Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 8 December 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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

8 December 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

We humbly beseech you to bestow your blessings upon this Council and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of Randwick and Australia.

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

I would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the land of the Bidjigal people of the Dharwahal Nation.  The Bidjigal people are the traditional owners and custodians of this land and form part of the wider aboriginal nations of the Sydney area.  On behalf of Randwick City Council I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Elders both past and present.”

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 24 November 2009

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Mayoral Minutes

MM95/09   Local Government Chief Officers' Group - Attendance of General Manager at March 2010 Meeting  

 

Urgent Business

 

 

Director City Planning Reports

CP85/09    92 Alison Road, Randwick

CP86/09    1R Marine Parade, Maroubra

CP87/09    45 Military Road, Matraville - Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park

CP88/09    164 Brook Street, Coogee

CP89/09    37 Houston Road, Kingsford

CP90/09    4 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

CP91/09    2 Wolseley Road, Coogee

CP92/09    88 Beach Street, Coogee

CP93/09    124-124A Rainbow Street, Randwick

CP94/09    DA 806/2009 - Solar Research Facility, UNSW, Kensington - Council submission to the JRPP

General Manager's Reports

GM58/09    Affixing of the Council Seal

GM59/09    Invitation to Attend National Sister Cities Annual Conference 2010

GM60/09    Wylies Baths Trust - Request for New Trust Member

GM61/09    Proposed Building Program and Levy  

Director City Services Reports

CS24/09    SLAM Volleyball Tournament - 16 January 2009 at Maroubra Beach

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF59/09    Review of Code of Meeting Practice

GF60/09    Combined (Councillor/Staff) Code of Conduct

GF61/09    Implementation of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

GF62/09    Council Libraries - Operating Hours for the 2009-10 Christmas/New Year period  

 

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM75/09    Notice of Motion from Cr Notley-Smith - Stay Safe Personal Safety Program

NM76/09    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Des Renford Aquatic Centre

NM77/09    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Fitness Trainers

NM78/09    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Seven Year Building Program - Lexington Place Shop Front

NM79/09    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Ku-ring-gai Council WildThings Program

NM80/09    Notice of Motion from Cr Notley-Smith - Title transfer in public housing at Wauhope Crescent, South Coogee  

Closed Session

GM62/09    Tender for Workers Compensation T9/09

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

CS25/09    Tender for Bushland Regeneration Works - T11/09

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

GF63/09    Tender for the Replacement of Core Business Applications - T12/09

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council

8 December 2009

 

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM95/09

 

 

Subject:                  Local Government Chief Officers' Group - Attendance of General Manager at March 2010 Meeting

Folder No:                   F2008/00390

Author:                   Councillor Procopiadis, Mayor     

 

Introduction

 

At its ordinary meeting held 24th June, 2008 Council resolved to endorse the General Manager’s membership application for the Local Government Chief Officers Group. The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the General Manager’s attendance at the next meeting of the group in March 2010 in Dunedin, New Zealand.

 

Issues

 

The Local Government Chief Officers Group is the peak professional development network of Australia and New Zealand Local Government Chief Executives. The objectives of the Local Government Chief Officers Group are:

 

1.  To act as a forum for the exchange of experience and information between Chief Officers to benefit their Councils in particular and local government in general.

2.  To utilise the experience and knowledge of Chief Officers at various government and organisational levels.

3.  To facilitate the professional development and training of Chief Officers.

 

As always, another major benefit of this Group is the opportunity to network one on one with other CEO’s and industry leaders to see exactly how they are dealing with the myriad of challenges currently being faced by local government in both countries

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of travel, accommodation and meals has been allowed for in the 2009/2010 Council training budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Randwick City Council is recognised within the Local Government industry as a leader and an innovator. This ongoing exchange of experiences and information within this leading group will keep Randwick at the forefront of local government and provide exciting opportunities for Council to explore.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council note the General Manager’s attendance at the next meeting of the Local Government Chief Officers Group in March 2010 in Dunedin, New Zealand.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council

8 December 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP85/09

 

 

Subject:                  92 Alison Road, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/392/2008

Author:                   Stuart Harding, Planning Consultant     

 

Proposal:                     Section 82A Review of Council's determination to refuse demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a 5 storey multi-unit housing building containing 17 units, semi-basement level car parking for 24 vehicles and retention of heritage stone wall on boundary and incorporating amendments including deletion of one unit and roof terrace, relocation of solar collectors, new fixed privacy screens and shading devices to north-eastern side of units on level 2 and 3, new horizontal screen and translucent glass balustrade to units, redesign of the units including additional storage, increase balcony depth and removal of walls 

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Dr M G Scarf, Mr C M Scarf & Mrs P A Woods

Owner:                         Dr M G Scarf, Mr C M Scarf & Mrs P A Woods

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

 

North

Locality Plan

 

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

This application seeks a review pursuant to Section 82a of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 of the determination pertaining to development application 392/2008 (DA 392/2008).  The DA proposed a five (5) level multi unit housing development providing 17 units and basement car parking at 92 Alison Road, Randwick.  The application was refused at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 December 2008.  The reasons for refusal were various and included that the development would have adverse impacts on the built form character of the area and provided insufficient view sharing as a result of non-compliance with height and floor space ratio development standards prescribed in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The applicant has amended the proposal and now seeks development consent from council.  The primary amendments include reducing the number of units from seventeen (17) to sixteen (16); reducing the floor space ratio from 0.94:1 to 0.90:1 and reducing the overall building height from 20.6m to 16.41m.  Other amendments include additional articulation on the western (front) elevation to improve the proposal’s interaction with the streetscape; further retention of the existing front boundary sandstone fence and minor adjustments to landscaping content throughout the site.

 

The community was consulted regarding the amended application by means of notification and advertising.  Council received twenty (20) individual submissions and one (1) petition with sixty (60) signatories, some of whom also provided individual submissions.  Both the submissions and petition objected to the proposed development.

 

The amended application remains non – compliant with several development standards prescribed by the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The proposed overall height ranges between 13.30m to 16.41m from natural ground level which remains non-compliant with the 12m maximum overall height limit prescribed by clause 33(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The proposed external wall height also ranges up to 16.41 metres from natural ground level which remains non-compliant with the 10m maximum prescribed by clause 33(4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The application also does not comply with clause 31(3) - Landscaping of the Randwick LEP.  This clause requires that a maximum of 50% of the site’s landscaped area is provided over podiums or excavated basement areas, wherein the proposal includes 58%. 

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal, the subject of the Section 82 assessment, is for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a five (5) storey, multi unit housing development, comprising of 16 units and part basement level car parking for twenty one (21) residential tenant parking spaces and four (4) visitor parking spaces including the retention of the heritage stone wall on the existing boundary.

 

The proposed scheme has been revised such that the Floor Space Ratio has been reduced from 0.94:1 to 0.90:1. The overall height of the proposal has also been reduced by 4.19 metres such that the exceedance of the height control is reduced from 8.6m to 4.41m, but only where the additional floor space was deleted.  The proposal still seeks a variation to the height controls, exceeding the wall height by as much as 6.41m.  The roof structure no longer contains a roof top terrace with a pergola structure and the topmost level has been reduced in length by approximately 6m. The proposal now includes the reconstruction of a significant proportion of the existing front wall using the existing sandstone material.  New planting is proposed in the front garden to match the height of the existing sandstone wall.

 

Despite the amendments, the proposal remains substantially non-compliant with key development standards, particularly those relating to building heights.  The non – compliances result in unacceptable loss of the Sydney City skyline views from various dwellings in the residential flat building at 94 – 96 Alison Road (the adjoining southern property).

 

The applicant now seeks reconsideration of the following reasons for refusal to the original development application.

 

That Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. D/392/2008 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 5 storey multi unit housing building containing 17 units and part basement level car parking for 24 vehicles and retention of heritage stone wall on boundary at 92 Alison Road, Randwick, for the following reasons:-

 

1.     The proposed development does not comply with Clause 32 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 which prescribes the maximum floor space ratio standard, and the SEPP No.1 Objection submitted in relation to this standard is not well founded as the proposed development will have an excessive bulk and scale that detracts from existing predominant character of the development in the local area; adversely affects the visual amenity of the streetscape due to the non-compliant and excessive wall height; detracts from the heritage significance of Randwick Racecourse Heritage Conservation Area; and results in a development that will adversely affect the amenity of adjoining and surrounding residential uses including loss of views and privacy.

 

2.     The proposed development does not comply with Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 which prescribes the maximum building height standard, and the SEPP No.1 Objection submitted in relation to this standard is not well founded as the proposed development will have an excessive height, bulk and scale that detracts from existing predominant character of the development in the local area; adversely affects the visual amenity of the streetscape due to the non-compliant and excessive wall height; detracts from the heritage significance of Randwick Racecourse Heritage Conservation Area; and results in a development that will adversely affect the amenity of adjoining and surrounding residential uses including loss of views and privacy.

 

3.     The proposed development is inconsistent with Clause 12 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the apartment mix of the proposed development represents a lack of variety in the type and size of dwellings proposed contrary to the objective 1 (a) of the Residential C zoning under Clause 12.

 

4.     The proposed development does not meet the objectives, and performance criteria/controls contained in the Development Control Plan – Multi-unit Housing as the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of the DCP in relation to: Site Planning (Part 3.1), Height (Part 3.2), Building Setbacks (Part 3.3), Density (Part 3.4), Privacy (Part 4.2), View Sharing (Part 4.3), Solar Access (Part 4.4), Safety and Security (Part4.5), and Parking (Part 5.1).

 

5.     The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that the proposed height, bulk, scale, built form and design will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of loss of iconic and valuable views contrary to the Planning Principles established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 in relation to the assessment of view loss.

 

6.     The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that the proposed height, bulk, scale, built form and design will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms loss of visual and acoustic privacy, and overbearing height, bulk and scale, and in that regard is not compatible with the scale of residential development in the locality.

 

7.     The proposed height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is unsuitable for the subject site; detracts from the existing predominant character of the local area and is inconsistent with the impacts that may be reasonably expected under the planning controls applicable to the site as provided for in the Planning Principles established in the case of Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428 in relation to the assessment of height, bulk and scale.

 

8.     The shadow diagrams submitted with the development application are deficient as it is not possible to verify the accuracy of the details shown in the diagram, including, but not limited to, the position and level of buildings relative to the proposed building and level of adjoining lands relative to the subject site. The shadow diagrams also fail to show the impact of existing shadows which are critical in determining, amongst other things whether or not adjoining properties will be overshadow to less than the minimum 3 hours winter solar access required under the DCP – Multi-unit Housing.

 

9.     The heritage impact assessment contained in the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the development application is deficient as it fails to assess the proposed development and its impact on the heritage significance of the adjoining heritage item comprising the existing and its setting, and the adjoining Royal Randwick Racecourse heritage conservation area as required under Clause 46 of the Randwick LEP 1998. In this regard, no specific Heritage Impact Statement has been provided to adequately assess the impact of the proposed excavation and construction on the adjoining heritage listed wall along the northern boundary of the subject site, and the impact of the non-compliant and excessive height, bulk, density and scale of the proposed building on the Royal Randwick Racecourse heritage conservation area. Therefore, the heritage impact assessment contained in the Statement of Environmental Effects is not a final, complete and comprehensive assessment of the heritage impact of the proposed development as required under Clauses 46 of the Randwick LEP.

 

10.   The landscape works and treatment for the proposed development is deficient as it fails to provide any substantial landscaping/screen planting along the southern boundary; fails to provide alternative tree species within the front garden area which is more in keeping with the scale of the proposal; provides a poor landscaping treatment to the rear yard for screening and privacy between this rear landscaped area and adjoining high rise unit blocks; provides poor planting plan and plant schedule for all proposed landscaped areas; and provides for an excessive number of retaining walls in the northeast corner of the subject site which will reduce the amount of useable private open space available to future occupants.

 

11.   The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that the proposed height, bulk, scale, built form and design will detract from the heritage significance of adjoining heritage items comprising the heritage stonecapped wall along the northern boundary and the Randwick Racecourse Heritage Conservation Area.

 

12.   The proposed development does not meet the carparking requirements for multi-unit housing contained in Clause 2.3 – Requirements for Various Land Uses of the DCP – Parking, in that the proposed development will have a numerical deficiency of 1 carspace which is unacceptable and unreasonable having regard to the proposal’s overdevelopment of the subject site.

 

13.   The proposed development is unacceptable and should be refused in so far as it will set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate development in the area and in that regard is not in the public interest.

 

In response to the reasons of refusal and in support of the review, the applicant has submitted a letter addressing each reason for refusal from the applicant planner, a heritage assessment, an urban design assessment, various new architectural drawings and associated shadow diagrams.

 

Various parts of the document are repeated throughout this report. They generally seek to justify the development with additional information rather than amend the scheme to overcome concerns.  A primary aspect of the application is the applicant’s position that view loss affectation is not severe enough as to warrant any further amendments to the scheme.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The western (front), northern (side) and southern (side) boundaries of the subject site represent a typical rectangle.  However, the eastern (rear) boundary is splayed, making the site irregularly shaped.  Their dimensions are 22.835m for the western boundary, 54.23m for the northern boundary, 35.51m for the eastern boundary and 83.55m for the southern boundary.  The site’s total area is 1522m².  There is an average gradient of approximately 9m down the site (from the rear down to Alison Road) and an average gradient across the site of approximately 2m.  The existing gradients provide natural drainage to Alison Road.

 

Existing development at the site comprises a substantial, single storey interwar bungalow which appears in largely original condition externally.  It is characterised by a verandah extending along the front elevation and partially along its southern side elevation, the elevated floor level due to the gradient at the site, and the 1.8m sandstone wall along the front boundary.  A concrete driveway extends from Alison Road along the southern boundary to a detached masonry garage at the rear, on top of which exists some small living quarters.  Masonry walls are located along the remaining boundaries, including the heritage listed sandstone wall along the rear (eastern) boundary which formed part of the original Sydney City to Coogee tramway route.  Behind the dwelling and detached garage exists a substantial portion of turfed private open space with several mature trees.

 

Adjoining properties to north of the subject site include 90 Alison Road and 4 – 6 Cowper Street.  90 Alison Road is a fairly rectangular shaped allotment with a largely unaltered, Spanish style single storey detached dwelling and partially below ground garage.  4 – 6 Cowper Street is land that formed part of the original tram route in the locality.  It now includes a contemporary three (3) storey residential flat building with basement parking.  Its building footprint is almost square which is not typical of the locality and is likely as a result of the residual nature of land associated with the former tram route.  The private open space of several of its apartments abuts the subject site.

 

Due to the splayed nature of the subject site’s rear boundary, there is no directly adjoining property at the rear.  The closest property which could be considered as being at the rear (east) is 8 Holkham Avenue.  It contains a five (5) storey residential flat building constructed approximately during the 1980s.  The north facing upper level apartments have access to complete views of the Sydney City skyline.  All of its north facing apartments are directly adjacent and overlook the rear private open space of the subject site.

 

Adjoining the subject site directly to the south is 94 Alison Road.  The site contains an eight (8) storey residential flat building with enclosed parking spaces which is commonly known as the ‘Mile Post’.  Its floor plan comprises of three distinct sectors, each with two (2) separate apartments.  Its height and floor plan are generally inconsistent with the predominant form of development in the locality.  All units facing north currently have full or partial views to the Sydney City skyline either from living rooms, bedrooms or kitchens.

 

4.    Site History

 

A Prelodgement Application (PL/36/2007) was lodged with Council on 9 August 2007 and a meeting was held with the applicant on 6 December 2007.  A Development Application was received by Council on 3 June 2008 (DA/392/08).  The application was assessed by Council’s Coordinator Major Assessments.  At a meeting of Council on 16 December 2008, Council refused the development consent under Section 80 of the EP&A 1979.  The applicant was notified on 24 December 2009.

 

The applicant has subsequently lodged the current Section 82A review of that determination.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The DA was notified and advertised from 15.7.09 to 29.7.09 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notifications.  In response, Council received twenty (20) individual submissions and one (1) petition with sixty (60) signatories, some of which also provided individual submissions.  Both the submissions and petition objected to the proposed development.

 

The issues raised in the submissions are itemised and addressed below.

 

5.1 Objections

 

    Loss of iconic views of Sydney CBD and valuable views of Randwick Racecourse

 

    Loss of views to Randwick Racecourse and inconsistency with planning principles

 

    Non-compliance with relevant provision of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing

 

    Planning principles of the Land & Environment Court

 

The objections quote the Judgement of Pafburn v North Sydney Council, wherein the Commissioner dealt with a development which was impacting on neighbouring properties.  The Commissioner stated ..“ an impact that arises from a reasonable or necessary proposal should be assessed differently from an impact of the same magnitude that arises from an unreasonable or unnecessary proposal” and “an impact that arises from a proposal that fails to comply with planning controls is much harder to justify than one that arises from a complying proposal”.

 

The upper level of the development, which is located above the height limit, would fall into this category given the overlooking impacts to the property to the west.

 

The issue of view impacts is also assessed in Section 10 of this report in accordance with the four-step planning principle established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in the case of Tenacity Consulting vs Warringah Council.  Essentially, the proposal with its non-compliant height and bulk, will have a severe and devastating impact upon existing iconic views of the Sydney CBD skyline enjoyed by dwelling units at No 94 Alison Road, particularly Unit types A and E.

 

    Loss of sunlight

 

The application includes shadow diagrams demonstrating the proposed dwellings and those surrounding will have access to minimum requirement of sunlight specified by the Multi Unit Housing DCP.

 

    Proposal does not enhance streetscape

 

The proposed building does not provide a suitable interface between the existing 9 storey residential flat building on the adjoining southern property and the existing 2 storey dwelling houses on the adjoining northern lots nor does it fit in with the predominant 3 storey residential flat building character in the vicinity of the subject site, particularly to the north and north-east. 

 

    Breaches of height, floor space ratio and other regulatory Requirements

    Non-compliance with planning controls effectively disrespects the amenity of neighbours.

    Proposal is an overdevelopment.

 

Non-compliance with Council’s statutory and policy controls are discussed in Section 8.1. The SEPP No.1 Objections submitted for the breach in the height controls have been assessed and no valid case has been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable. and unnecessary.  The non-compliance with the DCP – Multi-unit housing is considered unacceptable.

 

    Proposal is inconsistent with the L&E Court Planning Principle for Height, Bulk and Scale

 

The proposal has been assessed against the Planning Principle for Height, Bulk and Scale established in Veloshin v Randwick Council in Section 10 below.  The proposal has impacts that are inconsistent with the impacts that may be reasonably expected under the controls in that the proposal results in visual impacts that are inconsistent with the existing predominant character of the locality that the controls seek to preserve.  The proposal also has impacts that are detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of loss of views and the privacy and overbearing bulk and scale.

 

    Inaccurate description of the prevailing existing building heights in the surrounding area.

 

The applicant’s description of the locality’s existing predominant character as predominantly 5 storey residential flat development is inaccurate as discussed in Section 10.  The area surrounding the proposed development has a mixed building type environment ranging from two storey dwelling houses to three storey walk-ups and isolated cases of 5 storey and higher residential flat buildings.  However, the predominant existing character in the area immediate to the north and east of the subject site is that of 3 storey residential flat buildings which the application of relevant Residential 2C planning controls is likely to maintain.  This is an important characterisation given that this form is compliant with the height limit and applies the limit evenly across the 2(c) zone.  In this context, the proposed development with its 5 storey built form does not fit into this existing character and will create a precedent for other developments immediately to the west of the site to pursue variations to the height limit.

 

    Traffic congestion

 

The applicant’s traffic report indicates that traffic generation from the proposed development will be significantly low - in the order of approximately 8 vehicle movements per hour during peak periods. Accordingly, the traffic effect on existing road capacity will be negligible.

 

    Increase demand for car parking in surrounding streets.

 

The proposal now meets the Council’s requirement for on site parking.

 

    Inadequate site analysis plan

 

The applicant has provided detailed information from various different consultants about the site and its context.  The site analysis plan provides a summary of this but any shortcomings in this material has not prevented an assessment of the scheme. Shortcomings regarding view impact assessment are discussed separately in this report.

 

    Inadequate landscaped area at the rear and loss of existing trees

 

Council’s Landscape Development Officer has noted that the amended landscaping plan is satisfactory.  It should also be noted that the proposal does not comply with the maximum landscaping area of podiums or excavated basement areas as prescribed by Clause 31 of the Randwick LEP 1998 and a SEPP 1 Objection has not been submitted in support of this aspect.

 

    Lack of amendment to Council’s refusal on 16 December 2009 of DA/392/2008

 

The applicant has chosen to make the amendments they considered necessary to have Council reconsider the matter.  This assessment determines whether those amendments were sufficient to warrant support of the proposal.

 

    SEPP1 required for FSR has been calculated incorrectly.

 

The amended application provides that floor space ratio has been reduced from a non-compliant 0.94:1 to a compliant 0.90:1.  The applicant’s gross floor area figures have been assessed and there is no indication that the figures are not accurate.

 

    Inadequate communication with Residents to facilitate negotiations

 

Whilst at times desirable, there is no requirement for applicants to enter into discussions with neighbours.  The consultation period in the development assessment process affords an opportunity to comment on the scheme. Council then considers all submission in deliberations on the application.

 

    Removal of significant Trees

 

Officers from the relevant branch within Council have noted that the amended landscaping plan is satisfactory and the proposed removal or addition of any trees is warranted.

 

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:-

 

Heritage Planner

 

Council Heritage Planner’s provided a detailed response to the amended application.  In doing so, the Heritage Planner acknowledged the amended application included additional information compared to the original submission.  In summary, the Heritage Planner raised no objection to the development.  However, it was suggested further details be provided, relating to excavation and construction around the existing heritage listed fence for example, prior to construction commencing.  In the event that the application was considered for approval, the appropriate conditions would need to be placed on any development consent.

 

Development Engineer

 

Detailed comment was provided on the proposal’s landscaping, car parking and drainage aspects.  In summary, Council’s Development Engineer was satisfied with the proposal’s impacts in relation to these aspects.

 

Design Review Panel Comments:

 

This proposal was reviewed by the Panel as a Pre DA application at its meeting of the September 2007.  Subsequently the architect made substantial revisions to the application, which was again reviewed as a Development Application in August 2008.

The Development Application was subsequently refused by Council, and this application is a Section 82a review. The applicant has made changes to address various reasons for refusal, including the front façade design, height, floor space and views from neighbours.

 

1.               Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

The site is located on the broad sweep of Alison Road, surrounded by residential buildings of various size and style ranging from large single residences to 5 and 9 storey multi-residential buildings. The houses have been incrementally replaced over the last 40 years by apartment buildings, which is appropriate as the area is ideally suited in higher forms of urban housing due to its location and amenity.

 

On the opposite side of Alison Road is the large green expanse of the Royal Randwick Racecourse. All the sites with frontage along Alison Road are elevated and enjoy this wonderful open vista, which cannot be built out. From their upper levels, some units enjoy additional views to either the city skyline (across their neighbours’ properties), or in an arc to the west.

 

To further address issues of context and scale, the applicant has now submitted a detailed Architect’s Design Statement and an independent Urban Design Report. Together these documents show in great detail how the project will fit well into its context. The information submitted is clearly superior to many applications approved by Council on comparable sites.

 

The site slopes up markedly (9 metres) from Alison Road frontage, which is the typical condition for this part of the street. The immediate neighbours to the east and south, which are the most affected by this proposal, are amongst the most substantial buildings in the vicinity, being 5 and 9 storeys in height and elevated by the slope. Like other buildings on this side of the street, the proposal exceeds the 12 metres height limit at the low part of the site to the street front, which is not uncommon on steeply sloping sites. Given the context, the Panel considers that buildings of 4/5 storeys in height at the Alison Road frontage are appropriate. Indeed buildings of any lesser height would be out of context and detract from the genuine urban scale of this important street.

 

2.               The Scale of the Proposal

The Panel considers that the building, as now adjusted by the architect, is in scale with the evolving scale of its context.

 

The Panel is concerned by the loss of character and amenity of the roof top design. While supporting the reduction in footprint of the rooftop element at the eastern end, the Panel considers the loss of the communal roof terrace and open pergola to be unfortunate and unwarranted. The Panel would support the reinstatement of these desirable elements.

 

When viewed from the street and adjoining properties, the proposal would mediate well between the greatly varying scale and form of the buildings surrounding its site.

 

From the discussion it seems that much weight has been placed in the DA assessment on the perceived view loss from a couple of units in the larger buildings to the south. View issues have now been extensively addressed by the applicant. The Panel considers that the major planning issues are urban form, height, scale, density and landscape areas. The principal impacts on neighbours to consider are the retention of privacy and sunlight. The selective private view (across adjoining private property) is clearly an inferior planning issue to the above, and an obvious failing of reliance on the ‘Tenacity’ planning principle. Indeed applying ‘Tenacity’ risks eroding much more important planning issues of genuine public interest.

 

Therefore the scale of the proposal is considered to be appropriate to its site.

 

3.               The Built Form of the Proposal

The applicant has adopted the earlier suggestions of the Panel concerning the form of the building, which has an excellent presence to the street, with four residential levels on the Alison Road frontage above a podium. The Panel considers that this is the most satisfactory architectural configuration and one that presents well to the large scale of Alison Road. The street setback is also consistent with neighbours.

 

It is also important to note that the building has a compact footprint, with significant setbacks to the entire northern frontage and from the triangular rear garden to the east. These setbacks, well above Council minima, ensure a garden outlook for adjoining properties. In particular the property to the south-east, at 8 Holkham Avenue benefits from a deep soil garden across its entire north-west frontage, preserving the benefit of sunlight and a garden outlook for its residents.

 

The Panel recognizes that there may a small number of neighbours that will have to be assessed by Council, particularly in regard to the additional storey to the rear. 

The Panel considers that the proposed northern boundary wall will impact severely on the adjacent house and recommends that the proposed level 1 be set back to allow landscaping at ground level.  Careful consideration should be given to the design and height of the boundary wall to both allow planting to be successful and provide adequate privacy.  The design should also permit increased natural light and air to reach the car park.

 

Similar to consideration should also be given to the design of the southern boundary of the site.  This is discussed in Section 6 of this report.

 

4.               The Proposed Density

The proposed density, at 0.9:1 compliant with the LEP, appears lower than many of the neighbouring buildings. The Panel does not see any argument to further reduce the density.

 

5.               Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The proposal demonstrates superior passive design principles with regard to aspect, thin cross section, cross ventilation, natural day lighting, and deep soil areas.  Details (in the form of 1:50 sections / part elevations) of clearly intended sun shading, weather protection, rainwater use and other environmental initiatives should form part of the Development Application.

 

Internal bathroom on the top floors would benefit from the addition of ventilating skylights.

 

6.               The Proposed Landscape

The proposal creates an unusually generous landscape setting, which should benefit both the future occupants and neighbouring apartment buildings. Planting on the north and east sides of the site and the proposed building will provide a pleasant outlook for all. High retaining walls along the northern boundary should be avoided by manipulation of the section. An elevation of the boundary wall has now been provided.

 

Trees should be maintained and newly established along the southern boundary of the site as this will benefit both the occupants of the building and the neighbours.  Opportunities to maintain or establish these should be increased by narrowing the outdoor stair, reducing the depth of the storage area and bike store and reconfiguring the rear section of the car park.

 

The existing stone wall to the Alison Road frontage has now been retained to the extent possible or rebuilt in its present location. It would be preferable to keep the sandstone as a prominent streetscape element, visible to the public.

 

7.               The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

The proposal, with the improvements already carried out, will deliver high levels of amenity for the future residents without creating negative impacts on neighbours. All apartments have a wide frontage to north, a thin cross section for good daylight and cross ventilation, and efficient plan layouts. The common circulation is clear and generous, with good amenity also.

 

8.                The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

Satisfactory as casual surveillance of all public and communal spaces around the building is provided.

 

9.                Social issues

The density and apartment sizes proposed are considered appropriate to the neighbourhood, with a good variety of plan types and sizes.

 

10.        The Aesthetics of the Proposal

This is a very well designed building with its rich aesthetic qualities deriving largely from its response to climate.  The Panel acknowledges that the architect has a strong reputation in the design of apartment buildings.

 

The Panel had previously raised concerns about the proposed façade to Alison Road. This elevation has now been revised, with well-scaled alternating openings with operable screens. This elevation is now highly appropriate both to its urban context and environmental performance.

 

The north and south facades both well express their internal organization and orientation.

 

The east elevation should not be considered as a ‘side elevation’ and should be treated more in relation to capturing light and ventilation, a garden outlook and morning sun.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

This is a very well designed building that should lift its context. It is clearly a better proposal than many that the Panel has considered over the years that have been approved and constructed. Due to its resolved design qualities, it fully satisfies all 10 SEPP 65 criteria.

 

The information presented in support of the application is exhaustive, which is also atypical. Subject to the minor matters raised being resolved as suggested, the Panel does not need to review the application again and supports its approval.

 

Comments: The applicant did not supply the further required view analysis until after the panel had reviewed the application.  As a result, the panel was not in a position to make informed comments on the extent of view loss and the application of the view loss planning principles as set out by the Senior Commissioner Roseth.

 

Many of the other detailed design issues have been raised in the body of this assessment, including the southern setback planting and the eastern elevation.

 

Technical Offiers' Comments"

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

Clause 40A of Randwick LEP required the preparation and adoption of a master plan for the redevelopment of sites having an area in excess of 4,000 square metres and which must be adopted and in force prior to the grant of development consent.

 

The subject site, being 1522m² in area, is not subject to the provision of the Clause 40A.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31(2) – Minimum Landscaped Area

50% of site area (min 761m2)

59.8% (909.6m2)

Yes

31(3) – Maximum Landscaped Area over Basement

Maximum 50% of the landscaped area requirement (max 380.5m²).

58% (530m2)

No

32 – FSR

0.9:1 (1395m2)

0.9:1 (1395m2)

Yes

33(2) – Building Height

Max 12m

13.74m – 16.41m from L5 north elevation.

15.03m – 13.41 from L4 northern elevation.

13.30m – 15.30m from L5 southern elevation.

15.30m – 16.04m from L4 southern elevation.

13.30m – 13.74m L5 eastern elevation.

16.41m – 15.3m from L5 western elevation.

15.03m – 16.04m from L4 western elevation.

No, Exceeds overall heights by up to 4.41 metres in some locations (SEPP 1 Objection).

33(4) – External Wall Height

Max 10m

As the scheme proposes a flat roof solution with parapets, the wall heights and the overall heights are generally the same.

No, exceed wall height by up to 6.41 metres in some locations, (SEPP 1 Objection provided).

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

43

Heritage Item or Conservation Area

No

N/A

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

Refer to comments from Council’s Heritage Planner (Section 6 of this report above).

40

Excavation and filling of land.

Yes.

Council’s Heritage Planner has raised concern in relation to whether proposed basement excavations would adversely affect the footings of the heritage listed boundary fence.

 

8.1 Statutory Controls – S79C (1)(a)

 

8.1.1   Randwick LEP 1998

 

Clause 31 Landscaped Area

Clause 31(2) of the Randwick LEP 1998 requires a minimum of 50% of the site area to be landscaped, which equates to 761m².  The proposal includes 909.6m² which complies with the development standard.

 

Clause 31(3) of the Randwick LEP 1998 prescribes that a maximum of 50% of the total site area required by clause 31(2) is provided over podiums or excavated basement areas, or the equivalent of 454.8m².  The proposal includes 530m² of landscaping over the basement or excavated areas, which does not comply with the development standard.  A SEPP 1 objection has not been submitted justifying the variation.

 

Although from an elevational perspective, the non-compliance would not appear obvious, the consent authority cannot consent to a development application proposing a variation to a development standard without a SEPP 1 objection, if it were in a position to do so.

 

Clause 33 Building Heights

Clause 33 of the Randwick LEP 1998 sets a maximum building height of 12m and a maximum external wall height of 10m in the Residential 2C zone affecting the site, as measured from existing ground level. The proposal would have a maximum overall height of approximately 16.41m which exceeds the height control by 4.41m and a maximum wall height of 16.41m which exceeds the control by 6.41m.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1) in respect to the non-compliance with the maximum overall building height and maximum wall height standards and has argued that strict compliance with clause 33 of Randwick LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary. The applicants SEPP No. 1 objection is assessed in section 10.1.2 of this report.

 

Clause 40 Excavation and filling of land

Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for assessing the impact of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct the sub-basement car park and foundations for the building above. These works are extensive and void the opportunity for any deep soil planting around the sides of the building.  Council’s Heritage Planner also raises concern as to whether the proposed excavations would adversely affect the footings of the heritage listed boundary fence in the on the adjoining property.  Accordingly, the proposal is not acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

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

The proposed development is located in a site that adjoins a heritage item comprising of a masonry retaining wall with stone capping running along the boundary between the subject site and the adjoining northern allotment. The retaining wall is part of the retaining wall, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998, which bounded part of the former tramway reservation, running south from Cowper Street.

 

The proposed development is also located adjacent to the Royal Randwick Racecourse

which is a heritage conservation area. The 82A application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment.  The report finds that the heritage listed wall along the northern side and north-eastern rear boundary and the Royal Randwick Racecourse Heritage Conservation Area will not be aversely affected by the proposal although more information is required to ensure that the wall is protected during construction.

 

A number of heritage related conditions would need to be imposed on the development is development consent were to be granted to safeguard the nearby heritage items and regarding the resolution of the front sandstone fence and piers. 

 

8.1.2   State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 Development Standards

 

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within RLEP 1998. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 33 of RLEP 1998, the maximum Building Height is 12m and the External Wall Height is 10m for buildings in the Residential 2C zone.  The proposal would have a maximum overall height of approximately 16.41m which exceeds the height control by 4.41m and a maximum wall height of 16.41m which exceeds the control by 6.41m. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Requirement

Proposed

Building Height

12m

16.41m

External Wall Height

10m

16.41m

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection, the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 have been addressed. The case has established that the upholding of a SEPP 1 objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before a proposed development can be approved by the consent authority:

 

Matter 1

The Court must be satisfied that “the objection is well founded” (clause 7 of SEPP 1). The objection is to be in writing, be an objection “that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case”, and specify “the grounds of that objection” (clause 6 of SEPP 1).

 

Comments:

The stated purpose of the Building Height standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

" to set upper limits for the heights of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of   surrounding area”.

 

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the planning objective for the locality in that:

 

·       It will not promote the redevelopment of the subject site for multi-unit residential development as envisaged in the Multi-unit Housing DCP for infill development within a predominantly 3 storey residential flat development streetscape.

 

·        It will not contribute towards the implementation of the Multi-unit Housing DCP site planning objectives in that local conditions, constraints and opportunities have not been appropriately taken into account in the proposal’s design; the proposal does not respond to the topography of the site and its surrounds competently; the proposal has not sought to minimise any potential negative impact to adjoining development especially in regards to the loss of iconic and valuable views enjoyed by adjoining properties and potential privacy and acoustic impacts on adjoining properties.

 

·        The proposed non-compliance will result in inconsistencies with the objectives of the 2C zone in which the site is located as (1) it will result in a higher and bulkier residential development beyond the medium density form designated for this Zone; (2) it will result in a development that will compromise the amenity of adjoining and surrounding residential uses including loss of views and privacy (see Section 10 below); and (3) it will result in a development that will not be compatible with the predominant character of existing development in the area being medium density 3 storey multi-unit housing development (see Section 10 below).

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 objection to justify the variation.  They key components of the objection have been extracted and are included below and over the page.

 

 

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has not demonstrated that the objection is well founded particularly given the extent views from adjoining properties will be obstructed as a result of the proposal.  The extent of view loss recognized by the applicant varies from the assessment undertaken by Council both in terms of the extent of impact and also the opinion as to the severity of that impact.  The assessment by Council is further explained in Section 10 of this report where the view loss is assessed against the various Court tests.

 

The development standard also remains reasonable and necessary as it protects a built form character which is particularly evident in the locality, and one which the standard and the relevant development control plan aims to maintain.

 

Matter 2

The Court must be of the opinion that “granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3” (clause 7 of SEPP 1).

 

The aims and objects of SEPP 1 set out in clause 3 are to provide “flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act”. The last mentioned objects in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are to encourage:

 

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

(2) the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use of developed land.”

 

·      Comments:

The variations to the height control development standards are inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as the resultant obstruction of views from adjoining properties is unreasonable. Specifically, the resultant development would not promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would result in significant adverse environmental and economic impacts.

 

The proposal is also inconsistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2C Zone in that it does not achieve effective view sharing or reflect the desired character or scale of multi unit development in the locality.

 

Matter 3

The Court must be satisfied that a consideration of the matters in clause 8(a) and (b) of SEPP 1 justifies the upholding of the SEPP 1 objection. The matters in clause 8(a) and (b) are:

 

“(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b)    the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument”.

 

·      Comments:

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matter for State or Regional environmental planning.  Maintaining the planning controls in question would contribute to consolidating the built form character of the area as well as achieve equitable access to iconic views.  

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

Preston C J expressed the view that an objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways:

 

First

The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. If the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the development standard in that it does not consolidate the desired built form character of the locality as prescribed by the relevant development control plans and the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, nor does it adequately protect the amenity of adjoining development.

 

Second

A second way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is relevant to the subject development as there exists ample opportunity to achieve compliance.  The underlying objective is also relevant because it has been consistently applied with the desired effect, that is, the desired built form character for new multi unit developments and amenity for existing developments has been achieved.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is achievable.  The objective of the standard has also been consistently achieved throughout the immediate locality.  

 

Fourth

A fourth way is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

There is negligible evidence of the standard being abandoned as levels of amenity in the locality remain high and the built form character which the standard attempts to retain dominates the locality.

 

Fifth

A fifth way is to establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The existing Residential C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

9.    Policy Controls

 

9.1 Development Control Plan - Multi-unit housing

The table below assesses the proposal against the Preferred Solutions of the DCP – Multi-unit housing, and where variations occur, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements.

 

Performance requirements

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Site Analysis plan submitted

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

 

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

 

Frontage of 22.83m to Alison Road.

 

P3 Development on corner

sites responds to both

street frontages

 

 

Not applicable

Height

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

 

SEPP 1 Objection for noncompliance with max building and wall height control assessed and not considered to be well founded in the circumstances - no valid case has been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.

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

 

Building bulk is a 5 storey block that is excessive in terms of bulk and scale but also has a massing and height that does not minimise amenity impacts on adjoining properties and the streetscape.

Building Setbacks

P1 Front boundary setbacks

 

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

Existing setback ranges between 5m – 8m.

A consistent ‘street wall’ is part of the desired future character of the locality.

Proposed setback is 5m – Complies

P2 Side boundary setbacks Side setbacks to ensure:

 

  Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

 

  Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

 

  Landscaping and private open space provided.

 

  Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2 Zone 2C No part closer than 3.5 metres.

 

· Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

· Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

 

· Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

Northern side– Ground floor - Complies

·    Average setback – 6.9m from.

·    Minimum setback – 6.4m.

·    Maximum length of unarticulated wall – 46m.

Lengthy walls are typical of RFB building footprints in the locality. Nevertheless, the elevation includes sufficient articulation to create visual interest and reduce bulk. The concern with the setback is that it has not been increased proportional to the variation in height to the building.

Southern side– Ground floor - Complies

·    Average setback - 4m.

·    Minimum setback - 4m.

·    Maximum length of unarticulated wall – 46m.

Lengthy walls are typical of RFB building footprints in the locality.    Nevertheless, the elevation includes sufficient articulation to create visual interest and reduce bulk. The concern with the setback is that it has not been increased proportional to the variation in height to the building.

NOTE: The basement structure is also located “boundary to boundary which contravenes the requirements for a minimum setback of 3.5 metres. The scheme has proposed such extensive excavation that there is no opportunity for deep soil planting in the side setbacks to the building.

P3 Rear Boundary Setbacks Ensure that:

 

• Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

 

• Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

 

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

 

• Building built across site.

S3 Zone 2C Minimum average setback 8 metres.

 

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres

Ground floor – Complies

 

·    Average setback - 18m.

·    Minimum setback – 10m.

·    Maximum length of unarticulated wall – 11.4m.

The proposed building footprint is typical of RFBs in the locality.

P4 General

 

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

S4 No device may

encroach more than

25% of the Preferred

Solution.

Complies

0.8m long horizontal screening device on rear quarter of northern elevation occupies 16% of minimum 5m side setback. 

Density

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

 

Complies

Refer to Section 10, bulk of building placed to create increased height with consequences on amenity to neighbours.

Fences

P1 Fences to be/have:

 

• consistent with streetscape;

 

• Entrances highlighted; &

 

• Planting used to soften

and provide privacy.

S1 Solid front fences

no higher than 1.2

metres. May increase

to 1.8 metres when 50

% transparent.

Complies

The existing sandstone front fence will be deconstructed and reused along the front boundary to suit the proposed vehicle entry.

 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1 Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation

S1 Minimum dimension for landscaped area 2 metres.

A sufficiently large (21m x 30m) triangle shaped landscaped exists towards the rear of the property.

Additional landscaped area (width between 2m – 7m and length of 46m) is provided along the northern boundary.

Complies

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

individual units.

 

Complies

Each of the landscaped areas would be accessible by all occupants of the development. 

 

P3 Private Open Space

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

 

Proposed POS is sufficient in size and provided with suitable screening to allow for recreational activity within a private environment.

Complies

P4 Private open space in front of the building only where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

N.A. - no dwelling units with private open space to street front proposed.

P5 Townhouses

 

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

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

N/A

P6 Flats and apartments

 

Each dwelling has direct

access to an area of private

open space.

S6 Minimum of 8 m2 and minimum dimension o

Complies

Ground floor courtyards min 18m² in area with a minimum dimension of 2m.

 

All above ground units have access to a balcony with minimum dimension of 3m and area of 14.4m².

Privacy

P1 Visual Privacy

 

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

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

Balconies on rear half of units may overlook POS of 4 – 6 Cowper Street. Impact exacerbated due to non-conforming height.

 

P2 Private open space

design and location ensure

privacy.

 

Balconies on rear half of units may overlook POS of 4 – 6 Cowper Street. Impact exacerbated due to non-conforming height.

P3 Acoustic Privacy

 

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

 

Development is required to comply with BCA.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

S4 Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with Building Code of

Australia (BCA).

Required to comply with BCA

View Sharing

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

 

Non compliant height is not sympathetic to view from adjoining development.

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

 

Non compliant height is not sympathetic to view from adjoining development.

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

N/A

Solar Access & Energy Efficiency

P1 Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

 

Complies

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

 

Complies

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

 

Complies

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

 

Complies

P.4 Building Layout, Design

and Construction

 

Building and outdoor spaces are designed to protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

 

• Living areas are orientated to the north.

 

• Larger windows are

located on the north.

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

 

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

Basix compliant

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

 

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

Complies

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Complies

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Complies

P3 High walls and structures avoided

 

Complies

P4 Resident Car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

Complies

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable

 

Complies

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and

security provided.

 

Complies

P7 Adequate lighting is

provided in common areas.

 

Complies

P8 External lighting does

create a nuisance.

 

Complies

Parking

Required On-site Parking

 

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per dwelling

 

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

 

3 or more bedroom

1.5 spaces per dwelling

 

Visitor parking is 1 space

per 4 dwellings.

 

Complies - refer to Section 9.2 below.

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

 

Complies.

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

 

Complies

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Complies

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Complies

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Complies

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

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

Complies

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

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

Complies

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Complies

P6 Driveway gradients

safe.

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

Complies

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

Complies

Barrier-free Access

 

 

Access for people with a disability is provided to and within one dwelling at the

following rate:

 

0-14 dwellings 0

15-29 dwellings 1

30-44 dwellings 2

45-60 dwellings 3

and so on.

 

 

Complies

Utilities/Site Facilities: subject to appropriate conditions of consent

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

By condition

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

 

 

Complies

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

 

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

Complies

 

 

 

9.2 Development Control Plan - Parking

Applying the numerical car parking rate in the DCP –Parking the proposal will require the following car parking spaces:

 

Use

Requirement (DCP – parking)

Proposed number and / or floor area

Required Provision

Proposed Provision

 

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

1 x one bedroom dwellings

1 spaces

 

 

 

21 car spaces

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

14 x two bedroom dwellings

16.8 spaces

 

1.5 spaces per 4 units

1 x three bedroom dwelling

1.5 spaces

 

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 16

4 spaces

4 car spaces

Total

 

 

24 spaces

25 spaces

 

The proposal complies with the car parking provision of the DCP.

 

9.3 Section 94 Contribution Plan       

The Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2007, is applicable to the proposed development. The proposal will be subject to development contribution levies in accordance with this plan should approval be granted.

 

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    State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. The application has been considered by Council’s Design Review Panel. The Panel’s comments are responded to in section under Council referral and further addressed in section 10.3.2.1 below.

 

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

 

10.2.1        DCP – Multi-unit Housing

Section 9.1 above indicates that the proposal does not comply with the Preferred Solutions, nor satisfy the alternative Performance Requirements, of a number of provisions in the DCP – Multi-unit housing as follows (noting that the implications of these non-compliances are discussed in relevant section of this report as indicated below):

 

     Height - non-compliance with max building and wall height controls and failure to provide variations in massing and height to create visual interest, distribute the bulk of the building and minimise amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

     Building Setbacks – The side boundary setback are predicated on a built form that meets the requirements for wall height and overall height.  Adopting the SEPP 65 recommended setbacks for a building of this height, a setback of 18 metres would be required. Despite the technical compliance, the height breach results in an unacceptable outcome for the setbacks to the south.  The proposed setback for a building of this height will detrimentally affect the amenity of No. 90 Alison Road in terms of overbearing bulk and scale and loss of privacy; and detrimentally affecting the amenity of No 94 Alison Road in terms of poor landscaping and streetscape amenity along the common southern boundary.

 

     View Sharing - design, massing and location of building results in loss of major iconic views of the CBD/City skyline from No 94 Alison Road (see Section 10.3.2.2 below)

 

10.2.2        DCP – Parking

The proposal now complies with the requirements of the DCP

 

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

 

10.3.1        Natural Environmental Impacts

 

The subject site contains an existing dwelling house and associated external paved/slab areas within an existing built-up area in Randwick. As such, there are no threatened species, populations or ecological communities or habitats that would be affected by the proposed development either within, or in the vicinity of, the development site.

 

10.3.2        Built Environmental Impacts

 

10.3.2.1    Urban Design

The proposal is a 5 storey block with all living areas and balconies facing north and within a greater northern setback to gain solar access. This, in effect, has resulted in a smaller southern setback and a predominantly less articulated southern elevation as well as predominantly unarticulated blank walls to the western and eastern elevations.

 

The proposal has a non-compliant height, bulk and scale which has been assessed against the set of planning principles established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in the case of Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428, addressed as follows:

 

The appropriateness of a proposal’s height and bulk is most usefully assessed against planning controls related to these attributes, such as maximum height, floor space ratio, site coverage and setbacks. The questions to be asked are:

 

Are the impacts consistent with impacts that may be reasonably expected under the controls? (For complying proposals this question relates to whether the massing has been distributed so as to reduce impacts, rather than to increase them. For non-complying proposals the question cannot be answered unless the difference between the impacts of a complying and a non-complying development is quantified.)

 

Comment : The impacts are inconsistent with the impacts that may be reasonably expected under the controls.  The view loss affecting several adjoining properties result from a building that exceeds the reasonably expected height controls that would be applied to ensure a complying development.  In this respect, the following comments are made:

 

     The visual bulk and scale of the building attributable to an increased physical built form (over and above the maximum 12m height control). This increase over and above the control is visually excessive and inconsistent with that expected under the control which by definition perforce would result in a maximum 3 storey massing and form above existing ground line for any proposed building to comply.

 

    The non-complying height and of the proposal will result in a significant iconic view loss of the Sydney CBD skyline currently enjoyed by residents in No 94 Alison Road and valuable views of the Randwick Racecourse currently enjoyed by residents in No 8 Holkham Avenue.

 

How does the proposal’s height and bulk relate to the height and bulk

desired under the relevant controls?

 

Comment : The breach in these standards has resulted in a significantly higher and bulkier building of 5 storeys than that desired under the relevant planning controls which when applied would result in a maximum 3 storey building commensurate with the existing character of the locality being predominantly 3 storey residential development.  The variation to the height controls would result in a 5 storey building above existing ground level. The increased height Is not in character wit the buildings to the north and east of the site and is not consistent with what the relevant development standards will achieve if applied over that area.

 

Where the planning controls are aimed at preserving the existing character of an area, additional questions to be asked are:

 

Does the area have a predominant existing character and are the

planning controls likely to maintain it?

 

Does the proposal fit into the existing character of the area?

 

Comments : The planning controls, primarily, are aimed at ensuring that new infill development “create new structures that enhance and complement the existing urban character by having an appearance which is sympathetic with surrounding buildings and streets but reflect new lifestyles, materials and technologies” (DCP – Multiunit Housing, Section 2.1.2).

 

The area surrounding the proposed development has a mixed building type environment ranging from two storey dwelling houses to three storey walk-ups and isolated cases of 5 storey and higher residential flat buildings. However, the predominant existing character in the immediate vicinity of the subject site is that of 3 storey residential flat buildings, particularly to the north and east of the site where there are views towards the city sky line.  The consistent application of relevant Residential 2C planning controls is likely to maintain this character and importantly will take a consistent approach to view sharing, that is, a situation will not result where each development wants to be higher than the last to create additional view opportunities. In this context, the proposed development with its 5 storey built form does not fit into this existing character especially given that the proposed scheme seeks to gain more storey heights through a breach in the planning controls.

 

10.3.2.2. Sunlight, Privacy and Views

 

10.3.2.2.1 Sunlight

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application comprise of three dimensional/ perspective shadow diagrams.  They demonstrate the proposed dwellings and those on adjoining properties will have sufficient access to sunlight as prescribed by the Multi Unit DCP and the objectives of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

10.3.2.2.2 Privacy

 

In terms of privacy, objections have been raised in relation to loss of privacy to the adjoining properties. In particular, the loss of privacy to the living areas and rear yard of the adjoining residence at No. 90 Alison Road from the extensive, in terms of width and depth, of the north-facing terraces and balconies of the proposed development has raised some concerns.  The design responds to this situation by creation of a screening device on the facade of the building.  Nevertheless, there are additional units at the interface with this property by virtue of the increased height and scale of the building in that location.  The non compliant building height, in combination with the extent of the proposal’s balconies, will create overlooking to both adjoining properties.

 

10.3.2.2.3 Loss of Views

 

Loss of Views

 

View loss is assessed having regard to the four-step assessment for view loss contained in the planning principle established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in the case of Tenacity Consulting vs Warringah Council. These aspects were considered in the original development application assessment which concluded that the impacts to view loss were unsatisfactory and that the application could not be supported on these grounds.

 

As part of the Section 82A review process, site inspection were also undertaken to review the impacts of the modified proposal.  The site inspection revealed that there was a substantial chance of view impacts at the front of the site, primarily from Unit 3A wherein a kitchen faces the subject development.  The view analysis did not originally take into account these impacts and further information was requested of the applicant.

 

View loss for residents in No 94 Alison Road:

 

Step 1

 

The views from 94 Alison Road include substantial views of the city skyline, including AMP tower and other prominent iconic buildings in the City.  The importance of this view was recognised in the previous assessment of the application; particularly the views from kitchens of the “A-type” dwellings in the complex. The applicant does not share this opinion, indicating that in their opinion, the buildings in the City skyline view are not “iconic”.

 

Step 2

 

There are significant views of the city skyline from a variety of dwellings at 94 Alison Road but the critical views appear to be from “Level 3” dwellings.  This level is at or close to the point where there is a difference between the form of a complying development and the form as proposed (non-complying). The views are across the side boundary of the subject site.  One of the view corridors is towards the front of the proposed development.  These are views from “A” units and are from bedrooms and kitchens, with the primary view loss issue being the potential loss of views from the kitchen area. Views from kitchens were identified in the Tenacity judgement as being highly valued given the amount of time spent in the room.

 

A further critical view corridor is more toward the middle of the proposed development from the “E” units.  The view here is from lounge rooms and is a northerly across the side boundary of the subject site.  These views are from rooms that are considered important with respect to the 4 step view assessment process.

Step 3

 

The view analysis provided by the applicant has been hampered by the inability to obtain direct access to the properties affected. They were able to obtain photographs from Council records using the freedom of Information process and subsequently prepared some view analysis images. The two most significant of these are the analysis from Units 3A and 3E. This is primarily because the units at Level 3 sit at a height that is about or between the allowable height and the proposed height.  This is particularly the case for Unit 3A.

 

The application was submitted and advertised without the benefit of a view analysis from the applicant. The analysis that was subsequently prepared for Unit 3A suggests that the view would be lost even with a complying development on the site.  Consequently the applicant reaches the opinion that the non-compliance makes no difference to the view outcomes.  This report has reached a contrary view to the proposition put by the applicant.

 

Photo 1- Views from Unit 3A kitchen. The photos do not give the same feeling of proximity or magnitude as standing at the window with this view available. The photo was taken on a rainy day with cloud cover over the city.

 

The view analysis appears at odds with the levels provided in the application.  The view corridor is located where the ground level of the subject site is at or near RL41.81.  The addition of a 10 metre wall height allows the walls of the building to be at RL 51.81 and then, with the possible addition of a pitched roof form, an overall height of RL 53.81.  This overall height compares with the applicants surveyed floor height of Unit 3A (94 Alison) at approximately RL 54.00 and an eye height of approximately RL 55.5.  As a consequence, a person with an eye height of approximately 1.5 metres would likely to be able to see over a building constructed with flat roof and wall height of 10 metres (being RL51.81) as it would be some 3.7 metres below eye height of the person in the kitchen of Unit 3A. It is also possible that some views from the kitchen of Unit 2A would be maintained with an eye height of RL 52.83. In contrast, the proposed building has a roof height of RL 56.33 in this location, effectively removing all of the views.

 

The provision of a compliant pitched roof form would remove any potential for views from Unit 2A.  Despite this, as discussed in Step 4 of this process, the Tenacity test requires consideration whether suitable amendments might retain a view. A flat roof proposal, which is what is proposed by the applicant, would retain the view to Unit 2A if the wall height was compliant.

 

The same situation arises with the views from Unit 3E.  The ground level on the subject site in the view corridor is higher in this location by approximately 1.7 metres. This still would only result in a compliant wall height of RL53.5 which is 2 metres below the eye height position in Unit 3E (standing height of RL 55.5).  A pitched roof form would be allowed to RL 55.5 in this location. In order to utilise the higher ground level at this point, the building would have to be stepped otherwise the building will still exceed the wall height by approximately 2 metres at the front of the site thereby having greater impacts on the views to Unit 3A.

 

The applicant has chosen to assume a 12 metre flat roof outcome by providing a 12 metres northern and southern elevation line. This is not achievable under the height control arrangements which have a 10 metre wall height on these elevations. On that basis, the view analysis material potentially overstates the consequences of a complying development. A building, with a flat roof design as proposed, and a wall height of 10 metres, would protect views to Units on the third level of 94 Alison Road.

 

The view loss in these locations is considered severe.

 

Step 4

 

The proposal seeks a significant variation to the height controls within the Randwick LEP. The variation to these controls, if supported, would have a severe impact on the views of residents in the building at 94 Alison Road.  The non compliance with the various development standards, to the extent that significant views are lost, is unreasonable in the context of this assessment.  To this extent, the detailed view assessment undertaken on the development application that led to Council’s refusal remains valid in that there are a number of areas where the view loss is both severe and unreasonable that result from significant breaches of the development standard.

 

View loss for residents in No 8 Holkham Avenue:

 

There are significant views of both the city skyline and the Randwick racecourse that are affected by the proposed development.  As the proposed building is offset to from the building at 8 Holkham, there is no significant impact on the views of the city skyline that take in the Iconic city buildings.  There are however varying views of Randwick Racecourse from some locations at 8 Holkham Ave. The applicant has not provided any view analysis to assist with definitive determination of potential view loss from these locations.

 

Step 1

 

These views are of district views and would not be considered as views of Iconic structures that compare with the city views.  The views are also mainly form the upper levels of the building, at an angle, down the main section of the subject site.

 

Step 2

 

These are views that are over a rear boundary but are angled (oblique).  They are views that extend down the length of the adjoining property. They are views that would be difficult to retain (in most circumstances) if a compliant development took place.

 

Step 3

 

The impacts are generally to the upper level apartments.  These apartments still have significant city skyline views and would maintain some views of Randwick Racecourse.

 

Step 4

 

As these upper level units of this building look down over the racecourse, the non compliant section of the building proposed at 92 Alison Road will impact on that view.  This is the same portion of building that impedes the views to the city from 94 Alison Road, wherein the views are more substantially affected.  Solving this latter issue will result in some improvements to the views from 8 Holkham Avenue.

 

10.3.2.3 Traffic and access

 

The proposal involves the relocation of the existing driveway for the subject property from the southern side boundary to a new driveway along the northern side boundary. The proposal was referred to the RTA for approval given that the relocated driveway constitutes a new road opening on Alison Road which is a State road. The RTA has consented to the proposed access subject to conditions.

 

10.3.2.4 Ecologically Sustainable Development

 

The applicant has provided a BASIX assessment of the proposal in accordance with BASIX modelling requirements which indicates compliance with the targets for multiunit housing for water saving, energy consumption and Thermal comfort.

 

10.4 Social and Economic Impacts – S79C(1)(b)

 

The Council seeks a mix of unit types in each of the developments in the area to provide for a variety of demographic groups in the community.  The proposal has an emphasis towards the two bedroom unit outcomes although some of these were described as one bedroom with study (which has been considered a bedroom for this assessment).

 

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

 

The site is located within an area designated for residential flat buildings. It has all the required services and to this extent the site is suitable for residential development.  The issue arise out of the resultant built for the site and whether this form is acceptable.

 

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

The proposal was notified and advertised from 18 June 2008 to 2 July 2008. 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.

 

10.7 The public interest – S79C(1)(e)

The proposed development is not in the public interest because it will result in an excessively high, bulky and intrusive development that will detract from the visual character of the streetscape and locality.

 

The application is also not in the public’s interest as it technically cannot be consent to without a SEPP 1 Objection justifying the variation to the landscaping development standards provided in Clause 31 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

10.8 Substantially the same - Section 82A Review

 

The primary amendments from the original application include reducing the number of units from 17 to 16; reducing the floor space ratio from 0.94:1 to 0.90:1 and reducing the overall building height from 20.6m to 16.41m. Other indirect amendments include adjustments to the western (front) elevation. 

 

Despite this, the proposal’s scale, density and character remain substantially the same as the original application, evidenced particularly by the use of the same building footprint.  Accordingly, the proposal’s unsatisfactory impact on the natural and built environment also remains.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The S82A application to review the Council's decision to refuse the application has been accompanied by some minor amendments to the proposal.  These amendments are not significant enough to have addressed the major concerns relating to the buildings overall height and wall height.  The scheme still proposes a design outcome where all the floor space is intensively located in positions on the site that would result in severe view loss.

 

The subsequent taller building results in a visual bulk and scale relationship that is inconsistent with the stated development standards and will be inconsistent with development that represents the desired future character for the locality.  In particular, the applicant’s material verifies that the development to the north and east, the direction of the city views, is either at or below three storey in height and is generally consistent with the development standards in the Randwick LEP.

 

In addition, the application proposes to exceed the minimum requirements of the landscaping development standard provided by clause 31 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan without a SEPP 1 Objection.  Technically this is not possible.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council as the responsible authority confirm its original decision under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to refuse development consent to Development Application No. 392/2008 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of 5 storey multi unit housing building at 92 Alison Road, Randwick, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed development does not comply with Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 which prescribes the maximum building height standard, and the SEPP No.1 Objection submitted in relation to this standard is not well founded as the proposed development will have an excessive height, bulk and scale that detracts from existing predominant character of the development in the local area; adversely affects the visual amenity of the streetscape due to the non-compliant and excessive wall height; and results in a development that will adversely affect the amenity of adjoining and surrounding residential uses including loss of views and privacy.

 

2.     The proposed development is inconsistent with Clause 12 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the apartment mix of the proposed development represents a lack of variety in the type and size of dwellings proposed contrary to the objective 1 (a) of the Residential C zoning under Clause 12.

 

3.     The proposed development does not comply with Clause 31(3) – Landscaping of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The non – compliance cannot be considered as it is without a SEPP 1 Objection.

 

4.     The proposed development does not meet the objectives, and performance criteria/controls contained in the Development Control Plan – Multi-unit Housing as the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of the DCP in relation to: Site Planning (Part 3.1), Height (Part 3.2), Building Setbacks (Part 3.3), Privacy (Part 4.2), View Sharing (Part 4.3).

 

5.     The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that the proposed height, bulk, scale, built form and design will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of loss of iconic and valuable views contrary to the Planning Principles established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 in relation to the assessment of view loss.

 

6.     The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that the proposed height, bulk, scale, built form and design will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms loss of visual and acoustic privacy, and overbearing height, bulk and scale, and in that regard is not compatible with the scale of residential development in the locality.

 

7.     The proposed height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is unsuitable for the subject site; detracts from the existing predominant character of the local area and is inconsistent with the impacts that may be reasonably expected under the planning controls applicable to the site as provided for in the Planning Principles established in the case of Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428 in relation to the assessment of height, bulk and scale.

 

8.     The proposed development is unacceptable and should be refused in so far as it will set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate development in the area and in that regard is not in the public interest.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

8 December 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP86/09

 

 

Subject:                  1R Marine Parade, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/798/2009

Author:                   David Mooney, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Partial enclosure of existing outdoor area (western side) and shade cover over existing northern terrace to South Maroubra Surf Life-Saving Club

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

 

Applicant:                Paynter Dixon Constructions

 

Owner:                         Crown land under the care, control and management of Council

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This development application is referred to Council because the land is Crown land under the care, control and management of Council.

 

The proposal is to cover and enclose part of an existing terrace at the South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club at 1R Marine Parade, Maroubra. The building work would add approximately 11.5m2 of enclosed floor area to the club house.

 

The proposal was notified to adjoining landowners and there were no objections.

 

The proposal is amply distant from neighbouring residences so that there would be no impact to them. While proximate to and visible from Maroubra Beach, The additional visual impact and overshadowing during the afternoon would be minor.

 

The proposal satisfies the zone objectives and there are no specific Development Control Plans that apply.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is to cover and enclose part of the existing terrace on the western side of the South Maroubra Surf Club. The proposal also includes a cover over part of the north facing terrace. The east and west elevations of the existing club house are shown in figures 1 and 2. The extent of building work is shown on plan in figure 3.

 

Figure 1 – Existing west elevation

Figure 2 – Existing east elevation

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The building site is at the southern end of Arthur Byrne Reserve adjacent to Maroubra Beach, Maroubra. Broome Street is to the west, Maroubra Beach to the east and the Anzac Rifle Range to the south. The building site is behind the fore-dune of Maroubra Beach and slopes moderately on a westerly aspect. There are sealed car parks at grade immediately to the west and south west. Vehicular access is off Bernie Kelly Drive. Figure 3 shows an aerial photograph of the building site and the extent of proposed building work.

 

Figure 3 – Aerial photograph of the building site showing

the extent of proposed building work.

 

4.    Site History

 

Council’s property information database records the following development application history.

 

DA/734/2004/A    S96.1a - relocation of bbq area at pavilion cafe, new bbq area for the existing Maroubra beach pavilion cafe.

DA/734/2004       New bbq area for the existing Maroubra beach pavilion cafe.

DA/146/2004       Alterations and additions to the top floor of the south Maroubra surf life savings club including enclosure of an existing roof terrace to provide for additional room storage and sanitary facilities.

DA/58/2001         To use the central & southern parts of Maroubra beach, the adjacent foreshore, carparking areas and reserves for a surf life saving carnival (NSW state titles) including associated food, beverage

DA/1638/1999      Alterations and additions to existing surf club

DA/315/1998       Upgrading Maroubra beach, mar parade & surr. incl carpark, skate fac, recr fac., landscap works

DA/1060/1998      Replace extg door & window with new rller shtter opening & paved access on grnd flr, wstrn elevt

DA/67/1998         Surf, skate, beach volleyball competitions, stalls, live music, part of youth week 1998

BA/21/1990         Internal alterations to surf club

BA/930/1980/A     Alts & adds to south Maroubra surf club

DA/72/1980         Alts & adds for existing club house

DA/240/1977       To make alt & add to the existing club premises (south Maroubra surf life-saving club)

BA/417/1968        South Maroubra surf club

DA/412/1966       Dwelling over surf club

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The development application was notified to adjoining landowners, advertised in the local press and the site sign-posted in accordance with Council policy. There were no objections.

 

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:-

 

Development Engineer

 

The assessing officer is advised that there are no Development Engineering Conditions required for the subject application.

 

Building Services comments

 

The Proposal

 

Alterations and/or additions to the existing three storey purpose built surf club building.

 

The proposal includes the following works to the top (3rd) floor level:

 

Extend the roof to the northern side by approximately 5 metres, such that it would cover the southern part of the northern terrace area;

 

Extend the roof over the western terrace area, which is approximately 3.8 metres wide;

 

Construct a glazed screen to the sides of that part of the northern terrace area that would be covered by the proposed roof extension; and

 

Remove the western upper level wall adjoining the existing western terrace area and construct a new glazed, operable wall to the western edge of that terrace.

 

The subject development is proposed to be used for the purposes of a clubhouse .

 

BCA Building Classification

Class - 9b  (Assembly building)

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

 

§ A ‘rise in storeys’ of 3.

§ Masonry walls, concrete roof and concrete floors

§ Two exit stairway of concrete construction

§ External roof decks

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a three storey purpose built surf club building located in a public reserve a substantial distance from residences.

 


Key Issues

 

An inspection of the subject premises identified that the existing provisions for fire safety within the building are inadequate.

 

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. IT is noted that these premises were registered with Council as a place of public entertainment (POPE), and, due to recent changes in legislation, is no longer deemed a POPE.

 

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

 

It is acknowledged that full compliance with the BCA would be difficult, impractical and or onerous to achieve and, having regard to the provisions of Clause 94 of the EP and A Regulation 2000 it is considered that the imposition of a condition to upgrade the building to provide access to this area that has been used as a place of public entertainment in conjunction with the surf club for many years would be imposing an unjustifiable hardship on the club. Therefore, no condition has been applied to require disabled access to this area, however, an advisory note in relation to the DDA obligations should be included in any consent granted.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The land is greater than 4000m2 and the proposed development would ordinarily need to be carried out under a masterplan (Clause 40A Randwick LEP 1998). The Council may waive the requirement for a masterplan if the proposed development is minor, or ancillary to the current use of the land. The proposed development is considered to be both minor and ancillary and satisfies the requirements for a masterplan waiver. A waiver is included in the recommendation to this report.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 18 Zone table

The land is zoned 6A Open Space and the proposed development is permissible with development consent. The relevant zone objectives include:

 

·      to identify publicly owned land used or capable of being used for public recreational purposes, and

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

·      to identify and protect land intended to be acquired for public open space, and

·      to identify and protect natural features that contribute to the character of the land, and

·      to enable the sustainable management of the land.

 

The Assessing Officers considers the proposal to be consistent with the zone objectives primarily because it is development that is related to the use and enjoyment of open space.

 

Clause 22 Services

The Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on any land only where it is satisfied that, when relevant to the proposed development, adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal or disposal of sewage and drainage are available to that land.

 

The Assessing Officer considers that services are adequate for the proposed development. There are conditions in the recommendation that detail specific requirements.

 

Clause 38 Development in Open Space Zone

When determining an application for consent to carry out development on land within Zone No 6A, the Council must consider:

 

·      the need for the proposed development on that land, and

·      whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space, and

·      the impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land, and

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

 

The Surf Club say in their Statement of Environmental Effects that the additions are necessary to:

 

·      address existing water penetration problems associated with the uncovered terrace areas. The proposal would reduce the extent of water penetration by directing some of the existing water to the building’s guttering and down-pipe system, and

 

·      provide shading to the northern face wall of the upper level meeting rom so as to increase thermal comfort levels as well as providing a well shaded terrace space that will be more comfortable than the existing northern terrace area that is completely uncovered.

 

The Assessing Officer considers that the additions do relate to the use and enjoyment of the land in its ‘open space zone’ capacity and because the additions are minor, the impacts on the character of the land and its existing and future uses are acceptable.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 71

 

This policy aims to:

 

·      protect and improve existing public access to and along coastal foreshores to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and

·      ensure that new opportunities for public access to and along coastal foreshores are identified and realised to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and

·      protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage, and Aboriginal places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge, and

·      ensure that the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and

·      protect and preserve beach environments and beach amenity, and

·      protect and preserve native coastal vegetation, and

·      protect and preserve the marine environment of New South Wales, and

·      protect and preserve rock platforms, and

·      manage the coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (within the meaning of section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991), and

·      ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area, and

·      encourage a strategic approach to coastal management.

 

The proposed development is a minor addition to the existing surf club building and is not in conflict with any of these aims, or those matters for consideration set out in Clause 8 of the policy.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

Coastline Hazard Manual

 

Section 733 Local Government Act

A council does not incur any liability in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith (that is, substantially in accordance with the principles contained in the State Government’s Coastline Management Manual) in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being affected by a coastline hazard.

 

The proposal is a minor addition to the existing surf club building and is not inconsistent with the principles and recommendations of the NSW Coastline Management Manual.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Visual Impact

The proposal is proximate to and visible from parkland in Arthur Byrne reserve and Maroubra Beach. However, the addition is very minor and the visual impact is acceptable.

 

Overshadowing

Any additional overshadowing of Maroubra Beach would be barely discernable.

 

Acid Sulfate Soils

The land has a low risk class 4 Acid Sulfate Soil rating. There would be no excavations as part of the proposed development and therefore no need for any soil testing.

 

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

 

This development application is referred to Council because the land is Crown land under the care and control of Council.

 

The proposal is to cover and enclose part of an existing terrace at the South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club at 1R Marine Parade, Maroubra. The building work would add approximately 11.5m2 of enclosed floor area to the club house.

 

The proposal was notified to adjoining landowners and there were no objections.

 

The proposal is amply distant from neighbouring residences so that there would be no impact to them. While proximate to and visible from Maroubra Beach, The additional visual impact and overshadowing during the afternoon would be minor.

 

The proposal satisfies the zone objectives and there are no specific Development Control Plans that apply.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council waive the requirement for a masterplan under Clause 40A of the Randwick LEP 1998 because the proposed development is both minor and ancillary to the current use of the land.

 

B.       That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA/798/2009 for partial enclosure of existing outdoor area (western side) and shade cover over existing northern terrace to South Maroubra SLSC at 1R Marine Parade, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

Referenced plans:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA-01 dated October 2009 and received by Council on 5/11/08, the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details/amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       Colours and building materials must match or be compatible with the existing building.

 

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

 

3.       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.

 

4.       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.

 

5.       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.

 

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

i)      appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work, 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 persons intention to commence building works.

 

7.       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 or owner-builder (as applicable) 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.

 

8.       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”.

 

9.       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.

 

10.     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.

 

11.     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.

 

Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority together with any other certification relied upon must also be provided to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

12.     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.

13.     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

 

14.     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:

 

The fire safety upgrading works specified in the BCA Compliance Assessment, Reference J29235HH, dated 4 November 2009 and prepared by Hayden Howse from Trevor R Howse and Associates in relation to the subject premises are to be implemented prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

15.     The following works  are to be undertaken in accordance with the specified     provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

1)     Provide a compliant fire hose reel system to the building in accordance with clause E1.4 of the BCA,

 

2)     Provide compliant fire hydrant coverage throughout the entire premises to comply with clause E1.3 of the BCA

 

3)     Balustrades and handrails to all stairways, balconies, decks or the like are to be designed and constructed to satisfy clause D2.16 & D2.17 of the BCA,

 

4)     The FRL’s for all new works must comply with the relevant provisions of Specification C1.1 of the BCA and be specified in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

5)     Provide non-slip finishes or strips to all stairways to satisfy clause D2.13 of the BCA to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

16.     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

 

17.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer, shall be submitted to the Council prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, certifying the structural adequacy of the new works and       balustrading to the external decks/balconies or the like.

       

Construction site management

 

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

 

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           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 Codes of Practice and Guidelines

·           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)

 

19.     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 AS2601-2001, 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 stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.  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 contained in the Asbestos Survey and conditions of consent, in relation to the safe removal and disposal of asbestos, have been satisfied.

 

20.     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.

 

21.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be satisfied:

 

a)       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.

 

b)       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.

 

c)       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.

 

d)       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.

 

e)       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.

 

f)       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. 

 

 

g)       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.

 

h)       Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

i)        Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

j)       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.

 

22.     A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·       location and construction of protective fencing/hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·       location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·       location of building materials for construction;

·       provisions for public safety;

·       dust control measures;

·       site access location and construction;

·       details of demolition works and methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·       protective measures for tree preservation;

·       provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·       location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·       details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·       construction noise and vibration management;

·       construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and convenience to the satisfaction of Council.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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:

 

23.     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.

 

24.     The proposed 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.

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of  health and amenity in the neighbourhood:-

 

25.     The maximum number of patrons permitted in the top floor area is 120.

 

26.     Seating in the premises must allow for permanent, unobstructed access to exits from all areas at all times.

 

27.     All paths of travel and stairways shall be maintained clear and unobstructed at all times so as not to impede the free flow or prejudice the safety of persons in the premises.

 

28.     Egress doors shall not be locked or otherwise obstructed at anytime while the premises are occupied.

 

29.     Trading hours and functions shall be in accordance with the Liquor Licence and relevant conditions of Development Consent.

 

30.     The L10 noise level emitted from any music/entertainment shall not exceed 5dB above the background level in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz - 8kHz inclusive) at the nearest affected residential boundary between the hours of 7.00am to midnight. The background level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from any music/entertainment provided in premises.

 

31.     28. The L10 noise level emitted from any music/entertainment shall not exceed the background level in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz - 8kHz inclusive) from 12.00 midnight to 7.00am at the nearest affected residential boundary. The background level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from any entertainment provided in premises.

 

 

32.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

 

33.     30. A plan of management shall be submitted to and approved by Council within 1 month of this determination for the use of the top floor area, which details the measures to be implemented to ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval and:

    minimise the potential impact of the operation of the premises upon nearby residents.

·       effectively minimise and manage-anti-social behaviour,

·       minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances,

·       effectively manage and respond to resident complaints,

·       ensure responsible service of alcohol and harm minimisation

 

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, including:

 

a)     Part B1                  -     Structural provisions

b)     Part C1                 -     Fire resistance and stability

c)     Part E1                  -     Fire fighting equipment

d)     Part E2                  -     Smoke Hazard Management

e)     Part E4                  -    Emergency lighting, exit signs

                                            & warning systems

f)      Part F1                  -     Damp and weatherproofing

g)     Section J               -     Energy efficiency

 

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 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


Ordinary Council

8 December 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP87/09

 

 

Subject:                  45 Military Road, Matraville - Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park

Folder No:                   DA/1101/2006/B

Author:                   David Mooney, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification to the approved development by changing one block of burial crypts to a family vault and adding canopies between crypts for weather protection at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (Heritage Item).

 

Ward:                      South Ward

 

Applicant:                Botany General Cemetery and Eastern Suburbs Crematorium

 

Owner:                         Crown Land in the care and control of Cemetery Trust

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This Section 96(2) application is referred to Council because the original development application was determined by Council.

 

The proposal involves a modification to the approved development by changing one block of burial crypts to a family vault and adding canopies between crypts for weather protection at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park.

 

The Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park is an extensive site of approximately 30 hectares. The approved development relates to an area of land adjoining Military Road that is approximately 5000 square metres, this site has a gentle southerly aspect and a street frontage of approximately 120 metres.

 

The proposed modification was publicly exhibited in accordance with Council Policy. There were no submissions.

 

The proposed changes are minor and satisfy the assessment criteria in Section 96(2) and 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal involves a modification to the approved development by changing one block of burial crypts to a family vault and adding canopies between crypts for weather protection at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is on the eastern side of Military Road between Bumborah Point Road and Buunerong road in the south of Matraville. The Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park is an extensive site of approximately 30 hectares. The approved development relates to an area of land adjoining Military Road that is approximately 5000 square metres, this site has a gentle southerly aspect and a street frontage of approximately 120 metres.

 

The site is nearby to the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium, which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The crematorium is an intact example of an Inter-War Art-Deco building. The site is over the road from the former Bunnerong Power-Station Conservation-Area, which has now been redeveloped as part of the cemetery site. An industrial building immediately adjoins the site to the north east.

 

4.    Site History

 

The original application for burial crypts and mausoleum was approved by the Health Building Planning Committee 20 July 2007. It was later modified under staff delegations 25 June 2008 to remove additional trees.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal was notified to neighbouring landowners, advertised in the local press and the site signposted. There were no submissions.

 

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

 

Heritage Planner

 

The Site

The subject site is adjacent to the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The crematorium is an excellent and largely intact example of an Inter War Art Deco building of its type and is representative of this class of buildings from the period.  The site is on the opposite side of Military Road to the site of the former Bunnerong Power Station Conservation Area which has now been redeveloped as part of the Cemetery site.

 

Background

The original application proposed construction of a series of burial crypts along the north eastern edge of the site, adjacent to the neighboring industrial development, in an area currently used for vehicular circulation.  The original application involved changes to vehicular access as well as a pedestrian entry directly from Military Road.  The crypts will be constructed in three stages as follows:

 

Stage 1- crypts furthest from Military Road

Stage 2- vehicular entry

Stage 3 and Stage 4- crypts closer to Military Road

 

The Proposal

A Section 96 application has now been received which proposes to change one block of crypts at the south western end of the group to family vaults, and to add canopies to some spaces between the blocks of crypts. 

 

Submission

The original application was accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which includes a section addressing Conservation.  The SEE noted that the proposal was remote from the heritage item and the heritage conservation area, that materials are consistent with the context and that there will be adverse heritage impact. 

 

Comments

The new buildings will be adjacent to the site boundary around 75m away from the Crematorium, at a higher level, but well screened from the Crematorium building by existing landscaped areas.  The main entrance elevations of the Crematorium building face south and west.  The northern elevation of the Crematorium which faces the area to be occupied by the crypts is a minor one.  The intervening plantings will retain the garden backdrop setting of the Crematorium when it is viewed from the south.  The crypts in Stage 1 and Stage 4 are in the form of groupings of separate small-scale structures while the Stage 3 crypts are within a building which has been articulated by the use of separate roofs and variation in wall finish.  The design changes which are proposed as part of the current application will not significantly add to the bulk of the proposed structures and will not challenge the dominance of the Crematorium building on the site.

 

7.    Section 96 Assessment

 

A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all).

 

The modified proposal is substantially the same as was originally approved. The proposed canopies are light-weight unobtrusive structures with very little impact on the heritage item nearby. They are ancillary structures and would make visits to the crypts more comfortable in adverse weather. The change of use of some of the burial crypts to family vaults is a very minor change to the overall redevelopment scheme. The proposal satisfies Section 96(2) of the Act and can be approved.

 

8.    Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan

The land is zoned 5 special uses and the proposal remains consistent with the zone and general objectives of the LEP. The proposal also remains consistent with the special provisions that apply to the land.

 

Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park Development Control Plan

The proposed modifications are minor and do not affect the approved development’s compliance with the aims and objectives of this development control plan.

 

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

 

This Section 96(2) application is referred to Council because the original development application was determined by Council.

 

The proposal involves a modification to the approved development by changing one block of burial crypts to a family vault and adding canopies between crypts for weather protection at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park.

 

The Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park is an extensive site of approximately 30 hectares. The approved development relates to an area of land adjoining Military Road that is approximately 5000 square metres, this site has a gentle southerly aspect and a street frontage of approximately 120 metres.

 

The proposed modification was publicly exhibited in accordance with Council Policy. There were no submissions.

 

The proposed changes are minor and satisfy the assessment criteria in Section 96(2) and 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Approval subject to conditions 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/1101/2006/B to alter crypts at the southwest end of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park to family vaults and addition of canopies between crypts at 45 Military Road, Matraville, in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01 to DA10 received by Council on 18 December 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans received by Council 11 September 2009, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

8 December 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP88/09

 

 

Subject:                  164 Brook Street, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/702/2009

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new part two, part three storey building with lower level garaging and storage containing two units with roof terraces

 

Ward:                      East Ward

 

Applicant:                Mrs B Ucak

 

Owner:                         Mr U Ucak and Mrs B Ucak

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to Council for determination as it contains variations to the floor space ratio development standard stipulated in Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998 by more than 10% and is valued at $2,840,423. The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to development standards to address these non-compliances.

 

The subject application is for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a part two (2), part three (3) storey multi-unit housing building containing two dwellings with basement garaging for four (4) cars (2 spaces to each unit), lower level storage areas, roof terraces, and associated landscaping works.

 

It is noted that an application was approved under DA/92/2003 for similar works. However, the application has since lapsed as no works have been commenced. The applicant has therefore submitted the subject application with some modifications. The current application is generally substantially the same as that approved under the previous DA.

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Brook St between the intersecting streets of Dudley and Bay, on the corner of Brook and Bay Streets and is presently occupied by a three storey multi-unit development. To the street elevation two garages are provided within a sandstone retaining wall.

 

The site has a frontage width (eastern boundary) of 18.29m, side (northern and southern) boundary depths of 20.255m and 20.295m, respectively and has an overall site area of 367.9m².

 

The application was notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 2 to 16 October 2009 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of one (1) submission was received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised were in relation to excessive floor space, outdated geotechnical report accompanying the application, setbacks, external lighting, wasted space on the roof terrace, and the amenity of the future occupants of the subject site.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) under RLEP 1998. The proposal is consistent with the zoning objectives.

 

The proposal has an FSR of 1.34:1 (492.9sqm) and does not comply with Clause 32(2) of the LEP, which stipulates a maximum FSR of 0.65:1 for sites located in Residential 2C zones with sites areas of less that 700sqm. Notwithstanding this, the proposal is considered to be compatible with the scale of neighbouring buildings.

 

Clause 31(2) requires 50% of the site to be dedicated as landscaped area, which equates to 183.95m2. Clause 31(3) provides that not more than 50% of the required landscaped area provision (that is, 91.975m2) is to be accommodated over podiums or excavated basements. The proposal will reserve 62% of the site as landscaped area (228m2). Additionally, a total of 55% of the landscaped area (100.32m2) is provided over podium or basement. This minor non-compliance has been addressed by way of a SEPP 1 objection. For further detailed assessment, refer to section 8.3 of this report.

 

The proposed complies with Clause 33(2) and 33(4) of the LEP for maximum building height and maximum external wall height. The LEP stipulates a maximum building height of 12m and a maximum external wall height of 10 for building located within Residential 2C zones. The proposal has a maximum wall height of 8.8m and a maximum building height of 10.3m. 

The applicant has submitted an objection under SEPP No. 1 – Development Standards justifying that the above breaches will not result in significant adverse amenity or visual impacts on the area. The objection has been assessed and is considered to be well founded.

 

The proportions, massing, colours, materials and finishes proposed are considered to be satisfactory. The design carries positive architectural merits and will be sympathetic to the character of the existing streetscape. The proposal is considered to satisfy the performance requirements of the DCP – Multi Unit Housing.

 

The proposal maintains the same landscaped area provision and distribution between deep soil and podium as the previously approved scheme, with minimal change to the footprint, mass and scaling of the previously approved building.

 

The proposal complies with the numerical car parking requirement of the DCP – Car Parking.

 

It has been demonstrated in this report that the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP have been achieved in that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the character of the locality.

 

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

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposed development is a part two (2), part three (3) storey multi unit development separated by a common party wall and comprises the following works:

 

·      2 x 3 (three) bedroom units each constructed over three storeys, each with access to a private roof top terrace.

·      Car parking accommodated in two separate double garages at street level with direct access from Brook Street.

·      Separate pedestrian access to each residence from Brook Street and from the Bay Street public stairway

·      Internal lift and stair access provided from the garage to each dwelling.

·      Excavation up to an isolated depth of approximately 7 metres for the construction of the lift pits and rear portion of the garages.

·      Upgrade on-site landscaping to improve on the existing presentation of the site to the street.

 

The external finishes of the proposed building will be a combination of rendered and painted and sandstone brick-work elements.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is known as Lot 1 in DP 339448 and is located on the western side of Brook St between the intersecting streets of Dudley and Bay. Bay St, to the south, is closed to vehicles and forms a public reserve. The site is positioned on the corner of Brook and Bay Streets with primary frontage to Brook St and secondary frontage to Bay St and is presently occupied by a three storey multi unit development dated from approximately the 1940s of simple symmetrical design incorporating red face brick and a pitched terracotta tile roof. To the street elevation two garages are provided within a sandstone retaining wall.

 

The site has a frontage width (eastern boundary) of 18.29m, side (northern and southern) boundary depths of 20.255m and 20.295m, respectively and has an overall site area of 367.9m².

 

The site rises steeply from Brook St to the rear of the property; the difference in level is some 6m. The site also slopes gently with a cross fall from north to south a difference of some 2.5m

To the west of the site lies a three storey semi-detached dwelling known as No. 32 Bay St. The dwelling has upper level decks with windows that overlook the subject site to gain views to the east. To the north of the site is recently completed five storey development comprising of five units. To the south of the site is the reserve on Bay St. To the east are single and two storey residential dwellings.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The existing three (3) storey building

2. existing sandstone garage to the front of the site

3. existing and adjoining building to the north

4. view north up Brook Street

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/189/1988 – approved 29 September 1988 for alterations and additions to the existing duplex.

 

DA/703/1997 – approved 28 May 1998 for strata subdivision and alterations and additions to create a second floor additional and an additional dwelling to the existing residential flat building.

 

DA/703/1997/A – approved 19 September 2001 for the deletion of the 3rd floor, with existing roof to remain, internal alterations, relocation of the garbage area, and extension of the existing garage to accommodate a double garage.

 

DA/92/2003 – approved 19 June 2003 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a part 2 and 3 storey multi unit developmentwith rooftop terrace, car parking at street level and internal lift.

 

Note: It should be noted that the current application is substantially the same as works approved under DA/92/2003. However, DA/92/2003 has since lapsed as no works have been commenced. The main changes from the previous consent are summarised below: -

 

·      Minor changes of masonry wall portions to glazing.

·      Minor adjustments to the RL’s, in particular the RL’s of the party screen, top/ rear parapet and roof parapet level. (NB: There will be a decrease to the maximum RL, created by the party screen top / rear parapet top, from RL 64.62 to RL 64.47. There will be a minor increase to the roof parapet level from RL 63.82 to RL 63.85).

·      Removal of most of the central non-trafficable areas of each roof terrace, increase the roof terraces in this location and addition of a skylight over the stairwell.

·      Deletion of the privacy screens on the rear elevation of the roof terraces.

·      Relocate the 1m high balustrade on the roof terrace of Unit 1 further north to match the wall line of the neighbouring building at 30 Bay Street.

·      Erect a 0.6m high cedar privacy screen on top of the 1m high masonry part wall between the roof terraces of Units 1 and 2.

·      Erect a 0.6m high cedar privacy screen on top of the 1m high masonry part wall between the front balconies of Units 1 and 2.

·      Relocation of the rear and side wall positions of each Bedroom 3 at the lower ground level to match up with structural walls. (This will slightly increase the gross floor area of each Unit).

·      Regrading of a portion of the front garden of Unit 2, including the provision retaining walls.

·      Extension to the basement level via the relocation of the entire rear wall and southern side wall, including the provision of a laundry, steam room, lift motor rooms for each unit and extend the storage and garage of Unit 2.

·      Extend the garbage store of Unit 2 and relocate the garbage store of Unit 1.

 

DA/92/2003/A – approved 9 December 2003 to delete conditions 2, 3 and 8 and undertake other minor alterations

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

5.1 Objections

 

The proposal has been notified from 2 October 2009 to 16 October 2009 in accordance with the 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 the owner/residents of 4/162 Brook Street raising the following issues:

 

·      The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site and the proposed floor space ratio is excessive for the site.

 

Comment: The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to the relevant development standard and the objection was considered to be well founded. Further, the portion of non-compliance is largely contributed to the sub floor levels and is a result of the topography. This non-compliance does not represent unreasonable or excessive bulk and scale when viewed from the street.

 

·      The site is not suitable for the proposed development and given the nature of the proposal, such an up market development does not contribute to a variety of housing types in the area as per the objectives of the zone 2C under the RLEP 1998.

 

Comment: The proposal falls under the definition of “multi-unit housing”, which is permissible with consent within Residential 2C zones as outlined by the RLEP 1998. The proposal will provide additional residential accommodation for the area, which is comprised of a variety of medium density housing types targeting a range of housing markets. The development is consistent with the scale of the surrounding development, is commensurate with the 2C zoning of the area and will contribute to the provision of a mix of housing types.

 

·      The applicant’s geotechnical report is outdated (dates back to 2001) and does not discuss or take into account the development at 162 Brook Street. The applicant should address the likely impacts of such substantial excavation upon the stability of the adjoining properties.

 

Comment: Should consent be granted, the applicant will be required to submit, to the satisfaction of Council, a revised and updated geotechnical investigation report prior to the issue of a construction certificate for the current application. Further, given that the proposal requires substantial excavation and retaining of the site, suitable conditions will be imposed to ensure that adjoining properties are adequately supported and no damage is caused to the adjoining properties as a result of works on the subject site

 

·      The external lighting for the proposed development should not cause nuisance to the adjoining properties and ensure timers are implemented such that they do not result in light spillage into neighbouring windows.

 

Comment: Suitable condition of consent included within this report.

 

·      The rooftop terrace is ill conceived, has not been provided with any shade from the elements and will have very little use; this is a waste of money.

 

Comment: The roof terrace will allow for outdoor recreation and additional solar access to the future occupants of the site in good weather conditions. Further, not enclosing/covering the terraces will serve to limit their use and reduce any potential impact on the surrounding dwellings. 

 

·      The rear and side setbacks are inadequate to ensure that the future occupants of the subject site have access to a sunny rear garden. A cold and overshadowed garden cannot be considered as contributing to open space for recreation.

 

Comment: The proposed dwellings have been provided with adequate access to outdoor recreation areas. These areas have been distributed throughout the floors in the form of a variety of balconies, terraces, and rear yard areas. The proposal is deemed to be acceptable and appropriate in this instance.  

 

5.2 Support

No letters of support were received.

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:-

 

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 demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a multi unit development at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Dwg No DA01-08 by Manolev Assoc P/L dated 23.09.2009;

 

Landscape Comments

The site inspection revealed that the only vegetation within this site comprised two separate Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gums), both of around 6-7 metres in height, along the southern site boundary, with the poorer of the two being located within the front setback, near the corner of the site, and then one on higher ground to the west, towards the southwest corner of the site.

 

Both are covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and while being attractive endemic species, are only in average condition due to dieback and deadwood, possibly due to exposure.

 

Given the steep slope of the site and the resulting need for significant excavations associated with terracing the development up the slope, it would not be physically possible to retain either tree, with the relevant approval for their removal having been included in this report.

 

Whilst the computer generated images in the S.O.E.E indicate that a thorough landscape scheme will be provided, this will not be possible based on the submitted landscape plan, as it is inadequate for this type of development, with plans which will ensure a higher level of detail and treatment needing to be implemented for the site.

 

Landscape conditions included in this report require that, due to the elevated position of both the site and proposed building above the surrounding public domain, planting that will reduce the visual dominance of the development onto streetscape must be used, and should also include ground covers that will cascade over the garages/terraces fronting Brook Street.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has included conditions protecting the pedestrian footpath which adjoins the southern site boundary, with the assessing officer also advised that the applicant should be required to retain and re-use the existing site sandstone in the landscape works.

 

Drainage Comments

Onsite detention of stormwater is required for this application.

 

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 PCA for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

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.

 

An inspection of the site revealed that there are overhead powerlines which run adjacent to the southern side boundary in Bay Street over and across Brook Street to its eastern side. Consequently, the applicant will need to underground all electricity and telecommunication cables/wires that service the development site as well as those that cross the Brook Street carriageway from the power pole located in Bay Street. These cables are to be located underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority

 

Recommendation:

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

 

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 367.9m² and a master plan is not required.

 

8.    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

8.1      The proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

Clause 12 – Zone No 2C (Residential 2C Zone)

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 falls under the definition of “multi-unit housing” as outlined in the RLEP 1998 and is permissible with consent. As the site is within a 2C zone, the proposed development is assessed as multi unit housing. The proposal will provide additional residential accommodation for the area and the proposal will have a bulk and scale that is commensurate with the adjoining development in the area and will provide a greater mix of housing types.

 

As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

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

Clause 46 – Development in the vicinity of heritage items, heritage conservation areas, and known or potential archeological 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.

Having regard to these matters, the proposed works are not considered to result in any adverse impact on the Heritage Item to the north, past the Dudley Street intersection, at No 152 Brook Street (“Brooklyn Flats”, c 1930, Item 126 of Randwick City Council’s Heritage Inventory).

 

It is noted that the subject application has been discussed with Council’s Heritage Planner who has advised that the proposed new multi unit developmentwill not adversely impact on the heritage value of the heritage items in the vicinity and there are no heritage objections to the proposal given the distance between the two sites.

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

22 Services

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

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

Complies, subject to conditions

31 Landscaped area

(2) Minimum 50% of the site area (or 183.95m2)

 

 

 

(3) Landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas not to exceed 50% of landscaped area provision (91.975m2)

62% (228m2).

 

 

 

 

55% of the landscaped areas (100.32m 2) of the total landscaped areas are provided above basement levels.

Complies

 

 

 

 

Does not comply- SEPP 1 objection submitted.

 

32 Floor space ratio

0.65:1 for sites less than 700m2 in 2C zones

1.34:1 (492.9sqm)

Does not comply- SEPP 1 objection submitted.

33 Building height

(2) Overall height: 12m

 

(4) External wall height: 10m

Maximum height 10.3m

 

Maximum wall height 8.8m.

Complies 

 

Complies.

40 Excavation and filling of land

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

The proposal will involve an earth-cut up to approximately 7m for the basement car parking. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Investigation Report for the site (Prepared by Geotechnique Pty Ltd, report number 3740/1-AA, dated 20 March 2001 and received by Council on 29 September 2009) indicating that the proposed earthworks will not have any detrimental effect on the soil stability and environmental quality of the subject site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40. The applicant will be required to submit, to Council’s satisfaction, an updated geotechnical report prior to the issue of a construction certificate for the current application.

Complies, subject to conditions

 

8.2      Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008

 

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

 

Clause

Provision

Proposal

Compliance

17

Zone No. 2C Residential C Zone

Multi Unit Housing requires consent

 

The proposed land use is permissible with Council’s consent

 

Yes

33

Floor space ratios

(3) Sites within 2C Zone less than 700m2: 0.65:1

 

Total proposed GFA: 492.9m2 1.34:1

 

 

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

34

Building heights

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

 

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

 

Maximum height 10.3m

 

 

Maximum wall height 8.8m.

 

 

 

Yes

35

Landscaped area

(3) Minimum 50% of total site area

 

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

 

62% (228m2).

 

 

55% of the landscaped areas (100.32m 2) of the total landscaped areas are provided above basement levels.

 

Yes

 

 

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

 

8.3             State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

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

 

8.3.1    Development standards

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

 

·      Clause 31(3) not more than 50% of the required landscaped area provision is accommodated above podiums or basements

·      Clause 32(2) 0.65:1 maximum floor space ratio

 

The above provisions are numerical development standards contained in the statutory plan.

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection, the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 have been addressed. The case has established that the upholding of a SEPP 1 objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before a proposed development can be approved by the consent authority:

 

8.3.2    The underlying objectives or purpose of the standards

Minimum landscaped areas:

·      To establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes.

 

Maximum FSR:

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

 

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

 

Matter 1

The Court must be satisfied that “the objection is well founded” (clause 7 of SEPP 1). The objection is to be in writing, be an objection “that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case”, and specify “the grounds of that objection” (clause 6 of SEPP 1).

 

(a) Landscaped area

Clause 31(2) requires 50% of the site to be dedicated as landscaped area, which equates to 183.95m2. Clause 31(3) provides that not more than 50% of the required landscaped area provision (that is, 91.975m2) is to be accommodated over podiums or excavated basements.

 

The proposal will reserve 62% of the site as landscaped area (228m2).

A total of 55% of the landscaped area (100.32m2) is provided over podium or basement.

 

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

 

·      The proposal provides adequate areas of communal and private open space, which adds to the amenity of the units.

·      The deep soil landscaped area has been concentrated within the peripheries of the site, which provides for substantial screening plants between the subject site, adjoining buildings and public areas. 

·      The deficiency in deep soil provision is minor deficiency and will not result in significant impacts.

·      Landscaping has also been well integrated into the two street setbacks which help to ‘soften’ the appearance of the development from the street in accordance with the objectives of the landscaping standards.

·      The objectives of clause 31(3) will be met by the development despite non-compliance the statutory standard.

·      The landscape plan lodged with the application indicates opportunities for a range of passive and active recreation areas suitable for the occupants of the dwellings and will also contribute to achieving privacy and separation between surrounding properties and make a streetscape contribution.

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 objection, which outlines the following justifications for the variation to the standard:

 

·      The development provides generous balcony and terrace areas to both the dwellings that relate to living areas, views, solar access and meet Council’s minimum dimensions.

·      Quality planting is to be provided to soften the appearance of the development and assist in maintaining visual privacy between allotments. A landscape concept plan has been prepared and submitted with the application in accordance with Council’s requirements.

·      The numeric non-compliance is minor (only 8.345m2 over the maximum permissible landscaped area allowed over podiums or basements) and as a result, compliance would have little overall impact on urban runoff.

·      There is sufficient soil depth and soft landscaped areas to minimise impact on urban runoff.

·      The consequence of the 8.345m2 non-compliance is diminished because the southern boundary of the site adjoins the eastern end of Bay Street which has been closed to traffic and landscaped. The landscaping on the eastern end of Bay Street serves to soften the visual impact of the development.

·      The proposed soil depth in the soft landscaped areas and the quality of landscaping proposed will ensure that the objective of the standard, i.e. to provide landscaping to soften the visual impact of the development, will be achieved.

·      Compliance with the standard is unreasonable given the slope of the site. The site slopes steeply from the western (rear) to the eastern (front) boundary, resulting in a difference of approximately 6 metres between these boundaries. Consequently, a significant retaining wall is required to allow the site to be developed, which has meant the area of podium is larger than what would be required on a site with a less significant slope. By virtue of the topography of the land, it is difficult to achieve the Council’s numeric standard in clause 31(3) of the RLEP.

Compliance is also unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposal is consistent with all of the relevant aims and objectives of the 2(c) zoning under Randwick LEP 1998 and satisfies the performance criteria of the relevant development control plans.

 

(b) Floor space ratio (FSR)

Pursuant to Clause 32(2) of RLEP 1998, the maximum floor space ratio for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C is 0.65:1, where the site area is less than 700m2.

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 1.34:1 (492.9sqm) and does not comply with the requirement of clause 32(2) of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The objective of the floor space ratio (FSR) standard is to establish a reasonable upper limit for development in residential zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment. An accepted measure of the impacts on amenity is the degree of compliance a proposal achieves with Council’s amenity standards for overshadowing, visual privacy, views etc.

 

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

·      Consistent with the objective of the FSR standard, the development minimises impacts to neighbouring properties despite the non-compliance of the proposal with the density standard of 0.65:1.

·      The proposal complies with the maximum height standards and given the site constraints due to the steep topography, much of the area of non-compliance is located at sub ground levels. This serves to minimise the appearance of unreasonable bulk and scale.

·      As discussed in this report and the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection the FSR non-compliance will not result in unreasonable overshadowing, inadequate landscaping or privacy impacts. The design of the building minimises its visual bulk.

·      The addition of 2 dwellings in this location is not excessive and can be accommodated on the site.

·      Surrounding buildings are of a similar bulk and scale to the proposal and the development is consistent with surrounding built forms and will not result in excessive building bulk on the street. The development is commensurate with surrounding development and the 2C zoning of the area.

·      The exterior of the building has been well articulated with height and setback variations, balconies and different roof forms. This modulation of walls and articulation of the building envelope will ensure its building bulk is compatible. The proposed level of finish along with the distribution of massing and façade articulation will enhance the streetscape.

·      It would be unreasonable to enforce compliance with the FSR standard contained within the RLEP when the proposed development on the site achieves the underlying purpose of the standard and meets Council’s controls with regard to streetscape, residential amenity, and height. It is considered that SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 objection, which outlines the following justifications for the variation to the standard:

 

·      The proposed FSR allows the site to achieve a built form and density consistent with adjoining development. In effect, it represents a reasonable level of development, as prescribed by the purpose of the development standard.

·      Much of the additional actual floor space is located underground. In this location, it does not directly contribute directly to building bulk. Subsequently, it is a reasonable outcome.

·      The increased floor space does not alter the population density for the site with the area being taken up by ancillary rooms.

·      The number of bedrooms, and therefore population, is consistent with the population allowed pursuant to a compliant development.

·      The proposal, as a whole, is consistent with relevant statutory and non-statutory controls. Importantly, the proposal has been found to be consistent with the built form of the immediate locality, as well as the population density.

·      The development will allow implementation of the latest features minimising a dwelling’s impact on the natural environment.

·      Compliance with the standard will result in a built form significantly inconsistent with the existing building and surrounding development.

·      The limited site area precludes development from achieving floor space similar to that of surrounding developments.

·      The proposal is consistent with all of the relevant aims and objectives of the 2(c) zoning under Randwick LEP 1998 and satisfies the performance criteria of the relevant development control plans. As a result, the proposal achieves the purpose of the standard.

 

(d) Conclusion

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objections have addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standards, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objections have been appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of each case. As such, it is considered that the objections are well founded.

 

Matter 2

The Court must be of the opinion that “granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3” (clause 7 of SEPP 1).

 

The aims and objects of SEPP 1 set out in clause 3 are to provide “flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act”. The last mentioned objects in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are to encourage:

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

(2) the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use of developed land.”

 

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

 

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

 

Matter 3

The Court must be satisfied that a consideration of the matters in clause 8(a) and (b) of SEPP 1 justifies the upholding of the SEPP 1 objection. The matters in clause 8(a) and (b) are:

 

“(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument”.

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not aid in maintaining the ability to develop medium density housing forms such as multi unit housing, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

Preston C J expressed the view that an objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways:

 

First

The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. If the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposal will achieve the objectives of the development standard.

Second

A second way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is unreasonable.

 

Fourth

A fourth way is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The FSR and landscape development standards have not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Fifth

A fifth way is to establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The existing Residential 2C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality, which is characterised by medium density multi unit development. 

 

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

SEPP No. 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. The subject site has been used continuously for residential and health consulting purposes for a prolonged period and is not considered to carry contamination potential. Accordingly, the site is considered suitable for the proposed land use.

 

8.5      State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for multi-unit housing where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2005. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

The proposal is for a new multi-unit housing development and the applicant has provided a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development. The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction.

 

The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate (certificate no. 266821M, date of issue 25 November 2009) for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX have been included in the recommendation section of this report.

 

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

 

Application of Policy-

 

This Policy applies to development being:

 

(a)    The erection of a new residential flat building, and

(a)    The substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing residential flat building, and

(b)    The conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building.

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

 

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

 

The proposed works do not fall under SEPP 65 and as such the application was not referred to the Design Review Panel.

 

9.    Policy Controls

 

9.1      Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

 

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

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

The application was accompanied by a suitable site analysis plan reflecting the elements of the proposed development. 

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

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

The site is of regular shape with an existing frontage of 18.29m. Although this does not comply with the preferred solution for multi unit development site frontages, it is considered that the dimension and configuration of the site is suitable for the proposed development and will not compromise access to amenities for future occupants of adjacent properties. It is noted that the development meets preferred solution side setbacks.

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

The development generally responds to the Brook Street frontage as the Bay Street frontage is inaccessible to vehicles and adjoins a reserve with pedestrian access only.

Height

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

 

The proposal has a height and scale which is compatible with the surrounding built environment and does not detract from the prevailing character of the locality.

The proposed building readily complies with the maximum building and external wall heights as contained in the RLEP 1998. The proposal responds to topography, dimensions, and orientation of the site and surrounding properties. The design incorporates a number of features which assist in reduction of the apparent bulk including:

 

 

- articulation of the external facades of the building through provision of terraces, balconies, and design

- the proposed combination of external materials, colours and finishes.

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

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

 

The building is appropriately articulated with staggering wall alignments, a combination of materials, balconies, and creates satisfactory visual interest.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

The proposed development has a minimum front setback of 3.7m and is consistent with that of the adjoining dwellings and surrounding streetscape.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

North: 2.3m – 3.1m, Does not comply.

South: 1.5m – 3.1m, Does not comply.  Complies

Refer to “setbacks” Section below this table for detailed assessment of non-compliance.

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of any unarticulated wall – 7m, Complies.

 

All steps provided are a minimum of 3.5m. Complies. 

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

Rear setback to western boundary – external walls of building from 3m to 4m – does not comply. Refer to “setbacks” Section below this table for detailed assessment of non-compliance.

 

 

 

Maximum length of any unarticulated wall – 7m, Complies.

P4  General

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

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

The proposed shading devices and design of the development will not result in significant shadow impacts on the adjoining properties.

Density

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

 

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the character of the locality and the proposed dwellings maintain even distribution of scale and form to ensure that adequate character/scale elements are afforded to the streetscape.

Building bulk has been distributed to avoid unacceptable impacts upon adjacent properties.

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:       

§ consistent with streetscape;

§ Entrances highlighted; and

§ Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

No front fence has been proposed.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Landscaped areas and terraces to the front, rear and sides of the dwelling have dimensions greater than 2m. Complies.

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

 

Each unit is provided with ample private open space for outdoor recreation. As each unit is provided with a separate entrance and essentially accessed as single units, the proposed layout is considered to be more appropriate in this case.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Each dwelling is provided with direct access to private outdoor recreation areas. Complies.

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

 

All private open space is located behind the building line with the exception of the front terraces the ground level located above the garages. This terrace has been provided with planter boxes such that it does not detract from the streetscape. Other open space provided to the side and rear of the site. Complies.

P5  Townhouses

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

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

Not applicable.

P6  Flats and apartments

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

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

Not applicable.

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

The proposal includes openings to the street, rear, northern and southern western elevations.

 

 

 

Openings to the eastern and southern elevations will overlook Brook Street and Bay Street respectively.

Openings on the rear (western) elevation have been indicated for provision with translucent louvres. 

Most windows are adequately offset and sufficiently protect the privacy of adjacent properties and the upper floors are generally occupied by bedrooms, which are not considered to be areas of high traffic.

This is acceptable in terms additional overlooking and loss of privacy for adjoining dwellings.

The proposal is deemed to be acceptable in this regard and screening is to be provided where overlooking is likely to occur. Suitable conditions include where necessary.

Further, the current application has addressed many design issues relating to privacy raised in the previously approved scheme and is considered to be adequate in minimising overlooking impacts for the adjoining properties to the wet and north whilst still preserving views and outlooks for surrounding properties. For example, the north facing terraces have been made non-trafficable to minimise potential loss of privacy for the adjoining residential flat building at 162 Brook Street.

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

The private open space of each dwelling is located away from that of other. The ground floor open space is adequately screened/separated by planter boxes and fencing. Proposed balconies generally face Brook Street. Satisfactory.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Satisfactory.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

A standard condition is recommended to require the proposed works to comply with the Building Code of Australia. Complies, subject to condition.

View Sharing

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

 

The dwelling to the north of the subject site currently enjoys extensive easterly views toward Coogee Beach. The proposal slightly improves the view corridor from this property by reducing the RL and cutting back from north eastern side. The south eastern side views remain unaffected as the alignment of the proposed building emulates that of the existing dwelling. The proposed development is lower than the existing development on the site and consequently provides greater solar access and ventilation for the adjoining properties whilst improving view corridors.

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

 

The proposal is approximately 2m lower than the ridge of the existing building on the site and will not result in significant view loss.

 

 

Properties to the west are uphill of the subject site and look eastwards over the site. The minor increase in the building envelope at the upper level of the proposal will not affect view opportunities from the property to the west (30-32 Bay Street). The proposed building is lower than the upper floor of the adjoining two storey dwelling, due to the change in ground level between the two properties. Existing outlook from the upper floor of 30-32 Bay Street will be maintained by the proposal. The scheme maintains a similar front setback to the existing building on the site and will not affect any outlook across the site from adjoining properties to the north and south (162 and 166 Brook Street). Further, views from the Bay Street Park directly adjacent the subject site to the south will not be significantly affected by redevelopment.

Properties on the eastern side of Brook Street are oriented to the easterly views and do not have outlook to the west (towards the subject site).

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

Views from this part of Coogee are generally to the east and northeast comprising the ocean, coastline and district outlooks. The development will have no significant impact on access to these views from surrounding properties.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

The proposed landscaping will not unreasonably reduce solar access to the adjoining properties. Satisfactory.

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

 

The proposal will not result in unreasonable overshadowing impacts on the solar panels on the rooftops of adjoining dwellings.

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

 

All of the north facing windows to of the adjoining building to the rear will enjoy direct solar access for not less than 3 hours of the winter solstice.

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

 

The principal private outdoor open space of the adjoining properties will receive a minimum 3 hours of sunlight over at least 50% of its area throughout the year. The proposal has provided ample side setbacks and will not unreasonably affect the solar access of adjoining properties.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

§ Living areas are orientated to the north.

§ Larger windows are located on the north.

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

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

A BASIX certificate has been submitted and standard conditions are recommended to require compliance with the commitments stipulated on the certificate through to the construction phase.

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Complies.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Complies.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

Complies.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

Complies.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

Not applicable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

Conditioned.

P7 Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

Conditioned.

P8 External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

Conditioned.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

The proposal will have 2 x three bedroom dwellings with each unit allocated two (2) carspaces. This allocation readily meets the carparking requirements of the DCP.

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

 

Due to the elevated nature of the site, the proposed garage will be built forward of the building line as well as to the property’s front boundary. Notwithstanding this, there is adequate landscaping proposed to satisfy the relevant objectives of the DCP and the proposed garages consistent with parking structures along this side of Brook Street and is not obtrusive in the overall scale of the streetscape and surrounding parking spaces. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this instance.

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

 

Not applicable.

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Not applicable.

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

The areas occupied by the access driveway are considered to be satisfactory and will not result in unacceptable visual impacts.

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Complies.

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

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

Not applicable.

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

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

Suitable conditions imposed.

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

The proposal does not feature any large expanses of concrete adjacent to the street frontage. Satisfactory.

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

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

The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineers and no objections were raised on traffic or safety grounds. Suitable conditions included.

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

Internal facilities provided to each dwelling and designated storage spaces have been allocated to each dwelling. Complies.

Barrier-Free Access

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

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

Not applicable.

P2  Dwelling requirements:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 so on…

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

 

Not required as the development comprises of only 2 dwellings. 

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

 

Not required as the development comprises of only 2 dwellings. 

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

 

Not required as the development comprises of 2 dwellings. However, an internal lift has been proposed. Complies.

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1 Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Complies.

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

 

Conditioned.

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