Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 10 November 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

10 November 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, 10 November 2009 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor, J Procopiadis, Andrews (Chairperson), Belleli, Bowen, Hughes, Matson, Matthews, Nash (Deputy Chairperson), Notley-Smith, 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 - 13 October 2009

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports

D70/09      15R Snape Street, Maroubra

D71/09      1609-1611 Anzac Parade, La Perouse

D72/09      5 Undine Street, Maroubra

D73/09      28R Walsh Avenue, Maroubra

D74/09      55 Dudley Street, Coogee

D75/09      155-157 Perry Street, Matraville

D76/09      85 Bream Street, Coogee

D77/09      27 Norton Street, Kingsford

D78/09      3/1 Mulwarree Avenue, Randwick

D79/09      603-611 Anzac Parade, Kingsford

D80/09      4-6 Kurrawa Avenue, Coogee

D81/09      54 Mount Street, Coogee

D82/09      495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

D83/09      1-9 Pine Avenue, Little Bay

D84/09      2 Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay

 

Miscellaneous Reports

M13/09     13-15 Silver Street, Randwick (VPA)

M14/09     Department of Defence Site - Bundock Street, Randwick

M15/09     Reducing the incidence of children falling through window openings    

 

Closed Session

Nil

 

Notice of Rescission Motions

NR6/09      Notice of Rescission Motion submitted by Councillors Matson, Seng and Woodsmith - 102-104 Brook Street, Coogee.  

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………………………………

Ray Brownlee

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 


Planning Committee

10 November 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D70/09

 

 

Subject:                  15R Snape Street, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/367/2007/A

Author:                   Stuart Harding, Planning Consultant     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 application to modify the approved development by relocating the light pole positions. Original consent: Installation of 4 x 18 metre high light poles with flood lights, associated excavation & trenching at Snape Park

 

Ward:                      West Ward

 

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

 

Owner:                         Randwick City Council

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This modification application is referred to the ordinary meeting of Council as the application involves development in a public park.  The application has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration prescribed by section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act).  This process included having regard to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) and the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act 1993).

 

Development consent 367/2007 was issued by Council on 12 December 2007 for installation of 4 x 18 metre high light poles with flood lights at 15R Snape Street, Maroubra (Snape Park), including associated excavation.

 

A modification application according to Section 96(2) of the EP&A Act has been submitted proposing the relocation of the light poles.  The new locations are approximately, between 4.52m to 6.62m from their original locations.  The relocation is required to ensure light spillage created by the poles is within limits prescribed by Australian Standard 4282 1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lights”.  All other aspects of the development remain as approved.

 

One (1) submission from the public was received by Council during the notification period.  The issues raised have been considered, however the submission is primarily in relation to the operation of the light poles.  These matters were considered during the assessment of the original development application, and are not relevant to the current application for the modified light pole location.

 

The intention of the modification is to ensure light spillage from the poles conform to accepted standards for impact on adjoining land uses.  The proposed development is in compliance with the controls and objectives of Randwick LEP 1998 and serves to improve the amenity of surrounding residential properties compared to the approved application (367/2007) by reducing light spillage  Accordingly, the application is of minimal impact and recommended for approval subject to standard conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is to relocate the approved light poles between approximately 4.52m to 6.62m inwards (i.e towards the centre of the Park away from the Park’s boundary) from the original approved location to achieve compliance with Australian Standard 4282 1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lights”.  All other aspects of the approved development remain unaffected

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is 15R Snape Street, Maroubra or commonly referred to as Snape Park.  The perimeter of the Park is formed by Snape Street, Percival Street, Hannan Street and Storey Street.  It is approximately 67,000m² and provides a range of facilities primarily for the established surrounding local community.  It includes two (2) multi-purpose fields, six (6) tennis courts, a fenced children’s playground, passive recreation space, several amenities blocks as well as public parking.  Numerous mature trees exist around its perimeter.

 

The surrounding locality is an established residential neighbourhood comprising primarily of single or double storey detached residential dwellings.  Several non-residential complementary land uses such as schools also exist in the locality.  Single and double storey detached dwellings face either side of Snape Park.

 

Snape Park is also located between, and in close proximity to two major transport routes being Anzac Parade and Bunnerong Road.  Both routes make the Park particularly accessible either by public or private transport.

 

4.    Site History

 

The site is an established local public park accommodating a variety of recreational activities.  Recent history includes a development application consented to by Randwick City Council on 12 December 2007 for the installation of 4 x 18m high light poles around one of the existing fields in the Park.  The light poles are intended to access the site’s remaining capacity and accommodate increasing demand from the public for recreational facilities.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Public Notification policy. One submission was received from the owner/resident of 31 Hannan Street, Maroubra. 

 

5.1 Objections

 

Generally the objection relates to operational matters considered during the assessment of the original development application and consequently are not relevant to the modified location for the light poles proposed as part of this application.

 

Objection: The light poles will be 20 metres in height in contravention of the original 18 metre height.

 

Response:  The development is required to comply with the original development consent 367/2007 which specifies a maximum height of 18m for the subject light poles. 

 

Objection: The light poles will be operational 5 nights a week up to 9.30pm.

 

Response:  The development is required to comply with the original development consent which specifies the lights shall be operational for three (3) nights a week until 8.30pm during winter (condition No. 3).

 

Objection: The lights have been constructed in the wrong location.

 

Response:  This modification application intends to formalise the existing location of the light poles.  Their existing location (as proposed by this modification application) is for the purposes of achieving compliance with relevant Australian Standards regulating the impact of lighting on generally accepted levels of amenity.

 

Objection: The height of the poles was not supposed to be greater than the height of the existing poles on the park’s main oval.

 

Response:  Development consent 367/2007 approved the height of the poles at 18 metres.  The development is required to comply with this requirement.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

None applicable

 


7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The master planning requirements of the RLEP are not applicable given the development relates to minor sections of an existing park.

 

8.    Relevant Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) (EP & A Act)

Local Government Act (LG Act 1993)

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998)

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 6A Open Space according to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

The following represents an environmental assessment of the modification application according to the relevant instruments identified in section 8 of this report above.

 

Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act)

 

The LG Act requires local authorities to have in place and adhere to plans of management for public open space.  The relevant plan of management for Snape Park is Randwick City Council’s District Parks Generic Plan of Management.  The major issues included in the generic management plan for Snape Park are derived from the overriding management philosophy provided by the LG Act. 

 

The scale of the proposed modification is minor without major changes to the form or operation of the light poles.  Accordingly, their consistency with the principles of the generic plan of management, as determined in the assessment of the original development application, remains unchanged.   

 

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act – Environmental Planning Instruments 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

When considering development proposed on recreational land, SEPP 55 requires consideration of whether the land is contaminated.  Land contamination is not a concern in this instance as the site has been used for recreational purposes over an extended period of time without any record of contamination.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

Clause 18(1) & (3) – Zone No 6A (Open Space Zone)

The objectives for the zone are:

 

§  To identify publicly owned land used or capable of being used for public recreational purposes.

§  To allow development that promotes, or is related to, the use and enjoyment of open space.

§  To identify and protect land intended to be acquired for public open space.

§  To identify and protect natural features that contributes to the character of the land.

§  To enable the sustainable management of the land.

 

The proposed modification does not alter the function or purpose of the light poles as determined in the assessment of the original development application (Development consent 367/2007).  In this regard, the proposal remains permissible and consistent with the zone objectives. 

 

Clause 38(2) – Development in open space zones

When determining applications relating to land within Zone No. 6A, subclause 2 requires Council to consider:

 

§  The need for the proposed development on that land.

§  Whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space.

§  The impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land.

§  The need to retain the land for its existing or likely future use.

 

The original development application was considered against clause 38(2) of the RLEP, and it was determined that the proposal to install 4 x 18m lights at Snape Park could be supported.  The proposed modification does not significantly alter the development and would not affect its satisfactory consideration of the relevant items above.   The proposed application seeks to reduce impact of the lights by locating them further from the Park’s boundaries, reducing potential light spillage affecting residential proprieties in the vicinity of the Park.  Consequently the proposal is considered satisfactory in terms of clause 38(2).   

  

Section 79C(1)(ii) of the EP&A Act – Proposed Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Draft Administrative Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2009 (Draft RLEP 2009)

The Draft RLEP 2009 has been prepared for the purpose of simplifying preparation of Council’s comprehensive LEP intended for 2011 and does not contain any significant changes from the current RLEP 1998 of relevance to the proposal.  Given the modification has been found to be satisfactory against the existing RLEP 1998; it will remain satisfactory against the draft instrument.

 

Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Likely impacts of the development

 

Council assessed that the impacts on the natural, built, social and economic environments of the original development application for the installation of the light poles were satisfactory.  Consequently, Council approved the 4 x 18m light poles with conditions (development consent no. 367/2007). 

 

The proposed modifications are minor and do not substantially alter its impact on the environment.  Accordingly, the proposal’s impacts remain acceptable.  At the least, the proposal minimises adverse impact on adjoining properties by limiting the extent of light spillage.

 

Section 79C(1)(c) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Suitability of the site for the development.

 

The site’s suitability for the development remains satisfactory, as determined in the assessment of the original development application, given the modifications proposed are minor and do not significantly affect the development’s impact, operation or character.

 


Section 79C(1)(d) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Submissions

 

The submission received in relation to the development application has been addressed in section 5.1 of this report.  In summary, the matters raised in the submission did not warrant refusal of the application.

 

Section 79C(1)(e) of the EP&A Act 1979 – The public interest

 

The proposed modification is in the public’s interest as it ensures standards providing an appropriate level of general amenity in the public and private domain is achieved.

 

Section 96(2)(a) of the EP&A Act 1979 - Substantially the same

 

The consent authority is required to be satisfied the development as modified is substantially the same as originally approved.  In this case, the development remains substantially the same as originally approved given the extent of the relocation of the light poles is minor, and no change is proposed to the height of the poles or their operating times/ days.

 

Section 96(2)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979 - Concurrence 

 

In the event concurrence was required from an external approval body to determine the original development application, consultation with body is required for the purposes of the modification.

 

In this case, no further consultation is required with an external approval body as it was not required as part of the original development application.

 

Section 96(2)(c) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Notification

 

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy for notification of development proposal’s. 

 

Section 96(2)(d) of the EP&A Act 1979 - Submissions

 

One (1) submission was received during the notification period which has been addressed in section 5.1 of this report.  In summary, the matters raised in the submission did not warrant refusal of the application.

 

Section 96(3) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Section 79C Assessment

 

This section requires that the application is assessed according to Section 79C of the EP & A Act 1979.  This assessment has been undertaken above.  In summary, the proposal was found to be satisfactory in terms of Section 79C of the EP & A Act.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The proposal is generally consistent with the City Plan as it relates to improving accessibility of publicly owned land. The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2d:      New and upgraded community facilities that are multi purpose and in accessible location.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application proposes a minor modification to an existing development consent for the installation of 4 x 18 metre high light poles around an existing sporting field in Snape Park.  The modification proposes to relocate the light poles by between 4.52m to 6.62m inwards from the originally approved locations.  The relocation is required to ensure compliance with Australian Standard 4282 1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting” is achieved. 

 

The proposal will result in a reduced impact on surrounding residential properties in terms of reducing light spillage.  Compliance with the Australian Standard 4282 1997 ensures that a generally acceptable level of impact from lighting on the public and private domains is achieved.

 

This report demonstrates the relevant environmental planning instruments and other legislation are satisfied.  The development, as modified, has also been found to be substantially the same as originally approved and of minimal environmental impact.  

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and approval is recommended.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

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/367/2007/A to modify the approved development by relocating the light poles at 15R Snape Street, Maroubra (Snape Park) in the following manner:

 

A.      Amend Condition 1 as follows:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 5376 A-004, revision C and stamped as received by Council on 16 May 2007, the application form and supporting information received with the application including the “Lighting Technical Report” by Light Studio 21 Pty Ltd and associated photomontage. and as amended by the Section 96(2) plans 109088 Sheet 1 of 1 dated 22 June 2009 and received by Council on 5 August 2009, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

10 November 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D71/09

 

 

Subject:                  1609-1611 Anzac Parade, La Perouse

Folder No:                   DA/76/2009

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Restoration of existing timber deck to be used as an outdoor dining area (for 84 patrons) associated with the "Boatshed Cafe" adjustment of disabled toilet layout; provide new umbrellas, shrubs, and new signage.

 

Ward:                      South Ward

 

Applicant:                First Fleet Marine P/L

 

Owner:                         NSW Department Of Lands - Crown Land Division

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject application is for alterations and additions to the existing restaurant, known as “The Boatshed Café,” to provide additional outdoor seating, restoration of the timber deck, adjustment of the disabled toilet layout, reinstate the awning, planting of shrubs and new signage. The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Matthews, and Belleli. 

 

The subject site overlooks Frenchman’s Bay and is located on the north western side of Anzac Parade, within a 6A Open Spaces Zone.  The site is presently occupied by an existing two (2) storey building and adjacent timber deck which is currently used as a café, takeaway food outlet and boat and fishing tackle hire facility.  Internal and external changes to the building include changes to the north and east elevation, the southern deck, and the disabled WC. It is noted that an application was approved under DA/142/2002 for similar works. However, the application has since lapsed as no works have been commenced.

 

The subject land is Crown Land and The Department of Lands have provided consent for the development application to be lodged.

 

One submission has been received in regard to the proposal. The objection raises issues in regard to the visual impact of the proposed shade umbrellas and illuminated signage on the surrounding natural and heritage significant areas, as well as additional parking constraints as a result of the increased patronage.

 

The main issues in the assessment of the application include use of public land for restaurant premises, potential increased noise impact, and additional on street parking demands generated by an increase in the number of patrons.

 

It should be noted that the existing café provides for restaurant style dining with seating for 50 patrons on the verandah, 10 seats inside, and takeaway food services (including provision for fifteen seats with tables)

 

The restaurant is currently required to trade under the following hours as approved by the Development Consent No. 53/1999: 

 

·           Monday - Thursday:  10.00am to 5.00pm

·           Friday  - 10.00am to 5.00 pm and up till 11.00pm (during daylight saving)

·           Saturday - Sunday :  9.00am to 6.00 pm and up till 11.00pm (during daylight saving)

 

This proposal does not seek to alter the approved trading hours.

 

The applicant has submitted a comprehensive Statement of Environmental Effects, Acoustics Report, and Traffic and Parking Report demonstrating the proposals compliance with the relevant planning controls and that there will be no unreasonable adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and natural environment. The proposal would be suitable for the site and would have acceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposed modifications to the existing café comprises of the following works:

 

·      Restoration of the timber deck and installation of timber railings around the perimeters;

·      Use of the deck area for an outdoor dining area for 84 people;

·      Installation of seven (7) x white (removable) canvas umbrellas;

·      Provision of eight (8) x advanced sized salt resistant shrubs in concrete planters.

·      Minor changes to disabled bathroom layout to facilitate BCA compliance;

·      New doors and steps opening on southern elevation of Boatshed Café building to provide pedestrian access from the café to the deck;

·      New ramp to allow disabled access from the footpath to the deck;

·      Installation of three (3) tables and twelve (12) chairs on the northern side of the café for use by takeaway customers;

·      Illuminate existing signage to the eastern elevation facing Anzac Parade;

·      Re-instatement of an awning to the eastern elevation of the café entrance.

 

The buildings itself has no heritage significance which would be affected by the proposed changes.  The proposed works will not add to the scale or bulk of the building, nor significantly alter its character.  It is considered that the proposed works will not impact on the aesthetic, historic or social significance of the adjacent heritage items or the Botany Bay Conservation Area. 

 

2.1      Application History

 

The application was lodged on 12 February 2009. Accordingly, the plans accompanying the development application were referred to Council’s Health and Building officer, Development Engineer, Environmental Health officer, and Heritage Planner for comment.

 

The application was also referred to Maroubra Police on 18 February 2009 under the “Protocol for the Review of Development Applications” for comment in relation to the principles for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) and no objections were raised. For Police referral comments, refer to Section 6.4 (‘external referrals’) of this report. 

 

A number of issues were raised by Council’s Environmental Health officer and Development Engineer in relation to the potential impact on noise, waste management, and traffic. As such, the applicant was requested to submit an acoustic report, and current parking surveys, including a detailed parking analysis in support of the application.

 

The traffic study and acoustics report and Plan of Management were received by Council on 26 June 2009 and 28 August 2009, respectively. 

 

The supplementary information was referred to the relevant Council officers and the application is now deemed to satisfy the relevant noise and parking criteria. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions of consent.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is Crown Land and is identified as Lots 5254, 5255, 5256 & 5257 in Deposit Plan 824002 at 1609–1611 Anzac Parade, La Perouse. The subject premises comprises of an existing café and adjoining deck which is located along the southern end of Anzac Parade, La Perouse abutting a public (beach) recreation area and overlooking Frenchman’s Bay. The subject site is within the southern corner of Frenchman’s Bay, within Botany Bay, and is adjacent to the La Perouse Museum. The surrounding area has significant heritage and cultural value.

 

The “Boatshed Café” is located on Lot 5254 & part Lot 5255 and comprises a 2-storey rendered masonry building with basement floor space at the water line.  The boatshed premises provides for the hiring of boats and fishing tackle at the basement level and has a takeaway food outlet and restaurant at ground floor level and manager’s residence above. The adjoining timber deck is located on Lot 5257 and immediately abuts the café building along its southern elevation. Lot 5256 provides access between the deck and the road.

 

The site has a total area of 550.25m². This is inclusive of all lots: 

 

·      Lot 5254 – 212.8m²

·      Lot 5255 – 47.63m²

·      Lot 5256 – 21.86m²

·      Lot 5257 – 267.97m²

 

The deck has a floor area of 251.95m², the verandah is 52.3m², and the main Café is 116.2m².

 

The site is located between Anzac Parade and Frenchman’s Bay, opposite the Botany Bay National Park on the La Perouse peninsula.

 

No other buildings adjoin the subject site which enjoys a prominent elevated beachfront position. The site is set in the immediate surrounds of the Botany Bay National Park and a short distance from several other commercial food outlets located to the north-east of the “Boatshed” fronting Endeavour Avenue and Anzac Parade. A residential precinct including a new residential flat building is located further to the north of the food outlets. Opposite the site up the hill to the east is the Botany Bay National Park and museum.

 

The southern extent of Anzac Parade is predominantly grassed public open space comprising historic monuments/buildings and pedestrian walkways.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The existing two (2) storey building

2. Deck to be refurbished. 


 

3. Subject site in relation to foreshore and nearby commercial development to the east.

4. View of deck to the west of the building.

 

4.    Site History

 

The site has been the subject of a number of previous applications in connection with the use of the premises as a boat shed and food premises. The most recent and relevant consents being: -

 

DA/482/1991 – approved 22 April 1992 for alterations and additions to the existing building for boat hire and a takeaway food facility with provision for 15 seats over a 45.4m2 floor areas.

 

DA/482/1991/A – approved 8 March 1993 to amend the conditions of consent.

 

DA/53/1999 - approved at the Health Building & Planning Committee Meeting of 7 March 2000. The consent detailed alterations and additions to the building to provide for restaurant style dining with seating for 75 patrons within the building and the adjoining deck at the rear of the building. Other modifications included: -

 

·      Installation of an ice vending machine in the front of the premises.

·      Install plastic sheeting/blinds around the deck for weather protection

·      Provide an additional 50 chairs with tables located out on the deck and additional 10 chairs with tables inside (ground floor)

·      Extend the food service to a restaurant style service on the deck (the fast food takeaway food business still operates)

·      Re-instate material awning to the northern elevation.

·      Use of room behind the counter for wash up and storage.

 

DA/142/2002 – approved at the Health Building & Planning Committee Meeting of 10 September 2002. The consent details the use of the existing deck adjoining the café into an outdoor dining area providing seating for 84 patrons beneath 7 retractable umbrellas. The dining area is proposed to operate between 10.00am to 5.00pm, Monday to Friday, 9.00am to 6.00pm Saturday to Sunday, and 9.00am to 11.00pm Friday to Sunday during daylight saving. The application also included the rectification of the maritime structure and installation of safety rails.

 

Note: It should be noted that the current application is substantially the same as works approved under DA/142/2002. However, DA/142/2002 has since lapsed as no works have been commenced. The main changes from the previous consent relate to the additional 12 seats on the northern side of the cafe building for takeaway customers to utilise together with the reinstatement of an awning & illumination of the existing signage to the eastern elevation fronting Anzac Parade.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised from 28 February 2009 to 11 March 2009 in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. In response, one submission was received from David Crane and Associates Planning Consultants on behalf of Tirami Pty Ltd (proprietors of Danny’s Seafood Restaurant at No. 1605 Anzac Parade) raising the following issues:

 

·           The proposed illuminated signage and alterations are is inappropriate within the context of the historic significance of the La Perouse Precinct and the open nature of the National park Area. 

·           The installation of umbrellas will degrade the visual quality of the area and have the capacity to become permanent structures.

·           There is insufficient parking and the intensification of use will further exacerbate parking pressures.

 

Comment:

 

The applicant was requested by Council to submit a detailed Acoustics report, Plan of Management and Parking Study. The information has been assessed by the relevant Council officers and deemed to be acceptable in the context of the site and its surrounds. For detailed assessment of these issues, refer to Sections 6 of this report. A suitable condition of consent has been included to ensure that all furniture, (including the umbrellas) to be removed when the outdoor area is not operational.

 

With regard to the visual impact of the proposed signage, the application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner and no objections have been raised in relation to the proposed signage subject to further consultation and liaison with the applicants and Council to develop appropriate wording and graphics to ensure consistency with National Park and Council Interpretation Plan in the area. 

 

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 with any approval. The following comments were made:

 

6.1.1  Building Services comments

The Proposal

Alterations and additions to the existing 2 storey mixed residential/ commercial building to renovate and utilize an existing open deck on the southern side of the premises to provide seating for 84 patrons. The subject development is used for the purposes of a cafe/restaurant.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class -      6      (Cafe/restaurant)

Class -      4      (Residential unit)

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

 

§ A ‘rise in storeys’ of 2

§ Masonry walls, tiled roof and timber floors

§ One exit stairway, of timber construction

§ One commercial tenancies at ground floor level

§ Residential sole occupancy unit located above the commercial level

§ External balconies

 

Background

The existing building on site is a 2 storey commercial building bounded by buildings of a similar nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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.

 

Access for people with a disability:

The existing building does not satisfy the current BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (D) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Standard conditions could be included to address these requirements.

 

The applicant or other person having the benefit of the consent should also be advised to fulfill their obligations under the DA.

 

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 and public safety.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Should the approval be granted to the application, the appropriate nominated conditions should be included in the development consent.

 

6.1.2  Environmental Health comments

The proposal

The proposal seeks to carry out alterations and additions to existing 2 storey commercial building with residence, restore and utilize existing open deck on the southern side of the premises to provide seating for 84 patrons.

 

Key Issues

Noise

As a result of the outside use consisting of 84 patrons and 12 patrons on the northern side of the café an acoustic report was request in memo dated 26th February 2009 assessing the impact of the proposal on the existing amenity. A plan of management has also been required as part of the request for information.

 

An acoustic report prepared by The Acoustic Group has been received dated 21st August 2009 titled proposed Outdoor Seating Boatshed Café. 1609 Anzac Parade La Perouse. The report confirms the boatshed café is located a significant  distance from residential premises and is subject to vehicular traffic throughout the day and night.

 

There are also commercial premises operating on the intersection of Endeavour Avenue and Anzac Parade that have indoor and outdoor dining associated with their commercial use.

 

It is considered the receiver locations are satisfactory in terms of distance from the subject premises.

 

The proposed café does not propose to operate past midnight.

 

The report has provided the confirmation the proposal can comply with required noise criteria and appropriate conditions have been included as part of this proposal. In the context of the proposed operation the distance to residential receivers and an appropriate management plan being submitted to and accepted by Council it is considered the proposal can comply with required criteria.

 

Food Safety Standards

Discussions with the applicant’s representative planner revealed that no refurbishments, alterations or additions are proposed to the kitchen as part of the proposal  

 

Recommendation

It is recommended that the application for the above-mentioned premises be approved subject to the appropriate nominated conditions being attached to any development consent.

 

Heritage Planner

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for comment.  No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval. The following comments were made:

 

6.2    Heritage Comments

The site is within the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area and prominently located at the southern end of Frenchman’s Bay.  The coastal area to the south and east of the site are within the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area while the area to the north is under the care and control of Council.  There are a number of heritage items in the vicinity of the site, including the former Cable House (1882), now a Museum, Macquarie Watchtower (1810), the La Perouse Memorial and the Tomb of Pere le Receveur.  The Statement of Significance for the conservation area notes that the area has aesthetic, historic and social significance.  The aesthetic significance of the area as a whole arises from the scenic value of the natural landscape and the man-made features within it, at the entrance to Botany Bay.  Historically the area was the location of some of the earliest east coast contacts between Aboriginal and European people, is internationally significance because of its association with the 1788 La Perouse expedition and is the location of one of the oldest urban Aboriginal communities in Australia.  Socially, the area is valued by the community as a recreational resource, and is of special significance to Aboriginal people because of its history of use before and after European contact. 

 

The application proposes changes to the existing two storey building and adjacent timber deck which is currently used as a café, takeaway food outlet and boat and fishing tackle hire facility.  Internal and external changes to the building include changes to the north and east elevation, the southern deck, and the disabled wc.  Changes to the takeaway and entry/exit area at the north east corner of the building include changes to existing openings, extension of the existing canopy, provision of an illuminated sign and provision of additional seating.  A timber stair from this area down to the beach is to be reinstated.  Changes to the delivery area in the south eastern corner include provision of a new access ramp and doorway.  Changes to the deck include provision of an access ramp, upgrading of structural components, replacement of decking, provision of timber railings and installation of umbrellas seating to provide a large dining area.  An interpretative sign is also proposed adjacent to the access ramp. 

 

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which includes a section addressing heritage impacts and the Historic La Perouse Plan of Management.  The SEE considers that the proposal will be consistent with the aims of the Management Plan relating to natural and cultural values, public appreciation of the area and its recreation potential and visual quality. 

 

In relation to changes to the building, it is noted that the original date of its construction is unclear and considerable modification has taken place subsequently.  It is considered that its fabric has no heritage significance which would be affected by the proposed changes.  The proposed works will not add to the scale or bulk of the building, nor significantly alter its character.  It is considered that the proposed works will not impact on the aesthetic, historic or social significance of the adjacent heritage items or the Botany Bay Conservation Area. 

 

In relation to changes to the deck, it is noted that the area of the existing deck is not to be enlarged.  It is noted that the heritage items to the east of the subject site are considerably elevated above the level of the subject building.  The proposed umbrellas to the outdoor dining area will not significantly block views to the south and west across Botany Bay for visitors using the open space area within the loop road.  It is suggested that a consent condition be included limiting any further enclosure of the deck so that it retains its open character. 

 

Council has commenced a project to upgrade the Loop Road at La Perouse and has engaged consultants to prepare concept designs.  The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils has also engaged consultants to prepare a Master Plan for the Botany Bay Trail.  It is noted that a Draft Conservation Management Plan for La Perouse Headland has recently been prepared for the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change Parks and Wildlife Group.  While the subject site is outside the National Park area covered by the CMP, it is considered that the proposal will support the primary aim of the CMP which relates to retaining its open uncluttered landscape, interpreting the significance of the place, and providing improved facilities and opportunities for locals and visitors.  The CMP provides a general interpretative approach and recommends the preparation of an Interpretation Plan of the site within a medium term (1-15 year) time frame.  While the Interpretation Plan for the site is unlikely to be complete prior to the design of proposed interpretative signage on the subject site, the list of themes and messages for interpretation can still be used for the proposed interpretative sign on the subject site.  A consent condition requiring consultation with Council can ensure maximum consistency with National Park and Council interpretation in the area. 

 

6.3    Development Engineers

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineers for comment. No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval. The following comments were made:

 

Engineers Comments

An application has been received for the following works at the above site:

 

·      Restoration of the timber deck and installation of timber railings around the perimeters;

·      Use of the deck area for an outdoor dining area for 84 people;

·      Installation of seven (7) x white (removable) canvas umbrellas;

·      Provision of eight (8) x advanced sized salt resistant shrubs in concrete planters.

·      Minor changes to disabled bathroom layout to facilitate BCA compliance;

·      New doors and steps opening on southern elevation of Boatshed Café building to provide pedestrian access from the café to the deck;

·      New ramp to allow disabled access from the footpath to the deck;

·      Installation of three (3) tables and twelve (12) chairs on the northern side of the café for use by takeaway customers;

·      Illuminate existing signage to the eastern elevation facing Anzac Parade;

·      Re-instatement of an awning to the eastern elevation of the café entrance.

 

Traffic/Parking Issues

The proposed development increases the usable restaurant dining / café area by approximately 230 square metres, (222 square metres of deck on the southern side of the existing development and approximately 8 square metres of new take away seating on the northern side of the existing development). Based on Council’s DCP-Parking the proposed additional seating areas would require the provision of 9-10 spaces, (2 spaces for the first 80m2 and 7.5 spaces for remaining 150m2). The development does not, and cannot, provide any additional onsite parking.

 

The development site was the subject of a similar development application (i.e. similar to the current application) in 2002. This earlier development application included parking surveys undertaken in 1999 and was approved by Council. The original submission for this application included the 1999 surveys and a spot survey undertaken on one day in December 2008. As with the previous (2002) consent for this site the inability to provide onsite parking is a significant issue in the consideration of the application. In considering the original submission for DA 76/2009 it was agreed, following consultation with the Assessment Planner and the Manager Assessment Planning, that current parking surveys were required and a detailed parking analysis in support of the application was required prior to any determination of the application.

 

The applicant has now submitted parking surveys undertaken in June 2009. Clearly June is outside the peak summer months and the figures detailed will not reflect the yearly peaks/patterns in parking demand. The parking surveys submitted to Council in late June 2009 were undertaken on Friday 5/6/09, (noon to 3pm) and Sunday 7/6/09 (8am to 10am and noon to 3pm). The parking surveys indicated that sufficient on-street parking was available to meet the application’s parking deficiency as calculated using DCP-Parking. The Sunday lunchtime survey revealed a very high occupancy rate. The applicant’s traffic/parking consultant has stated that the survey did not cover at least 200 spaces located on Anzac Parade, north of the loop road.  These spaces would still be considered as conveniently located with respect to the development site. No reason has been given as to why the additional 200 spaces were excluded from the survey.

 

The Development Engineer has considered the application and believes that it is supportable, (albeit at the lower level of support), on traffic/parking grounds for the following reasons:

 

·      A percentage of the customers for the seats will be drawn from the existing take away demand of the café;

 

·      A percentage of the customers will be drawn from visitors to other elements of the La Perouse area, (including beaches and other tourist destinations);

 

·      The outdoor seating will very rarely be 100% occupied;

 

·      The area is served by public transport and attracts cycling and walking visitors;

 

·      The application mirrors that application lodged with Council and approved in 2002; and

 

·      In considering the absence of any onsite parking with the development application it should be noted that Council’s DCP-Parking states the following with respect to parking requirements for Footway Restaurants:

 

“where the development is for the purpose of a restaurant on the footway of a public road, or on community land no additional off-street parking will be required.”

 

An argument could be made that the proposed development is for the purpose of a restaurant on public land.

 

Waste Management Comments

The proposed development significantly increases the area of the restaurant/cafe however there appears to be no measurable increase in the waste storage area for garbage and recycling. The applicant should be requested to either dedicate additional area to the waste holding bay or provide supporting evidence to Council demonstrating the adequacy of the waste holding area as proposed. A condition requiring submission to Council of a waste management plan (for approval by Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate), has been included within this report.

 

It is also noted that the Environmental Health/Building Services report also makes reference to a trade waste agreement and suitable provision for waste services.

 

Frenchman’s Bay POM

The development site is located within an area covered by the Frenchmans Bay POM (adopted 2002). The Assessment Planner is requested to confirm that the proposal is consistent with the aims of the POM.

 

Lease/License Comments

The application is predominantly for approval to install seating/tables for a maximum of 84 patrons on an existing timber deck area with an associated upgrading of the structural integrity/capacity of the deck. The footprint of the deck area does not alter as part of this application. The existing/upgraded deck is located on Crown Land which was under the under the care and control of Council however the Development Engineer Coordinator has recently been advised that responsibility for the care and control of this area rests solely with the Department of Lands.

 

The subject application is for an outdoor restaurant on public land. No conditions relating to licensing have been included within this report given that no part of the seating/outdoor dining area is located within a public road reserve or public land under the care and control of Council.

 

The Assessment Planner is also requested to include a condition requiring all furniture, (including the umbrellas) to be removed when the outdoor area is not operational.

 

Recommendation

It is recommended that the application for the above-mentioned premises be approved subject to the appropriate nominated conditions being attached to any development consent.

 

6.4    External Referrals - NSW Police

The application was referred to Maroubra Police on 18th February 2009 under the “Protocol for the Review of Development Applications” for comment in relation to the principles for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). The following comments were provided: 

 

An appropriate condition has been included to this effect.

 

6.5    Department of Lands

The Department of Lands have provided their consent, as the owners of the subject Crown land, to the lodgement of this application.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

Clause 40A(1) of RLEP 1998 provides that consent may be granted to a development application made in respect of a site consisting of more than 4,000m2 only if: (a) a master plan has been adopted, and (b) the consent authority is satisfied that the development is not inconsistent with the provisions of that master plan. The site has a land area of 550.25m² and a master plan is not required.

 

8.    Statutory Instruments and Controls

 

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

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 6A Open Space under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is within the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area. The proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The relevant objectives of the zone 6A Open Space as contained in Clause 18 of the RLEP 1998 are:

 

(a)  To identify publicly owned land used or capable of being used for public recreational purposes, and

 

(b)  To allow development that promotes, or is related to, the use and enjoyment of open space.


The proposed alterations and additions to the existing café are considered to facilitate the use of the publicly owned for recreational purposes and allows for a use that relates to the enjoyment of the surrounding open space. The proposal improves the capacity of the existing café to cater for patrons and provides a greater level of amenity for the surrounding scenic recreational area. The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives of the zone.  

 

The following clauses of the LEP apply to the proposal:

 

8.2    Clause 29 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Clause 29 of the RLEP requires Council to consider the probable aesthetic appearance of a proposed development in relation to the foreshore. The proposal is for upgrade and refurbishment of the existing café including new outdoor seating. No other buildings adjoin the subject site which enjoys a prominent elevated beachfront position. The proposal is covered by the Frenchmans Bay Plan of Management and is consistent with the surrounding foreshore and beach areas. It is therefore not considered the proposed development will have any unreasonable impacts on the appearance along the foreshore, and will lend a greater degree of amenity for café patrons and visitors to the area. 

 

8.3    Clause 38 – Development in open space zones

Clause 38 of Randwick LEP 1998 states that Council may grant consent to the development of land within zone 6A if it is satisfied that the proposed use is suited to that location and the use is consistent with any plan of management prepared for the area. In addition consideration must be given to the need for the proposed development, if it relates to the use and enjoyment of the open space, the impact upon the likely future use and character of the land and the need to retain the land for its existing or likely use.

 

The proposed alterations and additions improve the amenity of the existing café and promote the objectives of the zone. The proposal satisfies the provisions of Clause 38 of the LEP

 

Clause 38(2) requires the consideration of a number of issues when determining an application to carry out development on land zoned 6A. The relevant issues are discussed below.

 

(a)    The need for the proposed development on that land

It is considered that the utilisation of the existing deck for dining would allow for the increased level of service provision to patrons of the boatshed café. Further, there is a genuine need for additional outdoor dining areas for patrons of this cafe, particularly during the summer months.

 

(b)  Whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space.

The proposed development is related to the use and enjoyment of open space. The use of the deck for outdoor dining would allow the community to benefit from the scenic qualities of the locality.

 

(c)   The impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land.

The proposed development will not result in any adverse environmental impacts on the public domain in terms of overshadowing, access to pedestrian walkways etc, and as such will not impact existing or likely future use of the land.

 

8.4      Clause 43 - Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation area and relics

The subject site is located within the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area and prominently located at the southern end of Frenchmans Bay. The coastal area to the south and east of the site are within the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area while the area to the north is under the care and control of Council. 

 

Under Clause 43 of the RLEP, Council must consider the likely effect of the proposal upon the significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.

 

As noted in the Heritage Assessment in Section 6.2 of this report, the proposal has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. The proposed works will not add to the scale or bulk of the building, nor significantly alter its character.  It is considered that the proposed works will not impact on the aesthetic, historic or social significance of the adjacent heritage items or the Botany Bay Conservation Area.

 


8.5    Clause 46 – Development in the vicinity of heritage items, heritage conservation areas, and known or potential archaeological sites

Clause 46 requires Council, when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item, a heritage conservation area or a known or potential archaeological site, take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item, heritage conservation area or known or potential archaeological site and on its setting.

There are a number of heritage items in the vicinity of the site, including the former Cable House (1882), now a Museum, Macquarie Watchtower (1810), the La Perouse Memorial and the Tomb of Pere le Receveur.  The Statement of Significance for the conservation area notes that the area has aesthetic, historic and social significance.  The aesthetic significance of the area as a whole arises from the scenic value of the natural landscape and the man-made features within it, at the entrance to Botany Bay.

It is noted that the heritage items to the east of the subject site are considerably elevated above the level of the subject building.  The proposed umbrellas to the outdoor dining area will not significantly block views to the south and west across Botany Bay for visitors using the open space area within the loop road.

Having regard to these matters, the proposed works are not considered to result in any adverse impact on the nearby Heritage Items. The proposal has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner Consultant for assessment, with relevant comments included in the Heritage Assessment in Section 6.2 of this report. The proposed external works to the existing café will not adversely impact on the heritage value of the heritage items in the vicinity and there are no heritage objections to the proposal. 

 

9.   Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policies that are relevant to the proposal are:

·       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64)

·       Draft Conservation Management Plan for La Perouse Headland

 

9.1      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64)

SEPP 64 aims to ensure that signs are compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, provide effective communication in suitable locations; and are of high quality design and finish. 

 

The proposed signage is consistent with the above aims and objectives of the policy.  Also Schedule 1 of the SEPP will be satisfied as the signage will be compatible with the existing and future character of the area; does not compromise existing views or vistas; is of a scale and form appropriate for the streetscape; and does not compromise safety.

 

9.2      Draft Conservation Management Plan for La Perouse Headland

It is noted that a Draft Conservation Management Plan for La Perouse Headland has recently been prepared for the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change Parks and Wildlife Group. The Plan provides a general interpretative approach and recommends the preparation of an Interpretation Plan of the site within a medium term (1-15 year) time frame.  While the Interpretation Plan for the site is unlikely to be complete prior to the design of proposed interpretative signage on the subject site, the list of themes and messages for interpretation can still be used for the proposed interpretative sign on the subject site. A condition of consent has been included within the consent to requiring consultation with Council prior to the installation of signage to ensure maximum consistency with National Park and Council interpretation in the area. 

10.      Policy Controls

The Policy controls applicable to the proposed development are:

 

·           Development Control Plan – Outdoor Advertising

·           Development Control – Parking

·           Frenchmans Bay Plan of Management

 

10.1  Development Control Plan - Outdoor Advertising

The proposed signage complies with the relevant objectives of Council’s development Control Plan for Outdoor Advertising in that the signage and wording relates to the business and the type of goods and commodities provided at the premises. The sign keeps in character and aligns to the outline of the building and will not compromise the architectural integrity of the building.

 

As the proposed illuminated signage above the entrance of the café is not adjacent to and residential development, and is of a minor scale, the signage is not anticipated to result in excessive light spillage and cause a nuisance to any nearby residential dwellings.

 

Development Control Plan – Parking

The proposal seeks to increase the usable restaurant dining/café area by approximately 230 square metres, (222 square metres of deck on the southern side of the existing development and approximately 8 square metres of new take away seating on the northern side of the existing development).

 

In accordance with Council’s DCP-Parking, the proposed additional seating areas would require the provision of 9-10 spaces, (2 spaces for the first 80m2 and 7.5 spaces for remaining 150m2). However, the development does not, and cannot, provide any additional onsite parking. This in ability to provide onsite parking is a significant issue in the consideration of the application.

 

Following consultation between the applicants and Council’s Manager Assessment Planning, Development Engineers and Planning Officer, current parking surveys were requested and a detailed parking analysis in support of the application was required to support the determination of the application.

 

The applicant has subsequently submitted parking surveys undertaken in June 2009, outside the peak summer months. Therefore, the figures detailed will not reflect the yearly peaks/patterns in parking demand.

 

The parking surveys indicated that sufficient on-street parking was available to meet the application’s parking deficiency as calculated using DCP-Parking. The Sunday lunchtime survey revealed a very high occupancy rate. The applicant’s traffic/parking consultant has stated that the survey did not cover at least 200 spaces located on Anzac Parade, north of the loop road.  These spaces would still be considered as conveniently located with respect to the development site and capable of use by patrons of the cafe.

 

Further, Council’s DCP-Parking states the following with respect to parking requirements for Footway Restaurants:

 

“Where the development is for the purpose of a restaurant on the footway of a public road, or on community land no additional off-street parking will be required.”

 

An argument could be made that the proposed development is for the purpose of a restaurant on public land.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the application and raise no objections to the proposal on traffic/parking grounds. For detailed assessment, refer to Section 6.3 of this report.

 

10.3    Frenchman’s Bay Plan of Management

The Frenchman’s Bay Plan of Management provides Council with a set of policy and management directions for the future enhancement and management of the area as a whole.

 It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant guiding principles contained in the plan. The proposal will also be required to comply with the DLWC policy on “Food and Beverage outlets on Crown Reserves

 

10.4       Section 94A 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.

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

Not applicable

0.5%

Not applicable

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$374750

1.0%

$3747.50

 

11. 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.

 

11.1    Landscape & Scenic Quality

The proposal involves the use of shrubs in concrete planters which will enhance landscape and scenic quality of the area. In relation to the proposed umbrellas it is not envisaged that the visual quality of the foreshore will be diminished due to their modest scale.

 

11.2    Noise and Amenity

The proposal seeks to refurbish the deck adjoining the café to accommodate and additional 84 patrons and 12 patrons on the northern side of the café. The extended outdoor dining area accommodating more patrons will result in intensified use of the area immediately outside of the establishment. As such, the applicants were requested to submit an acoustic report, as well as a Plan of Management to demonstrate the proposal will not adversely impact the surrounding area in terms of excessive noise.

 

The Boatshed café is located sufficiently away from residential premises and is subject to vehicular traffic throughout the day and night. There are also a number of other commercial premises operating on the intersection of Endeavour Avenue and Anzac Parade that have indoor and outdoor dining associated with their commercial use. Further, the café does not propose to operate past midnight.

 

The applicants have demonstrated the proposal’s compliance with required noise criteria and appropriate conditions have been included as part of any consent. It is therefore considered the proposal can comply with required criteria and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts to the amenity of the surrounding area, and nearby commercial and residential dwellings.

 

11.3    Public Interest

The site is well located in terms of distance from sensitive land uses and proximity to the beach and other tourist attractions. The expansion of a food outlet with shaded dining area will provide patrons with protection from the elements whilst enjoying the surrounding scenic area. This will serve to enhance the recreational function and capacity of the adjoining opening space while supplementing the established boat hire use. It considered that the proposal is in the public interest.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6b:      Our town centres, beaches, public places and streets are safe, inviting, clean and support a recognisable image of our city.

Direction 6c:      The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programmes and strategies.

Outcome 7:       Heritage that is protected and celebrated.

Direction7a.       Our heritage is recognised, protected and celebrated.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The development application for alterations and additions to the existing restaurant, known as “The Boatshed Café”, to provide additional outdoor seating, restoration of the timber deck, adjustment of the disabled toilet layout, and illumination of the existing signage is suitable for the site, having regard to the objectives and considerations of the relevant Clauses in the Randwick LEP 1998. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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/76/2009 for restoration of the existing timber deck to be used as an outdoor dining area associated with the 'Boatshed Cafe', adjustment of disabled toilet layout, planting, and new signage at 1609-1611 Anzac Parade, La Perouse, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 01, 02, 03, 04, & 05, dated January 2009 and received by Council on 12 February 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 satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the deck are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

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

 

4.       The wording and design of the proposed interpretative sign adjacent to the entrance to the building must be developed in conjunction with Council to ensure maximum consistency with National Park and Randwick City Council interpretation in the area.  Details of the sign are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

5.       The southern deck must not be further enclosed by way of transparent or opaque screens, blinds, walls, windbreaks etc., whether fixed, operable or removable. 

 

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

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

Not applicable.

0.5%

Not applicable.

Development Cost

More than $200,000

 

$374750

1.0%

 

$3747.50

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.       The L10 noise level emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the background noise level (L90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) by more than 5dB between 7.00am and 12.00 midnight at the boundary of any affected residence.  The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

The LA10 noise level emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) between 12.00 midnight and 7.00am at the boundary of any affected residence.  The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

Notwithstanding compliance with the above, the noise from the licensed premises shall not be audible within any habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 12.00 midnight and 7.00am. 

 

8.       A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council one month after the commencement of use of the outdoor area, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

9.       The outdoor deck on the western side of the building is restricted to 84 persons.

 

10.     The outdoor area on the northern side is restricted to 12 persons.

 

11.     The hours of the operation of the business are restricted to:

 

Monday - Thursday: 10.00am to 5.00pm

Friday  - 10.00am to 6.00 pm and up till 11.00pm

(during daylight saving).

Saturday - Sunday :  9.00am to 6.00 pm and up till 11.00pm

(during daylight saving).

 

12.     All furniture must be removed from the outdoor dining area outside the approved operating hours stipulated in condition 11 of this consent.

 

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:

 

13.     The use and operation of the outdoor dining area shall not give rise to an environmental health nuisance to the adjoining/nearby premises or environment.

 

14.     There must be no emissions or discharges from the outdoor dining area, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

15.     There must be no entertainment, amplified music, speakers or announcements on any part of the premises, at any time.

 

16.     A Plan of Management shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which will ensure the use of the outdoor dining area and noise emanating from the use of the outdoor dining will have no adverse impact on the surrounding residential community at any time. 

 

The plan shall detail the measures to be implemented to: 

 

§ provide contact emergency numbers.

§ ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval,

§ minimise the potential impact of the operation of the outdoor dining area upon nearby residents,

§ effectively minimise and manage anti-social behaviour,

§ minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances,

§ effectively manage and respond to resident complaints.

 

The approved Plan of Management is to be implemented throughout the operation of the outdoor dining area, to ensure the use and noise emanating from the outdoor dining area will have no adverse impact on the surrounding residential community at any time.

  

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:

 

Regulatory

 

17.     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.

 

18.     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.

 

19.     Prior to the commencement of any building works (including fit-out works), a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council’s Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

 

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

 

i)      appoint a Principal Certifying Authority, and

 

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

 

iii)     notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority, and

 

iv)     give at least two days notice to the Council, in writing, of the person’s intention to commence building works.

 

21.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

The principal contractor must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

22.     A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site for the duration of the works, which contains the following details:

 

·       name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours,

·       name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

·       a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

23.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

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

 

25.     The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

26.     All building, plumbing and drainage work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

The approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre prior to commencing any building or excavation works, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au and go to the Building, Developing and Plumbing, then Quick Check or Building and Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

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

 

Fire safety

27.     The existing levels of fire and safety within the building are to be upgraded in accordance with the following requirements and the fire safety certificate provisions of Part 9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 must be complied with, prior to issuing an occupation certificate:

 

a)     The following works are to be undertaken in accordance with the specified provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), as applicable:

 

1)     The commercial area is to be fire separated from the residential area of the building, by installing a wall having a -/60/60 fire resistance level,

 

2)     Smoke alarm/s complying with AS3786 (connected to the electrical mains power system and provided with battery back-up) must be installed and interconnected within the residential occupancy and ground floor restaurant, located and designed generally in accordance with specification E2.2a of the BCA,

 

3)     Provide illuminated exit signs to the ground floor exits , in accordance with clause E4.5 & E4.7 of the BCA,

 

4)     Provide portable fire extinguisher/s within the restaurant/kitchen area and adjacent to any internal electrical switchboard, in accordance with clause E1.6 of the BCA,

 

5)     Provide a non-combustible enclosure (e.g. a metal cabinet) with seals to prevent the passage of smoke to any electricity meters and switchboard located in the restaurant

 

6)     Balustrades and handrails to stairway/s, balconies, decks or the like are to be designed and constructed to satisfy clause D2.16 & D2.17 of the BCA,

 

7)     Prior to commencing  the abovementioned works, a Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council’s Building Certification Services or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Structural adequacy

 

29.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer, shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (and the Council if Council is not appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority) prior to the issuing of a Occupation Certificate, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the proposed new dead and live loads and the balustrading to the deck/balconies and verandah.

 

Building & demolition works

 

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

 

·           Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

·           WorkCover NSW Code of Practice and Guidelines

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

31.     In accordance with Council’s Asbestos Policy, the following requirements are to be satisfied if any materials containing asbestos are present in the building:

 

a)     Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005).

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

b)     A Demolition Work Plan must be developed and implemented in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

 

c)     A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation). Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.

 

d)     Asbestos waste must be disposed of at an approved waste disposal depot (refer to the DEC or Waste Service NSW for details of sites). Copies of all receipts detailing method and location of disposal must be maintained on site and be provided to Council officers upon request, as evidence of correct disposal.

 

e)     On demolition sites involving the removal of asbestos, a  professionally manufactured sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS” and include details of the licensed contractor. The sign shall measure not less than 400mm x 300mm and the sign is to be installed prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos has been safely removed from the site.

 

f)      A certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council upon completion of the works (prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued), which confirms that the relevant requirements and conditions of consent, in relation to the safe removal and disposal of asbestos, have been satisfied.

 

32.     Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all building, demolition and associated site works (including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and (except as detailed below) between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays.

 

All building, demolition and associated site works are strictly prohibited on Sundays, Public Holidays and also on Saturdays adjacent to a Public Holiday.

 

In addition, the use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers or the like is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum) on Monday to Friday only, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

33.     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

34.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

a)     The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

b)     A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like.

 

c)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions, soil and debris at all times.

 

d)     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council. Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services department.

 

e)     During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing. Sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction. 

 

f)      Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to demolition/building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted. If required, a temporary 1.8m high safety fence or hoarding is to be provided to protect the public, located between the work site and the public place. An awning may also be required to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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:

 

35.     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.

 

36.     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).

 

Access & Facilities

 

The following conditions are applied to provide appropriate access and facilities to the premises:

 

37.     Access and facilities for people with disabilities must be provided to new building work in accordance with any relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

Wherever practicable, existing buildings are to be upgraded to provide reasonable provisions for people with a disability, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority (e.g.- provision of an entrance ramp having a maximum grade of 1 in 8).

 

Waste Management

 

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

 

38.     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.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

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

 

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

 

a)   $1000.00   -      Damage/Civil Works Security Deposit

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

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

40.     Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to undertake any works required within the Anzac Parade road reserve to link the proposed outdoor restaurant and entry ramp with the existing concrete footpath in Anzac Parade.

 

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

 

42.     The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

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

 

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

 

Alignment Level Conditions

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

 

44.     The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath in Anzac Parade along the full site frontage.

 

The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

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

 

46.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer has been issued at a prescribed fee of $88 calculated at $44.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Service Authority Conditions

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate consideration

for service authority assets:

 

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

 

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

                                         

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

 

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

 

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

 

Waste Management Conditions

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

 

50.     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.

 

The following conditions are imposed to provide reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public safety and convenience:

 

51.     The outdoor dining area is required to comply with the relevant requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan for “Footpath Dining & Trading”.

 

52.     The Licensee must keep in full force and effect for the term of the license agreement established, a policy of public risk insurance with respect to the licensed area and the business undertaken by the Licensee therein. The limit of public risk shall be not less than $10,000,000 or such other sum as the Department of Lands may reasonably nominate in writing from time to time as the amount which may be paid arising out of any one single accident or event. The policy must also satisfy the following requirements:

 

a)     The policy shall extend to cover death or injury to any person and damage to property of any person sustained when such person is using or entering the licensed area.

b)     The policy must name the Department of Lands as the owner and the Licensee as the insured and must contain a clause that the insurer will not cancel or change the insurance without first given the Department of Lands ten (10) days prior written notice.

c)     The insurance must be with an insurer approved by the Department of Lands and a copy of the policy or a certificate of insurance shall be delivered by the Licensee to the Department of Lands. 

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA. Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

You are also advised to ensure that the development is not inconsistent with Council's consent and if necessary consult with Council’s Building Certification Services or your accredited certifier prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

10 November 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D72/09

 

 

Subject:                  5 Undine Street, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/734/2008/A

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                               Section 96(2) Modification of the approved development by modifying window and door openings and altering the internal layout.

 

Ward:                      Central ward

 

Applicant:                Sanctum Design Consultants

 

Owner:                         T L Yazbek

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

This section 96 modification is referred to the Council because the original application was approved at a Council meeting on 9 June 2009. 

 

It is noted that the application was initially submitted to Council as a Section 96(1A) application however that Council requested the applicant change the application to a S.96(2) application due to there being several proposed changes to approved plans with the potential to impact on the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings. The applicant requested that the application be considered as a S.96(2) application on 1 October 2009.

 

Council granted approval on 9 June 2009 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house on the site and the construction of a new two storey freestanding dwelling house with a double garage & plant room at lower ground level. The existing pool to the rear of the subject site was to be retained and the application also included a new front fence.

 

One letter was received from a representative of the owners of the adjoining property to the south-west. The letter states that the owners of the property to the south-west have been in constant communication with the neighbour and their architect and that they raise no objection to the current proposal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal includes the following amendments:

 

Basement Level:

 

An external door is proposed to rear elevation of the approved garage; and

 

 

The internal stair layout has been revised.

 

Ground Floor Level:

 

 

 

W5 opening to north-east elevation modified from 1810w to 2710w. The window is now shown as a 3-panel window rather than a 2-panel window;

 

 

W6 sill on north-east elevation reduced from 2400h to 700h; and

 

 

Internal layout modified (Retreat is now shown as bedroom 4, Study/guest room is now shown as a multi-function room; shower, pantry, laundry, foyer and stair have been reconfigured;

 

First Floor Level:

 

W7 opening to bedroom 1 on north-eastern elevation changed from 1810w to 2710w. The window is now shown as a 3-panel sliding door rather than a 2-panel sliding door;

 

 

W6 obscure glazing has been deleted;

 

 

W7 in ensuite, on north-eastern elevation bathroom removed;

 

 

W4 Remaining window to ensuite elevation reduced from 1800h to 1200h;

 

 

Changes to W14 windows:

 

·      Obscure window repositioned to south-west elevation and increased in width from 800w to 900w;

·      Window to south-west elevation reduced in width from 1200w to 900w;

·      Window in ensuite to south-west elevation reduced in width from 2100w to 1500w;

 

 

W2 window is no longer obscure glazing; rather clear glazing; and

 

 

Internal layout changes:

 

·      Light-well to the north-eastern corner is proposed to be deleted; bedroom 4 now shown as bedroom 2 and has been extended out over the former light-well area.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Undine Street. The foreshore of Lurline Bay is to the north and the site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The site has a frontage width of 12.19m, a depth of 38.555m and has an overall site area of 469.99m22. Currently on the site there is a single storey freestanding dwelling and a swimming pool to the rear.

 

The site rises approximately a metre from east to west, from the pool coping to the rear, to the front fence, then falls approximately a metre to the street kerb. Undine Street falls towards Lurline Bay to the North at a grade of approximately 1:12, however, the subject site has undergone levelling, resulting in a relatively flat site across its width with a 2m high retaining wall along the northern boundary of the site.

 

Neighbouring the property to the north is a part two/part three storey detached dwelling, to the south is a two storey detached dwelling and to the rear is a two storey detached dwelling fronting Wilson Street. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of one and two storey freestanding dwellings.

 

4.    Site History

 

BA/882/1968        -  Approved for additions to the existing dwelling house.

 

BA/1293/1974      -  Approved for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house.

 

BA/175/1979        -  Approved for a swimming pool to the rear.

 

DA/734/2009       -  Approved for the demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a new part two/part three storey dwelling.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The subject application was notified for 14 days to surrounding property owners by letter dated 19 August 2009 in accordance with Council’s Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans DCP.

 

 

5.1 Objections

 

No submissions objecting to the proposed amendments were received.

 

5.2 Support

One submission supporting the proposed amendments was received.  The letter was received from a representative of the owners of the adjoining property to the south-west. The letter stated that the owners of the property to the south-west have been in constant communication with the neighbour and their architect and that they raise no objection to the current proposal.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Development Engineers who included no additional comments or conditions regarding the s.96(2) application.

 

7.    Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with:-

 

7.1             Substantially the Same Development:

In accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the proposed changes are considered minor and will result in a development that is substantially the same as the originally approved development. As such they can be assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

 

The proposed modifications do not materially change the nature of the approved development. The size and scope of its impacts (as conditioned) are substantially the same as the approved development.

 

7.2             Notification and Consideration of Submissions:

The subject application was notified for 14 days to surrounding property owners by letter dated 19 August 2009. As discussed above, one letter of non-objection was received from a representative of the owners of the adjoining property to the south-west.

 

8.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning Requirements apply to the site.

 

9.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

·           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended);

·           SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004; and

·           Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The proposal is consistent with the 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.

 

Clause 10 - Zone No 2A (Residential A Zone)

The site is zoned 2A Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.  The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will:

 

·           Maintain the character of the established residential area; and

·           Enable the redevelopment for a low density housing form where the proposed development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Clause 29  Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The approved dwelling was assessed as being consistent with the objectives of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area in the previous consent granted by Council.  The proposed changes will result in a development which is substantially the same as that which was originally approved in terms of the appearance of the dwelling and building envelope. The dwelling, as proposed to be amended, will also be consistent with the objectives of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

(b)    SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

An amended BASIX certificate was submitted with the application.  The new BASIX Certificate has been checked against the submitted plans during the assessment of the application.

 

(c)    Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008

The draft LEP is an administrative update of the existing LEP. It amalgamates all previous amendments but does not substantially change the existing plan. The proposal is not inconsistent with the aims and objectives of draft RLEP 2008.

 

9.1 Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan No. for 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 table below assesses the proposal against the Preferred Solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements.

 


Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

57%

Yes

25m² of private open space provided.

25m2 +

Yes

Min. dimensions of 3m x 4m & minor level change

5m x 12m

Yes

Open space behind the building line.

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

36%

Yes

Floor area

(Site area 470.1m2) maximum FSR 0.57:1 

0.53:1

Yes

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

6.4m

Yes

External wall height to the rear maximum 3.5m.

n/a

n/a

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

3m

Suitable conditions were included to the original consent.

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

Up to 900mm

Yes

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

13.5m

Yes

The length of a 2nd storey maximum 12m less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

Maximum length 4m

Yes

The 2nd storey addition to a semi respects the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

n/a

n/a

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m;

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m; and

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

No changes are proposed to the approved setbacks to the dwelling.  

Yes

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

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

W12 Kitchen, W5 Living & W7 Bed 1

 

Visual privacy was discussed in the original report and the proposal was considered not to result in an unreasonable impact on the neighbouring dwellings in this regard. The new proposal includes changes to window configuration and layout however is not considered that the proposal will result in a negative impact on neighbouring properties with regard to privacy. Refer to further discussion below – Environmental assessment.

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

Rear first floor terrace

See discussion below – Environmental assessment.

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

Not required

n/a

Safety & Security

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

Yes

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

Study and bedroom

Study and bedroom

Foreshore Development

 

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line.

n/a

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

n/a

Form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

Yes, complies

Buildings incorporate setbacks to allow sharing of views.

No changes proposed to the approved building envelope.

Ancillary structures do not detract from appearance.

None

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

New dwellings comply with 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

See amended BASIX

N/A

Private open space receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm on 21 June.

The majority of private open space to the rear of the proposed dwelling will receive 3 hours of sunlight.

Yes

North-facing living areas receive at least 3 hrs sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June.

The proposed dwelling has north facing windows, some of which will receive 3 hours of solar access. Complies.

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained 9am - 3pm.

The proposal will not affect solar collectors of adjoining properties. Complies.

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

The proposed dwelling will overshadow some windows on the northern elevation of the adjoining property to the south until after midday. Does not comply – refer to main issues above.

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am- 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

At least some of the private open space to the rear of the adjoining dwelling to the south will receive 3 hours of sunlight.

Yes

 

b.    Development Control Plan  - Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, a monetary levy was included as a condition of consent for the original development application. It is considered that the current proposed changes to the approved development will not result in a development with an estimated cost of works greatly dissimilar from that which was approved and an amended levy is therefore not required for the consent.

 

9.2 Council Policies

9.2.1 Rainwater Tanks Policy 2003

The proposal includes a rainwater tanks with a capacity of 5,500 litres, which meets the requirements of the policy.

 

10. Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

10.1    The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality:

The proposed amendments to the approved plans are to be minor. The development is considered to result in minimal environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

 

Privacy

The windows to the north-eastern elevation which are proposed to be increased in width from 2 vertical panels to 3 vertical panels both relate to bedrooms and will therefore have minimal privacy impact. The window to the north-western elevation which is proposed to be clear glass rather than opaque glass is setback in an articulated section of the approved dwelling and overlooks Undine Street only.

 

The proposed changes to the window dimensions and opacity are therefore considered not to result in any adverse unreasonable impact on neighbouring properties with regard to privacy.

 

View Loss

No changes are proposed to the building envelope of the approved development. The proposal will not have any further impact on neighbouring properties with regard to view loss.

 

Side Setbacks

No changes are proposed to the approved side setbacks to the dwelling development.

 

Perceived bulk and scale

The proposed changes will not affect the perceived bulk and scale of the development as viewed from neighbouring properties or from the streetscape. It is considered that no adverse impact will result from the proposed changes.

 

10.2  The suitability of the site for the development:

The site has been assessed as being suitable for residential development in the previous development consent granted by Council. The current proposal does not involve any significant change to the floor space, built form or landscaped area provision of the approved development and will result in a development which is considered suitable to the subject site.

 

10.3  The public interest.

The proposal will not result in any adverse impact on surrounding properties or the locality and is considered to be in the public interest

 

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 proposal relates to the provision of an external door to the rear elevation of the approved garage and window and internal layout amendments.

 

One submission was received supporting the proposed changes. The proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and approval is recommended.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to modify Development Consent No. DA/734/2008 for 5 Undine Street, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

A.      Amend Condition 1 as follows:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered YAZ–0708 Sheet A02 Issue DA-2 Revision A, YAZ–0708 Sheet A03 Issue DA-2, YAZ–0708 Sheet A04 Issue DA-2 Revision A, YAZ-0708 Sheet A05 Issue DA-2, YAZ-0708 Sheet A06 Issue DA-2, YAZ-0708 Sheet A07 Issue DA-2, YAZ-0708 Sheet A08 Issue DA-2 Revision A, YAZ-0708 Issue DA-2 Sheet A09 Issue DA-2 and YAZ-0708 Sheet A14 Issue Number DA-2, by Sanctum Design Consultants, dated 18.05.2009 and received by Council on the19th May 2009, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, and as amended by the Section 96(2) plans: YAZ–0708 Sheet A02 Issue No. S96-1 through to YAZ–0708 Sheet A08 Issue No. S96-1, dated 31 July 2009 and received by Council on 11 August 2009, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

10 November 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D73/09

 

 

Subject:                  28R Walsh Avenue, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/370/2007/A

Author:                   Stuart Harding, Planning Consultant     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development including relocation of light pole positions. Original consent: Installation of 8 x 18 metre high light poles at Nagle Park. Six (6) of the poles will include three (3) floodlights and two (2) poles will include two (2) floodlights

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                         Randwick City Council

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

This modification application is referred to the ordinary meeting of Council as the application involves development in a public park.  The application has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration prescribed by section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act).  This process included having regard to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) and the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act 1993).

 

Development consent 370/2007 was issued by Council on 12 December 2007 for installation of 8 x 18 metre high light poles with flood lights at Nagle Park (28R Walsh Avenue, Maroubra), including associated excavation.

 

A modification application according to Section 96(2) of the EP&A Act has been submitted proposing the relocation of seven (7) of the eight (8) approved light poles.  The poles will be relocated from their original locations by between 0.07m to 3.03m, with the majority being relocated by less than 1m.  Their relocation is generally required to ensure light spillage created by the poles is within limits prescribed by Australian Standard 4282 1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lights”.  One (1) light pole is being relocated because it would interfere with an existing children’s playground. One (1) other light pole is being relocated because it is in conflict with existing underground stormwater infrastructure.  In total, seven (7) of the eight (8) previously approved light poles are proposed to be relocated approximately two (2) metres from their original location.  All other aspects of the development remain as approved.

 

Ten (10) submissions from the public were received by Council during the notification period.    The submissions are based on a pro forma document and raise identical issues.  The submissions make reference mainly to the operation of the light poles.  They are generally, matters relevant during consideration of the original development application and of limited relevance to the modified light pole locations proposed by this application.

 

The modification application, by way of minor relocation of the light poles, intends to achieve compliance with the relevant Australian Standards or resolve physical conflict with existing infrastructure in the park.  The proposed development is in compliance with the controls and objectives of Randwick LEP 1998 and serves to improve the amenity of surrounding residential properties compared to the approved application (370/2007) by reducing light spillage. Accordingly, the application is of minimal impact and recommended for approval subject to standard conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is to relocate seven (7) of eight (8) previously approved light poles.  The poles will be relocated from their original locations by between 0.07m to 3.03m with the majority being relocated by less than 1m.  Their relocation is required to achieve compliance with Australian Standard 4282 1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lights” or because their original location was in conflict with existing infrastructure.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is 28R Walsh Avenue, Maroubra or commonly referred to as Nagle Park.  Its perimeter is formed by Walsh Avenue, Wild Street, Holden Street and a row of detached dwellings to the east.  Its site area is approximately 32,000m² and provides multi – purpose sporting fields, an enclosed children’s playground as well as a small amenities block.  An open stormwater channel traverses the site’s south eastern boundary and mature trees exist along its perimeter.

 

Adjacent and surrounding development comprises primarily of detached single and double storey dwellings.  A school occupies the majority of the adjoining south eastern block while a church also exists on the corner of Holden and Wild Streets.  Maroubra Junction, to the north, is in close proximity to the site and provides a complete range of retail, commercial and community services.  Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade are also in close proximity providing extensive public and private transport.         

 

4.    Site History

 

The site is an established local public park accommodating a variety of recreational activities.  Recent history includes a development application consented to by Randwick City Council on 12 December 2007 for the installation of 8 x 18m high light poles around the existing fields in the Park.  The light poles are intended to access the site’s remaining capacity and accommodate increasing demand from the public for recreational facilities.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Public Notification policy.  Ten (10) submissions were received from the following stakeholders:

 

Owners/residents of – 57 Paine Street, Maroubra; 59 Paine Street, Maroubra; 67 Paine Street, Maroubra; 53 Paine Street, Maroubra; 3 Holden Street, Maroubra; 71 Paine Street, Maroubra; 39 Hinkler Street, Maroubra; 61 Wild Street, Maroubra; 14 Holden Street, Maroubra; and 53 Wild Street, Maroubra.

 

5.1 Objections

The objections are based on a pro forma and raise identical issues.  Generally they relate to operational matters considered during the assessment of the original development application and consequently are not relevant to the modified location for the light poles proposed as part of this application.

 

Objection: The proposal attempts to rectify the incorrect 24 metre height of the light poles.

 

Response:  The original development consent 370/2007 for the installation of the light poles requires their height be a maximum of 18 metres.  The development is required to comply with the consent.

 

Objection: The number of poles is excessive.

 

Response:  The original development consent 370/2007 permits a total of eight (8) light poles to be installed at the site.  This modification application does not propose amending the number of light poles.

 

Objection: 3 x 2000 watt lights on each light pole are excessive.

 

Response:  The original development consent 370/2007 permits the inclusion of 3 lights on each pole.  This modification application does not propose amending the number of lights.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

None applicable.

 


7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The master planning requirements of the RLEP are not applicable given the development relates to minor sections of an existing park.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) (EP & A Act)

Local Government Act (LG Act 1993)

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998)

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 6A Open Space according to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

The following represents an environmental assessment of the modification application according to the relevant instruments identified in section 8 of this report above.

 

Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act)

The LG Act requires local authorities to have in place and adhere to plans of management for public open space.  The relevant plan of management for Nagle Park is Randwick City Council’s District Parks Generic Plan of Management.  The major issues included in the generic management plan for Nagle Park are derived from the overriding management philosophy provided by the LG Act. 

 

The scale of the proposed modification is minor without major changes to the form or operation of the light poles.  Accordingly, their consistency with the principles of the generic plan of management, as determined in the assessment of the original development application, remains unchanged.   

 

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act – Environmental Planning Instruments 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

When considering development proposed on recreational land, SEPP 55 requires consideration of whether the land is contaminated.  Land contamination is not a concern in this instance as the site has been used for recreational purposes over an extended period of time without any record of contamination.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

Clause 18(1) & (3) – Zone No 6A (Open Space Zone)

The objectives for the zone are:

 

§  To identify publicly owned land used or capable of being used for public recreational purposes.

§  To allow development that promotes, or is related to, the use and enjoyment of open space.

§  To identify and protect land intended to be acquired for public open space.

§  To identify and protect natural features that contributes to the character of the land.

§  To enable the sustainable management of the land.

 

The proposed modification does not alter the function or purpose of the light poles as determined in the assessment of the original development application (Development consent 370/2007).  In this regard, the proposal remains permissible and consistent with the zone objectives

 

Clause 38(2) – Development in open space zones

When determining applications relating to land within Zone No. 6A, subclause 2 requires Council to consider:

 

§  The need for the proposed development on that land.

§  Whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space.

§  The impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land.

§  The need to retain the land for its existing or likely future use.

 

The original development application was considered against clause 38(2) of the RLEP, and it was determined that the proposal to install 8 x 18m lights at Nagle Park could be supported.  The proposed modification does not significantly alter the development and would not affect its satisfactory consideration of the relevant items above.   The proposed application seeks to reduce impact of the lights by locating them further from the Park’s boundaries, reducing potential light spillage affecting residential proprieties in the vicinity of the Park.  Consequently the proposal is considered satisfactory in terms of clause 38(2).       

  

Section 79C(1)(ii) of the EP&A Act – Proposed Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Administrative Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2009 (Draft RLEP 2009)

The Draft RLEP 2009 has been prepared for the purpose of simplifying preparation of Council’s comprehensive LEP intended for 2011 and does not contain any significant changes from the current RLEP 1998 of relevance to the proposal.  Given the modification has been found to be satisfactory against the existing RLEP 1998; it will remain satisfactory against the draft instrument.

 

Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Likely impacts of the development

Council assessed that the impacts on the natural, built, social and economic environments of the original development application for the installation of the light poles were satisfactory.  Consequently, Council approved the 8 x 18m light poles with conditions (development consent no. 370/2007). 

 

The proposed modifications are minor and do not substantially alter its impact on the environment.  Accordingly, the proposal’s impacts remain acceptable.  At the least, the proposal minimises adverse impact on adjoining properties by limiting the extent of light spillage and avoiding costly reconstruction of existing infrastructure.

 

Section 79C(1)(c) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Suitability of the site for the development.

The site’s suitability for the development remains satisfactory, as determined in the assessment of the original development application, given the modifications proposed are minor and do not significantly affect the development’s impact, operation or character.

 

Section 79C(1)(d) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Submissions

The submissions received in relation to the development application have been addressed in section 5.1 of this report.  In summary, the matters raised in the submissions did not warrant refusal of the application.

 


Section 79C(1)(e) of the EP&A Act 1979 – The public interest

The proposed modification is in the public’s interest as it ensures standards providing an appropriate level of general amenity in the public and private domain is achieved while existing effective infrastructure is retained.

 

Section 96(2)(a) of the EP&A Act 1979 - Substantially the same

The consent authority is required to be satisfied the development as modified is substantially the same as originally approved.  In this case, the development remains substantially the same as originally approved given the extent of the relocation of the light poles is minor, and no change is proposed to the height of the poles or their operating times/ days.

 

Section 96(2)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979 - Concurrence 

In the event concurrence was required from an external approval body to determine the original development application, consultation with body is required for the purposes of the modification.

 

In this case, no further consultation is required with an external approval body as it was not required as part of the original development application.

 

Section 96(2)(c) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Notification

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy for notification of development proposal’s. 

 

Section 96(2)(d) of the EP&A Act 1979 - Submissions

Ten (10) submissions were received during the notification period which have been addressed in section 5.1 of this report.  In summary, the matters raised in the submissions did not warrant refusal of the application.

 

Section 96(3) of the EP&A Act 1979 – Section 79C Assessment

This section requires that the application is assessed according to Section 79C of the EP & A Act 1979.  This assessment has been undertaken above.  In summary, the proposal was found to be satisfactory in terms of Section 79C of the EP & A Act.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The proposal is generally consistent with the City Plan as it relates to improving accessibility of publicly owned land.  The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2d:      New and upgraded community facilities that are multi purpose and in accessible location.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application proposes minor modifications to an existing development consent for the installation of 8 x 18 metre high light poles around existing sporting fields in Nagle Park.  The poles will be relocated from their original locations by between 0.07m to 3.03m with the majority being relocated by less than 1m.  The relocation is required to achieve compliance with Australian Standard 4282 1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting” or avoid conflict with existing infrastructure which in this case includes stormwater facilities and a children’s playground.  In summary, the relocation will minimise impact on surrounding development or facilities.

 

This report demonstrates the relevant environmental planning instruments and other legislation are satisfied.  The development, as modified, has also been found to be substantially the same as originally approved and of minimal environmental impact. 

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and approval is recommended.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

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/370/2007/A to modification of approved development including relocation of light pole positions at 28R Walsh Avenue, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

A.      Amend Condition 1 as follows:

 

1.   The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 5379 A-003, revision D and stamped as received by Council on 16 May 2007, the application form and supporting information received with the application including the “Lighting Technical Report” by Light Studio 21 Pty Ltd and associated photomontage and as amended by the Section 96(2) plans C10908-3 Sheet 1 of 1 dated 15 June 2009 and received by Council on 5 August 2009, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

B.      Add new Condition 1A:

 

1A. The maximum height of the light poles must not exceed 18m.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

10 November 2009

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D74/09

 

 

Subject:                  55 Dudley Street, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/364/2008

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 82A Review of Development Application No. 364/2008 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of 4 storey mixed use development comprising 2 commercial tenancies, 2 home offices and 21 basement and ground level carpark spaces and 13 residential units above.

 

Ward:                      East Ward

 

Applicant:                Bentom Pty Ltd

 

Owner:                         Bentom Pty Ltd

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Deferred Commencement Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

This Section 82A Review application is referred to the Planning Committee Meeting for determination.

 

The original Development Application No. 364/2008 was referred to the Planning Committee Meeting held on 2 December 2008, where Council resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal would comprise the amenity of the surrounding residential area in terms of visual bulk and scale, overshadowing, privacy and loss of views.

 

2.       The proposal would be likely adversely impact on the parking capacity of the surrounding street network due to the deficiency in on site car parking.

 

3.       The proposed driveway access to Asher Street is unsuitable given its narrowness and results in the loss of on street car parking.

 

4.       The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest having regard to the public submissions received.

 

To address the reasons for refusal, the amended development proposed under this S82A Review application alters the original proposal under DA/364/2008 primarily in the following ways:

 

·      Provision of a new basement carpark in conjunction with the ground level carpark containing a total of 21 carspaces that complies with the DCP – Parking.

 

·      Reduction in the original maximum FSR from the original max 1.55:1 (1124.6 sqm GFA) to the current 1.52:1 (1111.4 sqm GFA) following changes to floor areas of apartments.

 

·      Reduction in building height of the original proposal from a maximum 12.5m (at RL 40.6) to :

 

·      maximum 12.45m (RL 40.55) to the roof pitch over the wing sections of the building aligned east-west and containing Apartments 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 on the northern side and Apartments 4, 5, 9, 10 and 13 on the southern side.

 

·      maximum 12m (RL 40.1) to the roof pitch over the middle connecting section of the building aligned north-south and containing Apartments 3, 8 and 12.

 

Accordingly, the current amended proposal represents an improvement over the original application that was refused by Council in so far as the FSR and building height have been reduced and additional carparking has been provided. Appropriately also, as per the assessment of the original DA proposal, the amenity impacts of the amended Section 82A proposal on adjoining and surrounding properties have been found to be reasonable and acceptable with regards to bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and views as assessed in Section 10 of this report.

 

The S82A Review application was advertised and notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 26 May to 10 June 2009 in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of 7 submissions were received compared with 26 for the original DA. The issues raised relate primarily to loss of on-street carparking, traffic congestion, building height, bulk and scale, loss of sunlight and views, construction-related disturbances and non-compliance with the statutory/policy controls. It is noted that these issues were also raised in the submissions received during notification of the original DA/364/2008.

 

The site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998. The proposed mix use development is prohibited in the zone. However, the subject site enjoys existing use rights in the form of the existing shops on-site which were granted approval by Council in 1965 and subsequent approval for a change of use in one of the shops. As such, pursuant to Section 108 of the EP&A Act, the Randwick LEP provisions in this case derogate from the incorporated provisions under the EP&A Act such that the proposed development must be considered on its merits with the provisions of the Randwick LEP 1998 to be used as a guide.

 

In the main, the Section 82A review proposal has a maximum building height of 12.45m over the northern and southern wing sections of the building (12m max building height standard); external wall height of up to 11.17m (10m max external wall height standard); floor space ratio is 1.52:1 (0.9:1 max FSR standard); and landscaped area is 36% (50% min landscaped area standard). The proposed development is in breach of these Randwick LEP development standards that would ordinarily apply on surrounding sites. However, the height, bulk, scale and form of the development is considered to be comparable with the existing building forms in Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street. Furthermore, the (deferred commencement condition) requirement applied to the original DA proposal that the building height be reduced to a maximum 12m at RL 40.1 will be maintained for the middle connection section of the amended building that runs north-south. This will have the effect of making this section of the building compliant in building height; ensuring that the proposed building will be compatible in height, bulk and scale with future buildings on nearby lots; and improving its amenity impact on adjoining properties especially in terms of views, solar access and bulk and scale.

 

The proposal also varies from, among other things, the setback requirements of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing. Notwithstanding the departures from these controls, a merit based assessment has been made of the proposal, using the controls as a guide to the type of development envisaged on the site and its ‘reasonableness’. The development overall is considered to be consistent with the character of existing development and performs adequately with regard to streetscape, bulk and scale, safety and security, solar access, privacy and views to adjoining properties, and traffic and parking impacts to surrounding properties, subject, in some instances, to appropriate conditions.

 

The recommendation is for deferred commencement approval of the Section 82A review proposal subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The development proposed under this Section 82A Review submission essentially differs from the original development in the following respects:

 

·      Provision of a new basement carpark containing 21 carspaces

 

·      Relocation of carpark entry closer towards Dudley Street with an increased width from 4m to 6.1m

 

·      Slight relocation of lift shaft to accommodate new carpark ramp and aisle.

 

·      Provision of new internal carpark ramp and aisle.

 

·      Relocation of disabled toilet from ground level to new basement level.

 

·      Relocation of garbage rooms.

 

·      Revised retail shop areas as a result of lift relocation.

 

·      Reduction in areas of decks to Apartments 3 and 8.

 

·      Addition of new windows on the side elevations of home offices and shops on ground level to give better light and transparency to these commercial functions.

 

·      Changes to floor areas of Apartments 1-3 and 6-8 due to lift relocation encroaching into Apartments 1-7 and an area swap between apartments 2 an 3 and 7 and 8 to improve internal amenity.

 

·      Changes to floor areas of apartments as follows:

 

Unit type

Original Proposal

Section 82A Proposal

Shop 1 (Ground Floor)

45.3 m2

37.4 m2

Shop 2 (Ground Floor)

46.6 m2

42.4 m2

 

 

 

Garbage Room (Ground Floor)

13.6 m2

14.1 m2

 

 

 

Apartment 1 (First Floor)

64.0 m2

63.0 m2

Apartment 2 (First Floor)

67.4 m2

72.2 m2

Apartment 3 (First Floor)

85.0 m2

81.9 m2

Apartment 4 (First Floor)

87.1 m2

87.1 m2

Apartment 5 (First Floor)

91.1 m2

91.1 m2

Apartment 6 (First Floor)

68.9 m2

67.8 m2

Apartment 7 (First Floor)

72.3 m2

76.9 m2

Apartment 8 (First Floor)

84.9 m2

81.9 m2

Apartment 9 (First Floor)

63.3 m2

63.3 m2

Apartment 10 (First Floor)

68.8 m2

68.8 m2

Apartment 11 (First Floor)

92.0 m2

86.0 m2

Apartment 12 (First Floor)

82.3 m2

82.3 m2

Apartment 13 (First Floor)

92.0 m2

86.0 m2

·      Reduction in FSR to 1.52:1 as a result of changes to the floor areas of apartments 

 

In the course of assessing the Section 82A review proposal, the applicant provided further amended plans and sections indicating a reduction in the height of the original proposal from a maximum 12.5m (RL 40.6) to:

 

·      maximum 12.45m (RL 40.55) to the roof pitch over the wing sections of the building aligned east-west and containing Apartments 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 on the northern side and Apartments 4, 5, 9, 10 and 13 on the southern side.

 

·      maximum 12m (RL 40.1) to the roof pitch over the middle connecting section of the building aligned north-south and containing Apartments 3, 8 and 12.

 

Notwithstanding the above changes, the proposal essentially remains substantially the same as that originally proposed, that is, a 4 storey mixed-use building with 13 apartments, 2 home offices (incorporated as part of 1 bedroom units) and 2 retail/commercial units and ground floor carparking with the added element of a new basement carpark. Specifically, the proposal will have:

 

4 x 1 bedroom units

4 x 1 bedroom and study units

5 x 2 bedroom units

21 carparking spaces

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site consists of Lot 5 in DP 668607 being 55 Dudley Street, Coogee.

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Dudley Street with a frontage also to Havelock Street on its northern boundary and Asher Street on its western side. A 3m wide pedestrian-way flanks the eastern boundary The subject site is the western end of a larger block/island bounded by Dudley Street to the south, Havelock Street on the north, Asher Street on the west and Arden Street to the east. 

 

On site are 2 single storey shops facing Havelock Ave and a single storey dwelling behind. While the subject site and locality is zoned Residential 2C, Havelock Avenue has a mixed-use commercial character reflecting its historical association with a tram-stop and the former tram-line (see aerial photograph of the site).

 

Aerial view of subject site

 

Existing mixed-use development on Havelock Avenue adjoining the subject site to the east.

 

 

Existing mixed-use development on Dudley Street adjoining the subject site to the east.

Existing 3 Storey multi-unit housing development at No. 47-53 Dudley Street adjoining the subject site to the west opposite Asher Lane as viewed from Havelock Avenue.

 

Dudley Street frontage with Asher Lane on the western side (left).

 

 

 

 

 

The surrounding developments include a mixture of residential flat buildings and detached and semi-detached dwelling houses to the east, south and south-east; and predominantly mixed-use developments on the Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street frontages extending from the subject site eastwards towards Arden Street.

 

4.    Site History

 

As acknowledged in the assessment report of the original Development Application, the existing commercial use of the site dates to at least 1965 with a building approval issued by Council for a shop-front under the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance 1948. Additionally aerial photographs show that the current dwelling on-site existed before 1942.

 

Most recently in 2001, Council approved DA/532/2001 for a change of use to the shop for a therapeutic massage and nutrition centre.

 

This present development proposal was the subject of Council’s pre-lodgement service.

 

At the Planning Committee Meeting held on 2 December 2008, Council resolved to refuse development consent to DA/364/2008, which proposed the demolition of existing building and construction of four storey mixed use development comprising two commercial tenancies, two home offices and 13 carpark spaces at ground level, 13 residential units above, and associated works.

 

The Council Officer’s Report recommended approval by way of a deferred commencement consent. However, the application was refused at the Planning Committee Meeting of 2 December 2008 as previously discussed in Section 1 of this Report.

 

Following the determination for refusal, the applicant has subsequently lodged this Section 82A Review application, seeking a review of the determination. As detailed in this current report, the proposal has changed since the previous application was reported to Council primarily to address the reasons for refusal.

 

On the on 22 October 2009, the applicant provided additional and amended details indicating a reduction in the height of the proposed building from that of the original proposal by 50mm in the winged northern and southern sections at RL 40.55 and by 500mm in the middle connecting section of the proposed building at RL 40.1 (compared with maximum 12.5m at RL 40.6 under the original DA).

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified between 18 March and 1 April 2009 in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

 

The subject application was advertised and notified by letter between 26 May to 10 June 2009 to adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of 7 objections were received from the following residences:

 

·      2/84 Dudley Street, Coogee

·      3/78A Dudley Street, Coogee

·      33/10 Alexander Street, Coogee

·      88 Dudley Street, Coogee

·      9/47-53 Dudley Street, Coogee

·      4/21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

·      59-61 Dudley Street, Coogee

 

The issues raised in the letters of objection are detailed below:

 

Issues

Comments

Loss of carparking in Asher Lane due to carpark entry

The provision of a new vehicular entry point and driveway into the new proposed basement carpark will inevitably involve the loss of one on-street carparking space. This loss, while unavoidable, should be balanced against the proposal’s provision of a new basement carpark that will allow all residential and commercial parking to be provided on-site. In this context, the loss of one on-street carparking space is reasonable and acceptable for the development to achieve a reasonable level of internal carparking which if not met, would put significantly more pressure and impact on existing on-street carparking in local streets in the area. Moreover, the provision of the new basement carpark addresses one of the reasons for refusal of the original DA. 

Inadequate carparking provision.

The new carparking on-site, comprising a total of 21 carspaces, readily complies with the carparking requirements of Council’s DCP – Parking and therefore will meet the carparking needs of both residential and commercial tenants 

Increased demand for on-street parking including from the proposed home offices

The 2 proposed home-offices will have office areas of approximately 25 sqm each which is not considered excessive but rather minimally adequate to provide for opportunities for residents to establish “work-from-home” offices and low-scaled office-type activities that will not be traffic generating nor parking dependant. The provision of home offices is appropriate in terms of ecologically sustainable principles as it assists in travel to work journeys and provides opportunities for service provision at the local level.

No provision for landscaping especially deep soil landscaping to soften stark & dense building and to avoid the development being a sunless wind tunnel.

While the subject site is a Residential 2C zoning, the existing uses on-site and along Havelock Avenue (being the old tram-line) and Dudley Street are mixed use in character (typically ground floor retail/commercial uses with residential units above). As such, the requirement for provision of deep soil landscaping in this context may not be entirely appropriate given the need to maintain continuity in the mixed use streetscape. Nevertheless, the proposal will provide for an elevated   common courtyard with adequate planter bed landscaping that will not only increase the amenity to residents but also soften the overall proposed builtform.

·      Proposal not compliant with DCP-Multi-unit Housing in setback and height.

 

·      Building height, bulk & scale is excessive and inconsistent with existing properties in Dudley and Asher Street and Havelock Avenue.

 

·      Style of the building is not a fitting part of the landscape and quality of surrounding buildings.

The existing mixed-use character of the subject site and its adjoining/neighbouring properties (along Havelock Avenue being the old tram-line and Dudley Street) to a certain extent dictate that any future builtform on the subject site be built as a solid edge to both the Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street streetfront. In terms of height, the amended proposal has a maximum height of 12.45m over the northern and southern wing sections of the building and even lower at 12m over the middle connection section following amendments to the proposal on 22 October 2009 to further reduce its visual bulk and scale and height. The latter amendment to the middle section will be consistent with the original DA recommendation for a Deferred Commencement Consent requiring, among other things, the roof over the top level of the proposed development to be lowered to a compliant maximum height of 12m at RL 40.1.

 

In respect of setbacks, strict application of the required setbacks contained in the Multi-unit Housing DCP would result in a builtform that will be out of character with the existing predominant zero-line allotments of mixed use developments in Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street, and, therefore, will not maintain the continuity of this existing streetscape. Notwithstanding this, the proposal provides some degree of setback from the eastern and western side boundaries which are the same setbacks provided in the original DA proposal. These setbacks are considered reasonable and adequate to ensure ventilation, privacy and separation to adjoining buildings and would permit widened footways and improved drainage along Asher Lane on the western side and the pedestrian pathway on the eastern side.

 

The style of the building will be modern and contemporary but with the correct elements of a base (retail and home offices built to the streetfront at street level to maintain continuity of existing neighbouring shops), a middle comprising apartments suitably articulated and modulated, and a top comprising top-floor apartments suitably set backed from the front, rear and side building lines of the main building.

Noise and nuisance during construction

Ensuring public health, safety and amenity during construction of buildings is a matter that is usually managed and controlled by way of standard conditions of development consent. These conditions include requirements for applicants to lodge Construction Site Management Plan which is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include measures to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and convenience including dust control measures, protective fencing / hoarding, and management construction noise and vibration. Accordingly, conditions to control construction noise and nuisance will be applied should approval be granted for the proposed development.

Increased traffic congestion especially at Asher and Dudley Streets which will be especially hazardous to elderly and young children visiting the local doctor’s surgery. The locality is a very busy area with tight corners between streets and sight-lines difficult.

While it is noted that there are a number of shops and services concentrated in the locality, the traffic generation of the proposed development has been estimated in the traffic report to be a total of 7 vehicular trips/hour trips in the peak hour. Council’s Development Engineer advises that this rate is acceptable as the surrounding road network can accommodate the traffic generated. Additionally, given that the entry and driveway to the carpark will be via Asher Lane, and not main streets, appropriate safe access and movement for traffic associated with the development can be controlled. Furthermore, conditions relating to the dedication of land to Council for road widening will be applied which will further improve ease of movement within Asher Lane and Havelock Avenue.

Existing vegetation and garden on-site with its jacaranda, wattle, honey-suckle, etc trees should be retained and overdevelopment not permitted.

While retention of the existing garden in its run-down and overgrown state may be an ideal for some, the site is privately owned and the decision to redevelop the site rests with the owner/s of the site. The current amended proposal for a mixed use development has been assessed in this planning report and as indicated in relevant assessment sections pursuant to Section 79C of the EP&A Act (especially in relation to design and amenity impacts), the proposed development is reasonable and acceptable.

·      The amended proposal only addresses part of the 4 reasons that Council refused the application in the first place.

 

·      The S82A Review has not changed the proposal and should therefore be refused again.

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act requires that any submission to review a determination is to be substantially the same development as the development described in the original application. The amended proposal contains a number of changes (as listed in Section 2 above) which seeks to address the reasons for refusal of the original application (in particular, the provision of a new basement carpark to meet the parking requirement). Overall, the amended proposal has adequately addressed all reasons for refusal as outlined in Section 10.1.1 below.

Loss of solar access to 53 Dudley Street to less than the minimum 3 hours.

The overshadowing impact of the proposed development remains essentially the same as that of the original DA proposal. As with the original assessment of the DA, some overshadowing will occur on the east facing windows of the apartments in No 47-53 Dudley Street in the winter solstice morning. Direct sunlight returns soon after and is maintained until the sun crosses the alignment of the east facing window. The proposed development does not affect direct sunlight to north facing windows of apartments in No 47-53 Dudley Street.

 

It is acknowledged that the original development application DA/364/2008 was advertised and notified from 4 June to 18 June 2008 to adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. In total, 26 submissions (including a petition with 127 signatures) were received from the following residents:

 

·      4 Asher St

·      4/59 Dudley St

·      10 Asher St

·      59-61 Dudley St

·      8 Asher St

·      63A Dudley St

·      16 Asher St

·      3/78a Dudley St

·      11/10 Alexander St

·      5/78a Dudley St

·      18/10 Alexander St

·      80 Dudley St

·      33/10 Alexander St

·      88 Dudley St

·      4/47-53 Dudley St

·      94 Dudley St

·      9/47-53 Dudley St

·      27/10 Dudley St

·      11/47-53 Dudley St

·      5/126-128 Brook St

·      12/47-53 Dudley St

·      96 Dudley St

·      13/47-53 Dudley St

·      6/96A Dudley St

·      57 Dudley St

·      Neighbour to 13/47-53 Dudley Street; address unspecified

 

The issues raised in these submissions have also been raised in the submissions made in relation to the current S82A Review application. Nonetheless, the submissions received for the original Development Application No.364/2008 have been previously addressed in the assessment report to the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 2 December 2008.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

6.1    Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the Section 82A application and made the following comments:

 

“A S82A Review application has been received for demolition of the existing building, and construction of a four storey, mixed use development including two commercial tenancies, two home offices.

 

The S82A Review application includes the following:

 

An additional level of basement car parking which intends to increase the available off-street parking spaces from 13 to 21;

Relocation of the driveway in Asher Street from the northern end to the southern end;

1 metre relocation of the lift; and

Minor amendments to Apartments 1,2,3,6,7,& 8 as well as the shops and home offices.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Plans By McGregor Westlake Architecture, , job number 0712, S82A000-501, dated 12.05.09, and stamped 15 May 2009;

·      Landscape Plan by Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, job number 080101, drawing number L01, issue A, dated 16.04.2008.

·      Plan By McGregor Westlake Architecture, , job number 0712, S82A 101 Rev B, dated 04.09.09, and stamped 04 Sep 2009

 

Landscape Comments

The only vegetation outside the property that may be affected by this application was observed to be one 4 metre tall Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) within the bitumen footpath on Dudley Street, near the corner of Asher Lane, with several others of the same species and similar sizes located further to the west.

 

However, this is a poor example of the species due to previous storm damage/vandalism being sustained to its crown, resulting in unsightly and poorly attached sucker growth, and as it is not considered to have any long-term prospects, Council requires that the applicant remove this tree as part of reconstructing the public footpath, and must also meet Council’s costs in providing a new tree in its place.

 

Beyond the northern site boundary, the Havelock Avenue frontage consists of an overhead awning almost to the back of the kerb, with decorative paving across the full width of the footpath. Despite no works being shown here, a monetary bond as security will still need to be held should damage occur to Council’s infrastructure during the course of the works and need to be repaired.

 

Vegetation exists around almost the entire perimeter of the site, with those along the western boundary comprising from south to north, one small and insignificant Acacia species (Wattle) of about 5 metres in height, one Morus nigra (Mulberry Tree) of approximately 6 metres, and one Musa species (Banana Tree), near the southwest corner of the existing commercial buildings which face Havelock Avenue.

 

As the Wattle and Banana are too small to be covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and the Mulberry is recognised as an environmental weed, all shall be removed as part of this application.

 

In accordance with a request from the assessing officer, the need to provide replacement planting which will afford screening and privacy between this proposal and the existing unit block to the west, on the other side of Asher Lane, but is also appropriate for the space available, has also been included in this report.

 

The various shrubs/small trees within the front yard, and along the front (southern) boundary, such as the Murraya and Hibiscus, are all too small for the TPO, with no objections raised to their removal.

 

Right in the southeast corner of the site, fronting Dudley Street, there is one Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) of around 8 metres in height which is covered by the TPO, and is easily recognised as the most established vegetation at this property due to a combination of its size and prominent location.

 

Despite appearing in reasonable health, a closer inspection revealed that co-dominant leaders emerge from ground level, and may actually be an included junction, which is a structural defect that carries a higher rate of failure than properly formed branch unions, and is a major consideration when assessing this tree’s suitably for retention, particularly given the existing and future ‘target area’.

 

The southern stem rises vertically, with the northern part (which contains the majority of foliage and branch structure) leans excessively to the northwest, occupying almost the entire front portion of the property, and already overhangs the existing dwelling.

 

Removing this northern leader so as to facilitate the reasonable development of this property would not be in the long term interests of this tree as it would not only severely affect its form and habit, but would also leave the remaining portion susceptible to wind burn and wind throw, and if retention was pursued, the area required by this tree both above and below ground would require that the whole proposal be completely reconfigured.

 

In light of the above issues, there is seen to be justification for its removal, even irrespective of proposed building works, with approval included in a relevant condition in this report.

 

Further to the north, about halfway along the length of the eastern boundary, fronting the existing public walkway, there is also one 5 metre tall Plumeria acutifolia (Frangipani), which despite being a desirable species, is an insignificant specimen, and can be removed to accommodate the proposed works as shown.

 

To its north, there is one large Acer negundo (Box Elder) of around 10 metres in height which despite offering a visual buffer or screen between the subject site and neighbouring unit block to the east, Dudley Street, its whole southern aspect is dead, and appears to be in decline, making it unsuitable for retention.

 

Further, this species is widely recognised as a weed due to its ability to germinate from seed and invade areas of native bushland, with several areas existing in the Coogee area, and as such, Council requires that this tree be removed in order to eliminate the threat it poses to the environment.

 

Growing through the northern aspect of the tree described above are two Brachychiton acerifolius (Illawarra Flame Trees), being one 4m tall specimen close to the eastern boundary, and another larger one of around 6 metres in height, close to the eastern edge of the existing dwelling.

 

Despite being one of the most attractive native trees due to their impressive and highly prominent flower displays during early summer, it would not be physically possible to proceed with construction while still retaining either of these trees; and as such, approval is granted for their removal, but is subject to two replacements of the same species being provided in this area of the site, as has been shown, as this will directly compensate for their loss, and will also assist in maintaining a ‘link’ to these trees as existing site features.

 

Drainage Comments

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

 

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

 

The subject site is located adjacent to a localised low point and overland flowpaths. The applicant has submitted a flood study for the area and the key findings of the study, (i.e. top water levels), have been adopted. Conditions relating to protection of openings have been included within this report.

 

The Development Engineer is of the opinion that the proposed development effectively increases the width of overland stormwater flow along the eastern edge of the development and the existing laneway. A condition requiring the applicant to create an easement over the proposed pathway along the eastern edge of the development has been included within this report.

 

Traffic Comments

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 13 residential units, (2 with home office), and 2 commercial units/shops will be in the range of 60 to 70 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 7 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Asher Lane or surrounding streets as a result of this development.

 

Conditions relating to the dedication of land to Council for road widening have been included within this report. The Assessment Planner is advised that, given the requirement within this report for dedication of land along the Havelock Avenue site frontage, the development Engineer would support the encroachment over the new Havelock Avenue’ boundary (post dedication) of the proposed balconies.

 

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

 

The driveway opening at the Asher Lane site frontage must be a minimum of 5.6 metres wide. The internal driveway away from the street alignment shall be in general accordance with the driveway detail shown on sheet S82A 101 Rev B.

 

The entry/exit point is in Asher Lane and it is recommended that the driveway be constructed as wide as possible at the kerb line without increasing the number of Asher Lane’ parking spaces lost (if possible). The relevant Australian Standards would allocate 6.2 metres for a parallel parking space. Currently parking is banned in Asher Lane for a distance of 6.4 metres from the corner of Dudley Street and Asher Lane. The new vehicular crossing in Asher Lane could therefore extend to a distance of 12.6 metres from the intersection of Asher Lane and Dudley Street without the loss of more than one on-street parking space. Even allowing for a lower figure for a parallel parking space, (e.g. 5.5 metres as opposed to 6.2 metres) it appears that only one on-street parking space will be lost. Conditions relating to the submission of turning manoeuvres to accurately determine the final vehicular crossing design have been included within this report.

 

Parking provision

The development application is for construction of 13 residential units, 2 commercial shops and 2 home offices. The Development Engineer has calculated a parking demand using Council’s DCP-Parking of 21 spaces. There will be a loss of parking in Asher Lane of 1 space minimum. The applicant has provided 21 spaces and therefore is generally compliant with the DCP-Parking. Comments on allocation of spaces have been left with the Assessment Planner.

 

The subject development site is close to public transport and therefore could support a minor departure from the DCP-Parking provision. It should also be noted that the existing site has no off-street parking provision.

 

Carpark layout -

The vehicular access and ground level carparking (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004. The subject application proposes 2 levels of parking, (ground floor and basement) with a connecting ramp. The entry/exit manoeuvres required to use the connecting ramp are very tight and Council received detailed turning manoeuvres from a suitably qualified consultant to demonstrate the suitability of the ramp. Council has included conditions ensuring that the construction certificate plans adequately address Council’s concerns about the design of the carpark and inter-connecting ramp.

 

The inter-connecting ramp would be easier to enter/exit if the vehicular crossing in Asher Lane was located to the north of the development site however it is the Development Engineer’s understanding that the Assessment Planner and the elected Council did not support this location when considering the original Development Application 364/2008.

 

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.

 

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

 

Awning Comments

The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath in Havelock Avenue to the underside of the proposed awning shall be 3.0 metres. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath in Havelock Avenue to the underside of any proposed under awning sign shall be 2.6 metres. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

All new awnings shall be set back a minimum of 600mm from the face of kerb. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:”

 

Comments

No objections are raised by the development engineer against the amended Section 82A application, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

6.2    Building Services Comments

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services provided the following comments in relation to the original development application, which remain valid and applicable to the amended Section 82A review proposal:

 

“The Proposal

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing buildings located upon the site and construction of a new 4 storey mixed residential and commercial development.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class        -      6      (Retail/Shops)

Class -      2      (Residential units)

Class        -      7a    (Carpark)

 

Background

The existing building on site is a post war single storey brick dwelling with 4 shops attached to the front at the Havelock Ave alignment bounded by buildings of a similar nature.

 

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:

The proposal appears to demonstrate compliance with the BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the ground floor shops and sanitary facilities for people with a disability are also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of the BCA.

 

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

 

Recommendation

Should the approval be granted to the application, the following conditions should be included in the development consent.”

 

6.3    Environmental Health Comments

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services provided the following comments in relation to the original development application, which remain valid and applicable to the amended Section 82A review proposal:

 

“Further to the Environmental Health request for additional information (dated 3 June 2008) which has not been submitted, there was insufficient information provided with the application to determine whether the previous land use was used for an activity listed in Table 1 (Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines 1998). As the development application has been lodged, any contamination identified onsite cannot be dealt with as Category 2 remediation.

 

The application has been further reviewed and the key issues discussed, it has been determined between Kerry Kyriacou (Manager Development Assessments), Roman Wereszczynski (Manager Health Building & Regulatory Services) & myself that the proposal can be approved with the provision and use of Deferred Commencement Consent pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In this regards, the key issues will be addressed and any requirements will be incorporated in the consent.

 

The consent does not become operative until the applicant has satisfied the requirements listed in Schedule ‘A’ of the consent. Upon compliance with the issues under Schedule ‘A’ and written confirmation from Council to that effect, then the consent shall become operative from a ‘date of endorsement’ subject to the conditions listed in Schedule ‘B’ and any additional conditions arising from the requirement of Schedule ‘A’.

 

The proposal

The existing site subject 55 Dudley Street, Coogee consists of a single storey residential building which backs on to four (4) single storey commercial buildings. The proposal involves demolition of the existing development and the construction of a mixed use residential and commercial development compromising thirteen (13) residential apartments, two (2) ground floor home offices, two (2) commercial premises, thirteen (13) car spaces and a central courtyard.”

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

Clause 40A(1) of RLEP 1998 provides that consent may be granted to a development application made in respect of a site consisting of more than 4,000m2 only if:

 

(a)    a master plan has been adopted, and

(b)    the consent authority is satisfied that the development is not inconsistent with the provisions of that master plan.

 

The site has a land area of approximately 727 sqm and therefore a master plan is not required.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The Section 82A Review application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

8.1         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the proposed activity (mix-used development) is prohibited within the zone. Despite this prohibition, the site enjoys existing use rights in the form of the existing shops on-site which were granted approval by Council in 1965 (as confirmed from Council’s record). The applicant has also provided evidence with the original DA application that the purposed-built buildings on-site have been in existence on the site since 1943 and, as such, pre-dates the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance. The existing use was later prohibited when the land was zoned Residential 2C by the Randwick LEP 1998. Additionally, the applicant advises that the existing building has been continuously used since its construction and that therefore the existing use has never been abandoned

 

Section 108(3) of the Act provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate from the “incorporated provisions” of the Act would have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument that would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims, objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

Clause 108(1) of the Act also enables regulations to be made for, or in respect to, existing uses which are contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Relevantly, Clause 41(1) of the Regulation provides that an existing use may be enlarged, expanded or intensified.

 

9.         Policy Controls

 

The following Council policy controls may be used as a guide in assessing the proposed development:

 

DCP – Multi-unit Housing

DCP – Parking

 

Accordingly, relevant provisions of these policies and DCPs have been applied in assessing the amended proposal.

 

10.     Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

10.1   Statutory Controls – S79C(1)(a)

 

10.1.1   EP&A Act 1979 - Section 82A Review

The applicant advises that the Section 82A application seeks to amend the original proposal so as to address Council’s reasons for refusal of the original DA and that, in doing so, the amended development will be substantially the same as that proposed in the original application. The merits of the applicant’s response to each reason for refusal are addressed as follows:

 

“1.       The proposal would comprise the amenity of the surrounding residential area in terms of visual bulk and scale, overshadowing, privacy and loss of views.”

 

Applicant’s response: “The proposed gross floor area (essentially) will remain the same as that of the scheme presented to the Planning Committee. The minor rearrangement of the gross floor area and deck areas of same units will not result in any increase to the visual bulk or scale of any parts of the building.

 

The previous changes to provide the increased setback of Apartments 11 and 13 from the western boundary and the change to the roof angle and reduction to the floor levels remain in place. The scheme has minimised the overall height, bulk and scale of the development, and visual dominance, particularly presented to Dudley Street. Material supplied with the previous application demonstrated that view corridors were protected and that the scheme was an appropriate outcome in terms of view retention.”

 

Council comments: The amenity impacts of the proposed development in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and views have all been addressed in:

 

·      Section 5.1 above which provides responses to amenity concerns raised by objectors in public submissions to the notification and advertising of the DA

 

·      Sections 10.3.2.1 and 10.3.2.2 below 

 

Essentially, the assessment in these sections indicates that:

 

·      In terms of overshadowing, the proposal will not overshadow adjoining properties for more than 3 hours in the winter solstice as adjoining properties located to the west and east of the subject site will be free of overshadowing with the natural shift in the shadow of the building from winter morning, through to midday and afternoon. There is no adjoining property directly south of the proposed building that will be overshadowed to less than the minimum 3 hours solar exposure required under the DCP – Multi-unit housing. Overshadowing impacts are further assisted by generous buffer distances to nearby dwellings. No north facing windows, outdoor living spaces or solar collectors are affected.

 

·      In terms of privacy, generous separation distances of 10m to the adjoining western building and 22m to the closest southern building will mitigate any loss of privacy to these properties. The adjoining building to the east, while separated by a minimum 3m from the proposed building, will not be directly overlooked by any balconies or living room/habitable windows in the east elevation. However, the north facing balconies for apartments 5, 10 and 13 require a privacy screen on the eastern aspect. This is included as a condition in the recommendation.

 

·      In terms of views, there is some ocean view loss currently available from the new apartments in the adjoining western property at No. 47-53 Dudley Street. Sight lines over the subject site make this view-loss inevitable. However, the applicant has lowered the maximum roof-ridge height over the middle portion of the building aligned north-south and containing Apartments 3, 8 and 12. The reduction in this middle portion from the original maximum of 12.5m (at RL 40.6) to a maximum 12m (at RL 40.1 as recommended in the deferred commencement condition in the original DA assessment) complies with the maximum building height control and effectively makes the view loss to upper floor dwelling units in No 47-53 Dudley Street less severe than that caused by the original DA proposal. Only one objection has been received in relation to view loss impacts in response to the notification/advertising of the amended Section 82A Review proposal. This was received from the residents of Unit 9/47-53 Dudley. An assessment of the objection in Section 10.3.2.2 below, indicates that the view loss to Unit 9 will be unavoidable given the mid-floor location of the unit in relation to the subject site. However, the assessment has applied the planning principles established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council in evaluating this view loss which finds that the existing views available to unit 9 are non-iconic, distant ocean views obtained in an oblique view across a side boundary such that loss of this view is considered to be moderate and acceptable.

 

·      In terms of bulk and scale, the amended proposal represents an improved proposal in that :

 

·      It will have a maximum building height 50mm lower than the original building height in the sections of the building aligned east-west and containing Apartments 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 on the northern side and Apartments 4, 5, 9, 10 and 13 on the southern side. The maximum building height in these sections will be 12.45m (RL 40.55) to the roof pitch compared with maximum 12.5m at RL 40.6 in the original proposal.

 

·      It will have a maximum building height 500mm lower than the original building height in the middle section of the building aligned north-south and containing Apartments 3, 8 and 12. This will not only make the building compliant with the applicable maximum 12m building height control in this middle section, but also result in a visual bulk and scale that would be compatible with that of the existing mixed use developments in the street.

 

Overall, the proposed building will not be visually intrusive nor overbearing to neighbouring properties. Rather, as observed in the assessment of the original DA, the proposed building will be comparable with the mass, scale and placement of existing building forms in Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street and, seen from these streets, the proposal would read as an extension of the massing of these existing buildings. Additionally, the amended proposal has a lower FSR of 1.52:1 (1111.4 sqm GFA) compared with the original FSR of 1.55:1 (1124.6 sqm GFA) which also contributes towards a reduction in bulk and scale of the proposed building.

 

Overall the amenity impacts of the amended Section 82A review proposal are considered reasonable and acceptable given the design and layout of the proposed development relative to adjoining and surrounding uses, and the merits of the amended proposal having regard to objectives of the Randwick LEP 1998, the relevant DCP and relevant planning principles.

 

2.         The proposal would be likely adversely impact on the parking capacity of the surrounding street network due to the deficiency in on site car parking.

Applicant’s response: “One of the main issues of contention raised by the Planning Committee related to the amount of on-site carparking…The amended scheme proposes more spaces than the required number of spaces based on the calculations provided in Table 1 (DCP Parking Rates & Proposed Parking). The (associated) spaces, new ramp, aisle widths and wider entry/exit have been designed with reference to AS2890.1.”

 

Council comments: The amended proposal includes the provision of a new basement carpark in addition to the ground level carpark provided in the original proposal, yielding a total of 21 carspaces. Table 1 in the applicant’s Section 82A review statement indicates compliance of the new carparking provision with the numerical requirements of the DCP – Parking. The provision of the new basement carpark addresses one of the reasons for refusal of the original DA. Accordingly, the amended proposal now meets Council’s requirements with regard to resident, commercial and visitor parking provision consistent with DCP - Parking.

 

3.         The proposed driveway access to Asher Street is unsuitable given its narrowness and results in the loss of on street car parking.

Applicant’s response: “Another issue of contention with the original scheme considered by the Planning Committee related to the location of the vehicular entry/exit point…The Committee indicated that an amended vehicular entry/exit point closer to Dudley Street would be supported.

 

The amended scheme proposes to relocate the entry/exit point closer to Dudley Street, as preferred by the Planning Committee, as well as widening the entry to address the exit and entry turning movements and minimum kerb width requirement raised by Council’s Development Engineer.

 

Council’s comments: The Section 82A review proposal provides for a new location of the proposed carpark entry/exit driveway closer to Dudley Street. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed this new location especially in relation to the internal interconnecting ramp between the ground floor level and the basement carpark. The development engineer raises no objections to the new location of the entry/exit point closer to Dudley Street subject to conditions to ensure that the design of the entry/exit point is consistent with the interconnecting ramp in relation to turning manoeuvres.

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed development will be in the range of 60 to 70 vehicle movements per day equivalent to an expected peak flow volume of approximately 7 vehicles per hour. This flow is considered low and can be accommodated in Asher Lane without any major delays or congestion.

 

Furthermore, conditions relating to the dedication of land to Council for road widening at the splays of Asher Lane and Havelock Avenue as well as along Havelock Avenue will be applied to improve access and sight-lines in and out of, and along, Asher Lane. Additionally, Council’s development engineer has required that the driveway opening at the Asher Lane site frontage be a minimum of 5.6 metres wide and that the internal driveway away from the street alignment be constructed in general accordance with additional driveway detail provided by the applicant on 4 September 2009 (Plan No. S82A 101 Rev B) to show minimal queuing of traffic in Asher Lane.

 

As indicated in section 6.1 above, Council’s development engineer has assessed that only one street carparking will be lost as a result of the proposed vehicular access to the new basement carpark. As is typical in any development involving opening of new driveways, loss of on-street carparking is often unavoidable. However, this loss should be balanced against the proposal’s provision of a new basement carpark that will allow all residential and commercial tenancy parking to be provided on-site. In this context, the loss of one on-street carparking space is reasonable and acceptable in order for the development to achieve a reasonable level of internal carparking which if not met, would put significantly more pressure and impact on existing on-street carparking in local streets in the area. Moreover, the provision of the new basement carpark addresses one of the reasons for refusal of the original DA. 

 

4.         The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest having regard to the public submissions received.

Applicant’s response: “The scheme has minimised the overall height, bulk and scale of the development, and visual dominance, particularly presented to Dudley Street. Material supplied with the previous application demonstrated that view corridors were protected and that the scheme was an appropriate outcome in terms of view retention.”

 

Council’s comments: The Notification and advertising of the original DA resulted in 26 public submissions received compared with 7 submissions received for the current amended Section 82A review proposal. The issues raised in the current submissions have also been raised in the submissions made in relation to the original Development Application No.364/2008 application which were comprehensively addressed in the previous planning report to the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 2 December 2008. Notwithstanding this, all issues raised in the latest 7 submissions received for the Section 82A review have been addressed in the context of the 82A review as outlined in Section 5.1 above.

 

As indicated in Section 10.6 below, the proposed development will be in the public interest as it will result in an appropriate use (ie., a mixed use development) that will be compatible in the locality in terms of land-use, scale, design and amenity. In particular, the concerns raised as a matter of public interest in the notification/advertising process of the Section 82A review proposal have been adequately assessed in Section 5.1, 10.3.2.1 and 10.3.2.2 of this report. The assessment indicates that the amenity impacts of the proposal will be reasonable and acceptable. Where appropriate, conditions have been applied to mitigate any potentially adverse amenity impacts.

 

10.1.2                 Planning principle for existing use rights   

The Land and Environment Court has established a planning principle outlined in Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council (2005) 141 LGERA 14 which sets out the criteria for the assessment of proposals on land with existing use rights. The original planning assessment included a sound and comprehensive assessment of the original DA proposal against this planning principle. The findings of this assessment are equally valid to the amended Section 82A review proposal, given that the amended proposal represents an improvement in terms of FSR, building  height and carparking. It is not proposed to re-iterate all the elements of the original assessment in this report except to draw salient features of that assessment to apply to the amended proposal as follows:

 

Principle 1: How do the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to what is permissible on surrounding sites?

 

The amended proposal has a maximum building height of 12.45m in the winged section of the building aligned east-west on the northern and southern sides, and 12m in the middle connecting section of the building aligned north-south (12m max building height standard); external wall height of up to 11.17m (10m max external wall height standard); floor space ratio is 1.52:1 (0.9:1 max FSR standard); and landscaped area is 36% (50% min landscaped area standard). The proposed development is in breach of the LEP development standards that would ordinarily apply on surrounding sites. However, the form of the development is considered to be comparable and to have a positive relationship with the existing building forms in Havelock Avenue and Street and Dudley Street for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed building will be modern and contemporary with a solid base comprising retail shopfronts to Havelock Avenue and home offices to Dudley Street to continue the existing theme of similar ground retail/commercial uses in these streets; a middle comprising face-brick super-structure at levels 1 and 2 suitably articulated and modulated to match the appearance and form of older shop-top residential flat buildings in the street resulting in a superior streetscape fit; and a top level comprising a top-floor apartments constructed of different materials/textures (contributing to approximately 36% of the overall floor area) suitably set backed at least 2m from all 3 street frontages so that it cannot be seen from street level immediately in front of the site.

 

·      The building height is to be lowered to a maximum of 12m (at RL 40.1) in the middle connecting section of the building aligned north-south which will comply with the building height standard. This is will ensure the building will be no higher than future buildings on nearby lots and will improve its amenity impact on adjoining properties as discussed in sections 10.3.2.1 and 10.3.2.2 below.

 

·      The building will have setbacks to Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street comparable to buildings to the east. Footpaths and awnings will be a continuation of the established streetscape.

 

·      The proposed podium courtyard includes 1m deep planter boxes and these are adequate to support medium sized trees comprising an olive tree, an ornamental plum tree and a fig. There are also 2 flame trees in deep-soil adjacent to the eastern boundary. Accordingly, these plantings will assist in softening the bulk and scale of the building and breaking the mass of the building. The proposed courtyard will also facilitate ventilation between buildings and for the proposed units.

 

Principles 2: What is the relevance of the building in which the existing use takes place?

The existing buildings are to be demolished, such that they have no relevance to the proposal. These buildings are low-scaled in nature and appear somewhat incongruous in the context of the massing, scale and placement of extant building forms in Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street. As indicated above, the height and scale of the proposed building will better match the form and scale of existing development in these streets than the existing buildings on-site. Additionally, the amended proposal improves on the development in the original application in terms of FSR and building height resulting in better compatibility with, and greater amenity for, existing adjoining and surrounding development. The amended proposal is also considered to respond to the site conditions adequately and reasonably.

 

Principle 3: What are the impacts on adjoining land?

The building is considered to be comparable to a non existing-use rights development. In this regard it generally satisfies the performance requirements in Council’s Multi-unit Housing DCP for solar access, privacy, view-sharing, safety and security. Specifically:

 

·      Overshadowing impacts are assisted by generous buffer distances to nearby dwellings. There is 3m to the east, 22m to the south, and 10m to the west. No north facing windows, outdoor living spaces or solar collectors are affected.

 

·      Balconies are typically separated from other living spaces by at least 10m. The north facing balconies for apartments 5, 10 and 13 require a privacy screen on the eastern aspect. This is included as a condition in the recommendation.

 

·      View sharing is considered under Section 10.3.2.2.3 below and is found to be acceptable. There is some view loss from the new apartments at 47-53 Dudley Street. Sight lines over the subject site make this view-loss inevitable. However, the lowering of the building height to comply with the maximum building height standard in the middle section of the proposed building will ameliorate view loss in a major section of the building that affects the outlook of upper floor units at No. 47-53 Dudley Street.

 

·      Casual surveillance of communal areas is good. There are no entrapment or concealment areas. Access to the building is secure. Communal and private outdoor spaces are well delineated. Pedestrian and vehicular movement corridors are clear and unambiguous.       

 

Principle 4: What is the internal amenity?

The internal amenity of the proposed building is considered to be good and reasonable compared with other non existing use rights development in the locality especially in respect of the following:

 

·      The building satisfies BASIX requirements for water and energy efficiency, and thermal comfort.

 

·      All apartments have dual aspect. Apartments are compact and laid out efficiently. Cross ventilation is good.

 

·      Solar performance is assisted by generous buffer distances to other buildings. 8 of 13 apartments enjoy excellent northerly orientation. A further 3 apartments are aligned to receive morning and afternoon sun. Operable shade-screens protect living spaces from the afternoon sun. Only 2 of 13 apartments have less than ideal solar access and this is acceptable.

 

·      Each unit enjoys a private outdoor balcony of at least 10.5m2 and it is connected directly to an internal living space. There is a podium courtyard providing a communal landscaped space.

 

·      Carparking for all residents, shops and visitors will be met on-site with the provision of 21 dedicated carparking spaces in the new basement and proposed ground floor carpark.

 

·      Bin storage is accessible to all units and the street. Dedicated storage is limited although there are built-in wardrobes in each bedroom, and generous kitchen storage areas. There are conditions in the recommendation that require external services and facilities such as down-pipes and television aerials to be concealed from view.

 

·      The amended proposal was referred to the SEPP 65 Panel and the Panel has reviewed the plans on several previous occasions, each contributing incrementally towards maximising improvements to the internal amenity of the proposal. Most of the Panel’s recommendations have been satisfied as indicated in both the assessment of the original DA and in this current assessment.

 

Having regard to the above assessment of the planning principle, the proposed amended building is considered to have merit and satisfies the Land and Environment Court’s planning principle for existing use rights development.

 

10.1.3        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

10.1.3.1    Clause 9 - Objectives

Clause 9 of RLEP 1998 requires Council to consider the aims of the LEP and Zone objectives prior to determining any DA on land to which the RLEP applies. While the proposed mixed use development is prohibited in the Residential 2C zone, the subject site enjoys existing use rights such that the proposed mixed use development can be considered and determined for the site. In this regard the proposal will not compromise the aims of the LEP in relation to aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality and provide a variety of housing types that does not compromise the amenity of the residential area, consistent with the zone objectives.

 

10.1.3.2           Clause 12 – Zone Residential 2C

 Section 108(3) of the Act provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate from the “incorporated provisions” of the Act would have no force or effect when applied to sites with existing use rights. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument that would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims, objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

The objectives of Zone No 2C are:

 

(a)    to allow a variety of housing types within residential areas, and

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

(c)    to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas, and

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

(e)    to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the zone, particularly objectives (a) (c) (d) and (e). In this regard, the proposal will provide for a mix of apartments of varying sizes in terms of floor area and number of bedrooms as per objective (a); the residential component of the proposal appropriately comprises a medium density housing development which has been designed to minimise impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties (as assessed in Section 10.3.2.2 of this report) in line with objective (c); the proposal will allow for people to work from home in the ground floor apartments containing home offices as per objective (d); and the proposal will contribute towards the overall mix of housing types in the locality which will in turn promote housing affordability as per objective (e). Additionally, the proposal is not contrary to objective (b).

 

The amended proposal, in fact, proposes changes to address the reasons for refusal of the original DA which, as assessed in Section 10.1 above, all result in an improvement in the overall proposal. In particular, the amended proposal has provided for carparking in a new basement carpark; reduced the floor area in relevant parts of the proposed development, and the overall building height, so as to reduce its overall visual bulk and scale and improve amenity impacts to adjoining properties. In doing so, the amended proposal has assisted in drawing the proposed development even closer to the objectives (a),(c) (d) and (e) of the Residential 2C zone and will not detract from the character of the area.

 

It should be noted that apart from improving the carparking situation, there will be no increase in visual bulk or scale relative to the existing buildings in Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street as assessed in the original report to Council. Accordingly, the amended development has considered the surrounding context and desired future character of the 2C zone and despite numeric non-compliance with the density standard achieves a form that is consistent with the desired future character of the zone. Overall, the amended proposal is satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives of the 2C zone.

 

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

SEPP No. 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. Site remediation issues have been addressed by Council’s environmental health officer in Section 6.3 above.

 

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

SEPP No. 65 applies to the subject proposal and the original proposal submitted under DA/364/2008 was referred to the Design Review Panel for comment. The amended Section 82A Review proposal was also referred to the Panel in July 2009 and the Panel’s comments are addressed in Section 10.3.2.1 below.

 

10.2  Policy Controls– Section 79C(1)(a)

 

10.2.1                 DCP – Multi-unit Housing

Relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing have been applied as guide in assessing the amended proposal throughout this report. 

 

10.2.2                 DCP – Carparking

The provision of a new basement carpark in conjunction with the ground floor carpark satisfactorily meets the requirement of Council’s DCP – Planning as indicated below:

 

Compliance with DCP – Parking

Use

Requirement (DCP – Parking)

Proposed number and/or floor area

Required provision

Proposed provision

 

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

8 x one bedroom dwellings

8 spaces

 

 

21 carspaces

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

5 x two bedroom dwellings

6 spaces

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 13

3 spaces

 

Business premises:

1 per 40m2 GFA

 

2 spaces

Total

 

 

19 spaces

21 spaces

 

The proposal as amended complies with the requirements of the DCP – Parking

 

10.2.3         Section 94 Contributions Plan

In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, the monetary levy shown in table 3 must be paid to Council.

 

Table 3 - Section 94A Contributions

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

Contribution

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$4,623,029.00

1.0%

46,230.29

 

10.2.4         Contaminated Land Policy, 1999

 Council’s Contaminated Land Policy applies to the site and has been addressed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer in section 6.1.

 

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

 

10.3.1  Natural Environmental Impacts

The subject site is located in an existing built-up area close to the Coogee Bay commercial centre and, as such, there are no threatened species, populations or ecological communities or habitats that would be affected by the proposed development within, or in the vicinity of, the development site.

 

10.3.2  Built Environmental Impacts

 

10.3.2.1                       Urban Design

The changes proposed by the applicant in the Section 82A application to address the reasons for refusal of the DA generally result in a building of similar visual bulk and scale, improved design and outcome for the proposed development as described in the relevant sections above. The amended proposal has resulted in a reduction in the building height of the proposal from that of the original proposal by 50mm in the winged northern and southern sections and by 500mm in the middle connecting section of the proposed building. This has the effect of reducing the overall height of the proposed building such that it would be compliant with the maximum 12m building height control in the middle section (as intended in the original DA assessment) but also reducing the visual bulk and scale of the overall proposal making it even more compatible with existing mixed use developments in Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street. Accordingly, as a confirmation of the assessment made of the original DA, the proposed building will be comparable with the mass, scale and placement of existing building forms in Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street, and seen from the street, the proposal would read as an extension of the massing of these existing buildings.

 

The proposal includes a podium courtyard to facilitate ventilation between buildings and for the proposed units. This central courtyard assists also in softening the bulk and scale of the building with landscaping and by breaking the mass of the building.

 

Under the provisions of SEPP 65, the Design Review Panel reviewed the Section 82A review proposal in July 2009. The Panel provided the following comments (in italics), followed by Council’s comments wherever necessary:

 

“This is a Section 96 Application. The Panel supported the Development Application for this site in June 2008 in the following terms: 

 

‘It is the Panel’s view that this is an excellent proposal.  Subject to confirmation that the height exceedance, resulting largely from the need to raise the ground floor above flood level, does not have undue impacts, it is commended in its entirety to Council.’

 

The Panel notes that adjustments have been made to the design to reduce the overall height of the building.  Provision has been made for additional parking.  Other adjustments made to the design are consistent with SEPP 65 principles.

 

The Panel accordingly commends the application to Council.”

 

Council’s Comment: The original proposal has been assessed intensively by the Panel in June 2008, as described in the assessment report of the original proposal to the Planning Committee Meeting on 2 December 2008. Accordingly, the succinct nature of the Panel’s comments reflect that the issues raised previously by the Panel have now been satisfactorily addressed. In particular, the reduction in building height of this Section 82A Review proposal from the original proposal by 50mm in the winged northern and southern sections, and by 500mm in the middle connecting section of the proposed building, will address satisfactorily any remaining concerns regarding building height that the Panel may have.

 

10.3.2.2           Sunlight, Privacy and Views

 

10.3.2.2.1 Sunlight

Shadow diagrams have been provided for the amended proposal which indicate that at 9.00 am in the winter solstice, overshadowing will occur predominantly upon the lower half of the eastern wall of the multi-unit housing building at No. 47-53 Dudley Street and Asher Lane which separates the two buildings. By 12 noon the 47-53 Dudley Street will be free from overshadowing from the proposed development with the proposal wholly overshadowing Dudley Street and part of the internal courtyard of the proposed development. Accordingly, at 12 noon no overshadowing of any adjoining properties will occur. By 3.00 pm, the proposal will overshadow the west elevation of the adjoining eastern property at No. 57 Dudley Street and the 3m wide pedestrian-way between the subject site and No 57 Dudley Street.

 

The amended proposal will have a lower building height; maintain the same setback in the original proposal and a lower FSR. The assessment report of the original DA proposal contained an assessment of the solar access impacts of the proposal on the adjoining western property which found that the proposal was satisfactory with regards to these impacts. The current assessment of the Section 82A proposal confirms that the original assessment of the solar access impacts of the proposal is valid and remains applicable to the amended proposal especially having regard to the improvements in the amended Section 82A review proposal in terms of its height bulk and scale. It is not proposed to re-iterate the original assessment of solar access in this report except to acknowledge the sound and satisfactory nature of the assessment and to quote specific analysis from this assessment in addressing specific objections as undertaken in Section 5.1 above. Generally, it should be noted that the height of the proposed building will not cause significant overshadowing to surrounding buildings. Furthermore, the reduction in building height of this Section 82A Review proposal from that of the original proposal by 50mm in the winged northern and southern sections, and by 500mm in the middle connecting section of the proposed building, would serve to further mitigate the overshadowing impact on adjoining properties.

 

Overall the proposal’s shadow impact on adjoining properties is considered to be reasonable and acceptable in context of the surrounding area.

 

10.3.2.2.2 Privacy

The assessment report of the original DA proposal contained an adequate assessment of the privacy impacts of the proposal which found that the proposal was satisfactory with regards to these impacts subject to, in some cases, conditions. The current assessment of the Section 82A proposal confirms that the original assessment of the privacy impacts is valid and remains applicable to the amended proposal. It is not proposed to re-iterate the original assessment of privacy impacts in this report except to reinforce the following points:

 

·      The western edges of living room balconies will have separation distances of min 10m to the adjoining western property at No 47-55 Dudley street which are commensurate with the minimum separation distance for mitigating privacy loss to adjoining properties under the preferred solution of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing.

 

·      The living room balconies that are proposed with less than 10m separation to the adjoining eastern properties (at No. 57 Dudley Street) occur only from the eastern side of north-facing balconies to apartments 5, 10 and 13. As such, these north-facing balconies for proposed apartments 5, 10 and 13 will be require to be provided with a privacy screen on the eastern aspect. This is included as a condition in the recommendation

 

·      The balconies linked to bedrooms are not considered to be areas of high traffic and therefore are not anticipated to be conducive to, nor result in, unreasonable overlooking and loss of privacy to adjoining properties.

 

·      No windows to living areas are proposed in the east elevation of the proposed development which will be less than 10m separation distance from the adjoining eastern properties.

 

Overall, the proposal will be acceptable in terms of privacy for the reasons discussed above.

 

10.3.2.2.3 Loss of views

The assessment report of the original DA proposal contained a comprehensive assessment of view loss raised in the objections of adjoining and surrounding residents. The original assessment found the original proposal satisfactory with regards to these view impacts and this current assessment of the Section 82A review proposal supports and confirms this finding given that the Section 82A proposal is an improvement on the original proposal in terms of FSR and building height.

 

Specifically, the original assessment of the view impacts is valid and remains applicable to the amended proposal in that the proposal has reduced the overall height of the building by 500mm in the middle section of the proposed building making this section compliant with the 12m building height standard (and consistent with the deferred commencement condition recommended in the original DA assessment). This lowering of the building height will occur over the length of the middle section which is approximately 19.4m long such that there will be significant amelioration in view loss over this major section of the building resulting in an improvement in the outlook of upper floor units at No. 47-53 Dudley Street. 

 

Additionally, as is evident from the photographic record from the original DA assessment below, the existing views available to No 80 Dudley Street and apartments in No. 10 Alexander Street primarily comprise non-iconic, distant ocean views obtained in an oblique direction across side boundaries with these properties located some considerable distance from the subject site so that the overall view loss is considered to be moderate and acceptable having regard to the view loss planning principles established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140:


 

Table  Main views from objector’s properties

80 Dudley St - Terrace

80 Dudley St – Terrace

18/10 Alexander St - Balcony

27/10 Alexander St - Balcony

12/47-53 Dudley St – Roof terrace

12/47-53 Dudley St - Balcony

 

Only one objection regarding loss of views has been received in relation to the amended plans (compared with 5 received for the original application) from the owner of unit 9/47-53 Dudley Street. Specifically, the following assessment is made of the potential view loss for unit 9/47-53, having regard to the planning principles for assessing view loss established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140:

 

Step 1 :   The view comprises a distant vista of the ocean and horizon heavily obstructed by built elements in the foreground, and as such, not a significant or iconic view of a specific item of interest (see photo below).

 


Photo: Distant ocean view from balcony of unit

9/47-53 Dudley Street looking east-north-east.

 

Step 2:    The view is obtained in an oblique direction across the western side boundary of the subject site. The proposed building has been designed to match the height of the existing row of mixed used buildings in the Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street block as well as the 4 storey building in which the objectors’ dwelling unit is contained. An assessment of the view loss indicates that any retention of the objector’s views would require deletion of two floors from this prescribed envelope which is considered unreasonable especially given the non-iconic nature of the views and considering that the amended proposal now results in a compliant building height over the middle section of the proposed building running north-south.

 

Step 3:    Unit 9/47-53 Dudley St would lose the whole of its view of the ocean and horizon as a result of the proposed development. While the residents of unit 9/47-53 Dudley Street place a high value upon these distant ocean views, the loss of these views as a result of the proposed development is considered to be moderate given the “non-iconic” quality of these views and their existence as oblique distant views as discussed above. Furthermore, as discussed in the original assessment, the views available to unit 9/47-53 Dudley Street are incidental to the layout and orientation of the objectors’ unit. Accordingly, the loss of this view as a result of the proposed development is considered acceptable and reasonable.

 

Step 4 :   The proposed building has been designed to match the height of the existing of row of mixed used buildings in the Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street block as well as the 4 storey building in which the objectors’ dwelling unit is contained. In this context, the application of multi-unit housing setbacks in the proposed building (to preserve views) is not considered appropriate.  Views from the balcony of unit 9/47-53 Dudley Street would encounter a typical building envelope on the subject site prescribed by the applicable controls (in this case the envelope comprises, in part, the compliant middle section of the proposed development) such that the views cannot be protected.

 

Overall, the amenity impacts of the amended proposal in terms of solar access, privacy and views is essentially the same as that of the original proposal in that these impacts will be reasonable and acceptable having regard also to the fact that the amended proposal is an improvement over the original proposal in terms of the reduced FSR and building height.

 


10.3.3                 Traffic and access

The applicant’s traffic study submitted with the amended application addresses the access arrangements for the new basement carpark while noting that the original assessment of the traffic generation from the proposed development remains unchanged as the total number of residential units and shops in the amended proposal is the same as the original. Accordingly, the proposed development will have an average traffic generation (residential development consisting of 13 residential units, (2 with home office), and 2 commercial units/shops) in the range of 60 to 70 vehicle movements per day. This equates to an expected peak flow volume of approximately 7 vehicles per hour which is considered low such that no delays should be experienced in Asher Lane or surrounding streets as a result of this development. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the traffic and parking study and considers the report to be a satisfactory assessment of the likely impacts.

 

Overall, the increase in traffic generation in the proposed development is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network and intersections nor on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding

 

10.3.4           Ecologically Sustainable Development

The proposed development will be well served by public buses along Havelock Avenue and nearby Arden Street linking the subject site to the CBD, Railway Square, and locally to Coogee and Randwick Junction, as well as institutional uses in the LGA. The proposal would assist in encouraging the use of public transport in line with ESD principles.

 

The applicant has provided a BASIX assessment of the amended proposal in accordance with BASIX modelling requirements which indicates compliance with the targets for multi-unit housing for water saving, energy consumption and Thermal comfort. Specifically, the proposal achieves good cross-ventilation and dual aspects for all dwelling units; and will include appropriate energy efficiency and water conservation measures.

 

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

 

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

The subject site is zoned Residential 2C. While mix-use development is not a permissible use in the zoning, the subject site enjoys the benefits of existing use rights pursuant to Sections 106 to 108 of the EP&A Act. Accordingly the proposal as amended can be considered for the subject site. In addition, the regular size, area and even topography of the subject site, makes it suitable for a medium density mix-use development commensurate with that existing in the streetscape on Havelock Avenue and Dudley Street. The subject site is also close to the centres of Coogee and Randwick Junction, as well as, institutional uses in the LGA so that the subject site is appropriate for the scale of urban consolidation proposed.

 

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

The Section 82A application was notified and advertised between 18 January 2006 and 1 February 2006. The issues raised in submissions to this notification/advertising process have been addressed in relevant sections of this report as indicated in Section 5 above.

 

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

The proposed development will be in the public interest as it will result in an appropriate use (ie., a mixed use development) that will be compatible in the locality in terms of land-use, scale, design and amenity as assessed in Sections 5.1, 10.3.2.1 and 10.3.2.2 of this report.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development, integrated transport and land use    .

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development, integrating transport and pedestrian links between town centres and key locations.     

 

12.       Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13.       Conclusion

 

The Section 82A review proposal is for a 4 storey mixed-use building with 13 apartments, 2 home offices and 2 commercial units. There is a secure basement and ground level carpark for 21 cars.

 

The proposal is permissible under existing use rights and satisfies the Land and Environment Court planning principle for merit assessment of existing use rights development.

 

It is considered that the scale and form of the proposed development in its amended form in the Section 82A application is appropriate on the site given the existing predominantly mixed use, and medium to high density residential, character of the locality. The development proposes a building envelope, height, and landscaping treatment that generally meet the criteria and fulfil the objectives contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and Council’s Development Control Plans. In particular, the reduction in the building height of the proposal (from that of the original proposal) by 50mm in the winged northern and southern sections and by 500mm in the middle connecting section of the proposed building effectively reduces the visual bulk and scale of the overall proposal and ameliorates amenity impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties in terms of overshadowing and loss of views.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties and the redevelopment of the site under existing-use rights provisions will not exacerbate impacts. A merits based assessment of the proposal has been made and the proposed building form is considered to be appropriate on the site given the character of the area, the objectives and zoning of the site contained within the RLEP 1998. Accordingly, the application for review is supported and deferred commencement approval of the development application is recommended, subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council’s original determination of Development Application No. 568/2005 dated 19 December 2005 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of 4 storey mixed use development comprising 2 commercial tenancies, 2 home offices and 13 carpark spaces at ground level, 13 residential units above, and associated works at 55 Dudley Street, Coogee be rescinded.

 

B.     That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 364/2008 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of 4 storey mixed use development comprising 2 commercial tenancies, 2 home offices and 21 basement and ground level carpark spaces, 13 residential units above, and associated works at 55 Dudley Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent is not to operate until the following documentation has been submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Director, City Planning:

 

Deferred Commencement Condition D1

 

A)       A Preliminary Investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the NSW EPA Guidelines and is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified consultant. The Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation is to identify any past or present potentially contaminating activities and must be provided to Council, in accordance with the Council’s Land Contamination Land Policy. The Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation report is to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Director, City Planning.

 

B)       The report is to be prepared in accordance with Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and relevant Guidelines made or approved by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly EPA), including the Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites and the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) 1999.  Also, as detailed in the Planning Guidelines to SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land, the report is to assess the nature, extent and degree of contamination upon the land. 

 

C)       A written statement is to be provided to the Council from an independent DECC Site Auditor, which confirms that the Site Investigation Report and the Remediation Action Plan / Strategy satisfies the relevant legislative guidelines and requirements and that the land is able to be remediated to the required level and be suitable for the intended development and use.

              

Deferred Commencement Condition D2

 

A)       Should the report referred to above in Deferred Commencement Condition (D1) identify that the land is contaminated, a Detailed Site Investigation & Remediation Action Plan (or strategy) must be undertaken by an independent appropriately qualified environmental consultant in order to provide information on the details and extent on land and ground water contamination and the likely hood of offsite migration of any contamination from the site and details of how the site is to be remediated. 

       

B)       The reports are to be prepared generally in accordance with Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and relevant Guidelines made or approved by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly EPA), including the Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites and the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) 1999 and also as detailed in the Planning Guidelines to SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land.

 

The detailed site investigation report is to assess the nature, extent and degree of contamination on the land.  The detailed site contamination report must be sufficiently detailed.

 

Should the Detailed Site Investigation Report demonstrate that the land and groundwater is not contaminated, the conclusion to the report must clearly state that ‘the land is suitable for its intended land use, posing no immediate or long term risk to public health or the environment and is fit for occupation by persons, together with clear justification for the statement.  The report must demonstrate that any site contamination satisfies the relevant criteria in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999.

 

C)       A Remediation Action Plan or strategy is required to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the commencement of this application. The Plan/Strategy must be generally in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites and include procedures for the following:

 

Removal and disposal of contaminated soil,

Management and containment of contaminated soil,

Cross contamination between un-remediated land and remediated land or other land (including during remediation and construction work),

Excavation of Hydrocarbon-contaminated soil,

Procedures for unexpected finds,

On-site treatment by land farming,

Ground water remediation, monitoring and validation,

Validation sampling and analysis, proposed validation strategies, Site Audit Statement / Reports and EMP to be provided to Council.

 

Deferred Commencement condition D3

 

A written statement is to be provided to the Council by an independent NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) Accredited Site Auditor, which confirms that the Detailed Site Investigation & Remediation Action Plan (or strategy) (as required) satisfy the legislative guidelines and requirements and this deferred commencement condition and that the land is able to be remediated and/or is suitable for the intended use.

 

The detailed investigation, Remediation Action Plan (or strategy) and the written statement by the auditor shall be submitted to the Council to the satisfaction of Council’s Director, City Planning prior to this consent becoming operative. The written concurrence of Council must be obtained before the deferred commencement condition is satisfied.

 

Upon satisfaction of the deferred commencement conditions, the following conditions apply:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered S82A-100, S82A-101, S82A-102, S82A-103, S82A-104, S82A-105, S82A-200, S82A-201, S82A-300, S82A-301, and S82A-302, all Revision D and dated 21/10/09 and received by Council on 22 October 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 satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

3.       There must be no encroachment of the structure/s or associated articles onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

4.       Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway or public place.

 

5.       All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rainwater heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

6.       Street and unit numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

         

          In this regard, an Application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of appropriate street and unit numbers for the development, prior to issuing an occupation certificate.

 

7.       All north-facing balconies in the proposed Units Nos. 5, 10 and 13 shall be installed with a 1.8m high privacy screen along their eastern edge to ensure the privacy of adjoining properties. Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

8.       The enclosure of balconies is prohibited by this consent.

 

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

 

10.     A single common television aerial, and/or satellite dish (having a maximum diameter of 700mm and not located on the front or street elevation of the building) is to be installed to serve the development.