to the Section 94 contribution.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     That Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.DA/53/2007/A for modification of the approved development by extension of female locker area, conversion of storage area to office and alteration to the on-site parking at 13 Bumborah Point Road, Matraville in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 01 to DA 07 stamped received by Council on 23 January 2007, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans drawn by Jack Taylor Architects, numbered S96101 received by Council on 12 October 2007, S9602, S9604 and S96104 and received by Council on 26 September 2007, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

Add the following condition

The following condition is applied to meet additional demands for public facilities;

 

71.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, the following monetary levy must be paid to Council.

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

$23,960

0.5%

$119.80

Development Cost

More than $200,000

Not applicable.

1.0%

Not applicable.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to commencement of works. The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Director, City Planning Report 122/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

5-9 WOLSELEY ROAD, SOUTH COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

3 December, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/426/2007/A & PROP010358

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Section 96(2) Modification of approved development by increasing the size of the gym/studio building on the northern side of the site.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 26 November, 2007;

2.  Peer Review Report prepared by Stuart McDonald dated 28 November 2007

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO 

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

26 November, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/426/2007/A & PROP010358

 

PROPOSAL:

  Section 96(2) Modification of approved development by increasing the size of the gym/studio building on the northern side of the site.

PROPERTY:

 5-9 Wolseley Road, South Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Cardy & Company Pty Limited

OWNERS:

 Mrs I A Sussman and Mr R P Sussman

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Chris Bastic, Dominic Sullivan and Alan White.

 

The original Development Application for the construction of a new part two and part three storey dwelling house including garages, associated excavation and landscaping was approved under delegated authority on 31 August 2007 subject to conditions. Condition No. 2 requires the northern wall of the gym/pottery studio building to be reduced by 2 metres, measured from the eastern edge of the wall, and the roof supporting post on the north-eastern corner of the building is to be constructed of timber with dimensions matching the supporting posts on the southern side of the building to minimise the extent of view loss from the northern adjoining dwelling at No. 3 Wolseley Road. Condition 3 further requires that

 

It should be noted that the inclusion of Condition 2 was a result of a public consultation process involving the owners of Nos. 3 and 5-9 Wolseley Road and all parties have agreed to the wording of Condition No. 2.

 

The subject Section 96 application was lodged on 31 October 2007 which seeks  consent to increase the size of the approved gym/pottery studio building located on the northern side of the site including new excavation below pottery studio level to accommodate a new meditation studio. The proposed modifications provide approximately 93.47sqm of additional floor area.

 

The proposal was notified to the surrounding properties for 14 days and one (1) submission was received from the owners of the northern adjoining dwelling house at No. 3 Wolseley Road during this period. The main issues raised in the objection were view loss from No. 3 Wolseley Road, adverse visual privacy impact and alignment with existing setbacks in relation to existing properties.

 

The proposal fails to comply with the preferred solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP in respect to floor space ratio, side setback and visual privacy. The assessment of the application reveals that the proposed additional floor area and the failure to maintain the rear building alignment at lower and upper ground floor levels of the northern adjoining dwelling are the main contributing factors to the view loss.

 

The reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, has been assessed using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council proceedings. The assessment of the proposal in accordance with the four step process established in the proceedings has demonstrated that the proposal is unreasonable in terms of its identified view impacts on No. 3 Wolseley Road and that a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same or greater development potential and amenity than that offered by the proposal while at the same time reducing the impact on views from No. 3 Wolseley Road to a more reasonable and acceptable level.

 

The assessment of the subject Section 96 application was peer reviewed by Stuart McDonald who has concluded that the “relevant conclusions and reasons for refusal are considered to be reasonable and appropriate”. A copy of the Peer Review report prepared by Stuart McDonald is attached to this report.

 

The proposed modifications will result in a detrimental impact to the amenity of the northern adjoining property at 3 Wolseley Road and does not address the impact of the quality of the views enjoyed by the adjoining northern neighbour. The additional bulk of the modifications have not been mitigated or ameliorated through a more skilful design and as such the proposal fails to address the cumulative and detrimental impact that the modifications will have to the amenity of the northern adjoining

property. In addition, the proposal also conflict with the intention of Condition No. 2 of the original consent which require the northern wall of the gym/pottery studio building to be reduced to minimise the view loss from No. 3 Wolseley Road.

 

The recommendation is for refusal subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

 

The application seeks consent to modify the original development consent by increasing the size of the approved gym/pottery studio building located on the northern side of the site including excavation below pottery studio level to accommodate a new meditation studio. The proposed modifications provide approximately 93sqm of additional floor area.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Wolseley Road between Rainbow Street and Market Street in South Coogee and is presently vacant. The site consists of two separate Torrens Title allotments and has a combined frontage width of 27.13m, a maximum side boundary depth of 51.4m and an overall site area of 1,282m².  The site has a steep topography falling away from the front boundary by approximately 13m to the rear boundary of the site.

 

Neighbouring the property to the north is a multi storey dwelling house (No. 3 Wolseley Road), to the south is a two storey brick and timber dwelling house (No. 11 Wolseley Road) and to the east (rear) is the Coastal Walk and the South Pacific Ocean. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of two and three storey dwelling houses. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

 

4.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The original Development Application for the construction of a new part two and part three storey dwelling house including garages, associated excavation and landscaping was approved under delegated authority on 31 August 2007 subject to conditions. Condition No. 2 requires the northern wall of the gym/pottery studio building to be reduced by 2 metres, measured from the eastern edge of the wall, and the roof supporting post on the north-eastern corner of the structure is to be constructed of timber with dimensions matching the supporting posts on the southern side of the building to minimise the extent of view loss from the northern adjoining dwelling at No. 3 Wolseley Road.

 

It should be noted that the inclusion of Condition 2 was a result of a public consultation process involving the owners of Nos. 3 and 5-9 Wolseley Road and all parties have agreed to the wording of Condition No. 2.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans.  As a result of this notification, one (1) submission was received from the owners of 3 Wolseley Road.

 

 

 

 

5.1 Objections

Issue

Comment

The proposed increase in the gym/studio/meditation area on the north boundary of the property which has a significant impact (eliminates) our “iconic views’ to the south. It completely eliminates our ‘iconic views’ from our main internal living area, and the external outdoor living area. It also completely eliminates ‘iconic views’ from the sitting area and main bedroom, both designed to take in the views whilst maintaining the existing setbacks in relation to existing properties.

It is acknowledged that the proposed modifications will adversely affect the views currently attained from No. 3 Wolseley Road. An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 10.3 of this report.

We question the proposed amendment in relation to the setback from the rear boundary, the foreshore building lines and alignment with existing setbacks in relation to existing properties.

Whilst the proposal complies with the preferred solutions of the DCP in relation to rear setback and foreshore building lines, the approved building will be extended further than the existing rear building alignment of 3 Wolseley Road at lower and upper ground floor level and is considered to be a contributing factor to the view loss.

The proposed amended development puts into question our privacy relative to the indoor and outdoor living areas, sitting room/main bedroom the pool and surrounds.

It is acknowledged that the proposed deck adjacent to the gym will have the potential to overlook the rear yard of 3 Wolseley Road.

The proposed 1.8m wall on the northern boundary was to stop at the commencement of our glass balustrade, as agreed by the owner.

The construction of the 1.8m high fence on the side boundary is permissible without Council’s consent under the Development Control Plan for Exempt and Complying Development.

In the Statement of Environmental Effects it states “Given the approval of the landscape plan relating to the approved DA and the zone of the noted “Tuckeroo” trees shown on the plan, the extent of the eastern limit of the gym/studio building wall subject to this application is irrelevant, as it is within the tree zone”. We believe this is an inaccurate statement, and if true would have an objection to such planting, expecting any planting to be of such that would enable the view to be maintained.

It should be noted that the applicant’s claim that the landscape plan was approved as part of the original Development Application is completely false. Condition 60 of the original development consent not only requires the landscaping on the site to be designed to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties, a landscape plan is also to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the construction certificate being issued.  

We direct Council to the already approved plans and conditions dated 31 August 2007 that were agreed by the owners and ourselves.

As noted previously, the inclusion of Condition 2 was a result of a public consultation process involving the owners of Nos. 3 and 5-9 Wolseley Road and all parties have agreed to the wording of Condition No. 2.

We draw council’s attention to the Benchmark case in the Land and Environment Court on sharing of views “Tenacity Consulting v Waringah 2004 NSWLEC 140 judgement 04.07.2004. Which in part states. Assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views are valued more highly than partial views e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one which is obscured. The view from our property fit the LEC definition (interface between land and water) this proposal would eliminate our views. 

As noted above, an assessment of view loss using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 10.3 of this report.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

No referrals required as the comments provided by the technical officers for the original Development Application are still applicable. 

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

·             Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

·             Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·             Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1 Substantially the same

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

 

In respect to the above requirement, it is considered that the development, the subject of the Section 96(2) application, is fundamentally and materially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.

 

9.2 Consideration of submissions

 

The issues raised by the objector have been addressed in Section 5.1 above.

 

10. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

 

10.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP)

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A and is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following Clause of the LEP 1998 applies to the proposal:-

 

Clause 10 – Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone)

 

     The objectives of Zone No. 2A are:

 

a)       to maintain the character of established residential areas. And

b)       to allow a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents and 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.

 

The proposal modifications will increase the bulk and scale of the approved gym/pottery studio building and will affect the views currently attained from the northern adjoining dwelling at No. 3 Wolseley Road. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be unreasonable as the relevant objective of Zone No. 2A (i.e. objective c)) will not be achieved.

 

Clause 29 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

Clause 29 of Randwick LEP 1998 requires the consideration of the aesthetic qualities of any development within the foreshore protection area.  It is not considered that the proposed modifications will result in any adverse impact on the aesthetic quality of the foreshore area in that the overall design of the gym/pottery studio building will be compatible with the approved dwelling on the site.

 

10.2    Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies (DCP)

 

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

 

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposal provides 65.38% of the site as landscaped area. Complies.

S1

A minimum of 25m² of useable private open space is to be provided.

The approved private open space remains unaltered.

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The private open space is located in the rear yard.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

The proposal provides approximately 34.01% of the site as soft landscaped area. Complies.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1 applies. 

The proposal has a FSR of 0.56:1. Does not comply – See assessment below. 

 

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

 

A summary of the non-compliance is provided below:

 

Site Area:                                                                               1,282.3m²

Maximum allowable FSR:                                                 0.5:1 or 641.15m²

Approved FSR:                                                            0.49:1 or 625.23m²

Proposed FSR:                                                              0.56:1 or 718.7m²

Area exceeding maximum allowable FSR:                        0.06:1 or 77.55m²

Area exceeding approved FSR:                                            0.07:1 or 93.47m²

 

The break down of the additional floor areas relating to the gym/pottery studio building is as follows:

 

 

Approved Floor Area (m²)

Proposed Floor Area (m²)

Additional Floor Area (m²)

Semi-basement Level (Meditation Studio)

-

42.1

42.1

Lower Ground Floor Level (Pottery Studio)

15.67

39.12

27.92

Upper Ground Floor Level (Gym)

16.5

44.42

23.45

TOTAL

32.17

125.64

93.47

 

As indicated above, the proposed modifications will increase the approved FSR of 0.49:1 to 0.56:1, which does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP. The proposal represents 93.47 sqm of additional floor area, while 42.1 sqm of this area is located within the semi-basement level, the remaining area (i.e. 51.37 sqm) is distributed to the lower and upper ground floor levels of the gym/pottery studio building and is considered to be excessive as these additional areas will extend the approved building further east and will adversely affect the views currently attained from the northern adjoining dwelling house at No. 3 Wolseley Road and would also conflict with the intention of Condition No. 2 of the original consent which require the northern wall of the gym/pottery studio building to be reduced to minimise the view loss from No. 3 Wolseley Road. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal fails to satisfy the objective and performance requirement of the DCP and should not be supported as the additional bulk will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling at No. 3 Wolseley Road.

 

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution/Performance Requirement

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The amended building has a maximum external wall height of approximately 5.8 metres. Complies

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

The proposal involves excavation of up to 2.8m in depth. Does not comply.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

The proposed excavation is 900mm from the northern side boundary.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable.

P6

Buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views.

See assessment in Section 10.3 below.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

Not applicable.  

S2

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

The proposal is setback a minimum of approximately 12m from the rear boundary. Whilst the proposal complies with the preferred solution of the DCP, the approved gym/pottery studio building will be extended further than the existing rear building alignment of 3 Wolseley Road at lower and upper ground floor level and is considered to be a contributing factor to the view loss. 

S3

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

The proposed lower ground level (i.e. pottery studio) is setback a minimum of 900mm from the northern side boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed upper ground level (i.e. gym) is setback a minimum of 900mm from the northern side boundary. It is considered that the variation is minor and is unlikely to result in any adverse impact on the amenity of the northern adjoining property.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

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

S1

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

The privacy of the northern adjoining dwelling will be affected as the proposed deck on the eastern side of the gym will have the potential to overlook into the rear yard area including the swimming pool of No. 3 Wolseley Road

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Not applicable.

 

Foreshore Development

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

As noted previously, whilst the proposal complies with the foreshore building line, the approved gym/pottery studio building will be extended further than the existing rear building alignment of 3 Wolseley Road at lower and upper ground floor level and is considered to be a contributing factor to the view loss.

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

It is not considered that the proposed modifications will result in any adverse impact on the aesthetic quality of the foreshore area in that the overall design of the gym/pottery studio building will be compatible with the approved dwelling on the site.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

Complies.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

As noted previously, the proposal does not incorporates sufficient setback or respect the rear building alignment of the northern adjoining dwelling and will have an intrusive impact on the view enjoyed from the northern adjoining dwelling house at 3 Wolseley Road.

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

Not applicable.

 

10.3    View Sharing

 

The applicant was requested to erect height poles on the subject site to allow a better understanding of the view-related impacts of the proposed modifications on the existing dwelling house at 3 Wolseley Road, to the immediate north of the site. The following photos show the views currently available from the rear ground floor terrace, upper ground floor balcony and master bedroom of 3 Wolseley Road across part of the subject site.

 

Approximate outline of the proposed building

 

Photo 1: View from the rear lower ground floor terrace looking southeast over part of the subject site

 

Approximate extent of the approved northern wall (i.e. reduced by 2m as required by Condition 2 of the original development consent)

 

Approximate location of the approved roof supporting post.

 

Approximate outline of the proposed building

 

Photo 2: View from the study area (part of the master bedroom) at the upper ground floor level looking southeast over part of the subject site

 

Approximate outline of the proposed building

 

Photo 3: View from the rear upper ground floor level balcony looking southeast over part of the subject site

 

The DCP contains the following Performance Requirements relating to view sharing:

·                Performance Requirement P6 under Part 4.3 Height, Form and Materials of the DCP requires that “buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”.

 

·                Performance Requirement P2 under Part 4.4 Building Setbacks of the DCP requires that “building forms and setbacks allow neighbours adequate access to natural light and a share of views and preserve established trees and vegetation and be generally consistent with the setback of adjoining properties.”

 

·                Performance Requirement P4 under Part 4.9 Foreshore Development of the DCP requires that “buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow planting and a fair sharing of views.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No. 3 Wolseley Road currently enjoys 180 degree views to the northeast, east and southeast directions. The available views can be described as follows:

 

North-eastern Views:

·        View of Trenerry Reserve and surrounds.

·        View of the Wedding Cake Island.

·        View of the headland of Honeycombe Bay.

·        View of South Pacific Ocean.

 

Eastern Views:

·        View of the headland of Honeycombe Bay.

·        View of South Pacific Ocean.

·        View of the coastal walkway.

 

South-eastern Views:

·        View of the southern part of headland of Honeycombe Bay.

·        View of the headland of Mistral Point.

·        View of South Pacific Ocean.

·        View of the existing dwelling houses along the waterfront.

 

The views obtained from the rear of the existing dwelling house at No. 3 Wolseley Road are considered to be highly valuable, insofar as they relates to iconic view (i.e. Wedding Cake Island) and views of the interface between land and water.

 

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

 

As noted previously, views from No. 3 Wolseley Road are currently available from the side and rear of the existing dwelling house at all levels. The views can be attained from standing or sitting position. The proposal will affect the standing/sitting views across the southern side boundary from the rear of No. 3 Wolseley Road. It is acknowledged that the affected views are across the southern side boundary of the site, however, it is considered that the extent of the impact could be minimised through a more skilful design and a development that respects the established rear building alignment of the existing dwelling houses in the surrounding area.

 

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

 

It is considered that the extent of view loss is devastating as the existing views towards the south-eastern direction from the majority of the rear upper ground level balcony and master bedroom of 3 Wolseley Road will be completely blocked by the proposed modifications.

 

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

 

As noted previously, the proposal does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP in respect to floor space ratio for the subject site. The additional bulk to the approved gym/pottery studio building and the failure to respect the rear building alignment of the northern adjoining dwelling are clearly the contributing factors to the view loss.

 

Having regard to the above assessment, and in the absence of any other identifiable constraints, it is considered that the proposal is unreasonable in terms of its identified view impacts on No. 3 Wolseley Road. Considering the size of the subject site and the opportunity exist to distribute the additional floor area or setting the gym/pottery studio building back to maintain the rear building alignment of the northern adjoining dwelling, it is considered that a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same or greater development potential and amenity than that offered by the proposal while at the same time reducing the impact on views from No. 3 to a more reasonable and acceptable level.

 

10. PEER REVIEW

 

The assessment of the subject Section 96 application was peer reviewed by Stuart McDonald who has concluded that the “relevant conclusions and reasons for refusal are considered to be reasonable and appropriate”. A copy of the Peer Review report prepared by Stuart McDonald is attached to this report. 

 

11. 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.

 

12. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

13. CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development involving modifications to the approved gym/pottery studio building associated with a dwelling house will result in a detrimental impact to the amenity of the northern adjoining property at 3 Wolseley Road and does not address the impact of the quality of the views enjoyed by the adjoining northern neighbour. The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in respect to floor space ratio and visual privacy. The additional bulk of the modifications have not been mitigated or ameliorated through a more skilful design and as such the proposal fails to address the cumulative and detrimental impact that the modifications will have to the amenity of the northern adjoining property. In addition, the proposal also conflict with the intention of Condition No. 2 of the original consent which require the northern wall of the gym/pottery studio building to be reduced to minimise the view loss from No. 3 Wolseley Road.

 

The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/426/2007/A & PROP010358 for  Section 96(2) Modification of approved development by increasing the size of the gym/studio building on the northern side of the site. at 5-9 Wolseley Road, South Coogee for the following reasons:-

 

1.     The proposal is inconsistent with the objective of the Residential 2A zone as stated in Clause 10(1)(c) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the proposed modifications will adversely affect the amenity of the northern adjoining dwelling house at 3 Wolseley Road.

 

2.     The proposal will adversely affect the views currently attained from the northern adjoining dwelling at 3 Wolseley Road and is inconsistent with the performance requirements of Part 4.3.3 (P6), Part 4.4.2 (P2) and Part 4.9.4 (P4) of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies which requires the building to be designed to allow a fair sharing of views.

 

3.     The proposal involving the increase in floor area is inconsistent with the objective and performance requirement of Part 4.2 “Floor Area” of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies insofar that it will have an intrusive impact on the view enjoyed from the northern adjoining dwelling house at 3 Wolseley Road.

 

4.     The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and performance requirements of Part 4.5 “Visual and Acoustic Privacy” of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the proposed deck at the eastern side of the gym level will have the potential to overlook the rear yard area and will reduce the existing level of privacy of the northern adjoining dwelling house at 3 Wolseley Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

1.     Peer Review report prepared by Stuart McDonald, dated 28 November 2007

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 



 

Sydney                                                                                      Melbourne

Level 2, 490 Crown St                                                                 Level 1, Building D

Surry Hills NSW 2010 Australia                                            80 Dorcas St

T 02 9380 9911                                                                  South Bank VIC 3006 Australia   

F 02 9380 9922                                                                  T 03 8648 3500

                                                                                                 F 03 8648 3599

sjb.com.au

planning@sjb.com.au

                                                                                             

5-9 Wolseley Road, South Coogee – D0426/2007/A

 

Peer Review – 28 November 2007

 

 

 
Introduction

 

SJB Planning has been commissioned by Randwick City Council to undertake an independent peer review of the Council assessment of a s96 modification application to D0426/2007.

 

The application is described as:

 

Modification of approved development by increasing the size of the gym/studio building on the northern side of the site.

 

This report reviews the Council’s assessment of the s96 modification application, considers the relevant planning controls applying to development of the site and relevant Planning Principles established by the Land and Environment Court relating to Views and Assessment of Height Bulk and Scale.

 

This report does not provide a full assessment of the s96 application but concentrates on a review of the assessment of the major impacts arising from the modification application.

 

Information

 

The information relied upon in preparing this report includes:

 

·                DA drawings DA101 to DA603 , revision B, dated 26.2.07, prepared by jpr architects Pty Ltd, accompanying DA/426/2007;

·                Development Application Notice of Determination for DA/426/2007, dated 31 August 2007;

·                Statement of Environmental Effects dated 25.10.07 and drawings DA200 – S96 to DA351 – S96, revision C, dated 26.2..07, prepared by jpr architects Pty Ltd, accompanying modification application D0426/07A;

·                Development assessment report by Director City Planning, dated November 2007;

·                Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998;

·                Randwick Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies;

·                Land and Environment Court of NSW judgement 10996 of 2003, Tenacity Consulting v Warringah;

·                Land and Environment Court judgement 10095 of 2007, Veloshin v Randwick Council.

 

We undertook a site inspection and visit to the neighbouring property at No. 3 Wolseley Road on Friday 23 November 2007.

 

Development application D0426/2007

 

The original DA was for the construction of a new part two and part three storey dwelling house including garages, associated excavation and landscaping.

 

Development consent was issues on 31 August 2007, subject to a number of conditions. Of relevance to this matter are the following conditions:

 

Condition 2: The northern wall of the gym/pottery studio structure is to be reduced by 2 metres, measured from the eastern edge of the wall, and the roof supporting post on the northern-eastern corner of the structure is to be constructed of timber with dimensions matching the supporting posts on the southern side of the gym/pottery studio structure.

 

Condition 3: At no time shall any screening devices be placed or erected on the northern side of the deck adjacent to the gym. The glazing to the deck balustrade shall be clear/transparent glass.

 

Condition 60: Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of City Development, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

We understand that the imposition of the above conditions, and in particular, conditions 2 and 3, arose from:

 

·                The receipt of written objection(s) from the adjoining property owners at 3 Wolseley Road relating to unacceptable view loss; and

·                The Council’s assessment concluding that the impact on views was unacceptable.

 

We have been advised by Council officers that Condition No. 60 was imposed in order to ensure that landscaping on the site is properly planned and managed (appropriate species, plant/tree heights etc) in order that it does not result in view loss to No. 3 Wolseley Road – the key issue specifically addressed through the building design amendments already identified by Condition Numbers 2 and 3

 

Modification application D0426/2007A

 

The modification application seeks to increase the size of the approved gym/pottery studio component of the building located on the northern side of the site, in close proximity to the neighbouring property and building at 3 Wolseley Road. The proposal includes:

 

·                New excavation below the proposed pottery studio level, in order to accommodate  a “meditation studio” of 42.1 m2, identified on the application drawings as the “undercroft” level;

·                An increase in the size of the previously proposed (and conditioned)  pottery studio level, by 27.92 m2 (from 15.57 m2 to 39.12 m2), and movement of the structure to the east, identified on the application drawings as lower ground level;

·                An increase in the size of the previously proposed (and conditioned) gym by 23.45 m2 (from 16.5 m2 to 44.42 m2) and movement of the structure and associated deck, to the east, identified on the application drawings as upper ground level;

·                Introduction of a new planter at the eastern edge of the extended deck.

 

The overall increase in gross floor space arising from the modification is 93.47 m2.

 

The location and height of the additional works is best represented by the photographs included in the Council’s assessment report. We have not undertaken any independent measurements and have relied on both the accuracy of the poles erected on the site, by the applicant, and the interpretation provided by the Council officers.

 

The modification application was notified to adjoining properties, resulting in one written objection received from the adjoining owners at 3 Wolseley Road. The grounds of objection are summarised in the Council’s assessment report.

 

Assessment against development controls

 

·              The relevant Local Environmental Plan is Randwick LEP 1998.

 

Comment

 

There are no numerical development standards in the RLEP that are applicable to development on the subject site.

 

The assessment report identifies the instrument, the zoning, zone objectives and relevant provisions of the instrument. The report concludes that the proposal is inconsistent with objective c) of the residential 2A zone.

 

In our opinion it is reasonable to conclude that the proposal, given the extent of view loss, and the nature of the view loss, is inconsistent with Zone 2A objective c). The particulars relating to view loss are discussed in more detail later in this report.

 

·         The relevant Development Control Plan is Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Comment

 

The performance based and numerical standards for dwelling houses are detailed in the DCP. This report concentrates only on areas of non-compliance, accepting compliance with other controls, as identified in the Council’s report.

 

·         Floor Area

 

The assessment report accurately identifies the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solution, being a FSR of 0.5:1.

 

It is a reasonable conclusion for the Council to make that, given the impact of the proposal on the adjoining property at No 3 Wolseley Road, the proposal does not comply with the performance requirements that building bulk “must minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours …”

 

The major impact, identified in the Council assessment report, is view loss. The nature and scale of the view loss is detailed adequately in the report.

 

Our opinion is that there is not adequate justification for the additional floor space in the proposed location on the site, given the impact on the adjoining neighbour at No.3.

 

·         Building setbacks

 

The assessment report accurately identifies the performance requirements and preferred solutions relating to building setbacks.

 

The Council report, in assessing  the impact on views, concludes that performance requirements under Part 4.4 of the DCP are not met. In our opinion this is a reasonable conclusion to make, given the impact on the neighbour at No. 3.

 

·         Height, form and materials

 

Again, the relevant provisions are outlined in the Council report. In our opinion it is a reasonable conclusion to make that the proposal does not meet the objective “To ensure buildings allow a sharing of views.”

 

·         Foreshore development

 

Again, the provisions are accurately outlined in the Council report. In our opinion it is reasonable to conclude that the proposal does not comply with performance requirement P4 “Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow planting and a fair sharing of views.”

 

·         Visual and acoustic privacy

 

The provisions are adequately outlined in the Council report. In our opinion it is reasonable to conclude that proposed deck on the eastern side of the gym will have the potential to overlook the rear yard and swimming pool of No. 3

 

Assessment against Planning Principles

 

The Land and Environment Court (LEC) has established a Planning Principle regarding views, arising from Tenacity v Warringah Council.

 

The assessment report identifies the Planning Principle, including the 4 step process for assessment.

 

In our opinion the Council’s report reasonably concludes that the proposal is not consistent with the Planning Principle regarding views established by the Land and Environment Court.

 

From our assessment of the view loss impact, conducted from the neighbouring property at No. 3, views to the south and south east, including the interface between land and water and views of Mistral Point headland, will be lost. This loss will occur when seated and standing in the living area and kitchen at the lower ground floor of No. 3, as well as from upper levels.

 

We acknowledge that the views are across the side boundary and subject property. Balanced against this is the fact that the impact results directly from non-compliance with planning controls, as identified in the Council’s report.

 

In our opinion, the conclusion drawn in the Council’s report, that the a more skilful design could potentially meet the applicant’s desires at the same time as reducing the impact on views to No. 3, is reasonable. The subject site is very large, with extensive unbuilt upon areas proposed, further to the west on the site.

 

The LEC has established a further Planning Principle regarding the assessment of Height, Bulk and Scale, arising from Veloshin v Randwick Council.

 

“Planning principle: assessment of height and bulk

 

· The appropriateness of a proposal’s height and bulk is most usefully assessed against planning controls related to these attributes, such as maximum height, floor space ratio, site coverage and setbacks. The questions to be asked are:

 

Are the impacts consistent with impacts that may be reasonably expected under the controls? (For complying proposals this question relates to whether the massing has been distributed so as to reduce impacts, rather than to increase them. For non-complying proposals the question cannot be answered unless the difference between the impacts of a complying and a non-complying development is quantified.)
How does the proposal’s height and bulk relate to the height and bulk desired under the relevant controls?

 

Where the planning controls are aimed at preserving the existing character of an area, additional questions to be asked are:

 

Does the area have a predominant existing character and are the planning controls likely to maintain it?

Does the proposal fit into the existing character of the area?

 

Where the planning controls are aimed at creating a new character, the existing character is of less relevance. The controls then indicate the nature of the new character desired. The question to be asked is:

 

Is the proposal consistent with the bulk and character intended by the planning controls?

 

Where there is an absence of planning controls related to bulk and character, the assessment of a proposal should be based on whether the planning intent for the area appears to be the preservation of the existing character or the creation of a new one. In cases where even this question cannot be answered, reliance on subjective opinion cannot be avoided. The question then is:

 

Does the proposal look appropriate in its context?

 

Note: the above questions are not exhaustive; other questions may also be asked.”

 

In our opinion the second, third and fourth dot points are not directly relevant to this matter. In relation to the first dot point, we are of the opinion that the Council assessment report should consider this part of the Planning Principle. This comment is made particularly in light of additional comments contained in the relevant judgement ”that impacts that flow from non-complying parts of a building should be assessed more strictly than those that flow from complying parts …………. because the impacts of complying development are expected and likely to be accepted by neighbours.

 

We are of the opinion that the proposal is inconsistent with the LEC Planning Principle regarding Height, Bulk and Scale.

 

Further amendment

 

We have been advised by Council officers that the applicant has recently proposed to setback the proposed building structure (s96 application) approximately 1.5 m to the west in order to address the view loss impact to No. 3.

 

In order to make a full and thorough assessment of such an amendment it will be necessary to erect height poles and to revisit No.3. Notwithstanding this, based on the information available at the moment, including detailed photographs taken by both the Council and us, it is possible to provide an indication of the likely acceptability of the 1.5 m setback.

 

In our opinion the setback would allow views to the south and south-east, including the distant headland and land/water interface, from the eastern edge of the lower ground floor terrace adjacent to the living area in No.3. Views from the living area and kitchen and from the bedroom study area on the next level above would still be significantly and unacceptably impacted.

 

Conclusion

 

In our opinion the relevant development controls and associated assessment criteria have been adequately covered in the Council’s assessment report. The report should include reference to, and assessment against, the Planning Principle, identified above.

 

The conclusions and reasons for refusal are considered to be reasonable and appropriate. A further reason for refusal may arise from the Council’s consideration of the additional LEC Planning Principle.

 

 

Stuart McDonald

Director SJB Planning

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 123/2007

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

200 - 210 ARDEN STREET, COOGEE  

 

 

DATE:

29 November, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/156/2005/D & PROP017563

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIREC