Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 13 April 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 6:00pm.

 

 

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

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members.

 

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

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 9 March 2010

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports

D14/10      37 Houston Road, Kingsford (deferred)

D15/10      11 Lurline Street, Maroubra (deferred)

D16/10      Shop 131 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

D17/10      55 Dudley Street, Coogee

D18/10      44 Adams Avenue, Malabar

D19/10      38 Caley Street, Chifley 

D20/10      373 Avoca Street, Randwick

D21/10      2 - 40 Gumara Street, Randwick

D22/10      10 Severn Street Maroubra

D23/10      15 Bona Vista Avenue, Maroubra


Miscellaneous Reports

M7/10       Unit 6, 878-890 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

M8/10       Reclassification of land - 64-66 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra and 3/90-98 King Street, Randwick - from Community to Operational Land    

 

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D14/10

 

 

Subject:                  37 Houston Road, Kingsford

Folder No:                   DA/622/2009

Author:                   David Mooney, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations & additions to existing multi-unit housing including new attached double garage fronting Barker Street with new kitchen and terrace for Unit 4 above, new laundries for units 1,2,3 on the southern elevation and a new ensuite for Unit 4

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                TFAD Pty Ltd

Owner:                         A and E Hatzopoulos

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Executive Summary

 

This development application was previously reported to Council 8 December 2009 with a refusal recommendation. The Council resolved on the motion of Councillors Andrews and Belleli to defer the application in order to allow the applicant to address the SEPP 1 issues.

 

The applicant submitted a more thoroughly detailed SEPP 1 Objection for floor space ratio on 16 February 2010, but did not make any changes to the proposal. The additional detail in the SEPP 1 objection does not overcome the earlier reasons to recommend refusal.

 

The proposal continues to be an unsympathetic addition that dominates the existing residential flat building. Stepping forward of the existing building and abutting the street boundary, there is a poorly resolved masonry wall that is one and a half storeys high. The massing and scale does not complement or defer to the existing residential flat building. The partly replicated brick detailing would exacerbate incompatibility between the existing building and the proposed addition. There is also no room left for landscaping to soften the impact to the street. The remaining landscaped area at the rear of the site is severely compromised and much less functional as a communal open space for the other 3 units in the existing building. The proposed addition has very little architectural merit and would compromise the character of the existing building and the locality.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal involves an addition to the rear of the existing residential flat building providing a new kitchen/dining room and terrace for upper-level unit 4, and a new double garage at ground level. The Barker Street elevation of the proposed addition can be seen in figure 1.

 

Figure 1 – Barker Street elevation of the addition (shaded)

 

 

The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site has an 11m frontage to Houston Road and a 37.345m frontage to Barker Street. It is 408.5m2 and has a 2 storey brick building with 4 residential units. There are 2 storey residential flat buildings to the north and a 3 storey residential flat building to the south. The land is zoned residential 2B and the proposal is permissible with consent. Figure 2 shows an aerial photograph of the site.

 

History

 

The present development application was referred to Council for determination 8 December 2009 because there were SEPP 1 objections to floor space ratio and landscaped area that exceed 10% of the standards. The Council resolved on the motion of Councillors Andrews and Belleli:

 

“That this application be deferred to allow the applicant to address issues in order to satisfy the SEPP 1 objection.”

 

The applicant submitted a more comprehensive detailed SEPP 1 objection for floor space ratio 16 February 2010.

 

Additional SEPP 1 Information

 

The applicant prepared a more comprehensive detailed SEPP 1 Objection for the proposal including a photomontage. The main points are reproduced and assessed here. The full objection is attached to this report.

 

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

 

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

 

Pursuant to Clauses 31 and 32 of RLEP 1998, there are standards for minimum Landscaped Area and maximum Floor Space Ratio. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Landscaped Area

Floor Space Ratio

Proposal

33.9%

1.03:1

LEP standard

50%

0.65:1

Variation

16.1 percentage points

0.38:1

 

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 standards as outlined in the LEP is:

 

Landscaped area: 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.

 

Floor Space Ratio: 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.

 

The applicant has submitted a revised SEPP 1 objection for floor space ratio, which outlines the following primary justifications for the variation to the floor space ratio standard:

 

·      Applicant: The proposal allows for the orderly and economic use of the land [because it] improves the amenity of all units [by including] an increase in parking, increase in soft landscaping and a better communal space arrangement [and] internal laundries to all units.

 

Assessing Officer: The proposal is not an orderly development of the land because the addition has an unsympathetic scale and it adversely impacts on the streetscape. Overall landscaped area reduces and while the communal open space area is formally landscaped (with less concrete) it is smaller overall and overshadowed throughout the day by the addition.

 

·      Applicant: The additional variation is of minor consequence to the bulk and scale of the overall building. In fact, the additions are completely unapparent from Houston Rd whilst the comparative montages demonstrate minimal difference to the overall appearance of the building along the Barker Street Frontage.

 

Assessing Officer: This claim is partly true, the proposed addition can no more be seen from Houston Rd than it can be seen from even further away. That is because the main building is in the way. However, the addition can be seen from Barker St. In fact the building abuts the public footpath in Barker St and cannot be landscaped. The comparative montage actually shows that the proposal is an overly bulky, mis-matched and poorly resolved addition.

 

·      Applicant: The FSR is provided in a respectful manner as demonstrated by reasonable and compliant solar access and privacy outcomes.

 

Assessing Officer: It is unclear how the applicant has arrived at the conclusion that the proposal has compliant solar access outcomes. As previously report by the Assessing Officer, the shadow diagrams clearly show that the addition reduces the available sunlight to a northern window next door to less than 1 hour per day during the winter solstice.

 

·      Applicant: Many properties [in the area] exhibit larger scale FSR developments with narrower setbacks.

 

Assessing Officer: All proposals are considered on merit and Council can allow variation to the development standards on the basis of superior design outcomes. The proposal does not exhibit superior design outcomes. None of the nearby buildings with high floor space ratio abut the street and rear boundaries.

 

·      Applicant: The proposed development is considered to be of a sympathetic and compatible scale as demonstrated in the photomontage along Barker Street. The matching of bricks and incorporation of detailing to blend in with the existing building are considered to result in a compatible outcome. Nevertheless, the flat roof component is considered to distinguish the addition from the existing building.

 


Photomontage of the proposed addition

 

 

Assessing Officer: These are not genuine claims. An addition that is compatible or sympathetic in scale is one that has a recessive building form. It should be smaller than the main building, lower to the ground and setback further from the boundary. The proposed addition (while smaller) is forward of the main building and has a bulky unrelieved parapet abutting the street boundary. There is no room for landscaping to soften the impact of the addition on the street. Matching the bricks and detailing would only serve to highlight the difference between the main building and the addition because modern bricks never actually match older bricks and the proposed detailing is not in the correct proportions. Meanwhile, copying some details (like the bricks) and not others (like the roof) is not a good design outcome, but a very poor one. Nevertheless, materials and detailing are only a small part of the perception of scale and the fundamental issue is the bulky wall that is forward of the main building and abutting the street boundary.

 

·      Applicant: The rear setback is appropriate given its relationship with the site to the rear/west which is a substation. There are therefore no design or amenity impacts to the western neighbour.

 

Assessing Officer: There are impacts on the streetscape where the building abuts street and rear boundaries. The impacts are unacceptable.

 

·      Applicant: The proposed wall height of the addition is 6.5m which is akin to a dwelling house while the setback of 4.3m is far more than the required 0.9 setback associate with such height.

 

Assessing Officer: Dwelling houses have different design controls to multi-unit housing.

 

·      Applicant: The proposal provides for new deep soil planting around the perimeter of the site which allows for greenery to be introduced which will soften the appearance and bulk of the built form. This improves the appearance of the building along Barker Street whilst demolition of the laundry in the rear yard also improves the appearance from the southern neighbour and increases the communal space for the subject building.

 

Assessing Officer: There are no ‘new’ perimeter deep soil areas facing Barker St or Houston Rd. Only existing areas of landscaping that are proposed to be planted with shrubs. The addition abuts the street and rear boundary and does not allow any landscaping at all to soften the development. The appearance of the building from the southern neighbour will change from diminutive single storey laundry and detached garage to a 2 storey garage with little aesthetic merit. The proposal results in a net loss of communal open space and a decrease in the potential amenity of the space that remains because of overshadowing.

 

·      Applicant: The additional FSR is not responsible for greater privacy impacts than the existing development due to the setback and siting … [and] the installation of privacy screening.

 

Assessing Officer: Protection of privacy is adequate.

 

·      Applicant: The proposal is consistent with the Urban Design Initiative titled “Design Ideas for Rejuvenating Residential Flat Buildings, 2006” … through replacement of external laundries with landscaping; provision of internal laundries…; upgrading landscaping around the perimeter of the site…; replacement of a non-complying garage with a complying double garage; improved amenity for Unit 4 through the provision of additional living area, making use of the air space over the garage in an attractive manner without adverse or unreasonable impact to any neighbour.

 

Assessing Officer: Improved amenity is only part of the recommendations in Council’s Design Ideas publication. Context, setting and aesthetics are also important. The proposal fails to respond adequately to its context because it is too bulky and too far forward of the existing building. The aesthetics are mismatched and not well resolved.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has not addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has not appropriately justified that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objection is not 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.”

 

·      Comments:

The applicant has not presented a case to establish that compliance with the standards would hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act. The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the locality and this is contrary to the objects as quoted in the SEPP. The variations from the Landscaped Area and Floor Space Ratio Standards are not consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as they would detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would not promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

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:

This matter only becomes relevant where the consent authority intends to grant consent to the non-compliance under SEPP 1.

 

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:

 

1.      First

2.      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.

3.       

4.      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.

5.       

6.      Comments:

7.      As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is reasonable and necessary as the design scheme will not achieve the objectives of the development standard.

8.       

9.      Second

10.  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.

11.   

12.  Comments:

13.  The underlying purpose of the standards is relevant to the development because it is a residential standard applying to a residential development.

14.   

15.  Third

16.  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.

17.   

18.  Comments:

19.  Compliance with the standard would not defeat or thwart the purpose of the standard. The impact of the proposal is in direct conflict with the stated purpose of the standards.

20.   

21.  Fourth

22.  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.

23.   

24.  Comments:

25.  Many non-complying buildings nearby were approved under an earlier set of standards. Any variations to the contemporary development standards in the whole of Randwick City are carefully considered by Council under SEPP 1 on a case by case basis. The standards cannot be said to have been abandoned or destroyed by the actions of Council.

26.   

27.  Fifth

28.  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.

29.   

30.  Comments:

31.  There is no evidence to suggest that the zone of the site is inappropriate.

32.   

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The application was lodged under the former SEPP 10 (Retention of low cost rental accommodation) but must be considered under the current SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 because of the transitional provisions in clause 54(2).

 

The applicant proposes to off-set the potential loss of low-rental accommodation with rental cap of $400 per week for 2 years on the 3 rented units. The applicant says the units are presently let for $360/$370 per week, and once renovated would normally fetch between $425 and $450 per week. The rent-cap on 3 units would equate to a discount of between $7800 and $15600 over 2 years (and perhaps up to $20,000 depending on growth in rental prices in that time).

 

The alternative cash contribution to an affordable housing fund that could be levied by Council (if the units were proposed for strata-subdivision) would be $34,940 when calculated according to the formula in the SEPP.

 

To match the value of the cash contribution, the applicant would need to propose a rent cap set at $81.63 per week below the median rental for Randwick LGA for a period of 3 years. The discount over 3 years would be $35,264. It needs to be slightly more than the up-front amount because of the time-value of money.

 

The median rental for the Randwick LGA is presently $450 per week so the rent cap of $81.63 means that the current rents could be maintained and only increased as median rental increases.

 

Should Council wish to approve the application a consent condition addressing this matter should be included in the recommendation.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The applicant submitted a more thoroughly detailed SEPP 1 Objection for floor space ratio 16 February 2010, but did not make any changes to the proposal. The additional detail in the SEPP 1 objection does not overcome the earlier reasons to recommend refusal.

 

The proposal continues to be an unsympathetic addition that dominates the existing residential flat building. Stepping forward of the existing building and abutting the street boundary, there is a poorly resolved masonry wall that is one and a half storeys high. The massing and scale does not complement or defer to the existing residential flat building. The partly replicated brick detailing would exacerbate incompatibility between the existing building and the proposed addition. There is also no room left for landscaping to soften the impact to the street. The remaining landscaped area at the rear of the site is severely compromised and much less functional as a communal open space for the other 3 units in the existing building. The proposed addition has very little architectural merit and would compromise the character of the existing building and the locality.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No. 622/2009 for alterations & additions to existing RFB including new attached double garage fronting Barker Street with new kitchen and terrace for Unit 4 above, new laundries for units 1,2,3 on the southern elevation and a new ensuite for Unit 4 at 37 Houston Road, Kingsford, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed landscaped area is 33.9% and does not achieve the minimum prescribed landscaped area of 50% specified in Clause 31 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal does not satisfy the purpose of the landscaped area standard because the lack of setback to Barker Street prevents landscape planting that would soften the impact of the development.

 

2.     The proposed floor space ratio is 1.03:1 and exceeds the maximum prescribed floor space ratio of 0.65:1 specified in Clause 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal does not satisfy the purpose of the floor space ratio standard because its massing and scale would compromise the character of the existing building and the locality.

 

3.     The proposed addition has an adverse impact on the character of the street and is therefore inconsistent with the objectives of the 2B Residential Zone specified in Clause 11 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

4.     The proposed addition does not satisfy the preferred solutions and objectives for Building Setback specified in Clause 3.3 of Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing.

 

5.     The proposed addition does not satisfy the preferred solutions and objectives for solar access specified in Clause 4.4 of Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Revised SEPP 1 Objection, 37 Houston Road, Kingsford, DA/622/2009

 

 

 

 


Revised SEPP 1 Objection, 37 Houston Road, Kingsford, DA/622/2009

Attachment 1

 

 















Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D15/10

 

 

Subject:                  11 Lurline Street, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/161/2009/B

Author:                   David Mooney, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification to relocate roof stairs, change and realign windows and alterations to screen to living room

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

 

Applicant:                Architectural Projects

 

Owner:                         B and P Pang

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This modification application was previously reported to the 23 February 2010 Council meeting with a refusal recommendation. The Council resolved:

 

“That this application be deferred to allow the applicant time to submit amended plans and have further discussions with council officers.”

 

The applicant has had further discussions with Council Officers and submitted revised plans and information for Council’s consideration.

 

The revised plans address the earlier concerns and approval is now recommended.

 

2.    Background

 

The modification was previously recommended for refusal on the following grounds.

 

“The proposal increases floor space ratio to 0.98:1 and does not comply with the preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives for floor space ratio in the Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The proposal increases overshadowing to an upper level bedroom window at 11A Lurline Street to an unreasonable degree.”

 

The application submitted revised plans and supporting information on 29 March 2010.

 

3.    Community Consultation

 

Council notified the original section 96 application to nearby landowners. The subsequent revisions of 29 March 2010 reduce the impact of the building to an acceptable degree and were not renotified. Issues raised are summarised and assessed here:

 

Objector, 15 Lurline Street, Maroubra

 

Issue: Strongly object to any increase in floor space ratio as the proposal already exceeds the permissible limits.

 

Assessing Officer: The floor space has been added in a manner that is sensitive to the streetscape. The balcony enclosure on the upper level retains an important 3 metre un-enclosed setback to the northern boundary, similar to the setbacks at this level on adjoining lots.

 

Issue: Object to the proposal for a cover [awning] to be placed over the roof-top terrace area; there is no precedent in our street.

 

Assessing Officer: The awning was omitted from the plans after the notification period.

 

Objector, 11A Lurline Street, Maroubra

 

Issue: Tree plantings on the south western corner are not marked with a symbol.

 

Assessing Officer: Yes they are. The plantings are Phormium Tenax which is commonly known as New Zealand Flax. It has a clumping habit to 1m high with striking purple sword-shaped leaves.

Issue: The stairwell to the rooftop terrace has adverse impacts to the natural light currently enjoyed by the bedroom

 

Assessing Officer: The stairwell to the roof terrace was modified in the plans submitted 29 March 2010 so that it causes no more overshadowing than in the approved plans.

 

4.    Section 96 Assessment

 

The application was lodged under Section 96(2) of the Act. The proposed modification satisfies the Section 96 threshold and is substantially the same as was originally approved.

 

5.    Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

Floor space ratio

 

The approved development increased the floor space ratio of the existing building by 7m2 to 0.96:1. The modification proposal includes a net increase of 1m2 but retains an FSR of 0.96:1.

 

The additional floor area results from a partial enclosure of the upper front balcony and reallocating floor area in the basement as plant room so that it is excluded from calculations. The balcony enclosure now differs from the proposal that was previously recommended for refusal. There is a 3m unenclosed setback to the northern boundary, which retains a deep articulation in the street façade similar to the other large dwellings nearby at 7, 9, 11A and 15 Lurline St. The proposal is now considered to be compatible with the existing character of the locality and satisfies the objectives for floor area in the Development Control Plan.

 

Solar access

 

The proposed alteration to the roof-terrace stair enclosure does not increase overshadowing at 11A Lurline St.

 

Development Control Plan – Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

The remaining changes to the proposal reconfigure internal layouts and change building materials and finishes including:

 

·      Minor changes to windows to improve their aesthetics,

·      Change part of the northern wall from brick to glass with operable aluminium louvres.

·      Reconfigure internal stairs, bathroom and laundries.

 

Theses changes do no infringe on any of the preferred solutions or performance requirements in the 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.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

This modification application was previously report to the 23 February 2010 Council meeting with a refusal recommendation. The Council resolved:

 

“That this application be deferred to allow the applicant time to submit amended plans and have further discussions with council officers.”

 

The applicant has had further discussions with Council Officers and submitted revised plans and information for Council’s consideration.

 

The revised plans address the earlier concerns and approval is now recommended.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority grant consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/161/2009/B for modification by partial enclosure of upper balcony and minor alterations to windows, building materials and fences at 11 Lurline Street, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01, DA06, DA07 dated 22 July 2009 and DA03, DA04, DA05 dated 5 June 2009, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans dated 29 March 2010 and received by Council 29 March 2010 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

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D16/10

 

 

Subject:                  Shop 131 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/79/2010

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Change of use of an existing premises to a massage therapy clinic with hours of operation; Monday-Thursday 7.00am to 9.00pm, Friday 7.00am to 8.00pm, Saturday 8.00am to 7.00pm and Sunday 9.00am to 8.00pm; and associated signage

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Ms Heather Levy

Owner:                         The Owners - SP No. 13088

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


Executive Summary

 

The application details the change of use of an existing commercial tenancy within a mixed use development for the purposes of massage therapy. The proposed use involves massage and in accordance with Council’s Resolution on 27 June 2006, the application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

 

It is considered that the proposed use is legitimate and the premises are not intended to be used for the purposes of providing sexual services. The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

1.    The Proposal

 

The application details the change of use of the existing commercial tenancy to a massage therapy business. The existing commercial tenancy will be adapted to include a reception area to the shop entrance, a waiting room to the centre of the shop and a therapy room to the rear of the shop. The applicant advised on 15 March 2010 that no construction works are proposed other than the painting of the interior of the shop and replacement of existing under-awning signage.

 

The proposed hours of operation are:

 

Monday to Thursdays:        7.00am – 9.00pm;

Fridays:                           7.00am – 8.00pm;

Saturdays:                       8.00am – 7.00pm; and

Sundays:                          9.00am – 8.00pm.

 

There will be a capacity of 1 massage bed and there are to be a maximum of 2 employees (one receptionist and one massage therapist).

 

2.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject property is located on the southern side of Coogee Bay Road between Byron Street and Mount Street in Coogee. The site is presently occupied by a four-storey mixed-use development consisting of commercial units to the ground floor and three levels of residential units above.

 

To the east of the subject site is a 4 four storey residential flat building and to the west of the site is a two storey mixed-use development consisting of commercial units to the ground floor and one level of residential units above. To the rear of the site is a three storey residential flat building.

 

The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and there are examples of two, three and four storey mixed-use and residential flat developments within the vicinity of the subject site.

 

Photographs of the subject site and surrounding area:

Figure 1 – Aerial photograph of the subject site.

 

            

Figures 2 & 3– The subject site as viewed from Coogee Bay Road.   

 

Figures 4 & 5  – Existing streetscape to the east and west of the subject site.

 

3.    Site History

 

The following are applicable to the subject site:

 

·      DA/174/2000 approved to use the ground floor premises as a denture clinic;

·      DA/313/1993 approved to change the use from a video repairs to a video rental outlet;

·      DA/334/1989 approved to replace the existing fire stairwell & erect a minor addition to the rear of the existing residential flat building; and

·      DA/439/1988 approved to use existing shop as a ladies hairdressing salon.

 

4.    Community Consultation

 

In accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for Public notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans, the proposal has been notified to the owners of surrounding properties for a period of fourteen days from 15 February 2010 until 1 March 2010.

 

Council’s Public notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans states that a development proposal may be exempted … where that development is, in the opinion of council, of a minor or ancillary nature and is not likely to result in any adverse impacts on adjoining or nearby land.

 

Following discussions with Council’s supervisor for the Fast Track development assessment team, it was been decided that the proposed development was not required to be advertised in the Southern Courier. It is considered that the proposal involves no significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties and the advertising fee taken at the time of lodgement is recommended to be refunded to the applicant.

 

 

5.    Objections

 

The following submissions were received in objection of the proposal:

 

Objection 1

Author and objection

Comment

Owners/residents Unit 3, 126-128 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

 

The proposal may set an undesirable precedent for similar uses above my property in the future.

 

It is not fully understood where the premises are located. The numbers allocated the buildings along this frontage are 126-128 and 130A – 132 (Coogee Bay Road).

 

Concerned that the premises will be located above the bedrooms to our residence. This may lead to noise problems. If so, the hours of operation are unsuitable.

 

No off-street car parking is to be provided for the proposed use. It is likely that clients would not just be ‘passing trade’ but would drive to the premises. The site is in a no parking zone, is adjacent to a signalized intersection and parking is limited to the area. It is acknowledged that the numbers of clients to the premises would be low.

 

Did not receive notification of this development application and would appreciate a written response to our submission.

 

 

 

 

The subject premises are located opposite and to the east of 126-128 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

 

See above.

 

 

 

 

See above.

 

 

 

 

Agreed. See parking discussion below in section 7.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal was notified to the objector’s residence at Unit 3, 126-128 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee. A written response to the submission was emailed on 15 March 2009. 

 

Objection 2

Author and objection

Comment

PO Box 92 (unknown address)

 

Consideration should be given to the implications of ‘therapeutic’ massage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hours of operation should be limited to 9.00am – 5.00pm to minimise impact on neighbours’ amenity. 

 

 

The applicant provided documentation to Council including relevant professional qualifications to carry out the proposed use (massage therapy).  It is considered that the proposed use is legitimate and the premises are not intended to be used for the purposes of providing sexual services. Nevertheless, a condition of consent has been included that no sexual services are to be offered in association with the massage therapy usage.

 

Disagreed. See discussion below in section 8.

 

 

 

5.1 Support

No submissions were received in support of the proposal.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application was required to be referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officers and Building Officer.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officers provided the following comments:

 

Environmental Health comments

 

The proposal

Council is in receipt of a development application to operate a massage therapy premises at the above address.

 

Key Issues

The procedures are not considered skin penetration as defined under the Public Health (Skin Penetration) Regulation 2000 hence will be recommended a condition be placed preventing this activity as hand wash basins are required in each treatment room.

 

Massage is proposed with no other activity. As such appropriate conditions have been included in this report.

 

Council’s Building Officer provided the following comments:

 

The Proposal

 

Minor alterations and fit-out within the existing commercial building to establish a massage therapist business.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class        -      5/6   (Shops/Offices)

Class        -      2      (Residential units)

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

 

§ A ‘rise in storeys’ of 4

§ Masonry walls, tiled roof and timber floors

§ One exit stairway, of concrete construction

§ One/two commercial tenancies at ground floor level

§ Residential sole occupancy units located above the commercial level

§ External balconies

§ Side boundary building setbacks of approximately nil

 

Key Issues

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

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

 

It is noted that the existing shopfront is relatively new (circa 1993) and no works are proposed and the classification remains as Class 5, therefore, it is considered an unjustifiable hardship to require an access/step ramp to the front entry.

 

No requirement will be imposed.

 

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

 

Site Management:

Standard conditions are proposed to be included in the consent to address construction site management issues and public safety.

 

Officer Comment:

The applicant advised on 15 March 2010 that no construction works are proposed other than the painting of the interior of the shop and replacement of existing under-awning signage. Consequently, conditions of consent which related to construction works (and which were recommended for inclusion in the consent by Council’s Building Officer) have been omitted.

 

7.    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 (Consolidation)

The site is zoned 2C Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) and the proposed activity is a prohibited within for the zone.

 

The owner of the premises supplied documentation confirming on-going existing use rights for the non-conforming use of the site as commercial premises on 11 March 2010.  The information submitted included a Statutory Declaration and copies of commercial leases dating from 2003 until 2009. The owner of the premises also supplied and a notice of development consent dated 3 March 2000, for the change of use of the premises as a denture clinic.

 

The continuation of existing use rights for the site are supported and as such, the proposal has been compared to the following Clauses of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) in a merits based assessment:-

 

(i) Clause 12 - Zone objectives:

The site is zoned 2C Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).  The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will:

 

·      Continue to provide for a medium density residential environment;

·      Continue to maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas;

·      Continue to protect the amenity of existing residents; and

·      Allow for a range of community uses to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors.

 


(ii) Clauses 20E, 20F & 20G - Landscaped area, floor space ratio and building heights:

The proposal is for the use of existing premises only and will not alter the existing landscaped provision to the site, the floor space ratio for the building or the height of the existing building.

 

(iii)  Clause 35 Business premises in residential zones

Council may grant consent to the development of land within Zone No 2C for the purpose of business premises, but only if the Council is satisfied that the proposed use is to be situated in a building, or part of a building, that was originally designed or constructed (or both) for use as business premises, and does not occupy more than 100 square metres of floor space.

 

The owner of the premises supplied documentation confirming on-going existing use rights for the non-conforming commercial use for the site on 11 March 2010. As such, Clause 35 is not applicable. 

 

7.1      Policy Controls

 

a. Parking Development Control Plan

The parking requirement for a business premises in a residential zone [where the development is being assessed under Clause 35 of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation)] is one space per 50 square metres of Gross Floor Area. The subject site has a floor area of 40 square metres and would therefore be required to provide one off-street parking space.

 

Council’s Parking DCP specifies that where the development comprises a modification to an existing development, that Council will generally only require additional parking to be provided to cater for additional demands arising from increases in floor space or change in use. The current proposal involves no increase in floor space and it is considered that the proposed use will not generate additional parking demand above the existing use of the premises as a small graphic design office.

 

Council’s DCP also allows for the provision of parking to be balanced against a number of factors including:

 

·      The availability of public transport;

·      The availability of on-street parking;

·      The demand for car parking by other activities in the locality; and

·      The nature and scale of the proposed development.

 

With this is mind, it is considered that the proposal is not required to provide additional off-street parking for the following reasons:

 

·      There is convenient access to public transport in close proximity to the shop;

·      There is on-street parking in the vicinity of the shop and on nearby side streets;

·      Other activities to the locality are predominantly residential and do not create a high demand for parking during the proposed hours of operation of the premises; and

·      The small scale nature of the proposed use is not considered to create an additional demand for off-street parking above that which currently exists.

 

b. Outdoor advertising Development Control Plan

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

 

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

 

7.2 Council Policies

There are no Council policies applicable to the proposed development.

 

8.    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.

 

Nature of the Use

Massage will be carried out in the rear therapy room by a maximum of 2 staff. The therapy room has a lockable door to the waiting room area however the applicant has provided professional credentials and it is considered that services of a non-sexual nature will be provided. Notwithstanding the above, appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that no services of a sexual nature are to be provided at any time.

 

Hours of Operation:

Monday to Thursdays:        7.00am – 9.00pm;

Fridays:                           7.00am – 8.00pm;

Saturdays:                       8.00am – 7.00pm; and

Sundays:                          9.00am – 8.00pm.

 

It is considered that the proposed hours will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact upon the amenity of the surrounding residential properties. Clients visiting the premises will enter and exit through a door on Coogee Bay Road, at grade and which is separated from the access to residential units above. The proposed use is also considered not to impose any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring residential units with regard to noise generation.

 

Staff Qualifications

A condition of consent has been included that the relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications of the staff are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to the commencement of the use. Council will then keep a record of the employees and their relevant qualifications.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8:       A strong local economy.

Direction 8a:      The proposal, in providing for a commercial use will facilitate the provision of services to the community as well as the growth of local businesses.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 


Conclusion

 

The proposed change of use including the change of use and replacement of existing signage will comply with the relevant assessment criteria outlined in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation), the Outdoor Advertising DCP and the objectives of the Parking DCP. The proposed use is considered to be consistent with surrounding small business uses and subject to conditions to restrict the type of massage therapy service provided, the inoffensive nature of the use will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/79/2010 for the Change of use of an existing premises to a massage therapy clinic with hours of operation; Monday-Thursday 7.00am to 9.00pm, Friday 7.00am to 8.00pm, Saturday 8.00am to 7.00pm and Sunday 9.00am to 8.00pm; and associated signage, at Shop 131 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

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:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans labelled Commercial Premises Lot 1, SP 13088 and received by Council on 10 February 2010, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5.       The hours of operation are restricted to :

 

Monday to Thursday:        7.00am to 9.00pm;

Friday:                           7.00am to 8.00pm;

Saturday:                       8.00am to 7.00pm; and

Sunday:                         9.00am to 8.00pm

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure compliance with Local Government Legislation and Policies of Council:

 

6.       Skin penetration as defined under the Public Health Act 1991 is not permitted.

 

7.       The premises must not to be used for the purpose of a brothel and in this regard, no sexual services are to be offered in association with the massage use.

 

8.       The maximum number of employees operating from the subject premises is restricted to 2, and their relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to the commencement of the use.

 

9.       All furniture used for treatments (e.g. chairs, tables, and treatment beds), shelves and fittings must be constructed of, or covered with material that is smooth, impervious to moisture and capable of being easily cleaned.

 

10.     A wash hand basin must be provided in a common area and must be accessible at all times.

 

11.     The wash hand basin must have a supply of soap and disposable towels at all times.

 

12.     All wash hand basins and cleaning sink/s must have:

 

·          a supply of hot and cold water from a mixing valve,

·          ceramic tiles provided to a height of 450mm above the wash hand basins and cleaning sink.  

 

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

 

Regulatory

 

13.     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.

 

Fire safety

14.     The existing levels of fire safety within the building are to be upgraded and carried out prior to the commencement of the proposed use, in accordance with the following requirements and relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), as applicable,:

 

a)     Provide portable fire extinguisher/s and fire blanket/s within the  office area in accordance with clause E1.6 of the BCA,

 

b)     Details of the abovementioned works must be included in the Construction Certificate, which must be obtained from Council’s Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier, prior to carrying out any works,

 

15.     Upon completion of the fire safety upgrading works and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, a single, complete fire safety certificate is to be submitted to Council. A copy of the fire safety certificate and fire safety schedule are to be displayed in a prominent position within the building (i.e. entrance area) and a copy is to be forwarded to the NSW Fire Brigades, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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:

 

16.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

18.     Business premises which are used for massage purposes must comply with relevant public health and safety legislation and requirements and they must be registered with Council prior to the commencement of the proposed use. The relevant registration and inspection fee is also required to be paid to Council in accordance with Council’s adopted Pricing Policy.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D17/10

 

 

Subject:                  55 Dudley Street, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/364/2008/A

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) application to modify the approved development to increase the floor area and size of balconies to some dwellings.

                                      Original consent: Four storey mixed use development comprising commercial and residential uses with associated car parking

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Bentom Developments

Owner:                         Bentom Developments

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original application was approved at the Planning Committee Meeting of 10 November 2009.

 

The application seeks to modify the approved development to increase the size of some dwellings and increase the area of balconies to some dwellings.

 

The main issue is the impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties that may result by the proposed modifications.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposed modification seeks consent to vary the consent in the following manner;

 

a)     Square off the rear of dwellings 1 & 6 which has added 0.5m to each dwelling.

b)     Extend the living area of dwellings 11 & 13 to align with the external wall of the adjacent bedrooms which provides for an additional 8m to each dwelling.

c)     Extend the balcony to dwellings 5 & 10 to the adjoining common walkway.

d)     Enlarge the balcony to dwelling 11.

 

The proposed modifications to the building will provide for 17m of additional floor area. However, due to the minor nature of the increase, the resultant floor space ratio remains at 1.52:1, which is the approved FSR for the proposed development granted under the original DA.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The existing site has 3 street frontages to Havelock Avenue, Asher Lane and Dudley Street with a 3m wide pedestrian walk way to the eastern boundary. The site has dimensions of 20m in width, 36m in length and an area of 727m.

 

The site is within a 2C zone which contains a variety of dwellings primarily provided within multi unit housing buildings; the immediate locality also contains a variety of local business uses.

 

4.    Site History

 

The original application was approved at the Council meeting of the 10th November 2009 as a deferred commencement.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

 

Owner/resident of 9/47-53 Dudley Street Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

Why were the amended plans not considered with the recent review?

 

 

The extension of the building envelope in part makes a difference to the viewer by creating a block like façade as the recess provided by the previous proposal does not exist.

 

The extensions to apartments 11 and 13 add visibly to the bulk and size of the building.

The argument that the floor space ratio remains the same due to a slight over calculation needs to be checked.

The previous review was in relation to the overall refusal of the application, whilst this application seeks to modify some of the approved building elements.

 

On balance the degree of additional bulk and scale to the building as a result of the extension of some of the walls of the building cannot be regarded as being significant and will not result in any substantial adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

The floor area of the building as detailed in this application is accurate. As addressed in Section 6.1 below, the increase in floor area occurs predominantly within the walls enclosing the central courtyard and setback at a distance from the street frontages such that the changes will be imperceptible to adjoining properties including that of the objector. 

 

6.    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.

 

6.1      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

a)      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) was gazetted on 15 January 2010.  Clause 7 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) requires that a development application lodged but not finally determined prior to the appointed day will continue to be assessed and determined under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 that was in force immediately before the commencement of this plan. The subject Section 96 application was lodged on the 4th December 2009 and is therefore subject to the savings provision. Further, when determining an application to which this clause applies, the consent authority must have regard to the provisions of this plan as if it had been exhibited under the Act but had not been made.

 

Consequently, the assessment of this Section 96 application is made against the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, and the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) is treated as a draft plan only.

 

b)      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 2C Residential 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:-

 

(i)     Zone Objectives:

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Zone No 2C (Residential C Zone) area.

 

(ii)    Landscaped Area:

The proposal does not alter the approved landscaped area to the site.

 

(iii)            Floor Space Ratio:

The proposal will not increase the approved floor space ratio to the site.

 

 

(iv)   Building Height:

The proposal will not increase the approved building height for the multi-unit dwelling.

 

c)      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

Pursuant to Clause 30 of the SEPP, the consent authority may refer a proposed Section 96 modification to the relevant design review panel. The Section 96 application was not referred to the Design Review Panel as the proposed changes are considered to be minor with no changes in the approved FSR and height of the development; the proposed changes are not inconsistent in terms of the 10 heads of consideration / assessment criteria that need to be assessed under SEPP 65; and the proposed changes do not result in any detrimental impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties.  

 

d)      Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

The nature of the proposed modifications to the approved development does not require any further detailed assessment in relation to this DCP.

 

e)      The regulations

The proposed changes to the approved plans are considered to be consistent with the objectives and requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

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

 

Perceived bulk and scale

The proposed changes will not affect the perceived bulk and scale of the development as viewed from neighbouring properties or from the front and rear streetscapes. The changes predominantly will occur internally within the enclosing walls to the central courtyard and within upper floor walls that are setback from the main building line to street fronts such that there will be no perceived visual bulk and scale arising from the changes when viewed from adjoining properties and the adjacent streets.

 

Additionally, no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties will result from the proposed changes.

 

g)      The suitability of the site for the development:

The site has been assessed as being suitable for multi-unit development in the previous development consent granted by Council. The current proposal does not involve any significant change to the floor space and built form of the approved development.

 

h)      The public interest.

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification will not result in any changes to the building heights and FSR approved under the original DA; will maintain the same amount of landscaped area as that approved under the original DA; and will not result in any adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties in terms of privacy, solar access, views and visual bulk and scale.

 

It is recommended that the application to modify the consent in the manner described be approved.

 

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/364/2008/A for permission to modify the approved development to increase the floor area of apartments 1, 6, 11 and 13, increase the size of the balconies to apartments 10 and 11 at  55 Dudley Street, Coogee in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered S82A-100, S82A-101, S82A-102, S82A-103, S82A-104, S82A-105, S82A-200, S82A-201, S82A-300, S82A-301 and S82A-302, all Revision D, dated 21/10/09 and received by Council on the 22 October 2009, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered S96-000, S96-001, S96-102, S96-103, S96-104, S96-200, S96-300, S96-301 & S96-302 all Revision E dated 3/12/09 and received by Council on the 4th December 2009, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D18/10

 

 

Subject:                  44 Adams Avenue, Malabar

Folder No:                   DA/735/2009

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of part of existing dwelling, construction of two storey attached dual occupancy utilising remaining portion of existing dwelling with garaging and associated works

 

Ward:                      South Ward

 

Applicant:                Puma Homes Pty Ltd

 

Owner:                         Puma Homes Pty Ltd

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

The proposal details partial demolition of the existing double storey dwelling house and construction of an attached dual occupancy with the remaining portion of the dwelling and associated landscaping works. The proposal also seeks to enhance the existing brick perimeter wall and provide vehicular access for each dwelling.

 

The application was notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 14 – 29 October 2009 in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

The site is within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998. The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that the development it will not detract from the environmental qualities of the area and will improve the functionality of the subject dwelling without compromising the amenity of surrounding dwellings. The proposed works will result in a development that has a bulk and scale that is commensurate with the surrounding development. As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

The proposal complies with the maximum building height and landscaped area controls of the RLEP 1998. The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height and floor space ratio controls.

 

As such, the applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 – Development Standards justifying that the above breaches will not result in significant adverse amenity or visual impacts on the area.

 

This non-compliance with these standards is deemed to be acceptable as the dwelling is compatible the surrounding street and would not unduly impact upon the solar access and amenity presently enjoyed by neighbouring properties.  The SEPP No. 1 Objection has been assessed and is supported.

 

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 proposal details partial demolition of the existing double storey dwelling house and construction of an attached dual occupancy with the remaining portion of the dwelling and associated landscaping works. The proposal also seeks to enhance the existing brick perimeter wall and provide vehicular access for each dwelling.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is known as Lot 1 in DP 31637 at 44 Adams Avenue in Malabar and is located on the southern side of Adams Avenue at the intersection of Prince Edward Street. The site is presently occupied by an existing two (2) storey dwelling house.  The site has a frontage width of 13.9m to Adams Avenue, a secondary frontage /side boundary depth of 335.53 to Prince Edward Street, a rear boundary width of 16.95m and has an overall site area of 613.4m². Neighbouring the property to the south and west are double storey dwellings. To the north and east are Adams Avenue and Prince Edward Street, respectively.  The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of a mixture of single and double storey dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies. Refer to table below for photographs of the site and surrounds.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The existing building

2. Adjoining dwelling to the south

3. Existing dwelling and western side driveway

4. Development of similar scale across Adams Avenue

 

5. Adjoining dwelling to the west

6. Existing wraparound balcony at the first floor of subject dwelling.

 

4.    Site History

 

There is no site history relevant to this application.

4.1      Application History

The application was lodged on 12 October 2009. Preliminary assessment of the application revealed some deficiencies in adequate landscaping provision and potential adverse impacts to the amenity of surrounding dwellings. The applicant was also advised by the assessing officer that some modifications should be made to the design to alleviate these issues. The following was discussed: 

 

·      Reduce floor space by setting first floor away from southern boundary and reconfiguration of ground floor to consolidate smaller courtyard areas into more useable outdoor areas for future occupants.

·      Move the southern wall away from the boundary adjacent to 180 Prince Edward Street (or at least the top floor away from the southern boundary)

·      Provide (where possible) complying FSR, landscaped area and heights as the site has ample area to accommodate a dual occupancy quite comfortably without breaching LEP controls.

 

It is noted that following consultation between Council’s Assessment Officer and the applicant, amended plans were received on 10 March 2010 to reflect the above recommendations. These plans form the subject of the current assessment.

 

4.2      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:

 

The proposal seeks to vary any development standards contained with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as follows: 

 

·      Floor Space Ratio (Clause 32)

·      Maximum Eternal Wall Height (Clause 33(3))

 

Pursuant to Clause 32(1) of RLEP 1998, the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2A is 0.5:1 or 306.7m2 gross floor area (GFA). The proposal has an FSR of 0.55:1 or 337.5m2 GFA. 

 

Pursuant to Clause 33(3) of RLEP 1998, the maximum external wall height for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2A is 7m. The proposal has a maximum external wall height of 8.6m.  

 

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).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Floor Space Ratio

1.     The proposed increase in floor space is effectively contained behind the existing high front fence and will not be overly obvious from street level.

2.     The proposed floor space provides the necessary incentive to undertake the proposed upgrade of the existing dwelling and provide quality housing accommodation within a quality residential precinct.

3.     The subject site is essentially flat and the additional floor space does not give rise to issues relating to height non-compliance. The scale of the proposed development will be similar to other new dwellings in the precinct and the attached dual occupancy at No 178 Prince Edward Street.

4.     The character of the locality will remain residential and the building will be domestic in scale replicating the likely desired future scale of buildings in the precinct.

5.     No variation is sought to street setbacks. According the bulk and scale of the building does not protrude beyond that of adjoining buildings.

6.     All on-site car parking requirements are reasonably met.

7.     The proposed variation from the development standard will facilitate the orderly development of the site.

8.     The proposed development accords with the zone objectives.

9.     The proposed FSR variation does not give rise to any additional loss of sunlight during the winter solstice to adjoining properties or give rise to any new privacy considerations. 

10.   The proposed development is reasonable given the balanced consideration of previous Council considerations in respect of other sites in the precinct.

11.   No trees of significance are required to be removed as part of the application.

12.   No State or regional issues will arise should Council approve the variation under the provisions of SEPP No1.  

 

External Wall Height

1.     The excess wall height occurs due to the inclusion of a planter box along the perimeter of the roof terrace.

 

2.     The proposed planter box provides an aesthetic feature and privacy protection. The provision of selective planting within the planter box will enhance the visual presentation of the wall/elevation.

 

3.     The non-compliance is minor and only extends for half of the wall length.

 

4.     Given the extent of compliance with the height controls generally, the proposed variation is reasonable in this instance. It is noted that the adjoining owner raised no specific concern in this regard.

 

5.     The proposed development is reasonable given the balanced consideration of previous Council considerations in respect of other sites in the precinct.

 

6.     No State or regional issues will arise should Council approve the variation under the provisions of SEPP No1.  

 

7.     No environmental impacts arise from the proposed variation.

 

8.     The development appropriately responds to the provisions of Council’s DCP and LEP. Approval of the development will derive inherent streetscape benefits relative to the existing dwelling on the subject site;

 

9.     The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone and the objectives and performance criteria of Council’s DCP;

 

10.   The proposed variation of the standard enables the related objectives of the Act to be achieved.

 

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

 

Floor Space Ratio

·      The proposed floor space is not inconsistent with the character of development in proximity to the site, which is comprised of a mixture of single and two storey dwellings and attached dual occupancies. The size and scale of built form on the site has been distributed to ensure that adequate character elements are afforded to the streetscape, without adversely impacting on the visual appearance of the site when viewed in context with surrounding properties.

·      There will be no appreciable adverse impacts on the surrounding development and streetscape.

·      There are no views affected by the proposal.

·      The proposed development maintains a generous setback to Adams Avenue and effectively utilises its corner location to respond to both its primary and secondary frontages.

·      The roof design has been provided with a mixture of pitches and is articulated to minimise the appearance of bulk and scale when viewed from the street.

·      The slight separation of the two units gives the appearance of 2 separate dwellings when viewed from Prince Edward Street and serves to minimise the bulk of an otherwise single mass extending down the length of the site.

·      The minor additional floor space that is proposed, over and above the technical standard, is of a minimal amount, and does not result in adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

·      The proposed development is not inconsistent with the character of the locality, and while contemporary in design, the proposed dwelling maintains even distribution of scale and form to ensure that adequate character/scale elements are afforded to both street frontages. Compliance with the Floor Space Ratio development standard is unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. The overall development is deemed to be sympathetic to the amenity of the surrounding dwellings and streetscape.

 

External Wall Height

·      The highest point on the proposals external wall is resultant from an enclosed stairwell to access the roof terrace of Unit 2. This is set back from the street and represents minimal bulk and scale. 

·      The additional wall height will still serve to ensure that the building relates to the context of the building, including street type, surrounding buildings, landscape and views.

·      The non-compliance is contributed to by the roof terrace and planter boxes and is not considered to be excessive and positively contributes to the visual articulation of the building façade and will not result in a building of excessive bulk and scale.

·      The development maintains reasonable daylight and solar access to all development and the public domain.

·      The proposed development is of a reasonable quality, contextually responsive and environmentally sustainable design, and represents an efficient and appropriate development of the subject site which is compatible with the environmental capacity of the site and the surrounding Residential 2A zoning. 

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objections have addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objections have appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the 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 FSR and External Wall Height standards 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 2A Zone in that it will allow development of dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies, 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 standard 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  development low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

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 External Wall Height 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 2A zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality, which is characterised by low density residential development. 

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The application was notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 14 – 29 October 2009 in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

5.1 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:

 

An application has been received for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of an attached dual occupancy at the above site.

 

The assessing officer is advised that strata subdivision conditions have not been included in this report as it appears not to form part of the application despite submitting a subdivision plan

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

·      Job No 5116-DA01-DA06 by Zhinar Architects dated July 2009;

 

·      Landscape Concept Plan by Vision Dynamics Pty Ltd, drawing number 9100DA 1, revision A, dated 25.09.09.

 

Landscape Comments

The site inspection revealed the presence of three recently planted street trees on both frontages, comprising firstly, a 3 metre tall Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwood) on the Adams Avenue verge, to the east of the existing vehicle crossing, and then two small Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo) on the Prince Edward Street side.

 

While only being relatively small at this point in time, they have been strategically planted by Council in order to improve the appearance of this exposed and barren area of Malabar, and will need to be retained in the public domain, with minimal (but still relevant) protection measures, including a refundable deposit as security, imposed in the form of conditions in this report.

 

The only vegetation within the entire site was observed to be a total of three (3) Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pines), all located in the front yard, with the smallest being a specimen close to the northwest corner of the existing dwelling.

 

This tree is growing in an inappropriate location given its size at maturity, and as it is already in poor health and condition, and will also be in direct conflict with the proposed Unit 1, no objections are raised to its removal as has been shown, with the new planting and landscape works indicated for this area of the site deemed suitable.

 

The two larger, closely planted specimens to the east of the tree described above, around the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, are around 12-15 metres in height and are covered by the TPO, with established examples of this species being a common and well recognised feature throughout the suburbs of Malabar, Chifley, Little Bay and Matraville, which is directly attributable to the age of the dwellings and the planting themes used at this time. 

 

The plans show that the larger, most western of these two trees will be removed, which Council does not object to given the extent of dieback that it already displays, and will also increase the amount of usable open space available to future occupants.

 

However, this subject to retaining the remaining tree (most eastern specimen) as an existing site feature as part of this application, which will be possible through the protection measures that have been listed in this report.

 

Drainage Comments

Onsite detention of stormwater is not required for this application.

 

Should the application be approved the appropriate nominated conditions shall apply.

 

7.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

7.1             Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) was gazetted on 15 January 2010.  Clause 7 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) requires that a development application lodged but not finally determined prior to the appointed day will continue to be assessed and determined under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 that was in force immediately before the commencement of this plan. The subject application was lodged on 12 October 2009, and is therefore subject to the savings provision. Further, when determining an application to which this clause applies, the consent authority must have regard to the provisions of this plan as if it had been exhibited under the Act but had not been made.

 

The proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality. The following clauses of LEP 1998 are relevant to the proposed development:

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

The relevant objectives of Zone No 2A are:

 

(a)  To maintain the character of established residential areas, and

 

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

 

The proposal will not detract from the environmental qualities of the area and will improve the functionality of the subject dwelling without compromising the amenity of surrounding dwellings. The proposed works will result in a development that has a bulk and scale that is commensurate with the surrounding development. As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

The proposal falls under the definition of “attached dual occupancy” as outlined in the RLEP 1998 and is permissible within the Zone 2A.

 

The following clauses of LEP 1998 are relevant to the proposed development. Areas of Non-compliance are the subject of a SEPP 1 objection and are discussed under the SEPP 1 section of this report.

 

Clause 31 - Landscaped Area

Clause 31 of LEP 1998 states that a minimum of 40% of the site area must be provided as landscaped area for areas zoned 2A.

 

The proposal has 43.8% of the site as landscaped area and, therefore, complies.

 

Clause 32 - FSR

Clause 32 of LEP 1998 states that the maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 2A is 0.5:1.

 

The proposal has an FSR of 0.55:1. This does not comply. Therefore, the applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to address this non-compliance. 

 

Clause 33 – Height

Clause 33 of LEP 1998 imposes a maximum overall building height of 9.5 metres for buildings on land zoned 2A and 2B, and 12 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C.  It also imposes a maximum external wall height of 7 metres for buildings on land zoned 2A and 2B, and 10 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C. 

 

The proposal has a maximum building height of 8.66m, which complies with the maximum height control. The maximum external wall height of the proposed dwelling reaches 8.6m. This does not comply. Therefore, the applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to address this non-compliance. 

 

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

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

The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate (Certificate number 273721S, date of issue 8 October 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.    Policy Controls

8.1         Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

 

Landscaping

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

43.8% of the site is landscaped area. Complies

S1

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

The private open spaces of the dwellings have minimum areas of 31.55sqm and 82.64sqm. Complies. 

S1

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

The dwellings have area with minimum dimensions of 5m x 5.3m and 3.852m x 12.755m, respectively - each dwelling has a minimum of 25m2 private open space. Complies

S1

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

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

29% of the site is permeable. Complies

 

The Objectives of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced; dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation space; storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design; and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

 

The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; indigenous species are used and existing vegetation is recycled where possible; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed FSR is 0.55:1. Does not comply- SEPP 1 objection submitted.

 

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

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 8.6m. Does not comply- SEPP 1 objection submitted.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Side setback to eastern boundary (Prince Edward Street) – Minimum setback of 1m. Satisfactory.

 

Side setback to western boundary (adjacent to No. 42 Adams Avenue) – garage has nil side setback. Does not comply, see assessment below.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

1.2. Does not comply; see comments relating to ‘Building Setbacks’ below. 

S4

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

The entire southern elevation of the proposed dwelling is 2.1m from the southern side boundary at first floor level and has a maximum length of 9m. Complies.

S5

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

Not applicable.

 

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

 

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

 


Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed development is set back 6.5m from the primary street frontage of Adams Avenue. Complies.

S2

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

Unit 2 is located 1.2m from the rear of the subject site. Does not comply. Refer to detailed assessment below.

S3

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

Side setback to eastern boundary (Prince Edward Street) – Minimum setback of 1m. Satisfactory.

Side setback to western boundary (adjacent to No. 42 Adams Avenue) – garage has nil side setback. Does not comply, see assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

Side setback to eastern boundary (Prince Edward Street) – Minimum setback of 1m. As existing.

Side setback to western boundary (adjacent to No. 42 Adams Avenue) – minimum of 2.6m. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

 

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

 

Comment:

It should be noted that the subject allotment enjoys a corner position with dual frontages to Adams Avenue (primary) and Prince Edward Street (secondary). The two units have been designed to respond to both frontages, where unit 1 is orientated toward the north and unit 2 to the east. As a result, the rear of the subject site can also be seen as a side boundary to unit 2, where the private open space for the dwelling is concentrated toward the south western corner of the site.

 

The setback from the southern side boundary is 1.2m with a building separation distance of 2.5m between the subject site and the adjoining dwelling to the south at No. 180 Prince Edward Street. Notwithstanding the proposal’s deviation from numerical standards, the proposed setback is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:-

 

·      The southern elevation has no windows proposed for the first floor and will not result in loss of privacy for the adjoining dwelling.

·      The ground floor windows are screened by the existing 1.8m high masonry fence and present no overlooking issues for the property to the south.

·      The non-compliant setback does not result in unreasonable levels of overshadowing to the adjoining dwelling to the south as the first floor is set back 2.1m from the southern boundary (for detailed assessment of overshadowing impacts refer to the ‘Solar Access and Energy Efficiency’ section below).

·      The proposed dwelling adequately addressed both street frontages and has been 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.

·      Nearby 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 (refer to photographs of site and surrounding development).

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposal has habitable room windows that overlook those of adjoining dwellings within 9 metres. See assessment below.

S1

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

The existing first floor balcony of Unit 1 is to be retained and currently overlooks the dwellings to the west, south west, and south. Overlooking from this balcony is most significant toward the east facing side of the adjoining property at No. 42 Adams Avenue.

The proposed roof terrace of Unit 2 is located adjacent to No. 180 Prince Edward Street directly to the south but predominantly overlooks Prince Edward Street. 

For detailed assessment of privacy impacts, refer to discussion below.

S1

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

Not required.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

The Objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

 

Comment:

The openings proposed for the northern and eastern elevations overlook Adams Avenue and Prince Edward Street, respectively. These elevations also look over roof tops of dwellings to the east toward Malabar Beach and Long Bay.

The majority of large window and door openings extending from high traffic living areas are concentrated on the ground floor, where the existing 1.8m high masonry boundary fence is sufficient in maintaining reasonable privacy between the site and adjoining properties.

 

The existing first floor balcony of Unit 1 is to be retained and currently overlooks the dwellings to the west, south west, and south. Overlooking from this balcony is most significant toward the east facing side of the adjoining property at No. 42 Adams Avenue. However, No. 42 Adams Avenue also have a large east facing balcony capable of looking into the subject site and all surrounding sites currently already experience significant mutual overlooking. One north facing window is to be removed as part of the current application. Given the existing conditions of the site, as well as similar large balconies on surrounding dwellings, the proposed dwelling does not exacerbate the existing level of overlooking toward adjoining properties.

 

The proposed roof terrace of Unit 2 is located adjacent to No. 180 Prince Edward Street directly to the south but predominantly overlooks Prince Edward Street.  Further, the terrace has been provided with a wrap around planter box with widths ranging from 1.4m to 1.8m to preserve the privacy of dwellings to the west and south. It is noted that there only one opaque glass brick window on the first floor of the adjoining dwellings to the south and with the installation of planter boxes, overlooking toward the ground floors of adjoining dwellings is minimal and at an oblique angle.

 

The upper floors of both dwellings comprises of a stairwells, bedrooms and bathrooms, which are not considered to be areas of high traffic. The southern first floor elevation closest to No. 182 Prince Edward Street does not have any windows and others have been indicated for provision with appropriate louvring and sill heights to mitigate any potential to overlook dwellings to the west and south.

 

Overall, the location and design of proposed windows to the dwelling are sympathetic to the privacy needs of adjoining dwellings and satisfactorily address the relevant objectives and preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

Safety & Security

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The proposal’s includes front doors which face Adams Avenue and Prince Edward Street. However, the entrances are partially obscured by the existing masonry boundary fence along the street alignments. This is considered to be acceptable as the boundary fences provide a reasonable degree of safety for the occupants of the dwelling.  

S1,3

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

The proposal includes balconies and various windows that overlook the street. Complies.

S2

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

Suitable condition included.

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that a safe physical environment and crime prevention is promoted through design, including that buildings are designed to face the street and other public areas to provide for surveillance; dwellings and their entrances are readily identifiable by street numbering and design of front fences; and landscaped areas allows for safe access to the dwelling.

Garages & Driveways

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposal provides 2 parking spaces for each dwelling Complies.

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking spaces are: -

Unit 1: Garage – 5.55m x 3.5m, Hardstand – 2.5m x 5.5m

Unit 2: Garage – 5.5m x 3m, Hardstand – 2.5m x 5.3m

Minor non-compliance, see assessment below.

S1

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

The proposed driveways are set to the western and southern side boundaries and have average widths of 3m. Does not comply. See assessment below.

S1

Driveways have a maximum width of 3m at the property boundary.

The proposed driveways are 2.6m and 2.8m at the property boundaries. Complies.

S1

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

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

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed garages are located behind the building line. Complies.

S2

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

The proposed parking structures occupy 29% of the primary frontage to Adams Avenue and 9% of the secondary street frontage to Prince Edward Street. Complies.

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape; and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

Comment:

Although the hardstand car space for Unit 2 is 5.3m metres in length which is slightly under what is required by Council’s DCP-Parking, it is still considered to be an acceptable length for the safe entry and exit for most motor vehicles. Further the proposed car space will continue to comply with the performance requirements as a standard vehicle will still fit in the parked space. Consequently no objections are given to this minor non-compliance.

The proposed locations of the driveways (to the western and southern boundaries) do not meet the preferred solution of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. However, the proposed parking structures are to be accessed by existing openings in the masonry boundary wall, which still has a reasonable width capable of allowing vehicles to safely enter and exit the site. There is currently an existing vehicular crossing to the northern side proposed to service Unit 1. 

The garage door of Unit 1 has not been indicated with a minimum dimension for door width. The door has been scaled to measure 2.3m, which is considered to be slightly too narrow. A condition is therefore imposed to widen the garage door opening to 2.5m to ensure there is adequate room to enter and exit from the garage.  

 

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

The proposal does not seek to alter the existing masonry perimeter wall around the subject site and will provide vehicular access through the existing openings in the wall.

S1

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

See assessment above.

S1

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

Not applicable.

 

Generally, the Objectives and Performance Requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the streetscape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

See BASIX

S2

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

The courtyards will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

See assessment below.

S9

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

 

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

 

The overall Objectives of the DCP seek to ensure that development promotes and has regard to the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development. In this respect the objectives promote energy efficiency in design and construction; encourage the use of appropriate resources and passive solar design; and protect solar access enjoyed by the adjoining premises.

 

Comment: 

The subject site is located on the south western corner of the intersection between Adams Avenue and Price Edward Street.

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicated the primary property to be affected by the proposed development is No. 180 Prince Edward Street, an existing double storey dwelling immediately to the south of the subject site.

 

It is noted that there only minimal number of windows on this elevation of No. 180 Prince Edward Street adjacent to the subject site and the majority of its major openings are directed toward the east and west, respectively (see figure below). 

 

Figure 1. First floor north facing elevation of No. 180 Prince Edward Street.

 

Given the orientation of the site, the primary shadow to the south will fall in the morning until noon, moving toward the east (front yard of No. 180 Prince Edward Street).  The first and ground floor windows will receive reasonable levels of solar access after midday. The increased level of overshadowing is considered to be unavoidable due to the orientation of the site but is considered acceptable as sufficient solar access will be received in the Winter Solstice at No. 180 Prince Edward Street. Further, the amended plans indicate a southern set back of 2.1m at the first floor, which serves to reduce overshadowing impacts.

 

8.2      Development Control Plan – Parking

The DCP – Parking requires carparking to be provided for dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies at a rate of 1 space per dwelling with two or less bedrooms and 2 spaces per dwelling with 3 or more bedrooms. The proposal provides 2 parking spaces to each dwelling in the form of a single garage and hardstand carspace. Therefore complies with parking requirements for dual occupancies. The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineers and no objections were raised on traffic or safety grounds.

 

8.3      Section 94A Contributions

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable

Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$476, 300

1.0%

$4,763.00

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design.

Direction(4b):    Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the standards, aims and objectives contained in the RLEP.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the 2A zone and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality

 

The SEPP No. 1 objections lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the regard to floor space ratio and external wall height are considered to be well founded. The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding development in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.

 

The proportions, massing, colours, materials and finishes proposed are considered to be satisfactory. The design carries satisfactory architectural merits and will be sympathetic to the characteristics of the existing streetscape. 

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 32 and 33(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to maximum floor space ratio and external wall height, respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/735/2009 for the demolition of part of existing dwelling, construction of two storey attached dual occupancy utilising remaining portion of existing dwelling with garaging and associated works at 44 Adams Avenue, Malabar, subject to the following conditions:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 5116, DA01 - DA06, inclusive, all Revision A, dated July 2009 and received by Council on 12 October 2000, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       The garage door width of Unit No. 1 shall have a width of 2.5m to ensure there is adequate room to enter and exit from the garage and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

3.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be implemented in substantial accordance with the undated schedule of external colours and finishes numbered 5116, received by Council on 12 October 2009 and be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

4.       There must be no encroachment of the structure/s onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless written permission has been obtained from the Council beforehand.

 

5.       There must be no encroachment of the structure/s or associated articles onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

6.       Street and unit numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

7.       The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of approved paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

 

8.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents.

 

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

 

The following condition is applied to promote occupant safety in the building.

 

10.     Openable windows to a room, corridor, stairway or the like with a floor level more than 4m above the external ground/surface level, must be designed and constructed to reduce the likelihood of a child accessing and falling through the window opening.

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

 

i.     The window having a minimum sill height of 1.5m above the internal floor level,

ii.    Providing a window locking device at least 1.5m above the internal floor level,

iii.    Fixing or securing the window (e.g. by screws or a window locking device) to restrict or to be able to secure the extent of the opening to a maximum width of 125mm,

iv.   Installing a fixed heavy-duty gauge metal screen over the opening (e.g. A metal security screen or metal security mesh and frame system, but not standard fly-screen material),

v.    Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

The following condition/s are imposed to satisfy the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

11.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable

Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$476, 300

1.0%

$4,763.00

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to

 

a)   a construction certificate being issued

 

for the proposed development. The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment.

 

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

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

13.     In accordance with Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all of the required commitments listed in the relevant BASIX Certificate for this development are fulfilled.

 

14.     In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a relevant BASIX Certificate and associated documentation must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application for this development.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate are to be included on the plans, specifications and associated documentation for the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

15.     The following provisions are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant BASIX Certificate and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate documentation (as applicable), to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority:

 

·           Stormwater management (i.e. rainwater tanks)

·           Water efficiency (i.e. triple A rated taps and showers, dual flush toilets and water re-use)

·           Landscaping provisions

·           Thermal comfort (i.e. construction materials, glazing and insulation)

·           Energy efficiency (i.e. cooling & heating provisions and hot water systems)

 

16.     In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue a final Occupation Certificate for this development, unless it is satisfied that each of the required BASIX commitments have been fulfilled.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Council upon issuing the final Occupation Certificate.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate drainage is provided from the premises and to maintain adequate levels of health and amenity in the locality:

 

17.     External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations:

 

18.     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.

 

19.     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.

 

20.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council 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.

 

21.     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, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing, and

 

iii)       unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), 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.

 

In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

22.     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.

 

23.     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, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

25.     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 and must also be provided to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

26.     In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Where the work is to be done by a licensed contractor, excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·        has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and

·        is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the insurance requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989, or

 

Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner-builder), excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·        has been informed of the person’s name and owner-builder permit number, or

·        has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

Details of the principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or residential dwelling in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Smoke alarms must comply with AS3786 – Smoke alarms and be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.

 

The smoke alarms are to be installed in suitable locations on or near the ceiling, in any storey containing bedrooms; located between each part of the dwelling containing the bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling, or where bedrooms are served by a hallway, the smoke alarms are to be located in that hallway; and smoke alarms are to be installed in any other storey not containing bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Smoke alarms are not to be located in ‘dead-air-spaces’, in the corner junction of walls and ceilings between exposed rafters/joists or at the apex of raked ceilings, as detailed in Part 3.7.2 of the Building Code of Australia – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans/specification for the construction certificate.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

29.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the following regulations:

 

•      The requirements and Guidelines of Work Cover NSW

·      Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·          The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·          Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

 

30.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

 

The Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

·          The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·          Details of hazardous materials, including asbestos

·          Method/s of demolition and removal of asbestos

·          Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·          Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne asbestos and dust

·          Methods and location of disposal of any asbestos or other hazardous materials

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented as identified in the Asbestos Survey

·          Date the demolition and removal of any asbestos materials will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) if the Council is not the PCA, not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition works involving asbestos products or materials.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Note it is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

31.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

32.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, accredited building surveyor or other suitably qualified person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works, in the following cases:

 

·           new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to the property boundaries (including additions to a semi-detached dwelling),

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·           as otherwise required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) is to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.

 

33.     The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be     adequately supported at all times.

 

If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of any building located on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

 

·       preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·       effectively support  the excavation and building; and

·       at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), give notice of the intention and particulars of the works to the owner of the adjoining land.

 

Notes

 

·    This consent and condition does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the principal contractor or owner-builder must obtain:

 

a)     the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

b)     an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

c)     an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

d)     an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

·    Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

34.     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 between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

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.

 

35.     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.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

36.     A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or compliance certificate is to be forwarded to the principal certifying authority (and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority), detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stage/s of construction:

 

a)      Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks and levels of the building.

 

b)      On completion of the erection of the building showing the area of the land, the position of the building and boundary setbacks and verifying the building has been constructed at the approved levels.

 

37.     Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, to the satisfaction of WorkCover NSW and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

 

38.     Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site (unless the site is separated from the adjoining land by an existing structurally adequate fence, having a minimum height of 1.5 metres).  Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

Temporary site fences 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 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 site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section 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.

 

39.     A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority 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 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 provisions.

 

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

 

40.     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.

 

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in the Construction Site Management Plan which must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction.  A copy of the approved details must be forwarded to the Council and a copy is to be maintained on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment, methods of sediment control, details of drainage systems and details of existing and proposed vegetation.

 

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

 

a.       Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or5 other activities 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.

 

b.       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.

 

c.       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.

 

d.       A warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed in a prominent position on the building site, visible to both the public and site workers.  The sign must be displayed throughout the construction period.  Copies of a suitable warning sign are available at Council’s Customer Service Centre for a nominal fee.

 

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 and Regulatory Services section.

 

f.        Any part of Council’s road, footway or nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be repaired or replaced to Council’s satisfaction   prior to occupation or finalisation of the development.

 

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

 

 

42.     The installation of rainwater tanks shall comply with the following noise control requirements:

 

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

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Department of Environment & Conservation Noise Control Guidelines.

 

b)     Plant and equipment associated with rainwater tank(s) are to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

c)     The operation of plant and equipment associated with the rainwater tank(s)  are to be restricted to the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises:

 

·      before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on weekends or public holiday; or

·      before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

The following conditions are applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the management of waste from the development:

 

43.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council and details are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

44.     Demolition and construction wastes shall be managed in general accordance with the submitted Waste Management Plan received by Council on the 12 October 2009.   

 

Where practicable waste materials must be re-used or recycled, rather than disposed. Details and receipts verifying the recycling and disposal of materials must be kept on site at all times and presented to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

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

 

a)   $1000.00   -      Damage/Civil Works Security Deposit

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

46.     Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)   Construct a new concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site in Prince Edward Street.

 

b)   Construct a concrete footpath along the Prince Edward Street site frontage.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

49.     The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must be as follows:

 

Prince Edward Street - 150mm above the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the site frontage.

 

50.     The design alignment levels issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

51.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $801.00 calculated at $44.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate consideration for service authority assets:

 

52.     A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Notice must be issued to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation of the development.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

56.     Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

The location and details of the proposed internal stormwater pipelines and silt arrestor pit shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the plans shall be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if Council is not the certifying authority.

 

Notes:

 

a.   The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed:-

 

i.     within the site at or near the street boundary.

ii.     with a child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system (e.g. spring loaded jay-bolt).

iii.    with a minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (preferably located in the walls of the pit at the floor level) and with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located around the weep holes.

iv.    with the pit floor being a minimum 300mm below the invert level of the outlet pipelines.

v.    with a galvanised heavy duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipes draining to the infiltration pit and the kerb. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

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

 

57.     Prior to the credited certifier issuing an occupation certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to contact Council’s Manager of Waste in regards to meeting Council’s requirements for waste services to the additional residence/dual occupancy

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for landscaping and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

58.     Landscaping at the site shall be installed in accordance with the Landscape Concept Plan by Vision Dynamics Pty Ltd, drawing number 9100DA 1, revision A, dated 25.09.09, prior to the PCA issuing a Final Occupation Certificate, and shall be maintained in accordance with these plans.

 

59.     The nature-strips upon both of Council's footways shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

Tree Removals

 

60.     Approval is granted for removal of the following trees as part of this application, subject to full implementation of the approved landscape plan:

 

a)       A small Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) located in the front yard, due to its existing average health and condition, inappropriate location close to the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, as well as to accommodate the proposed development as shown;

 

b)       The most western of the two closely planted Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pines) towards the northeast corner of the site, in order to increase the amount and usability of private open space available to future occupants, which will also reduce competition for the remaining Norfolk Island Pine that is to be retained (refer Tree Protection Measures for Private Property later in this report).

 

Tree Pruning

 

61.     Permission is granted for the selective and minimal pruning of only those lower growing rungs/whorls of branches (to a maximum height of 3 metres above natural ground level), from the most eastern Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) which is located in the front yard, towards the northeast corner of the site, in order to prevent damage to the tree, as well as to facilitate access both during and upon completion of all works.

 

62.     All pruning must be undertaken by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level III in Arboriculture, and who is also a registered member of a nationally recognised organisation/association, with all pruning to be performed to Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

Street Tree Protection Measures

 

63.     In order to ensure retention of the Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwood) located on the Adams Avenue nature strip, to the east of the existing vehicle crossing, as well as the two small, recently planted Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo’s) on the Prince Edward Street frontage in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the construction certificate application must show their retention, together with the extent of their canopies to be clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.       Any new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar that need to be installed over public property, must be done so along either the sites side boundaries; or, against either side of the new crossings, so as to minimise root damage.

 

c.       Each of these three (3) street trees must be physically protected by installing a total of four star pickets at a setback of 1.5 metres (measured off the outside edge of their trunks at ground level), matching up with the back of the kerb or footpaths as appropriate, to which safety tape/para-webbing shall be permanently attached so as to completely enclose each tree for the duration of works.

 

d.       This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed, to which signage containing the following words shall be clearly displayed and permanently attached: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE, DO NOT ENTER".

 

e.       The applicant is not authorised to perform any works to these street trees, and shall contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should pruning or any similar such work appear necessary, with the applicant required to cover all associated costs with such work, to Council’s satisfaction, prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate.

 

f.        Within the zones specified in point ‘c’ above, there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

g.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card or for an amount of $750.00 shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of these street trees.

 

The refundable deposit will be eligible for refund following the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, subject to completion and submission of Council’s ‘Security Deposit Refund Application Form’, and pending a satisfactory inspection by Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613).

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to any of the trees at any time during the course of the works, or prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, may result in Council claiming all or part of the lodged security in order to perform any rectification works necessary, as per the requirements of 80A (6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Tree Protection Measures for Private Property

 

64.     In order to also ensure retention of the most eastern Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) located in the front yard, towards the northeast corner of the site in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the construction certificate application must show the retention of this tree, with the position and diameter of both its trunk and canopy to be clearly shown on all drawings, with measurements between the tree and any works to be shown.

 

b.       With the exception of the approved building works, landscaping and installation of the 100mm PVC stormwater pipe and 450 x 450 surface pit proposed to its south, there must be no alteration to existing soil levels, any remediation works or any new structures, services, footings, detention tanks, pipes, cutting or battering of the existing soil profile within the turfed area to the east of the proposed pedestrian access path.

 

c.       This tree shall be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 3.5 metres to its north, west and south (measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level), matching up with the eastern site boundary, in order to completely enclose this tree for the duration of the works.

 

d.       This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works, and shall remain in place until the landscape works are being carried out, to which signage containing the following words shall be clearly displayed and permanently attached: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE, DO NOT ENTER".

 

e.       Within the zone specified in point ‘c’ above, there is to be no storage of materials, machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

f.        Any roots encountered during the course of the approved works must be cut cleanly by hand, and the affected area backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

·              Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.

Advisory Conditions

 

A1      Demolition, building or excavation work must not be commenced until;

 

·          A Construction Certificate has been obtained from Council or an Accredited Certifier

·          Council or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority for the development

·          Council and the Principal Certifying Authority have been given at least 2 days notice (in writing) prior to commencing any works.

 

Failure to comply with these important requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.

 

A2      A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Certification Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities on a 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.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Certification Services on 9399 0944.

 

A3      Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

A4      The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A5      Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link:-

 

http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D19/10

 

 

Subject:                  38 Caley Street, Chifley 

Folder No:                   DA/23/2010

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Strata subdivision into two allotments (SEPP 1 Objection to minimum allotment size)

 

Ward:                      South Ward

 

Applicant:                Harrison Friedmann & Associates P/L

 

Owner:                         Treetop Horizons P/L

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The proposed development is for a strata subdivision of a dual occupancy currently under construction. The proposed development comprises two strata lots with an area of common property at the front of the site on a site measuring 643sqm.

 

It is noted that this development must be assessed and determined under Clause 20B (1) minimum allotment sizes of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) (Consolidation) which states:

 

The minimum allotment size for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land, other than for the purposes of public utility undertakings or roads, within Zone 2A is 400sqm and each allotment must have a frontage of at least 12 metres.

 

The RLEP (Consolidation) came into effect on the 15 January 2010 removing Clause 30(3) of the previous RLEP 1998 and replacing it with the above Clause. The difference in the two clauses regarding strata subdivision is that the applicable clause 20(B) requires a minimum site area of 800sqm whilst the previous Clause 30(3) required 900sqm for strata subdivision in a 2A zone. It is noted that the individual reference to strata subdivision that previously existed in Clause 30(3) was unnecessary in that a reference to subdivision included both land and strata subdivision as defined under Clause 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203.

 

The proposed strata subdivision of a two lot attached dual occupancy on a lot size of 643sqm does not comply with the 800sqm minimum allotment size required under Clause 20(B). There is a shortfall of 157sqm which represents a variance of approximately 20% under the minimum site area required. The application is referred to Council for determination as required by the Department of Planning where development applications seek a greater than 10% variation to a development standard.

 

The applicant contends that strata subdivision does not involve the creation of separate allotments and therefore does not fall under Clause 20(B). Notwithstanding this, they have lodged a SEPP 1 objection to the standard for the minimum size of an allotment under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) arguing strict compliance with Clause 20(B) of RLEP Consolidation is unnecessary and unreasonable based on there being no amenity impacts created by the strata subdivision and the status quo is maintained in relation to replacing the existing Company title with a strata title.

 

The main issue with the application is that the proposed strata subdivision does not address the purpose of the standard under Clause 20B(1) of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) as well as the purpose of Clause 20(4) previously Clause 30(4) under, which the original approval was granted. The purposes of these Clauses is to encourage development that provides housing choice aimed at intra family arrangements particularly across generations e.g. In-laws, parents and grandparents rather than providing a significant development incentive in the form of separately titled occupancies (whether or not by strata). As such, allowing attached dual occupancies that were approved under Clause 30(4) to then be strata subdivided or subdivided into separate Torrens Title lots, would result in a significant increase in dual occupancies on substandard allotments in the 2A zone and hence transform the character of these low density areas. It is considered the applicant’s arguments do not address the intent or the underlying purpose of the standards.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

2.    The Proposal

 

Strata subdivision of the dual occupancy currently under construction into two strata lots with areas of common property at the front. Each dwelling contains 4 bedrooms, garaging, a swimming pool and associated works.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is a corner allotment and is located on the south east of Caley Street and south west of Burke Street. The site has a frontage width of 15.645m to Caley Street, a splay corner of 5.11m and a frontage width of 19.355m to Burke Street and side boundary depths of 32.84m along the western side boundary adjoining a single  storey dwelling fronting Burke Street and a 30.43m long south eastern side boundary adjoining a two storey dwelling fronting Caley Street. The site has a total area of 638.6sqm. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of single and two storey dwelling houses. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view

 

4.    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 Clauses 20B(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, the minimum allotment size for strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy on land zoned 2A Residential is 800sqm. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Minimum allotment size standard for strata subdivision

Proposal

643sqm

LEP 1998 (Consolidation) development standard

800sqm

Shortfall below the LEP standard

157m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 20% shortfall.

 

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 Minimum allotment size standards as outlined in the LEP is:

 

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

 

The underlying purpose of Clause 20B(1) is to maintain the existing subdivision pattern and low density character of land zoned 2A.”

 

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

 

That strata subdivision does not involve the creation of separate allotments and therefore does not fall under Clause 20B(1),

 

Comment: Subdivision as defined under the Environmental Planning and assessment Act includes strata subdivision and Councils application of the standard and its previous decisions (notwithstanding the change to the minimum allotment size standard) have maintained a consistent approach in applying the standard and where non compliance occurs a SEPP 1 objection is required. In this respect, Clause 20B(1) is applicable to the proposed development where under this Clause the minimum area required for strata subdivision is 800sqm. The proposed strata subdivision results in a significant shortfall of the minimum area required falling 20% short of the standard.

 

The objectives of the 2A zone are either not relevant or are not affected by the proposed strata subdivision in terms of amenity by virtue of no physical works being undertaken or its relevance

 

Comment: It is acknowledged that there are no physical works being undertaken as part of this development. However, the proposed strata subdivision is a form of development whereby if permitted would contravene the 2A zone objective. In this respect, it is considered that the development standards for minimum allotment sizes are intended to maintain the existing low density character of the 2A zoned land. Establishing minimum allotment size requirements ensures environmental outcomes from attached dual occupancy housing that are suitably located with access to services, transport, shops and the like, whilst minimising the impact on adjoining neighbours and maintaining or enhancing neighbourhood character.

 

It is considered that the proposed strata subdivision development on a substandard sized allotment of land will be inconsistent with this objective. The proposed departure would set a precedent for similar departures within land zoned 2A particularly as similar examples of allotments both in terms of sizes and frontages occur along Caley Street and land which is zoned 2A in the locality.

 

In addition, allowing strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy on land which is substantially lower than the  minimum standard would contravene the objective of enabling a mix of housing that encourages housing affordability and it would not promote the orderly and economic use and low density development of land zoned 2A. In this respect, the resultant development would not represent a proper development of towns for the purposes of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment.

 

The applicant also argues that as the Council approved the attached dual occupancy then it essentially concedes that the subject site is able to accommodate two dwellings and that the strata subdivision will not result in any additional impact on the locality and that the proposed strata merely maintains the status quo.

 

Comment: The only concession made by Council in this respect, is that the application to build the attached dual occupancy was assessed having regard to Clause 30 (4) and it was suitable for its intended purpose as an attached dual occupancy without strata subdivision. In this respect it was considered to comply with the 2A zone objectives that promote a low density character, housing mix and affordable housing.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has not addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has not appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objection is not 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.”

 

Comment: The variation from the minimum allotments size standard is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it would detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would compromise the orderly and economic use of the land.

 

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”.

 

Comment: The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However it is considered that there is a public benefit in maintaining the planning controls adopted by the RLEP (Consolidation) as they will maintain the existing subdivision pattern and low density character of the 2A Zone.

 

The strict adherence to the numerical standard is therefore considered reasonable.

 

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 reasonable and necessary as the proposed strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy on a substandard sized allotment of land will not achieve the objectives of the development standard or those of the 2A zone.

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 standard would be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is reasonable.

 

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 minimum allotment size standard has 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 A zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

 

5.    Site History

 

Approval was granted under DA/320/2009 for the construction of two storey attached dual occupancy, garaging, swimming pool and associated works. No subdivision was sought as part of this application.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

Given the proposed development doesn’t seek any additional bulk it is considered that under the DCP – Public Notification, the owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were not required to be notified of the development.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

None applicable.

 

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 (Consolidation).

-      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-      Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 


Clause 10 Zone 2A residential

The objectives of Zone No 2A are:

 

(a)    to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

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

 

(a)    to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

The character of an established residential area is generally derived from the subdivision pattern in terms of the lot configuration and the relationship of built form to the surrounding space. In respect to this section of Caley Street, it contains several examples of established single detached houses on separate Torrens titled allotments, similar sized corner allotments and some recent examples of attached dual occupancy developments (without strata). In this respect, the proposed strata subdivision would likely lead to the strata subdivision of attached dual occupancies on lots of land well below the minimum requirements in the locality and it would lead to a significant change in the character of the established residential area.

 

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

The proposed development does not satisfy this objective. The minimum allotment size standard for strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy is set at lower levels to encourage development that would provide housing for extended families particularly across generations e.g. In-laws, parents and grandparents, etc… rather than encouraging a proliferation of separately titled dual occupancies on small sized lots.

 

In particular, the minimum standard for land subdivision under Clause 20B(1) is 800sqm. It is set higher than that under the previous Clause 30(4) and current Clause 20B(4) which only requires 450sqm per lot for an attached dual occupancy. The intent is to allow attached dual occupancies to be constructed on lots as small as 450sqm but not to allow them to be subdivided. Allowing these types of dual occupancies to be strata titled on smaller lots, i.e. to be separately titled, would set a poor precedent and make lots within 2A zoned more commercially attractive to developers which would reduce the likelihood of land being developed for the purposes of enabling a mix of housing as described above.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed development does not comply with the abovementioned objective.

 

Clause 22 Services

Clause 22 states that Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development where it is satisfied that adequate facilities for water supply, sewage removal/disposal and drainage are available. Although services were required to be provided under the previously approved attached dual occupancy development, updated certification would be required from the relevant authorities should the recommendation be for approval.

 

Clause 20B Minimum allotment sizes

Clause 20B(1) sets out minimum standards for strata subdivision within a 2A zone and is therefore applicable. The minimum allotment size for strata subdivision within a 2A zone is 800sqm. The proposed development for strata title subdivision into two lots does not comply with the minimum allotment size requirements under Clause 20B(1) of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) as discussed under Section 4 above.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plans

None applicable

 

8.2 Council Policies

 

Section 94 Contributions plans

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

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

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

There matters of relevance in this development application that pertains to the provisions of the EP&A Regulations 2000 have been suitably addressed through the body of this report and relevant procedural matters.

 

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

The proposal is for the strata sub-division of an attached dual occupancy and will not directly result in any built form so that there will be no immediate impact in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or loss of views from the proposed development. In respect to strata subdivision, the likely impact of the development would propagate the strata subdivision of similarly substandard sized and dimensioned allotments in the locality which would then transform the character of the 2A zone and contravene the intent and the underlying purpose of the subdivision standard.

 

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

The proposed subdivision is not considered to be suitable development of the site having regard to relevant planning matters such as the aims and objectives of the 2A zone and, the level of non-compliance with the size of the allotment.

 

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

The application was not required to be notified.

 

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

The proposed strata subdivision of the attached dual occupancy is not in the public interest will provide a poor precedent for the strata subdivision of attached dual occupancies on substandard sized allotments of land in the 2A zone which would be contrary to the objectives for the 2A zone.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed strata subdivision is permissible with development consent under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal has been assessed having regard to the provisions of the section 79C of the EP&A Act, the Regulations and relevant environmental planning instruments and policies as discussed in the body of this report. The proposed strata subdivision does not comply with the minimum allotment size for subdivision in the 2A zone under Clause 20B(1) of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) being 20% lower than the standard.

 

The SEPP 1 objection lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the minimum allotment size of 800sqm is not considered to be well founded. The applicant argues that the proposed strata subdivision merely represents a more appropriate form of ownership as opposed to Company title and the strata subdivision would not result in any amenity impacts on the surrounding developments. However, the applicants SEPP 1 objection is considered to have failed in addressing the underlying intent of the higher standard set for subdivision as opposed to the lower standard for building an attached dual occupancy without subdivision for which original consent was granted.

 

In this respect, the proposed development would transform the character of the 2A zone by providing for increased incentive for the development of strata titled dual occupancies and would contravene the relevant objectives of the 2A zone by reducing the likelihood that the dual occupancy development would be used for intra family arrangements or for rental purposes thus reducing housing affordability.

 

In the circumstances, a valid case has not been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council refuse the application.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/23/2010 for strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy at 38 Caley Street, Chifley, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with objectives of the 2A zone. In particular it contravenes Clause 10(1)(c) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the development discourages a mix of housing and housing affordability.

 

2.     The proposed development does not comply with Clause 20B(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) in that the proposed subdivision is well below the minimum standard and will be inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

3.     The proposed development will result in a proliferation of strata titled attached dual occupancy developments on substandard lots in the 2A Zone due to the commercial attractiveness of having separate titles for the dual occupancies.

 

4.     The proposed development does not comply with the minimum allotment sizes stipulated under Council’s LEP 1998 (Consolidation) and will increase densities in areas that are not accessible to public transport and services.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D20/10

 

 

Subject:                  373 Avoca Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/654/2009/A

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification of development consent by enlarging wet area and reducing storage area at ground floor, replace underground water tank with above ground water tank, delete deck from loft area, delete skylights and new timber window to front facade of existing dwelling add timber louvres to front gable

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Planahead Designs

Owner:                         S F Foong Pty Limited

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This section 96 modification is referred to the Planning Committee because the original application was approved at a Council meeting on 9 February 2010. The original determination was for internal and external alterations to the existing Health Consulting rooms and attached dwelling house, new double garage and carport with storage room above to Bundock Street, landscaping works, new boundary fencing and underground rainwater tanks.

 

This section 96 application seeks consent for the following modifications to the original development:

 

·      Add two new windows: a new louvered window to the front façade of the first floor storage room facing Avoca Street and a new window to the first floor bedroom window setback from Avoca Street,

·      Delete from the approval the underground rainwater tanks in the rear yard

·      Install a new above ground rainwater tank along the northern side boundary block-work fence in the rear yard

·      Modify the approved garage/storage room above outbuilding by replacing the approved upper level balcony facing Bundock Street with a new dormer with window; reduce the number of skylights approved to the eastern and northern side of the roof.

 

The application was notified until the 22 March 2010 and one letter was received from the adjoining northern neighbour objecting to the proposed modifications.

 

The proposed modifications are considered acceptable having regard to Councils Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

This section 96 application seeks consent for the following modifications to the original development:

 

·      Add two new windows: a new louvered window to the front façade of the first floor storage room facing Avoca Street and a new window to the first floor bedroom window setback from Avoca Street,

·      Delete from the approval the underground rainwater tanks in the rear yard

·      Install a new above ground rainwater tank along the northern side boundary block-work fence in the rear yard

·      Modify the approved garage/storage room above outbuilding by replacing the approved upper level balcony facing Bundock Street with a new dormer with window; reduce the number of skylights approved to the eastern and northern side of the roof.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the South western corner of Avoca St and Bundock St. It is presently occupied by an existing two storey brick dwelling containing health consulting rooms at the front of the dwelling with garage and carport parking at the rear off Bundock Street. The site has a frontage at Avoca Street measuring 10.06m and a long frontage of 36.575m along Bundock Street towards the south. The subject site has an area of 368sqm.

 

Neighbouring the property to the north is a semi detached dwelling at No. 371 Avoca Street, to the east is the side of a single dwelling fronting Bundock Street, to the west and south are opposite sides of Avoca and Bundock Streets respectively. The surrounding area is predominantly a mixture of low to medium density residential dwellings with some multi storey residential flat dwellings. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding developments.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site (red border).

 

4.    Site History

 

Site History"

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP- Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

 

Objections

Author and objection

Comment

371 Avoca Street

Northern neighbour of subject site

1.     All skylights are to be removed from the loft area not just one per elevation side (East & North).

 

This is considered to be an unreasonable request given the consent has already been granted for a greater number of skylights on the northern and eastern sides of the roof. IN addition, it is considered the modified location of the skylights will comply with the relevant solutions under Councils Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

2.     At the Council meeting of February 9 2010 it was resolved that the proposed loft of this development was not a habitable space. Further Dr Foong stated that it was to be used as storage therefore skylights are not necessary as there will now be two windows in this loft area.

The proposed modification seeks to reduce the number of skylights from that already approved under the original approval. The siting and dimensions of the proposed skylights are considered to comply with the relevant solutions under Councils Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

3.     Proposed loft dormer window on the western elevation opening above the garage allows for possible noise impacts. I already have substantial acoustic/privacy impacts with the existing two storey house adjacent.

There are no major concerns regarding the new dormer window as it is attached to a storage area and it does not face the neighbour’s rear yard or dwelling but rather opens onto Bundock Street.

4.     Another window added to the façade of the main dwelling house on the north western corner adjacent to 371 Avoca St will mean additional noise impacts and this window should be removed.

 

The new window to the first floor bedroom slightly set back from Avoca Street complies with Councils solutions for visual and acoustic privacy under the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. In this respect, the outlook will be towards Avoca Street and the use of the bedroom is for residential purposes and unlikely to result in any significant noise impacts.

5.     Timber louvres which are to be added to gable end of front façade were there is a storage room proposed suggests an additional habitable space and this proposed window should be removed.

The use of this room is clearly identified as a storage area. It is further noted that the size and placement of this window complies with the relevant solutions under Councils Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

None applicable.

 

7.    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 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 


Clause 10 - 2A zone

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

 

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

The proposal is for additions to an outbuilding and therefore no subject to BASIX requirements.

 

7.1 Policy Controls

a.      Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and attached Dual Occupancies DCP

The Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP is applicable to the subject proposal. The relevant sections of the DCP are addressed as follows:

 

Height, setbacks and streetscape appearance

The proposed dormer addition to the upper level storage area atop the garage rises to an overall height of 5.8m and setback only 1.1m from the Bundock Street boundary which does not comply with the DCP’s 3.5m preferred maximum height for outbuildings or the 1500mm preferred minimum setback under the DCP.

 

There are no major objections to the proposed dormer replacing the balcony as it is considered to have mostly reduced the bulk in this area by replacing the gable roof form with a hipped roof form and the dormer would maintain a similar bulk, scale, setback and therefore articulation of the originally approved balcony. In addition, the proposed dormer will not result in any appreciable increase in any adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of outlook or solar access.

 

Privacy

Windows to upper level storage atop the garage

 

The proposed dormer window and skylights to the upper level do not afford any direct overlooking into the neighbouring properties habitable living areas or private open spaces and therefore considered to comply with the preferred solutions under the DCP for visual privacy.

 

New window to the main dwelling

 

The two proposed windows to the first floor storage room and bedroom fronting Avoca Street do not afford any direct overlooking into the neighbours habitable rooms or their rear yard area. In addition given the uses of the rooms are low use rooms and associated with residential premises it is not considered that their placement or the size of their openings would result in any inordinate levels of noise impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Rainwater tank along the northern side boundary

 

Appropriate conditions were included in the original consent to guard against inordinate acoustic levels. IN respect to the height of the proposed rainwater tank it is considered appropriate that a condition be added restricting the height to not rise above the top of the dividing fence.

 

 

 

 

7.2 Council Policies

Substantially the same

Council may only approve an application under section 96(2) of the Act if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”.

 

The proposed modifications remain within the scope of the original application and the abovementioned criteria are considered to be satisfied.

 

8.    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.

 

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

The proposed modifications are not considered to result in any unreasonable environmental impacts on the neighbouring properties and the surrounding built environment.

 

8.2    The suitability of the site for the development:

For the reasons discussed throughout this report, the proposed modifications are assessed as being suitable development for the site.

 

8.3    The public interest.

Should approval be granted for the proposed modifications as conditioned, it is considered that there will not be any significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties and the locality. The proposed modifications are considered to be in the public interest in so far as the context of surrounding developments, the streetscape appearance and the neighbouring sites amenity will not be significantly affected.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications continue to comply with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposed modifications will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual or acoustic privacy impact, bulk and scale, view loss and, solar access.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

 


 

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/654/2009 for permission to enlarge the wet area and reduce the storage area at ground floor of outbuilding, replace underground water tank with above ground water tank, delete deck from loft area, delete skylights and new timber window to front facade of existing dwelling add timber louvres to front gable for 28 French Street, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plan numbered 861-07, dated 18 November 2009 and received by Council on 19 November 2009, as amended by the Section 96 plan numbered 861-07, dated 1 February 2010 and received by Council on 4 march 2010, only in so far as it relates to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plan 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:

 

Add the following Condition:

 

45.   The rainwater tank located along the northern side boundary must not exceed the height of the boundary fence. This condition is imposed to ensure the rainwater tank is not visible from the neighbouring dwellings habitable living room windows or openings along their northern elevation.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D21/10

 

 

Subject:                  2 - 40 Gumara Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/187/2009/A

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification of approved development including internal and external alterations to proposed dwellings, alteration to fencing, carparking, replacement of gymnasium with residential unit, re-location of on-site detention and rainwater tanks and vehicle access changes

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Randwick Properties Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Randwick Properties Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

The Section 96 application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original application was determined by Council at its meeting of the 23 June 2009. The approved development (DA No. 187/2009) comprises the Stage 2 development application for construction of 27 terrace houses with basement car parking for 54 vehicles and basement storage/utility rooms; and two residential flat buildings (comprising one 3 storey building and one part 4/part 5 storey building) both containing a total of 28 dwelling units (13 x 1 bedroom, 6 x 2 bedroom and 9 x 3 bedroom) with semi basement car parking for 37 vehicles.

 

The Section 96(2) application will modify the approved development primarily for internal alterations to proposed dwellings including additional ensuites in lofts;  alterations to facades of dwellings to accommodate the internal changes including relocated and new skylights and lowered terrace house roof lines; replacement of approved gymnasium with a new residential unit; alteration to carparking and vehicular access; changes to the streetfront fencing; and re-location of on-site detention and rainwater tanks.

 

The Section 96 application was notified to surrounding properties and advertised. One submission was received which is addressed in the relevant section below.

 

The proposed modifications do not give rise to additional amenity impacts as the modifications essentially will be contained within the approved footprints and building envelope of the buildings approved under the original DA which will be maintained. Accordingly, the proposed modification is considered to be substantially the same development as that previously approved and will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the amenity of either existing properties within the Defence Site Masterplan area site or the visual character of the locality. 

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria, objectives and controls of the DCP - Defence Site Kingsford.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The Section 96 proposal has been amended by the applicant especially in response to comments made by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. In consolidating these changes, the Section 96(2) application, in effect, proposes the following modifications:

 

Proposed Amendments to Lot 24 & 25 (Terrace Blocks)

 

Basement Plan (drawing Nos. A-200 & A-201) 

Lot 24

1.      Incorporation of a loggia/ laundry room accessed from the approved utility room

2.      Relocation of the OSD and RW tanks 

3.      Inclusion of a WC, MSB and Diesel Pump Room 

4.      New parapet roof/gutter detail to the rear of the town houses fronting Hendy Avenue.

5.      Addition of en-suite bathrooms to all lofts.

 

Ground Floor (drawing Nos. A-202 & A-203)

6.      Install new window to the ground floor eastern elevation of dwelling house H1.11 in Building A2

 

Level 1 (drawing No.A-204 & A-205)

7.      Balcony leading from the bedrooms at the western façade of Building A2 is deleted.

8.      Incorporation of windows above the stairwell at the townhouses fronting Hendy Avenue at Building A1 and townhouses H1.10 and H1.11 of Building A2 fronting Bundock Street.

9.      Installation of louvers at the bedrooms at the rear of dwellings orientated to Hendy Avenue.

10.    Install rear fin wall adjacent to town houses H1.01, H1.08 at Building A1 and H1.09 at Building A2 to permit inclusion of louvers into the walls’  openings.

 

Lot 25

11.    Minor changes to the entrance way to Townhouse H2.09

12.    Rationalization of the turning area into Townhouse H2.01

 

Ground Floor (drawing Nos. A-202 & A-203)

13.    Concertina doors incorporated at the rear elevations

14.    Raised planter beds proposed at the centre of the lot between buildings A1 & A2

15.    Reconfiguration of the WC/powder room at townhouses: H1.13, H1.14, H1.15

16.    New fence detail along Hendy Avenue and Gumara Street

17.    Car park exhaust linked with stair wall building A2

18.    Courtyard levels at Lot 25 altered slightly

19.    Changes to fenestration at the northern façade at H1.08

 

Level 1 (drawing No.A-204 & A-205)

20.    Reconfiguration of WC and bathroom within the all townhouses.

21.    Front balconies redesigned.

22.    Rear balconies removed and replaced with external 3-sided enclosing louvers set at 600mm from rear building line

23.    .

24.    Redesign of internal stairs at H2.13; H2.12; H2.11; H2.10; H2.09; H2.08 & H2.07;

25.    Incorporation of a rear sunshade at buildings A3, B1, B2 & B3

 

Loft Level (drawing No. A-206 & A-207)

26.    Modifications to roof terraces.

27.    Addition of en-suite bathrooms to all lofts.

28.    Internal stairs redesigned;

 

Roof Level (drawing No.A-208 & A-209)

29.    Relocation of skylights.

30.    Ridge height reduced/ Modification to roof fall and parapet height at Buildings B1 & B2

 

Northern Elevation (drawing No. A-301)

31.    Modification to roof presentation of townhouses facing Hendry Ave

32.    Rationalization of louvers and fenestration of townhouses fronting Bundock Street

33.    Alteration to the roof structure;

34.    Modification to boundary fence  

35.    Additional openings to the facade at the first floor of townhouses resulting from the reconfiguration of the bathroom

36.    Skylights incorporated into the roof

 


Southern Elevation (drawing No. A-303)

37.    Reconfiguration of fenestration utility rooms and garage of townhouse H1.01 

38.    Alterations to wall treatment to incorporate brick panelling

39.    Modifications to the articulation and fenestration

40.    Extension of side wall to incorporate a fin at the rear of the dwellings.

41.    New roller door to diesel pump

42.    Addition of an aluminium widow above the utility room doors

43.    Additional openings to the facade at the first floor of townhouses resulting from the reconfiguration of the bathroom

44.    Relocation of down-pipes.

 

Western Elevation (drawing No. A-305)

45.    Additional openings to the facade at the first floor of townhouses resulting from the reconfiguration of the bathroom

46.    Modification to boundary fence.

 

Proposed Amendments to Lot 26 (Apartment Blocks)

 

Basement Level

 Change in scale and position of louvers along the southern elevation

1.    Relocation of the accessible car parking spaces;

2.    Tandem parking space replaced with motorcycle parking

3.    Relocation of the garbage bin area;

4.    Turning bay incorporated into the design

5.    Garage door is setback approximately 4m from the front boundary

6.    Relocation of the car wash bay.

7.    Incorporation of an additional dwelling (Unit 30) to replace the approved gym essentially involving:

 

·      projection of the living room area of the proposed unit beyond the approved footprint of the building resulting in an increase in floor area of 8m2

·      creation of an external patio area on the northern side

·      living area is elevated by 500mm

 

Ground Floor

8.    Incorporation of pergola over the courtyard of Unit 6

9.    Fence at the courtyards at units 5 and 22 has been relocated to sit atop   the retaining wall

10.  Roof area over the living area of the new dwelling Unit 30 is treated as a non-trafficable roof

11.  Balcony on the east façade to unit 23 is deleted and replaced with horizontal louvered privacy screen to provide privacy for Unit 30

12.  Two obscured skylights installed in the planter box of Unit 23 to provide light into the secondary bedrooms of Unit No. 30 below

13.  Stone cladding to wall on Gumara Street is extended

 

Second Floor

14.  Deletion of secondary stairs between second and third storey stairs/ increase in the size of the study at Unit 18.

 

Third Floor

15.  Replacement of bi-fold metal louvers at Units 19 & 20 with glass louvered panels

16.  Operable windows are provided to the laundries of Units 19 & 20.

17.  Reconfiguration of internal layout of bedrooms and bathrooms at Units 19 & 20

18.  Removal of an internal wall between store room and living room at Unit 20.

 

Northern Elevation

19.  Replacement of the window of the living/dining room of Unit 22 with a sliding door

20.  Increase in the scale of the highlighter windows to the bedroom of Unit 23

21.  Modification to fenestration of the sunroom at Unit o.23

22.  Modification to the layout of the adaptable unit.

23.  Increase in the size of the windows at the eastern façade of the living room of Units 12 &18, incorporation of shutters for those windows.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located in the north-eastern part of the overall Stage 1A area of the Bundock Street Defence site. It comprises three allotments being Lots 24, 25 (referred to as the western section containing the proposed terrace dwellings) and 26 (referred to the eastern section containing the apartment dwellings) in DP 1053158. The subject site has frontages to Bundock Street to the north, Hendy Street to the west and Gumara Street to the south.

 

The subject land will be generally bounded by the Mirvac “Esperance” development in land forming part of the original Stage 1A Defence development precinct to the south and west; by the Randwick Environmental Park to the south-east; by existing dwelling houses fronting Bundock Street and Hendy Avenue to the north; and Department of Housing apartment blocks to the east.

 

The western section (Lots 24 and 25) has a site area of 5458m2 and the eastern section (Lot 26) has a site area of 2250m2, yielding a total combined site area of 7708m2 for the whole subject site. There is no existing development on the subject site and falls sharply north to south from a RL of 36.72 at Bundock Street to RL 31.55 at Gumara Street. 

 

4.    Site History

 

The original development application (DA 73/2008) for the Stage 1 development on the subject site primarily set building envelopes for the subject site. Approval was granted to the application at the Planning Committee meeting of the 30 June 2008

 

A Section 96(2) application to modify the development consent 73/2008 was approved on 21 October 2008, allowing for the following modifications:

 

·      Reconfiguration of the townhouses fronting Bundock Street to create an opening between 2 blocks and associated alterations to rooflines and floor levels in line with the intent of Condition No. 3 (a) of Part 1 of the Development Consent (which required the deletion of one dwelling unit to provide for a gap between the townhouse block fronting Bundock Street).

 

·      Separation of the approved development into three independent phases to allow parts of the subject site to be developed independently of each other.

 

A subsequent Stage 2 DA, DA No. 319/2008, for construction of 27 terrace houses with basement car parking for 54 vehicles, and two residential flat buildings comprising one 3 storey building and one part 4/part 5 storey building and containing a total of 20 apartments with semi basement carparking for 35 vehicles and associated site works was approved by Council on 11 November 2008.

 

A second Stage 2 DA (DA/187/2009) was lodged in 2009 for a similar concept as that proposed in the earlier DA 319/2008 but with a different mix of dwelling units and inclusion of utility rooms and a gym in the proposed development. This DA was approved on 23 June 2009 with the effect that the first Stage 2 DA (DA/319/2008) has now been superseded.

 

The subject site forms part of the wider Bundock Street Defence site for which a Master Plan was adopted on 13 November 2001. This Master Plan details the sub-division and development of the Bundock Street Defence site primarily for residential, open space and community facility purposes, and the establishment of the Randwick Environmental Park.

 

Between 2003 and 2004, and in 2007, a number of development applications were lodged by Mirvac for residential development in the area referred to as the “Stage 1A” site of the Bundock Street Defence site, of which have been approved, culminating in the present development known as collectively as the Mirvac “Esperence” development. The only remaining portion of the Stage 1A site that has not been the subject of any approved DA for residential development is the subject site.

 

A site visit reveals works associated with the abovementioned consent are currently under construction. Construction Certification was obtained privately in August 2009. The applicant has also acknowledged verbally that a number of works proposed in the Section 96 application have been commenced and in partial state of completion.  This matter has been referred to Council’s regulatory section for investigation and necessary action. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that consent may be issued subject to a suitable condition (relating to the structural adequacy of the partially completed works) being included in the approval.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP - Notification. One submission was received from a resident in No.11 Ellen Street, Randwick, raising the following concern:

 

·      Increase in traffic using local residential streets as a result of the development and lack of Council planning to address this.

 

Comment: In relation to construction traffic from the proposed development, a condition was applied requiring the applicant to lodge a traffic management plan for the excavation and construction phases of the proposed development. This has been received and approved by Council. This plan requires measures that will be employed to ensure that all excavation/construction traffic uses only Bundock Street to access the subject site and not residential streets in the locality. In addition, a specific condition preventing all excavation/construction traffic associated with the proposed development from using Ellen Street and Hendy Avenue was applied. Accordingly, breaches of these conditions of consent can be addressed as matters of compliance.

 

In relation to traffic from the future residential use of the development, a Traffic Management Assessment was submitted with the original approved DA which indicated that the estimated peak hour generation for the proposed development would be approximately 31 vehicular trips per hour equivalent to less than a single trip per minute which Council’s engineers considered to be a moderate generation. Council’s Development Engineer has advised that the addition of one new dwelling unit is not expected to increase the estimated peak traffic generation. As such, the overall expected increase in traffic generation arising from the approved development and its proposed modification under the current Section 96 application will be commensurate with the total traffic generation rate predicted in the approved Defence site Master Plan as assessed by Traffix Pty. Limited for Stage 1A which was estimated at a total of 86 vehicles per hour two-way during the morning and afternoon peak hour periods. The Master Plan identified a range of traffic measures to manage the expected traffic generation for the whole Defence Site development. Implementation of relevant measures to address cumulative increases in traffic load currently generated by the completed parts of the Esperence development and the additional future traffic from the subject proposal will be necessary. In particular, concerns about the impact of increased traffic at the intersection of Hendy Avenue and Bundock Street require timely implementation of the identified traffic measures for this intersection. The concerns are considered reasonable given that this intersection provides a primary entry/exit point for the overall Esperence development site. Accordingly, a condition was applied in the original consent for DA 187/2009 requiring the applicant to implement the specific traffic control measure for Hendy Avenue and Bundock Street as identified in the Master Plan/Deemed DCP for the Defence Site prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

6.1    Environmental Health and Building Comments

No objections in relation to health and building issues are raised to the application.

 

6.2    Development Engineer Comments

The Development Engineer advises as follows:

 

“An application has been received to modify development consent for construction of 27 terrace houses with basement car parking and basement storage/utility rooms (Lots 24 & 25); and two residential flat buildings (comprising one 3 storey building and one part 4/part 5 storey building) both containing a total of 29 dwelling units with semi basement car parking , basement gym and associated site works (Lot 26).

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

·      Job No 0195 by Vanovac stamped by Council 8/12/10;

·      Lot 26 Plans - Project No 2908 Sheet No’s S96-01 to S96-10 by Millenium design Consultants P/L stamped by Council 8/12/10.

 

The modifications to the townhouses (Lots 24 & 25) which were considered by Development Engineering related to relocation of the OSD tank and the rationalization of the turning area into Townhouse H2.01.

 

Development Engineering advise that there is no objection to the above modifications and that no new or amended Development Engineering Conditions are required for the modifications to Lots 24 & 25.

 

The modifications to the residential flat building (Lot 26) which were considered by Development Engineering related to the basement level where the applicant proposes to alter the gymnasium into a 3 bedroom unit and other modifications to the basement level car park which are listed as follows:

 

Reconfigure/relocate of disability car spaces

 

No objection to the proposal, the application was previously approved with a disability space as a tandem space.

 

Tandem parking space (Spaces 1 & 2 in Lot 26) replaced with car space and motorcycle parking

 

No objection to proposal as the applicant has advised that a owner (bought off the plan) has requested alteration.

 

Relocation of garbage area

 

No objection to proposal, however it should be noted that it appears bicycle racks have been deleted from the basement car park. These may be able to be located to the proposed turning bay area.

 

Comment: A condition to this effect will be applied should approval be granted.

 

Turning Bay incorporated

 

No objection to proposal, the following condition is to be included in relation to this amendment:

 

Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate the turning bay located adjacent to car space No 23, in Lot 26, is to clearly signposted as” Turning Bay Only – No Parking”

 

Garage door setback altered to 4.00m – No objection to the proposal

 

Relocation of car wash bay

 

The garbage area that was located adjacent to the eastern edge of the driveway entrance has been converted into a carwash bay. There are no objections to the proposal.

 

Replace gymnasium with 3 bedroom unit and car space

 

The additional 3 bedroom unit would require an additional 1.5 car spaces. The assessing officer is advised that the total number of car spaces within the basement car park has increased by 1 but this has been allocated as a carwash bay.”

 

Comment: The proposal originally had an excess in carparking of 3 carspaces such that the addition 1.5 carspaces can be accommodated within the approved carpark. The dual-use of the remaining carspace as a carwash bay is an acceptable practice and therefore reasonable.

 

7.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

7.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) was gazetted on 15 January 2010.  Clause 7 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) requires that a development application lodged but not finally determined prior to the appointed day will continue to be assessed and determined under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 that was in force immediately before the commencement of this plan. The subject Section 96 application was lodged on the 8th December 2009 and is therefore subject to the savings provision. Further, when determining an application to which this clause applies, the consent authority must have regard to the provisions of this plan as if it had been exhibited under the Act but had not been made.

 

Consequently, the assessment of this Section 96 application is made against the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, and the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) is treated as a draft plan only.

 

7.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned Zone 2D – Residential D Comprehensive Development under Randwick LEP 1998 (Amendment No 23) which was gazetted on 9 May 2003. The proposed development will be permissible with Council’s consent under the zoning.

 

The following relevant clauses apply to the proposal (and are addressed in detail in Section 10.1 below):

 

Clause 30A  Development of Certain Land in Zone No. 2D

Clause 30B   Traffic and transport measures for Zone No. 2D

 

7.2.1   Clause 30A Development of Certain Land in Zone No. 2D

The relevant objectives of Zone No 2D are:  

 

(a)    to allow the comprehensive redevelopment of land for primarily residential and open space purposes, and

(b)    to enable development that is not inconsistent with a master plan adopted under clause 40A, and

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

(d)    to enable residential development in a variety of density and housing forms, where such development does not adversely affect the amenity and function of surrounding areas, and

(f)    to allow a limited range and scale of non-residential uses, that are compatible with residential amenity on land identified for those uses within a master plan adopted under clause 40A, and

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

 

The proposed modifications to the approved scheme are consistent with the general aims of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) and the specific objectives of the Residential 2D zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not adversely impact the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

Clause 30A (2)  Development of certain Land in Zone No 2D

The proposal complies with all the statutory controls applicable in land zoned No. 2D as identified in the built form control maps applicable to the specific site (in this case the Bundock Street Defence Site) as follows:

Control

Requirement

Section 96 Proposal

Compliance & Comments

30A(2) – Max FSR

0.75:1 (5781m2)

1:1   (7729m2).

The new additional dwelling unit replacing the previously approved gym will result in an increase in floor area by 8m2. However, due to the minor nature of the increase, the resultant floor space ratio remains at approved FSR of 1.1.

30A(3) – Landscape Area

40 per cent of site area

60 per cent of site area (4614m2)

Approved landscaped area remains unchanged

30A(4) – Max Wall Height

Max 10.5m for the southern portion of Lots 24 and 25 and for the whole of Lot 26.

 

Terrace dwelling blocks

Max 10.7m in the south elevation of the eastern terrace block in the

 

 

Approved Max wall height remains unchanged for terrace dwelling blocks

 

 

No max building height applicable in the northern portion (as only a max building height of 7m at Bundock Street frontage applies)

southern portion of lot 25 fronting Gumara Street.

 

Apartment blocks:

Max 14.8m to roof ridge for Western Apartment Block in Lot 26.

 

Max 12.4m to top of roof for Eastern Apartment Block in Lot 26.

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Max Wall Height remains unchanged for apartment blocks

30A(4) – Max Building Height

 

 

Max 12m for southern portion of Lots 24 and 25 and for the whole of Lot 26.

 

 

 

Terrace dwelling blocks:

Max12.2m in the south elevation of the eastern terrace block in the  southern portion of lot 25 fronting Gumara Street

 

 

Approved max building height remains unchanged for terrace dwelling blocks

 

 

 

 

 

 

Max 7m at Bundock Street frontage for northern portion of Lots 24 and 25.

Max 7.2m above Bundock Street for the northern terrace block  fronting Bundock Street.

 

Apartment blocks:

Max 14.8m to roof ridge for Western Apartment Block in Lot 26.

 

Max 12.4m to top of roof for Eastern Apartment Block in Lot 26.

Approved Max Building Height remains unchanged for apartment blocks

 

 

7.1.2          Clause 30B        Traffic and transport measures for Zone No. 2D

The Section 96 proposal will create one additional 3 bedroom dwelling unit in the eastern apartment block which will only result in a marginal increase in the originally projected traffic under the approved DA 187/2009.  Accordingly, the traffic generation from the development is determined to a large degree by the available approved parking in the development. In this regard, the original DA had a total of 91 carspaces approved on-site with an estimated peak hour generation of approx 31 vehicular trips per hour equivalent to less than a single trip per minute which is considered to be a moderate generation. This increase has been assessed in the original DA as being commensurate with the total traffic generation rate predicted in the approved Defence site Master Plan by Traffix Pty.

It should be noted that the approved DA proposal provided for a total of 91 basement carparking spaces – three spaces more than the required 88 carspaces under the DCP – Parking. Two of the excess carparking spaces can be allocated to the proposed new dwelling unit.

 

7.3    State Environmental Planning Policies

The following State Environmental Planning Policies are relevant to the proposal:

 

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

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

 

7.3.1          State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

Pursuant to Clause 30 of the SEPP, the consent authority may refer a proposed Section 96 modification to the relevant design review panel. The Section 96 application was referred to the Design Review Panel. The Panel’s comments of December 2009 are listed in italics below (with Council’s comments in bold wherever necessary):

 

“This application is for amendments to an already approved proposal that the Panel has seen on a number of occasions during design development. The Panel supported the previous application.  The comments made below only address the proposed changes. The project is currently under construction.

 

The proposed changes include:

·      In the apartments at the eastern end of the site, an apartment is now proposed to be substituted for the gym, which had been the inclusion in the most recent application. Although they increase the measured FSR, they do not increase apparent bulk.

·      Minor changes to the townhouses.

 

The Panel noted that the drawings submitted are construction drawings, short on a design, material or illustrative dimension. A perspective of the street corner was subsequently issued.

 

Comment: The proposed new dwelling unit replacing the approved gym will result in an increase in floor area of 8m2 which, when translated into FSR, is negligible such that the FSR remains at the approved 1:1.

 

1.      Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

This is not changed

         

2.         The Scale of the Proposal

 

This is not changed

 

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal

 

This has only altered in very minor respects that have no externalities, except for the following;

 

The extent of the sandstone podium to Gumara and Hendy Streets;

 

-        For the Apartments, the sandstone should be extended eastward for the full extent of the frontage. Sandstone is not indicated on the South Elevation, east of the grid line 23 / the Courtyard, which should be corrected. The sandstone should be 2.5 metres in height, as specified in the DCP.

-        For the houses, the corner needs to have a greater presence of sandstone in the façade. Otherwise the sandstone elements have been squared off, rather than the previous example of raking walls following the stairs – acceptable to the Panel.

 

All sandstone in the street walls should be a minimum of 50mm thickness (75mm preferred) and should have a projecting  capping to shed water, assist durability and minimize staining.

 

For the houses, the first floor balcony to the rear bedrooms has generally been deleted, as the applicant is concerned about overlooking. All the balconies should be retained, as the site planning minimizes any overlooking. The  balconies could be fitted with a combination of fixed and adjustable screen, to give a solution to sun and privacy control. Should the north and south-facing balconies be removed, an awning needs to be provided to shelter the doors at ground floor.

Windows should be reconsidered to optimize the paths of cross ventilation through rooms.  Awning windows effectively block breezes and are not a recommended window type for these purposes.

 

Comment: The applicant initially proposed the deletion of the first floor balconies to rear bedrooms in the terrace dwellings. The Design Review Panel’s concerns about the deletion of first floor balconies to rear bedrooms is supported. The applicant has provided an alternative solution to the deletion of the subject balconies by proposing external three-sided enclosing louvers set out at 600mm from windows in the rear building line. However, the proposed louvers are considered a poor design response to the Panel’s concerns because the louvers impose an adverse impact on the outlook from the rear bedrooms and would restrict solar access, daylight and ventilation to these bedrooms that the original balconies. It should be noted that the original DA assessed the internal amenity of the terrace blocks in which concerns about loss of privacy between the terrace blocks was not an issue given that there was adequate separation distance between the terrace blocks and that some rear balconies faced the end wall of terrace blocks. This assessment supports the Panel’s view that the site planning of the proposed development has in itself minimized loss of privacy between terrace blocks. Accordingly, the applicant’s proposed deletion of the balconies is not supported and a condition will be applied requiring for the balconies to be retained.

 

4.         The Proposed Density

 

Additional floor space is due to the substitution of an apartment for the below ground utility rooms and gymnasium.

 

5.         Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Sun shading to windows has been decreased, which needs to be addressed.

 

A pair of openable skylights should be provided to all the houses, more in scale with the area that they need to provide light and air.

 

The applicant advises that appropriate amendments to the facades of the terrace blocks have been provided to address the Panel’s request for more light and air to penetrate the terrace dwellings including incorporation of windows above the stairwells of terrace dwellings. 

 

6.         The Proposed Landscape

 

No change.

 

7.      The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The Panel is concerned that the proposed apartment substituted for the gym receives very little daylight. All the service rooms are internal, and the two minor bedrooms look south into a covered courtyard, that shelters behind a high wall. In order to gain light and air, the Panel strongly suggests that a large cut-out be made in the planter above – preferably for the full width of the courtyard. The entrance through the courtyard directly from the street is supported.

 

The Panel also has concerns that the changes to the houses marginally reduce their amenity.

 

Comment: The applicant advises that the latest amended plans indicate that the proposed unit 30 (that will replace the approved gym) has been further designed to allow for an extension of the eastern living areas into an outdoor area of private open space. The result is such that the living area will enjoy solar access throughout the morning at the winter solstice while the garden apartment will also enjoy an expansive landscaped outlook. The proposed dwelling unit 30 will now have a better amenity. The design of the unit has also been improved through incision to the concrete slab above the windows serving bedrooms 2 and 3. The car space has also been modified to allow for a garage and storage space with a private and secure entry.

 

8.      The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

No change

 

9.      Social issues

 

No change

 

10.    The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

See comments above that need to be addressed.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel considers that the proposed changes are generally minor, and that, in incorporating the Panel’s comments above, could be reasonable.

 

The Panel does not need to see the application again, unless referred by the assessing planner.”

 

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

SEPP: BASIX came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and multi-unit housing developments where the development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. The applicant has submitted and amended BASIX certificate (certificate number 85510246, issued 2 March 2010), which demonstrates that the proposal will satisfy the current targets set for energy and water conservation. Further, conditions 18 to 20 of the original consent contained provisions to require compliance with the commitments stated in the submitted BASIX Certificate. Appropriate amendment to these conditions will be applied requiring a new BASIX Certificate to be made reflecting the changes to the Section 96 application relating to retention of the of the of first floor balconies to rear bedrooms in the terrace blocks and deletion of the proposed external three-sided enclosing louvers to rear bedroom windows.

 

8.      Policy Controls

 

The following policy controls are relevant to the application:

 

·      Development Control Plan – Defence Site Kingsford

·      Development Control Plan – Parking

 

8.1    Development Control Plan – Defence Site Kingsford

The proposal has been assessed in relation to the Development Control Plan – Defence Site Kingsford. The DCP provides a framework for the redevelopment of the Defence Site containing controls and objectives to guide builtform, provide environmental and amenity standards, and give appropriate design guidelines for facilities and access.

 

The Section 96 proposal does not result in any additional departures from the standards of the DCP beyond those already assessed and approved under the original application. Accordingly, no further variation in non-compliances is proposed under the Section 96 application. 

 


8.2    Development Control Plan – Parking

The proposal will result in the loss of two carparking space as a result of the creation of Unit 30 to replace the gym. This loss is not considered significant as the proposed development overall will still have an excess of 1 carparking spaces (88 required under the DCP – Parking and 90 spaces provided).

 

9.      Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96(2), a consent authority may modify a development consent if it is satisfied that the development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted; and has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modifications.

 

9.1      Substantially the same

The proposal does not involve any major changes to the approved built form, floor space or carparking provision on site. Therefore, the modifications are considered to be substantially the same for which the consent was originally granted for the following reasons:

 

a.     The proposed Section 96 modification will not increase the visual bulk and scale of the approved development as each approved dwelling unit in each row of terrace houses will not be increased in area. Furthermore, there will be minimal, if no, increase in the footprint and building envelope of each row compared to that approved under the original DA.

 

b.     The amenity impacts of the proposal in terms of privacy, solar access and views remain essentially the same as the approved development.

 

c.     The proposed Section 96 modifications remain consistent with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings, and the Residential Flat Design Code guidelines in terms of layout, orientation, weather protection and amenity for future users of the proposed development.

 

d.     The proposed additional dwelling unit replacing the approved gym will only minimally project beyond the building footprint but will be similar in orientation and layout as that of the other approved units in the original DA. 

 

9.2      Consideration of submissions

As indicated in Section 5 above, the application was advertised and notified to the owners/occupiers of adjoining properties on 26 August 2009 to 9 September 2009, in accordance with the provisions of Councils DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. One submission was received in response to the notification/advertising of the application which has been addressed in Section 5 above.

 

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  Urban Design

The Section 96 modification results in one additional dwelling unit in the sub-basement level of the eastern apartment block replacing the previously approved gym. This modification will result in a minor increase in floor area amounting to approximately 8m2 arising as a result of a minor projection of the living room area of the proposed unit beyond the approved footprint of the apartment block south and east to facilitate solar access into the new unit. Notwithstanding this increase in floor area, the approved FSR under the original DA will remain at unchanged at 1:1.

 

The proposed changes to the terrace blocks comprise largely improvements to the façade and roof-line of the blocks and reconfiguration of internal spaces such that the proposal will maintain the medium density town-house scale with a bulk and scale that will not be visually intrusive, but still complementary to, the streetscape along Bundock Street, Hendy avenue and Gumara Street. Setbacks to street boundaries and separation distances between terrace blocks remain unchanged to that approved in the original DA.

 

10.2  Sunlight, Privacy and Views

The Section 96 proposal will retain the footprint and building envelope of the terrace block rows as well as the apartment blocks approved in the original development application. Accordingly, the proposal generally will not result in any increase in overshadowing beyond that generated by the approved development and assessed as acceptable and reasonable in the original DA assessment. Moreover, there are currently no residential properties to the east or west of the subject site that have been built that will be overshadowed by the proposal.

 

The DCP requires that new dwellings must achieve 3 hours of solar access 9am to 3pm midwinter. Under the Section 96 proposal, all living rooms of the terrace houses will maintain the predominantly east and north orientation approved under the original DA, and, therefore, achieve 3 hours of solar access between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm in the winter solstice. Accordingly, the proposal will comply with the solar access requirements for 1 and 2 storey developments detailed in the DCP – Defence Site Kingsford as follows:

 

·      The principal living room is to have at least 2 hours sunlight reaching 2m2 of glazing to that room between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 21

 

·      Sunlight is to be available to the principal area of ground level private open space for at least 2 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 21

 

For developments of 3 storey and more, the DCP requires that “75% of residential units are to have one living room which has at least 2 hours of sunlight reaching 2m2 of glazing to that room between 9:00am and 3:00pm on June 21”. This criteria will be maintained under the Section 96 proposal as no changes to the approved living room layouts are proposed such that the approved development will continue to have:

 

·      The significant separation distance between the two residential flat buildings in excess of 10m will remain unchanged allowing for considerable solar access to occur between the opposite sides of the two buildings.

 

·      Most dwelling units within the two proposed residential flat building will maintain their living areas with north-facing glazed walls within two apartment blocks which moderate building depths consistent with the DCP Max 12m primary building zone depth.

 

In relation to the new additional apartment, its living room will be projected slightly south and east to create an open patio on its northern side to allow for adequate solar access into the living room.

 

In terms of privacy, the Section 96 proposal will maintain the good performance of the original approved proposal such that:

 

·      The living areas of the terrace dwellings will remain on ground level that is significantly lower than that of the existing residential properties on the northern side of Bundock Street.

 

·      The terrace dwellings will maintain the same generous separation distance (to mitigate any potential loss of privacy) of approximately 25m to the existing Gumara Street properties; and in excess of 25m to the closest existing residential property on the northern side of Bundock Street.

 

·      The apartment blocks will maintain the same generous separation distance of approximately 25m to the existing Gumara Street properties to the south and 18m to the closest Department of Housing apartment block to the north of the subject site by way of the approved wide strip of soft/deep-soil landscaping along the common northern boundary to the Department of Housing land.

 

The proposed new additional dwelling unit will not overlook any adjoining property given its low location relative to adjoining development in an area that previously was approved for a sub-basement gym.

 

In terms of views, the Section 96 proposal will maintain the view-sharing arrangement approved under the original DA in that the effect of the proposed terrace dwellings on view loss would be minimal as the current proposal maintains the 5 groupings of terrace dwellings with landscape gaps that allow for views across the subject site akin to that provided for under the DCP. The current DA maintains the gap between the terrace blocks fronting Bundock Street thus splitting this group into two blocks to break the bulk and scale of the proposal to Bundock Street, and accordingly allow for a view corridor, in accordance with the recommendation of the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. The resultant 5 groupings of terrace dwellings will allow for a residential scale and rhythm that would relate reasonably well to the pattern of elevated houses on the opposite northern side of Bundock Street.

 

Overall, the Section 96 proposal is satisfactory with regard to solar access, privacy and views.

 

10.3  Carparking        

The original DA proposal had a total of 91 basement carparking spaces approved – three spaces in excess of the required 88 carspaces under the DCP – Parking. Two of the excess carparking spaces can be allocated to the proposed new dwelling unit such that the amended proposal will still comply with the carparking control.

 

Accordingly, This compliance in carparking in the context of the changes currently sought in the subject Section 96 application serves to highlight that the amending proposal is substantially the same as that originally approve.

 

10.4      Traffic and access

The addition of one extra dwelling unit in place of the gym will add minimally to the expected traffic generation from the proposed development. The Section 96 proposal is expected to result in the same vehicular traffic generation of approximately 31 vehicles per hour two-way during peak periods approved under the original DA consent. This traffic generation is still a low expected traffic generation (equivalent to on average only of two vehicle every 12 minutes during peak hours) which would not have a significant effect on the operation or amenity of the surrounding road network and its intersection. This assessment is considered reasonable and adequate and the proposal will be acceptable in relation to traffic impacts.

 

10.5  Site Suitability

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 5a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Outcome 11:      A healthy/sustainable environment.

Direction 11a:    Council is a leader in fostering sustainable practices.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and objectives and performance requirements of the DCP Defence Site Kingsford. The proposed modification to the original development consent satisfies Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, in that it will constitute substantially the same development, and approval of the modification will not result in any significant additional impacts upon either the amenity of the Prince Henry site or the streetscape. It is therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable.

 

Additionally, the proposed modification will not result in any changes to the building heights and FSR approved under the Stage 1 DA; will maintain compliance with the landscaped area and soft landscaping requirements as wells as other relevant assessment criteria in the DCP – Defence Site Kingsford; and will not result in any significant additional adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining and surrounding properties or the character of the locality.

 

In view of the above, it is recommended that the section 96(2) application be approved.

 

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/187/2009 for the Stage 2 development application for construction of 27 terrace houses with basement car parking for 54 vehicles and basement storage/utility rooms; and two residential flat buildings (comprising one 3 storey building and one part 4/part 5 storey building) both containing a total of 28 dwelling units (13 x 1 bedroom, 6 x 2 bedroom and 9 x 3 bedroom) with semi basement car parking for 37 vehicles at 2 - 40 Gumara Street, Randwick, in the following manner:

 

1.         Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans/diagrams numbered A-001 Revision 4, A-101 Revision 13, A-200 Revision 16, A-201 Revision 18, A-202 Revision 12, A-203 Revision 12, A-204 Revision 11, A-205 Revision 11, A-206 Revision 11, A-207 Revision 11, A-208 Revision 6, A-209 Revision 6, A-210 Revision 15, A-211 Revision 17, A-212 Revision 16, A-213 Revision 11, A-214 Revision 16, A-215 Revision 11, A-216 Revision 7, A-301 Revision 12, A-302 Revision 12, A-303 Revision 13, A-304 Revision 12, A-305 Revision 13, A-306 Revision 11, A-307 Revision 11, A-308 Revision 13, A-350 Revision 15, A-351 Revision 17, A-352 Revision 15, A-353 Revision 14, A-354 Revision 13, stamped received by Council on 15 May 2009, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96(2) plans numbered A-101 Revision 16, A-200 Revision 19, A-201 Revision 21, A-202 Revision 17, A-203 Revision 18, A-204 Revision 14, A-205 Revision 15, A-206 Revision 14, A-207 Revision 15, A-208 Revision 9, A-209 Revision 10, A-301 Revision 17, A-302 Revision 17, A-303 Revision 19, A-304 Revision 17, A-305 Revision 17, A-306 Revision 16, A-307 Revision 15, A-308 Revision 17, received by Council on 5 March 2010; S96-01C, S96-02C, S96-03C, S96-04C, S96-05C, S96-06C, S96-07C, S96-08C, S96-09C, S96-10C, S96-11C and S96-12C, all dated 15/03/2010 and received by Council on 16 March 2010, and the application only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application excluding the deletion of the first floor rear balconies of the terrace blocks and except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

.

2.        Add New Condition No. 101 as follows:

 

101.    The proposed deletion of first floor balconies to rear bedrooms in the terrace blocks and the provision of external three-sided enclosing louvers to rear bedroom windows must be deleted from proposed development and the plans for the construction certificate must be amended accordingly.

 

3.      Amend Condition No. 18 to read as follows:

 

18      In accordance with Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all of the required commitments listed in the relevant BASIX Certificate for this development are fulfilled. A new BASIX Certificate shall be made reflecting the changes to the Section 96 application.

 

4.      Amend Condition No. 19 to read as follows:

 

19      In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a relevant BASIX Certificate and associated documentation must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application for this development.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate are to be included on the plans, specifications and associated documentation for the proposed development, including required changes to the Section 96 application, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

3.        Add New Condition No. 102 as follows:

 

102.    A Certificate of Adequacy must be supplied by a structural engineer to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) for the works already completed that are the subject of this Section 96 application prior to an amended construction certificate being issued for the works that are required to be completed under this consent. Compliance with the Building Code of Australia is to be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to an amended construction certificate being issued for the works that are required to be completed under this consent.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D22/10

 

 

Subject:                  10 Severn Street Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/550/1994/C

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification to delete condition No. 90(C) of consent

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

 

Applicant:                Draftsmart

 

Owner:                         Quick Start Engineering Pty Ltd

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This application to modify the approval is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application was refused by the Council and subsequently approved by the Land and Environment Court. The original approval detailed the erection of a 4-storey apartment building with 4 apartments and parking for 6 cars. 

 

The main issue is the potential impact of the modification upon the privacy of the adjoining properties.

 

One submission has been received from the owners of the adjoining property requesting additional planting and screening to the side boundary to maintain privacy.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application seeks consent to modify the development consent to delete Condition No. 90(C) which states;

 

‘The proposed staircase from the rear yard to the balcony of unit 1 must be deleted from the plans. Plans for the amended construction certificate must be amened accordingly’

 

The plans accompanying the application also seek to provide for new external stairs that run from the eastern side of the balcony to unit 1 in the western direction to the ground level and includes privacy screens to both sides of the this balcony including extending across the stairway landing.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is level and rectangular with a Severn Street frontage of 15.24m, a depth of 40.845m and an area of 617m2. Construction works are nearing completion. Four-storey apartment buildings dominate the local urban character. Maroubra Beach is 120 m to the south-east.

 

4.    Site History

 

The site was previously occupied by a free-standing home. The existing multi-unit development was approved by the Land and Environment Court 24 February 1995 after first being refused by Council on 21 February 1995. Construction work began in 2000 and almost complete.

 

The original development consent has also been the subject of two previous Section 96 modifications which were both approved at Council meetings and detailed a number of minor variations including altering window sizes and designs, provision of a car wash bay and conversion of some portions of non trafficable roof areas into balcony areas.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified the DCP - Notification in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 


Owner/resident of 12 Severn Street Maroubra

Issue

Comment

Requests that screening and planting be provided to the western boundary to maintain privacy into their backyard.

The plans include privacy screens to both sides of the balcony which are to a height of 1500mm, and condition of consent is recommended to raise this to 1800mm which will prevent the direct overlooking into the adjoining properties.

 

A landscape plan, required as a condition of consent and submitted to Council on 22 December 2008, shows appropriate screen planting to the western side of the rear yard. 

 

6.    Section 96AA Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

 

Section 96AA of the Act allows Council to modify a Court approved development consent, subject to criteria.

 

Section 96AA requirement

Assessing Officer Comment

Council must be satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified

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

 

The Council must make reasonable attempts to notify each person who made a submission on the original application by sending written notice to the last known address.

All persons who made a submission on the original proposal were notified of the proposed modification at their last known address.

 

 

7.    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.

 

7.1      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

a)      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2C Residential 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:-

 

(i)     Zone Objectives:

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Zone No 2C (Residential C Zone) area.

 

(ii)    Landscaped Area:

The proposal will not alter the approved landscaped area to the site.

 

(iii)   Floor Space Ratio:

The proposal will not increase the approved floor space ratio to the site.

 

(iv)   Building Height:

The proposal will not increase the approved building height for the multi-unit dwelling.

 

(v)    Foreshore Scenic Protection:

The proposal will not alter the appearance of the multi-unit dwelling as viewed from the Maroubra Beach locality and is considered consistent with the aims of the Foreshore Scenic Protection area.

 

b)      Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy

 

A condition is recommended to raise the height of the privacy screen to the sides of the balcony to maintain a reasonable degree of privacy to the adjoining properties.

 

View sharing

 

The proposed amendments to the approved plans do not impose any additional bulk to the approved multi-unit dwelling which may impede views across the site from those adjacent to the site. 

 

c)      The regulations

The proposed changes to the approved plans are considered to be consistent with the objectives and requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

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

 

Privacy

As discussed above, the modification to the approved development subject to condition is not expected to result in any adverse impact on neighbouring properties with regard to privacy.

 

View Loss

As discussed above, the development is not expected to result in any adverse impact on neighbouring properties with regard to view loss.

 

Perceived bulk and scale

The proposed changes will not affect the perceived bulk and scale of the development as viewed from neighbouring properties or from the front and rear streetscapes. No adverse impact will result from the proposed changes.

 

e)      The suitability of the site for the development:

The site has been assessed as being suitable for multi-unit development in the previous development consent granted by Council. The current proposal (as conditioned) does not involve any significant change to the floor space, built form or landscaped area provision of the approved development.

 

f)       The public interest.

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the approved development to provide for access stairs from the balcony to unit 1 to the rear ground level subject to a condition to raise the height of the privacy screens will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties and it is recommended that the application be approved.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to modify Development Consent No. DA/550/1994 for 10 Severn Street, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

A.      Amend Condition No. 1 as follows:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A01 to A03 dated 17/07/08 and received by council on 21/07/08 as amended by plans numbered F01 to F03, dated 15 July 2009 and received by Council on 23 July 2009, as further amended by the Section 96 application received by Council on the 10th February 2010 and plans numbered G01 & G03 dated 02/02/10 only in so far as they relate to modification highlighted on the plans, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

B.      Condition No. 90 be deleted

 

C.      Condition No. 3 to be amended to read:

 

3.     Privacy screens must be installed on the east and west sides of the northern balconies at all levels. The privacy screens must be at least 1.5m high except those to Level 2 of the building (servicing Unit 1) which must be at least 1.8m high, as measured from the floor level.  Plans accompanying the amended construction certificate are to be amended accordingly.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D23/10

 

 

Subject:                  15 Bona Vista Avenue, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/962/2009

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations to the existing multi unit housing building including replacement of existing balcony balustrades, new clothes lines, new garage doors, new hardstand car parking, landscaping and rendering of façade.

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Rodney A Yannakis & Associates

Owner:                         Strata Plan No 525 under seal.

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The proposal is for external alterations and additions to an existing multi unit housing building containing 9 units. The works include replacing the existing balcony balustrades with obscured glazing, rendering the building, reducing the size of the landscaped area in the rear yard as well as upgrading it to include a BBQ area, clothes lines along the northern side boundary and provision of 6 hardstand car spaces in the rear most portion of the site along the eastern rear boundary. 

 

Strata plan records for the property show no approved parking spaces within the rear yard and as a result the application therefore seeks to install six parking spaces as opposed to the 3 original proposed. In this respect, Councils development engineer indicates that the proposed isle widths of parking spaces at the rear do not comply with the relevant Australian Standards. As a result Councils development engineer requires the inclusion of a condition reducing the number of rear parking spaces to a total of 5. As a result of the proposed parking in the rear yard area, landscaped area across the site will fall from the existing 33% down to 26% of the total site area. This represents a shortfall of approximately 47% shortfall of the 50% minimum landscaped area required under Clause 31(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed development falls short by more than 10% below the development standard for landscaping within 2C zoned sites under Clause 31(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The applicant provided a SEPP 1 objection to the shortfall in Landscaped Area required under Clause 31 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP).  The applicant states that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary under the circumstances of the case. In particular, they argue that the upgrading of the rear yard as recreational open space becomes more usable than the existing, the majority of the site remains open and totals approximately 53% of the total site area, the provision of permeable paving for the car spaces and rear section of the driveway will increase on site stormwater management than the current situation and the resultant development will be consistent with the prevailing character of multi-unit housing development in the locality.

 

No submissions have been received regarding the proposed development.

 

The main issues with the application are the non compliance with the landscaping provisions and the proposed car spaces at the rear of the sites non compliance with the relevant Australian Standards regarding minimum width and depth. It is considered that these issues have been adequately assessed where it is considered that subject to conditions being included in the recommendation, the proposed development represents an acceptable form of development and will not result in any significant adverse environmental amenity impacts to adjoining properties or the locality.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations to the existing multi unit housing building including:

 

·      Replacement of existing balcony balustrades,

·      New clothes lines,

·      New garage doors,

·      Upgraded landscaping,

·      Rendering of façade and

·      New hardstand car parking spaces along the rear most portion of the site.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is a north western facing site located on the south eastern side of Bona Vista Avenue. The neighbouring sites to the rear and northern side contain similarly configured residential flat buildings. The neighbouring property to the south is a single dwelling and further to the rear south western side boundary are the rear yards of three properties facing the adjacent Bond Street. Figure 1 below is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding properties.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site (green spot) and surrounding properties. Properties bounded by blue are flat buildings containing strata lots.

 

4.    Site History

 

No relevant history.

 

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

 

5.1      SEPP1 - Landscaped Area

The proposal seeks to vary the landscaping development standard contained within Clause 31 (2) of the RLEP 1998. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clauses 31(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, the minimum provision for landscaped area within 2C Zones is 50% of the site. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:


 

 

Landscaped Area

Proposal

27% of the site (199.7m2)

LEP development standard

50% of the site

Shortfall below LEP standard

167m2 less than the development standard this equates to a shortfall of 46%.

Note: The actual variation from the current on site landscaping is 27%.

 

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 landscaped area standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

“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”.

 

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

 

 

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

 

-    Whilst it is acknowledged that the 5 parking spaces (as conditioned) and driveway extension results in a reduction of landscaped area, the proposed use of permeable paving in these areas actually results in an increase in permeable land throughout the site, resulting in approximately 46% (341sqm) provided as permeable land and a combined 53% of the site provided as open area.

 

-    The proposed landscaped area to be upgraded provides a more usable area of private common open space which is in addition to the balconies provided.

 

-    The proposed development does not result in any perceived external bulk and scale to the site or any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties.

 

-    Landscaping to the front of the site will not be affected thereby maintaining the sites visual appearance at street level.

 

-    A good amount of open space, such as Maroubra Beach, Jack Vanny Memorial Park and Mahon pool are within close proximity to the subject site.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objection is 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.”

 

·      Comments:

The variation from the landscaping standard is not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it 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 the Residential 2C Zone in that it will allow development which is ancillary to the present use of the site as a multi unit housing development, without resulting in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties or 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”.

 

·      Comment:

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will allow the continued economic use of the site as a suitably scaled development in an established neighbourhood.

 

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:

 

33.  First

34.  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.

35.   

36.  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.

37.   

38.  Comments:

39.  As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposed recreational landscaping layout and the use of permeable pavers for the proposed car parking (as conditioned to be reduced) will achieve the objectives of the development standard.

40.  Second

41.  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.

42.   

43.  Comments:

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

45.  Third

46.  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.

47.   

48.  Comments:

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

50.   

51.  Fourth

52.  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.

53.   

54.  Comments:

55.  The landscaped area standard has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

56.   

57.  Fifth

58.  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.

59.   

60.  Comments:

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

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. No submissions were received.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

An application has been received for alterations to the existing multi unit housing building including replacement of existing balcony balustrades, new clothes lines, new garage doors, new hardstand car parking, landscaping and rendering of façade at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Plans by Rodney Albert Yannakis & Associates dated 3rd December 2009;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Lockrey Planning and Development dated December 2009.

 

Carspace Comments

A search of Council’s records has found no evidence for approval of the 3 carspaces labelled ‘existing’ on the submitted plans adjacent to the rear property boundary. Furthermore these 3 spaces are not shown on the existing Strata plan (SP 525) for the site. Two of these carspaces are non-compliant with Australian Standard 28901.1:2004 and Council’s DCP-parking. To comply with Council requirements the southern most carspace adjacent to the rear and southern side boundary needs to be enlarged to a minimum of 2.7m wide (currently 2.5m) as it is next to a boundary fence while the adjacent carspace to the north needs to be widened to a minimum of 2.4m (currently 2.32m). 

 

The 3 carspaces labelled ‘proposed’ on the submitted plans are compliant with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 with the exception of the northern most carspace adjacent to the northern boundary. It also needs to be widened to a minimum of 2.70m as it is adjacent to a boundary fence.

 

As a number of the carspaces need to be widened it is apparent that 6 complying carspaces will not fit across the width of the site and Development Engineering will add a condition requesting the number of spaces in this section be reduced to five. The carspaces must comply with the requirements of Council’s DCP-Parking and Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 in regards to minimum width and depth.

 

In addition the carspaces labelled ‘existing’ on the submitted plans by Rodney Albert Yannakis and Associates shall be relabelled ‘proposed’ in plans submitted for the construction certificate to avoid any confusion that they are previously approved carspaces.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

-      Building Code of Australia.

-      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-      Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 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:-

 

Clause 12 2C zone

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 not detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

Clause 29 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Clause 29 of the LEP stipulates that Council may only grant consent after consideration has been given to the aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

The existing view from the foreshore will be improved by the proposed development.

 

31   Landscaped Area

Clause 31(2) of LEP 1998 states that development, otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C must provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area. The proposal does not comply with the development standard - See SEPP 1 Objection above in section 7.1.

 

(b)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The development application was lodged before the 15 January 2010 gazettal of LEP Amendment 41. The savings and transitional provisions require Council to take it into consideration as though it had been exhibited, but not yet made. The proposal is not inconsistent with Amendment 41.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

a.    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.)

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Complies.

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

 

Complies.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

See comments below under compliance with P6.

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

 

Landscaped area is maintained at the front of the site and remains communal. Recreational communal open space area is remaining in the rear yard area for recreational purposes. 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.

Approved strata plans shows compliance. 9 units have allocated an area of private open space in the form of a balcony to 8 of the units and a garden area to the remaining unit. These areas are directly accessible as an area of private open space to each of the units.

It is noted that the proposed upgrading of the landscaped area at the rear yard provide a more usable area for recreational common areas.

 

8.2 Council Policies

 

Section 94A Contributions

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

 

$100,000

0.5%

$500.00

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

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

The proposed works are considered to not result in any unreasonable environmental impacts on the neighbouring properties and the surrounding built environment.

 

In particular, the proposed replacement of the balustrades with obscured glazing will reduce overlooking from these balconies. The proposed landscaping to the rear of the site has been conditioned so that it does not allow for an increase in land levels beyond the placement of pavers within the rear yard.

 

Overall, the proposed development is considered to result in a positive social contribution to the subject site and improve its visual appearance along the streetscape and the wider locality.

 

9.2    The suitability of the site for the development:

For the reasons discussed throughout this report, the development is assessed as being suitable development for the site.

 

9.3    The public interest.

Should approval be granted for the proposed development as conditioned, it is considered that there will not be any significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties and the locality. The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest in so far as the context of surrounding developments, the streetscape appearance and the neighbouring sites amenity and approval is therefore recommended.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not comply with landscaping development standard within the RLEP 1998 however a SEPP 1 Objection has been received by Council which is considered to have adequately argued why it is unreasonable or unnecessary for the standard to apply in this instance.

 

The proposal complies with the objectives and performance requirements of the Multi unit housing DCP and if approved, would not result in unreasonable and significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standard in respect to non-compliance with Clause 31(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Landscaping, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 95/2010 for alterations to the existing multi unit housing building including replacement of existing balcony balustrades, new clothes lines, new garage doors, new hardstand car parking, landscaping and rendering of façade at 15 Bona Vista Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 09/025-1A of 2 and 09/025-2A of 2 (as marked in red by Council Officer on 16 November 2009), dated 19 October 2009 and received by Council on 22 October 2009, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.     The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost $100000 - $200000

$100000

0.5%

$500.00

Development cost more than $200000

----------

1.0%

--------

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate consideration for service authority assets:

5.     A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

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

 

The following condition id applied to provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed carspaces.

7.     The number of carspaces proposed across the rear of the site shall be reduced in number to five and must comply with all the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004. Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

NOTE: The carspaces labelled ‘existing’ on the submitted plans have not been previously approved by council and shall be relabelled ‘proposed’ on plans submitted for the construction certificate.

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy relevant legislative requirements and to provide reasonable levels of safety and amenity:

 

8.     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.

 

9.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

10.   Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council 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 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

 

11.   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, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing, and

iii)     unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority, and

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

 

12.   The 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.

 

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

 

14.   Where applicable, 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.

 

The Fire Safety Certificate must include 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.

 

An annual Fire Safety Statement must be submitted to the Council and the NSW Fire Brigades, each year after the date of the Fire Safety Certificate, in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

15.   Any 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.

16.   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 the proposed works are suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped by Sydney Water or their Agent.  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 is required to ensure that a Quick Check Agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans prior to the commencement of any building works.

 

17.   In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 E of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

1)     If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development must, at the person’s own expense:

a)     protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

b)     where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

2)     The condition referred to in subclause 1) does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying.

 

18.   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 the like is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum) on Monday to Friday only.

 

19.   Public health, safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition and building works and the following requirements must be complied with at all times (as applicable):

 

a)     Demolition work must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard, AS2601 (2001) - The Demolition of Structures and a Demolition Work Plan is required to developed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencing any demolition works.

 

b)     The demolition, removal, storage and disposal of any materials containing asbestos must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, Council’s Asbestos Policy and the following requirements:

 

·       A licence must be obtained from WorkCover NSW for the removal of friable asbestos and or more than 10m2  of bonded asbestos (i.e. fibro)

·       Asbestos waste must be disposed of in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 & relevant Regulations

·       A sign must be provided to the site/building stating “Danger Asbestos Removal In Progress”

·       A Clearance Certificate or Statement must be obtained from a suitably qualified person (i.e. Occupational Hygienist) upon completion of the asbestos removal works, which is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

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.

 

c)     A sign must be provided and maintained in a prominent position, 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, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

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

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

 

d)     The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, trip hazards, 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.

 

 

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

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council.  For further information, please contact Council’s Road/Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

f)      Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other materials or articles 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.

 

g)     Bulk bins, waste containers or other articles 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 or other articles in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

h)     During demolition and construction, 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 Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

i)      Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to any demolition and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted. If necessary, a temporary safety fence or hoarding is to be provided to protect the public. Temporary site fences 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.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or items upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services department beforehand. Details and plans are to be submitted with the application, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted Pricing Policy.

 

j)      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.

 

The requirements and practices contained in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant DECC Construction Noise and Vibration Guidelines are to be satisfied and a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan is to be developed and implemented throughout the works to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

21.   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.

 

ADVISORY

 

A1    The assessment of this development application does not include an assessment of the proposed building work under the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

All new building work must comply with the BCA and relevant Australian Standards and details of compliance must be provided in the Construction Certificate application.

 

A2    In existing buildings, the levels of fire and occupant safety should be upgraded where necessary and details should be incorporated in the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the Certifying authority.

 

Where the levels of accessibility to existing buildings do not meet current standards, if practicable, the level of accessibility should also be upgraded in conjunction with the proposed development (e.g. via the installation of a 1:8 access ramp within the building) and details included in the construction certificate application.

 

Building owners, applicants and builders are advised to speak to the appointed Certifying Authority prior to lodgement of the Construction Certificate.

 

A3    The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

The applicant may wish to consider a strata plan of subdivision of the common property to formally allocate the rear carspaces to the various strata lots in Strata Plan 525.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M7/10

 

 

Subject:                  Unit 6, 878-890 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/586/2009

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 24 November 2009 resolved:

 

“RESOLUTION: (Andrews/Woodsmith) that Council, as the consent authority, refuses consent to Development Application No. 586/2009 for use and occupation of a Strata-titled unit for the purpose of a brothel with trading hours of 10am – 10pm, Sunday to Wednesday, and 10am – 11pm, Thursday to Saturday, at 6/878-890 Anzac Parade, Maroubra.”

 

The appeal against Council’s refusal to grant development consent and two ancillary appeals in relation to a Section 96 modification and validity of the Brothel Closure Order were subsequently heard in Land & Environment Court on 16 February 2010 by Commissioner Brown. The judgement dismissing the appeals was handed down on 16 March 2010.

 

Issues

 

The Commissioner found that the proposed location of the brothel was unacceptable due to the common access with commercial and residential uses and the street access arrangements. The access to the brothel was not considered to be discreet and would encourage clients to gather and wait in the street.

 

The applicant was also seeking to modify the current development consent for the use of the premises for remedial massage by deleting the condition prohibiting sexual services being offered on the premises. The Commissioner found that the consent as modified would not be substantially to same development and dismissed the appeal.

 

Having made the findings in the above two appeals, the Commissioner found that an order requiring the applicant to cease using the site for a brothel is appropriate. The Commissioner will make final orders in relation to this matter after the considering the submissions of the parties.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 5c:      New open space is created as opportunities arise.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The total amount of costs and disbursements (including Counsel’s fees) billed to date in the three matters before the Land & Environment Court (proceedings No’s. 10258, 10769 and 10842 of 2009) is approximately $30,750. There is also a further cost to be paid in the amount of (approximately) $1,500 - $2,000. This unbilled work will be received upon the final orders being handed down by the Land & Environment Court in the brothel closure order appeal (matter no. 10258 of 2009).

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee

13 April 2010

 

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M8/10

 

 

Subject:                  Reclassification of land - 64-66 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra and 3/90-98 King Street, Randwick - from Community to Operational Land

Folder No:                   F2004/07993

Author:                   Teresa Mok, Coordinator Community Planning     

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of 25 August 2009, Council resolved (Nash/Bowen) to:

 

Endorse the preparation of a planning proposal to reclassify 64-66 Minneapolis Crescent and 3/90-98 King Street affordable housing dwellings from community to operational land, in accordance with the new plan making process of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and forward the planning proposal to the Minister of Planning for determination.

 

This planning proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning on 7 September 2009.  Following the Department of Planning’s confirmation that the reclassification proposal has been accepted for processing under the new gateway plan making process, the reclassification proposal was publicly exhibited on 27 October to 10 November 2009.  No submissions were received on the proposal.  A public notification and hearing process was also initiated as required under the terms of the Local Government Act 1993. The Public Hearing, held on 17 March 2010 following a statutory public notification period of twenty-eight days, was chaired by an external facilitator, Ms Kathy Jones of KJA and Associates.  No members of the public attended the Public Hearing. After considering the relevant council reports and documents, Ms Jones’ report recommended the reclassification of the two subject sites from ‘Community land’ to ‘Operational land’.

 

This report recommends Council note that the community consultation requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and the LEP gateway process to reclassify the sites to Operational land have been successfully executed, and endorse that the Department of Planning be notified accordingly, requesting the completion of the land reclassification process.

 

 

Issues

 

Purpose

The purpose of reclassifying the subject sites from ‘Community’ to ‘Operational’ land is to bring them into line with the rest of Council’s affordable rental housing dwelling portfolio. The reclassification to ‘operational’ land is consistent with Council’s affordable rental housing program procedures.  The procedures adopted by Council in 2006, stipulate that all dedicated affordable housing stock (in Council’s ownership) are to have an ‘Operational’ land classification.

 

The Sites

The land at 64-66 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra, zoned residential 2(b), has development consent for the construction of eight dwelling units for affordable housing purposes in a joint venture project with a community housing association (Community Housing Limited). Construction is scheduled to commence in 2010. The apartment at 3/90-98 King Street, Randwick is a strata title unit in a large apartment complex.  The dwelling was transferred to Council’s ownership by the developer in 2007 for affordable housing purposes. It is currently a part of the Council’s affordable rental housing portfolio.   

 

Public Notification and Public Hearing Requirements

Members of the public were notified of Council’s intent to hold a Public Hearing into the reclassification of the sites (Section 34 of the Local Government Act 1993), twenty-eight days in advance of the hearing date of 17th March 2010.  Notification was given via the local papers in the Mayor’s Column, published on two separate occasions.

 

A facilitator, Ms Kathy Jones, of KJA and Associates, was engaged by Council to officiate at the Public Hearing.  No members of the public attended the Public Hearing.  A copy of Ms Jones’ report is attached, confirming that no objections have been received and recommending that Council proceed with the reclassification process (Attachment A). 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable City.

Direction6a:       Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The preparation of the LEP to reclassify land and property was largely undertaken by council staff.  A budget of $2,000 has been set aside to cover the estimated costs, including the costs associated with the advertising and public hearing process.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of reclassifying the subject sites from ‘Community’ to ‘Operational’ land is to bring them into line with the rest of Council’s affordable rental housing dwelling portfolio. The reclassification to ‘operational’ land is consistent with Council’s affordable rental housing program procedures. No objections to the reclassification process of 64-66 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra and 3/90-98 King Street, Randwick were raised at the Public Hearing held on 17 March 2010. The community consultation requirements have been completed, in accordance with the planning proposal gateway requirements under Section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act).

 

Recommendation

That Council:

 

a)     note that the community consultation requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and the LEP gateway process to reclassify 64-66 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra and 3/90-98 King Street, Randwick from ‘Community’ to ‘Operational’ land have been successfully executed, and

 

b)     endorse that the Department of Planning be notified accordingly, seeking the finalisation of the planning proposal (via an LEP amendment) for the land reclassification process for the subject sites, in accordance with Section 59 of the EP&A Act.

 

 


Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Facilitator's Report of Public Hearing - Reclassification of 'Community land' into 'Operational land'

 

 

 

 


Facilitator's Report of Public Hearing - Reclassification of 'Community land' into 'Operational land'

Attachment 1