Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 22 July 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

22 July 2008

 

 

 

 

15 July 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, 22 July 2008 at 6:00pm

 

 

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 - 24 June 2008

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

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

 

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports

CP30/08    21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (Deferred)

CP31/08    23 & 25 Strachan Street, Kingsford

CP32/08    67 - 69 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

CP33/08    775A Anzac Parade, Maroubra

CP34/08    155-157 Arden Street, Coogee

CP35/08    693-693A Anzac Parade, Maroubra

CP36/08    95 Brook Street, Coogee

CP37/08    2 Byron Street, Coogee

CP38/08    29W Finucane Crescent, Matraville

CP39/08    Deed of Agreement for proposed joint venture affordable housing project - 64-66 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra

 

General Manager's Reports

GM25/08    Arden Street Secure Taxi Rank

GM26/08    Affixing of the Council Seal

GM27/08    Council Decision Making Prior to Ordinary Elections

GM28/08    September Committee Meetings

 

Director City Services Report

CS21/08    Implementation of the area based format of the Resident Parking Scheme

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF33/08    LGSA Survey - Impact of Cost Shifting on Local Government in NSW

GF34/08    Investment Report - June 2008

GF35/08    Revised Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW

GF36/08    Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008

GF37/08    Outdoor Dining Licence Agreement - Beach Palace Hotel

GF38/08    Review of Delegations  

 

Petitions

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM22/08    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews - Concrete Road Surfaces – Central Ward

NM23/08    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews – Kerb & Guttering - Fitzgerald Avenue

NM24/08    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews - Request for Traffic Management Study - Maroubra Area

NM25/08    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews - Election of Mayor

NM26/08    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews – 2009/10 Capital Works Program

NM27/08    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Matson - Millennial Wave Sculpture  

 

Confidential

 

GF39/08    Legal Proceedings - Maroubra Garden Village - 13 Trywhitt Street, Maroubra

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

GF40/08    SSROC Tender for Document Imaging Services

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

Nil 

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council

22 July 2008

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP30/08

 

 

Subject:                  21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/323/2007

Author:                   Frank Ko, Acting Coordinator Fast Track     

 

Introduction

 

A report recommending refusal of the subject Development Application for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new part three part four storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, a lap pool on the roof, associated site and landscaping works was considered at the Planning Committee meeting on 10 June 2008 Council resolved, at this meeting, on the motion of Councillors Tracey and Notley-Smith that:

 

“the application for 21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee be deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting to allow for further negotiation between the applicant and objectors.”

 

Issues

 

The planning consultant acting on behalf of the applicant has submitted a letter dated 2 July 2008 to Council requesting further deferral of the application on the basis that the view loss assessment undertaken was based on a surveyed position that is slightly forward of the actual location of the proposed ground floor dining room and living areas at 16 Seaside Parade. In order to accurately determine the extent of design changes required to minimise the extent of view loss from 16 Seaside Parade, the planning consultant has requested that the process be suspended until the ground floor slab of 16 Seaside Parade is constructed so that the view corridors can be accurately defined.

 

Conclusions

 

It is considered that the applicant’s request is supportable, given the development at 16 Seaside Parade is currently under construction and that the ground floor slab should soon be completed. The deferral will also allow the applicant to accurately determine the extent of changes required to reduce the impact on views from the affected property to a more reasonable and acceptable level.

 

Recommendation

 

That the subject Development Application be deferred to allow for further view loss assessment to be undertaken once the ground floor slab of the development at 16 Seaside Parade is completed and to allow the applicant to accurately determine the extent of changes required to accommodate the view corridors.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Report to Planning Committee 10 June 2008 - Item D29/08 21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

 

 

 

 

 


Report to Planning Committee 10 June 2008 - Item D29/08 21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D29/08

 

 

Subject:                  21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/323/2007

Author:                   Frank Ko, Acting Coordinator Fast Track     

 

Proposal:                     Demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a new part three part four storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, a lap pool on the roof, associated site and landscaping works.

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

 

Applicant:                Projectpac Consulting Engineers

 

Owner:                         Mr P K Simpson

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Bastic and Seng.

 

The subject application seeks consent to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a new part three part four storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, a lap pool on the roof,  associated site and landscaping works.

 

The proposal was notified to the surrounding properties in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification and submissions were received from the owners of the nearby properties at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade. The main issue raised in the objections was view loss.

 

The proposal fails to comply with the preferred solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP in respect to floor space ratio, wall height and building setbacks. The assessment of the application reveals that the top floor of the proposed development, the proposed planting along the Seaside Parade boundary and the failure to maintain the front building alignment of the existing dwelling houses along the eastern side of Seaside Parade are the main contributing factors to the view loss.

 

The reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, has been assessed using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council proceedings. The assessment of the proposal in accordance with the four step process established in the proceedings has demonstrated that the proposal is unreasonable in terms of its identified view impacts on Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade and that a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same or greater development potential and amenity than that offered by the proposal while at the same time reducing the impact on views from Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade to a more reasonable and acceptable level.

 

For the above reasons, the subject application should not be supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a new part three part four storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, a lap pool and associated landscaping works. The details of the proposal are as follows:

 

Lower Terrace Level

§ Demolition of the existing in-ground swimming pool and associated deck at the rear of the site.

§ Demolition of an existing staircase and construction of a new spiral staircase to the levels above.

§ Installation of two water tanks to the southern side of the site.

 

Semi-basement/Lower Ground Floor Level

§ Front entry court facing Liguria Street.

§ A garage capable of accommodating up to three cars.

§ A plant room.

§ Garbage bins storage area.

§ Two terraces and a courtyard adjoining extensively landscaped areas.

§ A bathroom adjacent to the garage.

§   Open plan living, dining and kitchen area with direct access to an east facing barbeque area and terrace.

§ Stairs from the entry passage to the ground floor level.

 

Ground Floor Level

§ Two bedrooms with walk-in-robes. One of the bedrooms opens to a courtyard facing Seaside Parade and the other bedroom faces the rear of the site with a small balcony.

§ Three bathrooms including two ensuite.

§ A home theatre room with direct access to an open entertainment area.

§ A laundry.

§ A gym/study room with direct access to a small east facing balcony.

 

First Floor Level

§ Two receiving/guest rooms (each with an ensuite and direct access to south-facing landscaped terrace area).

§ A terrace/theatre terrace facing east with access to a sundeck and lap pool at second floor level.

 

Second Floor Level

§ Two bedrooms with ensuite and wardrobe and direct access to a semi open west and south facing balcony.

§ A lap pool with direct access from the adjoining sundeck and the semi open balcony.

 

The proposal also involves substantial site works including excavation up to site boundaries and landscaping for the whole site. A number of tall trees will be planted along the Seaside Parade frontage with mature height of up to 12 metres.

 

The applicant has stated in the Statement of the Environmental Effects that “the dwelling has been designed to present as two “sections” which provide different living functions. One section, fronting Seaside Parade, contains the children’s living space and guest areas, whilst the second section contains the main living areas and parents’ quarters”.

 

3.    The subject site and surrounding area

 

The subject site is located on the north-eastern corner of Seaside Parade and Liguria Street in South Coogee and is currently occupied by a part-one, part-two storey rendered brick and tiled roof dwelling house with a double garage at street level and an in-ground swimming pool at the rear of the site.

 

The site is irregularly shaped having a western frontage to Seaside Parade of 30.72m, a southern boundary of 47.795m, a combined northern side boundary of 58.725m and a rear boundary of 24.145m. The overall site area is 1,454.4sqm.  The land falls from north to south and there is also cross fall from west to east.

 

Neighbouring the property to the north is a part two to part four storey dwelling house at No. 19 Seaside Parade. Across Liguria Street, to the south, is a three storey dwelling house at 39 Liguria Street. Opposite the subject site, at 16 Seaside Parade, was occupied by a two storey dwelling which has been demolished to allow for the construction of a new part two part three storey dwelling house with double garage at street level that was approved by Council in July 2007 (DA/251/2007).

 

The approved dwelling has two separate living areas including decks and swimming pool located at ground floor level and all bedrooms are located at the floor above. The northern living area at ground floor level comprises of kitchen, dining, TV/study room and casual dining area and the southern living area comprises of lounge room and associated deck and terrace.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of two storey free standing dwellings and semi-detached cottages of varying architectural styles and treatments. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Figure 2 is the subject site from the corner of Seaside Parade and Liguria Street.

 

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

 

Figure 2 is the subject site from the corner of Seaside Parade and Liguria Street.

 

4.    Site History

 

a.           Application History

The subject application was lodged on 3 May 2007 and notified to the surrounding properties from 9 May to 23 May 2007. Three objections were received during the notification period and the main issues raised in the objections were view loss, non-compliance with floor space ratio, wall height and setback requirements, glare from solar panels and inappropriate tree selection.

 

As a result of the notification, a meeting was held at the subject site with the applicant and the applicant’s consultants to discuss the issues raised by the objectors and height poles were also requested to be erected on the subject site to allow an understanding as to the view related impacts of the proposal on the affected properties.

 

The height poles were inspected by Council Officers and objectors on 16 August 2007. Following the inspection, the applicant has submitted supporting documentation including the assessment of the view loss based on the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court.

 

The owners of the adjoining properties were renotified of the supporting documentation in January 2008 and as a result, two submissions were received from the owner of 16 Seaside Parade  and a planning consultant acting on behalf of the owner of 16 Seaside Parade and again reiterated the concerns of the development.

 

The applicant advised that a consultation/mediation process was carried out directly with the owner of 16 Seaside Parade to discuss the issues in relation to the proposal and ways to resolve the issues. The process has failed to achieve a satisfactory outcome and hence the applicant has advised that no amendments will be made. As such, the assessment in this report is based on the application as originally submitted.

 

b.      History of Site Usage

The previous applications for the subject site were for alterations and additions which do not affect the current proposal.

 

5.    Community consultation

 

5.1 First Notification

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

 

Architect acting on behalf of the owner of 16 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

Loss of views as a result of variations with floor space ratio, wall height and setback controls

An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd v Warringah Council is provided in Section 9.4.2 of this report.

 

 

The variations with floor space ratio, wall height and setback controls are discussed in Section 9.3.1 of this report.

 

Glare from solar panels

Solar panels are designed to absorb as much light as possible to generate the maximum amount of electricity. Therefore the materials typically have no or low reflectivity.

Inappropriate tree selection

Council’s Landscape Development Officer has advised that the proposed landscaping is deemed unsatisfactory as there are several issues which will need to be resolved such as the selection of tree species along the Seaside Parade frontage. See Section 6.2 of this report for full details.

 

An additional objection letter was submitted after inspection of the height poles and the following issues were raised:

 

Issue

Comment

The height poles showed that the view lost comprises not only the ocean view but also a significant portion of the horizon.

The assessment of the view loss impact is provided in Section 9.4.2 of this report. 

 

 

The view is even lost from the garden on the northern side of No. 16 Seaside Parade, where the land naturally slopes up.

 

 

Owner of 14 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The height of the proposed development exceeds Council’s requirement by 4m and will lead to a loss of some views over Lurline Bay.

As noted previously, an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd v Warringah Council is provided in Section 9.4.2 of this report.

The proposed trees along the Seaside Parade frontage will further impact on views.

See comments in Section 6.2 of this report. 

 

An additional objection letter was submitted by the owner of 14 Seaside Parade, South Coogee after inspection of the height poles on the subject site and the following issues were raised:

 

Issue

Comment

The height poles showed that the proposed development would extend into the south-west corner of the site and would effectively block the corridor views of Lurline Bay between 21 Seaside Parade and 39 Liguria Street. The height poles also showed the proposed building would extend far beyond the current alignment with other odd numbered houses in the street.

As noted previously, an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd v Warringah Council is provided in Section 9.4.2 of this report.

 

 

5.2    Second Notification

The owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the additional information (i.e. view analysis) in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

1)       The owner of 16 Seaside Parade reinstating the issues raised previously in the objections prepared by Susan Fuller.

2)       Tony Moody, consultant Town Planner acting on behalf of the owner of 16 Seaside Parade stating that the proposed development is a most unreasonable one and is not worthy of approval on the ground of view loss from 16 Seaside Parade.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

6.1    Development Engineer

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

 

“An application has been received for construction of a new dwelling including a three space garage and swimming pool at the above site.

 

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

·      Architectural plan by Renato D’Ettorre Architect dated 8 August 2005;

·      Survey plan 03115 by Geo-metric Surveying dated 21 February 2004;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Willana associates dated August 2005.

 

Drainage Comments

 

Stormwater runoff shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrestor pit that drains to a 5 m2 base infiltration area/rubble pit. An over flow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit that drains to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system).

 

The requirement for an infiltration/rubble pit will not be enforced should the ground conditions preclude the construction of the infiltration pit (i.e. rock and/or the water table is near the surface). If the infiltration area is not constructed (due to demonstrated unsuitable ground conditions), all site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter via a sediment/silt arrestor pit.

 

6.2    Landscape Development Officer

The proposed landscape plan has been reviewed by the Landscaped Development Officer and the following comments are provided:

 

“While the plan contains a comprehensive level of detail treatment, it is still deemed unsatisfactory as there are several issues which will need to be resolved, as discussed below:

 

§ The selection of Eucalyptus cinerea (Argyle Apple) as a feature tree at the northwest corner of the site is not supported as despite being a native species, its natural distribution is limited to the central and southern tablelands of NSW, and as such, would not tolerate front-line coastal conditions, regardless of whether the proposed dwelling would afford protection/shelter upon completion.

 

Further, it will have insufficient room to properly develop both above and below ground, and would also have the potential to cause an obstruction, or impede a clear line of sight for vehicles existing from the adjoining property to the north, 19 Seaside Parade, as well those travelling on the actual roadway.

 

As such, this tree shall be replaced with an alternative species which is more suitable for the location and space available.

 

§ While the area surrounding this property is highly disturbed as a result of stormwater run-off and the resulting weed invasion, the provision of Canna x generalis (Canna Lilly) is still deemed inappropriate given its ‘weed-like’ properties; and as such, shall be deleted from the planting plan and schedule, and is to be replaced with another, non-invasive species.

 

§ The provision of a row of six Tristaniopsis laurina (WaterGum’s) along the length of the western boundary is inappropriate given firstly, their size at maturity (approximately 6m x 6m) as this will lead to overcrowding. But more importantly, their close proximity to the boundary, combined with the narrow width of Seaside Parade, will result in their western aspects overhanging the roadway which will cause a substantial obstruction to passing vehicles, with the associated maintenance to be ongoing and unnecessary, with a more suitable, alternative species which is more appropriate or this area of the site to be nominated.

 

§ A mass planting of a total of 11 (eleven) Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s) in the open courtyard about halfway along the eastern boundary is excessive as despite their canopy spreads being represented as about 3.5 metres, realistically, it is double this at about 6 metres or more across, and therefore, will also lead to overcrowding.

 

Therefore, the quantity proposed for this area needs to be reduced to a maximum of about 3-4, and spaced appropriately to allow for their future growth requirements.

 

§ Traditionally, Council does not support plantings beyond a site boundary, on public property for maintenance and liability reasons; however, this stance can be relaxed in instances where it can be demonstrated that plantings would assist in softening the bulk or scale of a boundary wall or similar structure, or will have a positive impact on the streetscape.

 

Such a scenario has been proposed at the southwest corner of the site, with the ‘Type C’ planting also proposed along the southern boundary (fronting Liguria Street) also having the potential to overhang onto public space.

 

As such, the applicant/Landscape Architect will be required to demonstrate that only low growing species which will not encroach over/onto public property, and will in no wayeffect safe pedestrian thoroughfare will be used in these areas, with the species selected to be clearly shown.

 

In light of the items discussed above, the current plan will need to be reviewed, with the issues raised above incorporated into an amended plan, which is then to be re-submitted to Council for consideration and approval.”

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

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

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

§ Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)

§ State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

§ Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

§ Development Control Plan - Parking

§ Building Code of Australia

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

9.1      Environmental Planning Instruments

 

9.1.1   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

The site is zoned Residential 2A and is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under RLEP. The following clauses of the RLEP apply to the proposal:

Clause 10 – Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone)

The objectives of Zone No. 2A are:

 

a)       to maintain the character of established residential areas. And

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

c)       to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development, and

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

 

The proposed development is excessive in height, bulk & scale and does not respect the established building alignment along the eastern side of Seaside Parade and will adversely affect the views currently attained from the nearby dwelling houses at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable as the relevant objective of Zone No. 2A (i.e. objective c) will not be achieved. In addition, the proposed development also fails to comply with the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in terms of floor area, height and building setbacks.

 

Clause 29 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Clause 29 requires that Council consider the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed development in relation to the foreshore. As indicated in relevant sections of the assessment below, the proposed development will not adversely affect or detract from the visual qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area. Accordingly, the proposal complies with the provisions of Clause 29.

 

Clause 40      Excavation and filling of land

Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct the lower floor level including the garage. This work will not result in any significant impact on the topography of the site, is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

9.1.2   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55)

Clause 7(1) (a) of the SEPP 55 requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibility of contamination.

 

It is considered reasonable to assume that the site would not be contaminated, or in need of remediation pursuant to SEPP 55 and that the site is suitable for continued residential use.

 

9.1.3   State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. 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 dwelling and the applicant has provided a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development. The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction.

 

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

 

9.2      Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

 

a)      Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No. 36 (Draft LEP)

The Draft LEP Amendment 36 concluded its exhibition on 4 November 2005.

 

The key LEP changes affect the Residential 2A Zone and include:

 

§  Reducing the minimum subdivision size from 900m2 to 800m2;

§  Increasing minimum frontage requirements for the development of an attached dual occupancy from 12m to 15m; and,

§  Increasing minimum landscaped area requirement for development other than dwelling houses from 40% to 50% of the site area.

 

LEP Standards do not apply to this application. Further consideration of the Draft LEP is not required in this instance.

 

9.3    Development Control Plans

 

9.3.1   Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

 

Landscaping

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

58% of the site is landscaped area. Complies.

S1

A minimum of 25m² of useable private open space is to be provided.

534.5sqm of private open space provided. Complies.

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The private open spaces are located in various areas within the site and are all provided with sufficient privacy. Complies.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

Approximately 20% of the site is permeable. Complies.

Floor Area

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.64:1. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

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

 

A summary of the non-compliance is provided below:

 

Site Area:                                                                                     1,454.4m²

Maximum allowable FSR:                                                         0.5:1 or 727.2m²

Proposed FSR (including terraces/balconies:                              0.64:1 or 934.5m²

Area exceeding maximum allowable FSR:                                0.14:1 or 207.3m²

 

The break down of the proposed floor areas is as follows:

 

 

GFA (m²)

Terrace/Balcony (m²)

Void (m²)

Lower Terrace Level

0

0

0

Lower/Garage Floor Level

237.4 (excluding 40 m² of garage, passage to garage)

0

0

Ground Floor Level

307.5

28.6

19.1

First Floor Level

107.4

60.6

6.5

Second Floor Level

80.1

195.2 (balconies and roof terrace)

16.75

Sub Total

732.4

284.4

42.35

Subtract

40m² of decks/terraces more than 1m above ground level and void up to 10% of total floor area

 

 

284.4 – 40 = 244.4

732.4 x 10% = 73.24 (The proposed void area is within the 10% limit)

Total GFA

732.4 – 42.35 (void) + 244.4 (terrace/balcony) = 934.45

 

NB. The above calculations have been made based on the definition of “gross floor area” contained in the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

As indicated above, the proposal represents 207.3 sqm of excess floor area, which is well over the preferred maximum floor area for the subject site. Whilst it is acknowledged that a portion of this area is occupied by balconies/terraces and a considerable portion of the proposed dwelling is below Seaside Parade level, the overall apparent size of the building, particularly, the front two storey portion above the Seaside Parade level is considered to be excessive and will result in an unreasonable impact upon the amenity of the nearby properties in terms of view sharing. In addition, the front portion of the building will be located forward of the existing dwellings along the eastern side of Seaside Parade and will also affect the existing character of the streetscape.

 

For the above reasons, it is considered that the proposal fails to satisfy the objective and performance requirement of the DCP and should not be supported as the bulk and scale of the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the nearby properties and the character of the streetscape.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The external wall height of the proposed dwelling varies from 8.1m to 11.4m. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

The proposed cut exceeds 1m in several parts of the site. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Excavation will occur within 900mm of the northern and southern side boundaries.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

No excavation will occur within 4m of the rear boundary.

S4

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

The length of the second storey portion is greater than 12m and the external wall is setback more than 1.5m from the southern side boundary.

S5

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

Not applicable.

P6

Buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views.

An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 9.4.2 of this report.

 

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

 

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

 

The external wall height of the proposed dwelling varies from 8.1m to 11.4m with the highest wall located to the front portion of the building, measured from the roof of the top floor level to the existing ground level (refer to Section BB of the submitted plans). The height of the western external wall varies from 8.1m to 9.7m, which also exceeds the preferred solutions of the DCP. The variation to the wall height control for the whole development is considered excessive, particularly, at the south-western corner of the building where the height reaches 9.7m and will adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding properties in respect of view sharing. In addition, the proposal also includes planting of trees along the Seaside Parade frontage with mature height of up to 12m, which further restrict the views from the affected properties.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed flat roof design will have less impact on views than a development with pitched roof, it is still considered that the height of the external wall should be reduced to minimise the impact on the surrounding properties.

 

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP and therefore should not be supported.

 

Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The setback of the proposed development from Seaside Parade frontage varies from 2.3m to 7.9m. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S2

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

The proposed development is setback more than 4.5m from rear boundary and is also within the foreshore building line. Complies.

S3

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

Lower Floor/Garage Level:

North: 1.6m (Yes)

South: 1m – 2.2m (Yes)

Ground floor level:

North: 1.6m (Yes)

South: 0m – 6m (No)

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at first floor level.

First Floor Level:

North: 1.5m – 7.6m (No)

South: 1m -6m (No)

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m for any part of a building more than two levels at that point.

Second Floor Level:

North: 1.1m – 10.7m (No)

South: 1m – 7.2m (No)

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours; and with respect to front boundary setbacks the proposal generally conform to the adjoining development or dominant streetscape.

 

It is noted that the dwelling houses along the eastern side of Seaside Parade maintains an established streetscape pattern of a consistent front setback and the proposed development will be approximately 10m forward of the adjoining property to the north at No. 19 Seaside Parade which will alter the established streetscape pattern and adversely affect the overall amenity and character of the streetscape. Whilst there is part of the existing dwelling which extends beyond the building alignment, it is at a lower level and is not as visible as the proposed development (see Figure 3).

 

The non-compliance in side setbacks is considered to be acceptable in that this is off-set by the setback of a greater part of the first and second floor levels which will exceed the minimum requirements thus minimising any potential adverse amenity impact on the adjoining dwelling. Taking into account of the corner location and orientation of the site, it is considered that strict compliance with the side setback requirement in this instance is unnecessary and would not result in any significant improvement to the amenity of the adjoining dwelling.

 

Lower level of 21 Seaside Parade

 

No. 21 Seaside Parade

 

No. 19 Seaside Parade

 

Figure 3: Existing streetscape pattern 

 


Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The majority of the windows on the northern elevations are provided with horizontal privacy screens to minimise overlooking into neighbour’s windows.

S1

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

The proposed balconies/decks/terraces are all provided with sufficient privacy screens to minimise overlooking into neighbour’s internal living areas and private open spaces.  

S1

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

The proposal generally complies with this requirement. Where compliance is not achieved and windows face an adjoining property at less than 9m, windows have been screened.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Not applicable.

 

Safety & Security

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The proposed front door faces the street. Complies.

S1,3

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

The proposed dwelling has windows and balconies/terraces/decks that overlook the street. Complies.

S2

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

Suitable condition included for any consent granted.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed dwelling has parking for 3 cars. Complies.

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking spaces comply with this requirement.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is approximately 4.5m at boundary and setback more than 1m from the side boundary. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway gradient is less than 1 in 8. Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed garage is generally in line with the proposed building.

S2

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

The proposed driveway occupies about 33% of the width of the site frontage. Complies.

 

          Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

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

The height of the proposed fence varies from 1.5m to 3.1m on Seaside Parade and Liguria Street boundaries. Does not comply.

S1

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

Not applicable.

 

Foreshore Development

 

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

The rear of the proposed development is within the Foreshore Building Line.

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

The materials and colours are considered to be acceptable.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

The front section of the building is excessively in height and will adversely affect the views to the ocean from the nearby properties.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

The proposed development does not incorporate sufficient setbacks and as a result, the views from the nearby property at No. 16 Seaside Parade will be greatly affected. See Section 9.4.2 for discussion regarding view sharing.

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

Not applicable.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Not applicable. The proposed development complies with the BASIX requirements.

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

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

 

9.3.2          Development Control Plan - Parking

The proposal will provide three car parking spaces in the semi-basement garage, which complies with the numerical requirements of the DCP – Parking (i.e. two car parking spaces for a dwelling house with three or more bedrooms).

 

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

 

9.4.1         Natural Environmental Impacts

The subject site contains an existing dwelling house in a developed suburban context. As such, the subject site contains no endangered flora or fauna that will be affected by the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposal will be acceptable in terms of natural environmental impacts which will be minimal, if not, nonexistent.

 

9.4.2   Built Environmental Impacts

 

Impact to Adjoining Properties

In terms of view loss, objections have been raised by the owners of Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade citing loss of views to east and south-east of objectors’ properties.

 

The applicant was requested to erect height poles on the subject site to allow a better understanding of the view related impacts from the nearby dwelling houses at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade.

 

The owner of 16 Seaside Parade has also constructed temporary platforms to demonstrate the levels of impact from the living areas and associated decks of the approved development. 

 

It should be noted that the RLs of the height poles and temporary platforms have been verified by the applicant and objector’s surveyors. 

 

The following photos show the views currently available from the objectors’ properties.

 

a)        Views from No. 14 Seaside Parade

 

Approximate outline of the front portion of the proposed building

 

Photo 1: View from the front terrace of No. 14 Seaside Parade looking southeast over the subject site

 

Approximate outline of the front portion of the proposed building

 

No. 19 Seaside Parade

 

Photo 2: View from the front terrace of No. 14 Seaside Parade looking southeast over the dwelling houses on the eastern side of Seaside Parade (i.e. Nos. 17-21)

 

b)        Views from No. 16 Seaside Parade

 

 

Photo 3: Panoramic views from the temporary platform built on 16 Seaside Parade at RL 23.21 (AHD), which is 610mm below the lounge room level of RL 23.82 at ground floor level of approved dwelling, looking east/south-east over the subject site.

 

Photo 4: View from the temporary platform built on 16 Seaside Parade at RL 24.54, equivalent to the kitchen/dining room level at ground floor level of the approved dwelling, looking east/south-east over the subject site.

 

35 Liguria St

 

37 Liguria St

 

39 Liguria St

 
    

Photo 5: Views from 16 Seaside Parade looking directly south over the properties on Liguria Street.

 

The DCP contains the following Performance Requirements relating to view sharing:

 

§ Performance Requirement P6 under Part 4.3 Height, Form and Materials of the DCP requires that “buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”.

 

§ Performance Requirement P2 under Part 4.4 Building Setbacks of the DCP requires that “building forms and setbacks allow neighbours adequate access to natural light and a share of views and preserve established trees and vegetation and be generally consistent with the setback of adjoining properties.”

 

§ Performance Requirement P4 under Part 4.9 Foreshore Development of the DCP requires that “buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow planting and a fair sharing of views.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No. 14 Seaside Parade

 

Views from No. 14 Seaside Parade can be described as follows:

 

Eastern Views:

 

§ Majority of water view blocked by the existing dwelling house at No. 15 Seaside Parade.

 

South-eastern Views:

 

§ View of land and water interface (i.e. Lurline Bay and Mistral Point).

§ View of the ocean partially obscured by the existing dwellings at Nos. 19-21 Seaside Parade.

 

Southern Views:

 

§ View of land and water interface (i.e. Lurline Bay)

§ View of the ocean partially obscured by the existing dwellings at 19-21 Seaside Parade and 39 Liguria Street.

 

The views obtained from the front of the existing dwelling house at No. 14 Seaside Parade are considered to be highly valuable, insofar as they relates to the uninterrupted views of the interface between land and water (i.e. Mistral Point).

 

No. 16 Seaside Parade

 

Views from No. 16 Seaside Parade can be described as follows:

 

Eastern and South-eastern Views:

 

§ View of land and water interface (i.e. Lurline Bay and Mistral Point) through the corridor between No. 21 Seaside Parade and No. 39 Liguria Street.

§ View of water and horizon above the roof of the existing dwelling house on subject site.

 

Southern Views:

 

§ Water views and land/water interface views (i.e. Lurline Bay) partially obscured by the existing dwellings along Liguria Street.

 

The views can be obtained from the ground and first floor levels of the approved dwelling and are considered to be highly valuable, insofar as they relates to views of water and the interface between land and water (i.e. Mistral Point).

 

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

 

As noted previously, views from No. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade are currently available from the front and southern side of the dwellings at ground and first floor levels. The views can be attained from standing or sitting position. The front upper portion of the proposed dwelling and the proposed trees along the Seaside Parade frontage will adversely affect the standing/sitting views to the east and south-east from the living areas of the affected properties.

 

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

 

As shown in Photos 1 and 2 above, the extent of view loss from 14 Seaside Parade would be minor as the majority of water views and water/land interface views will be maintained. However, if the proposed trees along the Seaside Parade frontage reach the mature height (i.e. up to 12 metres), the impact would be devastated.

 

As noted previously, two platforms were built on 16 Seaside Parade to allow better understanding of the extent of view loss from the two separate living areas at ground floor level of the approved dwelling. Photos 3 to 5 above shows the views from the platforms only and it should be noted that the impact would be different depends on where you stand in the living areas. The views from the upper level of the approved dwelling will not be affected by the proposed development as the finished floor level is significantly higher than the roof ridge of the proposed dwelling. 

 

Based on the views shown in Photo 3 above, it is considered that the extent of impact from the southern living area (i.e. lounge room and associated deck/terrace) would be minor as the view corridor between 21 Seaside Parade and 39 Liguria Street will be maintained. However, as shown in Photo 4 above, the views from the northern living area (i.e. kitchen and dining areas) and associated decks would be adversely affected as the majority of water views and water/land interface views including Mistral Point will be blocked by the top floor of the proposed development. In addition, the proposed trees along the Seaside Parade frontage will further restrict the views from these living areas.

 

The applicant has submitted a view analysis study to demonstrate the extent of view loss from the northern living area of the approved dwelling at No. 21 Seaside Parade. While the study contains a comprehensive level of detail, it is still considered unsatisfactory as the impact on views arises as a result of variations with Council’s numerical controls.

 

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

 

As noted previously, the proposal does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP in respect to floor space ratio, wall height and building setback controls. The apparent size of the front upper section of the building and the failure to respect the front building alignment of the adjoining dwellings are clearly the contributing factors to the view loss.

 

Having regard to the above assessment, and in the absence of any other identifiable constraints, it is considered that the proposal is unreasonable in terms of its identified view impacts on Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade. Considering the size of the subject site and the opportunity exists to distribute the additional floor area, reducing the height of the building and setting the top floor back to maintain the front building alignment of the adjoining dwellings, it is considered that a more skilful design and better selection of tree species could provide the applicant with the same or greater development potential and amenity than that offered by the proposal while at the same time reducing the impact on views from the affected properties to a more reasonable and acceptable level.

 

9.5    Site Suitability

 

The proposal involving the construction of a new dwelling house is suitable for the site particularly in view of its residential zoning and surrounding residential context.

 

10. Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:          Excellent in urban design.

Direction:          Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

11. Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12. Conclusion

 

The proposed development will result in a detrimental impact to the amenity of Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade and does not address the impact of the quality of views enjoyed by the surrounding neighbours.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP in respect to floor space ratio, wall height and building setbacks. The additional height, scale and bulk of the development have not been mitigated or ameliorated through a more skilful design and the selection of the tree species have failed to satisfy Council’s requirement. As such, the proposal fails to address the cumulative and detrimental impact that the proposed development will have to the amenity of the nearby properties and the character of the streetscape. 

 

For the above reasons, the subject application is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/323/2007 to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a new part three part four storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, a lap pool on the roof,  associated site and landscaping works at 21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal is inconsistent with the objective of the Residential 2A zone as stated in Clause 10(1)(c) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the proposed development will adversely affect the amenity of the nearby properties at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade.

 

2.       The proposal will adversely affect the views currently attained from the dwellings at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade and is inconsistent with the performance requirements of Part 4.3.3 (P6), Part 4.4.2 (P2) and Part 4.9.4 (P4) of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies which requires the building to be designed to allow a fair sharing of views.

 

3.       The bulk and scale of the proposed development are inconsistent with the objective and performance requirement of Part 4.2 “Floor Area” of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies insofar that it will have an intrusive impact on the views enjoyed from the nearby dwelling houses at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade.

 

4.       The proposal fails to maintain the dominant setback of adjoining development along the eastern side of Seaside Parade and is inconsistent with the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.4 Building Setbacks of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

5.       The proposed landscaping along the Seaside Parade boundary is unsatisfactory as it will adversely affect the views from the surrounding properties.

 

6.       The selection of tree species along the Seaside Parade boundary is inappropriate as the trees will obstruct or impede a clear line of sight for vehicles existing from the adjoining property at 19 Seaside Parade as well as those travelling on the roadway.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

22 July 2008

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP31/08

 

 

Subject:                  23 & 25 Strachan Street, Kingsford

Folder No:                   DA/1081/2007

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a 3-storey multi-unit housing development comprising 9 apartment units, basement car parking for 14 vehicles, landscape works and land amalgamation.

 

Ward:                      West Ward

 

Applicant:                Architectus Sydney Pty Ltd

 

Owner:                         Golden Dragon Ji Australia Pty Ltd

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.      Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to the Ordinary Council Meeting for determination as it has an estimated total development cost of more than $2 million.

 

The subject application is for demolition of the existing structures on site and construction of a three- (3) storey multi-unit housing development comprising three (3) x 3 bedroom dwellings, six (6) x 2 bedroom dwellings, basement car parking for fourteen (14) vehicles, general landscape works and amalgamation of Lots A and B in DP 318271, Nos. 23 and 25 Strachan Street, into a single allotment.

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Strachan Street, at the corner of Houston Road. The site presents a trapezium shape in plan view and has a frontage width and land area of 22.55m and 831.8m2 respectively. The site is adjoined to the east by a double-storey detached dwelling (No. 27 Strachan Street). Immediately adjoining the site to the south is a three-storey residential flat building (No. 40-42 Houston Road).

 

The application was advertised and notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 11 to 30 January 2008 in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification period. The issues raised are in relation to development density, solar access, view loss, traffic congestion and construction impacts.

 

The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998. The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2C Zone, in that the development will deliver multi-unit housing, which is compatible with the desired character of the locality. The proposed development incorporates suitable design features that minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, and is considered to carry positive design merits.

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.04:1, which equates to 864.3m2 of gross floor area. The proposed FSR does not comply with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.9:1 stipulated in RLEP 1998. The FSR control is a numerical development standard contained in the LEP. The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 – Development Standards justifying that the breach will not result in significant adverse amenity or visual impacts on the area. The objection has been assessed and is supported.

 

The Randwick Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan (DCP) specifies detailed built form, setbacks and solar access controls for residential flat buildings across Randwick City. The building height, setbacks, landscaped open space provision, façade treatment and solar access of the development substantially comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and are considered to be satisfactory.

 

The proposed car parking provision within the development complies with the controls contained in Council’s Parking DCP.

 

The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

The proposed development satisfies the relevant legislation, State policies and local planning controls, and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 


2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site consists of Lots A and B in DP 318271, Nos. 23 and 25 Strachan Street, Randwick. The site is located on the southern side of Strachan Street and has a secondary frontage towards Houston Road. The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary       

Length

Land area

Northern, Strachan Street boundary

22.55m

 

Southern, side boundary

21.66m

 

Eastern, side boundary

35.275m

 

Western, Houston Road boundary

41.555m

 

 

 

831.8m2

 

The site has a flat terrain with a cross fall from the north-west to the south-east of approximately 1.42m.

 

At present, the site is occupied by two single-storey detached dwelling houses. The site is adjoined to the east by a double-storey detached dwelling (No. 27 Strachan Street). Immediately adjoining the site to the south is a three-storey residential flat building (No. 40-42 Houston Road).

 

Ninety-degree angled kerb side public parking is provided along Strachan Street and the eastern side of Houston Road. The immediate locality is characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential development. Commercial land uses are located to east of the site along Anzac Parade.

 

Photos 1-4 show the existing development on the subject and adjoining sites.

 

 

Photo 1 Strachan Street elevation of the subject site

 

Photo 2 Houston Road elevation of the subject site

 

Photo 3 Adjoining development to the south at No. 40-42 Houston Road

 

Photo 4 Adjoining development to the east at No. 27 Strachan Street

 


3.      The Proposal

 

The proposed development includes the following components:

 

·      Demolition of all existing structures on site and removal of trees.

 

·      Construction of a three (3) storey residential flat building with the following floor space elements:

- Basement level: parking for 14 vehicles and 4 bicycles, garbage room and storage areas

-  Ground level: 1 x 3 bedroom unit and 2 x 2 bedroom units

-  First level: 1 x 3 bedroom unit and 2 x 2 bedroom units

- Second level: 1 x 3 bedroom unit and 2 x 2 bedroom units

 

·      General landscaping

 

·      Amalgamation of Lot A in DP 318271 (No. 23 Strachan Street) and Lot B in DP 318271 (No. 25 Strachan Street) into a single allotment.

 

Total estimated development cost (excluding GST): $2,912,428.

 

4.      Site History

 

4.1    Plan amendments/additional information

A request was made by letter dated 11 February 2008 for the submission of the following information:

 

·      A written statement from a suitably qualified land contamination consultant, which justifies that a preliminary site investigation in relation to land contamination is not necessary for the subject land and proposal. The statement is to provide comments on the following aspects:

 

-       Land contamination,

-       Ground water contamination,

-       Ground water to surface level, and

-       Site suitability.

 

A preliminary site assessment report was submitted on 13 March 2008.

 

A further request was made by letter dated 4 April 2008 for the submission of amended plans and additional information addressing the following issues:

 

·      Additional details are to be provided on the drawings to demonstrate compliance with the driveway grade requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1.

·      Suitable traffic management measures are to be incorporated along the access ramp to the basement level in order to minimise potential vehicular conflicts.

·      The clear glass balcony balustrades are to be replaced with an opaque/frosted glass design, in order to protect the privacy of the occupants.

·      Ceiling fans are to be provided to all bedrooms within the building.

·      The proposed east-facing balconies on the first and second floors are attached to the main living and dining areas. These balconies are only setback 3.5m from the shared boundary with No. 27 Strachan Street and are considered to result in privacy impacts on this adjoining property. Additional screening devices are to be installed in order to resolve privacy issues.

·      The width of the planter boxes along the eastern boundary in the outdoor terrace areas is to be increased to enable the planting of larger shrub species.

·      Detailed elevation and section drawings in 1:50 scale are to be submitted to demonstrate the design of the proposed privacy screening devices, including the dimensions, configuration and spacing between slats.

·      The submitted shadow diagram for 12 noon on the winter solstice is incorrect.

 

The requested amended plans and information were received on 1 and 22 May 2008.

 

Further revisions to the façade design were proposed and amended plans were submitted to Council on 24 June 2008. 

 

4.2    Previous development consent relating to the site

There are no recent approvals relating to the site.

 

5.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified by letter dated 11 January 2008 to 83 adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The notification period ended on 30 January 2008. A total of two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification period:

 

·      16 / 40-42 Houston Road, Kingsford

·      Local resident, address not given.

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The locality is already densely populated and the proposal will worsen the current situation.

The proposed housing density is justified by the site’s proximity to the major activity nodes including the Kingsford Town Centre and the University of New South Wales campus, and the arterial transport corridor of Anzac Parade. The proposal is considered to introduce a suitable amount of residential population to a locality, which is highly accessible to retail, commercial and community services and public transport.

 

The proposal is also consistent with the objectives of Residential 2C Zone contained in RLEP 1998.

 

The proposal will result in traffic congestion in the area.

The proposal fully complies with the car parking provision of DCP – Parking and is not considered to result in unacceptable traffic impacts.

 

The proposal will overshadow the adjoining building at No. 40-42 Houston Road throughout the year.

The proposal is not considered to result in detrimental and unreasonable shadow impacts on the adjoining properties. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

 

The proposal will result in loss of City view from Unit 16 of No. 40-42 Houston Road.

Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

 

The demolition and building work on the subject site will result in noise and other amenity impacts on the area. 

Standard conditions of consent are recommended to ensure appropriate construction management measures are implemented during works on the site.

 

6.      Technical Officers Comments

 

6.1    Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

The comments provided by the Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer are extracted as follows:

 

Landscape Comments

Standard landscape conditions have been included within this report.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

Traffic Comments

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

 

The driveway opening at the Houston Road frontage must be 3.6 metres wide and located at least 1.0 metre clear of the side property.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum of 3.0 metres with 300mm wide kerbs on either side, (total driveway allocation of 3.6 metres).

 

Parking provision – Council’s DCP- Parking requires 1.2 carspaces per two bedroom dwelling and 1.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom dwelling. In addition 1 visitor’s carspace is required per 4 dwellings.

 

The proposed development contains 6x2 bedroom units and 3x3 bedroom units and therefore requires 14 spaces comprising of 11.7 residential spaces and 2.25 visitors spaces. The submitted plans indicate 11 residential spaces and 3 visitors spaces and therefore achieve compliance with this requirement however it is recommended that parking allocation be on the basis of 12 residential spaces and 2 visitor spaces.

 

Carpark layout- General conditions relating to the design of the carpark have been included within this report.

 

Service Authority Comments

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

6.2    Building Surveyor

The comments provided by Council’s Building Surveyor are extracted as follows:

 

The Proposal

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing 2 dwellings and construction of a new 3 storey Multi Unit Housing residential development with basement car parking.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class - 2    (Residential Units)

Class - 7a  (Car Park)

 

Background

The existing building on site is a post war brick cottage bounded by buildings of a similar nature.

 

Key Issues

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Noise:

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

 

Site Management:

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

Although access and facilities for people with disabilities is not required under the Building Code of Australia, wherever practicable the entrance to a multi unit housing development should aim to facilitate some degree of accessibility to the building.

 

 

No objections are raised against the proposal, subject to conditions.

 

6.3    Environmental Health Officer

The comments provided by Council’s Environmental Health Officer are extracted as follows:

 

The proposal

The proposal consists of a development application for the demolition of the existing residential dwellings and the erection of a 3 storey residential development comprising of nine (9) residential units to be located at 23-25 Strachan Street Kingsford.

 

Key Issues

Land Contamination

The potential for land contamination has been considered. The preliminary investigation report prepared by Environmental Investigations Services (EIS) titled, Phase 1 Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Residential Development at 23-25 Strachan Street Randwick, Ref: E21453FK-RPT, dated March 2008 was submitted in support of this application through additional information.

 

The report comments that elevated levels of lead and zinc were encountered and that asbestos was identified in one of the soil samples (BH1).

 

It is in the opinion of EIS, that the site can be made suitable for the proposed use/development, provided that a number of recommendations are carried out, hence Council’s reasons for requesting a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) prior to Construction Certificate and a Validation Report prepared by a suitably qualified Environmental Consultant at the completion of remedial works, through DA conditions. Council’s standard asbestos conditions are to be included in any consent given.

 

It should be noted that advice was initially received advising of possible contamination in the geotechnical report prepared by Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd titled Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Residential Development at 23 and 25 Strachan Street Randwick NSW, Ref: 21453V, dated 26 September 2007. The conditions included in this report are a result of the information provided.

                                                                 

Noise from plant and equipment

The potential for a noise nuisance to be generated from plant and equipment associated with the proposed development has been considered.

 

Perusal of the development application identified that there will be basement car parking thus the need for a mechanical ventilation system, individual heat pump water heaters for each unit and a rainwater harvesting tank for car washing purposes.

 

Noise conditions in relation to times of use for rain water tanks and heat pump water heaters, car wash bay requirements and the need for an acoustic report to be submitted prior to occupation certificate has been included in the following referral.

 

Standard noise conditions are also to be included in any consent given to safeguard any potential noise nuisance that may arise from the development. 

 

No objections are raised against the proposal, subject to conditions.

 


7.      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 site has a land area of 831.8m2 and a master plan is not required.

 

8.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2C Zone, in that the development will deliver multi-unit housing, which is compatible with the desired character of the locality.

 

The following clauses of the LEP are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

21 Subdivision

Subdivision permissible with development consent

The proposal seeks approval for amalgamation of Lots A and B in DP 318271 into a single allotment.

 

Complies, subject to conditions

22 Services

Adequate facilities for supply of water, disposal of sewage and drainage are required to support a proposed development

The provision of utility services will be required by appropriate conditions of consent.

Complies, subject to conditions

 

 

 

31 Landscaped area

(2) Minimum 50% of the site area (or 415.9m2)

 

(3) Landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas not to exceed 50% of landscaped area provision

 

A total of 50.6% site area or 421.0m2 is provided as landscaped area, which complies with Clause 31(2) of the LEP.

 

44.8% (less than 50%) of the total landscaped area provision or 188.5m2 is located over the basement car park, which complies with Clause 31(3) of the LEP.

 

Complies

32 Floor space ratio

0.9:1 (or 748.6m2 GFA)

Total proposed GFA: 864.3m2

Proposed FSR: 1.04:1

 

Does not comply, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

 

33 Building height

(2) Overall height: 12m

(4) Wall height: 10m

The building has a maximum overall height of 11.2m and external wall height of 9.8m.

 

Complies

40 Excavation and filling of land

Council to consider the likely impact on existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, and the effects of the proposed works on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land

The proposal requires significant excavation to accommodate a basement car park. Specific conditions are recommended to ensure that suitable retaining walls and protection measures are provided during works on the site. The proposal is not considered to adversely impact on the drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the recommended engineering conditions.

Complies, subject to conditions

 

8.2    Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008

The Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008 had been placed on public exhibition. The relevant provisions of the Draft LEP are addressed as follows:

 

Clause

Provision

Proposal

Compliance

10

Land may be subdivided only with consent

The proposal seeks approval for amalgamation of Lots A and B in DP 318271 into a single allotment.

 

Yes, subject to conditions

15

Zone No. 2C Residential C Zone

Multi-unit housing requires consent

 

The proposed land uses are permissible with Council’s consent.

 

Yes

33

Floor space ratios

(3) 2C Zone: 0.9:1

Proposed FSR: 1.04:1

 

No, refer to discussion in the “SEPP 1” section of this report

 

34

Building heights

(3) Maximum height for 2C Zone: 12m

(5) Maximum height for external wall for 2C Zone: 10m

 

The building has a maximum overall height of 11.2m and external wall height of 9.8m.

 

Yes

35

Landscaped area

(3) Minimum 50% of total site area

(4) Landscaped areas over podiums or basement areas not to exceed 50% of total landscaped area provision

 

A total of 50.6% site area or 421.0m2 is provided as landscaped area, which complies with Clause 31(2) of the LEP.

 

44.8% (less than 50%) of the total landscaped area provision or 188.5m2 is located over the basement car park, which complies with Clause 31(3) of the LEP.

 

Yes

 

8.3    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within RLEP 1998. A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted with the development application. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objection, the following matters are addressed:

 

8.3.1   Whether or not the planning control is a development standard?

The proposal seeks variation to the following control contained in RLEP 1998:

 

·      Clause 32(1): 0.9:1 maximum floor space ratio standard

 

The above provision is a numerical development standard contained in the statutory plan.

 

8.3.2   What are the underlying objectives or purpose of the standard?

 

·                The stated purpose of the FSR standard as outlined in the LEP 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.”

 

8.3.3   Consistency of the development with the aims of SEPP 1, the local planning objectives for the locality and objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

The aims and objectives of SEPP 1 are:

 

Clause 3

To provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

 

The aims and objects of Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, are:

 

“To encourage:

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

(ii) The promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

The variations from the aforementioned control are not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as they would not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2C Zone in that it will allow multi-unit residential housing, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

8.3.4   Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

·              Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Pursuant to Clause 32(1) of RLEP 1998, the maximum floor space ratio for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C is 0.9:1 or 748.6m2 gross floor area. The following is proposed:

 

Proposed total gross floor area (a)

864.3m2

Permissible gross floor area (b)

748.6m2

Excess gross floor area (a) – (b)

115.7m2

Proposed floor space ratio (c)

1.04:1

Permissible floor space ratio (d)

0.9:1

Non-compliance with floor space ratio (c) – (d)

0.14:1

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 1.04:1 or 864.3m2 gross floor area, and exceeds Council’s control by 0.14:1 or 115.7m2 gross floor area.

 

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary based on the following reasons:

 

-    The proposed development fully complies with the maximum building height and external wall height controls specified in the local statutory planning instrument, being RLEP 1998.

 

The suburb of Kingsford is characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and residential flat developments varying from single to three or more storeys in height. The proposal has a height and scale, which are compatible with the existing residential flat developments in the surrounding built environment, and do not detract from the prevailing character of the locality.

 

      Despite the fact that there are single- and double-storey dwelling houses in the locality, the current planning controls specified in RLEP 1998 allow for higher density developments. The subject proposal represents a reasonable attempt to realise the full development potential of the site.

 

-    The proposed built form has incorporated staggering wall planes, balconies, louvre screening devices and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which will appropriately articulate the building facades and create visual interest. The design scheme is considered to be suitable for the site’s highly prominent street corner location. The design scheme adopts a low profile skillion roof, which will minimise the overall building height. The above design measures will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, despite non-compliance with the FSR development standard. Overall, the architectural character and form of the proposal are considered to carry satisfactory design merits.

 

-    The proposed housing density is justified by the site’s proximity to major activity nodes including the Kingsford Town Centre and the University of New South Wales campus, and the arterial transport corridor of Anzac Parade. The proposal is considered to introduce a suitable amount of residential population to a locality, which is highly accessible to retail, commercial and community services and public transport.

 

-    The floor areas and dimensions of the proposed apartment units are not excessive in scale and will allow suitable living amenity for the occupants. The internal floor layout will achieve satisfactory natural lighting and ventilation.

 

-    As will be discussed in the following sections, the proposal does not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy, view loss or visual bulk and scale.

 

-    The extent of the non-compliance is minor in nature having regard to the form and scale of existing residential flat developments in the locality. 

 

8.3.5   Is the objection well founded?

The submitted SEPP 1 Objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 

8.4    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Remediation of Land

SEPP No. 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. The applicant has submitted a preliminary site investigation report, which indicates the presence of metal contaminants (including lead and zinc) and asbestos on the site.

 

The report argues that the land can be remediated for medium density residential purposes. The submitted information has been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer, who raised no objections to the proposed development subject to specific conditions of consent. These conditions will require the undertaking of suitable remedial actions and subsequent validation by a qualified person. The above conditions have been included in the “Recommendation” section of this report. In this respect, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the provisions of SEPP No. 55, subject to conditions.

 

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

SEPP No. 65 applies to the subject proposal and the application was referred to the Design Review Panel for comments. The Design Quality Principles prescribed in the above SEPP and the comments provided by the Panel are addressed as follows:

 

8.5.1          Principle 1: Context

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

The proposal is explained through a detailed site analysis. The analysis sets out that:

 

- The Business zoning along Anzac Parade is adjacent to the strip of 2C zoned land on which the subject site is found. This sensible zoning arrangement creates a buffer to the 2A residential zone and allows for higher densities where there is good public transport and public amenities along Anzac Parade.

 

- 2C zoning of the subject block allows for three storey development, however currently there is a mix of building types. The adjacent dwellings along Strachan Street are two storeys and along Houston Road are three storeys. The future character of the area is planned for three / four storeys and this corner site is an ideal location to consolidate housing lots to create both a higher density and positive urban scale.

 

- The aerial shot clearly shows that in the strip behind Anzac Parade has many four and five storey unit blocks in the 2C zone dating back to the 1960’s. It is worth noting that the streets in this part of Kingsford are very broad.

 

Comments

The suburb of Kingsford is currently characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and residential flat developments varying from single to three or more storeys in height. The proposal has a height and scale, which are compatible with the existing residential flat developments in the surrounding built environment, and do not detract from the prevailing character of the locality.

 

      Despite the fact that there are single- and double-storey dwelling houses in the locality, the current planning controls specified in RLEP 1998 allow for higher density developments. The subject proposal represents a reasonable attempt to realise the full development potential of the site. Additionally, the high quality architectural design will contribute to the character of the visually prominent corner of Strachan Street and Houston Road. 

 

8.5.2          Principle 2: Scale

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

The Scale of the Proposal

The scale within the street context is satisfactory. It is a contemporary design where a level of abstraction in the design is explored. This has an implication for the scale of the project.

 

For example the roof is flat, which is a departure from most of the adjacent buildings. This has the benefit of reducing the overall height. The windows work to carve out vertical strips from the ‘unit block’ as opposed to regular windows at three to four metre centres that may commonly be 900 mm above FFL. This abstraction in the design too has an implication on the scale of the building. The reading of its scale from the public domain transfers from windows and roofs and is expressed through devices like the balconies and persistent line of the floor slabs.

 

It is a different way of visually calibrating scale, but these adjustments come about because we have a complementary desire to increase natural light and ventilation and devices such as operable floor to ceiling windows allow for this.

 

The Panel had previously advocated the possibility of a fourth storey on the corner element. An alternative that should be considered is for roof terraces, which would have marginal impacts on neighbours as this is a corner block. Roof terraces would not necessarily add to Floor Space, and could remain substantially within the height limit.

 

Comments

The proposed building footprint, height and setbacks substantially comply with the provisions of DCP – Multi-Unit Housing. The proposed three-storey building height is considered to be of an adequate scale and is suitable to the street corner location. The facades of the building have incorporated appropriate modulations and contemporary design elements, which will reduce the visual bulk and scale of the structures as viewed from the public and private domain.

 

The proposed building height fully complies with the LEP controls and is considered satisfactory. The provision of a fourth storey will increase shadow impacts on the adjoining property to the east in the afternoon period and is not supported. Given that sufficient private and communal open space has already been provided, it is deemed unnecessary to include rooftop terraces in this proposal.

 

8.5.3          Principle 3: Built Form

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

The Built Form of the Proposal

The form in the perspective describes an elongated rectilinear form with all facades being highly modeled. Windows appear recessed generally to enhance privacy for the occupants and assist in sun protection particularly on the western edge. The plans however indicate that the screen protrudes by what scales to about 600 mm from the building and an adjustment of either may need to be considered.

 

The balustrades to the balcony may be better if solid or opaque to assist privacy into living rooms. This will affect the form in a positive way.

 

Comments

The proposed built form has incorporated staggering wall planes, balconies, louvre screening devices and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which will appropriately articulate the building facades and create visual interest. The design scheme is considered to be suitable for the site’s highly prominent street corner location. The design scheme adopts a low profile skillion roof, which will minimise the overall building height.

 

The amended plans have replaced the clear balcony balustrade glazing to back-coloured glass, which will effectively protect the privacy of the occupants.

 

8.5.4          Principle 4: Density

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

The Proposed Density

Satisfactory

 

Comments

The proposed housing density is justified by the site’s proximity to major activity nodes including the Kingsford Town Centre and the University of New South Wales campus, and the arterial transport corridor of Anzac Parade. The proposal is considered to introduce a suitable amount of residential population to a locality, which is highly accessible to retail, commercial and community services and public transport.

 

8.5.5          Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

Resource, Energy Use and Water Efficiency

Naturally ventilated carparks are preferred by The Panel, however, it is noted that perimeter beams may make this outcome difficult. The fact that there is a podium makes The Panel believe that this should be worked on with the structural and mechanical engineers.

 

Ceiling fans should be shown in all bedrooms.

 

Comments

·      The amended drawings have included ceiling fans to all bedroom areas.

 

·      It is considered highly difficult, if not impossible, to provide a naturally ventilated parking area while achieving full compliance with the building height controls contained in the LEP. Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard.

 

·      The layout of all apartment units allows access to outdoor balconies or terraces from the living areas.

 

·      Screening devices are installed for the north- and west-facing balconies, which will provide shading against the morning and afternoon sun, especially during the summer seasons.

 

·      Each unit is provided with generous window openings to maximize natural lighting and ventilation.

 

8.5.6          Principle 6: Landscape

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

The Proposed Landscape

More deep soil planting should be possible by removing the zone of storage in the underground parking along the eastern boundary and some of the visitor car parking spots. The streets in this area are very wide and already have perpendicular car parking.

 

Comments

The Design Review Panel has mentioned the possibility of eliminating the on-site visitor parking and storage areas to give way for deep soil planting. However, it is Council’s view that the on-street parking in the locality is currently heavily utilized throughout the day by employees and residents. It is therefore recommended that the proposed parking spaces be maintained as per the current scheme.

 

The proposal has included deep soil planting areas along the perimeter of the site, which can support a range of trees, shrubs and ground covers. The development will provide a suitable landscape setting to soften the building structures on site and contribute to the streetscape amenity.

 

8.5.7          Principle 7: Amenity

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

A wider layback onto Houston Rd may be preferable if not required.

The level of on street parking appears excessive. Parallel parking would be a better option in terms of an increased width of the nature strip. At the very least regular and substantial trees should be inserted in the on street parking zone ie every 8 to 10 metres.

 

The internal planning is well resolved and offers a high level of amenity to future occupants. One of the stairs is incorrectly drawn.

 

A disabled access way via a gate and path in the north-east corner would be beneficial

and easy to achieve.

 

 

Comments

 

·      As discussed above, the reduction of on-site parking spaces is not supported given the heavy usage of kerb side parking in the area. The replacement of 90-degree angled parking with parallel parking on the street will entail reduction of the total number of public parking in the area. This is not supported given the heavy usage of on-street parking in the locality by the local employees (generally during day time) and residents (generally after business hours).

 

·      The amended plans have included an equitable (disabled) access through the “Common Open Area” fronting Strachan Street at the north-eastern corner of the site.

 

·      The layout, configuration and dimensions of the apartment units will maximize solar access to the living areas. The units are of an open plan design allowing flexibility for the placing of furniture and living functions.

 

·      The Residential Flat Design Code recommends that primary balconies for all apartments to have a minimum depth of 2m. The proposed balconies / terraces for all apartment units fully achieve the dimensional requirements stated in the Code.

 

·      The proposed units provide operable windows on more than one elevation with a separation distance of less than 18m. The dwellings are considered to provide adequate natural cross-ventilation.

 

·      The Residential Flat Design Code provides the following recommendations in relation to solar access:

 

Guideline

Comments

Living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70% of the apartments to receive minimum 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid winter (2 hours may be acceptable in dense urban areas)

Units 1, 4 & 7

Units 1, 4 and 7 are west- and south-facing apartments with frontage towards Houston Road, which will receive satisfactory direct solar access to the living areas and private open space in the afternoon period on June 21.

 

Units 2, 5 & 8

The above units are east- and south-facing apartments with no street frontage.

 

Due to the presence of a two-storey dwelling house to the east at No. 27 Strachan Street, only Unit 8 (2nd floor) will receive direct solar access to the living areas and private open space from morning to noon on June 21.

 

Unit 5 (1st floor) will receive direct solar access to part of the east-facing living room windows in the morning period, proceeding to having full direct sunlight to the balcony areas at noon.

 

Unit 2 (ground floor) will not enjoy any direct solar access to the living room windows on June 21. However, direct sunlight will fall on the terrace areas at noon.

 

Given the existing site constraints, the level of solar access enjoyed by the above units is considered acceptable.

 

Units 3, 6 & 9

Units 3, 6 and 9 have dual street frontages towards Strachan Street and Houston Road, which will receive satisfactory direct solar access to the living areas and private open space throughout the day on June 21.

 

Single aspect apartments limited to 10% of the number of units

No single aspect apartments are proposed.

 

8.5.8          Principle 8: Safety and security

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

Satisfactory. The scheme will offer good passive surveillance over both streets.

 

Comments

·      The proposed balconies and windows will provide casual surveillance to Strachan Street and Houston Road.

 

·      The main entrance lobby (fronting Houston Road) and secondary entry (fronting Strachan Street) are clearly visible from the street.

 

·      The proposed street boundary walls are appropriately stepped and will not create a blank wall effect or significantly obstruct sightlines between the apartment units and the public domain.

 

·      A roller shutter is provided to the basement car park. The shutter is setback from the street frontage and hence will not create a blank effect on the streetscape.

 

8.5.9          Principle 9: Social dimensions

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

Social issues

The main entrance is well placed and if council can be considerate of verges and trees as discussed in the landscape section, then the corner site will act as a good ‘seed’ project for both the broad expanses of Houston Road and Strachan St. Good designers such as Architectus can assist in delivering better outcomes in the adjacent public domain that both benefit their project and future nearby developments.

 

Comments

The replacement of 90-degree angled parking with parallel parking on the street (for the purposes of widening the nature strip) will entail reduction of the total number of public parking in the area. This is not supported given the heavy usage of on-street parking in the locality by the local employees (generally during day time) and residents (generally after business hours).

 

The proposal includes both 2- and 3-bedroom units, which will cater for different household needs in the area.

 

8.5.10 Principle 10: Aesthetics

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted below:

 

The Aesthetics of the Proposal

The design is contemporary, attractive and well resolved. The raised and angled skylight does break from the dominant form and may not be necessary if there is an awning lower down. In any case it could be reduced in scale to allow the dominant horizontal eaves to contain the ’box’ more convincingly.

 

The steel UB edge to the slabs may need to be re-considered if the balustrades become solid. The perspectives show a solid masonry edge that looks good.

 

Comments

The overall form and detailing of the building, arrangement of open space areas and landscape design are appropriate and suitable for the site. The proposed architectural composition, fenestration treatment and external finishes of the building achieve a contemporary design response that enhances the streetscape character of Strachan Street and Houston Road.

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate. The requirements specified in the above certificate will be imposed by appropriate standard conditions prescribed by Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

9.      Policy Controls

 

9.1    Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

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

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

A Site Analysis Plan has been submitted. 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 site has dual street frontages towards Strachan Street and Houston Road of 22.55m and 41.555m respectively. The site presents a trapezium shape in plan view. It is considered that the dimension and configuration of the site are suitable for medium density housing purposes.

 

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

The overall form and detailing of the building, arrangement of open space areas and landscape design are appropriate and suitable for the site. The proposed architectural composition, fenestration treatment and external finishes of the building achieve a contemporary design response that enhances the streetscape character of Strachan Street and Houston Road.

 

Height

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

 

The proposed development fully complies with the maximum building height and external wall height controls specified in the local statutory planning instrument. The proposal has a height and scale, which are compatible with the existing residential flat developments in the surrounding built environment, and do not detract from the prevailing character of the locality.

 

The proposal does not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy, view loss or visual bulk and scale.

 

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 building is appropriately articulated with staggering wall alignments, shading devices and a combination of materials and finishes. 

 


 

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

Setback to Strachan Street

3.3m to 6.5m to external walls across all levels

1.9m to 4.5m to upper level cantilevered balconies

Setback to Houston Road

3.4m to 5.3m to external walls on ground level

3.4m to external walls / balconies on upper levels

 

The approximate front setbacks of adjoining developments on Strachan Street and Houston Road are summarised below:

 

No. 27 Strachan Street: Approx. 0.1m to 2.2m

No. 29 Strachan Street: Approx. 0.2m to 3.4m

No. 40-42 Houston Road: Approx. 6.0m

No. 44-46 Houston Road: Approx. 3.4m

 

 

 

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the general setback pattern along Strachan Street.

 

The proposed building will have a shorter setback to Houston Road when compared to the adjoining residential flat buildings. Notwithstanding, given the corner location of the site, a shorter setback is acceptable and will provide a clear definition to the streets.

 

Furthermore, the proposal includes front balconies / terraces on all floor levels, which will retain a sense of openness along the street frontages. Therefore, the proposed front setback is not considered to result in detrimental impacts on the streetscape.

 

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

The proposed side setbacks are:

 

Southern boundary:

7.5m, complies

Eastern boundary:

3.5m to 5.3m, complies

Maximum length of wall:

8m, complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Not applicable to corner allotment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

The proposed sun shade devices will not result in significant shadow impacts on the adjoining properties. 

Density

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

 

The development achieves full compliance with the building height control stipulated in the LEP. The facades are appropriately modulated with staggering wall planes, balconies, shading devices and a combination of finishing materials. The proposal is not considered to create an unacceptable visual bulk or detract from the prevailing character of the locality.

 


 

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 wall along Strachan Street has a maximum height of approximately 1m, as measured from the footpath level.

 

The front walls along Houston Road have a height of approximately 1m to 1.5m, as measured from the footpath level. Part of this walling adopts a stepped design, which will avoid a blank wall effect on the street. 

 

The proposed street boundary walls will maintain casual surveillance of the public domain.

 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas are of sufficient size to allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

The proposal has included communal and private open spaces, which have dimensions of more than 2m. Complies.

 

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

 

A communal garden area is provided in the north-eastern portion of the site. The dimension of this communal space is 5.3m x 6m to 7.5m and is capable of accommodating the recreational needs of the occupants.

 

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

 

Complies.

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

 

Given the corner location of the site, private open space has been provided in front of the building lines and oriented towards the street. Notwithstanding, suitable landscape planting and privacy screens have been incorporated into the design, which will minimise adverse impacts on the occupants.

 

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 proposed unit is provided with a balcony and/or outdoor terrace, which has a minimum area of more than 8m2. Satisfactory.

 


 

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

Southern Elevation

The adjoining property to the south at No. 40-42 Houston Road is a 3-storey residential flat building with both living and bedroom windows provided on the north elevation.

 

The south elevation of the proposed building includes full-height windows that are attached to the living areas. Notwithstanding, the development is not considered to result in detrimental impacts on the above property based on the following reasons:

 

·     There is a 12.5m separation between the subject and adjoining building, which will significantly reduce the degree of overlooking to an acceptable level.

 

·     Operable horizontal louvre screens are installed in those portions of the glazing that are directly oriented towards the neighbour’s windows.

 

·     The upper level balconies are oriented towards the east and west, and will not result in significant overlooking into the adjoining building to the south.

 

 

 

Eastern Elevation

The adjoining development to the east at No. 27 Strachan Street is a two-storey detached dwelling house. The west elevation of the building contains windows that are attached to bedroom and amenities areas.

 

G/L  of proposed building (FFL - RL25.5m):

At ground level, the proposed building is setback 3.5m to 5.3m from the eastern boundary. Given the sill height of the adjoining ground floor windows of RL 26.9m to RL 27.5m. No significant overlooking will result.

 

1/F (FFL - RL28.5m) and 2/F (FFL - RL 31.5m):

On the upper floor levels, the external walls and balconies of the proposed building are setback 3.5m from the eastern boundary. The balconies are attached to the main living areas and are anticipated to accommodate passive recreational functions on a daily basis.

 

To compensate for the potential privacy impacts on the adjoining neighbour, the following measures have been incorporated into the design scheme:

·     Full height sliding louvre privacy screens are installed along the east-facing balconies. When fully extended, the screens will occupy approximately 75% of the length of the balconies. When fully opened, the screens will still occupy approximately 25% of the length of the balconies.

·     Fixed and sliding louvre privacy screens are installed for the east-facing bedroom windows.

 

Given that there is a 4.5m separation between the subject and the adjoining buildings, the above design measures are considered to be satisfactory in minimising privacy impacts on the neighbouring property.

 

Also refer to discussion in the paragraphs below.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

The proposed upper level east-facing balconies are capable of oblique overlooking into the rear yard of No. 27 Strachan street.

 

In order to compensate for the potential privacy impacts on the adjoining property, full height sliding louvre privacy screens are installed along the east-facing balconies. When fully extended, the screens will occupy approximately 75% of the length of the balconies. When fully opened, the screens will still occupy approximately 25% of the length of the balconies.

 

Additionally, the proposal will provide a range of shrub and tree species along the eastern boundary to provide adequate screening. They include:

·      Australian Teak (mature height 10m)

·      Japanese Maple (mature height 6m)

·      Lilly Pilly (mature height 2m to 2.5m)