Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 14 July 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

14 July 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 July 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, 14 July 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 - 9 June 2009

 

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

 

Urgent Business

 

Development Application Reports

D41/09      7 Tower Street, Coogee

D42/09      42-44 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee

D43/09      166-168 Clovelly Road, Randwick

 

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil   

 

Closed Session

Nil   

 


Notices of Rescission Motions

Nil                                                                   

 

 

 ………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee

14 July 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D41/09

 

 

Subject:                  7 Tower Street, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/838/2006/A

Author:                   Philip North, Senior Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) Modification to reduce rear setback on both levels and delete northern rebates on both levels and alter the front roof form.

 

Ward:                      North Ward

 

Applicant:                J Chow & P Rinder

 

Owner:                         J Chow & P Rinder

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


1.    Executive summary

 

The original application for this development was determined by the Health, Building and Planning Committee on 11 September 2007. In accordance with policy, this Section 96(2) application for modification of the original consent is also referred to the committee for determination.

 

The proposal relates to an existing consent for a first floor addition and ground floor alterations to an existing semi-detached dwelling at 7 Tower Street, Coogee.

 

It seeks to modify the existing consent by removing the conditions of consent requiring construction to be undertaken concurrently with construction of a matching first floor addition on the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. It also seeks to increase the approved floor area and make minor modifications to the roof form at the front.

 

Council received submissions from the owners of 5 Tower Street, a planning consultant acting on their behalf and a submission from the owner of 1 Melrose Parade, Clovelly. A letter of support from the owners of 11 Tower Street was also received. The main issues raised in the objections were view loss from 5 Tower Street, the adverse streetscape impacts of a unilateral development and inaccuracies and ambiguities in the plans; these have been satisfactorily rectified in amended plans.

 

Although the application results in a non-compliance with the preferred solution floor space ratio of the dwelling houses DCP, this is considered acceptable as it does not result in adverse impacts upon adjacent properties or the streetscape.

 

The proposal to undertake the development independently of that to the adjacent attached dwelling, however, is not considered acceptable due to the negative and potentially long term streetscape impacts of two mismatched halves of the one building.

 

Although the application is recommended for approval, it is recommended that conditions 3, 4 and 5 be retained.

 

2.    The proposal

 

It is proposed to modify the application as follows:

 

·      Delete Conditions 3, 4 and 5 relating to the construction of the development concurrently with the adjacent dwelling. These conditions are:

3.     The first floor addition to the subject premises must be constructed at the same time as the adjoining dwelling at 9 Tower Street to the satisfaction of Council.

4.     A Construction Certificate for DA consent 838/2006 must not be issued by Council or an the Certifying Authority unless that Construction Certificate also incorporates DA consent 837/2006.

Reason: Council is of the opinion that approval of both DA 838/2006 and DA 837/2006 is warranted only in circumstances where both semi detached dwellings, known as Nos 7 & 9 Tower Street, Coogee are acted upon concurrently. The condition is imposed to prevent the owner of either property engaging a private certifier to issue an individual construction certificate for their property. Failure to comply with this condition would amount to an offence pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In the absence of both consents being acted upon concurrently a streetscape issue may arise.

5.     An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the first floor addition to the subject development prior to the adjoining dwelling at 9 Tower Street (DA/837/2006) being constructed at least up to “lock up” stage (completion of all structural work, internal and external wall frame, roofing, guttering and drainage and external walls/cladding and finishes) to the satisfaction of Council;

 

·      Increase the length of the rear ground floor family room by approximately 1.4m;

·      Enclose the ground floor rebate on the northern side to increase the area of the kitchen, bathroom and study;

·      Increase the length of the rear first floor balcony by approximately 0.3m;

·      Increase the length of the rear first floor bedroom 1 by approximately 0.9m;

·      Enclose the first floor rebate on the northern side to increase the area of the bathroom and living room; and

·      Simplify the front roof form over the first floor by deleting the flat element.

 

3.    The subject site and surrounding area

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Tower Street slightly south of its intersection with Melrose Parade, Coogee. The site contains a rectangular shaped allotment with dimensions 40.53m x 6.165m/6.24m and an area of 240.3sqm. The site contains a semi-detached dwelling with 3 bedrooms. The front fence to the site is a 1.8m high thatch fence. Adjacent to the south of the site is the other half of the semi-detached dwelling. Further to the south is a part two part three storey dwelling at 11 Tower Street. The adjacent dwelling to the north is a two storey dwelling.

 

The area consists primarily of single and two storey residential dwellings exhibiting a variety of shapes and forms interspersed with three to four storey multi-unit housing developments. There is no consistent dwelling type, design or pattern in Tower Street.

 

Photo 1: View of the subject site from Tower Street

Photo 2: Adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 9 Tower Street, Coogee

 

 

Photo 3: Neighbouring dwelling to the south at 11 Tower Street

 

Photo 4: Dwelling adjacent to the north of the site at 5 Tower Street.

 

4.    Site history

 

A.   History of site usage

Previous pre-lodgement and development applications submitted for development on the site includes:

 

Application No.

Description

Determination

PL/105/2003

Proposed alterations & additions to existing dwelling.

Advice provided on 22 December 2003.

DA/188/2004

Demolish rear shed and attic, reconfigure ground floor and new first floor addition containing bedroom, study and ensuite

Approved at Ordinary Council meeting on 19 October 2004.

DA/838/2006

Alterations and additions including new first floor

Approved at Health, Building & Planning Committee meeting on 11 September 2007.

 

B.   Previous approvals

As noted above, Council at its Ordinary Council meeting held on 19 October 2004 resolved to grant development consent to DA No. 188/2004 subject to conditions including the deletion of the metal awning to the upper level front balcony and roof overhang at the front elevation to preserve the predominant views from the side boundary living room window at first floor level of 5 Tower Street. This consent is due to lapse on 22 October 2009.

 

The original Development Application (DA/838/2006) was submitted to Council on 18 September 2006 and sought consent for alterations and new first floor additions to the existing single story semi-detached dwelling house including new first floor balconies, new front hard stand car space and associated landscaping. Following the notification of the proposal, Council received two submissions from the owners of 5 Tower Street and a planning consultant acting on behalf of the owners of 5 Tower Street and a letter of support from the owners of 11 Tower Street. The main issues raised in the objections were view loss from 5 Tower Street and adverse visual & acoustic privacy impacts associated with the north-facing first floor balcony.

 

As a result of the notification, a meeting was held on the subject site with the applicants and the applicants’ consultants to discuss the issues raised by the objectors and the height poles were requested to be erected on the site to allow an understanding as to the view-related impacts of the proposal on 5 Tower Street. 

 

Subsequent to this process, amended plans were lodged on 19 June 2007, which include the following changes to the proposal:

 

§   Deletion of the pitched roof overhang to the first floor east-facing balcony and replacement with a flat form with a louvred attachment to provide solar protection.

§   Deletion of the centrally located first floor north-facing balcony.

§   Reduction and repositioning of the study at ground floor level to provide greater setback from the northern side boundary.

§   Repositioning of the bathroom at ground floor to provide greater setback from the northern side boundary.

§   Replanning of the kitchen and living room at ground floor level to provide greater setback from the northern side boundary.

§   Reduction in the rear extent of the ground floor level to provide additional opportunities for landscaping.

§   Reduction in the length of the first floor level by replanning the master bedroom, so as to comply with the maximum 12m building length control.

§   Correct position of the existing dwelling at 5 Tower Street shown on the plans.

 

The application was approved by the Health, Building & Planning Committee meeting on 11 September 2007. Conditions added to the consent included condition no. 2 requiring the further set back of the upper level by 400mm from the street and condition nos. 3, 4 and 5 requiring construction at the same time as the works for the other half of the semi-detached dwelling at no. 9 Tower Street.

 

5.    Community consultation

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

Design Collaborative, acting on behalf of the owners of 5 Tower Street, Coogee.

Issue

Comment

Proposal not consistent with resolution of mediation resulting in original consent in respect of view loss.

Following amendments to the plans to correct a number of dimensional errors, the proposal is consistent with the previous consent and the negotiated resolution. The proposal also has similar view loss implications to the original consent. 

Errors and ambiguity in the plans.

The errors existing in the original plans have been corrected in subsequent amendments.

Adverse impact of a unilateral development.

It is agreed that unilateral development of this site could result in unacceptable streetscape impacts.

Excess FSR.

See assessment of FSR below in section 9.2.

Side boundary setbacks inadequate.

See assessment of side setbacks below in section 9.2.

Inadequate landscape area.

See assessment of landscape area below in section 9.2. It appears that the submission has excluded from its calculations a larger amount of area for the car parking spaces than is necessary (this assessment excluded the area of a single car parking space under the Australian Standard (2.5m x 5.5m – the space is located on the front boundary so no exclusion is made for any driveway). Notwithstanding this, the overall landscape area is generally considered satisfactory and capable of providing a suitable degree of amenity to the site and the locality.

 

Owners of 5 Tower Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

Plans not consistent with Conditions 1 and 2 of development consent.

It seems the objector must be referring only to condition 2 as condition 1 simply lists the approved plans.

Condition 2 moves the upper level back a further 400mm from the street. The original plans lodged contained a dimensional error which suggested that the applicant sought to change this to only 300mm. This was subsequently corrected in an amended set of plans which are consistent with Condition 2 of the original consent.

Adverse impact of a one sided development.

It is agreed that unilateral development of this site could result in unacceptable streetscape impacts.

 

1 Melrose Place, Clovelly

Issue

Comment

Adverse impact of a one sided development.

It is agreed that unilateral development of this site could result in unacceptable streetscape impacts.

 

5.2 Support

One letter of support was received from – the owners of 11 Tower Street, Clovelly

 

6.    Technical Officers comments

 

No referrals were required.

 

7.    Master planning requirements

 

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

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

·        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·        Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

9.    Environmental assessment

 

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

 

9.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

No change to previous assessment.

 

9.2      Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

 

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

43% of the site is landscaped area (note that the 13m2 area of the hardstand space has been excluded from the calculation). Complies.

 

S1

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

 

The rear yard has an area of approximately 50 sqm. Complies.

S1

Each dwelling must provide an area of private open space capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

 

The above area has dimensions of 8m x 6m. Complies.

S1

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

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 applies. 

The amended proposal increases the FSR from 0.64 to 0.72:1. Does not comply – see discussion below.

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

The DCP preferred solution is a floor space ratio of 0.65:1 whereas the application proposes an FSR of 0.72:1. This is considered to satisfactorily address the objectives and performance requirements as the excess floor space:

 

·      is not visible from the street and will effect the character of neither the streetscape nor the locality;

·      will not overshadow any adjacent dwellings as it is located to the south of the nearest dwelling;

·      will not result in adverse privacy impacts as it contains only obscure glazed openings at the upper level; and

·      will have positive privacy impacts in that it removes the readily accessible small open courtyard directly adjacent the neighbouring dwelling to the north.

 

Height, Form & Materials

No change to previous assessment except for:

 

 

Preferred Solution/Performance Requirement

Assessment

S5

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

 

The proposed first floor addition set in front of the roof pitch. Does not comply – see assessment below.

P6

Buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views.

See assessment in Section 9.3 below.

 

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

 

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

 

The original application was submitted concurrently with a Development Application (DA/837/2006) for the adjoining semi-detached dwelling house at 9 Tower Street which also proposed to carry out matching alterations and additions. The original applications were approved with conditions of consent requiring these to be constructed concurrently.

 

The applicant proposes the deletion of these conditions of consent to allow the proposal to be constructed independently of no. 9. This could result in the following:

·      a period (which could be transient or long term) during which there would be a clear architectural inconsistency between nos. 7 and 9; and/or

·      ultimate changes to the design of the additions to no. 9 which would result in a less consistent built form for the building as a whole.

 

Removal of these conditions would thus result in a significantly lesser degree of control over both the timing and the form of the outcome which is likely to result in a less acceptable streetscape character.

 

Deletion of conditions 3, 4 and 5 is not considered acceptable in these circumstances and is not supported.

 

Building Setbacks

No change to previous assessment except for:

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S3

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

Generally 700mm except for the outer curve of the glass brick window to the kitchen which is approximately 500mm at its closest point. This intrusion into the setback does not have adverse amenity impacts but further impacts on the ability of the side passage to allow pedestrian access and is not considered desirable. If approval were to be granted, the setback to this element should be increased by way of condition to at least that of the adjacent side wall.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

A further 2.4m portion of the proposed first floor addition is set back a minimum of 900mm from the northern side boundary. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

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

 

It is considered that the further non-compliance with the first floor side setback requirement is acceptable as no adverse impacts would result upon adjacent properties. Furthermore, solar access to the northern side of the building would not be advantaged by an increased setback as the adjacent dwelling to the north is a large two storey building sited on slightly higher ground therefore completely overshadowing the proposed first floor addition. The separation is considered sufficient in terms of ventilation given the site is located within 100m of the coast and is subjected to constant sea breezes year round.

 

The proposed setbacks are therefore considered reasonable and do not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjacent neighbours.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

No change to previous assessment.

 

Safety & Security

No change to previous assessment.

 

Garages & Driveways

No change to previous assessment.

 

Fences

No change to previous assessment.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

No change to previous assessment.

 

9.3    View Sharing

There are two areas in which this application may alter the view impacts of the original consent:

 

·      The upper level front setback:

The application seeks to satisfy condition 2 of the original consent by moving the upper level back by 400mm. A dimensional error in the original plans lodged, however, resulted in it apparently being moved back by only 300mm. This has been rectified by amended plans.

 

·      The replacement of the upper level front flat roof with a pitched roof:

The flat roof was originally conceived to preserve the view to Mistral Point from No. 5 just over the top of the roof. The impact of this change was carefully analysed in marked up view loss photographs during the assessment of the original application and achieved a satisfactory outcome. The application of Condition 2 at the subsequent HBPC meeting, however, pushed the whole structure back 400mm so that the lowered portion of roof generally only provides additional view to the side wall of the building beyond (rather than to anything of particular scenic value); this is clearly demonstrated in the marked up photographs below. The volume of this small additional roof is also well within the building volume that would have resulted from the previous approval for DA/188/2004 which is still current (see final photograph below – the proposal is shown in heavy dashed line and the additional roof area cross hatched in heavy black line). Only in two of the photos below does it block any view of water; not only is this of such a small area that it is of negligible impact, it is also in an area that would be blocked by existing consent DA/188/2004 (current until October 2009).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed amendment not only produces an acceptable view loss outcome which is also consistent with the previous consent but also provides a more desirable streetscape outcome which is simpler aesthetically and also more consistent with the approved addition at no. 9 Tower Street.

 

Consequently, the amendment to the front roof form is supported.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:          Excellence in urban design.

Direction:          Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development is considered consistent with the aims, objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that it does not respect the form of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council, as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/838/2006/A for permission to undertake a Section 96 modification to reduce the rear setback on both levels and delete northern rebates on both levels and alter the front roof form at 7 Tower Street, Coogee in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans numbered 1b and 2b, dated 2 July 2007 and received by Council on 2 July 2007, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered 1G & 2F, amended 9 June 2009 and received by Council on 22 June 2009, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

14 July 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D42/09

 

 

Subject:                  42-44 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/348/2009

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Land subdivision of the site into two allotments to accommodate two 1920 built semi detached dwellings within their own allotments. (SEPP 1 due to substandard allotment sizes and frontage widths).

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Dunlop Thorpe & Co P/L

Owner:                         M G Barden

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.   
Executive Summary

 

The proposed development is for a two lot subdivision as follows:

 

·           Lot 10: 235.4sqm with a frontage of 7.25m and

·           Lot 11: 223.2sqm with a frontage of 6.56m

 

Both lots are well below the standard for minimum sizes (450sqm) and frontage widths (12m) required for 2A zoned land under Clause 30(1) of the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998 (RLEP). The proposed allotment sizes and frontages are greater than 10% variation to the standard and the Department of Planning requires applications with greater than 10% variations to development standards to be referred to Council for determination.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 30(1A) of RLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

·           the historical context of the site shows two semi detached dwellings have existed on the site since 1920 and have been separately rated for a significant period of time

·           the predominant lot sizes and subdivision pattern at either end of this section of Ritchard Avenue

 

In respect to the above matters, the proposed development for subdivision matches the subdivision pattern of similarly configured lots within the immediate locality. In addition, the historical background of the properties means the proposed development will not result in an undesirable precedent for subdivision of allotments that are well below the standard required for 2A zoned land.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

It is proposed to Torrens title subdivide the allotment of land to accommodate the pair of semi detached dwelling houses built circa 1920 onto separate allotments.

 

The proposed allotments comprise:

 

·      Lot 10: 235.4sqm with a frontage of 7.2.5m and

·      Lot 11: 223.2sqm with a frontage of 6.56m

 

3.    State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

 

The proposed development provides two lots which are below the standard, which does not comply with the minimum allotment size standard or frontage standard required for 2A zoned land under Clause 30(1) of the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998 (RLEP). The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 30(1A) of RLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.      Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

The minimum allotment size control in question is a development standard contained in RLEP.

 


2.      The purpose of the standard, as outlined in RLEP, is:

“To establish minimum requirements for the subdivision of land within residential zones in order to protect and enhance local amenity”

 

3.      Consistency of the development with aims of the policy and objects of the Act

The aims and objectives of SEPP No.1 are to:

 

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

 

The objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

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

 

ii.     The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

The variation from the minimum allotment size control is not inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 and would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii), specifically, in that the resultant development would maintain and promote the orderly and economic development of the subject land. The fact the lots are within the 2A zone and the surrounding lots are similarly dimensioned ensures that it does not set a precedent for subdividing substandard lot sizes within the 2A zone.

 

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the aims of the policy, in that:

 

·      The proposed subdivision will not result in excessive development of land within the 2A zone as the subject site currently accommodates two dwellings which have existed on site since 1920 and separately rated for a significant period of time.

·      The proposed lot sizes generally conform to the existing structures on site, having regard to boundary fencing therefore do not result in any additional adverse impacts on the neighbouring residents or the locality.

·      The proposed lot sizes generally conform to the main subdivision pattern for lots within the locality especially for those that contain semi-detached dwellings.

 

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

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed minimum allotment size control would be unreasonable and unnecessary on the subject site given that the substandard allotment sizes continues to achieve the associated objectives of the standard in that:

 

·      The subdivision will not result in any variation to the existing structures from the street or the neighbouring properties

·      There would be no public benefit in ensuring compliance with the development standard in this particular instance given the two dwellings have historically functioned as two separate dwellings and have been separately rated since 1920,  maintain two separate areas of private open space as well as likely separate services.

·      In effect, it is considered the historical context of the site means that it is unlikely to lead to an undesirable precedent and the proposed development seeks to primarily convert from a long standing situation to a Torrens titled property that is consistent with the predominant subdivision pattern at either end of this section of Ritchard Avenue.

 

In view of the above it is considered that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

5.      Whether the objection is well founded

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that the applicant has:

·      Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly

·      Demonstrated that there are no unreasonable adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

·      Addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying stated purpose of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act.

·      Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely that:

 

 

 

 

The SEPP 1 objection and reasons identified above are considered to comply with the determinative tests for assessing a SEPP 1 objection as provided for under Winten v North Sydney Council (2001). In essence, it is considered that the proposed subdivision complies with all relevant objectives of Residential 2A zoned land. In particular, the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the character of the established residential area in terms of its subdivision pattern comprising its frontages and lot sizes. In addition, the configuration of the semi detached dwellings within the proposed allotments and their built form relationship with the surrounding space is also similar to other allotments in the immediate locality which underwent Torrens title subdivision in the 1960’s.

On the basis of the above, it is considered that the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection to the minimum allotment size of 450sqm and a 12m frontage for each allotment is well founded and should be supported considering the proposed subdivision satisfies the objectives of the 2a Zone of the RLEP, and that considering the above, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

4.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Ritchard Avenue and is presently occupied by two existing two storey semi detached dwellings.  The site has a frontage width of 13.795m, a side boundary depth of between 32.895m and 34.165m and has an overall site area of 458.6m².  Neighbouring the property to the north and south are pairs of semi detached dwellings however these were the subject of subdivisions issued circa 1960. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of semi detached dwellings and single detached dwellings. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

5.    Site History

 

No relevant history, however it is noted the majority of semi detached dwellings located on sites above and below the subject site were the subject of subdivision consents issued around the 1960’s.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal did not require notification given the nature of the proposed development not resulting in any impacts on the amenity of the locality.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

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:

 

An application has been received to subdivide the above site into 2 lots.

 

Parking Comments

The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing attached dual occupancy into two lots. It is noted that one of the dwellings is without an off-street parking space and normally in such circumstances Development Engineering would require that provision is made for an off-street carspace as a condition of consent. However in this instance such a condition would be impractical and would require substantial excavation on site and the removal of Council’s street tree immediately in front of the property. The street tree is a Hills Weeping Fig and is of a substantial size and its removal would significantly affect the amenity of Ritchard Avenue. The subdivision is also simply formalising an arrangement that has been in existence for some time. For such reasons the requirement for an off street carspace has been waivered.

 

Drainage Comments

A site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer indicates that roof rainwater appears to be connected illegally to the site’s sewerage system which drains to a Sydney Water sewer line in Ritchard Avenue.

 

The applicant shall demonstrate that stormwater runoff is drained to a suitable drainage system in Ritchard Avenue such as Council’s kerb and gutter.  If rectification works are necessary the works shall be completed prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

Heritage Planner

The application was discussed with Council’s Heritage Planner for comment as the subject site is in the vicinity of a Heritage Item located at No. 9 Ritchard Avenue.  No objections were raised.

 

8.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The subject site does not require a Master Plan to be submitted to Council.

9.   
Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

-      Building Code of Australia.

-      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-      Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

-      Development Control Plan - Parking

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause 10 Zone 2A

The proposed subdivision does not comply with the minimum allotment size standard required under Clause 30 of the RLEP. While the shortfalls are significant it is considered that in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the existing subdivision pattern and the long standing nature of the dwellings, the proposed development may be supported.

 

In particular, the proposed development is not considered to detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality as there are similarly dimensioned lots at either end of Ritchard Avenue containing similarly dimensioned single semi-detached dwellings. Further, tracing research from 1920 indicates the developments were constructed around this time and although owned by one owner they have been individually rated for a significant period of time.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form is not being altered, the proposed development will maintain its presentation to the streetscape as two separate lots.

 

Clause 21 - Subdivision

Clause 21 of RLEP98 requires Council’s consent for subdivision works. The applicant has provided draft subdivision plans to Council for assessment and approval and this complies with the requirements of the RLEP in relation to subdivision.

 

Clause 22    Services

Clause 22 states that Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development where it is satisfied that adequate facilities for water supply, sewage removal/disposal and drainage are available. The site has a frontage to Ritchard Avenue and these facilities are likely to be available for the proposed allotments given the dwellings being separately rated. Notwithstanding this, if approval is granted for this application, a condition will be applied requiring a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 to be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Clause 30 (1) – Minimum Allotment sizes

Clause 30 (1) sets out minimum standards for the subdivision of land within a 2A zone.

 

This clause relates to land subdivision and is therefore applicable. The minimum allotment size for the subdivision of land within a 2C zone is 450m with a 12m frontage. In this respect the proposed development for Torrens title subdivision into two lots does not comply as shown in the table below.

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

30 (1)– Minimum allotment sizes Zone 2A

The minimum allotment size for subdivision of allotments in 2A zone is 450m², with each allotment having a frontage of at least 12m. 

Two lot subdivision for lots 10 & 11 with 235.4sqm and 223.2sqm with frontages measuring 7.25m & 6.56m respectively

No1

1Objection under SEPP No. 1 provided in support of non-compliance – see above.

 

Clause 46 Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

Clause 46 of the RLEP relates to protection of heritage items and heritage conservation areas.  The subject site is located in close proximity to a heritage item identified under RLEP 1998. The heritage item is located at 9 Ritchard Avenue adjacent to the subject sites.

A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was not prepared or submitted with the development application and it is considered a HIA is not warranted as there are no physical works proposed under this DA. In this respect, the proposal for sub-division would retain the existing portions of open space and landscaping around the semi-detached dwellings which would therefore maintain the existing site amenity and appearance from the streetscape. It is therefore considered the proposed development will not result in any potential impacts on the significance of the heritage item within its vicinity.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 - Remediation of Land

The site has not identified as including contaminated land or having sustained any previous uses which may have resulted in contamination. Although a Site audit statement has not been submitted it is considered that given the existence of the semi-detached dwellings on the site for a significant period of time, and there being no record of the site being developed since this time, it is considered this continued residential use is unlikely to have exposed it to any significant contamination.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions for all applications lodged from 2 July 2007:

This application is EXEMPT from a levy under Council’s s94A Development Contributions Plan as it falls into the category of works with a cost of development less than $100,000.

     

      Draft Environmental Planning Instruments - Draft LEP amendments 2008 (Clause 30 Minimum allotment sizes)

The Draft LEP Amendment 2008 seeks to make various modification to the provisions related to minimum allotment sizes. This draft amendment has been publicly exhibited and Council is awaiting comments from the Minister. The draft will amend Clause 30 (1) by reducing the minimum allotment size required for subdivision within the 2A zone from 450m2 to 400m2.

 

Notwithstanding, the proposed development continues to not comply with the reduced standards, the circumstances of the case in terms of the sites historical context and the similarity with the subdivision sizes of adjoining properties means that the proposed developments variation from the draft minimum allotment size standards are also justified.

 

Overall, the proposal is not inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the draft RLEP 2007.

 

9.1    Policy Controls
a.      Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

The reduction in the size of land occupied by the semi-detached dwellings requires assessment under Councils Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP as follows:

 

Building Design

The decrease in the land size merely formalises the existing situation on site having regard to boundaries being defined by existing front, side and rear boundary fences. In this respect, the subdivision maintains existing situation on site. This means that there is no effective change to the levels of landscaping in terms of private open space and levels of permeable landscaping to the site, no change to the external wall heights, no additional privacy impacts, and the proposed development will maintain safety and security principles as existing rooms overlook the street.

 

Overall, it is considered the proposal is acceptable with regard to the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual occupancies DCP.  The proposed land subdivision into two lots will have no immediate impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views and will not result in any adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises or the locality and effectively maintains the long-standing presentation of the allotments, which have been treated for most practical purposes as two distinct allotments.

 

b.    Development Control Plan Parking

The current parking requirements do not comply with the DCP. Only one (1) off-street parking space is provided to Lot 10 (42 Ritchard Avenue) and no parking is provided to Lot 11 (44 Ritchard Avenue). No objections to the non compliance, on the basis that the existing arrangement is not changing and no further parking demand is therefore being created.

 

In addition, the prevailing subdivision pattern of narrow frontages restrict the ability to provide any parking without substantially altering the front of the sites particularly given the proposal does not involve any building works.

 

10. Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

9.1    The provisions of the Regulations - S79C (1) (a)

There are no matters of relevance in this development application that pertains to the provisions of the EP&A Regulations 2000.

 

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

The proposal is for the sub-division of land and will not result directly in any built form so that there will be no immediate impact in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or loss of views from the proposed development. Subject to compliance with the proposed conditions there should be no significant adverse impact on items of natural, environmental or physical structures on site or surrounding developments.

 

9.3    The suitability of the site for the development – S79C (1) (c) 

The proposed subdivision is considered suitable development for the site having regard to relevant planning matters such as the aims and objectives of the 2A zone, the non-compliance with the minimum sizes required and subdivision pattern within the immediate locality. The proposed sites are also suitable having regard to building design requirements contained in Councils’ Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The existing semi detached dwellings will present a bulk and scale that is compatible with those in surrounding allotments.

 

9.4      Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations - S79C (1) (d)

Not relevant.

 

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

The proposed subdivision of the site to accommodate the long standing situation will merely formalise a situation on the subject properties which already exists amongst those semi detached dwellings on adjoining sites.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and a healthy environment.

Direction:  New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed subdivision is permissible with development consent under Randwick LEP 1998. The subdivision of the subject land provides allotments which are consistent with those in the locality. The subdivision of the land represents an orderly and economic development of a block of land that is currently for most intents and purposes treated as two separate allotments having regard to its configuration, rating and history.

 

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the provisions of the section 79C of the EP&A Act, the Regulations and relevant environmental planning instruments and policies as discussed in the body of this report.

 

The proposal does not involve any undertaking of any physical works to the site and will not result in an adverse impact on the natural environment, of the site or adjoining sites.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 30(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988, relating to minimum allotment sizes, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the objective of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.       That Council as the consent authority grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/348/2009 for permission to subdivide the land into two lots to accommodate each of the semi detached dwellings within their own allotment at 42-44 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plan prepared by Dunlop Thorpe & Co Pty. Ltd. reference no 16782, dated  1 April 2009 and received by Council on 4 Jun 2009, 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:

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations and to provide for reasonable levels of safety and amenity:

 

2.       The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

3.       All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 for a building of Type A construction.

 

4.       Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority under any relevant construction certificate, together with any other certification relied upon must be provided to Council or the accredited certifier prior to the issuing of a subdivision certificate.

 

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

 

5.       A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the website www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

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

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

 

6.       Prior to the release of the subdivision plans the applicant shall demonstrate that the dwelling’s roof rainwater runoff drains through to a suitable drainage system in Ritchard Avenue.

 

If rectification works are required to comply with the above requirement the works shall be completed and hydraulic certification provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

NOTE: This condition has been included as it appears that the site’s drainage system has been illegally connected to Sydney Water’s sewerage system.

 

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

 

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

 

For further information, please contact Councils Road/Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999

 

8.       The applicant shall provide Council with the finalised survey plan of the property prior to receiving subdivision approval

 

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

 

10.     A formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier and all conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

14 July 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D43/09

 

 

Subject:                  166-168 Clovelly Road, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/341/2009

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Change of use to luxury pet accessories boutique, fit-out and signage with hours of operation 7.30am-6.30pm, Monday-Friday and 9.00am-12.00pm Saturdays

 

Ward:                      North Ward

 

Applicant:                Ms Leeanne Martinez

 

Owner:                         Mr GM Richards & Mrs BJ Richards

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee Meeting for determination as the proposed development exceeds the 50 square metre limit for floor space standard under Clause 35 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Business Premises in Residential Zones) by more than 10%.

 

The proposal is for the change of use, fit-out and signage of an existing shop. It is proposed to use the premises as a luxury pet accessories boutique with hours of operation 7.30am-6.30pm, Monday-Friday and 9.00am-12.00pm Saturdays. No animals will be kept or groomed on the premises and the primary use will be a retail store.

 

The premises has a floor area of 126.4 square metres which exceeds the 50 square metres maximum floor area implied by the development standard. The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 application arguing that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary under the circumstances of the case.

 

The applicant has submitted that compliance with the standard would be unnecessary given that it is proposed merely to utilise the existing commercial part of the subject site which has been used as such for many years. The applicant argues that the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the development standard as there is to be no increase in the area used for commercial purposes. The existing storage areas associated with the use are below ground level and will not impose any loss of amenity of the surrounding area and the proposed use will enable the continuing use of the premises as small scale business premises in a residential area.

 

Overall, it is considered the proposed development is acceptable and will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts in terms of noise or loss of amenity to adjoining properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is for the change of use to, and fit-out of an existing shop as a luxury pet accessories boutique with hours of operation being 7.30am-6.30pm, Monday-Friday and 9.00am-12.00pm Saturdays. The primary use will be a retail store and signage is proposed. It is proposed to use existing rooms to the lower ground level of the shop as storage space only. It is noted that these rooms are largely windowless, below ground level and are affected by mould.

 

No animals will be kept or groomed on the premises and no additional floor space will be added to the commercial premises. No construction is proposed and the fit-out of the premises will consist of installing pre-fabricated display cases only. 

 

Additional information was received from the applicant in the form of a SEPP1 Objection on 23 June 2009 and a Schedule of Finishes on 24 June 2009. Amended plans were received on 30 June 2009.

 

Clause 35 - Business premises in residential zones

Clause 35 of LEP 1998 states that Council may grant consent to the development of land within Zone No 2B for the purpose of business premises, but only if the Council is satisfied that the proposed use is to be situated in a building, or part of a building, that was originally designed or constructed (or both) for use as business premises, and the total floor space to be used as business premises does not exceed 50 square metres.  The stated purpose of Clause 35 is to provide for the establishment and continued operation of small scale business development in residential zones.

 

The proposal does not comply with the standards included in Clause 35 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as follows:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Floor space to be used as business premises.

Does not exceed 50 square metres.

126.4m2

No.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1), and has argued that strict compliance with clause 35 of Randwick LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection, the following five questions apply (as established by Lloyd J, in Winten Property Group Ltd v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46):

 

1.      Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

The floor space control in question is a development standard contained in the Randwick LEP 1998, and is not expressed as a prohibition.

 

2.      The underlying object or purpose of the standard

The underlying object/purpose of the standard, as outlined in Randwick LEP 1998, is:

 

To provide for the establishment and continued operation of small scale business  development in residential zones.

 

3.      Consistency of the development with local planning objectives for the locality, aims of SEPP No.1 and the objectives of the Act.

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that:

 

It will provide for the establishment and continued operation of small scale business development in a residential zone whilst not adversely affecting the character of the locality and residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

The aims and objectives of SEPP No.1 are to provide:

 

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

 

The objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

 

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

 

(iv)   The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

The variation from the prescribed maximum floor space used for commercial purposes in a residential zone is consistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 and would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section (a) (i) and (ii), specifically, in that the resultant development would promote the continued orderly use and economic development of the subject land.

 

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

It is considered that it would be unreasonable to require compliance with the 50 square metre limit detailed in Clause 35 because:

 

     It would preclude an older commercial building from being adapted for a current proposed use by not allowing the use of all existing storage spaces to the lower ground level of the subject site; and

 

     Any amenity impacts on neighbouring properties and the shop-top housing above the premises will be minimised given the nature of the proposed use and the location of storage spaces in the basement level of the subject site.

 

In view of the above it is considered that the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the proposal meets the purpose of Clause 35.

 

5.      Whether the objection is well founded.

The applicant has submitted the following arguments in support of the SEPP1 objection:

 

·      That compliance with the standard would be unnecessary given that there is no proposal to expand that part of the subject site used for retail purposes; and

·      That the storage areas are below ground level and will therefore not impose any additional impact on the neighbouring properties and

·      That the proposed use will continue the use of the premises as small scale business premises which have existed for many years.

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported having regard to there being no proposal to increase the existing retail sales space of the premises and that the proposed use will enable the continued the use of the premises as small scale business with minimal impact on neighbouring properties.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Clovelly Road in Randwick and is presently occupied by an existing two storey, split level, brick commercial building with shop-top residential housing. Neighbouring the property to the east is a similar brick commercial building with shop-top residential housing and a four storey residential flat building. To the west are located similar post war, brick commercial buildings with shop-top residential housing.

 

Two properties to the west is situated a heritage item (160 Clovelly Road, listed in the RLEP as 81A Carrington Road, Clovelly) which consists of an Art Deco flat building, c 1935–6. To the rear the property is a strata titled residential flat building. The surrounding area is predominantly a mixture of low to medium density commercial and residential uses with some more recent multi storey residential flat dwellings. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and adjoining sites.

 

 

 

Figure 1:   Aerial view of subject site at 166 Clovelly Road and rear extent of adjoining residential flat buildings.

 

 

Figure 2:   Existing commercial premises to the subject site at 166 Clovelly Road.

 

4.    Site History

 

Council granted consent in 2004 to DA/282/2004 for the change of use of the existing commercial premises from a bicycle shop to a musical instrument and jewellery showroom.

 

Council granted consent in 1985 to DA/289/1985 to use the existing commercial premises as a bicycle shop.

 

Council granted consent in 1982 to DA/289/1985 to use the existing vacant commercial premises as a chiropractors surgery & waiting room.

 

5.   
Community Consultation

 

The proposal was notified from 4 June 2009 until 19 June 2009 in accordance with the DCP for Public notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application.

 

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 Manager Environmental Health and Building Services

The application was referred to the Manager Environmental Health and Building Services for comment. No objections were raised subject to conditions being placed on the consent.

 

6.2 Senior Heritage Officer

The application was referred to Council’s Senior Heritage Officer for comment. No objections were raised to the development as it will not have any impact upon the adjacent heritage item.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The site measures less than 4,000sqm and therefore does not require a master plan.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

- Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

- Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

- Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 2B Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

The following clauses of LEP 1998 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Clause 46 Proximity to a Heritage Item

A heritage item is located to an adjoining site at 160 Clovelly Road on the corner of Clovelly Road and Carrington Road. The heritage item is listed in the RLEP 1998 as 81A Carrington Road, Clovelly.

 

Given that no works are proposed to the front of the premises other than to paint the awning and below-awning façade, it is considered there will not be any adverse impact on the aesthetic significance of the heritage item.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

a.    Parking Development Control Plan

The parking requirement for a business premises in a residential area is one space per 50 square metres of Gross Floor Area. The subject site has a floor area of 126.4 square metres and would therefore require 3 off-street parking spaces to comply with the DCP.

 

The premises provide no parking spaces however the applicant submits that there is parking directly outside the shop and that there is access to public transport in close proximity to the shop. The applicant also submits that majority of customers are expected to be local and therefore would walk rather than drive.

 

The proposed use does not provide for any additional floor area to the building and therefore no additional parking demand is generated. In addition, the premises have been in retail use for many years with the current application not proposing to alter that use.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the aims objectives of the Parking DCP.

 

b.    Outdoor Advertising DCP

The existing glazing and awning signage to the shop front is proposed to be replaced with the name of the proposed business. The proposed signage is therefore considered to satisfy the aims objectives of the Outdoor Advertising DCP and the Exempt and Complying DCP with regard to business identification signage.

 

The scale and type of the business identification signage is consistent with the adjoining properties and will not dominate the building. The business identification signage alerts potential clients to the exact nature of the services to be provided and the entrance to the premises is at grade and directly accessed from Clovelly Road.

 

8.2    Council Policies
None applicable.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

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.

Direction 4B:      New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

Outcome 7:       Heritage that is protected and celebrated.

Direction 7A:      Our heritage is recognised, protected and celebrated.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the Parking DCP and Outdoor Advertising DCP and will not result in any unreasonable or significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted in relation to the maximum floor area for business premises in a residential zone and is supported given the history of previous uses on the site and the nature of the proposed use.

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 35 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988, relating to the floor area of Business Premises in Residential Zones, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the objective of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/341/2009 for the change of use of the premises to a luxury pet accessories boutique, fit-out and signage with hours of operation 7.30am-6.30pm, Monday-Friday and 9.00am-12.00pm Saturdays at 166-168 Clovelly Road, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans marked ‘Scaled Plan for 166 Clovelly Road, Randwick’, received by Council on 30 June 2009 and the Schedule of Finishes (as marked in red by Council Officer on 25 June 2009) and ‘Sign Plan’, received by Council on 24 June 2009, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       No articles shall be placed on Council’s footway at any time unless prior written consent has been obtained from Council.

 

3.       Consent is granted for use of the premises for retail sales purposes only. No animals may be kennelled or groomed at the premises at any time unless prior written consent has been obtained from Council.

 

4.       The maximum number of employees operating from the subject premises is restricted to 2. Any proposal to change the number of employees shall require a further application to Council.

 

5.       The hours of operation of the business are restricted to 7.30am to 6.30pm (Monday – Friday) and 9.00am – 12.00pm Saturdays. Any proposal to change the hours of operation shall require a further application to Council.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations and to provide for reasonable levels of health, safety and amenity:

 

Regulatory

 

6.       The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

     Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the relevant pollution control criteria and to maintain reasonable levels of health, safety and amenity to the locality:

 

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

 

8.       The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance, vibration or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

10.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of trade/commercial waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Trade/commercial waste materials must not be disposed in or through Council’s domestic garbage service. All trade/commercial waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales and details of the proposed waste collection and disposal service are to be submitted to Council prior to commencing operation of the business.

 

The operator of the business must also arrange for the recycling of appropriate materials and make the necessary arrangements with an authorised waste services contractor accordingly.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

Nil