Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 12 May 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee

12 May 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 May 2009

 

 

Planning Committee Meeting

 

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor, B Notley-Smith, Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, Hughes, Matson (Deputy Chairperson), Matthews, Nash (Chairperson), Procopiadis, Seng, Smith, Stevenson, Tracey, White & Woodsmith.

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE:    At the Extraordinary Meeting held on 28 September 2004, the Council resolved that the Planning Committee whose membership consists of all members of the Council be constituted as a committee with full delegation to determine matters on the agenda.

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 14 April 2009

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports

D27/09      88 Beach Street, Coogee

D28/09      2 Wolseley Road, Coogee

D29/09      18-20 Stanley Street, Randwick

D30/09      89-91 Boyce Road, Maroubra

D31/09      31 Fischer Street, Kingsford

D32/09      14-16 Glen Avenue, Randwick

D33/09      48 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

D34/09      4/4 Alexander Street, Coogee

D35/09      109-111 Houston Road, Kingsford

Miscellaneous Reports

M6/09       Project Update - Draft Chifley Sports Reserve Plan of Management

M7/09       Growers Market - Matraville or South Ward    

 

Closed Session

Nil

Notices of Rescission Motions

Nil

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee

12 May 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D27/09

 

 

Subject:                  88 Beach Street, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/912/2003/B

Author:                   David Mooney, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 Modification of approved development by provision of new fire stairs & deletion of approved stairs, alteration to exterior walkways, courtyards, stairs and landscaping, reconfiguration of garbage area & internal layout of some units, addition of storage at basement level, deletion of exterior door, alteration to exterior stairs, alteration to some openings and decks.

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Peter Todarello

Owner:                         Province Development

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This section 96AA modification application is referred to the Planning Committee because the original development application was determined by Council.

 

The approved development involves demolition of the existing building and construction of an apartment building up to 4 storeys high with 6 units and basement parking for 9 cars. The original development application was approved by the Court on a Class 1 appeal in Seaside Developments v Randwick City Council [2005] NSWLEC 480, 7 September 2005 subject to deferred commencement conditions.

 

The proposed modifications include minor alterations to the internal layout, external decks, elevations, windows and doors, external pathways and courtyards.

 

The modification application was notified to adjoining landowners and to those people that made a submission on the original application. There were no objections.

 

The proposed modifications do not give rise to additional amenity impacts access and there is no physical change to the massing of the approved building. The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as was originally approved and satisfies Section 96AA of the Act.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposed modifications are:

 

a.  A new internal stair connecting the basement floor with the foyer at the first floor. The stair would be a second fire escape route for the basement. The new internal stair would replace the external access to the basement along the southern boundary. This modification also requires the stair at upper levels to be directionally reversed.

b.  In place of the external access to the basement along the southern boundary would be a private courtyard for unit 1. The courtyard retains the external stair to Beach Lane but it would be reconfigured to allow the new courtyard to be level with the existing terrace.

c.  In place of access to the basement, bedroom 2 of unit 1 is enlarged and provided with a sliding glass door to the new courtyard (no increase in building footprint).

d.  The basement garbage storage area would be reconfigured by deleting the southern wall. This would improve vehicle maneuvering area.

e.  Internal layout of unit 1 would be modified by clustering bathroom, laundry and ensuite, and creating a dining area and a study area.

f.   New storage areas would be installed in the corners of the basement.

g.  The southern building entry and walkway to Beach lane would be deleted and the area resumed as a planter or private open space for unit 3. The stair to Beach lane would also be deleted and the adjacent retaining wall continued to the boundary.

h.  Internal layout of units 2 and 4 would be modified by relocating the main bedroom ensuite, rearranging the entry corridor, relocating the internal stair, and setting the terrace at a single level (rather than split level). This would also require the external door from the bedroom to the terrace to be changed to a window.

i.   Internal layout of units 3 and 5 would be modified by relocating the laundry next to the entry and reconfiguring the bathroom and study to allow a more sizable dining area.

j.   The east facing windows for unit 1 master bedroom and units 2 and 4 living rooms would be made slightly wider and their external louvers deleted. This would improve views toward the east.

k.  Internal layout of unit 6 would be modified by relocating the bathroom and bedroom 3 from facing south to facing north.

l.   A portion of timber cladding on the eastern elevation would be constructed of rendered masonry instead.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is on the eastern side of Beach St, between Arcadia St and Alison Rd. The site is grade separated from Beach St by a very high concrete retaining wall. Vehicular access is from the rear via Beach Lane. There are apartment buildings to the north and south and these are shown in figures 2 and 3. There are dwellings over Beach Lane to the west.

 

Figure 1 – An aerial photograph of the site

 

Figure 2 – Southern neighbour

Figure 3 – Northern neighbour

 

4.    Site History

 

The approved development comprises demolition of the existing building and erection of a new part 3 and part 4 storey multi unit housing development containing 6 dwellings & basement car parking for 9 vehicles[1] with rear lane access. The original development application was approved by the Court on a Class 1 appeal in Seaside Developments v Randwick City Council [2005] NSWLEC 480, 7 September 2005 subject to deferred commencement conditions. Construction has begun.

 

Council has previously approved a Section 96AA application to modify the approved development. Approved 26 June 2006, the previous modification added a new bedroom to unit 1, reconfigured units at levels 1, 2 and 3, added a new rear balcony to 2nd floor bedroom and a new discharge point for the mechanical ventilation stack.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal was advertised and the owners of nearby properties and the objectors to the original application were notified of the proposed development as required by Section 96A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.  There were no objections.

 

6.    Section96AA Assessment

 

The proposal does not materially change the scope or extent of the proposal or its impacts on the amenity or character of the locality. The proposed modifications are minor and are considered to be substantially the same development as was originally approved and satisfies Section96AA(1)(a) of the Act.

 

7.    Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.1    Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick LEP 1998

2B Objectives

The proposed modifications do not conflict with the 2B zone objectives concerning amenity and character.

Height

The proposed modifications do not affect the calculable area for landscaping or the building height.

Landscaped area

FSR

Where bedroom 2 of unit 1 is enlarged into the former basement, the floor area becomes included in the calculable FSR, increasing it by 7m2 to 0.98:1. However, there is no change to the footprint or massing of the building and the FSR increase is acceptable.

 

 

Other Environmental Planning Instruments

SEPP BASIX

The original application was submitted before BASIX

SEPP 65

The application was accompanied by a Design Verification Statement as required by Clause 115 of the EP & A Regulations 2000. The proposal does not significantly impact on any of the 10 Design Principles in SEPP 65 and does not require a further referral to the Design Review Panel.

Draft Randwick LEP 2008

The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the draft LEP.

 

7.2    Development Control Plans

 

Multi-unit Housing DCP

Generally

The proposed modifications are generally internal to the development and tend not to affect the preferred solutions in the Multi-unit Housing DCP.

Landscaping

The new courtyard areas require updated landscaping details and this is included as a new condition in the recommendation.

Privacy

The external basement pathways, now proposed to be used as private courtyards, are at or below natural ground level and do not create additional privacy issues. Modifications to the internal layout do not place living areas in conflict with the living areas on adjoining lots.

Parking

Basement modifications increase the area available for vehicular maneuvering. There is no reduction in parking, or increase in parking demand.

Energy Efficiency

 

The proposed modifications delete external louvers on the east facing windows, potentially affecting heat gain during the morning and the overall ABSA energy efficiency rating. The software tool originally used to assess the building has been superseded by the BASIX thermal comfort indicator and it is not possible to make a direct comparison of the proposed modifications. Nevertheless, the heat gain is not expected to be severe and the applicant proposes to manage it with 6.38mm Pilkington Smart Glass™

 

7.3    Site Suitability

 

The site is zoned and serviced for residential development and there are no hazards or constraints that affect the proposed modifications. This site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The approved development involves demolition of the existing building and construction of an apartment building up to 4 storeys high with 6 units and basement parking for 9 cars. The original development application was approved by the Court on a Class 1 appeal in Seaside Developments v Randwick City Council [2005] NSWLEC 480, 7 September 2005 subject to deferred commencement conditions.

 

The proposed modifications include minor alterations to the internal layout, external decks, elevations, windows and doors, external pathways and courtyards.

 

The modification application was notified to adjoining landowners and to those people that made a submission on the original application. There were no objections.

 

The proposed modifications do not give rise to additional amenity impacts access and there is no physical change to the massing of the approved building. The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as was originally approved and satisfies Section 96AA of the Act.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the responsible Consent Authority grant consent under Section 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/912/2003 for permission to modify approved development by provision of new fire stairs and deletion of approved stairs, alteration to exterior walkways, courtyards, stairs and landscaping, reconfiguration of garbage area and internal layout of some units, addition of storage at basement level, deletion of exterior door, alteration to exterior stairs, alteration to some openings and decks and alteration to the eastern façade materials in the following manner.

 

·              Amend condition No 1 as follows

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01, dated 01.04.04 and received by Council on 12 August 2004, and plans numbered DA 02 – DA 10, dated 09.06.2004 and received by Council on 12 August 2004, and as amended by the plans numbered DA 01-DA05 and DA 07-DA10 dated 19 August 2005 and received by Council on 24 August 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans, and as previously amended by approval to Section 96AA modification application No. DA/912/2003/A, and as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered CON-00 and CON-01, S96-03, S96-04, S96-05, S96-06, S96-07, dated August 2008 and received by Council  23 October 2008 and plan numbered S96-02, dated August 2008 and received by Council 31 December 2009 only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application.

 

·      Insert the following conditions immediately after condition No 1.

 

1A      The landscape plan prepared by Hazelwood Landscape Architecture numbered LWD 05.1516 dated July 2006 and approved under Condition 93 of the consent must be amended to show landscaping in the newly created courtyards. The amended plan must be submitted to Council for approval. Landscaping work must be completed in accordance with the amended plan before an occupation certificate can be issued for the development.

 

1B      The east facing living room windows in units 2 and 4 shown on the section 96 plans as item 13 on the east elevation must be installed with Pilkington Smart Glass in accordance with the specification received by Council 1 April 2009.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

12 May 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D28/09

 

 

Subject:                  2 Wolseley Road, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/12/2009

Author:                   Philip North, Senior Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a new residential flat building

 

Ward:                      East Ward

 

Applicant:                X Pace Design Group

 

Owner:                         L & K Davies

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

It is proposed to construct a new five storey residential flat building with one basement level of parking.

 

This application is referred to the Planning Committee as the estimated cost of the development is over $2 million and the application varies both the height and floor space ratio standards in excess of 10%:

 

·      the proposed height exceeds the development standard for wall height by 5.15m and overall height by 3.55m; and

·      the proposed floor space ratio is 1.74:1 and exceeds the development standard of 0.65:1.

 

The proposal significantly exceeds both the applicable height and floor space ratio standards and results in unacceptable impacts in respect of the streetscape, overshadowing, and view loss.

 

Consequently, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling house on the site and the construction of a new a new five storey residential flat building consisting of four strata title units and associated facilities as follows:

 

·        Basement consisting of:

1.   parking for 8 cars; and

2.   a visitor parking space/washbay.

·        Level 1 consisting of

1.   Foyer;

2.   Garbage Room;

3.   Plant Room;

4.   Gym;

5.   Storage.

·        Level 2 consisting of:

1.   one 3 bedroom unit with ensuite and study;

·        Level 3 consisting of:

1.   one 3 bedroom unit with ensuite and study;

·        Level 4 consisting of:

1.   one 3 bedroom unit with ensuite and study;

·        Level 5 consisting of:

1.   one 3 bedroom unit with ensuite and study.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Wolseley Road, Coogee, between Neptune Street to the North and Oberon Street to the south.

 

The site is legally identified as Lot 1 in DP 320504 and has an area of 490.7m2. It forms a regular rectangle with a width of 14.635m and a depth of 33.53m. It falls relatively steeply, at almost 5m to the street frontage.

 

Existing on the site is a two storey brick dwelling with a tile roof. There is minimal vegetation on the site.

 

To the rear is located a two storey residential building with an access handle running along the northern boundary of the subject site; beyond this is Neptune Park. To the south is a 3 storey residential flat building at no 4 and a 5 storey residential flat building at nos. 6-8. To the east, across Wolseley Road is the Trenerry Reserve and beyond that, the Pacific Ocean.

 

4.    Site History

 

4.1      Application History

The application was lodged on 12 January 2009 and notified to the surrounding properties and advertised in the press for 14 days from 21 January 2009 to 4 February 2009. Numerous objections were received concerned primarily with view loss and overshadowing.

 

The application was referred to the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel (DRP) which, while acknowledging the quality of the design, was concerned with its excess height and FSR and their adverse impacts upon surrounding properties, particularly in respect of overshadowing.

 

4.2      History of Site Usage

Previous applications submitted for development on the site include:

Development No.

Description

Determination

DA/295/1991

ALTS & ADDS TO EXISTING BLDG

Approved

10 December 1991

 

5.    Community Consultation

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

 

5.1 Objections

Objections to the proposed development have been received from the following properties:

 

·      1/2A Wolseley Road, Coogee;

·      3/2A Wolseley Road, Coogee;

·      4 Wolseley Road, Coogee;

·      1/4 Wolseley Road, Coogee;

·      3/4 Wolseley Road, Coogee;

·      5/4 Wolseley Road, Coogee;

 

·      2/6-8 Wolseley Road, Coogee;

·      3/6-8 Wolseley Road, Coogee;

·      4/6-8 Wolseley Road, Coogee;

·      5/6-8 Wolseley Road, Coogee;

 

·      251-261 Oberon Street, Coogee;

·      8/251-261 Oberon Street, Coogee;

·      9/251-261 Oberon Street, Coogee;

·      10/251-261 Oberon Street, Coogee;

·      12/251-261 Oberon Street, Coogee;

·      12A/251-261 Oberon Street, Coogee;

·      17/251-261 Oberon Street, Coogee;

 

·      250 Oberon Street, Coogee;

·      11 Neptune Street, Coogee;

·      1 Cairo Street, Coogee;

·      13 Cairo Street, Coogee;

·      Unknown Address.

 

Many of the issues raised are shared between the individual objections and will be grouped below to avoid repetition:

 

Issue

Comment

Exceeds FSR controls which results in adverse impacts.

Agreed. See discussion in main body of report.

Exceeds height controls which results in adverse impacts.

Agreed. See discussion in main body of report.

Inadequate building setbacks.

It is agreed that the front setback is not consistent with the streetscape. See discussion in main body of report.

Inadequate side and rear setbacks.

The side and rear setbacks, although non-compliant with the DCP’s Preferred Solutions, are not inappropriate in themselves in the context but when combined with excess height and FSR, result in an overdevelopment of the site.

Adverse visual impacts upon the foreshore scenic protection area.

The excess height will result in adverse visual impacts upon the foreshore. See discussion in main body of report.

Excess bulk and scale.

The bulk and scale is excessive as demonstrated by the non-compliance with core controls as well as the resultant adverse impacts upon adjacent properties. See discussion in main body of report.

Adverse overshadowing impacts.

The proposal would have unacceptable overshadowing impacts upon the existing apartment building to the south. See discussion in main body of report.

View loss impacts

The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the application will not have unacceptable view loss impacts on adjacent properties.

An assessment of view loss is presented under section 9.1 below.

Inappropriate relationship to the context.

The height of the proposal is inconsistent with the urban context of the site.

Unsuitable aesthetics due to angular form.

It is considered that the aesthetic presentation is within the range of variation acceptable in this location and that the proposal is of high architectural quality which would, if smaller, create a high quality addition to this highly prominent site. Although different from surrounding structures, it is not reasonable to expect that their less interesting architectural quality should require a restraint of design quality in new structures.

Concern about structural impacts of construction.

Conditions would be applied to any consent granted to ensure the protection of the structural integrity of adjacent structures.

Lack of detail regarding air conditioning units.

The proposal provides for air conditioning units enclosed in a plant room at ground level. Council would require these to comply with strict conditions regarding noise if approved.

Natural ventilation of adjacent properties adversely affected.

It is unlikely that the proposal would hinder natural ventilation of adjacent properties.

Proposal will result in additional traffic and noise pollution.

The proposal contains off street parking slightly in excess of minimum requirements which should minimise any requirement for additional on street parking. Given the small number of units, is unlikely to result in any significant increase in on street traffic or noise.

Loss of privacy.

The application addresses privacy issues very well and would have minimal adverse privacy impacts and may improve the existing privacy situation by creating more carefully located openings, private open space and increased vegetation.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

6.1 Development Engineers

The application was referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services for comment.  No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval.  The following comments were made:

 

Landscape Comments

The only vegetation within the front portion of the site, fronting onto Wolseley Road, is one Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) of approximately 6 metres in height, between the southeast corner of the existing dwelling and the partly excavated garage, which appeared in reasonable health and condition, and is covered by Council’s TPO.

 

While such palm trees create visual interest, as well as tolerating the harsh coastal conditions which are prevalent at this site, this particular specimen is not considered overly significant in any way, with transplanting not a viable option given the relatively low success rate of such a process, and as such, no objections are raised to its removal, subject to implementation of the proposed landscape scheme.

 

Similarly, in the rear yard, around the southwest corner of the existing dwelling, there is a group of semi-mature trees all of around 6-8 metres in height, that have obviously been planted to provide screening and privacy between this site and adjoining residences to the south, 4 Wolseley Road, and west, 2A Wolseley Road.

 

They comprise one Cupressocyparis leylandii (Leylands Cypress), right on the southern site boundary, and to its north, three Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palms), and then further to the west again, near the southwest corner of the site, one Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus).

 

The site inspection confirmed the findings of the submitted Arborists Report, in that they all regarded as either insignificant or undesirable species, being the rapid growth rate and large size of the Cypress; the weed-like properties of the Cocos Palms; and the fine hairs of the seed pods of the Hibiscus which cause skin irritations to both humans and animals.

 

As none are deemed suitable for retention, coupled with the fact it would not be physically possible to retain any of these trees given the impact this would have on the reasonable development of the site, consent has been granted for their removal, with the extensive landscaping and planting proposed as part of this application to vastly improve the horticultural and arboricultural amenity contribution of the site.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is not required for this development.

 

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.

 

Parking provision –

DCP-1.5spaces per 3 bedroom dwelling (4x1.5 spaces = 6 spaces)

DCP Visitor Spaces 1 per 4 dwellings (4x0.25 spaces = 1 space)

Total Required = 7 spaces   Total Provided = 8 spaces

 

Service Authority Comments

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

An inspection of the site revealed that with the exception of the feeder lines into the subject site there are no overhead cables along the Wolseley Road site frontage.

 

6.2      Building Services

 

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

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class -      2      (Residential Units)

Class -      7a    (Carpark)

 

Background

 

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

 

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, it is noted that the development includes a lift from the basement carpark and ground floor foyer with a pedestrian ramp from the street enabling access to the foyer.

 

6.3      Environmental Health

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

 

The proposal

 

The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing dwelling house at the site and construction of a new five (5) storey multi-unit housing building containing four (4) x three (3) bedroom dwellings, a gymnasium and basement car parking for eight (8) vehicles.

 

SPD Town Planners prepared a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) on behalf of the owner Mr Leigh Davies (08053 – January 2009), the SEE however provides insufficient historical information about the nature and extent of contamination (if any).

 

A geotechnical investigation report prepared by Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd (dated 7 October 2008, Ref:22410WHrpt) states ‘Contamination screen testing of site soils and groundwater was outside the scope of this investigation’ (Page 3).

 

A review of Council’s computer system (Pathways) only indicates development dating back to BA/529/1957 Residential Flat Building. The Environmental Health section requires further historical information, in particular the past activities of the premises and neighbouring properties.

 

A preliminary site investigation will be required to be undertaken on the subject premises to identify any past or present potential contaminating activities and to provide a detailed assessment (site history & some soil sampling may be warranted) of site contamination.

 

The desk-top analysis must identify the historical use of the site and of neighbouring sites to identify storage, use and disposal of chemical substances and the presence of any sensitive human health or environmental receptors (aerial photographs, Council & department of land records, EPA records, dangerous good records, groundwater usage, chain of ownership, occupancy information, published information and so forth.

 

SPD Town Planners prepared a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) on behalf of the owner Mr Leigh Davies (08053 – January 2009), the SEE states ‘Our assessment of the proposed development has not identified any unreasonable adverse environmental impacts likely to arise as a result of the proposed development’ (Page ii). The report mentions no unreasonable adverse environmental impacts by way of view loss, overshadowing or privacy in relation to the adjoining properties however fails to address any environmental impacts by way of land, air, water & noise pollution from the proposed development.

 

Acoustics

 

An acoustic report has not been received in relation to potential noise sources, which may impact on the proposed development or the existing amenity of the surrounding environment. This will be requested prior to evaluating the assessment.

 

7.    Environmental Planning Instruments

 

7.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

29

Foreshore scenic protection area

Satisfactory aesthetic appearance in relation to the foreshore.

5 storeys

Not satisfactory – exceeds maximum building and wall heights and is out of character with surrounding development.

31 (2): Landscaped Area

50% of the site must be provided as landscaped area.

50.5%

Complies

31 (3): Landscaped Area

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

24.8%

Complies

32 (1):

Floor space ratios

Maximum 0.65:1

1.74:1

 

Does not comply – SEPP 1 Objection supplied

33(1): Building heights

Maximum overall height is 12m

15.55m

Does not comply – SEPP 1 Objection supplied

33(3): Building wall heights

Maximum wall height is 10m

15.15m

Does not comply – SEPP 1 Objection supplied

 

7.2      State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

The proposal seeks to vary the following development standards contained with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

7.2.1  SEPP 1 Objection to Clause 32 – Floor Space Ratio

Clause 32 of LEP 1998 states that a maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 2C is 0.65:1 where the site is less than 700m2. An FSR of 0.9:1 applies to sites larger than this.

 

The subject site has an area of 490.7m2 and an applicable FSR of 0.65:1 whereas the proposal has an FSR of 1.74:1. To address this non-compliance, the applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 Objection which has been tested against the following criteria established in Winten Property v North Sydney (2001) 130 LGERA 79 as follows:

 

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

 

Clause 32 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (‘the LEP’) as amended is expressed as a numerical control and as such is a development standard.

 

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

 

The purpose of the standard 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 impacts on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.

 

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

 

Compliance with the development standard would be consistent with the aims of the policy and would not tend to hinder the objects specified in the EP&A Act for the orderly and economic use of the land.

 

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

 

In the circumstances of the case, the applicant has not demonstrated that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. The non-compliance proposed would be contrary to the objectives of the standard, resulting in the adverse impacts in respect of both streetscape, overshadowing and loss of views.

 

Inappropriate streetscape impacts result as follows:

 

·      There is currently a clear gradation of scale between the three buildings in this section of Wolselely Road, with no. 6 to the south being the highest, no. 4 being incrementally lower and the existing structure on the subject site being lower still. Nos. 6 and 4 are both strata titled buildings, at the limit of the development controls for their sites, and as such are unlikely to be redeveloped in the foreseeable future.

·      The building to which the proposal should relate in terms of scale, and with which it should be compatible in the streetscape, is the directly adjacent residential flat building at no. 4. Despite this, the proposal is a full two stories higher than this building and overwhelms it in the street.

·      The next closest structure in the streetscape is the residential flat building at no. 6. This is a taller building but its distance from the subject site makes it a less appropriate model to follow; matching its height and mass would result in the shorter building between (no. 4) appearing inconsistent in the streetscape. Even if matching its height and scale were considered appropriate, the proposal exceeds its height (in relation to natural ground level) and instead of a pitched roof terminating at the highest point, proposes the full floor plate extending to the maximum height with a flat roof. It consequently presents a much greater volume than this structure.

·      Although there may be a satisfactory urban design argument for matching the height of no. 4, there is no such argument for matching that of no. 6, especially in a context where no. 4 has already reached its maximum development potential.

·      The proposed building is inconsistent with the dominant character of the locality in terms of bulk and scale in an area which is predominantly a mix of two and three storeys.

 

Adverse overshadowing impacts result as follows:

 

·      Council’s Multi-unit Housing DCP requires that: Living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

·      The north façade of the adjacent residential flat building at no. 4, features the living room windows of four units (units 1,3,5 and 7) which all currently receive solar access consistent with this control.

·      The proposed development would result in only the sunroom and bedroom of unit 7 receiving the minimum required solar access; the remainder of the windows would not.

·      In addition, the following windows would receive no solar access at midwinter:

o  Unit 1: Bathroom, living room & kitchen;

o  Unit 3: Bedroom, living room & kitchen; and

o  Unit 5: Bathoom & living room.

·      These impacts are significantly greater than those of a complying development.

 

Unacceptable view loss impacts result. These include, in particular, the following properties:

 

·      1/4 Wolesley Road;

·      5/4 Wolesley Road; and

·      9/251 Oberon Street.

 

More detailed analysis of this view loss against the applicable planning principle is undertaken in section 9.1 below.

 

These impacts demonstrate that compliance with the development standards is not unreasonable and is necessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

5.   Is the objection well founded?

 

The applicant has provided the following arguments in support of the SEPP 1 – Objection:

 

The proposed development has a GFA of 855m2 and a FSR of 1.74:1, and therefore exceeds the maximum permitted under LEP 1998. However, it is noted that approximately 103m2 of the total GFA proposed, is located below existing ground level, and does not significantly add to the bulk of the building. If this area were excluded, the proposal would have a GFA of 752m2, equating with an FSR of 1.53:1.

 

The street elevations and photomontage clearly illustrate the appropriateness of the height and bulk of the proposal when compared to other buildings in the vicinity of the site.

 

The bulk and scale of the building when viewed from adjoining public spaces and private properties is visually compatible with surrounding buildings. The façades of the new building have been designed to minimise the perception of bulk and scale and respond to the contextual character of the area, through a variety of materials and architectural features that break the building facades continuity. Additionally, the proposal does not give rise to any unreasonable adverse environmental impacts in relation to adjoining properties in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

 

Notwithstanding this non-compliance with the maximum 0.65:1 FSR control, the building, in terms of its height, size, bulk and scale is consistent with other buildings in the locality. An analysis of Gross Floor Area (GFA) and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for development in the immediate locality of the site was undertaken by X. PACE Design Group and is summarised below:

 

·              No. 4 Wolseley Road (adjoining to the immediate south) has an FSR of approximately 1.2:1;

·              No. 6 Wolseley Road (to the south) has an FSR of approximately 1.42:1; and

·              Nos. 251-261 Oberon Street (to the south west) has an FSR of approximately 2:1.

 

As can be seen from the above analysis, the context of the site is characterised by multi-unit housing buildings with FSRs generally well in excess of that permitted under LEP 1998.

 

In conjunction with the discussion above, compliance with the Standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as the proposed work:

 

·              construction of a multi-unit housing building with an FSR of 0.65:1 at the site would result in a built form which is inconsistent with the prevailing form in the immediate locality, which would result in an adverse streetscape and urban design outcome;

·              the proposed provision of four (4) new apartments is acceptable at the site, given its context and proximity to local services and infrastructure;

·              the proposal complies with the landscaped area Development Standards applicable to the site;

·              it reinvigorates an existing dilapidated buildings on the site, resulting in a high quality built form which will make a significant positive contribution to the streetscape;

·              is not inconsistent with other development in the locality in terms of height, bulk, scale, size, and the amount of private open space area afforded;

·              it presents an appropriate visual transition between the surrounding multi-unit housing buildings;

·              it contributes positively to the desired future character of the locality;

·              will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing and visual impact; and

·              provides high quality residential accommodation.

 

Having regard to the above, compliance with the Development Standard is considered both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

It is considered that the arguments put by the applicant are not valid and do not satisfactorily demonstrate that strict application of the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. In particular, of the examples cited to provide justification, those with a direct relationship to the site at 4 and 6 Wolesley Road have a lesser FSR than that proposed while the building at 251 Oberon Street, although of comparable size, is in a different context and not representative of the dominant character of the locality.

 

As such, the objection is not considered well founded and the variation to the development standard is not supported.

 

7.2.2  SEPP 1 Objection to Clause 33 – Height

 

Clause 33 (2) of LEP 1998 imposes a maximum overall building height of 12 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C.  Clause 33 (4) of LEP 1998 also imposes a maximum external wall height of 12 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C. 

 

The proposal is for a maximum building height of 15.55m and external wall height of 15.15m and does not comply with the standard.

 

To address this non-compliance, the applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 Objection which has been tested against the following criteria established in Winten Property v North Sydney (2001) 130 LGERA 79 as follows:

 

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

 

Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (‘the LEP’) as amended is expressed as a numerical control and as such is a development standard.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Compliance with the development standard would be consistent with the aims of the policy and would not tend to hinder the objects specified in the EP&A Act for the orderly and economic use of the land.

 

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

 

In the circumstances of the case, the applicant has not demonstrated that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. The non-compliance proposed would be contrary to the objectives of the standard, resulting in the adverse impacts in respect of streetscape, overshadowing and loss of views.

 

Inappropriate streetscape impacts result as follows:

 

·      There is currently a clear gradation of scale between the three buildings in this section of Wolselely Road, with no. 6 to the south being the highest, no. 4 being incrementally lower and the existing structure on the subject site being lower still. Nos. 6 and 4 are both strata titled buildings, at the limit of the development controls for their sites, and as such are unlikely to be redeveloped in the foreseeable future.

·      The building to which the proposal should relate in terms of scale, and with which it should be compatible in the streetscape, is the directly adjacent residential flat building at no. 4. Despite this, the proposal is a full two stories higher than this building and overwhelms it in the street.

·      The next closest structure in the streetscape is the residential flat building at no. 6. This is a taller building but its distance from the subject site makes it a less appropriate model to follow; matching its height and mass would result in the shorter building between (no. 4) appearing inconsistent in the streetscape. Even if matching its height and scale were considered appropriate, the proposal exceeds its height (in relation to natural ground level) and instead of a pitched roof terminating at the highest point, proposes the full floor plate extending to the maximum height with a flat roof. It consequently presents a much greater volume than this structure.

·      Although there may be a satisfactory urban design argument for matching the height of no. 4, there is no such argument for matching that of no. 6, especially in a context where no. 4 has already reached its maximum development potential.

·      The height is inconsistent with the dominant character of the locality in terms of bulk and scale in an area which is predominantly a mix of two and three storeys.

 

Adverse overshadowing impacts result as follows:

 

·      Council’s Multi-unit Housing DCP requires that: Living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

·      The north façade of the adjacent residential flat building at no. 4, features the living room windows of four units (units 1,3,5 and 7) which all currently receive solar access consistent with this control.

·      The proposed development would result in only the sunroom and bedroom of unit 7 receiving the minimum required solar access; the remainder of the windows would not.

·      In addition, the following windows would receive no solar access at midwinter:

o  Unit 1: Bathroom, living room & kitchen;

o  Unit 3: Bedroom, living room & kitchen; and

o  Unit 5: Bathoom & living room.

·      These impacts are significantly greater than those of a complying development.

 

Unacceptable view loss would impact upon the property at 9/251 Oberon Street. In particular, the excess height would either block or severely compromise the views to Wedding Cake Island and the South Pacific Ocean. More detailed analysis of this view loss against the applicable planning principle is undertaken in section 9.1 below.

 

These impacts demonstrate that compliance with the development standards is not unreasonable and is necessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

5.    Is the objection well founded?

 

The applicant has submitted the following arguments in support of the SEPP 1 – Objections:

 

The proposed new building has the following heights:

 

·    maximum external wall height at RL 33.9, which represents a physical height of between 11.6m (for the western elevation) and 15.15m (for the eastern elevation); and

·    maximum overall building at RL 34.3 which equates with an overall physical height of between 12m (for the western elevation) and 15.55m (for the eastern elevation).

 

To this end, the proposal complies in part with the maximum building height Development Standard, and exceeds the maximum external wall height Standard.

 

In considering the impact of this non-compliance, it is important to note that the proposed building represents an appropriate visual transition between the multi-unit housings to the south and west of the site, along with the site’s corner location. Furthermore, the proposal does not give rise to any unreasonable adverse environmental impacts in relation to adjoining properties in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

 

The site is located in an area which contains buildings of a range of heights, as follows:

 

·       No. 4 Wolseley Road (to the immediate south) has a ridge at RL 31.04;

·       No. 6 Wolseley Road (to the south) has a ridge at RL 34.67;

·       No. 2a Wolseley Road (to the immediate west) has a ridge at RL 30.89; and

·       Nos. 251-261 Oberon Street (to the south west) has a ridge at RL 41.04.

 

The proposed development has a ridge at RL 34.3, which is commensurate with the nearby development, as listed above.

 

Furthermore, the buildings elevations have been highly articulated and modulated, so as to minimise the perception of bulk and scale. The building has also been designed so that the lowest two (2) levels at its western end, are generally located below existing ground level, so as to minimise the height of the proposed development.

 

·       it is not inconsistent with other development in the locality in terms of height, bulk, scale, size, and the amount of private open space area afforded;

·       it creates a strong architectural statement which is appropriate, given that the site is a corner allotment;

·       it presents an appropriate visual transition between the properties in the immediate vicinity of the site;

·       contributes positively to the desired future character of the locality;

·       will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing and visual impact (see discussion below);

·       will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the existing residential development of the area;  and

·       provides high quality residential accommodation.

 

Having regard to the above, compliance with the Development Standards is considered both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

In the circumstances of the case, the applicant has not demonstrated that strict compliance with the development standard is not reasonable. The non-compliance proposed would be contrary to the objectives of the standard, resulting in the following adverse impacts:

 

·      The overall height is inconsistent with the streetscape for the following reasons:

 

o  The overall maximum height, although similar to that of no. 6, extends across the entire width of the building rather than simply representing the highest point of the ridge (as at no. 6) and thus presents a greater volume in the streetscape;

o  The land on which no. 6 sits is slightly higher than the subject site, lessening any argument for an equivalent height;

o  No. 251 Oberon is not directly adjacent the subject site and consequently sets a poor precedent; and

 

·      Unacceptable overshadowing and view loss impacts.

As such, the objection is not considered well founded and the variation to the development standard is not supported.

 

7.3    SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

SEPP No. 55 is applicable to the subject site. The policy 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 site has a continuous history of residential usage and this does not suggest a risk of contamination.

 

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

 

This Policy applies to development being:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Definition of residential flat building and application of SEPP No 65

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

 

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

 

It was noted that this was a Development Application and the First Panel meeting with the applicant.

 

The DA application is weel presented and clear, and the architect has been attentive to design issues. However, the DA package submitted to the Panel was inferior to the drawings presented at the Panel meeting, because the prints were of poor quality and a number of important drawings including some 3D images were not included. The SEPP 65 Statement was well argued on a number of points.

 

1.      Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

 

The site has a dramatic setting at the oceanfront corner of the Coogee street grid, above Wylies Baths. The site has open parklands with Coogee Beach beyond to the north, and Wolseley Road and the ocean to the east. To the south and west, where the land rises dramatically, there is a collection of mostly apartment buildings that vary in height between 3 and 6 storeys. These buildings are of mixed character and epoch, and provide few design cues for this site.

 

The site is currently occupied by an ordinary 2 storey house that sits over a car parking podium. The building has a pitched roof, is set back from the street, and has little of the urban presence appropriate to such an exceptional site.

 

The proposal is for a striking new 4 / 5 storey apartment building, shaped to the sun and view. There is also a basement, and the ground floor is partially sunk into the rising ground. The unusual footprint is tapered to the south in an attempt to reduce the inevitable overshadowing of the southern neighbour. While the Panel considers that the proposal may improve the character of the streetscape, its height is clearly challenging. Unless convincing analysis can be provided to support the proposed height, a reduction of a storey should be considered.

 

The development as proposed may have adverse effects on its neighbours. The Panel is strongly of the opinion that overshadowing is the major issue, with view sharing and loss as a secondary consideration. In the Panel’s preliminary assessment of the information submitted, the view loss from any individual neighbour would be partial only. Such view loss is across a private site, which has development rights roughly commensurate with buildings whose view may be affected. At the time of their construction, such neighbouring buildings no doubt had a view loss effect on other properties.

 

2.      The Scale of the Proposal

 

The 5 storey scale proposed is clearly challenging in  the contextterms of the LEP and DCP. While not strictly out of scale, the Panel nonetheless recommends that the architect look at reducing height, either by sinking the base into the ground, or by removing a residential storey. or by reducing the footprint It may well be that some combination of the above approaches would yield the most reasonable outcome.

 

Architecturally the scale of the facades is well handled, and would create a dramatic presence suited to the extraordinary site. Indeed a high quality piece of architecture on the prominent corner could draw attention away from the mediocrity of many of the neighbouring buildings. The pitched roof forms on the three immediate neighbours could well be replaced in time by mezzanines or rooftop units, which could make them more similar in height in storeys to this proposal.

 

Planner’s Comment:

 

It is agreed that a significant modification to the design is required to produce a suitable scale. Such modification would result in a proposal sufficiently different to the original application to constitute a different proposal and would require the submission of a fresh DA. Consequently, such amendments have not been sought under the umbrella of this DA.

 

 

3.      The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The built form departs from the rectangular block form that is typical of neighbouring buildings. The building has a broad façade to north, which is slightly faceted, with a splayed geometry to the south.

 

In terms of setback, the building marginally encroaches into the street setback towards the north-east corner. The Panel considers that this acceptable. To the south the building encroaches marginally with the minimum 3.5 metre side setback, but generally complies with the average. To the west, the building encroaches within the 6 metre rear setback, while generally complying with the average. The Panel considers that this western departure from the controls would most likely have the greatest effect on neighbouring properties, and that cutting back the building in this location should be investigated.

 

The boldest strategic decision however, is to rest the building on the sites northern boundary. This is only possible because the subject site is adjacent to a public park that will never be developed. The Panel supports this approach as it clearly defines this boundary without affecting the integrity of the park. The park is currently ill defined in relation to its neighbouring properties.

 

Planner’s Comment:

 

It should be noted that the northern boundary of the site in fact abuts the side boundary of the 3m wide access handle to no. 3A Wolesley Road and not Neptune Park (which lies directly to the north of the access handle).

 

 

4.      The Proposed Density

 

While the Panel generally supports appropriate densities on sites with high amenity, the quantum proposed currently (1.74:1) is well above the FSR for the zone. The applicant would need to submit information on adjoining buildings to support an argument for such uplift in FSR.

 

In all likelihood, some combination of removal of the top floor, entry level and/ or cutting back the footprint would need to be considered to reduce FSR. It appears at 1.74:1 and 5 storeys to be designed for a density and height of a different zoning rather than and not the one thatit currently  appliesenjoys. In response, the architect has put forward the well-argued proposition that the building's height and density should be considered from future perspective of continued intensification around the Coogee basin.

 

Planner’s Comment:

 

Surrounding buildings feature FSRs of a maximum in the order of 1.2:1 to 1.4:1. These buildings pre-date the current LEP. Although an argument could be put for a comparable FSR on this site (assuming no amenity impacts), this would result in a significant redesign of the proposal of such a degree that it would no longer constitute the same application.

The applicant’s argument that the proposal would be consistent with future intensification of development around the Coogee basin ignores the fact that the maximum level of that intensification is dictated by the development standards applicable to the area.

 

5.      Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Sun/weather control devices should be provided to all habitable eastern, western and north facing windows. The extent of north facing glass that appears unprotected is concerning. The design should allow for a comfortable living environment for all but a few extremely hot or cold days of the year. A reliance on air condition is unacceptable. Consideration should be given to partially openable windows or louvres that are secure and so can be open at night.

 

Window operation should be nominated on the elevations.  The Panel would prefer to see more varied options for introducing breezes and cross ventilation to the interior.  Sliding doors provide little comfort in humid weather when high coastal winds are being experienced.  Also the occupants should be able to leave windows open day and night without compromising security.

 

Roof venting should be indicated on the DA.

 

Provision should be made for the onsite retention of stormwater.

 

Wind screening to the exposed balconies should be considered. This site could not be more exposed to strong sea breezes.

 

 

 

6.      The Proposed Landscape

 

A well considered landscape plan has been prepared by a landscape architect as part of the DA.

 

It enhances the planting on the western side of the building, creating a pleasant outlook for all the dwellings and neighbours.

The documentation provided shows that the proposal complies with both deep soil and total landscape areas required. Further landscape area at the street front can readily be provided by narrowing the driveway to 3.6 metres in width, which would be more appropriate given that the car parking numbers are so small. Reduction of the driveway width would also allow more kerbside car parking than currently exists.

The “green roof” needs to be more convincingly described, particularly with regard to soil depth, exposure, plant selection, irrigation and maintenance access.

 

7.      The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The apartments are very well planned internally, producing efficient, light and characterful interiors. The type of one apartment per floor is too rarely proposed, and is ideal for small sites. This type has the obvious advantage of light and air on all sides. In this case all habitable rooms have north orientation and a view to Coogee Beaaech and the coastline. As a result there is good amenity to all spaces, and the compact foyers at each level are well handled. There is ample storage and balcony space provided.

 

Clothes line areas and BCA issues will need to be addressed.

 

8.      The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The proposal would improve surveillance of the parks and streets.

 

The Panel raised BCA compliance issues along the northern boundary and fire egress, and required that they be thoroughly addressed so that the north facing windows / doors can all be openable. Spandrel separation and other issues also need to be considered.

 

 

9.      Social issues

 

This is an appropriate upgrading to the site.

 

10.    The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The Panel considers that the design is skillfully handled, and could produce a fine building that would enhance this prominent site.

 

More detailed information needs to be presented about materials, window operation, sun shading, balustrades, roof drainage and the like. The site is extremely exposed, so durability of materials needs to be fully considered. 1:50 part elevations / sections should be submitted as part of the DA.

 

However the issues raised above regarding height, density and impacts on neighbours need to be addressed.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel would like to review this application again when the issues raised above have been satisfactorily addressed.

 

 

 

Planner’s Comment:

The Design Review Panel generally gives a very favourable assessment of the proposal. It was particularly impressed with the high quality of the architectural design. Nevertheless, it was of the opinion that the excess FSR and height with the resultant overshadowing were significant issues followed by the potential for view loss. The planning assessment concurs with this view.

 

7.5    State Environment Planning Policy (Building sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

The proposal is for a new residential flat building 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.

 

8.    Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

 

8.1    Draft Randwick Local environmental Plan 2007:

 

The proposal is not considered consistent with the general aims and objectives of the draft RLEP 2007.

 

9.    Development Control Plans

 

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.

 

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.

Frontage is 14.635m – does not comply.

 

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

 

 

N/A

Height

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

 

Height of walls results in unacceptable overshadowing of the northern wall of the residential flat building to the south and unacceptable view loss.

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.

 

Massing has been well modulated with architecturally sophisticated articulation on all facades. Despite this, the height remains excessive and the impacts unacceptable.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

4.2m

2.4m proposed. Inadequate front setback which is inconsistent with adjacent properties.

Does not comply.

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

South Side Setback:

2.61m

Does not comply.

 

 

North Side Setback:

0m

Does not comply.

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.

 

4m.

Does not comply.

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.

Front balcony overhangs intrude into front setback zone.

Does not comply.

Density

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

 

The building bulk (the FSR is 1.74:1) is not consistent with surrounding built form.

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.

 

Complies.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Complies.

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

 

Adequate communal landscaped area provided.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Appropriate size and location of private open space provided as north/east facing balconies which exceed minimum size requirements.

 

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

 

N/A

P5  Townhouses

Each dwelling is provided with an area of useable private open space or courtyard area, at ground or podium level.

S5 Minimum area of 25m2 and a minimum dimension of 3 x 4 metres.

N/A

P6  Flats and apartments

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

 

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

Complies.

 

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

The proposal is generally orientated towards Neptune Park to the north and has been carefully designed to avoid overlooking of adjacent properties.

Complies.

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Private open spaces and balconies are well located to ensure suitable levels of privacy.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Layout is considered suitable to ensure acoustic privacy.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Conditioned to comply.

View Sharing

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

 

The following view corridors are likely to be unacceptably impacted by the proposed development:

·      Views from 4 Wolseley Road;

·      Views from 2a Wolseley Road;

·      Views from 251 Oberon Street.

See detailed discussion under section 9.1.1.

Does not comply.

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

 

The non-complying height and FSR result directly in the above impacts.

Does not comply.

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

 

The excess height and FSR result in unacceptable view impacts.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

Although some effort has been made to minimise overshadowing by way of splayed corners, the proposal nevertheless results in excessive overshadowing of north facing windows of the building to the south.

Does not comply.

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

 

N/A

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

 

North facing living rooms of apartments on both levels of the building to the south will receive well under the required amount of solar access.

Does not comply.

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

 

N/A

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

§ Living areas are orientated to the north.

§ Larger windows are located on the north.

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

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

All units have living areas which face directly north and receive excellent solar access.

Complies.

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

 

Roof is flat and amenable to solar collector fixation.

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

The design provides excellent passive surveillance over Neptune Park and Wolseley Road.

Complies.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Entry is highly visible.

Complies.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

Where appropriate these have been avoided.

Complies.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

Complies.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

Complies.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

To be conditioned.

P7 Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

To comply with BCA.

P8 External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

Standard conditions.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

7 spaces required.

8 spaces provided.

Complies.

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

 

Car parking is provided in a basement car park accessed via a discrete entry ramp.

Complies.

 

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

 

 

N/A

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Suitable space available in basement.

Complies.

 

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Driveway is minimal required width (ie 3m).

Complies.

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

 

Complies.

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

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

 

N/A

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

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

 

Complies.

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

Finishes to be conditioned.

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

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

 

 

Complies.

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

 

Ample storage provided in each unit and large store room provided on the entry level.

Complies.

Barrier-Free Access

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

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

N/A

P2  Dwelling requirements:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 so on…

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

 

N/A

P3 Dwellings for people with a disability have corresponding parking space.

 

N/A

P4 Passenger lifts provide access for people with a disability to common and parking areas.

 

N/A

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1 Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Standard condition.

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

 

Standard condition.

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

 

Standard condition.

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

 

Standard condition.

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

 

Standard condition.

P6 Telephone lines provided in accordance with the service provider.

 

Standard condition.

P7 Internal laundry to each dwelling.

 

Complies.

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

Standard condition.

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

 

Complies.

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

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

Complies.

 

9.1.1 View Sharing:

 

The proposal will have unacceptable view impacts upon the following properties (and potentially others):

·      1/4 Wolseley Road;

·      5/4 Wolseley Road;

·      9/251 Oberon Street.

 

The view loss from each of the above properties will be assessed with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140.

 

A. 1/4 Wolseley Road:

 

This ground floor apartment has extensive views ranging from the South Pacific Ocean to Coogee Beach.

 

1. Quality of Views:

 

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

 

The views available from this apartment include extensive water views, the headland of Coogee Beach and the land/sea interface.

 

Rating: very good

 

2. Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

Although the view lost is across a side boundary, it is across the front setback area. It should not be difficult to preserve.

Rating: easy to protect.

 

3. Extent of Impact:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

An assessment of the view impact for each room’s window from rear to front (west to east):

 

Kitchen:

Some views would be opened up towards the ocean due to the increased side setback;

 

Living room:

Comments same as kitchen.

 

Bedroom:

Almost total loss of views of Coogee Beach and the headland to the north. Retention of Ocean Views.

 

Sunroom:

 

Almost total loss of views of Coogee Beach and loss of about half the view of the headland to the north. Retention of Ocean Views.

Rating: severe loss of views to the north window.

 

Rating: moderate to severe loss to the property overall.

 

4. Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

 

The application exceeds the applicable FSR by more than double and the front setback impinges on that which is considered appropriate in the streetscape by approximately 2 metres. A lesser FSR and, particularly, more appropriate front setback, would assist in preserving a greater extent of these views.

 

Rating: The excess FSR and, particularly, the inadequate front setback suggest that the development is not reasonable and that the extent of the view loss is also unreasonable.

 

Conclusion:

 

It is considered that some of the resulting view loss is not acceptable and could be ameliorated by a more appropriately designed development.

 

B. 5/4 Wolseley Road:

 

This first and top floor apartment has extensive views ranging from the South Pacific Ocean to Coogee Beach. They are similar to those enjoyed by Unit 1 but are from a higher elevation and include better views from the living room as the elevation enables a sight line across the from hip of the existing roof at no 2.

 

1. Quality of Views:

 

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The views available from this apartment include extensive water views, the headland of Coogee Beach and the land/sea interface.

 

Rating: very good

2. Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

 

Sun Room/Bed Room: Although the view lost from the sun room is across a side boundary, it is across the front setback area.  It should not be difficult to preserve.

Rating: easy to protect.

 

Living Room:

 

The view is across a side boundary in the location that it would be reasonable to expect a building to be constructed.

 

Rating: difficult to protect (especially of Coogee Beach)

 

3. Extent of Impact:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

An assessment of the view impact for each room’s window from rear to front (west to east):

 

Kitchen:

Some oblique views would be opened up towards the ocean due to the increased side setback. Rating: moderate impact

 

Living room:

The view to the headland and the land/sea interface leading towards Coogee Beach would be completely lost and the majority of this room would have no view at all except of the side of the proposed development. Rating: devastating.

 

Bedroom:

Almost total loss of views of Coogee Beach and the headland to the north. Retention of Ocean Views. Rating: Sever.

 

 

 

 

 

Sunroom:

Almost total loss of views of Coogee Beach and loss of some of the view of the headland to the north. Retention of Ocean Views 

 

Rating: Severe to northern window.

 

Property Overall: Rating: moderate to sever loss to the property overall.

 

4. Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

As with unit 1, a more appropriate front setback would assist in preserving a greater extent of these views.

 

Rating: The excess FSR and, particularly, the inadequate front setback suggest that the development is not reasonable and that the extent of the view loss is also unreasonable.

 

Conclusion:

 

It is considered that some of the resulting view loss, especially from the sun room and bedroom, is not acceptable and could be ameliorated by a more appropriately designed development.

 

C. 9/251 Oberon Street:

 

This elevated top floor apartment is located to the rear of the site and is separated from it by one other property. It has extensive and spectacular views ranging from the South Pacific Ocean to Coogee Beach. These include a full and clear views of the locally iconic Wedding Cake Island. This is the only unit in this building with such views as the levels below on this side are occupied by car parking.

 

The view of the South Pacific Ocean would be interrupted rather than removed while the view to Wedding Cake Island would be eliminated from the master bedroom and impinged upon from other rooms.

 

1. Quality of Views:

 

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The views available from this apartment are spectacular and extensive water views which include uninterrupted sight lines to all elements of the view.

 

Rating: outstanding

 

2. Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The views are obtained across an intervening property (2A Wolesley Road) and the rear of the subject site.

Rating: difficult to protect.

 

3. Extent of Impact:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

An assessment of the view impact for each room’s windows from north to south:

 

Balcony and Kitchen:

Minimal interruption of South Pacific Ocean and none of Wedding Cake Island.

Rating: Minimal impact.

 

Living Room:

The view of the South Pacific Ocean would be interrupted while it is likely that some of Wedding Cake Island would be obscured.

 

Rating: severe impact

 

Spare Bedroom:

The view of the South Pacific Ocean would be interrupted while it is likely that some of Wedding Cake Island would be obscured.

 

Rating: severe impact

 

Study:

The view of the South Pacific Ocean would be interrupted while it is likely that all of Wedding Cake Island would be obscured.

 

Rating: severe

 

Master Bedroom:

The view of the South Pacific Ocean would be interrupted while it is likely that all of Wedding Cake Island would be obscured.

Rating: severe

 

Property Overall: Rating: severe loss to the property overall.

 

4. Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

Although a compliant height towards the rear of the subject site would have similar view loss impacts, consideration should be given to the significantly excessive FSR (equal to at least two floors of the proposal) which contributes to a larger extent of building volume (ie width and height) and thus view loss. The proposed development is not considered reasonable. Further, even if the development was compliant with the development standards, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that a more skillful design that minimizes adverse impacts is not feasible.

 

Conclusion:

Although the property would continue to enjoy spectacular views overall, it is considered that the significant non-compliance with the FSR and height renders this degree of view loss unacceptable.

 

9.2  Development Control Plan – Parking

 

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

 

Rate

Requirement

Proposed

2 bedroom

1.2 per dwelling

0

 

3 + Bedroom

1.5 per dwelling

6

7

Visitor

1 per 4 dwellings

1

1

Bicycle

1 per 3 dwellings and 1 visitor per 10 dwellings

2

Not shown but space available for conditioned provision.

 

Carwash bay

1 per 12 dwellings

N/A

1 (combined with visitor space)

 

The proposal complies with parking requirements for multi unit housing.

 

Driveway gradients comply with maximum ramp grade of 1 in 6 and less than 1 in 20 for the first 5m from the property boundary.

 

Parking structures are clear of all obstructions, including columns, ducts, pipes etc.

 

The minimum dimensions for a car space are 5.5mx2.5m.

 

9.3 Section 94A Development Contributions:

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$3,154,802.75

1.0%

$31,548.03

       

10. Site Suitability

 

The site has been inspected and is considered suitable for the proposed use.

 

11. Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13. Conclusion

 

Despite its high architectural quality, the proposal does not comply with rear setback controls and exceeds both the applicable height and floor space ratio standards for the site resulting in the following adverse impacts:

 

·      Unacceptable overshadowing of the residential flat building to the south;

·      Adverse streetscape impacts due to a structure which is inconsistent with both the form of surrounding development and the desired future form; and

·      Failure to demonstrate acceptable levels of view loss to the properties to the south and west.

 

As a result, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.         That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No. DA/12/2009 for permission to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new residential flat building at 2 Wolseley Road, Coogee for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposal fails to meet aim (g) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the proposal does not seek to promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the City.

 

2.       The proposed development is contrary to the purpose and numerical requirements of Clause 33(2) and 33(4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 relating to the height of the development.

 

3.       The proposed development is contrary to the purpose and numerical requirements of Clause 32(3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 relating to the floor space ratio of the development.

 

4.       The proposal fails to comply with Clause 3.2 – Height of Development Control Plan Multi-unit Housing in that the height of walls will result in substantial adverse impacts in respect of overshadowing.

 

5.       The proposal fails to comply with Clause 3.3 – Building Setbacks of Development Control Plan Multi-unit Housing in that the side setbacks fail to maintain reasonable levels of solar access.

 

6.       The proposal fails to comply with Clause 3.4 – Density of Development Control Plan Multi-unit Housing in that the building bulk is not compatible with surrounding built forms and does not minimize the impact on nearby buildings or the streetscape.

 

7.       The proposal fails to comply with Clause 4.3 – View Sharing of Development Control Plan Multi-unit Housing in that it fails to demonstrate acceptable levels of view loss to the properties to the south and west.

 

8.       The proposal fails to comply with Clause 4.4 – Solar Access and Energy Efficiency, Performance Requirement P1.2 of Development Control Plan Multi-unit Housing in that living areas of neighbouring dwellings would have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day.

 

9.       The proposal fails to comply with Clause 6.2 – foreshore Scenic Protection Areas of Development Control Plan Multi-unit Housing in that it fails to ensure that building form is in sympathy with the scenic qualities and topography of the shoreline.

 

10.     The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

12 May 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D29/09

 

 

Subject:                  18-20 Stanley Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/891/2008

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of a 3-storey educational building with basement car park for 12 vehicles, provision of a new driveway crossing, modification of the masonry boundary wall and general landscaping.

 

Ward:                      North Ward

 

Applicant:                Emanuel School

 

Owner:                         Emanuel School

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


1.      Executive Summary

 

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

 

The subject application is for construction of a 3-storey educational building (science building) with basement car park for 12 vehicles, provision of a new driveway crossing, modification of the masonry boundary wall and general landscaping in the western section of the Emanuel School.

 

The subject site is bounded by Stephen Street to the north, Avoca Street to the east, Stanley Street to the south, and Chepstow Street to the west. The site has a land area of 1.471 hectares and presently contains various permanent and demountable educational buildings, outdoor playing courts, landscaping and open parking. The proposed science block will be located in the western part of the site in between the existing multi-purpose hall and demountable classroom building adjacent to Chepstow Street.

 

The application was advertised and notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 21 January to 20 February 2009 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of 11 submissions and 1 petition from 30 nearby properties were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised are in relation to conservation of the masonry boundary wall, building bulk and scale, loss of view corridor towards the heritage buildings on site, noise, traffic, safety and security, overshadowing and lack of master planning for the site.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007 applies to the proposed development. Under the SEPP, the proposed works are permissible within the school site.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) and the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998. The site is listed as a heritage item under both RLEP 1998 and the State Heritage Register.

 

The proposed science building will be utilised by the existing school premises and represents an ancillary facility to the current use of the land. A Stage 1 Development Application detailing the master plan concept for the site has recently been submitted to Council for assessment. The current proposal is generally consistent with the provisions of the above master plan. Therefore, the determination of the subject proposal, prior to the determination of the Stage 1 Development Application for the site, is considered satisfactory in this instance.

 

The subject application has been referred to the NSW Heritage Office for concurrence pursuant to the Integrated Development provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No objections were raised and General Terms of Approval have been granted by the Heritage Office. It is considered that the proposed built form and design are sympathetic to the heritage items on site, and will not obstruct principal views to those items from the north-westerly, northerly and north-easterly directions. The modification works to the existing masonry boundary wall are not considered to result in significant adverse impacts on the visual integrity of the wall.

 

The science building is designed as a 3-level block with basement car park in a contemporary architectural style. The proposed flat roof configuration will allow the building to achieve a height and scale, which are commensurate with that of the adjacent double-storey multi-purpose hall, despite the provision of 3 levels of floor space. The built form is appropriately articulated by staggering wall planes, solar control devices and a combination of surface finishes and materials on all elevations. The proposal adopts a neutral earth colour palette in light to medium tones, and is compatible with the surrounding residential developments and the masonry boundary wall of the site.

 

At present, a total of 12 car spaces are provided within the area where the science building will be located. The development scheme will maintain the existing level of on-site parking by providing 12 spaces at the basement level. The development functions to improve the existing facilities of the school and is not intended to increase student and staff population. The proposed works are not considered to result in any adverse traffic implications on the locality.

 

The height and mass of the science building will not result in any significant overshadowing of the surrounding residential properties and the public domain in mid winter.

 

The science block will mainly be occupied during regular school hours, which are 8:00am to 4:00pm, Monday to Friday. A specific condition is recommended to ensure that noise emission from any after-hours meetings or activities ancillary to the school operation is kept to a minimum. Given that the science building is well separated from the surrounding dwellings by Chepstow Street, the development is not considered to result in unreasonable impacts on the residential amenity.

 

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 is described as Lots 1 and 2 in DP 709332, No. 18-20 Stanley Street, Randwick. The site presents a trapezium shape in plan view and is defined by Stephen Street to the north, Avoca Street to the east, Stanley Street to the south, and Chepstow Street to the west. The land slopes significantly from the south-east to the north-west with a cross fall of approximately 16m. The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Site Area

Northern, Stephen Street boundary

67.57m

 

Southern, Stanley Street boundary

101.425m

 

Eastern, Avoca Street boundary

176.875m

 

Western, Chepstow Street boundary

175.595m

 

 

 

1.471 Ha

 

At present, the site is occupied by the Emanuel School, which comprises various permanent and demountable educational buildings, outdoor playing courts, landscaping and open parking. The site is generally enclosed by masonry walls on all boundaries. However, part of the walls along the northern and eastern boundaries have been demolished and replaced with timber and colour bond lapped and capped fencing.

 

The locality is predominantly characterised by low to medium density residential developments and community service facilities as follows:

 

·      Immediately to the north of the site is a landscaped reserve formed by the partial closure of Stephen Street. A mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings is located along both sides of Stephen Street.

 

·      On the eastern side of Avoca Street are The Little Sisters of the Poor church and associated age centre accommodation, nunnery and primary school facilities.

 

·      The southern side of Stanley Street contains a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential developments.

 

·      The western side of Chepstow Street contains a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential developments.

 

The proposed science building, which forms the subject of this application, will be located in the western part of the site in between the multi-purpose hall and demountable classroom building. The area in question currently accommodates an at-grade car park with driveway crossing off Chepstow Street. The eastern side of Chepstow Street is characterised by a continuous grass verge with a number of established trees.

 

Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding built environment. Figures 2 to 5 show the existing improvements on the site.

 

 

 

Figure 1 Aerial view of the Emanuel School site and surrounding area

 

Figure 2 Existing driveway and security gate leading to the at-grade car park; the demountable classroom building is located to the right of the driveway; the Brender Moss Building is seen above the gate

Figure 3 Existing masonry boundary wall and multi-purpose hall as viewed from Chepstow Street

Figure 4 The southern elevation of the multi-purpose hall as viewed from the concrete stairs to the north of the Brender Moss Building

Figure 5 Northern elevation of the demountable classroom building; the existing at-grade car park is seen in the foreground

 

3.      The Proposal

 

The proposed development includes the following components:

 

·      Construction of a 3-storey educational building (science building) with basement parking for 12 vehicles. The building will consist of the following floor space elements:

 

Basement level:       12 car spaces, including 1 accessible (disabled) space, plant room and storage

Ground level:           primary library, storage and amenities

First level:              language learning centre, science room, preparation areas, chemical storage and general storage 

Second level:          science rooms, preparation areas and staff room

                           

·      Demolition of the roof over the ground floor canteen and office areas attached to the existing multi-purpose hall. Construction of a primary classroom within the former roof space directly connected to the first floor level of the science building.

 

·      Removal of the existing driveway crossing and gate and infilling of the brick boundary wall.

 

·      Partial demolition of the boundary wall to provide access to the basement car park and emergency egress gates.

 

Estimated total development cost: $3,299,595 (excluding GST)

 

4.      Site History

 

4.1    Plan amendments

On 18 February 2009, a meeting was held between the applicant and the assessment officers to discuss the possibility of waiving the master planning requirements under Clause 40A of Randwick Local Environmental Plan. It was agreed at the meeting that Council will continue the assessment of the subject application, provided no objections are raised by the NSW Heritage Office, and a Stage 1 Development Application establishing the master plan concept for future building works within the site is submitted to Council, prior to finalisation of the assessment process.

 

Amended drawings were submitted on 27 February 2009. The revision included various changes to the proposed use of the floor space but without any amendments to the building envelope and design.

 

A request was made on 26 March 2009 for the submission of amended plans and additional information addressing the following issues:

 

·      The provision of stairs and footpaths within Council’s grass verge outside the property boundary was not supported.

 

·      A revised streetscape elevation providing clear delineation between the existing and reinstated sections of the boundary wall was to be submitted.

 

·      The grade of the driveway appeared to require retaining walls or soil battering on either side. Details of the design and materials of any retaining walls and other structures within Council’s land were to be submitted.

 

·      Shadow diagrams depicting the expected impacts on 21 June had not been submitted with the application.

 

·      A minimum of one revised photomontage showing the proposed building as viewed from the western side of Chepstow Street was to be submitted.

 

Revised drawings were submitted on 6 April 2009. The revisions have satisfactorily addressed the above concerns. No amended photomontage images have been prepared. Notwithstanding, the level of information received is adequate for assessment purposes.

 

A Stage 1 Development Application (DA/181/2009) was submitted to Council on 25 March 2009. The Heritage Office granted concurrence to the subject proposal on 8 April 2009, subject to specific general terms of approval.

 

4.2    Previous development applications relating to the site

 

DA/181/2009

Stage 1 Development Application setting out the conceptual building envelopes and uses on the Emanuel School site.

Being considered by Council.

 

DA/925/2008

Erection of 2 shade structures over existing outdoor seating areas.

Approved by Council on 6 April 2009.

 

DA/874/2008

Demolition of the existing structures in the service yard in the centre of the site, and construction of a single-storey specialist learning facility.

Being considered by Council.

 

DA/657/2008

Demolition of the brick section of the existing boundary wall along the Avoca Street frontage, and construction of a temporary lapped and capped timber fence.

Approved by Council on 5 December 2008.

 

DA/608/2008

Demolition of the existing brick wall along the northern boundary, and construction of a fence with a concrete masonry base, brick piers, and lapped and capped timber panels.

Approved by Council on 5 December 2008.

 

DA/607/2008

Demolition of the brick section of the existing boundary wall along the Avoca Street frontage, and reconstruction of the wall in two stages.

Application withdrawn.

 

DA/889/2007

Demolition of 4 temporary classrooms and installation of a double-storey demountable building containing 8 classrooms.

Approved by Council on 23 January 2008.

 

DA/698/2006

Construction of an extension to the pre-school (Kornmehl Centre).

Approved by Council on 31 October 2006.

 

DA/196/2006

 

 

Partial demolition and reconstruction of the boundary wall on the Avoca Street frontage.

Application withdrawn.

 

DA/311/2002

Demolition of the existing outbuilding attached to the Saunders Administration Building.

Approved by Council on 20 June 2002.

 

DA/1223/2002

Reinstatement of the existing masonry wall on the northern boundary.

Approved by Council on 1 October 2003.

 

DA/1067/2001

Construction of a storage room on the side elevation of the Hanna Weisz Building.

Approved by Council on 11 April 2002.

 

DA/958/2000

Dismantling of 2 temporary classrooms.

Approved by Council on 30 November 2000.

 

DA/1623/1999

Installation of demountable classrooms.

Approved by Council on 3 February 2000.

 

DA/1206/1999

Staged development of the Emanuel School involving demolition of various existing buildings; construction of interim and permanent car park, demountable class rooms, teaching and library buildings,

shade structures and on-site drop-off zone; and landscaping works. 

Application withdrawn.

 

DA/853/1999

Installation of shade structures in the pre-school playground.

Approved by Council on 25 November 1999.

 

DA/257/1997

Construction of a single-storey pre-school building for use by 60 children aged 3-5 years.

Approved by Council on 20 March 1998.

 

DA/475/1996

Internal alterations of the Brender Moss Building.

Approved by Council on 5 December 1996.

 

DA/55/1994

Construction of a multi-purpose hall, classrooms and ancillary facilities.

Approved by Council on 9 May 1994.

 

DA/416/1989

Construction of a high school wing, administration offices and gymnasium, and partial demolition of boundary walls.

Approved by the Land and Environment Court on 14 April 1990.

 

DA/112/1987

Alterations and additions to existing buildings for use as a school.

Approved by Council on 28 July 1987.

 

DA/382/1985

Installation of 2 single-storey demountable classrooms.

Approved by Council on 25 March 1986.

 

DA/363/1984

Use of the existing novitiate site and facilities as a primary and secondary school.

Approved by Council on 12 February 1985.

 

5.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified to 181 adjoining and nearby properties from 21 January to 20 February 2009 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans.

 

The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

·      28 Avoca Street, Randwick

·      1/30 Avoca Street, Randwick

·      2 Chepstow Street, Randwick

·      4 Chepstow Street, Randwick

·      10 Chepstow Street, Randwick

·      8/5 Stanley Street, Randwick

·      6/16 Stanley Street, Randwick

·      18 Stephen Street, Randwick

·      24 Stephen Street, Randwick

·      34 Stephen Street, Randwick

·      Randwick Precinct Committee

·      Petition from 30 nearby properties

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The proposed car park and pedestrian entry will require demolition of approximately 13m of the heritage boundary wall in Chepstow Street.

 

The proposed development requires relocation of the access driveway and removal of additional sections of the boundary wall to create two emergency egress points.

 

The existing car park gate will be removed and reinstated as an integral part of the wall. Specific conditions are also recommended to require the proposed egress gates and car park sliding door to be finished in earth colours consistent with the character of the masonry wall. The net increase in wall openings is considered minor in nature when compared to the total length of the wall on Chepstow Street that will remain.

The existing school has not adequately maintained and protected the heritage boundary walls that surround the site.

 

The northern section of the walls bordering Peace Park has been partially demolished and replaced by a colour bond fence. The remains of the wall are in a state of disrepair and cause a safety hazard.

 

The eastern section of the walls fronting Avoca Street has been demolished and replaced by permanent timber fencing. It appears that there is little intention to restore the walls.

 

This matter is not directly related to the current application. An investigation into Council’s records reveals the following information:

 

Northern (Stephen Street) boundary wall:

In March 2002, Council issued an order requiring the dilapidated retaining wall and fence along the northern boundary be demolished, to ensure the safety of the public and occupants of the site. The lower brick retaining wall section has been retained, with a colour bond steel fence constructed on top of it.

 

In 2008, a development application (DA/608/2008) for the construction of a new boundary wall with concrete masonry base, brick piers and lapped and capped timber panels was lodged with Council. The application was approved by Council in December 2008.

 

Eastern (Avoca Street) boundary wall:

In 2008, a development application (DA/657/2008) for the demolition of the eastern boundary wall was lodged with Council. The lower sandstone base of the wall was to be retained, with a new lapped and capped treated pine fence constructed on top of it. The application noted that the brick boundary wall was unstable and in imminent danger of collapse. The timber fence was to be a temporary measure until a permanent replacement was agreed upon between the school, Heritage Council and

Randwick Council.

 

The application was approved by Council in December 2008, subject to a condition that the timber fence atop the existing sandstone retaining wall is approved for a period of twelve months only. The temporary timber fence has already been completed.

The modern architectural design of the science block is not compatible with the heritage building on site and the local streetscape.

 

The form, massing, height and scale of the science building are considered to be satisfactory and sympathetic to the heritage items on the site and the streetscape. The modern design approach will appropriately distinguish the new development from the historic buildings on the site.

The height and bulk of the proposed building are not consistent with the 1- to 2-storey scale of Chepstow Street.

 

The development will result in a continuous wall of buildings fronting Chepstow Street and cause adverse visual impacts.

 

The proposed front setback is insufficient to ameliorate the streetscape impacts.

The form, massing, height and scale of the science building are considered to be satisfactory and sympathetic to the streetscape. Refer to the “Environmental Assessment” section of this report for details.

 

The proposed building will be setback a minimum of 2.3m from the western boundary. The ground floor level will be screened by the masonry boundary wall; whilst the upper levels will be partially obscured by the established trees on the eastern side of Chepstow Street. Therefore, the proposed setback is considered satisfactory and will not result in detrimental streetscape impacts.

The proposed development, in conjunction with the existing buildings on the school site, will create a significant amount of floor space.

 

There is no floor space ratio control applicable to the proposed development.

 

The cumulative impacts of the existing and future developments within the site will be assessed under the Stage 1 Development Application currently lodged with Council (DA/181/2009).

The height of the proposed science block will completely obstruct views of the heritage Brender-Moss Building, the skyline and established trees from Chepstow Street.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed science building will substantially obstruct views of the former Novitiate (Brender-Moss Building) from Chepstow Street. However, it is considered that the principal views to the above heritage item are obtained from the north-westerly, northerly and north-easterly directions. The proposal will not affect any of the identified principal views. Refer to the “RLEP” section of this report for details.

 

The proposal will not obstruct views of the existing street trees along Chepstow Street. 

The height of the proposed science block will obscure views of Queen’s Park and the wider district from the property at 6/16 Stanley Street.

 

The objector’s property at 6/16 Stanley Street was inspected on 15 April 2009. It is noted that both standing and sitting district views of part of Queen’s Park and Bondi Junction are obtained from the north-facing windows of the dining room.

 

Given that the height, massing and setback of the proposed science block are similar to the adjoining multi-purpose hall and demountable classroom building, it is anticipated that no significant loss or reduction of the above district views will result.

 

The following is a photograph taken from the north-facing window of the property in question.

 

Figure 6 Views from the north-facing dining room window of 6/16 Stanley Street

 

The development will introduce a significant number of additional students and staff.

 

The subject proposal aims to improve the teaching facilities for the existing school and will not generate significant additional students and staff by itself.

 

The cumulative land use intensity and development impacts associated with any future building works on the site will be assessed under the Stage 1 Development Application currently lodged with Council (DA/181/2009).

The proposal will increase noise emission through the new wall openings and windows of the science block. 

 

The proposal will not result in significant additional noise emission that detrimentally impacts on the surrounding residents. Refer to the “Environmental Assessment” section of this report for details.

The proposed pedestrian entries will function as a new drop-off and pick-up point, and will consequently increase traffic noise and security problems.

 

The development will increase pedestrian traffic in and around Chepstow Street.

 

The new entries will also become the main pedestrian access for out-of-hours community activities.

 

The new entries will require heightened active and passive security patrols in Chepstow Street by the school.

The proposed pedestrian entry / exit points through the masonry wall are designed for emergency egress purposes.

 

The above access points are not considered to effectively function as the main pedestrian entry to the science building or the school premises as a whole.

 

A specific condition is recommended to ensure these gates are closed during normal circumstances. A further condition is recommended to prohibit any construction of footpaths or stairs within Council’s nature strip.

 

The provision of security patrols by the school is not considered to be a valid objection on planning grounds. 

The development fails to provide adequate parking spaces to cater for the increased staff number. The proposal will also generate additional vehicular traffic and exacerbate congestion in the surrounding streets.

 

A monitoring program should be carried out to assess the actual traffic generation of the school.

 

The proposal involves the relocation of the access driveway further to the north, with the same number of on-site parking spaces. The development aims to improve the existing teaching facilities and will not generate significant additional number of students or staff. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to alter the traffic implication of the school premises.

 

The cumulative traffic impacts associated with any future developments on the site will be assessed under the Stage 1 Development Application currently lodged with Council.

Chepstow Street is not suitable for vehicular access due to poor visibility, steep gradient and tree obstructions.

 

The vehicular access design has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer, who raised no objections subject to conditions. Refer to the “Technical Officers Comments” section of this report for details.

The width and ramp gradient of the driveway are not consistent with the Australian Standard.

 

The one-way access arrangement does not allow for on-site queuing of vehicles.

Refer to comments above.

The driveway design does not allow for safe vehicular and pedestrian sightlines due to the configuration of the boundary, the location of street trees and the changes in ground levels.

Refer to comments above.

The application does not clearly indicate the opening hours of the basement car park.

 

The science building and basement car park will generally be used during normal school hours, which are 8:00am to 4:00pm, Monday to Friday. A specific condition is also recommended to ensure any after-hours activities ancillary to the school will not generate unreasonable noise that impacts on the local residents.

The proposed driveway will cause headlight nuisance to the residents on the opposite side of Chepstow Street.

 

The science building and basement car park will generally be used during regular school hours. The basement only contains 12 car spaces and is not considered to generate a significant amount of night time traffic that adversely impacts on the residential amenity.

The proposed basement car park, security gates and ramped driveway will cause noise impacts on the nearby residences. 

Refer to comments above.

The steep cross fall of the existing landscape verge will require a deeply cut driveway crossing supported by retaining walls. The proposal also appears to require new pedestrian pathways and steps within the grass verge. The above structures will adversely detract from the existing streetscape character.

 

The design scheme proposes the use of soil battering along the southern edge of the access driveway to address the level difference.

 

The provision of footpaths and stairs within Council’s nature strip is not supported. A specific condition is recommended to clearly prohibit these structures.

It is unclear as to whether adequate waste management facilities are available on the school site. 

The subject proposal aims to improve the existing teaching facilities of the school, and will not generate significant additional number of students and teachers. The school site has sufficient space for the temporary storage of waste and recycling materials.

The school has been undertaking incremental developments in recent years and no master plans have been prepared to date pursuant to the requirements of Randwick Local Environmental Plan.

A Stage 1 Development Application that establishes the master plan concept for the school and future development works has been lodged with Council. Refer to the “Master Planning Requirements” section of this report for details.

No shadow diagrams depicting the anticipated impacts in mid winter have been submitted.

A shadow diagram depicting the expected impacts on 21 June has been submitted for assessment.

The submitted drawings include a “Jewish Lifestyle Centre”. The actual function of this space is not clearly specified. The room is capable of being used for community functions outside school hours or hired by external bodies.

The subject application has been amended, where the ground floor “Jewish Lifestyle Centre” has been deleted and replaced with a library facility.

The drawings do not provide indications as to whether the existing street trees will be removed or retained.

 

No arborist’s report has been submitted to support the claim that the existing mature trees along Chepstow Street will be retained.

The subject application has been referred to Council’s Landscape Development Officer for assessment. No objections are raised against the proposal subject to standard tree protection conditions.

The applicant has not undertaken any community consultation prior to the development application being lodged with Council, in contrary to the claims in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects.

Community consultation undertaken by the applicant is not required under the relevant planning legislation and controls.

Council should consider an alternative development strategy as follows:

·      Provision of a basement car park below the existing demountable classrooms.

·      Retention of the existing driveway crossing.

·      No provision of new pedestrian and vehicular entries in the boundary wall.

·      Maintenance of the existing grass verge with no footpaths.

 

The alternative development strategy submitted by the objector has been considered. The provision of a basement car park underneath the demountable classroom building to the south would entail significant engineering complications due to the need for foundation underpinning.

 

Furthermore, the alternative strategy is not consistent with the development staging plan contained in the current Stage 1 Development Application.

 

The height, scale and design of the science building and associated works are considered to be satisfactory. It is considered unreasonable to require a complete re-design of the development scheme.

 

6.      Technical Officers Comments

 

6.1    Building Surveyor

The subject application has been referred to Council’s Building Surveyor for assessment. The comments provided are extracted as follows:

 

The proposal

It is proposed to erect a 3 storey educational building with basement car parking for 12 vehicles. The building will contain a Jewish Educational Facility, storage and amenity facilities and an entry foyer at ground floor level, classrooms and science labs at 1st floor level and science room, prep room and a staffroom.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class 9b    -      School building

Class 7a    -      Car park

 

Background

The property is a Jewish (school) Educational Facility catering for children from pre-school to year 12.

 

Key Issues

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Site management:

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

Access is required to be provided to the development to and within (i) all areas normally used by the occupants, including staff, students and visitors, if no alternative similar facilities to those provided in that area are accessible elsewhere in the school; and (ii) any other floor to which vertical access by way of a ramp, step ramp or kerb ramp complying with AS 1428.1, or a passenger lift is provided.

 

Standard conditions should be included to address these requirements.

 

The applicant or other person having the benefit of the consent will also be advised to fulfil their obligations under the DDA.

 

6.2    Development Engineers and Landscape Development Officer

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

 

Landscape Comments

Approval is granted for removal of the tree located within the footprint of the proposed building works. Standard landscape conditions have been included within this report.

 

Drainage Comments

On-site stormwater detention is required for the redeveloped portion of the site. On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the redeveloped portion of the site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the redeveloped portion of the site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by Council.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A stormwater drainage concept plan must be submitted with the Development Application.

 

All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged to the kerb and gutter and / or Council’s underground drainage system in Clovelly Road.

 

Geotechnical Comments

Suitable geotechnical investigation shall be undertaken to determine whether the proposed development site will be affected by seepage flows. Should it be determined that significant continual seepage flows are present on the site, structures that may be affected by seepage flows are to be suitably tanked/waterproofed. Seepage water must not be collected and discharged to the kerb and gutter.

 

Waste Management Comments

Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site. The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste.

 

6.3    Heritage Planner

The subject application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. The comments provided are extracted under the “RLEP” section of this report.

 

6.4    NSW Heritage Office

The subject site is listed under the State Heritage Register. Pursuant to Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is identified as an Integrated Development and requires concurrence from the NSW Heritage Office.

 

The subject application has been referred to the Heritage Office for comments. The Heritage Office has had regard to the master plan document that forms part of the Stage 1 Development Application (DA/181/2009) for the school site currently being considered by Council (as well as the Heritage Office pursuant to the Integrated Development provisions of the Act).

 

On 8 April 2009, the Heritage Office granted concurrence to the proposed development, subject to specific general terms of approval. These conditions have been incorporated in the “Recommendation” section of this report.

 

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.

 

Sub-clause (2) provides that the consent authority may waive the requirement for a master plan only if it is satisfied: (a) that the proposed development is of a minor nature only or is ancillary to the current use of the land, or (b) that adequate guidelines and controls applying to the land are already in place.

 

On 18 February 2009, a meeting was held between the applicant and the assessment officers to discuss the possibility of waiving the master planning requirements under Clause 40A(2) of RLEP 1998. The proposed science building will be utilised by the existing school premises and represents an ancillary facility to the current use of the land. Accordingly, the subject proposal satisfies Clause 40A(2)(a) of the LEP. The applicant has also indicated that a master plan detailing the conceptual building envelopes and future works within the site was being prepared, and would be submitted as a Stage 1 Development Application.

 

It was agreed at the meeting that Council will continue the assessment of the subject application, provided no objections are raised by the NSW Heritage Office, and a Stage 1 Development Application establishing the master plan concept for the site is submitted to Council, prior to finalisation of the assessment process. A Stage 1 Development Application (DA/181/2009) was submitted to Council on 25 March 2009. The Heritage Office granted concurrence to the subject proposal on 8 April 2009, subject to specific general terms of approval.

 

The submitted master plan document, dated March 2009, which forms part of Development Application 181/2009, includes a ‘Heritage’ diagram (Figure 5) that designates a Zone for New Development; a ‘Proposed Built Form Parameters’ plan (Figure 10) that delineates a Potential 12m Height Envelope Reflecting Zone 2C Opposite; and a ‘Staging’ plan (Figure 12) that indicates proposed building structures and demolition. The master plan makes reference to a Draft Conservation Management Plan prepared by Clive, Lucas, Stapleton and Partners Pty. Ltd. in 1999, and a subsequent Draft Conservation Management Plan prepared by Mayne-Wilson and Associates in 2002.

 

The aforementioned Zone for New Development extends along the southern and western boundaries of the school site. The proposed science block is located within the above zone and is clearly identified as a Potential Development Site in the master plan. It is noted that the science block does not comply with the ‘Proposed Built Form Parameters’ plan in that a large section of the building is located outside of the 12m Height Envelope. The 1999 Conservation Management Plan suggested that there is scope for new buildings to be higher than the existing boundary wall by one or one and a half storeys to Chepstow Street. The science block is up to two storeys higher than the boundary wall. However, it is considered that the science building is consistent with the scale and massing of the multi-purpose hall to the north, and is appropriately articulated to minimise visual bulk (refer to the “Environmental Assessment” section of this report for details).

 

The subject proposal is generally consistent with the provisions of the master plan. Therefore, it is considered that the determination of the subject proposal, prior to the determination of the Stage 1 Development Application for the site, is satisfactory in this instance.

 

8.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

8.1    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007

The aim of the Policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. Clause 28(2)(a), Division 3 of Part 3 stipulates that development for the purposes of educational establishments on land, where there is an existing educational establishment, is permissible with development consent. Accordingly, the subject application is submitted for Council’s approval.

 

8.2    Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998

The subject site is classified as Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the general aims of the LEP.

 

8.2.1          Clause 17 Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone)

The proposal is defined as an “educational establishment” under the LEP and is a permissible use within the Special Uses Zone. The relevant objectives of the zone are addressed as follows:

 

(b)    To accommodate development for educational, religious, public transport or similar purposes on both publicly and privately owned land.

The proposed development is for educational purposes on privately owned land.

 

(d)    To enable associated and ancillary development.

The proposed science building will form part of the existing school campus.

 

8.2.2          Clause 22 Services

Clause 22 provides that adequate facilities for the supply of water, disposal of sewage and drainage are required to support a proposed development. The provision of civil and utility services will be required by appropriate conditions of consent.

 

8.2.3          Clause 40 Excavation and filling of land

Clause 40(2) requires that in considering a development application involving earth excavation and filling, the consent authority is to assess the likely disruption of the existing drainage pattern and soil stability in the locality, and the effect on the likely future use of the land.

 

The proposal involves excavation of up to approximately 4m in order to accommodate a basement car park on a sloping site. Notwithstanding, the driveway access is located at the low point of the development area and will minimise the extent of excavation. The development will not include any substantial retaining wall structures that are visible from the public domain.

 

In addition, specific conditions are recommended to ensure that suitable retaining walls and protection measures are implemented during works on the site. The proposal is not considered to adversely impact on the drainage pattern and future use of the land, subject to the recommended construction management conditions.

 

8.2.4          Clause 43 Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

The Emanuel School site is listed as a heritage item (Inventory No. 398: former Little Sisters of the Poor Chapel, Novitiate and “Aston Lodge”) and within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The site is also listed on the State Heritage Register.

 

The Randwick Heritage Inventory provides the following statements of significance:

 

Aston Lodge

Excellent example of Mid-Victorian architecture designed by Edmund Blacket. Colonial Georgian features dominate, with Victorian verandah. Considerable historical interest. Part of outstanding Aston Lodge group. Hardly altered.

 

Little Sisters of the Poor Novitiate

Part of the historic “Aston Lodge” group. This building dominates the local townscape despite the surrounding brick wall. Considerable historical interest and essentially unaltered. A good example of its period.

 

Little Sisters of the Poor Chapel

Part of the historic “Aston Lodge” group. Good example of its period and the Spanish Mission style. Special historical interest.

 

The subject application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. The comments provided are extracted as follows:

 

The Site

The Emanuel School site is listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998 and is occupied by three heritage items, “Aston Lodge”, and the former Little Sisters of the Poor Chapel and Novitiate.  The site is also within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the Novitiate notes that the building was constructed in 1936 and summarises its significance as “part of the historic ‘Aston Lodge’ group.  This building dominates the local townscape despite the surrounding brick wall.  Considerable historical interest and essentially unaltered.  A good example of its period.”  The site is also listed on the State Heritage Register. 

 

Approvals

As the site is listed on the State Heritage Register, any development generally needs to be the subject of an Integrated Development Application or a separate prior application under S.60 of the Heritage Act.  As the Heritage Council is the consent authority for the application, Council cannot issue consent until the Heritage Branch of the Department of Planning has provided conditions of consent.

 

Proposal

The application proposes to construct a new classroom building adjacent to the western (Chepstow Street) boundary to the site.  The building is to be located between the existing multipurpose hall to the north and an existing two storey demountable classroom building to the south.  The building is to have a rectangular footprint with projections to the north and east and is to comprise three levels over basement carparking.  A new vehicular entry and three pedestrian entries are proposed from Chepstow Street. 

 

Background

A Site Conservation Study was prepared by Neustein and Associates in 1997.  A Conservation Management Plan for the site was prepared by Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners in 1999 and a Conservation Management Plan for the Grounds of the School was prepared by Mayne Wilson and Associates in 2002 to accompany earlier development applications for the site. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Form Architects Pty Ltd.  In relation to views to the former Novitiate building from Chepstow Street, the HIS notes that while the proposal closes the last opening along the western boundary, it will retain views to the roofline and part of the upper levels of the building from this direction.  In relation to views to the former Novitiate building from the north and east, the HIS notes that the proposal will retain views from this direction, so that it will continue to be the dominant feature on the site.  In relation to views from the former Novitiate building, the HIS notes that the proposal will retain views from the upper levels in a westerly, north westerly and northerly direction.  The HIS concludes that the proposal has been planned with regard to the layers of cultural heritage that the site represents, to minimise impact on the Brender-Moss (former Novitiate building) and Chepstow Street whilst maintaining the setting of the Emanuel School within its boundaries and beyond. 

 

Comments

Historic development pattern on the site-

Since the construction of Aston Lodge on the site in 1865 the site has gradually been developed with more and larger buildings.  The 1891 Water Board diagram indicates Aston Lodge as the only building on a large site stretching west to include almost all the land as far as Wentworth Street which at that time formed the boundary of the Centennial Park Lands.  The 1930 aerial photographs indicate the Chapel, as well as the construction of buildings along the western boundary of the site including the Laundry. The 1942 aerial photographs indicate the Novitiate, as well as the construction of additional buildings in the northern part of the site including the gatehouse.  This early development generally comprised key buildings centrally placed in the northern half of the site, with open space in the southern half of the site and along its eastern (Avoca Street) edge and generally low, narrow buildings along the western (Chepstow Street) edge. 

 

Recent development pattern on the site-

More recently the site has seen taller and wider development along the western boundary of the site and partial infill of formerly open space to the south and along the eastern boundary.  The subject development application was received in December 2008 and in March 2009 a Master Plan for the site was received.  The Master Plan makes reference to the 1999 Conservation Management Plan and the 2002 Conservation Management Plan for the Grounds of the School.  The Master Plan includes a Heritage diagram (Figure 5) which indicates a Zone for New Development and delineates Spatial Edges; a Proposed Built Form Parameters Plan (Figure 10) which indicates a Potential 12m Height Envelope Reflecting Zone 2C Opposite; and a Staging diagram (Figure 12) which indicates Proposed Buildings and Structures.  The Zone for New Development extends along the southern and western boundaries of the site, extending on the western boundary to the edge of the eastern wall of the multipurpose hall.  The Potential 12m Height Envelope Reflecting Zone 2C Opposite extends as far north as the top of the stairs in front of the former Novitiate.  The Zone for New Development and the Spatial Edges are derived from an unclear and ambiguous Diagrammatic Explanation of Statement of Conservation Guidelines contained in the 1999 CMP.  The 1999 CMP includes a guideline recommendation to permit new buildings and additions to existing buildings provided the proposal is cognisant of the existing built environment. 

 

Footprint and envelope of proposed building in relation to the former Novitiate-

The 1999 CMP considers the novitiate building to be rare in Randwick and the adjoining locality of Waverley in view of its scale, siting and architectural quality.  The former Novitiate building is a three and four storey structure articulated by the setting back of the top level back from the lower level colonnades.  The first floor level of the proposed building will be at a similar height to the ground floor level of the former Novitiate and the overall height of the new building will be somewhat below the second floor level of the former Novitiate.  The main three storey bulk of the new building will have a similar wall height to the adjacent demountable classroom building while the lower two storey element will have the same wall height as the adjacent multi-purpose hall.  The new building is to wrap around the north west corner of the former Novitiate building with a setback of around 6 – 7 metres from it, with a stairway and lift element projecting beyond the western edge of the former Novitiate building.  The new building will be considerably closer to the former Novitiate building than existing adjacent buildings.  The new building is considerably wider than the adjacent demountable classroom building, and higher than adjacent multi-purpose hall.  While it would be preferable for the stairway and lift element to be relocated to provide a greater setback to the former Novitiate, it is noted that the new building is contained within the Zone for New Development contained in the Master Plan.  It is noted that the proposed building does not comply with the Proposed Built Form Parameters Plan (Figure 10) contained in the Master Plan in that a large part of the 3 storey section of the proposed building lies outside the identified Potential 12m Height Envelope Reflecting Zone 2C Opposite.  The CMP suggests that there is scope for new buildings to be higher than the existing boundary wall by one or one and a half storeys to Chepstow Street and perhaps more for Stanley Street.  The proposed building is up to two levels higher than the boundary wall.  The applicant has advised however that the bulk of the building cannot be further reduced whilst maintaining the floor space required to replace that currently contained in the demountable building adjacent to the Avoca Street boundary. 

 

Views towards the former Novitiate building-

The former Novitiate is a relatively long and narrow building with its largest elevations facing north and south, and much smaller eastern and western elevations.  It is noted however that the eastern western elevations are also finely detailed featuring rendered detailing and mouldings to openings.  Although the western elevation is set back from Chepstow Street and screened by street tree planting, it is still visible from outside the site, opposite the existing vehicular gate.  A photomontage included in the HIS appears to indicate that the main view of the Novitiate building above the existing vehicular gate will be blocked by the proposed building and that only glimpses of the western gable will be available through the dense vegetation to the north of the driveway.  It appears that this view will largely be blocked by the proposed building.  Views from the west, and from Chepstow Street in particular are not highlighted in the CMPs and are in any case severely limited by existing street planting to a small area of Chepstow Street. 

 

The 1999 CMP identifies the principle views to the place as being from the heights of Woollahra, Bondi Junction and Waverley, and from the low lying watershed of Queens and Centennial Parks, with the main view components being the being upper wall and roof forms of the former novitiate and chapel.  The 2002 CMP includes an objective of restoring the presentation of the key heritage buildings to the east.  The Views diagram (Figure 9) contained in the Master Plan identifies upper level views to and from the Novitiate extending in an arc from the north east around to the west north west.  Due to the height of trees on the lower part of the site, only the top floor of the former Novitiate building is visible from a distance from a northerly direction.  A greater proportion of this elevation of the building is visible from a distance from a north westerly direction.  It appears that the proposed building will not impact on views to the former Novitiate from the east, the north east, the north or the north west. 

 

Changes to Chepstow Street boundary wall-

The 1999 CMP considers the boundary walls, together with the laundry and gate lodge are institutional type elements which are considered rare in Randwick as an ensemble in non-government ownership.  The number of openings in the boundary wall have progressively increased in order to improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the site.  It appears that the existing vehicular entrance adjacent to the proposed building was introduced at the time the multipurpose hall was constructed.  In order to provide vehicular entry to the basement carpark at the lowest possible level, the application proposes to block the existing large opening in the boundary wall and to create a new opening.  Unlike the Peace Park and Avoca Street sections of the boundary wall, there appear to be no structural problems with the Chepstow Street boundary wall.  Demolition of the wall to provide the new openings should be carefully carried out however to minimise damage to the adjacent sections of the wall.  While the proposal will make changes to the existing boundary wall, the overall size of openings in the wall will not be increased, so that the overall integrity of the wall will be retained. 

 

Conclusion

It is considered that the footprint and envelope of new building are generally consistent with the guidelines contained in the 1999 and 2002 Conservation Management Plans.  These guidelines recommend a continuation of the existing development pattern which directs new buildings to the southern and western boundaries of the site in order to retain the traditional openness of the site to the north and east.  Consistency with these footprint and building envelope guidelines ensures that the proposed building will not affect the principle views to and from the building which have been identified in the 1999 Conservation Management Plan.  The proposed changes to the Chepstow Street boundary wall will not significantly increase the area of openings and will not impact on the overall integrity of the boundary wall. 

 

Recommendation

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

 

·        Unpainted surfaces, ie- brickwork/stonework to the existing boundary wall are to remain unpainted.

 

·        Demolition of the existing boundary wall to provide the new pedestrian and vehicular access associated with the proposed building should be carefully carried out in order to minimise damage to the adjacent sections of the wall. 

 

·        In the unlikely event that historical archaeological remains or deposits are exposed during the works, all work should cease while an evaluation of their potential extent and significance is undertaken and the NSW Heritage Office notified under the requirements of the Heritage Act.

 

Comments:

·      Building envelope and design

The science building is designed as a 3-level block with basement car park in a contemporary architectural style.

 

The design scheme incorporates a flat roof, which although is not consistent with the pitched roof form of the buildings in the immediate vicinity, will reduce the overall height and bulk of the structures. The flat roof configuration will also allow the science building to achieve a height that is commensurate with that of the adjacent multi-purpose hall. The proposed development is considered to be of a visual bulk, which is consistent with the existing institutional buildings on the site. 

 

The development will be accommodated in an area, which is sunken below the base of the former Novitiate (Brender Moss Building). As a consequence, the overall height of the science block (parapet level RL79.45m) will be approximately below the second floor level of the former Novitiate (ridge height RL91.96m). It is considered that the science block will not detract from the visual primacy of the above heritage item.

 

The proposed modern architectural style is considered to appropriately differentiate itself from the historic buildings on the site. The proposal adopts a neutral external colour palette in light to medium tone, and is compatible with the existing buildings within the school as well as the masonry boundary walls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7 Existing open parking area where the science block will be situated; the existing entry gate is seen in the mid ground

Figure 8 The former Novitiate (Brender Moss Building) as viewed from the open car park, which is sunken below the ground level of the heritage building

 

·      Masonry boundary wall

At present, there is a driveway to the at-grade car park via an opening in the boundary wall on Chepstow Street. The vehicular entry has a width of approximately 6m.

 

It is proposed to construct a basement car park and relocate the driveway crossing further to the north. The proposal will also provide two emergency exits from the basement car park and the ground level entry forecourt to comply with the fire egress requirements under the Building Code of Australia. The development will necessitate removal of approximately 9.3m of the masonry boundary wall. To compensate for this, the existing entry gate will be removed, enclosed and reinstated as part of the brick boundary wall. The proposal will therefore result in a net reduction of 3.3m of the wall (being 9.3m minus 6.0m).

 

A special condition is recommended to require the two fire egress gates to be constructed of metal plates finished in earth colours, in lieu of an open, palisade design. A further condition is recommended to require the sliding car park door to be finished in earth hue to match the colour of the wall. The Heritage Planner has also recommended specific conditions to ensure proper execution of wall demolition works. Subject to the above conditions, it is considered that adverse impacts on the visual character of the masonry wall will be minimised.

 

·      View corridors

The submitted Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Form Architects Pty. Ltd. provides the following information:

 

Page 6:

The proposal closes the last opening along the western boundary to Chepstow Street but has been designed to ensure that the former Novitiate (now known as the Brender-Moss Building) retains visibility from Chepstow Street and that the upper levels of the Brender-Moss building retain distant views to the west and north west. Northern views to and from the Brender-Moss building are unaffected by the proposal. The ability to interpret the history and evolution of the site and buildings from gentleman’s residence, through Convent and care facility to school will remain relatively unchanged.”

 

At present, views of the eastern façade, gable and roof of the former Novitiate are available from Chepstow Street via a ‘gap’ above the driveway. Filtered views of the roof through vegetation foliage are also available further to the north on Chepstow Street. Notwithstanding the claims of the Statement that the upper section of the former Novitiate (Brender-Moss Building) will remain visible from Chepstow Street, based on the proposed ridge height and footpath levels, it is anticipated that the science block will substantially obscure the eastern elevation and roof of the above heritage item.

 

The previous Draft Conservation Management Plans have identified the principal views to the site as being from the heights of Woollahra, Bondi Junction and Waverley, and from the low lying watersheds of Queen’s and Centennial Parks, with the main components being the upper wall and roof forms of the former Novitiate and chapel.

 

The proposed science block will not affect distant views of the former Novitiate from the east, north-east, north and north-west.

 

The existing views from Chepstow Street are not considered to be the primary view corridors to the heritage item. Clear views of the eastern façade and roofing of the former Novitiate are only available with a person standing directly opposite the car park driveway. The building will become obscured by existing street trees when a person moves towards the north. Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory having regard to the protection of significant view corridors.

 

8.3    Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008

The Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008 had been placed on public exhibition. The proposed development is consistent with the general aims and objectives of the Draft LEP.

 

9.      Policy Controls

 

9.1    Development Control Plan - Parking

The Parking DCP stipulates the following parking rates for educational establishments:

0.7 spaces per 1 staff member

 

The submitted Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications report states that a total of 97 full time teaching and support staff are currently employed by the school. The existing car park (where the proposed science building will be situated) contains 12 parking spaces. A drop-off and pick-up zone is located at the north-western corner of the site, adjacent to the Kornmehl pre-school building.

 

According to the DCP, a total of 67.9 or 68 car spaces are required. There is an existing shortfall of 56 spaces. The Statement of Environmental Effects acknowledged that the existing parking facilities do not adequately service the needs of the school (page 17). The proposed development will maintain the existing level of on-site parking spaces by providing 12 basement parking spaces, including 1 accessible bay.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·      The development functions to improve the existing facilities of the school by providing a new library, language learning centre and science laboratories, as well as a permanent primary classroom. The proposal is not intended to increase existing student and staff population on the site.

 

·      The relocation of the driveway crossing will not reduce the existing number of kerb-side parking spaces on the eastern side of Chepstow Street.

 

·      The school has convenient access to public transport services. Specifically, there are public bus services along Avoca Street (bus stops located on either side of Avoca Street immediately outside the school) and Clovelly Road (within 200m from the school site).

 

·      A special condition is recommended to require adequate bicycle parking facilities within the school site as a means to encourage alternative, sustainable modes of transport.

 

9.2    Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2007, is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost $100001 - $200000

------

0.5%

------

Development cost more than $200000

$3,299,595

1.0%

$32,995.95

 

10.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Refer to the “Environmental Planning Instruments” section of this report for details.

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

The proposed development is consistent with the general aims and objectives of the Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008.  

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

Refer to the “Policy Control” section of this report.