Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 25 March 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

25 March 2008

 

 

 

 

18 March 2008

 

 

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, 25 March 2008 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the 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 Randwick and Australia.

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the 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.”

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 February 2008

 

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

Address of Council by Members of the Public

 

Mayoral Minute

MM8/08     Maroubra Development Carnival - Des Renford Aquatic Centre - Waiving of the Fees  

 

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

 

 

 

 

Urgent Business

 

Director City Planning Reports

CP4/08      161 - 163 Arden & 112-114 Beach Streets, Coogee

CP5/08      32-42 Barker Street, Kingsford

CP6/08      11 Roberts Avenue, Randwick

CP7/08      198-200 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

CP8/08      1-9 Pine Avenue, Little Bay

CP9/08      Draft Administrative Local Environmental Plan 2008

CP10/08    Local Orders & Local Approvals Policy

CP11/08    A New Framework for Council's Combined Grants Program - Building a Stronger and Vibrant Community Funding Program  

 

General Manager's Reports

GM4/08     Affixing of the Seal

GM5/08     Management of Maroubra Senior Citizens Hall

GM6/08     Draft Community Consultation Principles and Planning Guide  

 

Director City Services Reports

CS6/08      Fibro Fragments (Asbestos Issue)

CS7/08      Matraville Toilet Options

CS8/08      Concept Design for the Upgrade of Mahon Pool Facilities

CS9/08      Refurbishment of Randwick Branch Library: Status Report

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF7/08      Amendment to 2008 Council & Committee Meeting Schedule

GF8/08      Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy - Councillors Contributing into Super

GF9/08      Internal Reporting System - Protected Disclosures Act

GF10/08    Review of Customer Compliments & Compliants Policy

GF11/08    Financial Operations Policies

GF12/08    Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy

GF13/08    Sewerage / Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy

GF14/08    Investment Report- February 2008   

 

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM2/08     Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Belleli - Beautifying Bunnerong Road (Botany - Maroubra Roads)

NM3/08     Notice of Motion by Crs Tracey, Sullivan, Andrews, Bastic, Daley, Procopiadis & White - Independent Hearing Assessment Panel

NM4/08     Motion Pursuant to Notice by Crs Tracey, Sullivan, Andrews, Bastic, Daley, Procopiadis and White - Political Campaign Donations

NM5/08     Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Matson - Opposition to State Government Plans to Sell Off the State's Electricity System

NM6/08     Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Matson - Maroubra Beach Urban Design Review

NM7/08     Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Matson - Aircraft Emissions over Coogee Beach and Randwick City

NM8/08     Motion Pursuant to  Notice by Cr Matson - Response to Wollongong Scandal

NM9/08     Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Woodsmith - Anti Social Behaviour  

 

Confidential

CS10/08    T02/08 - Randwick Coastal Walkway Upgrade - Bunya Parade South Coogee

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

CS11/08    Organisational Structure Review - City Services

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (a) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

 

GF15/08    Sale 222-232 Storey Street, Maroubra

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

NR1/08      Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Procopiadis, Sullivan & Tracey - Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 February 2008 - Item CP1/08 - Development Application Report - 75 Todman Avenue, Kensington

NR2/08      Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors White, Andrews and Tracey - Works Committee  - 11 March 2008 -  Item W4/08 - Naming of Reserve known as Barwon Park, Matraville as James Matra Park.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council

25 March 2008

 

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM8/08

 

 

Subject:                  Maroubra Development Carnival - Des Renford Aquatic Centre - Waiving of the Fees

Folder No:                   F2006/00108

Author:                   Councillor Notley-Smith, Mayor     

 

 

Introduction

 

Council has received a request for assistance from Mr Greg Baxter, Secretary, Maroubra Swimming Club, who is staging the Maroubra Development Carnival on Sunday, 25 May 2008 at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre. Council has also received a letter from MS Yvette Rutherford, President, Maroubra Swimming Club, for a donation of $3,000 to buy a number of urgent items to assist the club’s operations.

 

Issues

 

The Maroubra Development Carnival is a competitive swimming event that attracts over 250 athletes and 450 spectators from 27 Swimming Clubs across Sydney. The primary goal in staging this carnival is to raise funds for Maroubra Swimming Club to support ongoing activities at Des Renford Aquatic Centre.   A donation of $3,000 would be used to buy a number of urgent items to assist the club’s operation, the items are listed below:

 

·      Tent                                                                    $1,500.00

·      6 Wireless Stop Watches @ $150.00                          $   900.00

·      Apparel and Accreditation Courses                            $   600.00 

  TOTAL:                                                                              $3,000.00

 

An assessment of the applicable fees to be waived are as follows:

 

§ Pool Hire Fee    Maroubra Development Carnival           $   660.00

§ Donation for urgent items                                        $3,000.00

            TOTAL:                                                                $3,660.00

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

Should Council accept the recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $3,660.00 to be funded from the Council’s Contingency Budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The Maroubra Development Carnival is a worthwhile local community event which provides income to Des Renford Aquatic Centre in the form of ‘secondary’ spend and entrance fees for spectators during one of the quietest income generating months of the year. This event is the annual fundraiser for the Maroubra Swimming Club and provides the Club with an opportunity to raise funds for its ongoing activities at Des Renford Aquatic Centre and is an opportunity for swimmers to compete against their peers. 


 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council vote to waive the $660.00 to cover pool fees for the Maroubra Development Carnival to be held on Sunday, 25 May 2008 and a $3,000.00 donation to buy associated items of expenditure.

 

b)     Maroubra Swimming Club undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution, prior to and during the event (by Council logo being prominently displayed on all promotional materials such as flyers, newspaper advertisements, etc,).

 

c)     the Mayor or the Mayor’s representative be given the opportunity to address the      event on behalf of Council.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council

25 March 2008

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP4/08

 

 

Subject:                  161 - 163 Arden & 112-114 Beach Streets, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/1011/2007

Author:                   Stuart McDonald, Director SJB Planning     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing buildings at 161-163 Arden Street & construction of 4-5 storey multi-unit housing development comprising of 8x2 bedroom units & demolition of existing buildings at 112-114 Beach Street & construction of a new 4 storey multi-unit housing development comprising of 1x1 bedroom unit and 5x3 bedroom units with basement parking for 17 vehicles

 

Ward:                      East Ward

 

Applicant:                ABC Planning

 

Owner:                         Era Home Units Pty Limited

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.      Executive Summary

 

The application involves the demolition of an existing dwelling house at 163 Arden Street, an existing multi-unit housing building at 161 Arden Street and an existing multi-unit housing building at 112-114 Beach Street, Coogee, and the erection of replacement multi-unit housing buildings fronting Arden and Beach Streets, as outlined below. The Beach St building proposed for demolition has in fact been demolished, pursuant to another consent that relates to that individual site.

 

The proposed development, while offering some positive attributes and some potentially improved physical relationships with immediate neighbours in Arden Street, also results in some unacceptable external impacts on adjoining properties, in part resulting from non-compliance with the Council’s key planning controls. Due to the non-compliance with planning controls, the lack of adequate car parking and the potential impact on adjoining properties, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

The application is the subject of a deemed refusal appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

 

2.      The Proposal

 

The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing buildings at 161-163 Arden Street and construction of a 4-5 storey multi-unit housing development comprising of 8 x 2 bedroom units and the demolition of the existing buildings at 112-114 Beach Street and construction of new 4 storey multi-unit housing development comprising of 1 x 1 bedroom unit and 5 x 3 bedroom units with basement parking for 17 vehicles. The multi unit housing buildings will have the following apartment mix:

 

Level

Apartments

161-163 Arden Street - 8 x 2 bedroom units in total

Lower ground floor

1 x 2 bedroom

Ground floor

2 x 2 bedroom

First floor

2 x 2 bedroom

Second floor

2 x 2 bedroom

Third floor

1 x 2 bedroom

112-114 Beach Street - 1 x 1 bedroom, 5 x 3 bedroom units in total

Ground floor

1 x 3 bedroom, 1 x 1 bedroom

First floor

1 x 3 bedroom, 1 x 3 bedroom

Second floor

1 x 3 bedroom

Third floor

1 x 3 bedroom

Total

14 units in total = 1 x 1 bedroom unit, 8 x 2 bedroom units and 5 x 3 bedroom units

 

3.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is comprised of three sites, two sites on Arden Street and one site to Beach Street (henceforth referred to as ‘the site’). The site is located between Arden Street and Beach Street and is presently occupied by three existing buildings. The site has an irregular shape that zigzags along the southern boundary in particular and slopes significantly from the street frontage to the rear boundary from Arden Street while the Beach Street side of the site is relatively flat.

 

The site has a frontage width of 23.5m to Arden Street a 12.19m frontage to Beach Street, a northern side boundary depth of 100m and a southern boundary depth of 99m. The Arden Street side of the site has a rear boundary width of 22m and a rear boundary width of 12.19m to the Beach Street side of the development. The Arden Street side of the site has a site area of 829sqm and the Beach Street side of the site has a site area of 604sqm providing for a total site area of 1433sqm. The Arden Street side of the site does not feature any existing vehicular access and includes the dominant sandstone wall that stretches on both sides of Arden Street.

 

Neighbouring the property on each property boundary are a mix of multi-unit housing buildings and residential flat buildings constructed circa 1950 to 1970. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of residential flat buildings. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Figure 2 is a photograph of the subject site from Arden Street and Figure 3 is a photograph of the subject site from Beach Street.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 2: The subject site from Arden Street.

 

4.      Site History

 

4.1      Site History

Previous applications for development on the site include:

i.       161 Arden Street

 

No relevant applications.

 

ii.      163 Arden Street

 

Development No.

Description

Determination

BA/816/1983

Swimming pool

Approved in 1983

BA/936/1991

New deck to dwelling

Approved on 19 September 1991

DA/401/1994

First floor addition to existing dwelling

Approved on 28 September 1994

BA/241/1995

Alts and adds to dwelling from  J Torre

Approved on 10 May 1995

iii.     112-114 Beach Street

Development No.

Description

Determination

DA/108/2004

Alterations and additions to the existing multi-unit development to create a new unit on the roof creating a 3rd storey and new roof terrace, excavate basement to provide 5 new car spaces and a new lift at the rear.

Approved on 4 June 2004

DA/724/2004

Partial demolition and reconstruction of the existing multi-unit development to include 3x3 bedroom dwellings and 4x2 bedroom dwellings and excavation to provide basement car parking for 4 vehicles including new balconies and terraces and render building.

Withdrawn on 12 April 2005

DA/743/2006

Demolish existing building and construct a new four storey multi-unit development comprising of 6 dwellings and basement car parking for 10 vehicles (including 2 car stackers).

Approved on 10 August 2007

 

4.2      Application History

The applicant submitted a pre-lodgement application on 24 September 2007. The pre-lodgement advice sent to the applicant advised on a number issues, including the importance of the proposed development to comply with the numerical controls in the Randwick City Council Local Environmental Plan 1998 (‘the LEP’) especially landscaped area, building height and floor space. Also included in the pre-lodgement report was the advice that the issue of on-site parking be explored to ensure the proposal did not create adverse pressures on the availability of on-street car parking spaces in the surrounding road network.

 

The development application was lodged on 22 November 2007 and was advertised in the Southern Courier and notified to the surrounding properties from 5 December 2007 to 17 December 2007. At the conclusion of the notification and advertising period 21 objections were received that raised a number of issues that ranged from the numerical non-compliance of the proposal with Council’s relevant controls contained in the  Local Environmental Plan 1998 (‘the LEP’) and Development Control Plan - Multi-unit housing, privacy impacts, impacts on existing views, increased traffic issues and pressure for on-street parking spaces and the potential impacts of the development to the structural integrity of surrounding properties.

 

Figure 3: The subject site from Beach Street.

 

5.      Community Consultation

 

The owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development and the application advertised in the Southern Courier newspaper in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans.  As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

5.1      Objections

 

Joss Stewart – 5 and 6/101 Beach Street, Coogee

Warwick and Anne Thompson – 5/19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

Marion Riordan – 8/159 Arden Street, Coogee

Joanna Lunzer – 4/21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

Rob Barausch – 2/23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

Anthony Bowen and Kate Smith – 2/159 Arden Street, Coogee

Pelagia Kambas and Kalliope Venson – 165 Arden Street, Coogee

Sian Welch and Jane McMillan – 4/174 Arden Street, Coogee

Lindy Anne Roston per Mary T. Roston – 4/159 Arden Street, Coogee

Vinod Sanjani and Jyoti Thakkar – 15/120 Beach Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The use of car stackers is a poor substitute for providing on-site parking as they are slow, will break down and as such will encourage future occupants of the building to park on the street.

There is no opposition to the concept of a car stacker, although it is acknowledged that, due to their nature, the process of entering and exiting a basement is longer and more involved.

The single vehicular egress and ingress on Beach Street will create additional traffic volume and will make the area more congested with traffic particularly during Summer months.

The volume of traffic generated by the development is capable of being adequately absorbed within the existing street system.

The proposed “box-like” design of the proposal is incongruous with the “existing built environment and scenic coastline.”

The building design has been reviewed by the Council’s independent design review panel and although generally acceptable requires considerable refinement.

Basement car parking will affect the structural integrity of surrounding buildings and is unnecessary as there is “efficient public transport is nearby in Arden St.”

Building controls in relation to excavation are capable of being imposed. Any excavation will be subject to dilapidation surveys of adjoining properties before and after the work.

The proposal will reduce the availability of low-cost rental accommodation in the area.

There will be a change is the nature of residential accommodation but the new accommodation is consistent with what is generally allowable – albeit that it should comply with the Council’s planning controls.

The proposed development exceeds the upper limits of the FSR controls contained in the LEP and does not adhere to the purpose of the control.

The departure from the FSR control is not supported, as discussed in the report.

The short fall in on-site parking will adversely affect the amenity and enjoyment of the area for surrounding residents.

The lack of on-site parking is an issue of concern, as discussed in the report.

The proposed terraces and placement of bedroom windows will reduce visual and acoustic privacy of the neighbouring properties to both north and south..

The impact of some of the terraces and balconies is considered unacceptable, as discussed in the report.

The location of the pool is inappropriate as other dwellings in the area will be able to look down into the pool. The swimming pool will also generate noise and severely impact the amenity at 2/159 Arden Street.

The potential impacts may be capable of being addressed. In the event of an approval, conditions of consent may be included the hours of use of the pool, although at this stage it is considered that more information is required regarding the pool and its physical relationship with adjoining properties, particularly in Bream St.

Operation of the car stackers will generate noise impacts to the nearest residential dwellings.

Car stackers are becoming more common in new residential developments on constrained sites and may be considered acceptable depending on the circumstances and the potential for external impacts. Any approval that includes a car stacker would need to be conditioned to ensure no unacceptable noise impacts to neighbours and future residents.

The proposed development will adversely affect the views enjoyed of the coast and ocean.

Potential view impacts are discussed in the report.

Proposed swimming pool will be source of noise to surrounding residents.

If approved, the use of the pool may be subject to conditions limiting hours of use. Notwithstanding this, inadequate information has been provided regarding the physical relationship of the pool with adjoining sites.

 

John Buchanan – 83 Beach Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The development application “is so faulty as not to constitute a development application at all.” The applicant ABC PLANNING is a business name and not a company and does not include an ACN a and as such the development application “remains inchoate and inoperative.”

The Council has accepted the application as being validly lodged.

The Beach Street development “laughs at the LEP standards for height and density and the DCP requirements for frontage and side clearances.”

The areas of non-compliance with the Council’s planning controls are acknowledged in the report.

The proposed parking layout does not comply with the relevant Australian Standards.

The total parking provision is 17 spaces and of these 17 spaces the vast majority, (12 spaces / 70%), are provided in a car stacker arrangement.  The Development Engineering Team is generally not supportive of the use of car stackers in the numbers proposed. The car park also relies on a mechanical turntable at the western end of the travel aisle. The use of mechanical car stackers and turntables, combined with the fact that the parking provision for 161 – 163 Arden Street is wholly contained within 112-114 Beach Street, significantly reduces the convenience level of the car park. Car parks that are not convenient tend to create additional demand for on-street car spaces.

The proposed development will reduce the availability of affordable housing in the area.

There will be a change is the nature of residential accommodation but the new accommodation is consistent with what is generally allowable – albeit that it should comply with the Council’s planning controls.

“The quantum of parking spaces is far less than is required by Council’s code” and the provided spaces are too “small and awkward.”

The lack of on-site parking is an issue of concern, as discussed in the report.

 

John, Georgia and Paree Tragoustis and C. Economy – 25 Arcadia Street, Coogee

Vicky Mayer and Michael Stephens – 3/23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

Elaine Mayer – 3/23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposed development will significantly affect views to the west and east. A view impact analysis has not been included with the DA.

Inadequate information has been provided by the applicant in relation to the impact on properties in Arcadia St. The application may have the potential to impact on existing views enjoyed from some nearby properties.

The short fall in on-site parking will adversely affect the amenity and enjoyment of the area for surrounding residents.

The lack of on-site parking is an issue of concern, as discussed in the report.

The fourth floor of the developments “leads to excessive wall heights, insufficient parking, impact on views and excessive bulk and scale.”

Non-compliance with some of the Council’s planning controls is considered to contribute to some external impacts, as discussed in the report.

The proposal will have an adverse impact to the view obtained from the foreshore area and is not consistent with the objectives of Cl. 29 of the LEP.

See above comment.

 

Phil Everingham – 3/21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposed external wall height will significantly affect views to the coast that will be moderate to severe when applying the Tenacity vs Warringah L&E Court planning principal. As such support of the SEPP 1 objection for height should not be supported.

See comments above relating to this issue.

The short fall in on-site parking will adversely affect the amenity and enjoyment of the area for surrounding residents.

See comments above relating to car parking.

The proposed development is not compatible with the character of the area.

Multi-unit housing buildings, consistent with the Council’s planning controls are considered acceptable in the location.

The proposal will have an adverse impact to the view obtained from the foreshore area and is not consistent with the objectives of Cl. 29 of the LEP.

See comments above relating to view impacts.

 

James Nagle on behalf of the owners corporation of SP33093 – 159 Arden Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The large terraces to units 2,4,6 & 8 will have a severe detrimental acoustic and visual privacy impact on  the amenity and use of rear balconies at No 159 Arden St and the location of the corner windows to bedroom 1 of units 4, 6 and 8 (Arden St building) will adversely affect privacy.

The potential privacy impacts from some terraces and balconies are considered unacceptable, as discussed in the report.

The owners at the rear of 159 Arden Street will lose views to “landscaping within Dunningham Reserve and water glimpses.”

See comments above in relation to view loss.

The proposed development exceeds the upper limits of the FSR and building height controls contained in the LEP and does not adhere to the purpose of the controls. The proposed bulk and scale will adversely impact the surrounding area.

Non-compliance with height and FSR controls are considered unacceptable as discussed in the report.

The proposed setbacks of the proposal do not comply with the DCP requirements and will not “integrate with the desirable characteristics of the established streetscape.”

Proposed setbacks, in some instances, are considered inadequate, given the potential impacts, as discussed in the report.

The short fall in on-site parking will adversely affect the amenity and enjoyment of the area for surrounding residents.

Agreed. See comments above relating to car parking.

Does not adequately respond to the provisions of the SEPP 65 Residential Flat Code.

Agreed. See comments in the body of the report.

 

Sandra Sullivan – 5/159 Arden Street, Coogee

Sally Smith – 1/159 Arden Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The short fall in on-site parking will adversely affect the amenity and enjoyment of the area for surrounding residents.

Agreed. See comments above relating to car parking.

The proposed development exceeds the upper limits of the FSR and building height controls contained in the LEP and does not adhere to the purpose of the controls. The proposed bulk and scale will adversely impact the surrounding area.

Non-compliance with height and FSR controls are considered unacceptable as discussed in the report.

The proposed setbacks of the proposal do not comply with the DCP requirements and will “create unacceptable privacy issues for the residents of 159 Arden Street.”

Proposed setbacks, in some instances, are considered inadequate, given the potential impacts, as discussed in the report.

The proposal will significantly affect views of the ocean, coastline and headland.

See comments above in relation to view loss.

 

R. Gillies, T.S. Hance and Robert Thorburn on behalf of the owners corporation SP11696 – 110 Beach Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposed FSR of the development will detrimentally affect coastal and ocean views.

See comments above and in the report relating to view loss.

The short fall in on-site parking will adversely affect the amenity and enjoyment of the area for surrounding residents.

Agreed. See comments above relating to car parking.

Potential for excavation and construction to cause damage to 110 Beach St building.

In the event of an approval, conditions regarding construction approach and dilapidation survey are capable of addressing this issue.

 

Andrew Dempster and Claire Crawford – 4/85A Bream Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposed development will further adversely impact the solar access to the objector’s living spaces, especially in the winter months.

The extent of possible unacceptable overshadowing is not considered to include properties in Bream St.

 

Paul Comyn – 93a Bream Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposed pedestrian link between the Arden Street and Beach Street sites will generate noise and affect the privacy of the objector’s rear private open space which abuts this pathway.

There is a lack of adequate information provided with the application regarding the physical relationship of this central area of the overall site, and the adjoining sites, particularly in Bream St.

Inadequate details regarding pool area to determine potential privacy impacts

Agreed. There is insufficient information regarding the physical relationship with adjoining properties, particularly in Bream St.

 

The proposed balconies will adversely impact upon visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The potential privacy impacts from some terraces and balconies are considered unacceptable, as discussed in the report

 

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

 

General Comments

The plans submitted with the development application do not adequately describe the proposal and it is difficult to fully examine the plans given that insufficient detail has been provided at the interface between 161-163 Arden Street and 112-114 Beach Street. The SEE has indicated that it is proposed to consolidate the site however the plans have basically been prepared as 2 separate development applications with limited “linkage” across the respective sites.

 

There are many examples of discrepancies in the various plans submitted. For example the garage floor plan for 112-114 Beach Street, (drawing number 02F), makes reference to a rainwater storage area at the western end of the car park whereas the hydraulic plans do not show this storage area.

 

6.1.1   Traffic Comments

 

Parking Provision

Parking provision required under Council’s DCP-Parking

5 x 3 Bedroom Units = 5 x 1.5 = 7.5 spaces

1 x 1 Bedroom Unit = 1 Space

8 x 2 Bedroom Units = 8 x 1.2 = 9.6 spaces

Visitor Spaces = 1 space per 4 dwellings = 14 x 0.25 = 3.5 spaces (carwash bay can be visitor space)

 

Total Spaces Required = 22         Total Spaces Provided = 17

 

Bicycle Parking required is 1 space per 3 units, plus 1 visitor space per 0 - 10 units = (14 x .33) + 1.4 visitor spaces.

Bicycle Parking Provided = 0

 

Bicycle Parking Shortfall 6 spaces

The proposed development is therefore 5 car spaces deficient, (>20% of calculated required parking provision) and the Development Engineering Team does not support parking shortfalls of this magnitude. The reasons for the parking deficiency have not been adequately examined although reference is made to the presence of a sewer line between the properties. The parking deficiency is likely to increase demand for on-street parking in Beach Street, Arden Street and other streets in the vicinity of the development site.

 

Car park Layout/Car Stackers/Turntable.

The applicant proposes to provide all parking for the development within the existing boundaries of 112-114 Beach Street. The total parking provision is 17 spaces and of these 17 spaces the vast majority, (12 spaces / 70%), are provided in a car stacker arrangement.  The Development Engineering Team is generally not supportive of the use of car stackers in the numbers proposed. The car park also relies on a mechanical turntable at the western end of the travel aisle. The use of mechanical car stackers and turntables, combined with the fact that the parking provision for 161 – 163 Arden Street is wholly contained within 112-114 Beach Street, significantly reduces the convenience level of the car park. Car parks that are not convenient tend to create additional demand for on-street car spaces.

 

Vehicular Entry/Exit Point

The proposed vehicular entry/exit point for the development site is in Beach Street and the applicant proposes to utilise the arrangement approved for DA 763/2006. The approved arrangement was only a clear width of 3.3 metres (approximately) and the gradients did not comply with as 2809.1-2004. Approval for the driveway was given on the basis that there were only 6 units and that Council wanted to maximise the level of onsite parking, (this is why some discretion was granted for the internal driveway gradients). The new proposal is for a 14 unit development and it is considered that the applicant should revisit the vehicular entry/exit point with a view to meeting the relevant design criteria in AS 2890.1-2004. The minimum clear width of the driveway could remain as 3.0 metres, (with 2 x 300mm kerb sections) and still be compliant with AS 2890.1-2004 Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. The driveway gradients however, will require a significant redesign to comply with AS 2890.1-2004 and this redesign is likely to reduce the amount of on-site car parking, (if the length of the ramp is extended to reduce the grades for the first 6m into the property the visitor space/ carwash bay will be difficult to access). It should also be noted that the stormwater drainage concept plan shows a stormwater pipeline positioned against the southern wall of the internal driveway. This pipeline further reduces the clear width of the driveway opening.

 

6.1.2   Drainage Comments

 

The development consent for DA 763/2006 includes the following drainage condition:

 

On-site stormwater detention is not required for this development however the stormwater discharge from the site is not to exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm.

 

The applicant’s hydraulic consultant for the current development application was advised of the above requirement for 112-114 Beach Street and was also advised that Council would seek to limit flows from 161-163 Arden Street to a similar level. The stormwater plans do not indicate compliance with Council’s requirements.

 

As referenced above, the stormwater plans propose to install a pipeline along the southern wall of the car park. This pipeline potentially reduces the clear width available for the internal driveway and, depending on the level of the pipeline, may impact on the circulation aisle.

 

6.1.3   Landscape Comments

Council’s Landscape Development Officer has inspected the application and the development site and is of the opinion that there are no significant issues associated with the proposed development.  Standard landscape conditions would be applied should Council consider approving the application.

 

The submitted landscape plans contain a satisfactory level of treatment and detail, but further clarification would be required on any proposal to ‘link’ the rear of 161-163 Arden Street with 112 Beach Street, with any planted areas nominated over basement to be clearly represented.

 

6.2      Environmental Health

No objection is raised to the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent, in the event of an approval, Conditions would include acoustic standards to be met.

 

6.3      Building services

No objection is raised, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions in the event of an approval. Conditions deal with management of excavation, demolition and construction.

 

7.      Environmental Assessment

 

The site and surrounding area has been inspected, including inspections from some objector’s properties, 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

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. 55 - Remediation of Land

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

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

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-   Development Control Plan – Multi-unit housing

-   Development Control Plan – Parking

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

-   Randwick City Council Section 94 Development Contributions Plan

-   Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy 2005

-   Randwick City Council Rainwater Tanks Policy

-   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 may be included with any development consent.

7.1.2   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

i.       SEPP 1 objection to Clause 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Floor space ratio

Clause 32 of LEP 1998 states that the maximum permissible floor space ratio (FSR) for a site in excess of 700sqm, located within the Residential 2C zone, is 0.9:1. The proposal is for a FSR of 1.1:1. The non-compliance is in the order of 286.6sqm.

A SEPP 1 objection has been lodged by the applicant to address this issue of non-compliance.

The assessment of the SEPP 1 has regard to the questions asked by Senior Commissioner Lloyd in the Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council NSW Land and Environment court case of 2001. Commissioner Lloyd asks the following questions in assessing a SEPP 1 objection:

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

Clause 32 of the LEP as amended is expressed as a numerical control and as such is a development standard.

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

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

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?

Sections 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act state the following objects of the Act:

(a)    to encourage:

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

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

These objects are very broad, but nonetheless encompass the proposer management and development of resources for the purpose of promoting a better environment and the promotion of the orderly development of land.

The proposed development, in its current form, is not considered to be consistent with the aims of the Policy, and would tend to hinder the objects specified in the EP&A Act.

The Arden Street building is not considered acceptable due to impacts of the bulk and scale, which arise directly from non-compliance with the development standard. The unacceptable impact, in terms of bulk and scale along Arden Street, and in particular, relative to 159 Arden St, arises from the non-compliance with the FSR control, combined with inadequate front and northern side setbacks.

 

While there has been an effort to “sink” the building in order to minimise the height and bulk, and so minimise impacts such as loss of views, the fact is that the combined exceedance of both wall height and FSR controls results in a building of greater bulk and scale than that envisaged by the controls.

 

The Beach Street building does not comply with the FSR control, and this additional floor space, spread across both buildings in the proposed development, does play a role in the height of the building and the impact on views, as well as the bulk and scale issues mentioned above.

 

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

Compliance with the development standard is considered both reasonable and necessary in this case, given the unacceptable impacts arising from non-compliance.

Compliance will reduce the potential external amenity impacts.

Fifth, is the objection well founded?

In summary, the applicant makes the following points of objection:

·      A compliant development would not provide the units with a desired level of internal amenity.

·      There are no adverse impacts arising from the non-compliance.

·      Proposal will significantly improve the streetscape and solar access to the southern neighbour.

·      The floor space excess will not be responsible for any significant loss of views or outlook from surrounding properties.

·      Landscaping vastly exceeds the requirements.

·      Will be no visual or aural privacy impacts.

·      Will not result in adverse shadowing impacts.

It is not considered that the points raised by the applicant adequately demonstrate that departure from the development standard is justified. There are some direct impacts that can be attributed to the level of non-compliance. These are discussed further in the report.

ii.         SEPP 1 objection to Clause 33 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Building heights

Clause 33 of LEP 1998 states that the maximum height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C is 12 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level and that maximum height for any external wall of a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C is 10 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

In relation to the Arden Street building the proposal complies with the maximum 12m height limit however exceeds the maximum external wall height by approx. 800mm at the north western corner of the site and 1.5m near the centre of the building. A SEPP 1 application has been lodged to address this issue of non-compliance.

In relation to the Beach Street building the maximum building height is 13.4m, a non-compliance with the control by 1.4m. The maximum wall height is 12.7m, a variation of the control of 2.7m

The assessment of the SEPP 1 objection is consistent with the questions asked by Senior Commissioner Lloyd in the Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council NSW Land and Environment court case of 2001. Commissioner Lloyd asks the following questions in assessing a SEPP 1 objection:

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

Clause 33 of the LEP as amended is expressed as a numerical control and as such is a development standard.

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

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

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?

 

Sections 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act state the following objects of the Act:

 

(a)  to encourage:

 

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

(ii)   the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

As mentioned above, the objects of the Act are broad, but nonetheless go to the proper management and development of resources and the orderly development of land.

In relation to the Beach Street building, the Council, in granting development consent, including upholding a SEPP1 objection to the maximum building height and maximum wall height development standard, to DA 743/2006, for a building of the same height and scale as that now proposed, has accepted that the height is acceptable. While the current application must be separately and objectively assessed, the existing consent is a reality and must be acknowledged.

In relation to the both the Arden Street building, and the overall development as a whole, the development, due to potential impacts, would not be consistent with the aims of the Policy, and would tend to hinder the objects specified in the EP&A Act for orderly and economic use of the land.

When the extent of non-compliance, and associated impacts, arising from both buildings is considered, there is scope for potential amendments to both buildings, not just the Arden St building, in order to meet the objective of the development standard.

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

Comments are provided above in relation to the Beach Street building. It is acknowledged that there may an argument that, in relation to that component of the development, that compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary.

In relation to the Arden St building, non-compliance with the maximum wall height development standard does contribute to the bulk and scale of the building, and when combined with the FSR non-compliance, contributes to some unacceptable impacts on adjoining properties. Compliance with the maximum wall height development standard is not unreasonable or unnecessary in this case.

The fact is that both buildings constitute the totality of the application, and compliance with the standard may require amendment to both buildings.

Fifth, is the objection well founded?

As a result of the impacts arising from the non-compliance it is not considered that the objection is well founded.

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

The buildings have been strata subdivided and as such SEPP 10 is not applicable, in accordance with Clause 6(2)(c) of the SEPP.

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

The site has not been identified as including any contaminated land or having sustained any previous uses which may have resulted in contamination.

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.

 

The proposed works fall under SEPP 65 and as such the application was referred to the Design Review Panel meeting of 3 March 2008. The Panel’s comments are included below.

 

i.          SEPP 65 Design Review Panel Comments

 

1.   Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The proposed development is for the construction of 8 two-bedroom apartments on a steep section of Arden Street near Coogee Beach. The two buildings that the proposed development would replace are undistinguished. 

 

At the site’s frontage, the footpath is separate from and raised above the carriageway of Arden Street by a substantial sandstone wall, which is a prominent feature in the locality.  This condition would make access to parking from that street exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.  The proponent therefore proposes to provide additional parking within an extended basement on a connected site at 112 Beach Street to the east for which they hold an approved, but as yet unexercised, DA for new apartments.  A Section 96 Application for this site will need to accompany this formal DA, and the consents linked to the satisfaction of Council.

 

The formal DA will need to include a clearer description of the context.  The applicant acknowledges this.  Until it is provided it will not be possible to be certain about the proposal’s impact on views, the relationship to adjoining ground levels, existing trees and the like.  Prima facie the proposal appears to be acceptable in this respect and it is largely within the prescribed heights.

 

The proposed building does not appear to have adverse effects on the properties to either side of it and may well improve conditions for the building to the south.

 

2.   The Scale of the Proposal

 

This is satisfactory.

 

3.   The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The minor infringements of height and setback identified should not adversely affect neighbours.

 

4.   The Proposed Density

 

Provided that the minor exceedence of the FSR (4%) does not adversely affect neighbours, the proposed density is satisfactory.

 

5.   Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

All apartments would enjoy cross ventilation and the opportunity exists for the provision of appropriate solar control devices in the developed design.

 

There are adequate opportunities for the provision of rainwater storage on site.

 

6.   The Proposed Landscape

 

The establishment of appropriately scaled landscape in the garden area between the two sites (strong, but not view blocking) would bring benefit to the surrounding properties.

The design of the linking pathway, with the possibility that it could be lightly covered and lit in a way that will not disturb the neighbours, will be important. Its detailed levels, retaining construction, shelter and accessibility all need to be thoroughly considered.

The DA will need o be accompanied by landscape plans by a Landscape Architect.

 

7.   The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The apartments are well planned and would offer a high level of amenity to their occupants.  Further explanation or consideration needs to be given to access to daylight to the second bedroom in Unit 2.

Consideration could be given to reversing to direction of the entry stairs, as it may be more pleasant to enter up to a lobby across a bridge at the level of Units 4 & 5 than entering down stairs.

 

8.   The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

Satisfactory.

 

9.   Social issues

 

This is a good location for higher densities.

 

10. The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

At this stage the proposal shows promise, but obviously requires further design development.

 

Summary and Recommendations

In general terms the Panel is in support of this proposal and looks forward to reviewing the full DA, which must include a full description of the context, a landscape plan and the Section 96 Application for 112 Beach Street.  A physical model that includes the locality would be useful.

 

Notwithstanding the generally supportive comments of the Panel, there are various qualifications, for example noting that the density should not result in impacts on neighbours – and also incorrectly noting that it is a 4% variation. The variation is in fact considerably greater, and the scale and design of development does have direct unacceptable impacts in neighbouring properties. It is considered that the application falls short when assessed against the design principles relating to scale, built form, density and amenity.

 

7.2      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 not 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.

 

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.

 

7.2.1   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

12 - Zone No 2C (Residential C 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 is permissible in the zone and satisfies the relevant zone objectives.

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 proposal will not require services that are beyond what the site is capable of providing.

Complies.

29 - Foreshore scenic protection area

The Council may only grant consent referred to in subclause (2) after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

The proposed development will not be overly bulky or detract from the appearance of the locality.

Complies.

31 - Landscaped area

Subclause (2) states that “development, otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C must provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area.” Subclause (3) also states that “landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas must not exceed 50% of the landscaped area requirements specified in subclauses (1) and (2).”

The proposal provides for 63% (905sqm) landscaped area. The podium landscaped areas constitutes approximate 10% (142sqm) of the total landscaped areas.

Complies.

32 – Floor space ratios

Subclause (1) states that “the maximum floor space ratios for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone 2C is 0.9:1, respectively.” If the site has an area less than 700sqm, the maximum FSR is 0.65:1.

The proposal provides an FSR of 1.1:1, a non-compliance of 20% or 286.6sqm.

Does not comply. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted by the applicant. See Section 7.1.2 of this report.

33 - Building heights

Subclause (2) states that “the maximum height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C is 12 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.” Subclause 4 states that “the maximum height for any external wall of a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C is 10 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.”

The Beach Street building exceeds the external wall height by 2.5m and exceeds the maximum building height by 1.4m.

The Arden Street building exceeds the maximum wall height by a maximum of approx. 1.5m

Does not comply. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted by the applicant. See Section 7.1.2 of this report.

40 -     Excavation and filling of land

When considering 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 proposal requires excavation for the basement level parking. These works are included on the development application plans.

Complies. In the event of an approval a condition may be included in the development consent requiring a dilapidation report to be completed prior to works commencing.

 

7.3  Policy Controls

7.3.1   Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

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

i.      161-163 Arden Street, Coogee

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Complies.

P2 Development sites have appropriate areas/dimensions to allow for satisfactory siting of buildings.

S2 Sites are of regular shape with frontages of at least 20m.

Complies. The site frontage to Arden Street is 23.5m.

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

Not applicable.

Height

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

 

The proposed development exceeds the height controls of the LEP. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted to vary this clause. See Section 7.1.2 of this report for an assessment of the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection.

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

 

The Arden Street building does not minimise amenity impacts on adjoining properties.


 

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

The proposed front setback is not consistent with the adjoining residential flat buildings that front to Arden Street. The setback should be greater, taking into account the setback of the adjoining building at 159 Arden Street.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

Arden Street building

South setback

Min 2.9m; average 4.3m

North setback

Min 2.9m; average 4.3m

While these setbacks are an increase on those that currently exist, the non-compliance, combined with the size and placement of terraces and balconies, together with an inadequate front setback, mean that the non-compliance is not acceptable.

Some redesign and reconfiguration, including greater setbacks of terraces and balconies, as they relate to the adjoining neighbours, is required.

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

The proposal has a minimum rear setback of 5m. Although non-compliant the proposed setback is considered to satisfy the performance requirements in respect to solar access, privacy and providing landscaped area for recreation of future occupants.

P4  General

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

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

Complies.

Density

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

 

The Arden Street building is not acceptable. See Section 7.1.2 of this report for an assessment of the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection for floor space ratio.

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:       

§ consistent with streetscape;

§ Entrances highlighted; and

§ Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

S1 Solid front fences no higher than 1.2 metres. May increase to 1.8 metres when 50 % transparent.

 

The front fence to Arden Street ranges from 1m to 2.5m in height due to the steep cross-slope of the site.

The design of the fence is acceptable and incorporates both masonry and timber elements and as such will not detract from the streetscape.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

The main landscaped area is in the middle of the site and to the rear of the buildings, with minimum dimensions of 6m x 23m (accounting for ‘L-shape rear area’) and provides approximately 300sqm. Complies.

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

 

The area around the rear of the proposed buildings is allocated to certain units however free access to the rear communal areas is provided through the front of the Arden Street building and via the Beach Street basement pedestrian link.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

The private open space in the middle of the site will be overlooked by adjoining properties, and in particular the rear balconies of 159 Arden St. The area is to include and pool and landscaping.

Given the orientation and sloping nature of the sites, combined with the natural orientation of vision from 159 to the south-east, it is probably unavoidable that that there will be overlooking of this area.

Doesn’t comply but is acceptable.

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

 

Not applicable.

P6  Flats and apartments

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

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

Each unit is provided with a minimum area of 14.78 – 26.45sqm and have direct access to private open space at the rear of the site. Complies.

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

The proposed placement and positioning of windows is considered acceptable and not inconsistent with the number of windows apparent on adjoining multi-unit housing buildings.

The proposed rear and side terraces and balconies on the Arden Street building are designed and positioned to orient towards the side boundaries, encroaching into the required setback area.

 

 

The size, positioning and orientation of the rear and side balconies and terraces is not acceptable given the potential to unreasonably impact on the visual and acoustic amenity of the adjoining properties.

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Generally complies. See comments above regarding unavoidable overlooking.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

The design has considered the placement of bedrooms and living rooms by repeating a similar floorplan on each level. Living areas will be located above other living areas and bedrooms above other bedrooms in the same building. Complies.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Complies.

View Sharing

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

 

The proposal will impacts upon established view corridors and will partially obstruct important and views. See Section 7.5.1 of this report for an assessment of the view sharing issue.

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

 

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

The proposal includes a stepped built form and adequate setbacks to reduce possible adverse solar access impacts.

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

 

Complies.

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

 

Does not comply. The proposal will reduce solar access to north facing windows of 165 Arden Street, the adjoining property to the south. The impact is acceptable when considering that a compliant development will have a similar impact to solar access to this property. The applicant has demonstrated that the 3pm shadow line will improve over current conditions as a result of the increased setback to the southern boundary.

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

 

Insufficient information has been provided in order to fully determine compliance.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

§ Living areas are orientated to the north.

§ Larger windows are located on the north.

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

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

Not applicable as the proposed development is subject to the BASIX requirements.

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

The proposed flat roof form will capable of supporting solar collectors.

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Complies.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Complies.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

Complies.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

All car parking is located on the Beach Street site.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

Complies.

P7 Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

Complies.

P8 External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

Complies.

Parking

All car parking is located on the Beach Street site. See Section 7.3.2 of this report for an assessment of the parking arrangement of the proposal.

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1 10m2 of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1m. At least 50% of storage space is within dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area. Storage facilities may be in basement areas, or attached to garages.

Does not comply.

Barrier-Free Access

P1 Design must provide access for people with special access needs as required (foyer parking open space).

S1 Publicly accessible areas comply with the Building Code of Australia for access and mobility.

Not applicable.

P2  Dwelling requirements:

0 – 14 dwellings 0

15 – 29 dwellings 1

30 – 44 dwellings 2

45 – 60 dwellings 3 so on…

The requirements of AS1428.1 and AS 4299 are to be considered.

 

The proposal is for 14 units in total. As such, provision of barrier free access dwellings is not required by the DCP.

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1 Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Complies.

P2 Provisions for a single common TV and radio reception device.

 

Complies.

P3 Electrical reticulation underground and mater boxes placed in positions acceptable to Energy Australia.

 

Complies.

P4 Reticulated gas to a meter for each dwelling and service points for cooking and heating in units.

 

Complies.

P5 Water and sewerage provided in accordance with requirements of Sydney Water.

 

Complies.

P6 Telephone lines provided in accordance with the service provider.

 

 

Complies.

P7 Internal laundry to each dwelling, communal clothes drying made available and screened from the street.

 

 

Complies.

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

S1 Each kitchen has a waste cupboard for separation of recycling materials, with adequate storage for one day’s waste.

Complies.

P2 Waste storage to be provided in a centralised position that has easy access for moving bins to the street for collection.

 

Complies.

P3 The location and design of waste facilities does not visually detract from the development or the streetscape.

S3 Waste facilities not to be located between the front building alignment and the road.

Waste bins are located in the basement level, near the entry and not visible from the street. Complies.

 

ii.     112-114 Beach Street, Coogee

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1  Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Site analysis plan provided. Complies.

P2  Development sites have appropriate areas/dimensions to allow for satisfactory siting of buildings.

S2  Sites are of regular shape with frontages of at least 20m.

The subject site is 12.19m in width. The building is centred on the site to maximise side setback distances between buildings.

P3  Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

Not applicable. 

Height

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

 

Height is consistent with adjacent buildings and consistent with the streetscape bulk in Beach Street.

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

 

The proposed bulk has been stretched across what is a short and narrow site. There is sufficient articulation to minimise adverse impacts of building bulk.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

 

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

The proposed front setback of 6.085m (excluding balconies) is in alignment with the adjacent buildings to the north and south and is generally consistent with the streetscape setback. Complies.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

 

Side setbacks to ensure:

 

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2C

 

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Partly complies.

 

North:

Minimum average (including balconies)

Ground – 1.81m (No)

First – 1.88m (No)

Second – 2.24m (No)

Third – 3.05m (No)

 

Minimum - No

Ground –  1.5m (No)

First – 1.5m (No)

Second – 1.5m (No)

Third – 1.5m (No)

Unarticulated wall length

Ground – 13m (No)

First – 13m (No)

Second – 13m (No)

Third – 6.9m (Yes)

Minimum step – No

Ground – 0.2m

First – 0.2m

Second – 0.2m

Third – 0.3m

South:

Minimum average (including balconies)

Ground – 2.16m (No)

First – 2.08m (No)

Second – 2.36m (No)

Third – 2.48m (No)

Minimum - No

Ground – 1.5m (No)

First – 1.5m (No)

Second – 1.5m (No)

Third – 2.8m (No)

Unarticulated wall length – Yes/No

Ground –  8.1m (Yes)

First – 8.1 (Yes)

Second – 8.1m (No)

Third – 18.8m (No)

Minimum step – No

Ground – 0.5m

First – 0.5m

Second – 0.5m

Third – 0.8m

 

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

 

Rear Boundary Setbacks

ensure that:

§ solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

 

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

 

 

 

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

 

The proposal has an average rear setback of 13.52m. Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Maximum length of wall is 5.3m. Complies.

P4  General

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

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

Complies

Density

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

 

The surrounding buildings have similar if not larger envelopes, particularly to the south on the corner of Beach Street and Bream Street. Due to the stretched rectangular shaped allotments, long and narrow apartments are sited on blocks generally very close to the boundary.

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:      

- consistent with streetscape;

- Entrances highlighted; and

- Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

S1 Solid front fences no higher than 1.2 metres. May increase to 1.8 metres when 50 % transparent.

 

The proposed fence on Beach Street boundary is approximately 1m in height.

 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Landscaped areas to the rear and front of the proposal will have dimensions greater than 2 sqm. Complies.

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

 

The rear of the proposed site is provided as communal open space. Complies.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Complies.

P6  Flats and apartments

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

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

Complies.

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

Fixed metal louvers are provided to the windows on the northern and southern elevations of the building to avoid overlooking windows in adjoining buildings. In addition, 1.8m high timber privacy screens are proposed to the northern and southern sides of the rear balconies to minimise overlooking into neighbour’s rear yard areas. Complies.

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Complies.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Generally complies.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Capable of being conditioned to comply.

View Sharing

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

 

The proposal will result in the loss of views from properties in Arden Street This issue is discussed in the body of the report.

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

 

As noted above, the impact of the development is discussed in the report.

P3  Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

As noted above, the impact of the development is discussed in the report

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

Complies. 

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

 

The proposed development will not reduce the amount of solar access to the north facing windows of southern adjoining building at 116-118 Beach Street.

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

 

Main open space for neighbouring property is on the western side and this is quite a large area. Proposal will cast additional shadows throughout the day but will not be unreasonable or excessive.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

     Living areas are orientated to the north.

     Larger windows are located on the north.

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

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

Not applicable as the proposed development is subject to the BASIX requirements.

P5  Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

No pitch on roof. Is suitable for solar collectors.

Safety and Security

P1  Design allows surveillance.

 

Front windows and balconies facing the street. Complies.

P2  Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Front entries defined by gates and basement car park entrance. Complies.

P3  High walls and structures avoided.

 

Complies.

P4  Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

A metal clad garage door is proposed to the basement carpark entry. 

P5  Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

Does not comply.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

Does not comply.

See comments in body of report.

P1  Garages and parking structures do not dominate the street frontage.

 

Complies.

P2  Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required (refer to dwelling number requirements in P1 and P2 Barrier Free Access.

 

Not required.

P3  Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Does not comply.

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1  Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Complies.

P2  Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

S2  Vehicles enter with a single turn and leave in no more than 2 turns.

Complies.

P3  Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

Not applicable.

P4  Space between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces enables landscaping and planting.

S4  Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and be at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

Complies.

P5  Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Capable of complying.

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5 for ramps over 20m.

Complies.

Storage

P1  Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1  10m2 of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1m. At least 50% of storage space is within dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area. Storage facilities may be in basement areas, or attached to garages.

Majority of the storage spaces are within each dwelling and additional storage areas are provided in basement. However overall storage for the development does not comply.

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1  Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Capable of complying.

P2  Provisions for a single common TV and radio reception device.

 

Capable of complying.

P3 – P6 Utilities requirements.

 

Capable of complying.

P7  Internal laundry to each dwelling, communal clothes drying made available and screened from the street.

 

Complies.

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1  Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

S1  Each kitchen has a waste cupboard for separation of recycling materials, with adequate storage for one day’s waste.

Complies.

P3  The location and design of waste facilities does not visually detract from the development or the streetscape.

 

S3  Waste facilities not to be located between the front building alignment and the road.

Complies.

Foreshore Scenic Protection Areas

P1  Building form is sympathetic in appearance with surroundings buildings, and buildings on stepped sites are articulated so that massing and scale respects the slope.

 

The proposed development will have an appearance, bulk and scale that will not adversely affect or detract from the visual qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area, particularly given the existence of an almost identical consent on this site.

P2  Extent of hard surface is minimised to reduce water run-off

 

Capable of complying.

P3  Ancillary structures do not dominate and detract visually. 

 

Ancillary structures will not dominate and detract visual quality of the foreshore area.

 

7.3.2   Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The DCP provides the following car parking provisions for multi-unit housing.

 

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

161-163 Arden Street

8 x 2 bedroom units generate 9.6 car spaces.

112-114 Beach Street

1 x 1 bedroom unit and 5 x 3 bedroom units generates 8.5 car spaces.

Total of 18.1 (18) residents’ spaces required.

16 resident parking spaces (of which 12 being car stacker spaces) provided in basement.

Does not comply – shortfall of 2 residents’ car spaces.

 

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

3.5 (4) visitor car spaces required.

1 visitor space/car wash bay provided in basement.

Does not comply – shortfall of 3 car parking spaces.

 

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.

6 bicycle spaces required.

No bicycle spaces provided. Does not comply.

 

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

1 car wash bay required.

1 car was bay is provided. Complies.

 

Total car parking

22 car spaces required in total.

(19 resident, 4 visitor), 6 bicycle spaces required.

17 car spaces provided.

(16 resident, 1 visitor/car wash bay). No bicycle space provided. Does not comply.

Due to the potential difficulty with the provision of on-site parking for the Arden Street building, all parking, for both buildings, is to be provided in the basement of the Beach Street building. There is proposed to be a total of 16 spaces for the mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, plus a single visitor/car wash space. The development is deficient by 5 spaces.

The deficiency in car parking is not adequately explained or justified by the difficulty in providing car parking off Arden Street. The extent of non-compliance with the Council’s car parking controls is, in part, a function of the quantum of development proposed. The situation is one of both excess floor space and insufficient car parking, leading to the conclusion that, due to the obvious constraints of the site, it is a potential overdevelopment of the site. The car parking deficiency, when combined with other concerns (as discussed elsewhere in this report), also arising, in part, out of non-compliance with the relevant planning controls, confirms that the proposal, in its current form is an overdevelopment.

Residents of the Arden St units will be required to walk from the basement of the Beach Street building, up the slope to the Arden St building, which could be quite a challenge if carrying shopping or other heavy goods.

The concern is that the future residents of the Arden St building will choose to park on the street rather than negotiate the combined disincentive of a basement in Beach Street, a car stacker, and a walk up the slope to Arden Street. Nonetheless it is accepted that some parking, albeit somewhat dislocated from the actual units, is preferable to no parking, as currently exists for Arden St buildings. The concept of providing basement car parking, in Beach St, for the Arden St building, is not opposed, but the development as currently proposed is not acceptable for the reasons discussed above.

8.      Council Policies and Plans

7.3.3   Section 94 Contributions

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable

Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

Not applicable.

0.5%

Not applicable.

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$4,686,000

1.0%

$46,860

                                     

7.3.4   Rainwater Tanks Policy 2003

The proposal is subject to the SEPP: BASIX requirements and as such consideration of this Randwick City Council policy is not required.

 

7.3.5   Council’s Asbestos Policy 2005

An asbestos survey prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor) has not been submitted with the application and in accordance with Council’s Asbestos Policy.

 

As such, conditions of consent are capable of being imposed to maintain appropriate levels of public health and safety.

 

7.4      Likely Impacts

 

7.4.1   View sharing

An assessment of the impact on view sharing, based on the information provided by the applicant and available from visiting some of the potentially affected sites has been undertaken. The NSW Land and Environment Court judgment by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] sets down four steps that should be undertaken to reach a decision whether a view impact is reasonable. 

 

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

 

Of the 21 objections received in respect to the proposed development, 12 raised the issue of view loss as being a significant concern and that the proposal would result in either a significant erosion of the quality of views enjoyed or that the proposal’s bulk and scale would result in a total loss of views. The 12 objections received in respect to views loss came 6 properties, with a number of objections deriving from the same multi-unit housing building. The 6 properties that raised view loss issues included:

-   110 Beach Street

-   21 Arcadia Street

-   23 Arcadia Street

-   25 Arcadia Street

-   159 Arden Street, and

-   174 Arden Street.

 

Figure 4 shows a map of the objecting properties in relation to the subject site. As noted in this diagram, a number of the objecting properties are located to the west and north of the subject site. Although different properties have different orientations, the views enjoyed by each property includes partially obscured and obscured views of the coastline including some and headland to the east and south east. The views do not necessarily include locally iconic views such as Wedding Cake Island, however the views in general are considered valuable as they do in some instances include the interface of land and water.

 

Figure 4 shows a map of the objecting properties in relation to the subject site.

 

As was noted in the assessment of DA 743/2006 for an almost identical building at 112-114 Beach Street views from the top floor of 110 Beach St include part of Coogee beach and parkland looking east and S-E from the front sunroom and windows of bedrooms 1 and 2. The majority of views will be retained.

 

The applicant has provided no assessment of the potential view loos to Arcadia St properties to the north and N-W of the large development site.

 

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

 

All of the views enjoyed are across the rear and side boundaries of adjoining properties. Views are from a range of standing and seated positions, particularly in relation to No 159 Arden St balconies and Arcadia Street properties.

 

The views from 159 Arden St over 112-114 Beach St are not unobstructed although do include some water views. Views to the S-E to the water and southern headland will be retained. The views from the Arcadia Street properties are also not unobstructed.

 

 

 

 

Existing views to east and south-east from some of the rear balconies at 159 Arden Street.

 

There is likely to be view loss to Wedding Cake Island from the balconies of the lower level units at 166 Arden Street, opposite to the west of the proposed Arden St building.

 

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

 

The extent of impact for the top floor of 110 Beach Street is considered to be minor (Beach St building)

 

The extent of view loss to 159 Arden Street units is considered to be minor–to-moderate, given the majority of views are to the S-E and will be retained (Beach St building).

 

The potential view loss to the lower units at 166 Arden St may be moderate to severe (Arden St building).

 

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

 

In relation to the Beach St building, the proposed building does breach both the height and FSR controls. In stating this, it is noted that the rear section of the building does meet the maximum building height control, due to the slope of the land, i.e. further to the east and S-E the height control breach exists. As a result a building that complies with the max height control, stepping down the site from west to east, is likely to have a similar view impact.

 

Notwithstanding the above comment, the building does not comply with the FSR control, and this additional floor space, spread across both buildings in the proposed development, does play a role in the height of the building and the impact on views.

 

In relation to the Arden St building, the building does not comply fully with the maximum wall height control and this breach has the potential to impact on views. In this regard the applicant has failed to supply adequate information to allow a more full and complete assessment.

 

In relation to the Arcadia St properties the applicant has provided insufficient information in relation to view impact, and, if it exists, the extent to which this result from non-compliances with the planning controls.

 

7.5.2 Privacy impacts

The very large lower ground floor timber terrace to unit 1 of the Arden St building (S-E corner), together with the equally large timber terrace at the “ground” floor to unit 2 in the same building (N-E corner) and the balconies to units 4-8, on both sides of the building, are designed to be predominantly oriented to the side boundaries, extending out beyond the main building footprint at the rear (east). Given that there are 4 large terraces/balconies on either side of the building, oriented in this way, they have the potential to negatively impact on the adjoining buildings and residents to the north and south. The current design of these components of the building is not considered acceptable, due to this potential impact, and again may, in part arise from the excess floor space proposed. If the development included less floor space, consistent with the Council’s planning control, then the bulk and scale of development could be reduced, assisting in the re-design and reorientation of these private outdoor areas for each of the units in the Arden St building.

 

The narrow central section of the site also has the potential to impact on privacy to adjoining properties, in terms of both the design of this area and the introduction of a swimming pool to service 14 units. Insufficient details are provided with regard to the relative height and scale of this area, particularly relative to the lower sites fronting Bream St to the south. A swimming pool in this location could be subject to conditions limiting the hours of use, in order to minimise potential impact from its use on adjoining residents.

 

7.5.3 Bulk and scale

The Beach St building is considered to be generally satisfactory in the context of the location, although more information is required from the applicant in order to determine the exact extent of view loss, and also the extent to which this arises from non-compliance with height and FSR controls.

 

The Arden Street building is not considered acceptable. The unacceptable impact, in terms of bulk and scale along Arden Street, and in particular, relative to 159 Arden St, arises from the non-compliance with both the front setback and northern side setback control, at the front section of the building. Some re-design of this section of the building is required.

 

While there has been an effort to “sink” the building in order to minimise the height and bulk, and so minimise impacts such as loss of views, the fact is that the combined exceedance of both wall height and FSR controls results in a building of greater bulk and scale than that envisaged by the controls.

 

7.5.4 Car parking

This issue is discussed in 7.3.2 above. The lack of adequate car parking is not able be justified just on the basis of site constraints. The issue arises, in part, from the quantum of development above the planning controls for the site.

 

The area of Coogee is which the site is located is subject to a very high demand for on-street car parking. A new development such as this, introducing 14 units, should be providing for all necessary car parking on site. Parking not provided on-site will add an unacceptable burden on the existing heavily used street parking and cannot be justified in this case. Any development of the site should accommodate, on-site, the parking to be generated.

 

7.5                  Site Suitability

The proposal, in its current from is not considered suitable for the site, for the reasons outlined in the report.

 

7.6    Public Interest

The proposed development does not adequately address the potential negative impacts arising from the proposed design. These impacts arise, in part, from various non-compliances with the Council’s planning controls. Approval of the application in its current form would not be in the public interest.

 

9.     Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

The proposal will become a dominant element to the streetscape, particularly in Arden Street. The additional height and floor space, resulting in a range of non-compliances adversely impacts the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings.

 

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

The proposed development has the potential to improve the design and presentation of the buildings to the street, without adversely impacting on amenity of adjacent dwellings.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not comply with the key controls of the RLEP relating to floor space and height and the relevant assessment criteria, objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Multi Unit Housing. The extent of non-compliance is compounded by the lack of car parking. The areas of non-compliance result, in part, in direct detrimental impacts and so are not supported in this case.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

A.     Council not support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 32 and 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988, relating to floor space ratio and building heights respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development is not consistent with the objective of the clauses and will adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding residential dwellings.

 

B.     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/1011/2007 for demolition of existing buildings at 161-163 Arden Street & construction of 4-5 storey multi-unit housing development comprising of 8x2 bedroom units & demolition of existing buildings at 112-114 Beach Street & construction of a new 4 storey multi-unit housing development comprising of 1x1 bedroom unit and 5x3 bedroom units with basement parking for 17 vehicles for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed on-site car parking is insufficient and will result in adverse impacts to on-street car parking in the area, increasing demand for such parking and so exacerbating the existing pressures for on-street parking.

 

The shortfall of on-site car parking spaces fails to satisfy Clause 12(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the development will compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas.

 

2.    The development fails to comply with the floor space ratio development standard under Clause 32(1) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, resulting in a development of excessive bulk and scale and with unacceptable impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

3.    The development fails to comply with maximum building height and maximum wall height development standards of Clause 33(2) and (4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, resulting in a development of excessive bulk and scale and with unacceptable impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

4.    The development fails to comply with the provisions of Randwick DCP – Multi-Unit Housing relating to building setbacks, and in particular provides inadequate front and side setbacks to the Arden St building and the side setbacks to the Beach St building. The lack of adequate setbacks, combined with the design, location and orientation of the proposed terraces and balconies on the Arden Street building will result in unacceptable privacy and noise impacts on the adjoining properties and residents to the north and south of this building.

 

5.    The application, as a result of non-compliance with building height, wall height and floor space ratio development standards, and the DCP side setback controls, will result in unacceptable view loss to adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

6.    The application has been provided with insufficient information to enable a full and proper assessment of the likely impact of the proposed central open space area, including the proposed swimming pool area and pedestrian walk way, and the potential for impact on adjoining properties, particularly to the south of the site.

 

7.    The application has been provided with insufficient information to enable a full and proper assessment of the likely impacts on existing views enjoyed by properties on the western side of Arden Street and to the north in Arcadia Street.

 

8.    The proposed on-site car parking relies heavily on the use of car stackers to meet parking demand, a mechanical turntable to assist with manoeuvrability and all car parking is located within the eastern half of the consolidated development. The car parking arrangement is therefore likely to result in adverse impacts to the on-street car parking in the area, increasing demand for such parking and so exacerbating the existing pressures for on-street parking.

 

9.    The design of the proposed vehicular entry/exit point and internal driveway ramp fails to meet many of the relevant provisions of AS 2890.1-2004 and Council’s Development Control Plan Parking. The deficiencies/variations from accepted standards are likely to have an adverse impact on on-street traffic conditions in the vicinity of the development site, traffic movements within the car park, and pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the development site. The application has been provided with insufficient information to enable an assessment of the impacts of redesigning the vehicular entry/exit point and internal driveway ramp such that it complies with the relevant provisions of AS 2890.1-2004.

 

10.  The application has been provided with insufficient information to enable a full and proper assessment of the sight distance available to the drivers of vehicles exiting the development site, more particularly whether adequate sight distance can be provided to minimise potential vehicle / pedestrian conflict at the interface of the internal driveway and the Beach Street footpath.

 

11.  The application has been provided with insufficient information to enable a full and proper assessment of the likely impact of the proposed site stormwater drainage system on Council’s drainage network external to the site, on the vehicular entry/exit point and the aisle width of the basement car park.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

25 March 2008

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP5/08

 

 

Subject:                  32-42 Barker Street, Kingsford

Folder No:                   DA/287/2006/A

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 Modification to Development Consent 287/2006 involving amendments to the dwelling mix and increase in the total number of units from 65 to 70; alterations to northern balconies and extension of the lift overrun and stairwell in Building B; and increase in car parking by 3 spaces

 

Ward:                      West Ward

 

Applicant:                S T C Architects

 

Owner:                         Hidwon Pty Ltd

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


1.      Executive Summary

 

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

 

The original development proposal is for the demolition of existing structures on site and construction of 3 buildings comprising 65 apartment units, 2 levels of basement car park for 85 vehicles and a private communal facility containing a library and a swimming pool. The proposal was approved by the Planning Committee meeting on 12 September 2006, subject to conditions.

 

The subject application is made under the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, which seeks approval to modify the dwelling mix to achieve the following:

 

Studio units                                          x 12

One-bedroom units                        x 19

Two-bedroom units                                x 32

Two-bedroom plus study / media units      x 3

Three-bedroom units                              x 4

Total units                                                     70

 

The modifications will result in an increase of 5 apartment units from 65 to 70. The proposal also includes the provision of 3 additional parking spaces (being a total of 88 spaces) and extension of the lift overrun and stairwell to the 3rd floor level of Building B. The following amendments to the original consent conditions are required:

 

·      Modify Condition No. 1 (approved documentation)

·      Modify Condition No. 3 (bicycle parking provision)

 

The proposed modifications have been notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification process. The submission issues are generally related to potential development impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy, streetscape amenity and traffic. The issues raised have been fully considered and addressed in the body of this report. It is considered that the proposed modifications are minor in nature and will not result in any unreasonable additional impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

The modification will create an additional 23m2 of gross floor area. The increase in floor space is predominantly attributed to the new lift lobby and stairwell to the 3rd floor level. The proposed minor increase in floor space is fully contained within the building footprint previously approved by Council. The only addition is the enclosing walls and roofing to the above-mentioned stairwell and lift overrun. The amendments do not significantly alter the height, scale or form of the approved development. The modified development will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the neighbouring properties or the locality as a whole in terms of overshadowing, view loss or visual intrusion.

 

The modified proposal will generate a parking requirement of 91 spaces. The proposal only includes 88 parking spaces and does not comply with the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Parking. However, the proposed parking provision is considered acceptable given that the site is located in close proximity to the UNSW campus, and that a significant proportion of the apartment units are anticipated to be occupied by students. The parking demand from this resident population is expected to be lower than the generic parking rate specified in the DCP. The site also has convenient access to public bus services along Anzac Parade. The modified development is considered to deliver a balanced solution between maintaining a reasonable level of on-site parking and maximising the use of public transport.

 

The modified development will constitute substantially the same development for which the consent was originally granted. The proposed modification satisfies the relevant legislation, State policy and local planning controls, and is recommended for approval, subject to amendments to the original consent conditions.

 

2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 1 in DP 706778, No. 32-42 Barker Street, Kingsford. The site is located on the southern side of Barker Street, between Forsyth Street and Harbourne Road. The site is irregular in shape having a main northern frontage to Barker Street of 53.6m and a secondary southern frontage to Harbourne Lane of 80.5m, with a portion of the land extending along Harbourne Lane as ‘dog-leg’ towards Forsyth Street. The site has an approximate area of 3769m2.

 

The site is currently occupied by the Barker Lodge Motel, which comprises two-storey buildings and associated surface car park. The buildings are located along the perimeter of the land with one positioned across the Barker Street frontage, and the other in an L-shaped arrangement stretching along the western and southern property boundaries.  The area in between the buildings is wholly utilised as hard-surfaced car park. 

 

The locality is predominantly characterised by a mixture of medium to high density residential development as described below:

 

To the north:

Across Barker Street to the north is the University of New South Wales (UNSW) campus comprising the Shalom residential college (maximum 3 storeys), Barker Apartments (maximum 5 storeys with roof space) and the Rupert Myers Buildings (maximum part 4 and part 5 storeys). 

 

To the east:

Immediately to the east are two pairs of semi-detached dwelling houses (Nos. 44-46 and 48-50 Barker Street). The site also extends along the rear of these four properties, which then adjoins the rear of the allotment occupied by the Kanga House child care centre (No. 52-54 Barker Street). Further to the east are single-storey semi-detached dwellings and a three-storey residential flat building fronting Forsyth Street.

 

To the south:

Across Harbourne Lane to the south are two-storey townhouses fronting Harbourne Lane and garages serving dwellings that front Middle Street.

 

To the west:

Immediately adjacent to the site is a semi-detached dwelling house (No. 30 Barker Street) and the rear of two dwelling house allotments that front Harbourne Road.

 

3.      Site History

 

3.1    Previous development consent applicable to the site

 

DA/287/2006

Demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a part 3-, part 4- and part 5-level multi-unit housing development comprising 3 buildings, 65 dwellings, 2 levels of basement car park for 85 vehicles, and a private communal facility containing a library and a swimming pool.

 

Council (Health, Building and Planning Committee) granted development consent by deferred commencement on 12 September 2006. The consent became operable on 13 April 2007, following approval of amended plans that satisfied the deferred commencement conditions.

 

 

3.2    History of site usage

 

The site has been approved and developed for motel purposes since the early 1960s. Various development consents had been granted over the years for alterations and additions to the existing motel complex.

 

4.      Relevant Background

 

Information request

A request was made by letter dated 17 December 2007 for the submission of additional information addressing the following issues:

 

Development consent (DA/287/2006) requires the provision of 85 parking spaces to service the approved 65 residential units on site. The current Section 96 modification application proposes 5 additional units, which will generate a parking requirement of 90 spaces under the Parking Development Control Plan. The Traffic and Parking Review statement prepared by Christopher Stapleton Consulting, dated 13 September 2007, argues that a reasonable percentage of the apartment units will be occupied by students, and that the provision of 85 parking spaces will be in excess of the actual parking demand generated by the development.

 

The proposed development is not classified as student accommodation, and there is no indication of the percentage of units that will be occupied by students. Due to the deficiency of on-site parking provision, a parking report is to be submitted to justify the modified parking provision. The report is to be prepared by a qualified transport engineer and include the following information:

 

·      A survey of parking demand generated by similar developments in comparable locations.

·      The availability of on-street parking in the area during and after business hours.

·      Mode of transport to be utilised by potential residents.

·      Availability of public transport services in the vicinity.

 

Amended drawings were submitted on 18 December 2007 (additional copies submitted 27 December 2007), which included revised floor layouts addressing the concerns of the Design Review Panel.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on 19 February 2008 (additional copies submitted 4 March 2008), which included the provision of 3 additional parking spaces in the basement levels, addressing the issues previously raised by Council.

 

5.      The Proposal

 

5.1    Approved proposal

The approved development proposal is for the demolition of existing structures on site and construction of 3 buildings comprising 65 apartment units, 2 levels of basement car park for 85 vehicles and a private communal facility containing a library and a swimming pool. The approved unit mix is summarised as follows:

 

Building A (5-level building fronting Barker Street)

Studio x 2

 

1-bedroom x 3

 

2-bedroom x 20

 

3-bedroom x 4

 

Sub-total

29 units

Building B (4-level building fronting Harbourne Lane)

Studio x 3

 

1-bedroom x 2

 

2-bedroom x 17

 

3-bedroom x 3

 

Sub-total

25 units

Building C (3-level building fronting Harbourne Lane to the east of Building B)

Studio x 7

 

1-bedroom x 4

 

Sub-total

11 units

Total number of units

65 units

Total studio units

12

Total 1-bedroom units

9

Total 2-bedroom units

37

Total 3-bedroom units

7

 

5.2    Proposed modifications

 

The subject application seeks approval to modify the approved dwelling mix to achieve the following:

 

Studio units                                           x 12

One-bedroom units                                  x 19

Two-bedroom units                                 x 32

Two-bedroom plus study / media units        x 3

Three-bedroom units                        x 4

Total                                                                 70 units

 

The modifications will result in an increase of 5 apartment units from 65 to 70. The proposed amendments to the approved development are confined within Building B only. The details are summarised below.

 

Proposed Modifications of Building B

B2/F

·      Minor adjustments of structural columns location, deletion of storage units and provision of 1 additional parking bay at the north-western corner of basement level 2.

 

B1/F

·      Minor adjustments of structural columns location, deletion of storage units and provision of 1 additional parking bay at the north-western corner of basement level 1.

·      Reconfiguration of the electrical / plant room and lift lobby, and creation of 1 additional parking bay at the north-eastern corner of basement level 1.

 

G/F

·      Reconfiguration of stairwell and inclusion of telephone switch room.

 

1/F

·      Reconfiguration of stairwell.

·      Reconfiguration of the internal floor layout to create 1 x studio unit, 3 x 1-bedroom units and 4 x 2-bedroom units.

·      Modification of balcony design on the northern façade.

 

2/F

·      Reconfiguration of stairwell.

·      Reconfiguration of the internal floor layout to create 1 x studio unit, 3 x 1-bedroom units and 4 x 2-bedroom units.

·      Modification of balcony design on the northern façade.

 

3/F

·      Extension of lift and stairwell to 3rd floor level.

·      Reconfiguration of the internal floor layout to create 1 x studio unit, 4 x 1-bedroom units and 2 x 2-bedroom units.

·      Modification of balcony design on the northern façade.

 

Roof

·      Extension of lift overrun and roofing to the stairwell below. However, the maximum height to the roof ridge of Building B will be maintained at RL 41.05m. The ridge line of the proposed stairwell roofing is lower than that of the rest of the building.

 

 

5.3    Modification of Conditions

 

5.3.1          Modification of Condition No. 1

Condition No. 1 currently reads as follow:

 

1.    The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA02 to DA14 all Rev. A and stamped received by Council on 19 April 2006, and the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details / amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

It is proposed to modify Condition No. 1 to read as follows (modifications in bold):

 

1.    The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA02 to DA14 all Rev. A and stamped received by Council on 19 April 2006 and the application form and any supporting information received with the application, and as modified by the Section 96 documentation including the following plans:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received by Council

27A0537 S96-01(B)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-02(B)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-03(B)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-04(B)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-05(B)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-06(A)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-07(A)

15.02.2008

19 Feb / 4 Mar 2008

27A0537 S96-08(A)

15.02.2008

19 Feb / 4 Mar 2008

27A0537 S96-09(A)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-10(A)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-11(A)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-12(A)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

27A0537 S96-13(A)

13.12.2007

18 / 27 Dec 2007

 

except as may be amended by the details/amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans: 

 

Condition No. 1 relates to the approved documentation and therefore the wordings of the condition are required to be amended to include the plans lodged with the current Section 96 application.

 

5.3.2          Modification of Condition No. 3

 

Condition No. 3 currently reads as follows:

 

3.    Details of bicycle storage providing for 28 bicycle parking spaces as required in the Development Control Plan – Parking shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

Condition No. 3 is required to be amended to reflect the modified demand for bicycle parking, which will read as follows (modifications in bold):

 

3.    Details of bicycle storage providing for 31 bicycle parking spaces as required in the Development Control Plan – Parking shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

Condition No. 3 relates to the provision of bicycle parking spaces consistent with the requirements of DCP – Parking. The proposed modifications will increase the number of apartment units within the development and hence the bicycle parking requirement. Refer to the “DCP – Parking” section of this report for details.

 

6.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application has been advertised and notified by letter dated 15 October 2007 to 76 adjoining and nearby properties, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans Development Control Plan. The notification period ended on 31 October 2007. 

 

6.1 Objections

 

A total of two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification period:

 

·      I Wong, 9 / 3-5 Harbourne Road, Kingsford

·      K Do, 10 / 3-5 Harbourne Road, Kingsford

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

Reduction of solar access to the neighbouring residential development

The proposed modifications do not include any significant changes to the overall form, footprint or height of the approved buildings on site. The modifications include extension of the lift shaft and stairwell to the 3rd floor level and associated roofing structures. However, the overall ridge height will be maintained at RL41.05m. The proposed extensions are minor in nature and will not significantly increase shadow impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Visual privacy

The modifications include changes to the balcony design on the northern façade of Building B, which is oriented towards the internal courtyard of the approved development. No significant changes are proposed to the southern façade, which fronts Harbourne Lane. The current proposal is not considered to result in additional visual privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Noise

The modifications propose 5 additional dwellings within the development by reducing the number of 2- and 3-bedroom dwellings and increasing the number of 1-bedroom units. However, no significant changes are proposed to the approved footprint, form or height of the building structures. The proposal will not significantly increase the number of occupants within the development. Therefore, the modifications are not considered to result in additional noise impacts.

 

Reduction of on-street parking

Refer to the “DCP – Parking” section of this report for details. The revised proposal includes the provision of 3 additional parking bays within the basement levels and is considered satisfactory.

 

Streetscape impacts

The modifications do not propose any significant changes to the approved footprint, form or height of the building structures. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to result in adverse streetscape impacts.

 

Reduce property values of adjoining developments

This is not a valid objection on planning ground.

 

Benefit the corporate developers to the detriment of individual home owners

This is not a valid objection on planning ground.

 

7.      Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineers for assessment. The comments provided are extracted as follows:

 

Development Engineers comments

The current development approval requires that 85 onsite parking spaces be provided for the approved 65 units.

 

The section 96 application proposes to increase the amount of units by 5 and reconfigure the units to provide:

·      12 x studio units

·      19 x one bedroom units

·      32 x two bedroom units

·      3 x two bedroom (plus study) units

·      4 x three bedroom units

 

The proposed modifications will result in a total of 70 units and will also increase the parking requirement to 90 spaces. The Traffic & Parking review report by Christopher Stapleton Consulting argues that because a reasonable percentage of the apartments are to be utilised by students the deficit of 5 spaces from the requirements of the DCP is reasonable. The report argues that the proposed 85 spaces will be in excess of the actual demand of the apartments.

 

The assessing officer is advised that the development is not classified as student accommodation and there is no indication of the percentage of the units that will be utilised by students. Due to the deficiency in the parking provided, the applicant is required to submit a parking survey to identify if the proposed 85 spaces will be sufficient. The survey should consider available on-street parking, mode of transport to be utilised by potential residents and parking demands of similar developments nearby.

 

Comments

The revised proposal includes the provision of 3 additional parking bays and is considered to be satisfactory. Refer to the “DCP – Parking” section of this report for details.

 

8.      Master Planning Requirements

 

Clause 40A(1) of RLEP 1998 provides that consent may be granted to a development application made in respect of a site consisting of more than 4,000m2 only if: (a) a master plan has been adopted, and (b) the consent authority is satisfied that the development is not inconsistent with the provisions of that master plan.

 

The subject site has a land area of less than 4,000m2; a master plan is therefore not required for the proposal. 

 

9.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

9.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The subject site is identified as being within Zone No. 2B (Residential B Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal is for the purpose of multi-unit residential development and is permissible with development consent. The relevant numerical standards of the LEP are addressed as follows:

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

31(2) Landscaped Area

Minimum 50% of site area

As approved, 51.8% of site area or 1954m2

No change

31(3) Landscaped Area over basements

Not to exceed 50% of Landscaped Area requirement

As approved, 47% of the proposed Landscaped Area is over the basement

No change

32(1) Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Maximum 0.65:1 or 2449m2)

6270m2 or 1.66:1

No

 

33(2) Building Height

Maximum 9.5m

As existing, maximum 17.4m to roof line of Building A

 

However, the proposed extension to the lift overrun and stairwell will reach a maximum overall height of 12m

 

No

33(4) External Wall Height

Maximum 7m

As existing, maximum 14m for northern façade of Building A

 

However, the proposed extension to the lift overrun and stairwell will reach a maximum wall height of 12m (due to the inclined skillion roofing design)

 

No

 

A floor space ratio of 0.65:1 is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 32 of RLEP 1998.

 

The original approved development proposes a Floor Space Ratio of 1.65:1 (6247m2 gross floor area). The modified proposal has an FSR of 1.66:1 (6270m2 gross floor area). The proposed modifications will result in a minor exacerbation of the existing breach against the development standard stipulated in the LEP. Specifically, the modified development will result in an additional 0.01:1 FSR or 23m2 gross floor area.

 

The proposed extension to the lift shaft and stairwell will have a maximum overall height of 12m, as measured from the existing ground level. Given that the above extension incorporates an inclined skillion roofing, the maximum wall height will also be 12m.

 

Clause 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards provides that a person intending to carry out development may make a development application in respect of that development, supported by a written objection that compliance with a particular development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and specifying the grounds of that objection. The subject application relates to a Section 96 modification to a development consent. Therefore, SEPP No. 1 does not apply to the current application. The proposed modifications will be assessed according to its merits and the provisions of Section 96 of the EP&A Act.

 

The increase in floor space is predominantly attributed to the new lift lobby and stairwell to the 3rd floor level. The proposed minor increase in floor space is fully contained within the building footprint previously approved by Council. The only addition is the enclosing walls and roofing to the stairwell and lift shaft on the 3rd floor level. The amendments do not significantly alter the height, scale or form of the approved development. The modified development will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the neighbouring properties or the locality as a whole in terms of overshadowing, view loss or visual intrusion. The modified development represents substantially the same development for which the consent was originally granted. Therefore, the proposed modifications are supported.

 

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

 

SEPP 65 aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development through the submission (by the applicant) of an assessment report against the design principles stipulated in the SEPP, and review by a SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. The assessment comments made by the Panel are extracted below:

 

This Section 96 application is seeking consent to change the internal layout within an approved apartment development that was reviewed by the Panel in 2006.  At that time, the design was considered by the Panel to be very satisfactory and it was noted that it permitted cross ventilation to all apartments and winter solar access to all but six apartments on the ground floor of Block B.

 

The proposed change, intended as a better response to the market for smaller apartments, is to reconfigure the first, second and third floors of Block B, eliminating three bedroom apartments, reducing the number of two bedroom apartments and substantially increasing the number of one bedroom apartments.

 

In the approved development, all apartments on these floors enjoyed cross ventilation and winter sun.  In the proposed reconfiguration, on the first and second floors, a total of 10 apartments would be single aspect of which 6 would be facing south.  On the third floor, it is proposed that use would be made of the roof design to permit cross ventilation and solar access.

 

It became apparent from the discussion with the applicant that there are probably opportunities to reduce the number of apartments that would perform poorly in these respects.  These included:

 

·      reconfiguring/relocating the two stairwells in Block B to permit cross ventilation of units B208 and B308,

·      relocating units B207and B307 (two bed units) to the western end of the block and providing balconies for them.  This would mean that units that are likely to be occupied by the one owner or tenant for a longer duration are improved would be positioned on the southern side of the access corridor, in the areas less appropriate for more permanent living.

·      providing east/west facing windows between the bedrooms and verandahs to units B202 & B203 and units B302 & B303,

·      provision of vent shafts for the centrally located units on levels one and two.

·      Providing small roof top sun areas that can be accessed by all.

 

The Panel notes that the design as modified by the Section 96 application would still perform within RFDC guidelines. Nonetheless it is recommended that the above strategies be investigated and that they, or others, be employed to reduce the number of single aspect and south facing units, to the maximum extent possible, before consent is granted.

 

Comments

The applicant has submitted amended plans, which have addressed a number of concerns raised by the Design Review Panel. Specifically, the stairwell in Building B has been reconfigured to permit the installation of eastern windows to Units B208 and B308 to facilitate cross ventilation. In addition, east- / west-facing windows have been provided between the bedrooms and balconies to Units B202, B203, B302 and B303 to facilitate cross ventilation. 

 

The recommendation of relocating Units B207 and B307 to the western end of the floors has not been adopted, as this will not satisfy the travel distance provisions of the Building Code of Australia and result in inappropriate unit layouts. The suggestion to install ventilation shafts has not been adopted to avoid acoustic protection, fire separation and maintenance complications. Finally, roof top terrace is not supported by the applicant due to privacy consideration and that adequate landscaped communal open space has already been provided at ground level. The modification proposal in its revised form is considered satisfactory having regard to internal amenity and streetscape quality. Overall, the Panel noted that the modified design will still satisfy the guidelines provided in the Residential Flat Design Code.

 

An assessment against the design principles stipulated in the SEPP is provided below: