Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 23 November 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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 November 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 October 2010

 

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

Address of Council by Members of the Public

 

Mayoral Minutes

Mayoral Minutes, if any, will be distributed on the night of the meeting.

 

Urgent Business

 

Director City Planning Reports

CP87/10    52 Sturt Street, Kingsford (deferred)

CP88/10    152 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

CP89/10    97-99 Anzac Parade, Kensington

CP90/10    26 Canara Avenue, Philip Bay

CP91/10    133 Barker Street, Randwick

CP92/10    42 Moverly Road, Maroubra

CP93/10    10 Waratah Avenue, Randwick

CP94/10    65 Earl Street, Randwick

CP95/10    86 Dudley Street, Coogee

CP96/10    44 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

CP97/10    7 Darley Road, Randwick

CP98/10    325 Rainbow Street, South Coogee

CP99/10    22 Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay

CP100/10   7 Monmouth Street, Randwick

CP101/10   218 Clovelly Road, Randwick

CP102/10   255 Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra

CP103/10   15 Araluen Street, Kingsford

CP104/10   11 Kitchener Street, Maroubra

CP105/10   2 Wolseley Road, Coogee

CP106/10   159 Alison Road, Randwick…………………………………………………………………………….519

CP107/10   JRPP Report - for 265-271 Avoca Street, Randwick ................................ 533

CP108/10   JRPP Report for 66A Doncaster Avenue, Randwick

CP109/10   Reporting variation to Development standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) for the month of October 2010

CP110/10   Australia Day 2011 - Proposed Alcohol Restrictions at Coogee

CP111/10   Preparation of supplementary State of the Environment report, 2009-10

 

General Manager's Reports

GM49/10    Review of the 2009-13 Management Plan - September 2010 Quarterly Report

 

Director City Services Reports

Nil.

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF57/10    Budget Review - September 2010 Quarter

GF58/10    Investment Report - October 2010

GF59/10    Smoke Free Bus Shelters

GF60/10    Council operating hours for the 2010-11 Christmas/New Year period

GF61/10    Arrangements during Christmas/New Year period for decision making and Schedule of Meetings for 2011

GF62/10    Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy - results of public exhibition

GF63/10    Matraville Town Centre Action Plan Changes - Proposed Construction of Community Facility

GF64/10    Matraville Town Centre Action Plan - Transport and Parking

GF65/10    Redundant Council Policies  

 

Petitions


Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM49/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr White - Randwick Environment Park

NM50/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Crs Andrews & Matthews - Information Request

NM51/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Woodsmith - Notification of Development Applications  

 

Closed Session

CP112/10   T20/10 - Prince Henry Centre - Catering Services Tender

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

CS27/10    T21/10 Heffron Park Redevelopment Stage 1

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

 

CS28/10    T23/10 Pioneers Park Amenity Building, Malabar

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

 

GF66/10    T15/10 - Legal Services Tender

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil. 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council

23 November 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP87/10

 

 

Subject:                  52 Sturt Street, Kingsford

Folder No:                   DA/392/2010

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Introduction

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 21 September 2010, Council considered

Development Application (DA/392/2010) seeking consent to carry out alterations & additions to an existing dwelling including new first floor, double garage with terrace above to front of dwelling, pool shade structure to rear, front fencing, landscaping and other associated works. The application was recommended for approval.

 

It was resolved at the 21 September 2010 meeting:

 

(Andrews/Nash) that the application be deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting to allow for mediation between the applicant and objectors“

 

The mediation meeting, held on the 22 October 2010, identified and discussed issues concerning the neighbour at No 50 Sturt Street. The main focus of discussion related to the new rear addition having a nil side boundary setback. The mediation session resulted in an in-principle agreement which was later reviewed and confirmed by the neighbour on 29 October 2010. The application is, therefore, referred back to Council for determination.

 

Issues

 

The main issue of concern from the objectors was the proposed construction being located on the boundary line shared with the subject site, the loss of natural light to their east facing living room, and the proposed shade structure in the rear yard resulting in overshadowing to their rear yard.

 

After some discussion, the objector accepted the explanation that the proposed shade structure will create minimal overshadowing and indicated no further objection in this regard.

 

In relation to the setback of the new rear addition, the applicant proposed a 300mm western side boundary setback in line with the existing wall. In response, the neighbour agreed in-principle in this amendment was subject to review by the Architect by the 29 October 2010.

 

On 29 October 2010, an email from the neighbour indicated that “in the interests of goodwill between our neighbours and ourselves we have decided to accept the offer (300mm side setback) and for all of us to put this matter behind us”.

 

As a result of the agreement reached via mediation, a condition is included in the recommendation requiring the proposed rear addition to be setback a minimum 300mm from the western side boundary.

 

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

 

In conjunction with the assessment report (and associated documentation) tabled at the Planning Committee meeting held on 12 October 2010 and the outcome resolved as a result of mediation, a recommendation is made for approval subject to a condition being included requiring the new rear addition to be setback a minimum 300mm from the western side boundary setback.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/392/2010 to carry out alterations & additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, double garage with terrace above to front of dwelling, pool shade structure to rear,  front fencing, landscaping and associated works at 52 Sturt Street, Kingsford,  subject to the following:

 

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 following plans:

 

Plans numbered

Dated

Date received

DA01 Revision A

8 April 2010

5 August 2010

DA02 Revision A

8 April 2010

5 August 2010

DA03 Revision A

8 April 2010

5 August 2010

DA04 Revision A

8 April 2010

5 August 2010

DA05 Revision B

4 August 2010

5 August 2010

DA06 Revision B

4 August 2010

5 August 2010

DA07 Revision B

4 August 2010

5 August 2010

DA08 Revision B

4 August 2010

5 August 2010

DA09 Revision B

4 August 2010

5 August 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 rear addition shall be setback a minimum of 300mm from the western side boundary in accordance with the agreement between the parties. Details of compliance shall be shown on the Construction Certificate plans and verified by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of works.

 

3.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be generally consistent with the schedule of colours and materials received by Council on 27 May 2010.

 

4.       Metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. colourbond).

 

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.       Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the BASIX certificate shall be amended to reflect the changes made to the skylights (as detailed on the plans referenced in condition 1).

 

7.       This consent does not grant any approval for changes to the existing side boundary fencing.

 

The following condition is imposed to satisfy relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

8.       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 are applied to meet additional demands for public facilities;

 

9.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $300,000 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $3,000.00.

 

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 imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

10.     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.

 

11.     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.

 

12.     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)

 

13.     In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue an 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 an 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:

 

14.     Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

Absorption pits must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed or flow onto any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

15.     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:

 

16.     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.

 

17.     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).

 

18.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)    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.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and 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.

 

b)    a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

 

c)    a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

                                        

d)    the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

e)    at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing building works.

 

19.     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 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).

 

20.     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; and

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

 

21.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor (and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Insurance) or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, in writing, prior to commencement of works.

 

22.     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.

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

 

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

 

24.     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.

 

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:

 

25.     Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the upper floor addition.

 

26.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change (formerly EPA) and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines & Codes of Practice

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·          The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·          Relevant DECC/EPA Guidelines

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Demolition 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 (including removal of any asbestos)

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

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

·          Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be provided to Council, not less than 2 days before commencing such works.

 

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

 

28.     Any work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·          Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

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

 

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

 

·          On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

 

·          Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.

 

·          A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the principal certifying authority immediately upon completion of the asbestos related works, which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

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.

 

29.     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.

 

30.     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.

 

a)     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:

i)      protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

ii)      where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

b)     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.

31.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent 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:

 

·        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,

·        new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g. additions to a semi-detached dwelling or a terraced dwelling),

·        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 may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required 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.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

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

 

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

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, is required to be developed and implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of site works.

 

The Construction Noise Management Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the DECC Construction Noise Guideline.

 

34.     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, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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.

 

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.

 

35.     A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any 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 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 amenity to the satisfaction of Council. 

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

The sediment and erosion control measures are to be in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council and details are to be provided in the Construction Site Management Plan. 

 

36.     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 or 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)     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.

 

c)     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.

 

d)     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.

 

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:

 

37.     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.

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

 

38.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)       Construct a concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

39.     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.

 

40.     All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works” and the following requirements:

 

a)       All work on Council land must be carried out by Council, unless specific written approval has been obtained from Council to use non-Council contractors.

 

b)       Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Pre-paid Works Application Form, prior to issuing an occupation certificate, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

c)       If it is proposed to use non-Council contractors to carry out the civil works on Council land, the work must not commence until the written approval has been obtained from Council and the work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, Council’s design details and payment of a Council design and supervision fee.

 

d)       The civil works must be completed in accordance with Council’s conditions of consent and approved design and construction documentation, prior to occupation of the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

 

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

 

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

 

42.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $121.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

43.     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.

 

44.     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 conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

45.     As the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation, the basement garage and storage area are to be suitably tanked and/or waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking and/or waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority. A copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)  Any subsoil drainage (from planter boxes etc) is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be discharged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

b)  Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement garage (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

46.     Seepage water must not be collected and discharged from the site.

 

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

 

Tree Management

 

47.     Permission is granted for the applicant to remove the dead Council street tree, at their own cost, which is located within the construction zone for the proposed vehicular crossing.

 

48.     Approval is granted for the removal of the Peppercorn tree located in the rear yard.

 

49.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $107.25 to Council,

 

a.       Being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre street tree at the completion of all works ($97.50) + GST.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income account no 4001.768401 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant will be required to contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613, giving at least two working weeks notice, to arrange for removal of the existing street tree/provision of a replacement street tree upon completion.

 

50.     That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works 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 completed at the applicant’s expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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 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 (greater than 3m in length) or any container or other article.

 

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    This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A5    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.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 November 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP88/10

 

 

Subject:                  152 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/598/2010

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Use of lower ground floor of existing multi-unit flat building as a residential unit. (SEPP1 objection to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Sahade

Owner:                         Sahade

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


Executive Summary

 

The subject site is a corner lot on Coogee Bay Road and Mount Street occupied by an existing four storey flat building containing 7 units (three units on each of the upper levels and one at the rear lower ground level).  Council records indicate that this building was only approved for 6 units and the rear lower ground level area likely only ever approved for use as a communal storage or laundry area. The applicant has submitted this application seeking consents for the use of this area as a single bedroom flat, and to also seek use of two storage rooms further underneath the building. It is noted that, the application includes a letter stating that this flat was in existence since at least 1952 when the property was purchased as well as a letter from Eastside realty indicating they have managed this part of the building as a single bedroom flat for the last 25 years.

 

Further, it is noted that Council was made aware of excavation works carried out on site whereby Councils Building Regulatory Officer revealed that it is likely that excavation works, which required Council consent, had been carried out without consent and required to cease work. Councils records could not verify when this area was converted into a flat and whether the more recent works carried out without Council consent merely related to excavation (two storage rooms) and some refurbishment of an already converted single bedroom flat.

 

As a result of the above, this application has been submitted seeking consent for the use of the rear lower ground floor area of the existing flat building as a single bedroom flat along with the more recently excavated storage rooms. It is considered that should the assessment conclude this area suitable for its intended use as a single bedroom flat then appropriate conditions requiring certification of works already carried out should be incorporated in the recommendation.

 

It is important to note that although the proposed development does not seek to carry out works to increase the existing floor area on site, it is considered that the excavated storage rooms constitute additional floor area and therefore require assessment against the maximum Floor Space Ratio standard (0.65:1) under Clause 20F(1) of the RLEP 1998 for 2C zoned sites. In this respect, the development has an FSR of 1.82:1 which represents a 180% variation to the abovementioned standard. However it is important to note that the additional floor area is limited to only 16sqm for the two storage rooms which is a variation of only 2.2% from the existing FSR.

 

The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to the maximum standard arguing strict compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection the following matters are considered:

 

·      The proposed development is located under the existing building and will not create any additional bulk;

·      The increase in floor area across the site is minor and

·      The single bedroom flat will not result in any significant increase in demand for services

·      The resultant development will not be inconsistent with other flat buildings in the immediate locality

·      The locality contains sufficient areas for open spaces for recreational purposes

·      The area is well serviced by public transport system

·      The single bedroom flat is likely to be suited for use by a single person or couple who work in the locality.

·      The rear lower level area is sufficiently setback from the neighbouring properties so that it will not result in any significant adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties and their occupants.

 

The proposed development is supportable and recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

1.    The Proposal

 

It is proposed to use the lower ground floor of existing multi-unit flat building as a residential unit. A SEPP1 objection has been submitted against the floor space ratio standard under Clause 20F(1).

 

2.    Description of Locality & Site:

 

The subject site is located on the south western corner of Coogee Bay Road and Mount Street and is presently occupied by an existing 4 storey flat building containing 7 units, two on each floor with one at the rear lower ground floor level.  The site has a frontage width of 13.715m, a side boundary depth of 27.43m and has an overall site area of 376.3m².  Neighbouring the property to the east is a three storey flat building and to the rear is a two storey flat building. The surrounding area contains a mixture of strata titled residential flat buildings, commercial and recreational open space. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

 

3.    Relevant History

 

·      The existing building was approved for construction of 6 flats was under BA/1085/1921.

·      Alterations have been carried out under BA/898/1969 and BA/83/1974.

 

·      Works without consent

Council was made aware of excavation works carried out on site and asked to investigate. A site visit by Councils Building Regulatory Officer revealed the possibility that two storage rooms (as nominated on the subject application) had been excavated at the rear of the pre-existing lower ground floor area. As a result Council sent the site owner a notice of intent to serve an order requiring they cease the internal building works to the rooms located on the lower ground floor at the rear of the three storey multi-unit housing building and that this work would likely be classed as development for the purpose of which development consent is required but which has not been not been obtained.

 

During Councils investigation, the applicant submitted this Development Application seeking official use of the rear lower ground floor level area as a single bedroom flat.

 

The application was referred to Councils Regulatory Section for comment. They indicate that given the uncertainty and unavailability of evidence purporting to the date of conversion, it was recommended that should the assessment conclude that the lower ground level area is suitable for its intended use as a single bedroom flat then appropriate conditions requiring certification of already works carried out should be incorporated in any recommendation.

 

Further to the above, the owner of the site states that the flat was in existence since the year the building was purchased in 1952 and Eastside Realty also state that this lower rear ground level area has been rented out as a single bedroom flat at various times over the last 25 years.

 

Therefore, this application assesses the suitability of the lower ground level area for its intended use as a single residential unit within the existing residential flat building.

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 (LEP). A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted to Council.

 

Floor Space Ratio

Pursuant to Clause 20F of LEP, the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C is 0.65:1. The existing building has an FSR of 1.78:1 or 669.6m2 gross floor area (GFA). The additional floor area created as a result of excavation equates to 16sqm (comprising the storage rooms) which results in a FSR of 1.82:1 or 685 m2. Whilst the proposed development results in a 180% variation from the maximum standard, it only results in a 2% variation from that which currently exists on site.

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Floor space ratio (FSR)

Gross floor area (GFA)

Permissible FSR/GFA

0.65:1

244.6 m2 (site area= 376.3 m2)

Existing Development

1.78:1

669m2

Proposed Development

1.82:1

685m2

Non-compliance with maximum FSR

1.17:1

441m2

Variation from existing FSR

0.04 (2% variation)

16m2

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objections, 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 FSR standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

“To operate together with controls for building height and landscaped area to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area.”

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

 

Comments relating to FSR:

1.       The notional additional non compliance relates to a gross floor area of 65m2, which is minor in itself and in the context of the existing building.

2.       The floor space contained in the lower ground floor does not add to or alter the existing bulk, scale and character of the existing building.

3.       The floor space within the lower ground floor is not inconsistent with the DCP’s description of the objectives of the standard, both in relation to bulk, scale and character, and to the desired future character (in that the existing building typology is retained unaffected.

4.       The circumstances of the lower ground floor are such that it has no physical implications for other land in terms of overshadowing, overlooking, or visual impact. It is unable to be seen from any public place.

5.       Given that the use of the space is longstanding, irrespective of any argument about whether it is authorised, there is a substantial body of experience to the effect that its use will not give rise to any material off-site implications.

6.       Strict compliance with the standard would be of limited practical effect, given the statistics of the existing building overall

7.       The circumstances of the case are so specific that variation of the standard in this instance will not create any precedent effect.

8.       Variation of the standard in the circumstances would not be inconsistent with the objectives of the standard.

9.       Variation of the standard would be consistent with the objectives of the Act related to the economic use of the built environment. No adverse natural environmental consequences flow from the proposal.

 

10.     The variation of the standard is consistent with the Objectives of SEPP No. 1.

 

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

 

·      The additional floor area is relatively minor (i.e. 16sqm) and given it is contained under the existing building and limited to storage areas associated with the sought residential use, it will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy or view loss

·      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.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 Objections has addressed the consistency of the proposal with the underlying and stated purposes of the standards, 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.”

 

Comments:

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

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2C Zone in that it will maintain the existing multi-unit housing form of the building in the locality and the proposal will not result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining and nearby properties.


Matter 3

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

The proposed use of the lower ground floor level 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 not allow the best economic use of the site.

 

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 in question is unreasonable and unnecessary as the development does not affect or compromise the underlying purpose of the 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. As discussed above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the underlying purpose of the FSR standard.

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 not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is unreasonable. The proposed FSR will not result in detrimental streetscape or amenity impacts on the locality. The resultant built form and scale will remain compatible with the surrounding residential premises and represent a suitable infill development.

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 standard has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Each development application received by Council is assessed with regard to its merits. There has been no precedent established by Council’s assessment decisions, which in effect would abandon the development standard prescribed in the LEP.

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.

 

5.    Zoning and statutory Controls:

 

The site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls:-

 

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-      Building Code of Australia.

-      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

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

-      Development Control Plan– Multi Unit Housing

-      Development Control Plan- Parking

-       Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

6.    Referrals

 

      Manager Environmental Health and Building Services

The application was referred to the Manager Environmental Health and Building Services for comment.  No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval.  The following comments were made:

 

Building Services comments

 

Internal alterations to the lower ground floor of the existing three storey residential flat building.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class 2 – Residential units

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

 

§ A ‘rise in storeys’ of four (4)

§ Masonry walls, tiled roof and timber floors

§ Two exits, one to the front via the internal stairway and the second to the rear via the external stairway which is of concrete construction

§ A total of 7 sole occupancy units, 2 on each floor level and 1 on the lower ground floor

§ Side boundary building setback of approximately 1m to the eastern side boundary.

 

Key Issues

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Recommendation:

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

 

      External Referrals

None applicable.

 

7.      Notification and submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development and the application was advertised in the local press in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification and advertising, the following submissions were received:

 

Unknown Author 1

Issue

Comment

Council was made aware of the excavation under the flats and the building of the new flat since the early months of 2010. Nothing effective was done to stop the work whilst an application for development was received and considered.  The flat has been let for some months, was this a grave failing of the Council? What will happen now?

Councils regulatory unit investigated the excavation under the building, and determined that the excavation was likely related to excavating further behind a pre-existing rear lower ground floor area. It is also noted that although this area is unlikely to have been approval for use as a single flat; however it cannot be categorically verified by Council records and the applicant and the real estate agent indicate that this area has operated as a single flat for a significant period of time.

Consequently, Councils regulatory building section determined that they would have no objection to the development subject to already carried out excavation being appropriately certified and a development application be submitted to Council seeking consent for the use of the lower ground floor area as a single flat.

As a result of the above, assessment is carried out against the relevant assessment criteria for use of the lower ground floor area as a single flat.

Council you make a public statement about the feelings of Council on this matter? If not why not? Doesn’t it make it an unhappy precedent for others?

The recommendation made in this report will be sited on the development register which is available to the public.

Unknown Author 2

Issue

Comment

The fact is that excavation for the construction of the new flat was started in early months of this year with the knowledge of Council. Is this not dereliction of duty by the Council

See comments above.

Are there different rules for other people?

Every application is assessed on its individual merits.

MP on behalf of constituent

Issue

Comment

Flat was excavated and built in early months of 2010 and been rented out for some months all with the knowledge of Council. Is it not a dereliction of duty by the Council? Is there not some State Government Department that could look at this and if found correct, force Council to improve its procedures so that it doesn’t occur again 

Councils Building Regulatory Section has investigated the illegal building works and have recommended that should the development be considered suitable for use as a separate flat that appropriate conditions be incorporated into the determination requiring appropriate certification.

 

8.    Section 79c Assessment

 

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

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is located within Zone No. 2B (Residential B Zone). Multi-unit housing developments are permissible with Council’s consent. The following clauses of the LEP are relevant to the proposed development

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

22 Services

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

The provision of utility and civil services can be required by appropriate conditions of consent.

Complies, subject to conditions.

32 Floor space ratio

Maximum 0.65:1 or 244m2

Proposed scheme = 1.82:1 or 441m2

Does not comply. Refer to “SEPP 1” section of this report.

 


State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

The proposal seeks to vary the floor space ratio development standard contained in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing 2009

The building has not been strata subdivided, and would generally require consent under SEPP Affordable Rental Housing; However as the works are only associated with the use of a lower ground floor level flat and will not affect the existing units on site it is not considered that assessment against the SEPP is required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 - Remediation of Land

The site has not been identified as including any contaminated land or having sustained any previous uses which may have resulted in contamination.

 

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

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

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

The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate 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.

 

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

The proposed works are limited to the rear lower ground floor area and do not fall under SEPP 65. Consequently the application was not referred to the Design Review Panel.

 

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

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

 

      Development Control Plans

 

Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

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


 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Yes. A site plan containing all the relevant information as required has been provided with the subject application.

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

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

N/A. The proposal relates to the use of a lower rear ground floor area as a separate flat within an existing building.

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

The proposed development will not affect the frontages along Mount Street and Coogee Bay Road.

Height

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

 

The proposed development does not affect the height of the existing building or result in any adverse impacts on the buildings decorative elements.

 visual bulk or

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

 

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

The proposal does not affect the front setback.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

The setbacks of the existing building from the side and rear boundaries remain unaltered and the use of the rear lower ground level area as a separate flat will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

Density

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

 

The proposed development is related to seeking consent for the use of the rear lower ground floor area as a separate unit. It does not alter the bulk and scale of the development or result in a use which is incompatible with other buildings and uses in the locality.

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.

No, however the non compliance is considered acceptable on the basis that the proposal is for a single bedroom unit within an existing building, and the subject site is located within close proximity to a good amount of open space, such as Coogee Beach, Coogee Oval, J.V. Dick Reserve, Coogee Bowling Club, Eastern Suburbs Tennis Centre and Goldstein Reserve.

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

 

Yes, the area around the flat building remains as common property.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

No, see comment above relating to accessible recreational open space.

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

 

N/A

P6  Flats and apartments

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

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

No, See comment above.

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

No additional privacy measures are considered necessary given the proposed unit is located at ground level where the existing fencing provides reasonable privacy buffer between the proposed area and the nearby properties.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

The rear lower ground level unit is north facing and is likely to receive sufficient sunlight throughout the day.

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

 

The proposed use does not affect access to solar collectors.

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

 

Yes. The living areas of the neighbouring dwellings will receive 3 hours of sunlight per day over part of their surface throughout the year.

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

 

The proposed use does not affect the neighbour’s access to sunlight.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

 

No, see assessment under Development Control Plan for Parking.

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1 10m2 of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1m.

Yes.

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1 Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Conditioned.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

P6 Telephone lines provided in accordance with the service provider.

 

P7 Internal laundry to each dwelling, communal clothes drying made available and screened from the street.

 

 

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

Conditioned to be incorporated into existing.

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

 

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

 

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

 

Development Control Plan – Parking

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

 

 

Rate

Requirement

Proposed

1 Bedroom

1 per 1 bed or bedsit over 40m2

1 space

No additional parking provided

The proposal does not comply with parking requirements for multi unit housing. The proposed development adds a one bedroom unit requires one additional car space to be provided to the site. Currently, only two parking garages are provided on site as a result of the existing buildings age where it was constructed at a time when there were no significant pressures on on-street parking. The current situation regarding parking pressures is significant and although the proposed development increases this pressure somewhat, it is not considered sufficient grounds for refusing the application on the basis of the following:

·      The additional demand created by the additional one bedroom unit is not significant

 

·      The existing site configuration and residential flat building upon it severely restricts the ability to provide parking to the site and

 

·      The Coogee beach area is supported by a comprehensive public transport system.

Overall, the non compliance with the parking DCP is considered acceptable.

 

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.


 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration

Comments

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

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

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

No draft instruments

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

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

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

Clause 7 of the EP&A Regulation 2000 requires the consent authority to consider the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Standard and non standard conditions have been included to address the above matter.

Clause 92 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider relevant Australian Standards relating to demolition of structures. A specific condition can be imposed to require compliance with Australian Standard 2601.

Clause 93 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider the structural capacity and fire safety aspects of a building. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to address the above matters.

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been assessed within the main body of this report.

The proposal will maintain the existing residential use of the site and is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts.

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The proposed development is permissible in the Residential 2C zone. There are no environmental constraints on the site that would impede the proposal or render it unsuitable for the site.

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

The issues raised in the submission have been addressed within the body of this report.

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

The proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the locality in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, privacy or view loss. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be within the public interest.

 


Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and a healthy environment.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal substantially complies with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Multi Unit Housing and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20F(1) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause, 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/598/2010 for permission to use the lower ground floor of existing multi-unit flat building as a residential unit at 152 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 6664Adetail Issue I, dated 29 June 2010  and received by Council on 30 July 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:

 

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

 

2.       Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

          In this regard, prior to occupation of the building, an application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of an appropriate street number/s to the development.

 

3.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area.

 

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

 

4.       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.

 

5.       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.

 

6.       Prior to the commencement of any building or fire safety 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

 

7.       Prior to the commencement of any building,  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.

 

8.       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.

 

9.       An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the use of the lower ground level area (Unit 7) for habitable/residential purposes, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

10.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

13.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council) prior to issuing an occupation certificate which certifies that the structural adequacy of the new building works.

 

14.     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.

 

15.     The existing levels of fire and safety within the building are to be upgraded in accordance with the following requirements and the fire safety certificate provisions of Part 9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 must be complied with, prior to issuing an occupation certificate and lawful use of the lower ground level (unit 7) as a habitable area or occupation:

 

a)  The fire safety upgrading works required under Councils Fire Safety Order, dated 30th July 2010 in relation to the subject premises are to be implemented in accordance with the order.

 

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

 

1)    Provide a ceiling having a resistance to the incipient spread of fire to the space above of not less than 60 minutes, throughout the lower ground floor area (Unit 7) including storerooms.

 

2)    The storerooms are not to be used for habitable purposes.

 

3)    Install a smoke detection and alarm system in the sole occupancy unit in accordance with specification E2.2a of the BCA,

 

c)  All new building works must satisfy the relevant performance or deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

d)  All of the fire safety upgrading works and new building work must be detailed in the Construction Certificate for the development.

 

16.     The fire safety upgrading works must be carried out prior to issuing of an Occupation Certificate for the development and written confirmation must be provided to Council (from the Principal Certifying Authority) which confirms that all of the upgrading works have been carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent.

 

Health and Safety

 

17.     The storeroom at the rear of the kitchen/lounge to the lower ground floor unit must only be used for storage purposes as there is insufficient light and ventilation and it does not comply with Clauses F4.2 (natural light) and F4.6 (natural ventilation) of Volume 1 of BCA 2010.

 

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

 

18.     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.

 

19.     Open-able 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 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.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

A1      It is suggested that the applicant engage the services of a Level 1 Accredited Certifier in order to assess if the new sole occupancy unit (ie Unit 7) complies with the performance based requirements of Section C (fire resistance) of Volume 1 of BCA 2010 prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.   

 

A2      The bedroom, located between the kitchen and the bathroom, may not comply with the requirements of Clauses F4.2 and F4.6 of Volume 1 of BCA 2010. It is suggested that a report be obtained from a Level 1 Accredited Certifier to ensure compliance with the deemed to satisfy solutions or performance provisions for the Building Code of Australia (BCA) prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 November 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP89/10

 

 

Subject:                  97-99 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Folder No:                   DA/562/2010

Author:                   GAT & Associates , Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Use of the first floor and part of the ground floor of the existing premises as a commercial kitchen with associated office areas

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Mr S J Anderson

Owner:                         Grajoel Properties Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

A Development Application has been submitted to Council, seeking use of the first floor and part of the ground floor of the existing premises as a commercial kitchen with associated office area. The site is located at 97-99 Anzac Parade, Kensington.

 

No building works are proposed as part of this application. The premises will be used by Gastronomy Australia Pty Ltd, Catering Company, to prepare food for delivery to off-site venues.

 

The site history reveals that the premises has been used as a commercial kitchen for approximately 11 years by other users. The current occupants, being Gastronomy Australia, moved into the premises and starting using the existing commercial kitchen and office. Council’s Compliance Unit then found that development consent had not been issued for use as a commercial kitchen. Hence the submission of this application to formalise the use.

 

The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade, just to the north of Duke Street, Kensington. At ground level the building at No. 97-99 Anzac Parade contains a shop and a restaurant facing Anzac Parade.

 

The premises is accessed from Duke Street. The ground floor area used by Gastronomy consists of storage areas, garbage area and amenities, while at first floor level the premises consists of offices and meeting rooms, kitchen, bakery, storage areas, cool rooms and freezers, and amenities. The ground floor garbage room and grease trap is shared with the restaurant facing Anzac Parade.

 

The business has 25 staff on site at any time. The kitchen operates from 6am to 12 midnight, seven (7) days per week depending on bookings. Food preparation occurs between 6am to 6pm and is delivered to the venues by van. The office operates from 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday. There are a maximum of five (5) deliveries per day, made by vans or small trucks who park on Duke Street adjacent to the pathway access to the premises.

 

The site is located within the commercial area along Anzac Parade in Kensington and adjoins residential properties to the west.

 

During the notification period, no submissions were received.

 

After lodgement of the application, the applicant was requested to submit a traffic report and acoustic report, to address the lack of on-site parking and the issues associated with noise to adjoining land uses, particularly to the adjoining residences to the west.

 

While the site has no on-site parking provision, it is considered that since the proposed use is in line with previous uses of the building, and given that it appears there are no adverse impacts from the parking of vehicles on the street, it is considered that the parking and access issue is satisfactory. In addition, the noise is considered suitable provided the recommendations of the acoustic report submitted with the application are adhered to.

 

An overall assessment of the proposal finds that the development is largely in accordance with the planning controls and guidelines applying to the 3B Local Business Zone. The development is considered suitable for the site and the proposed works will not adversely impact on adjoining properties. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be supported as detailed within this report.

 

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal involves the use of the first floor and part of the ground floor of the existing premises as a commercial kitchen with associated office area. The premises will be used by Gastronomy Australia Pty Ltd, Catering Company. Gastronomy prepare food on site, and deliver it to external venues.

 

No building works are proposed as part of this application.

 

The site history reveals that the premises has been used as a commercial kitchen in the past. The current occupants, being Gastronomy Australia, moved into the premises and starting using the existing commercial kitchen and office. Council’s Compliance Unit then found that development consent had not been issued for use as a commercial kitchen. Hence the submission of this application to formalise the use.

 

The premises has pedestrian access from Duke Street. The ground floor area used by Gastronomy consists of storage areas, garbage area and amenities, while at first floor level the premises consists of offices and meeting rooms, kitchen, bakery, storage areas, cool rooms and freezers, and amenities. The ground floor garbage room and grease trap is shared with the restaurant facing Anzac Parade.

 

The business has 25 staff on site at any time, which includes kitchen and office staff. The kitchen operates from 6am to 12 midnight, seven (7) days per week depending on bookings. Food preparation occurs between 6am to 6pm and is delivered to the venues by van. The office operates from 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday. There are a maximum of five (5) deliveries made between 6am to 6pm Monday to Saturday, made by vans or small trucks who park on Duke Street adjacent to the pathway access to the premises. The deliveries consist of meat, vegetables, dry food items and dairy products.

 

The building has a hoist which allows goods to be moved between the ground and first floor levels. This hoist is used between 6am and 10pm.

 

Two (2) bulk garbage bins are provided on site for Gastronomy and the restaurant. Waste from the first bin is collected every day, while the second bin is emptied as required. Garbage collection is done by a private contractor.

 

The grease trap, also used by the Gastronomy kitchen and other restaurant in the building, is serviced by a contractor quarterly or as required.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is located at 97-99 Anzac Parade, Kensington, which is on the western side of Anzac Parade, just north of Duke Street. The site is zoned 3B Local Business and is located within a commercial area that extends along Anzac Parade.

 

Adjoining the site to the west is a residential area. Immediately adjoining the site to the west are two storey terrace houses along Duke Street. Also located in Duke Street are three and four storey residential flat buildings.

 

The site is located close to Randwick Race Course, Centennial Park and Moore Park Golf Club.

 

4.    Site History

 

The site history reveals that the premises has been used by various businesses as a commercial kitchen in the past, for approximately 11 years. The current occupants, being Gastronomy Australia, moved into the premises and starting using the existing commercial kitchen and office. Council’s Compliance Unit then found that development consent had not been issued for use as a commercial kitchen. Hence the submission of this application to formalise the use.

 

In regards to the other uses in the building (being a shop and restaurant), a recent consent has been issued for the Grotta Capri restaurant on the ground floor. DA/1024/2007 was issued by Council on 25 March 2008 for extension of the use of the restaurant to allow for a DJ and dancing. This consent approved trading hours of the restaurant to 12 midnight, 7 days a week.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal was notified to adjoining property owners for a 14 day period between 22 July to 5 August 2010, in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan – Public Notification. No submissions 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 Engineer:

Council’s Development Engineer made the following comments:

 

An application has been received for the Use of the first floor and part of the ground floor of the existing premises as a commercial kitchen with associated office areas at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

· Building Plans by CDS Architects dated 4th  July 2010;

· Statement of Environmental Effects by Chapman Planning dated 12th July 2010.

· Traffic & parking Assessment report by Varga Traffic Planning

 

Waste Management Comments

The waste management plan submitted as part of this application and details the ongoing management of waste for the commercial kitchen is satisfactory

 

Right of Way Comments

The traffic study states that vehicular access is not available to the site and as such it is not possible to provide any on-site parking. This is not strictly correct as there is a ‘Right of Way’ over the adjacent property in favour of the subject property which provides access off Duke Street. The 10ft wide (3.05m) Right of Way was created in 1914 and is wide enough to accommodate a vehicle. It appears that at some stage in the past it has been used for vehicular access as a vehicle crossing has been provided in Duke Street. It was also noted that a yellow flashing warning  light is in operation at the building entrance typical of loading dock operations however the access way is currently blocked to vehicles by a centrally placed barrier post at the Duke Street frontage. A picture of the access arrangements in Duke Street can be seen in Pic 1 on the following page.

 

The Right of Way is now used for pedestrian access to the residential units on the subject property and the office suites at 103A Anzac Parade. It would not be desirable to convert this area back to a vehicular access as this would significantly increase the risk to pedestrians using the Right of Way for access to the units and office suites.

 

Hence Development Engineering would not support the re-establishment of vehicular access via this Right of Way. The development is therefore assessed as having no access to off-street parking.

 

Pic 1 – Pedestrian Access in Duke Street via the Right of Way

 


Traffic & Parking Comments

Council’s DCP-Parking states a rate for business premises of 1 space per 40m2. For the subject site this translates to a requirement of 12.2 spaces. However this rate includes the parking demand generated by customers and is not the appropriate rate to use in these circumstances as the Statement of Environmental Effects states that food is delivered to the venues directly making the only parking demand generated by the site related to the staff.

 

There are a maximum of 25 staff on the site at any given point and a more appropriate parking rate would be for 1 space per two employees which is a common rate Council uses for premises with employees such as community facilities or Motels. This will generate a parking demand of 12.5 spaces which by coincidence is similar to the business premises rate.  This would be impossible to achieve on the premises as there is no scope to provide any new spaces without substantial alterations to the building.

 

The applicant has submitted a traffic & parking assessment report which investigates these issues for the development. Of note to Development Engineering is;

§  There will be a maximum of 5 deliveries to the site per day between 6am-6pm Monday to Saturday.

§  5-15 vehicle movements per day plus 10 staff vehicle movements per day

§  There are 157 on-street spaces located within 200m walk of the site

§  At peak times 5-15 spaces were available within survey area. This includes the parking demand for the kitchen as it is currently operating.

 

There are a few issues with this parking assessment study which the assessing officer is advised to consider in the assessment of this application;

§  Although the study states that 5-15 spaces were available these are mainly in areas which have restricted time zones, some as low as 30minutes. Unrestricted Zones such as zones L,P, S & T so labelled in the parking study are at, or close to capacity. For example Zone P has a capacity of 14 spaces and the survey indicates that these are mostly occupied throughout the day.

§  Labelled zones N & Q in Duke Street have been incorrectly shown in the traffic study as having 1 hour restriction. These areas are actually 30 min parking only 8:30am-6:00pm.

§  The parking capacity in the vicinity of site is at or close to saturation and there is evidence to suggest that the existing development may be contributing to the parking deficiencies being experienced in the area.

 

It is noted that the site is close to good public transport with major bus routes travelling down Anzac Parade in dedicated bus lanes. The traffic & parking study states that ‘most staff’ travel to and from work by public transport although it is not indicated how this information was obtained.

 

Given the lack of unrestricted parking in the area and that no parking can be provided on the site the development is difficult to support on traffic and parking grounds. It is acknowledged however that the development is an existing operation and has been for some time with the effects of the development already well established in the area. Any future expansion of the premises would not be supported unless some off-street parking was provided.

 


Health (noise)

Council’s Senior Health Officer made the following comments on the proposal after considering the Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic and dated 16/09/10:

 

The acoustic report submitted by the applicant is satisfactory subject to the recommended measures being implemented. This includes the operational aspects of the business detailed by the acoustic consultant. It is recommended that a compliance acoustic report be required as part of any approval. There should also be a management plan that stipulates the lift movements permitted and any controls implemented by the proprietor to ensure compliance with all operational measures.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning requirements apply to the subject site.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The following Clauses of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) are relevant to this development:

 

Clause 14 – Zone No. 3B (Local Business Zone)

The objectives of Zone No. 3B (Local Business Zone) are:

 

(a)    to provide opportunities for local retail and business development in the City of Randwick, and

(b)    to provide opportunities for associated development such as car parking and service industries, and

(c)    to provide opportunities for residential accommodation in local business centres where it does not interfere with the primary business function of the zone, and

(d)    to minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones, and

(e)    to encourage housing affordability, and

(f)    to encourage the provision and use of public transport.

 

The proposal satisfies objective (a) as it seeks consent for the business currently operating from the site.

 

Objectives (b), (c) and (e) are not relevant in this instance, given the commercial nature of the use. The development does not include any car parking, service industries or residential use.

 

The applicant has addressed objective (d) by way of preparing a noise report and traffic report, to assess and where possible minimise the impact on the adjoining residential zone.

 

Objective (f) is not relevant as the proposal will not affect public transport in the local area.

 

In terms of permissibility, the use is defined as a “business premises” as follows:

 

“business premises means a building or place in which there is carried on an occupation, profession or trade which may or may not provide a service or goods directly and regularly to the public, but (in Part 2) does not include a building or place elsewhere defined in this clause.”

 

Business premises are not listed as a prohibited use in the 3B Local Business Zone. Therefore the proposal is permissible with consent.

 

Clause 20F – Floor space ratios

The controls for floor space ratio under Clause 20F do not apply to the site, as the site is located in the Kensington Town Centre. Refer to the controls under Clause 42C.

 

Clause 20G – Building Heights

The controls for buildings height under Clause 20G do not apply to the site, as the site is located in the Kensington Town Centre. Refer to the controls under Clause 42C.

 

Clause 22 – Services

Clause 22 requires that adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal or disposal of sewage and drainage are available to the land. All services are available to the site, given the existence of the building on the site.

 

Clause 42C – Kensington Town Centre

The objectives of the Kensington Town Centre as stipulated under Clause 42C(2) are addressed as follows:

 

(a)    To achieve high quality design in all new development and improvements undertaken in the public domain

 

Comments:

The development does not propose any building works and the building will not be physically altered. In this regards the visual impact of the building on the locality will not change.

 

(b)    To encourage a vibrant and active town centre that provides a range of facilities and services that benefit the locality

 

Comments:

The development seeks to legalise the commercial kitchen and associated office use within the existing building. The use is considered appropriate for the location, which is within the Kensington Town Centre. The business provides a service which the local community can use. The site does adjoin residential properties, however it is considered that the noise and traffic issues associated with the use can be managed as detailed in the acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Logic and submitted with the application, to have minimal impact on these properties.

 

(c)    To provide opportunities for residential development in the town centre that compliment the primary business function of the town centre

(d)    To encourage a variety of medium density housing forms that compliment the development within the town centre and that do not have an adverse impact on surrounding residential areas

 

Comments:

The proposal does not involve residential development.

 

(e)    To encourage the amalgamation of land to facilitate redevelopment within the town centre

 


Comments:

The proposal does not involve any changes to the built form on the site. The proposal is for the use of the building. Amalgamation of the site will not occur as a part of this proposal.

 

(f)    To facilitate development within the town centre that supports the regional entertainment industry

 

Comments:

The development for use of the building does not constitute a major redevelopment of the site. The use will continue to contribute to the activation and vibrancy of the town centre. The proposal is not considered to create a negative constraint for future entertainment industry developments in the locality.

 

(g)    To ensure that social and cultural needs are considered with any development proposals in the town centre

 

Comments:

The proposal will result in an existing commercial premises continuing to be used for a business which services the local community. 

 

(h)    To encourage and facilitate the provision of vehicular access and off-street parking to support the local businesses

 

Comments:

The proposal does not involve any on site parking. Given the existing built form on the site and the pedestrian access arrangements, on-site parking is not possible. This has been addressed in the Traffic Report prepared by Varga Traffic Planning. Refer to comments in Sections 6 and 10.2 of this report.

 

(i)     To ensure that public transport and associated facility needs are considered and promoted with any development proposals and public domain improvements in the town centre

 

Comments:

The site has a frontage to Anzac Parade where public bus services are available.

 

(j)    To ensure appropriate conservation of the environmental heritage and recognition of the characteristics of buildings with architectural merit

 

Comments:

The subject site is not listed as a heritage item nor within a conservation area under the LEP. The existing built form will not change as a result of this proposal.

 

(k)    To require and encourage environmentally sustainable approaches to future land use and development

 

Comments:

No building works are proposed as part of this application.

 

(l)     To improve the overall environmental quality of the Kensington Town Centre

 

Comments:

No building works are proposed as part of this application. The relationship of the building to the streetscape will not alter.

 

Clause 42C(4) provides that the following requirements of the Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan 2002 apply to the development of land within the Kensington Town Centre as if they were incorporated into RLEP 1998 (Consolidation):

 

(a)    maximum number of storeys,

(b)    maximum height of development,

(c)    minimum frontage for development,

(d)    minimum allotment size for development.

 

The above requirements are not applicable in this instance, as the application does not involve any building works. No changes are proposed to the height of the building or site area.

 

Clause 43 Heritage Conservation

The site is not a heritage item and does not adjoin a heritage item. The site is not located within a heritage conservation zone. Therefore the heritage controls of the Local Environmental Plan are not applicable.

 

8.2    Development Control Plans

 

Development Control Plan – Kensington Town Centre

The relevant provisions of the Kensington Town Centre DCP are addressed as follows:

 

Clause

Requirements

Comments

Part 4 Development and Design Controls

4.1

Managing Change:

Site Amalgamation & Site Analysis

Not applicable to this proposal

4.2

Building Envelopes:

New Built Form;

Architectural Character;

Articulation Zone;

Building Heights;

Building Location Zone;

Contributory Buildings;

Mews Style Development;

Neighbourhood Supermarket Shopping Centre;

Specialist Concept Retails;

Setbacks

Not applicable. The built form, envelope and height of the existing building will not be altered.

4.3

Block by Block Controls

 

Not applicable. The built form, envelope and height of the existing building will not be altered.

4.4

Accessibility

Achieve building / retail / commercial entrances which are flushed with the footpath level or provide a suitably ramped alternative

The ground floor is accessible, however the first floor is not. As no building works are proposed, and given that the public do not come to the site for this use, it is considered reasonable in this instance not to require any changes to the building to improve accessibility.

4.5

Access for Vehicles & On-Site Parking

Unless indicated on the Block controls, direct vehicular access from Anzac Parade is not permitted;

Provide on-site parking for commercial users, residents and visitors;

Car parking access and garaging do not dominate the street or the site

The site does not have vehicular access. On-site car parking is not provided. Given no building works are proposed and the proximity to public transport, the parking and access issues are considered satisfactory.

Delivery vehicles park on Duke Street, where parking is largely unrestricted.

4.6

Buildings – Exterior:

Active Frontages;

Awnings;

Building Entrances;

Façade Composition and Articulation;

Materials & Finishes;

Outdoor Eating;

Public Art;

Rear Colonnades;

Roof Forms;

Signage:

Solar Access, Overshadowing, Natural Daylight;

Street Corners;

Visual Privacy

Not applicable. No external building works are proposed.

4.7

Buildings - Interior

Acoustic Privacy;

Apartment Layout;

Apartment Mix;

Apartment Size;

Building Use;

Floor to Ceiling Heights;

Garden or Ground Floor Apartments;

Home Offices;

Stairs, Lifts and Corridors;

Storage

No internal building works are proposed and the building does not contain residential units.

 

The acoustic privacy of adjoining properties will be maintained as detailed in the acoustic report submitted with the application. The recommendations made in the acoustic report are to be implemented by way of condition of consent.

 

The existing stair access between the ground and first floor levels are satisfactory. An external hoist allows large goods to be moved between the floors.

4.8

ESD

Clothes Drying;

Energy Efficiency;

Lighting Efficiency;

Natural Ventilation;

Site Servicing and Waste Management;

Space Heating and Cooling;

Stormwater Management;

Water Conservation

 

No works are proposed to the existing buildings. All existing fittings, lighting and waste management controls will continue to be used.

4.9

Open Space

Communal Open Space;

Landscape Treatment;

Private Open Space

Not applicable.

4.10

Safer by Design

To ensure that the development and the precinct as a whole is safe and secure for residents and visitors

The access to the premises from Duke Street is clearly visible from the street, and lighting is provided at night for safety and security reasons.

 

10.2 Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) Parking

The Parking DCP stipulates the following car parking rates:

 

 

Rate

Requirement

Proposal

Business Premises

1 space / 40m2 GFA

12.2 spaces, which includes customers. However, as the business delivers food to its customers, the parking is more appropriately determined on staff. Having 25 staff, and using 1 space/2 employees, this generates 12.5 spaces.

0 spaces

 

Delivery

Office: 1 space / 4,000m2 – 20,000m2 GFA

 

Other uses: 1 space / 2,000m2 GFA

The office space is less than 4,000m2 so would not generate a space.

 

The kitchen use would generate 1 delivery space

0 spaces

Disabled

1-2% of total spaces

12.5 spaces required for the use would generate the need for 0.125 spaces.

0 spaces

 

Under the DCP, a total of 12.5 car parking spaces and 1 delivery space are required for the proposed development. The site does not have any car parking spaces, as they cannot be physically accommodated.

 

The parking and loading has been assessed by Council’s Engineer, who in summary states:

 

“Given the lack of unrestricted parking in the area and that no parking can be provided on the site the development is difficult to support on traffic and parking grounds. It is acknowledged however that the development is an existing operation and has been for some time with the effects of the development already well established in the area. Any future expansion of the premises would not be supported unless some off-street parking was provided.”

 

The Engineer’s comments are noted and supported. Despite the fact that no on-site parking is provided, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

-      The site is within walking distance to local retail and commercial premises within the Kensington Town Centre and public bus services along Anzac Parade.

-      No customers come to the site. All goods are delivered off site.

-      There is unrestricted parking in most of Duke Street, and short term parking available along Anzac Parade and in a small section of Duke Street. If no parking is available, the space in front of the vehicular crossover to the site on Duke Street allows for a delivery vehicle to park.

-      The Traffic Report prepared by the applicant shows that at peak times 5-15 spaces were available within survey area. This includes the parking demand for the kitchen as it is currently operating

 

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.

 

For the reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposal is suitable for the site and will not adversely impact upon any adjoining properties. The development will improve the internal and external amenity for the occupants of the site. The development is considered to be in the public interest for these reasons.

 

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.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and is recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

 

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. 562/2010 for use of the first floor and part of the ground floor of the existing premises as a commercial kitchen with associated office area, at No. 97-99 Anzac Parade, Kensington, 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 DA00 and DA010 dated 4/7/10 and received by Council on 19 July 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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

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).

 

4.       A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council one month after commencement of use for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that the  noise and vibration emissions from the operation of the entire premises and the attenuation measures comply with acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Logic titled 4/97-103 Anzac Parade, Kensington DA Acoustic Assessment project  number  2010845, the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

5.       The following noise attenuation measures recommended in acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Logic titled 4/97-103 Anzac Parade, Kensington DA Acoustic Assessment project  number  2010845  shall be complied with:

 

·      Install a 2metre high acoustic screen to the west and south of level 1 balcony housing the hoist and kitchen air-conditioning condenser. This barrier may be constructed of colour bond, fibre cement sheet, Perspex or toughened glass. Two nominal 20mm diameter drainage holes are permitted in the corners, otherwise the screen shall be gap free;

·      Line the underside of the hoist awning with 50mm thick Bradford Ultraphon or equivalent;

·      Line the inside of the acoustic screen (except Perspex) with 50mm thick Bradford Ultraphon or equivalent;

·      Roof top Plant is acoustically acceptable for 24 hour operation without additional treatment.

 

Details of compliance with recommended acoustic attenuation measures shall be submitted to the certifying authority and form part of construction certificate plans .

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

 

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.

 

Operational Matters

 

7.       The business premises must only operate within the following hours:

 

The Office and Kitchen:  6am to 12 midnight, seven (7) days per week.

Food preparation:          between 6am to 6pm, seven (7) days per week.

 

8.       Staff members are limited to a maximum of 25 on-site at any one time.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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 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 (greater than 3m in length) or any container or other article.

 

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      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

Nil


Ordinary Council

23 November 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP90/10

 

 

Subject:                  26 Canara Avenue, Philip Bay

Folder No:                   DA/446/2010

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing structures and construction of two storey attached dual occupancy with garaging, boundary adjustment with No. 24 Canara Avenue, and associated works (SEPP 1 objection to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Archivision

Owner:                         Mr R V Taaffe & Mrs C J Taaffe

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application proposes demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of an attached dual occupancy on a corner allotment, being land at the corner of Canara Avenue and Adina Avenue. The proposal includes two dwellings of two storeys with associated garages fronting both streets.

 

The proposal includes one SEPP1 objection to justify a variation to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 for floor space.  The application seeks a floor space ratio of 0.7:1 compared with the development standard of 0.5:1.  The proposal suggests compliance with the 40% landscape provision in the Randwick LEP although the nature of the information provided makes this difficult to verify.  The application includes minimal information regarding the proposal and minimal justifications regarding non compliances with the Randwick Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancy.  There are a number of non-compliances with this DCP including provision of adequate private open space, privacy, landscaping provision, driveway widths and setbacks.

 

The proposal was notified to 18 dwellings and was on exhibition for 14 days from 21 June to 5 July 2010.  No objections to the proposal were received.

 

In this case, it is recommended Council refuse the application (DA/446/2010).

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal includes the demolition of an existing dwelling and associated detached garage. The proposal is for the construction of two (2), two (2) story masonry dwellings. Dwelling 1 contains a kitchen, lounge, dining, laundry and toilet on the ground floor and four (4) bedrooms on the first floor (plus two (2) bathrooms).  Dwelling 2 contains a kitchen, lounge, toilet and laundry on the ground floor and three (3) bedrooms and two (2) bathrooms on the first floor. A double garage is provided to dwelling 1 and a single garage to dwelling 2.  The application includes a boundary adjustment with 24 Canara Avenue to increase the site area of the subject site so that it exceeds 450m², the minimum area for an attached dual occupancy.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview39856.png

 

The site is located in Phillip Bay surrounded by the suburbs of Matraville to the north, La Perouse to the south, Little Bay to the east and Botany Bay to the west. The area is characterised by low density masonry dwellings.  Although much of the housing stock is ageing, there is a clear emerging character in the area of slightly higher density and more modern designs.  The locality is dominated by parkland to the north of the suburb and the foreshore of Botany Bay to the west.

 

4.    Site History

 

The proposal was submitted to Council 16 June 2010.  An original application for a dual occupancy on the site was submitted in December 2009.  The proposal was subsequently withdrawn as a result of the issues raised during the assessment process.  An amended application was submitted in May 2010 for two detached dwellings on the site. This proposal was also withdrawn as the application was not permissible under the zoning for the site.

 

The current application includes a “storage” room that links Dwelling 1 and Dwelling 2 in an attempt to classify the two dwellings as an “attached” dual occupancy.  The initial assessment of the application identified a number of areas of concern at a meeting and in a subsequent letter, dated 3 September 2010.  A letter was received from the applicant on 12 October 2010 responding to these issues.  The letter contained additional justification for the proposal and some minor alterations to the open space and landscaping of the proposal.

 

5.    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1- Development Standards

 

A SEPP 1 objection has been provided by the applicant to justify the variation to the development standard of the FSR.  The prescribed FSR under clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 is 0.5:1 and the proposed FSR is 0.7:1.

 

Principles for assessing SEPP 1 Objections have been established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. 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. The principles established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council are addressed below:

 

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 maximum FSR standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

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

 

It is considered that the proposal is unsatisfactory and compliance with the development standard is reasonable and necessary for the following reasons:

 

•      The excess floor area results in a building that fails to meet reasonable criteria for bulk and scale.  This includes variations to a number of setback requirements such as side and front setbacks.

•      The increase size results in a poor arrangement of garaging being forward of the primary building line and requiring wide driveway crossings that dominate the street frontage.

•      The proposed development is of such a size that there is an inability to provide reasonable landscaping outcomes around the development and within the front setbacks.

 

The proposal has not demonstrated why imposing the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this application.  The development has a number of inconsistencies with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and the objectives of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (the Act). The SEPP 1 objection provided does not appropriately justify that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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 variation to the FSR control is not consistent with the aims of SEPP No.1 as it would detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) in that the resultant development would not promote the orderly use and development of the subject land.  The development has not provided the required levels of amenity in terms of private open space and landscaping.  The approval of the scheme would promote further undesirable precedents undermining the ability to properly manage the development of 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”.

 

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 development standard will ensure the Council’s ability to provide for the economic and orderly use of land is maintained.  The development standard seeks to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the character of the area, and this will be undermined by way of precedent if the development standard is varied in this manner.

 

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 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 for the proposal to 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 because it intends to protect the character of the area, the amenity for future residents, the amenity of adjoining dwellings, the integrity of the streetscape, particularly in terms of built form.

 

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:

Compliance is reasonable to achieve the underlying objective of the standard.

 

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 maximum FSR development 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 2A zoning is considered to be appropriate for the locality as the area is characterised by low density residential development. 

 

This proposal does justify the abandonment of the development standard in relation to these terms.  The proposal does not promote the orderly and economic use of development.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy to 18 dwellings surrounding the site. The application was also placed on exhibition from 21 June to the 5 July 2010. No submissions were received.

 

5.1 Objections

There were no responses to the proposal received from surrounding residents.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The following comments were received from Council Technical Services Department.

 

Landscape Comments

While there is no significant vegetation within the site, there are two semi-established Cupaniopsis anacardiodes (Tuckeroo’s) of between 3-5 metres in height on Council’s Canara Avenue verge, which are both covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) due to their location on public property.

 

The most western tree is the largest, most dominant and more healthy of the two; however, the plans propose a new double width crossing in this same location which would necessitate its removal.

 

There is no scope to relocate or re-design this crossing and garage elsewhere to allow retention of this tree due to the power pole immediately to its west, in line with the western site boundary, and the close proximity to the corner of Adina Avenue to its east and the associated line of sight requirements.

 

Given that the other, lesser tree to its east will remain in-situ, with further replacements able to provided along the currently vacant Adina Avenue frontage, consent has been granted for removal of this street tree on this occasion, but in recognition of the fact that it is only being removed in order to accommodate the development of private property, the applicant must cover removal costs as well as a loss of amenity fee.

 

A landscape plan detailing how the appearance and presentation of the development will be improved has not been submitted as required, with conditions in this report specifying the level of treatment that is expected.

 

Drainage Comments

Onsite detention of stormwater is not required for this application as the site is not in an on-site detention area.

 


8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The following environmental instruments apply to the application. An assessment against their provisions is provided in section 8.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

The site is zoned residential 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 proposed development should be in keeping with the stated objectives of the zone which are identified in the RLEP as:

 

(a)    to provide a low density residential environment, and

(b)    to maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas, and

(c)    to protect the amenity of existing residents, and

(d)    to allow for a range of community uses to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors, and

(e)    to encourage housing affordability, and

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

 

The proposed development significantly exceeds the allowable floor space in the RLEP and in doing so, results in a development that compromises various amenity outcomes for the site.  These include, but are not limited to, a lack of productive landscaping around the development, the provision of inefficient private open space, diminished solar access and reductions in appropriate privacy for low density development.

 

The increased density on the site is also reflected in the nature of the development. Whilst the allowable floor space is similar to that allowed for a single dwelling, the proposal would result in 7 bedrooms, three bathroom, two living areas, two kitchens, two dining areas and garage parking for three cars, despite the allotment only just exceeding the 450m² allowed for dual occupancies.  This outcome is inconsistent with the zone objectives applying to the surrounding area.

 

Clause 20B Minimum allotment sizes

 (1)The minimum allotment size for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land, other than for the purpose of public utility undertakings or roads, within Zone No 2A is 400 square metres and each allotment must have a frontage of at least 12 metres.

 

The proposed dual occupancy has a total site area of 457.98m2 which satisfies the total area required. The minimum frontages of 12 metres are also satisfied.

 

Clause 20E Landscaped area

 (1) Development, otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A must provide a minimum of 40% of the total site area as landscaped area.

 

The proposal allows for 168m2 of open space which is a percentage of 36.68. The additional information received 12 October 2010, states that “minor changes has resulted in compliance with the 40% minimum”.  The applicant states that the alterations have resulted in a 42.22% of landscaped area by changing the pathways around the building to “stepping stones” set in gravel.  The landscape “concept” is not dimensioned and cannot be verified.  It also includes various areas, such as a narrow grass strip on the driveway, which would not be included as landscaping. The absence of clarification leaves some doubt as to whether a further SEPP 1 Objection would be required for a variation to the landscaping development standard.

Despite the changes, there is little opportunity for the landscaping to provide vegetation of substance as it is generally provided in narrow setbacks between the proposed building and the property boundaries and not with direct access from a habitable room.  Although achieving the numeric requirements, it is not considered that the development achieves the objectives for landscape provision.

 

Clause 20F Floor space ratio

 (1) The maximum floor space ratios for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zones Nos 2A, 2B and 2C is 0.5:1, 0.65:1 and 0.9:1, respectively.

 

As the proposal is for a dual occupancy development a floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies.  As identified in Section 5 of this report, the floor space ratio proposed for the development is 0.7:1.  The SEPP 1 assessment process concluded that the variation is excessive and should not be supported in this application.

 

Clause 20G Building heights

(1) The maximum height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A or 2B is 9.5 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

(3) The maximum height for any external wall of a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A or 2B is 7 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

 

The proposal is for a building height of 7.66m and a wall height of 5.56m.  The proposed height of the building complies with the LEP controls.

Randwick local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation) (RLEP)

 

8.1      Relevant Policy Controls

The following development control plan applies to the application. An assessment against its provisions is provided in section 8.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 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. 

 

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Provided

Compliance

Landscaping

40% of the site landscaped area

42. 22% as amended

Cannot be verified

25m2 of private open space provided.

168m2

No

Minimum dimension of 3m x 4m and minor level change.

Main area is approx 8x 3m

No

Open space behind the building line.

 

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable

 

Yes

Floor area

Maximum FSR .0.5:1

0.7:1

SEPP 1

Provided

 

Height, Form and materials

External wall height maximum 7m

5.56m

Yes

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

 

Yes

External wall height 7m .

5.56m

Yes

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

 

Yes

Building setbacks

The front set back is the average of the setbacks of the adjoining dwelling houses and where there is no adjoining dwellings, front setback is 6m.

The established building line is 6m. The proposed is 4.7m for Canara Avenue.

For Adina Avenue there is no established set back. The proposed is between 1- 1.9m. The proposed lounge window for Dwelling 2 is only 2.3 metres from the street boundary.

No

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

The development proposes development to the boundary.

No

Side boundary:

900mm for any part of the building over 1m above ground level and up to one level in height

 

1.5m for any part of a building, there height of which is two levels at that point;

 

3.0m for any part of a building, the height of which is more than two levels at that point.

Side boundary to Adina Avenue is less than 1.5metres where there is a two level building height.

The new side boundary setback is 1 metre where a 1.5 metre setback is required.

No

Visual and Acoustic privacy

Habitable room windows with a direct outlook to another dwelling’s habitable rooms within 9 meters are offset by more than 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing installed bellow 1.5m above floor level.

 

Yes

Where a direct view is available into the private open space of an existing dwelling, outlook from windows, balconies, stairs, landings, terraced and decks is obscured or screened within 9m and beyond a 45 degree angle from the plane of the wall containing the opening.

For dwelling 2 the stair and study window will look directly onto the balcony of the adjoining property to the rear and their private open space.

No

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

The window on the second level of dwelling 2 at the stairwell appears to be less that 1.5m above floor height, more detail is required for this window.

No

Safety and Security

Front doors are visible from the street

 

Yes

Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street

 

Yes

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

 

Yes

Garages, Carports and driveways

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

The proposal includes two driveways, the driveway servicing Dwelling 1 will comply, the other may not as it is less than 1 metre from the rear boundary.

No

Driveways have a maximum width of 3 metres at the boundary.

The driveway for Dwelling 1 has a width of 6.5 metres.

 

Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6.

 

Yes

Where vehicular access is available only from the front of the allotment, carports and garages are located behind the building line.

The garage to Dwelling 1 is located in front of the building line.

 

No

Driveways, car parking structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the site.

The driveway occupies roughly 43% of the site frontage. However as the site is a corner allotment the boundary also addresses the street corner.

No

Fences

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

 

Yes

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages are no higher than 1.8m and are designed so that the upper two-thirds are at least 50% open.

 

Yes

 

Development Control Plan –Parking 1998

The Development Control Plan- Parking states that for a dual occupancy development, each dwelling with three or more bedrooms is required to provide 2 parking spaces. The proposed development has provided two car parks for Dwelling 1 and a single car space for dwelling 2. The proposal does not comply with this control.

 

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.

 

Environmental Assessment"

The following is an assessment of the application with regard to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, including those environmental planning instruments, policies or principles listed in section 7 above.

 

The proposed development has a number of deficiencies that result in a less than satisfactory outcome for the development.  The proposal for living areas within 2.5 metres of the street boundary, in this low density area, is contrary to the objectives for landscaped front setbacks.  It will also lead to privacy and amenity impacts for future occupants being such as minimal distance from passing pedestrians with no opportunity for screening for privacy.  The variation to the building setback would result in an undesirable precedent and cannot be justified in these circumstances.

 

The variations to setbacks, increased driveway widths, poor landscaping outcomes and non-compliance with private open space criteria result from the development being too large.  The variation being sort to the FSR control cannot be justified on the basis of the inability to meet the other planning controls that assist in measuring the overall performance of the development.

 

The  Environmental assessment section should deal with Section 79c as set out below

 

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.

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable. 

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

Appropriate standard conditions are recommended to address the relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.  

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed within the body of this report.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the residential land uses in the locality. The proposal is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site is located within an established residential neighbourhood. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed building structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

The proposal is not considered to result in significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to the recommended conditions. The development is considered to be within the public interest, subject to compliance with the conditions of consent.

 

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

 

The design of the proposed dual occupancy appears to dominate both streetscapes and has minimal consideration for the amenity impacts of the proposal.  The design of the attached dual occupancy is such that they are only linked by a small and obscure external wall and hence challenges Council’s definition of the term and places into doubt the validity of the whole proposal.  The SEPP 1 provided for the floor space ratio fails to adequately justify the variance to the floor space. As a result, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

The application proposes significant non compliances in relation to the Randwick DCP. The impacts on adjoining properties and in particular 24 Canara Avenue would be significant and have not been raised as the current occupant owns both 24 and 26 Canara Avenue.  The proposed two storey dual occupancy that will occupy over half of the length of the side boundary will have significant impact on the privacy of both the dwellings and the private open space. The non compliance of surrounding dwellings has been used to justify this proposal which does not encourage the realisation of Council’s objectives both in the DCP and in the Local Environmental Plan.

 

The proposal is on a site area of 457.98m2, the minimum site area for a dual occupancy is 450m2, however as this site is located on a corner allotment the provision of useable open space, the inability to protect privacy and the impact on the streetscape is significantly increased.

 

The proposed double garage fronting Canara Avenue dominates the streetscape.  The facade that continues down the length of the site facing Adina Avenue dominates the streetscape.  The linking wall between the dwellings, which adds to this built form, serves little purpose to the dwellings.  The proposal is an over development that has less than satisfactory urban design outcomes and does not achieve minimum requirements for safety, privacy or open space amenity.

 

Therefore, it is recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20F of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Floor Space Ratios, on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the above clause, and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     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. 446/2010 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a attached dual occupancy, at No. 24 Canara Avenue, Phillip Bay for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the 2A Zone.  In particular, it contravenes Clause 10(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidated) in that the bulk and scale of the development contravenes objectives (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 10(1).

 

2.         The proposed development does not comply with Clause 20F(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidated) in that the proposed development significantly exceeds the allowable floor space ratio for attached dual occupancy development.

 

3.         The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Clause 20E(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidated) which requires the provision of 40% of the site as landscaped area.

 

4.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.1 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to private open space, being deficient in minimum areas and the provision of adequate space for each of the proposed dwellings.

 

5.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.2 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to exceedance of the allowable floor space ratio for attached dual occupancies.

 

6.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.4 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to the provision of setbacks to boundaries.

 

7.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.5 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to providing reasonable levels of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

8.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.7 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to the provision of garages that are not visually intrusive and that do not detract from the appearance of dwellings of the local streetscape.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 November 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP91/10

 

 

Subject:                  133 Barker Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/519/2010

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations to existing ground level medical consulting rooms and addition of first floor residential unit and extension of existing ground floor awning to side boundary

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                A Nicholls

Owner:                         Writhe Pty. Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval subject to conditions

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


1.      Executive Summary

 

The subject application is referred to Council for determination as it contains variation to the landscaped area standard in the LEP by more than 10%.

 

The subject application was notified from 12 to 26 July 2010 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed 2-bedroom dwelling at the first level is identified as an attached dual occupancy under the LEP, and is a permissible use within the 2A Zone.

 

The existing medical practice, which is to be retained in the proposal, is attached to and occupies part of a semi-detached dwelling. It does not satisfy the definition for “health consulting room” under the LEP and is therefore a prohibited use within the 2A Zone. However, the existing medical premises were approved by Council on 20 November 2000 under Development Consent 799/2000. The premises have been lawfully created and represent a non-conforming use. As a result, the site is considered to benefit from existing use rights.

 

The proposal includes the demolition of the existing rear shed and the resultant landscaped area provision will amount to approximately 23.8% of the site or 84.5m2. The proposal therefore entails a landscaped area shortfall of approximately 57.5m2. This represents a variation to the LEP development standard of 40.5%.

 

The site presently only contains low quality landscaping, which does not contribute to the streetscape character or the visual appeal to the neighbours. The development scheme offers a valuable opportunity to create a coherent courtyard space at the rear through the demolition of the existing rear shed. A special condition is also recommended to delete car space 6 to maximise landscaping provision. A further condition is recommended to require the preparation of a landscape plan to detail the planting design. The proposal will result in a significant improvement to the visual amenity of the site, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions.

 

A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted to justify the variation to the landscaped area standard. The Objection is considered to be reasonable and is supported.

 

The development will improve the streetscape presentation of the site by upgrading an existing aged building, and provide a new dwelling in a highly accessible location. The proposal represents an orderly and economic use of the land for urban consolidation.

 

The proposal will provide adequate off-street car spaces to support the operation of the medical practice, subject to the recommended conditions that require changes to the parking layout. Although no car parking is proposed for the 2-bedroom dwelling, the residential component will not generate excessive traffic and parking demand that adversely impacts on 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, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot A in DP 433525, No. 133 Barker Street, Randwick. The site is located on the northern side of Barker Street between Maud Street and Hospital Road. The site has a flat topography and an irregular configuration. The frontage width and land area of the site are 10.06m and 355.1m2 respectively.

 

At present, the site is occupied by a single-storey semi-detached building accommodating a medical consulting practice, with a detached storage shed at the rear. Vehicular access is obtained via a paved driveway along the western property boundary off Barker Street.

 

To the west of the site is a 4-storey residential flat building (No. 131 Barker Street). To the east of the site is a semi-detached dwelling that shares the same party wall with the subject building (No. 135 Barker Street). To the north is a detached dwelling fronting Maud Street (No. 4 Maud Street).

 

The areas to the north and west of the site are predominantly residential in character and consist of various detached and semi-detached dwellings, interspersed with infill multi unit buildings. To the east of Hospital Road are institutional developments associated with the Prince of Wales Hospital. The southern side of Barker Street contains a mixture of commercial and residential premises.

 

Figure 1 Existing semi-detached building on the subject site as viewed from Barker Street

Figure 2 Existing storage shed and carport at the rear of the site

Figure 3 Adjoining 4-storey residential flat building located immediately to the west of the site

Figure 4 The adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No. 135 Barker Street (middle) and detached house further to the east at No. 137  Barker Street (right)

 

3.      The Proposal

 

The proposed development includes the following components:

 

·      Partial demolition of the roof of the existing building.

·      Construction of a first floor level containing a 2-bedroom dwelling.

·      Installation of a canopy over part of the driveway.

·      Minor alterations to the internal layout of the ground floor level.

·      Demolition of the rear shed and replacement with landscaping.

·      Retention of the existing health consulting room at the ground floor level with the following operational characteristics:

 

Hours of operation:

Tuesday 11:00am to 3:00pm

Friday 11:00am to 5:30pm

 

Staff:

1 x doctor and 1 x receptionist

 

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

 

4.1    Proposed variation to the development standard

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

 

Landscaped area

Clause 20E(1) provides that a minimum of 40% of the site (142.0m2) is to be reserved as landscaped areas. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing rear shed and the resultant landscaped area provision will amount to approximately 23.8% of the site or 84.5m2. The proposal therefore entails a landscaped area shortfall of approximately 57.5m2. This represents a variation to the development standard of 40.5%.

 

4.2    Assessment against planning principle

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 landscaped area standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

“To operate together with controls for floor space ratio and building height to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area.”

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 Objection, which outlines the following key justifications for the variation to the landscaped area standard:

 

1.     The proposal is for a residential dwelling above the existing consulting rooms & as such is a re application of a previous consent for similar proposal. There is no proposed change to previously approved landscape areas.

2.     The above stated purpose[s] of the clause are met as there is [are] no effects to the environmental amenity & stated purposes linked to the below objection on floor space ratios. 

3.     The above stated purposes are met by the removal of the rear 20m2 shed giving an open soft landscaped area (excluding the rear car space) of 45m2 & an additional 13.75 m2 within the car space when the space is vacant .

 

It is considered that the proposed development is satisfactory and strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·      At present, the site is substantially built up with the western and rear setback areas being occupied by a concrete driveway and storage shed respectively. The site currently only contains isolated patches of soft landscaping at the front yard and to the rear of the main building. The existing landscaped area provision amounts to approximately 84.6m2 (23.8% of site area).

 

The development scheme is primarily for the construction of a first floor level containing a 2-bedroom dwelling and installation of a canopy roof over the rear section of the driveway. The proposal does not increase the footprints of the existing semi-detached building.

 

The proposal involves deletion of some existing low quality landscaping to provide tandem parking spaces at the rear of the driveway. However, the existing rear shed will be demolished to provide space for deep soil planting. Despite the above, the proposed landscaped areas, being 84.5m2 (23.8% of site area) will be the same as the status quo. 

 

Notwithstanding, as will be discussed in the “DCP – Parking” section of this report, car space number 6 is recommended to be deleted. The deletion of this car space and removal of the storage shed will provide opportunities for a new deep soil landscaped areas with functional dimensions (approximately 8.8m x 6.8m) for passive recreation. The resultant landscaped area provision will be increased to approximately 116.5m2 (32.8%). The variation from the LEP standard will be reduced from 40.5% to 18.0%.

 

A summary of the landscaping calculations is provided below:

 

 

Landscaped area (m2)

Landscape area (% of site area)

Existing landscaped area provision

84.6m2

23.8%

Proposed landscaped area provision (as indicated on the plans)

84.5m2

23.8%

Landscaped area after deleting car space 6 (as required by condition)

116.5m2

32.8%

 

·      The site presently only contains low quality landscaping, which does not contribute to the streetscape character or the visual appeal to the neighbours.

 

The development scheme offers a valuable opportunity to create a coherent courtyard space at the rear for passive recreational activities by the residential occupants as well as staff of the medical practice. A special condition is also recommended to require the preparation of a landscape plan to detail the design of the planting. The proposal will result in a significant improvement to the visual amenity of the site, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions.

 

·      The subject locality is characterised by a mixture of one- and two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings, interspersed with in-fill residential flat buildings and commercial developments on the southern side of Barker Street. The design scheme will maintain a 2-storey scale to Barker Street. The proposed development has a height and form, which are compatible with other buildings in the surrounding environment.

 

·      The development adopts a contemporary design and is articulated by a skillion roof with clerestory windows, shading devices and a combination of finishing materials, which will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures.

 

·      The development will improve the streetscape presentation of the site by upgrading an existing aged building, and provide a new dwelling in a highly accessible location. The proposal represents an orderly and economic use of the land for urban consolidation.

 

·      As will be discussed in the following sections, the proposal does not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of overshadowing or privacy, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 Objection for landscaped area 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 variations from the landscaped area standard 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 development works would promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would not 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:

The proposed development and variations from the landscaped area standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical landscaped area standard will not allow the best economic use of the site and provision of an appropriately scaled in-fill 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:

 

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 landscaped area development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the design scheme will achieve the underlying purposes of the 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 landscaped area development standard is relevant to the subject proposal. As discussed above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the underlying purposes of the standard.

 

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 landscaped area standard would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is unreasonable. The proposed built form and scale are compatible with the surrounding residential premises and represent a suitable infill development. The proposal is considered to have maximised landscaped area provision given the existing site constraints. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory having regard to the purpose of the landscaped area standard.

 

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 development standard in question has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council. There has been no precedent established by Council’s assessment decisions, which in effect would abandon the development standards prescribed in the LEP.

 

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 current RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) has maintained the Residential 2A zoning for the site. The existing Residential A zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

5.      Site History

 

5.1    Previous development applications relating to the site

 

799/2000

Alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling and change of use to a medical practice with 2 consulting rooms.

 

The application was approved by Council on 20 November 2000 subject to conditions, including:

 

3. Car spaces Nos. 1 and 2 being designated as staff or doctor parking only and car space No. 3 being deleted to facilitate access to car spaces Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Car space No. 4 is to be designated patient parking and is to be available for such purpose at all times. Plans accompanying the Construction Certificate application are to be amended accordingly.

1197/2001

Internal alterations to the existing semi-detached building, construction of an outbuilding and provision of landscaping at the rear of the site.

 

The application was approved by Council on 23 January 2002.

1077/2002

Alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached building, including construction of a first floor level containing a 2-bedroom dwelling, installation of a pergola over the rear section of the driveway and minor amendments to the internal layout of the ground storey. 

 

The application was approved by Council on 11 December 2002. The approval has not been acted upon and the consent has already lapsed.

5.2    Plan amendments

At Council’s request, the applicant submitted additional documents on 12 and 19 October 2010, including:

 

·      A detailed survey plan prepared by a registered surveyor.

·      Elevational shadow diagrams describing the impacts on the eastern façade of the residential flat building at No. 131 Barker Street.

·      A SEPP 1 Objection relating to variation to the landscaped areas standard stipulated in RLEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

6.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was notified from 12 to 26 July 2010 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

7.      Technical Officers Comments

 

7.1    Development Engineer

The comments provided by Council’s Development Engineer are extracted below:

 

Parking Issues

The site has been subject to two previous development applications which are relevant to the assessment of this application. DA/799/2000 was an application for use of the premises as health consulting rooms. In association with this DA 3 car spaces were approved with 2 located at the rear of the premises and one on the side driveway. Four were actually required by Council’s DCP-Parking but 3 were accepted on the basis that the site was close to public transport. The works were subsequently undertaken under CC/981/2001.

 

An additional DA for the site DA/1077/2002 was approved for alterations and additions including a first floor addition and a pergola on the western side of the site. This consent has now lapsed. Although different in style and configuration the current application also proposes a first floor addition and consists of a 2 bedroom unit on the first floor with a reconfiguration of the health consulting rooms on the ground floor also proposed.

 

The addition of the two bedroom unit will increase the parking demand on the site and the required parking rate has been calculated as per Council’s DCP-Parking. The parking deficiency approved in the previous DA for the site has been taken into account and applied as a parking credit.

 

Parking for Health Consulting Rooms:

= Rate of 2 spaces per consulting room

= 2 x 2

= 4 spaces (3 approved under DA/799/2000) 

 

Parking credit 1 space

 

Parking for first floor unit:

= Rate of 1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

 

TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED        = 4 + 1.2

                                                   = 5.2 spaces

Apply parking credit 1 space      = 4.2 = say 4 spaces

 

The submitted plans propose a total of 7 spaces to be located along the driveway and at the rear of the premises which although complies with Council’s parking rate is unsatisfactory and not supported due to its reliance on tandem style parking. This style of parking is considered highly inappropriate in this circumstance considering the mixed residential/consulting use of the site and the likely high turnover of the client parking. For example how does a patient exit the site if they are parked in car space 5 and spaces 1 to 4 are occupied?

 

The only acceptable parking configuration is to leave the parking layout as is but this would create a parking deficiency of 1 space. Given that a deficiency has already been approved under DA/799/2000 Development Engineering is reluctant to support any further reduction in the parking rate.

 

Engineering Conditions have still been attached to this report as it is acknowledged parking on its own may not be grounds for refusal however Development Engineering requests that at minimum car spaces 1, 2, 3, 5 be deleted from the application. Car spaces 4, 6 & 7 may remain as these are in the approximate location of the existing patient & staff car spaces on the site. A condition requesting has been added to this report.

 

Due to the parking deficiency this creates and in the absence of any supporting information such as a parking study, Development Engineering does not support the application but should the assessing officer intend to approve the application the following conditions shall apply.

 

Comments:

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory having regard to car parking provision, subject to the recommended conditions. Refer to the “DCP – Parking” section of this report for detailed comments.

 

7.2    Building Surveyor

The comments provided by Council’s Building Surveyor are extracted below:

 

BCA Building Classification

Class – 5 (Health consulting rooms)

Class - 4 (Residential unit)

 

Description of the Building

 

In summary, the building incorporates:

·      A rise in storeys of two

·      Masonry walls, metal roof and timber floors

·      One exit stairway of timber construction

·      One commercial tenancy at ground level

·      One residential sole occupancy unit at first floor level

·      External balcony

·      Side boundary building setbacks of approximately nil and 4400mm

 

Key Issues

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Site Management:

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

The existing building appears to satisfy the current BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Standard conditions should be included to address these requirements.

 

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

 

8.      Master Planning Requirements

 

The site has a land area of only 355.1m2 and a master plan is not required.

 

9.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

9.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998 (Consolidation)

The site is located within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

The existing structures on the site form part of a residential building that occupies both Nos. 133 and 135 Barker Street. The proposed 2-bedroom dwelling at the first level of No. 133 Barker Street is therefore identified as an attached dual occupancy under the LEP, and is a permissible use within the 2A Zone.

 

The existing medical practice, which is to be retained in the proposal, is attached to and occupies part of a semi-detached dwelling.

 

Clause 49 of the LEP provides the following definition for “health consulting room”:

Health consulting room means a room or a number of rooms forming either the whole or part of, attached to, or within the curtilage of, a dwelling house used by not more than 3 practitioners providing health care services (including dental and optical services) to members of the public.

 

Given that the medical practice in question forms part of an attached dual occupancy, in contrast to the scenario where it is attached to a dwelling house as defined in the LEP, the practice does not satisfy the definition for “health consulting room” and is a prohibited use within the 2A Zone. However, the existing medical premises were approved by Council on 20 November 2000 under Development Consent 799/2000. The premises have been lawfully created and represent a non-conforming use. As a result, the site is considered to benefit from existing use rights. This matter is addressed in detail in the following section of this report.

 

The relevant objectives of the 2A Zone under Clause 10 of the LEP are addressed as follows:

 

(a)    To provide a low density residential environment

The proposed development will create a 2-bedroom dwelling at the first floor level. The design scheme will maintain a 2-storey scale to Barker Street and is compatible with the lower density character of the locality.

 

(b)    To maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas

The development will maintain the existing lower density character of the locality. The proposed built form, height and scale are compatible with the surrounding residential premises, and will not result in detrimental amenity impacts on the neighbouring dwellings.

 

(c)    To protect the amenity of existing residents

The proposed development will not result in unreasonable shadow or privacy impacts on the adjoining residences. The amenity of the neighbouring residents will be appropriately protected.

 

(d)    To encourage housing affordability

The proposal will create a 2-bedroom dwelling of approximately 75m2 in floor area. The size and configuration of the dwelling are suitable for students, young professionals and small families. The development will broaden the housing choice in the locality and contribute to affordability.

 

The following clauses apply to the proposed development:

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

20E Landscaped area

(1) Minimum 40%

23.8% (84.5m2)

No, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

(3) Landscaped areas over podiums or basements not to exceed 50% of required provision

All landscaped areas are provided on deep soil

Yes

20F Floor space ratios

(1) Maximum 0.5:1

0.50:1 (177.7m2 GFA)

Yes

20G Building heights

(1) Maximum building height 9.5m

8m

Yes

(3) Maximum external wall height 7m

7m

Yes

 

Clause 43 Heritage conservation

The southern side of Barker Street is identified as the Struggletown Conservation Area under the LEP.

 

The northern side of Barker Street is characterised by a diversity of architectural style, ranging from detached and semi-detached cottages, 1960’s walk-up residential flats and more modern institutional buildings associated with the hospital precinct.

 

The built form and materials of the proposed works are considered to be compatible with the surrounding residential developments. The facades of the first floor additions are appropriately articulated and will contribute to the streetscape character. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to result in detrimental impacts on the heritage significance of the conservation area in the vicinity to the site.

 

9.2    Existing use rights assessment

The existing health consulting practice is a non-conforming use within the 2A Zone, as it is not attached to a “dwelling house” as defined in the LEP. Section 106 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act provides a definition for “existing use”. The prerequisite to establishing existing use rights is that the use of the building, work or land was lawfully granted and commenced. Furthermore, under Section 107, the use is presumed to have been abandoned, unless the contrary is established, if the use ceases for a continuous period of 12 months.

 

The existing medical premises were approved by Council on 20 November 2000 under Development Consent 799/2000. The use has been continuously operating on the subject site. 

Clause 41(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 states that:

 

An existing use may, subject to this Division:

(a) be enlarged, expanded, or intensified, or

(b) be altered or extended, or

(c) be rebuilt, or

(d) be changed to another use, but only if that other use is a use that may be carried out with or without development consent under the Act, or

(e) if it is a commercial use – be changed to another commercial use, or

(f) if it is a light industrial use – be changed to another light industrial use or a commercial use

 

The proposal does not involve any intensification of the existing health consulting practice. The number of consulting rooms will remain as existing. However, the existing development on the site will be intensified by virtue of an additional dwelling being provided at the new first floor level. The dwelling is defined as an “attached dual occupancy” under the LEP and is a permissible use in the 2A Zone.

 

In view of the history of the site, it is considered that existing use rights apply to the site under Part 4, Division 10 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, and as such provides a basis for the assessment of this application despite the health consulting business being prohibited in the 2A Zone.

 

Section 108(3) of the Act also provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate from the “incorporated provisions” of the Act would have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions of an environmental planning instrument that would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including aims, objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal. In this particular case, however, the proposed first floor dwelling is a permissible use under the LEP. Therefore, the development standards contained in the LEP, including landscaped areas, FSR and building heights, are considered to be relevant to the assessment of the proposal, and a SEPP 1 Objection is required to support any variation to those standards.

 

The NSW Land and Environment Court has established planning principles pertaining to land with existing use rights as derived from the case of Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council, 2005. The principles are addressed as follows:

 

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

While planning controls, such as height, floor space ratio and setbacks do not apply to sites with existing use rights; they have relevance to the assessment of applications on such sites. This is because the controls apply to surrounding sites and indicate the kind of development that can be expected if and when surrounding sites are redeveloped. The relationship of new development to its existing and likely future context is a matter to be considered in all planning assessment.

 

Comments:

The proposed development complies with the maximum FSR and building height controls stipulated in the LEP. The proposed setback arrangement also satisfies the preferred solution of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The bulk and scale of the development are considered to be compatible with the adjoining residential premises. An assessment against the DCP controls is provided under the “DCP” section of this report.

 

·      What is the relevance of the building in which the existing takes place?

Where the change of use is proposed within an existing building, the bulk and scale of that building are likely to be deemed acceptable, even if the building is out of scale with its surroundings, because it already exists. However, where the existing building is proposed for demolition, while its bulk is clearly an important consideration, there is no automatic entitlement to another building of the same floor space ratio, height or parking provision.

 

Comments:

The proposal includes the addition of a first floor level. Notwithstanding, as is discussed within the body of this report, the building bulk and scale are considered to be satisfactory and will not detract from the existing streetscape.

 

·      What are the impacts on adjoining land?

The impact on adjoining land should be assessed as it is assessed for all development. It is true that where, for example, a development control plan requires three hours of sunlight to be maintained in adjoining rear yards, the numerical control does not apply. However, the overshadowing impact on adjoining rear yards should be reasonable.

 

Comments:

The proposal will not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the adjoining developments in terms of overshadowing and privacy. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

 

·      What is the internal amenity?

Internal amenity must be assessed as it is assessed for all development. Again, numerical requirements for sunlight access or private open space do not apply, but these and other aspects must be judged acceptable as a matter of good planning and design. None of the legal principles discussed above suggests that development on sites with existing use rights may have lower amenity than development generally.

 

Comments:

A special condition is recommended to require the deletion of car space 6. The condition will effectively increase landscaped open space provision on the site. A further condition is also recommended to require a detailed landscape plan to be prepared to upgrade the amenity of the site.

 

The proposed dwelling at the first floor level will enjoy adequate natural ventilation and sunlight.

 

In conclusion, the proposed development satisfies the planning principles relating to existing use rights. The proposal complies with the relevant objectives of the 2A Zone, and will create a building that is consistent with the character of the locality.

 

9.3    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

SEPP: BASIX applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied with BASIX Certificate No. 319942S. The commitments listed in the above certificate will be imposed by an appropriate standard condition pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

10.    Policy Controls

 

10.1  Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) – 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.

Refer to the “SEPP 1” section of this report for details.

S1

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

The proposal will provide more than 25m2 of private open space, subject to the recommended conditions.

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.

Complies, subject to the recommended conditions.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

Complies, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this size is a maximum floor space ratio of 0.60:1. 

 0.5:1, complies.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceeding 7m

7m, complies.

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.

No excavation is required.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable.

S4

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

Not applicable.

S5

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

The existing roof gable will be retained. Complies.

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The front setback to the first floor addition is compatible with the streetscape pattern. Complies.

S2

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

Approximately 12.4m to rear balcony. Complies.

S3

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

As existing, 4.4m.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

4.4m, complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

 

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.

Rear balcony

The proposal has included privacy screens on the side elevations of the first floor rear balcony to minimize overlooking into the adjoining properties. A specific condition is also recommended to ensure the configuration of the privacy screens is effective in restricting cross-viewing.

 

Western windows

The design does not contain excessive window openings on the western elevation at first level. There is also a separation distance of approximately 7.4m between the subject building and the adjoining residential flat building at No. 131 Barker Street.

 

A specific condition is recommended to require the first floor bathroom and stairwell windows on the western elevation to be constructed with obscured glazing.

 

Subject to the above condition, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

S1

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

S1

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

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

A standard condition is recommended to ensure the proposed works comply with the Building Code of Australia.

 

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

Due to the existing site constraints, the principal entry to the proposed dwelling will be located on the western elevation of the building. However, a clearly identifiable path of entry is provided. Satisfactory.

S1,3

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

Complies.

S2

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

To be required by condition.

 

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.

Refer to the “DCP – Parking” section of this report for details.

S1

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

To be required by condition.

S1

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

As existing, approximately 2.8m.

S1

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

As existing, approximately 2.8m.

S1

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

Satisfactory.

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 car spaces are located at the rear of the site. Complies.

S2

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

Complies.

 

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

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

The existing front fencing will be retained. The fence has a height of less than 1500m and will not result in a blank wall effect to Barker Street . Satisfactory.

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.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Refer to “BASIX”.

S2

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

Due to the height and form of the existing dwellings located to the north of the site, the rear private open space will receive less than 3 hours of direct sunlight on 21 June. However, the proposed first floor addition and awning structures will not reduce the existing level of solar access further. Satisfactory.

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 north-facing windows of the proposed dwelling are attached to the bedroom areas. These windows will receive adequate direct sunlight on 21 June.

 

Notwithstanding, the design includes skylights and clerestory windows, which will direct adequate natural lighting to the main living areas.

S9

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

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.

Complies.

S9

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receives 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.

Complies.

 

10.2  Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) - Parking

The DCP specifies the following car parking rates:

 

Health consulting room:

2 spaces per consulting room plus parking required for the dwelling

 

Multi-unit housing*:

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom dwelling

 

*Note: the parking rate for multi-unit housing is adopted as the size and configuration of the proposed first floor dwelling resemble an apartment unit.

 

The car parking requirement of the proposal is calculated as follows:

2 spaces x 2 consulting rooms + 1.2 spaces for residential unit

= 4 + 1.2

= 5.2 or 5 spaces

 

The original approval for the health consulting practice (DA/799/2000) entails a shortfall of 1 car space (4 spaces are required but only 3 spaces are provided on site). Accordingly, a parking credit of 1 space applies to the site. Where the parking credit is taken into account, the total parking requirement will be reduced to 4 spaces.

 

The development scheme includes a total of 7 car spaces, 5 of which are provided in a tandem arrangement. The proposed parking layout is considered to be impractical and inappropriate for patients (refer to the Development Engineer’s comments for details).

 

Parking demand and supply

The applicant has confirmed by email dated 12 October 2010 that only 1 medical practitioner and 1 receptionist will be present at the premises at any one time, despite the fact that 2 consulting rooms are shown on the plans. It is the intention of the business to utilise one of the consulting rooms for treatment purposes.

 

Patients / visitors to the health consulting practice:

On this basis, it is likely that there would only be approximately 3 patients present at the premises at any one time: being 1 under treatment, 1 engaged in consultation and 1 waiting at the reception.

 

The locality is highly accessible with public bus services running along Barker, Botany and Avoca Streets. There is also a limited number of time-restricted kerb side parking on Barker Street (2 hours, 8:30am to 6pm, Monday to Friday and 8:30am to 12:00noon, Saturday), Maud Street (2 hours, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday) and Hay Street within walking distance from the site. Due to the time restrictions, it is anticipated that these on-street spaces will be subject to a high turnover during the opening hours of the practice.

 

As previously discussed, the provision of tandem car spaces is undesirable for the patients. Given the site constraints and the high accessibility of the locality, it is considered that the provision of 1 patient’s parking bay is acceptable in this instance.

 

Staff of the health consulting practice:

In the light of the size of the medical practice, it is likely to accommodate 3 staff members, being 1 x doctor, 1 x receptionist and 1 x nurse / assistant. It is considered that a total of 2 on-site parking spaces will be suitable to support the demand generated by the staff. It is acceptable for these spaces to be in a tandem arrangement as it is more feasible to coordinate vehicular movements by staff.

 

Accordingly, a special condition is recommended to restrict the number of health practitioner to 1. A further condition is recommended to restrict the total number of staff members to not more than 3 at any one time.

 

Residents:

The proposed 2-bedroom dwelling will generate a parking demand of 1.2 or 1 space. No on-site parking will be provided for the residential component of the development. The proposal is considered acceptable as the shortfall of 1 space is minor in nature and will not result in detrimental impact on the locality as a whole.

 

A special condition is recommended to require the provision of 2 bicycle parking spaces to encourage sustainable modes of transport.

 

Recommended parking layout

It is considered that car spaces numbered 1, 2 and 3 are not adequate as tandem spaces are not suitable for patient parking. These spaces are recommended to be deleted by condition. Car space number 4 should remain for use by patients.

 

As discussed, a total of 2 car spaces should be reserved for staff use. Car spaces 5 and 7 are considered suitable for this purpose.

 

Car space 6 is recommended to be deleted to maximise landscaped areas on the site.

 

10.3  Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

In accordance with the 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

$300,000

1.0%

$3,000

 

11.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable. 

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

Appropriate standard conditions are recommended to address the relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.  

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed within the body of this report.

 

The proposed development is compatible with the residential land uses in the surrounding areas and will continue to provide health services to the local community. The proposal is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to the recommended conditions.

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site has convenient access to local retail services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land uses and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

No submissions have been received. 

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

The proposal is not considered to result in significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to the recommended conditions. The development is considered to be within the public interest, subject to compliance with the conditions of consent.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

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

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

       

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The design of the first floor addition and associated works is sympathetic to the character of Barker Street. The proportions, massing and built form proposed are considered to be compatible with the lower density character of the locality. The development scheme will not result in a significant impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.

 

The SEPP 1 Objection lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the landscaped area standard is considered to be well founded. The development scheme involves the demolition of the existing rear shed and its replacement with landscaped areas. A special condition is also recommended to require additional landscaped areas by deleting an unsuitable car parking bay.

 

A merit-based assessment of the application has been undertaken and it is considered that the proposal is appropriate and reasonable having regard to the existing health consulting use of the site and the desired character of the locality. Whilst the proposed development will result in a degree of intensification by introducing a residential component, specific conditions have been recommended to ensure the site has a suitable parking and access arrangement.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20E of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to the landscaped area, 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. 519/2010 for alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached building, including construction of a first floor level containing a 2-bedroom dwelling, installation of a canopy structure over the rear section of the driveway, demolition of the existing shed at the rear of the site and associated site works, and retention of the existing health consulting practice at the ground floor level, at No. 133 Barker Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

Conditions of Consent

 

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 following plans:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

DA01(B)

October 2010

19 October 2010

Allan Nicholls Architectural Design and Management

DA02(A)

October 2010

19 October 2010

 

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

 

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

 

The above information is to include details of the materials and finishes of the following:

·    External walls

·    Roof

·    Awning

·    Window and door frames

·    Balcony balustrades

·    Downpipes and gutters

 

3.       Revised architectural drawings indicating the accurate property boundaries of the site and reference levels (to AHD) of the roof ridge, gutters, finished floor levels of the ground and first storeys, and awning structures, shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application to the satisfaction of the Council or Accredited Certifier. The above data shall be based on a detailed survey plan prepared by a registered surveyor.

 

4.       The following changes shall be made to the proposed car parking design:

 

(i)  The proposed car spaces numbered 1, 2, 3 and 6 as shown on the approved plans shall be DELETED.

 

(ii) Car spaces numbered 5 and 7 shall be allocated for the exclusive use of the staff of the health consulting practice during its opening hours. Suitable line-marking and signposting are to be provided to indicate the above.

 

(iii) Car space numbered 4 shall be allocated for use by the patients / visitors of the health consulting business. Suitable line-marking and signposting are to be provided to indicate the above.

 

Details demonstrating compliance are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

5.       All car parking spaces shall have dimensions of 5.5m (length) x 2.5m (width).

 

6.       A minimum of two (2) bicycle parking spaces are to be provided within the development site. The design and construction of bicycle parking facilities are to be compliant with Australian Standard 2890.3 - Bicycle parking facilities. Details demonstrating compliance are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate application.

 

7.       The existing single-storey shed at the rear of the site shall be demolished as part of the proposed development.

 

8.       Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon the neighbouring properties and the streetscape. In particular, suitable soft landscaping (that is, grass, shrub and/or tree planting) shall be provided at the rear section of the site to the north of car space number 7.

 

9.       A landscape plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect or designer shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the Director of City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued. The plan shall demonstrate compliance with the relevant conditions of this consent relating to landscaping requirements.

 

10.     The landscaped areas should contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

11.     The landscaping provision shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation prior to the issue of any interim / final occupation certificate, and the landscaping is to be maintained in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

 

12.     Appropriate waste storage areas for both the health consulting business and the residential dwelling are to be provided within the subject development site.

 

The waste storage areas are to be provided behind the front building line and must not obstruct the movement of vehicles entering and exiting the site.

 

Appropriate enclosure structures are to be installed so that the waste bins associated with the health consulting practice will not be accessible by the residents of the dwelling.

 

Details demonstrating compliance are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

13.     The proposed privacy screens on the side elevations of the first floor rear balcony (adjacent to Bedroom 1) shall have a minimum height of 1800mm as measured from the finished floor level. The screens shall be constructed with 30mm wide timber slats, horizontally positioned, and spaced at a maximum of 25mm; or another appropriate design that effectively restricts cross-viewing into the adjoining residential properties. Details demonstrating compliance are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

14.     The following windows are to be constructed with obscured / translucent glazing:

 

a.  First floor bathroom window on the western elevation of the building; and

b.  Stairwell window on the western elevation of the building.

 

Details demonstrating compliance with the above requirements are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

15.     The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façades of the proposed development must not exceed 20 percent.

 

16.     Street 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 proposed development.

 

17.     Any proposed fences on the side or rear boundaries of the site shall not exceed a maximum height of 1800mm, as measured above the existing ground levels.

 

On sloping sites or at changes in ground levels, the maximum height of the fence may exceed the abovementioned specified height by up to 150mm maximum adjacent to any required ‘step-downs’ or changes in ground level.

 

The applicant and owner are advised that the relevant provisions of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 are to be satisfied accordingly and any necessary approvals or agreements are to be obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land beforehand.

 

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

 

19.     No goods, machinery or advertising signs (including A-frame signs) are to be placed on Council’s footway at any time.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure the health consulting business is operated in a proper manner:

 

20.     A maximum of one (1) health care practitioner (e.g. medical doctor) may operate at the premises at any one time.

 

21.     A maximum of three (3) staff members, including the health care practitioner, may be present at the premises at any one time.

 

22.     The hours of operation of the subject health consulting business are restricted to:

9:00am to 6:00pm, Monday to Friday only.

 

The premises shall not be opened to the patients / visitors outside the above approved operation hours.

 

The following condition is applied to meet additional demand for public infrastructure:

 

23.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $300,000, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $3,000.

 

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 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

The following condition is imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency:

 

24.     In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and 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.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant legislative requirements and to provide adequate levels of health, safety and amenity:

 

Building Regulation & Construction Work

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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) Volume One.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate.

 

27.     Prior to the commencement of any building, 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.

 

28.     Prior to the commencement of any building or ‘fit-out’ works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must:

 

·       appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work, and

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

·       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

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

 

29.     The works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority, 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.

 

30.     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, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

32.     A Fire Safety Certificate must be submitted to Council prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, in accordance with any applicable 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 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 is also required to 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.

 

33.     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.

 

34.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor (and a copy of any relevant Certificate of Insurance) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencement of works.

 

35.     New building work and fire safety works are to be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

36.     In existing buildings, the following works are to be carried out to ensure minimum levels of fire safety:-

 

a)     Any new or replacement ceilings walls and floor linings and doorways are required to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

b)     Any residential parts of the building must be provided with a smoke detection and alarm system, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

c)     The residential parts of the building are to be suitably fire-separated from the commercial area encompassed in the development application or, alternatively, provide an interconnected smoke detection and alarm system between the separate occupancies.

 

Details of the above works are to be provided in the construction certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

37.     Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Additional requirements for all development, except for single residential dwellings

·   Saturdays and Sundays before or after a public holiday - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

38.     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,

·     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)     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.

 

f)     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.

 

g)     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.

 

h)     Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in the site management plan which must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council 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 plan is to be maintained on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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 (having a minimum height of 1.5m) 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 necessary, an overhead (B Class type) hoarding may need to be provided to protect the public.

 

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)      A Road / Asset Opening application must be submitted to and be approved by 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 an occupation certificate for the development. For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

39.     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, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the DECC Construction Noise Guideline, by a suitably qualified person is to be developed and implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the plan must be provided to the Council and Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of site works.

 

Environmental health & amenity

 

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

 

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

 

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 DECC/EPA Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

42.     In relation to buildings provided with plant and equipment (e.g. air-conditioners, mechanical ventilation/exhaust systems or refrigeration motors etc), a report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW EPA/DECC Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, Council’s conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations), to the satisfaction of Council.  The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources and a copy of the report must be provided to Council prior to/upon issuing an occupation certificate.

 

 

Waste Management

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Services

 

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

 

The 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.

 

Civil Works Conditions

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

 

45.     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.

 

46.     All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works” and the following requirements:

 

a)       All work on Council land must be carried out by Council, unless specific written approval has been obtained from Council to use non-Council contractors.

 

b)       Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Pre-paid Works Application Form, prior to issuing an occupation certificate, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

c)       If it is proposed to use non-Council contractors to carry out the civil works on Council land, the work must not commence until the written approval has been obtained from Council and the work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, Council’s design details and payment of a Council design and supervision fee.

 

d)       The civil works must be completed in accordance with Council’s conditions of consent and approved design and construction documentation, prior to occupation of the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

 

47.     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.

 

48.     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.

 

Drainage Conditions

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

 

49.     Stormwater runoff from the redeveloped portion of the site shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter along the site frontage by gravity (without the use of a charged system).

 

Waste Management Conditions

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

 

50.     Prior to the Principal Certifying Authority 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 new residence.

 

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. provision of a disabled sanitary facility) and details included in the construction certificate application.

 

Building owners, applicants and builders are advised to liaise with the appointed Certifying Authority prior to lodgement of the Construction Certificate.

 

A3      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.

 

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.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 November 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP92/10

 

 

Subject:                  42 Moverly Road, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/812/2010

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of an existing shed and construction of a new shed on the eastern side of the dwelling

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                John Spiteri

Owner:                         Dean & Deanna Morrow

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

The application details alterations and additions to an “existing semi detached dwelling” to provide for a first floor addition. Council has recently received legal advice that semi-detached dwelling houses in the Residential 2A Zone should be classified as an attached dual occupancy. This is due to the fact that “semis” tend to be constructed with a common dividing wall between the two dwellings and as such are not structurally independent of each other. Hence, the two dwellings are contained within the one building and the development should be classified as an attached dual occupancy rather than dwelling houses.

 

As the proposal is now classified as an attached dual occupancy and not a dwelling house the development standards contained in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) now apply.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposed development exceeds the floor space standard under Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) by more than 10%. The applicant submitted a SEPP1 Objection to the development standard on 20 October 2010. The proposal has a FSR of 0.7:1 which exceeds maximum FSR of 0.5:1. If the proposal was assessed under the Dwelling Houses DCP it would have allowed a FSR of 0.6:1.

 

The proposal is for the demolition of an existing shed and construction of a new shed on the eastern side of the dwelling.  No submissions were received as a result of the notification of the submitted plans.

 

The main issue is the impact of the proposal on the locality with regard to perceived bulk and scale. The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is for the demolition of an existing shed and construction of a new shed on the eastern side of the dwelling.  The proposed shed is to be attached to the eastern side of the dwelling and is to be constructed using masonry with a sheet metal roof.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is on the northern side of Moverly Road and Cooper Street is located 79m to the east. The site has a frontage of 10m, a depth of 30.8m and a site area of 308 square metres. The site has an even slope.

 

A 2 storey semi-detached dwelling currently exists to the site. The locality is residential in nature, consisting predominantly of single and two story semi-detached dwellings on the northern side of Moverly Road and single story detached dwellings on the southern side of Moverly Road.

 

Figure 1:  Aerial photo of the subject site.

 

 

 

Figures 2 & 3:  The existing dwelling on the subject site and the existing shed which is proposed to be demolished.

 

4.    Site History

 

Application

Details

CDC/166/2010

Approved for Alterations and additions.

BA/1254/1997

Approved for an in-ground concrete swimming pool to the rear of the existing dwelling

BC/465/1994

Approved for a semi-detached brick dwelling with tile roof

BA/329/1994

Approved for first floor additions to the dwelling.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

No submissions were received regarding the notification of the application. 

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application was not required to be referred to any technical officers or external bodies

 


7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No master planning requirements apply to the site.

       

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The following clauses of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) are applicable to the development:

 

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

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

 

·      Maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas;

·      Protect the amenity of existing residents; and

·      Allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality.

 

Clause 20F   Floor space ratios

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within the 2A (Residential A Zone) is 0.5:1 whereas the proposed maximum floor space ratio is 0.7:1.

The proposal does not comply with the development standard and the applicant submitted a SEPP 1 Objection on 20 October 2010.

 

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

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), the maximum floor space ratio for development, other than for the purpose of a dwelling house on land zoned 2A Residential is 0.5:1. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Proposal

0.7:1 - gross floor area of 289.5 m2

LEP development standard

0.5:1

Excess above the LEP standard

57.9m2 above the development standard which equates to a proposed 40% excess.

 

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 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”.

 

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

 

-        The development standard is intended to maintain the existing low density of the locality and it is considered that the proposed works are consistent with this objective for the following reasons:

 

·              The proposal is to replace an existing shed to the eastern side of the dwelling with a similar shed. The proposed shed has a gross floor area of 15.5m2 whereas the existing shed has a gross floor area of 11.3m2. This equates to an additional 4.2m2 of gross floor area on the site;

·              The development is ancillary to the use of the existing semi-detached dwelling and the materials which are proposed to be used are in keeping with the existing dwelling on the site and those adjacent the subject site;

·              It is considered that the proposal is in keeping with the existing low density of the locality; and

·              The development will present a low-profile roof as viewed from the side yard of the neighbouring dwelling to the east (44 Moverly Road) and as viewed from the streetscape. The roof design will ensure that the proposed development will not result in significant negative impact on neighbouring properties with regard to perceived bulk and scale and overshadowing.

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 objection on 20 October 2010, which outlines the following justifications for the variation to the standard:

 

-        The proposal is to remove an existing shed (4.9 x 2.4m) and construct a new shed (7.4 x 2m) in a similar location with a great side boundary setback;

 

-        The proposal creates approximately 3.2m2 of additional floor area representing 1.1% of the site area;

 

-        The proposed additional floor area is of no significant bulk or scale, positioned by the existing building line, and will have little if any significant additional adverse impacts to neighbouring residents or streetscape;

 

-        The proposal will comply with Council’s required landscaped area (approximately 45%).

 

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 floor space ratio 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 2A Zone in that it will allow development which is ancillary to the present use of the site as an attached dual occupancy development, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

·      Comment:

The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not allow the best economic use of the site and the delivery of a suitably scaled in-fill residential 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:

 

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 proposed new shed 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 floor space ratio 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.

 

9.         Policy Controls

9.1      Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

 


Development Control Plan –

Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40% of site provided as landscaped area (RLEP Clause 20E)

20% of the site area is permeable.

42%

 

 

22.6%

Yes

 

 

Yes

Floor area

(Site area 308m2) maximum FSR 0.5:1  (RLEP Clause 20F)

0.7:1

No, however the applicant has submitted a SEPP1 Objection to the development standard – See further discussion above)

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

No change from existing.

Yes

External wall height to the rear maximum 3.5m.

2.4m

Yes

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

Cut or fill < 1m.

Yes

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

No excavation – additional space proposed to first floor of existing garages.

Yes

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

No excavation – additional space proposed to first floor of existing garages.

Yes

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

No change from existing

Yes

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m

No change from existing

Yes

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

Shed to be setback 450mm at ground level however no unreasonable impacts will result as a result of visual bulk or overshadowing. Further, neighbouring properties will retain access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air as a result of the proposed works.   

No, however non-compliance is supported in this case.

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

N/A

N/A

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

New dwellings comply with 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

Shed not subject to BASIX requirements.

N/A

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

Private open space to the existing dwelling will receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm on 21 June.

Yes

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

North-facing living areas to the existing dwelling will receive at least 3 hrs sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June. Complies.

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

No impact to solar collectors

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

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

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

 

The principal outdoor recreation spaces of neighbouring dwellings will receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am- 3pm 21 June

Yes

 

9.1 Council Policies

No Council policies are relevant to the proposal.

 


10. Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

10.1  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 addition to the existing dual occupancy is not considered to result in unreasonable environmental impacts on the neighbouring properties and the surrounding built environment.

 

A.      Perceived bulk and scale

As discussed above, the proposed alterations will not impose any unreasonable impact on neighbouring properties with regard to the perceived bulk and scale of the development.

 

10.2  The suitability of the site for the development

For the reasons discussed above, the development is assessed as being suitable development for the site.

 

10.3  The public interest

Should approval be granted for the proposal, it is considered that no adverse impact on surrounding properties and the locality would result. Consequently,  the proposed development is considered to be in the public interest and approval is recommended.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4          Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4A:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4B:        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 a relevant development standard of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) however the SEPP 1 Objection submitted to Council is supported. The proposal complies with the objectives and performance requirements of the Dwellings and Dual Occupancies DCP and if approved, should not result in any unreasonable or 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 Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to Floor Space Ratio, 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/812/2010 for the demolition of an existing shed and construction of a new shed on the eastern side of the dwelling, at No. 42 Moverly Road, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 1 of 3 through to 3 of 3, dated August 2010 and received by Council on 21 September 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 external materials, colours and finishes of the shed are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building.

 

3.      Metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. colourbond).

 

The following condition is imposed to satisfy relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

4.      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 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:

 

5.      Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

If required, absorption pits must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed or flow onto any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

 

6.      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:

 

7.      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.

 

8.      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).

 

9.      Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)    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.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and 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.

 

b)    a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

 

c)    a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

                                        

d)    the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

e)    at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing building works.

 

10.    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 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).

 

11.    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; and

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

 

12.    In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor (and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Insurance) or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, in writing, prior to commencement of works.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

14.    The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change (formerly EPA) and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines & Codes of Practice

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·          The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·          Relevant DECC/EPA Guidelines

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Demolition 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 (including removal of any asbestos)

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

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

·          Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be provided to Council, not less than 2 days before commencing such works.

 

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

 

16.    Any work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·          Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

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

 

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

 

·          On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

 

·          Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.

 

·          A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the principal certifying authority immediately upon completion of the asbestos related works, which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

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.

 

17.    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.

 

If required, 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.

 

If required, 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.

 

18.    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.

 

a)     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:

 

i)      protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

ii)      where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

 

b)     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.

 

19.    Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

20.    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 requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW DECC Guidelines must be satisfied at all times.

 

Noise and vibration from all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, is required to be developed and implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of site works.

 

The Construction Noise Management Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the DECC Construction Noise Guideline.

 

21.    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, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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.

 

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.

 

22.    A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any 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 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 amenity to the satisfaction of Council. 

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

The sediment and erosion control measures are to be in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council and details are to be provided in the Construction Site Management Plan. 

 

23.    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 or 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)     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.

 

c)     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.

 

d)     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.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate security provisions are made for vehicular access, parking and public infrastructure:

 

24.    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 Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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.

 

A1      A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building 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 (greater than 3m in length) or any container or other article.

 

A2      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.

 

This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 November 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP93/10

 

 

Subject:                  10 Waratah Avenue, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/538/2010

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Ground floor alterations to the existing semi-detached dwelling; with new terrace and swimming pool at rear; and part side boundary fencing

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Simon & Fiona Killcross

Owner:                         Simon & Fiona Killcross

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

The application details ground floor alterations to the ‘existing semi detached dwelling’ including new terrace with roof and swimming pool at the rear; and part side boundary fencing.  Council has recently received legal advice that semi-detached dwelling houses in the Residential 2C Zone as should be classified multi-unit housing. This is due to the fact that “semis” tend to be constructed with a common dividing wall between the two dwellings and as such are not structurally independent of each other. Hence, the two dwellings are contained within the one building and the development should be classified as multi-unit housing rather than dwelling houses.

 

As the proposal is now classified as multi unit housing and not a dwelling house the development standards contained in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) now apply.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal includes a SEPP 1 Objection that is below the minimum standard by more than 10%. If the application was assessed against the provisions of the DCP-Dwelling Houses which were the relevant controls prior to the new classification of semis, it would have complied with the landscaped area preferred solution of 40%.

 

The main issue is the potential for any impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 objection to the Landscape area 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 and the application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application details ground floor alterations to the existing semi-detached dwelling by reconfiguration of the living areas at the rear of the property and new terrace with roof structure at the rear of the dwelling. The proposal also includes an above ground swimming pool with deep screen planting and screen fencing surrounding the pool.  The proposal does not include any additional floor area but proposes to replace some of the existing landscaping, adjacent to the pool with new landscaping.  In addition, the proposal includes alterations to the western elevation by bricking in of an existing window and the replacement of an existing window.

 

Amendments to the proposal during assessment

Type

Description

Encroachments

 

Amended plans were received relocating the proposed retaining walls/fencing on the eastern & rear boundaries to be wholly within the subject site. The assessment is based on these amended plans.

 

However, it is noted that the amended plans continue to show a portion of the development (the wall on the eastern side of the rear terrace) being located on the centre of the boundary between the properties still encroaching on the neighbouring property’s side.  Consequently, a condition is included which requires this wall not to encroach onto the adjoining property.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject property is located on the southern side of Waratah Avenue between Botany Street and Arthur Lane in Randwick.  The site is currently occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling. The site has a frontage width of 6.095m, a depth of 39.545m and a total site area of 241.5m2.  Neighbouring the subject property to the east at no. 12 Waratah Avenue is the other half of the attached single semi-detached dwelling and adjoining the property to the west at no. 8 Warathah Avenue is a single storey dwelling.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of a mixture of single and two storey semi detached and free standing dwelling houses.

 

4.    Site History

 

There is no relevant history related to this application.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP for Notification. As a result of this notification no submissions were received.

 

5.1 Objections

There is no relevant history related to this development application.

 

5.2 Support

No objections have been received for this application.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application was referred to Councils Development Engineers for comments; the following comments were made:

 

An application has been received for ground floor alterations to the existing semi-detached dwelling; with new terrace and swimming pool at rear; and new rear and part side boundary fencing at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by Pressley & Temelko Architects dated 5th May 2010;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects By Pressley & Temelko Architects dated 18th May 2010

·      Detail & Contour Survey by Lockley Land Title Solutions dated 28th April 2010.

 

Flooding Comments

The Planning Officer is advised that the subject development site is located adjacent to a localised low point and overland flow path and may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events.

 

A flood study will not be required however for the following reasons;

§ The swimming pool and rear terrace are situated well above the natural surface (over 1.5m) and due to the relatively small catchment they will not be affected by floodwaters.

§ The application does not propose any additional floor space.

§ An overland flow path proceeds down the neighbouring property at No.8 Waratah Street and as the proposed pool and retaining wall are on the opposite side of the site adjacent to No.12 Waratah Street they are unlikely to affect the passage of any overland flow.

 

Drainage Comments

As the site is rear draining Development Engineering needs to ensure that the proposed pool does not interfere with any existing drainage system and the redeveloped and existing roof area can be adequately drained. Appropriate conditions have been added to this report.

 

Sewer Comments

An examination of Council’s E-view GIS system and submitted plans has revealed that the proposed pool will be built over a Sydney Water sewer line. The submitted plans indicate that the level of the sewer will be below the base of the proposed pool thereby allowing the pool to be built subject to Sydney Water requirements.

 

Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate the approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine how the development will affect the sewer line, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped.

 

Landscape Comments

The clump of Bamboo in the front yard, in the northwest corner of the site is not covered by Council’s TPO, and as it will not be affected, conditions are not required.

 

Separate approval has already been granted for the removal of several semi-established trees in the rear yard (refer TA/265/2010), including a Pseudoacacia species (Robinia), a Tibouchina granulosa (Lasiandra), Olea europaea (Olive Tree) and two Pittosporum variegatum (Native Daphne’s), due to their inappropriate location and overcrowding, and lasts for 12 months (June 2011).

 

If the applicant does not remove these trees for whatever reason prior to the TA approval lapsing, permission for their removal has also been included in this report in order to accommodate the proposed works as shown, as this ensures that their removal is also directly linked to the development, with this consent lasting for five years from the date of determination. 

 

Still in the rear yard, along the western boundary, there is a 6 metre tall Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) and a 4 metre clump of Dypsis lutescens (Golden Cane Palm), which appear in good health and condition, would assist with partial screening and privacy between this area of private open space and neighbouring properties, and are deemed suitable for retention as existing site features, particularly when involving swimming pools.

 

Their retention will be possible given that the pool is located on the opposite (eastern) side of the site, about 2.5 metres away, with only minimal excavations required due to the pool being above ground, which both palms should be able to sustain given their contained root systems and a general high tolerance to disturbance, with relevant measures to ensure their preservation included in this report.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning Requirements apply to the site.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

 

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

The site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not compromise the desirable attributes of the residential area, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Part 2b – Principal Development Standards

 

a. Clause 20E Landscaped area

Development other than for the purpose of a dwelling house within a 2C zone must provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area.

 

The proposal provides a total landscaped area of 43.7% which is less than the minimum requirement by 6.3%.

 

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 20E of RLEP 1998, the minimum landscaped area within 2C Zones is 50%. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Landscaped area

Proposal

43.7% (105.7m2 )

LEP development standard

50% (120.75m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

Shortfall of 6.3% (15.05m2) less than the LEP standard

 

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).

 

Landscaped area - Clause 20E

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

 

“To operate together with controls for floor space ratio and building height to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area”.

 

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

 

-      No additional FSR is proposed to be added on the site and the existing FSR is maintained at 0.51:1;

 

-      If the development was to comply with the standard part of the existing dwelling would need to be demolished.  This would be unreasonable given that the existing residence has been on the site for nearly 100 years; and

 

-      The amount of landscaped area provided on the site is similar or larger than that provided on surrounding sites as the site does not have a garage or carport, it has more landscaped area than the surrounding properties.

 

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

 

-    The landscaped area shortfall is not significant because the proposal will result in the landscaped area on the site being reduced to 43.7% which is minor and will not contribute to any negative impacts on the amenity of the subject and adjoining properties. 

 

-    There is adequate private open space in the rear yard to accommodate the recreation needs of the occupants as well as provide space for service functions. 

 

-    There is sufficient permeable treatment on the site to facilitate infiltration of storm water for urban runoff. 

 

-    There is sufficient planting on the site to soften the visual impact of development.

 

Comment:

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.”

 

Landscaped area Comments:

The variation from landscaped area standards is 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 use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

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

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

Landscaped area Comments:

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 allow the best use of the site and the delivery of an accessible garage suitable for mobility impaired persons.

 

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 standards 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 design scheme 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 standard 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 Landscaped area development 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 C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

b. Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house within 2A zones is 0.5:1. The proposal complies with this clause as the existing FSR will not be altered on the site.

 

c. Clause 20G Building Heights

The maximum height for a building other than a dwelling house within a 2C zone is 12m from any point on ground level with a maximum external wall height of 10m.  The proposal has an overall height of 4.55m and a maximum external wall height of 4.35m; both of these height controls will comply with this standard.

 

Part 3 – Miscellaneous Provisions

 

a. Clause 22 – Services

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

 

The proposal will require additional services. A specific condition is recommended to require the applicant to make all necessary arrangements with the service authority for any adjustments to the utility services connections. The proposal will comply, subject to conditions.

 

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.

 

Multi Unit Housing – DCP

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.  Where non-compliance results, an assessment is made as to whether the proposal satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

The proposal will not be altering the existing FSR on the site. (The existing FSR is maintained at 0.51:1). It is not considered that the alterations to the rear of the existing dwelling will result in any unreasonable adverse impacts to the adjoining dwellings nor will they detract from the existing character of the building or streetscape.  The alterations are not visible from the street.

 

The proposal will provide for a landscaped area of 43.7%, not complying the preferred solution requirement of 50% for a site area of 241.5m².

 

There are no major objections to the proposal not complying with the preferred solution landscaping requirement as the degree of non compliance is not significant and the available area for landscaping is adequate to accommodate and serve the occupants needs as well as providing space for service functions for outdoor recreation within the private rear yard.  A SEPP 1 objection to the landscaped area has been made (Refer to comments in Section 8 of this report); and the non compliance with the landscaped area is considered acceptable.

 

The proposal has an overall height of 4.55m and a maximum external wall height of 4.35m; both of these heights will comply with the preferred solution controls. The height of the development is not considered to be excessive or out of keeping with the established character of the immediate locality and the height will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing, loss of privacy or views. 

 

To the western side of the dwelling the rear terrace extension and new wall to the dwelling is setback 900mm from the boundary complying with the preferred solution requirements of the DCP.  However, to the eastern side the new ground floor terrace and wall to the rear of the dwelling is sited on the eastern side boundary with a nil setback not complying with the preferred solution requirement.  The above ground swimming pool to the rear of the dwelling is located closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary also not complying with the preferred solution requirement.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the non compliance with the rear and side setbacks requirements will not adversely impact the character of the streetscape as the addition is to the rear of the dwelling and the height is generally consistent with existing built form on the site and adjoining sites.  The proposed above ground pool and alterations to the rear are not visible from the street and will not have any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining properties in terms of privacy, fresh air or overshadowing. The effective height of the walls and screening along the eastern and rear boundaries is not dissimilar to other outbuilding structures in the area which are sited up to the rear boundary; and there is existing vegetation at the rear which partially screens and already overshadows the rear yards of the adjoining properties. The development is considered to comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP controls for building setbacks. 

 

It is not expected that the new openings to the southern (rear) elevation will have any unreasonable privacy impacts to adjoining properties as the openings will primarily overlook the rear yard of the subject site and will be screened by the proposed privacy walls to the ends of the terrace.  Therefore, the new openings will not compromise privacy levels of adjoining properties. To the eastern elevation the privacy levels will be slightly improved as the existing window in the new kitchen will be removed and bricked up; and although the new window in the living/dining room is slightly larger in height than the existing window it is replacing, it should not add any unreasonable impacts to the neighbouring property as it will not change the existing outlook.

 

It is not expected that there will be any additional unreasonable direct overlooking into neighbouring properties. The proposed new terrace to the rear of the dwelling will be adequately screened by the proposed blade walls to the ends of the terrace and will primarily overlook the rear yard of the subject site.  Also, the new terrace is replacing an existing (slight smaller) terrace.

 

Whilst the proposed swimming pool is elevated from the natural ground, it is not considered this will have an unreasonable privacy impact to the adjoining property owners as privacy screen fencing and planting are proposed to the eastern and rear boundaries which will minimise direct overlooking, and there is limited deck area around the pool so the sides of the pool can not be accessed.

 

Whilst there will be some additional overshadowing to the rear yard of the subject site, this is unavoidable given the orientation of the site and is not considered to be significant. The additional overshadowing should not unreasonably impact the adjoining dwellings.

 

The proposed development will comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Multi Unit Housing. The residential character of the site will be maintained and the proposed development is not considered to significantly impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties nor will it impact on the character of the streetscape.

 

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

 

The proposed development satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposal will improve the amenity on the site and is consistent with the relevant purposes and objectives of Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).  Subject to conditions it is not considered that the development will give rise to any significant environmental impacts on adjoining properties, or have any unreasonable adverse impacts on the visual amenity and character of the street.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20E of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Landscaped area 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. 538/2010 for ground floor alterations to the existing semi-detached dwelling; with new terrace and swimming pool at rear; and part side boundary fencing at 10 Waratah Avenue, Randwick, 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 amended plans numbered DA 01 to DA 04 (Issue B), dated 27/10/2010 and received by Council on the 27 October  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 colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the proposed building works are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

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

 

3.       Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work (this includes the wall on the eastern side of the rear terrace) will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

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

 

The following condition is imposed to satisfy relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

5.       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;

 

6.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $172,480 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $862.40.

 

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 imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

7.       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.

 

8.       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.

 

9.       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)

 

10.     In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue an 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 an 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:

 

11.     Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

Absorption pits must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed or flow onto any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

 

12.     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:

 

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.

 

14.     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).

 

15.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)    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.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and 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.

 

b)    a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

 

c)    a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

                                        

d)    the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

e)    at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing building works.

 

16.     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 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).

 

17.     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; and

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

 

18.     The relevant requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with, in accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor (and a copy of any relevant Certificate of Insurance) or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencement of works.

 

19.     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.

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

 

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

21.     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.

 

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:

 

22.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change (formerly EPA) and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines & Codes of Practice

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·          The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·          Relevant DECC/EPA Guidelines

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Demolition 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 (including removal of any asbestos)

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

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

·          Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be provided to Council, not less than 2 days before commencing such works.

 

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

 

24.     Any work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·          Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

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

 

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

 

·          On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

 

·          Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.

 

·          A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the principal certifying authority immediately upon completion of the asbestos related works, which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

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.

 

25.     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.

26.     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.

 

a)     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:

i)      protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

ii)      where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

b)     The condition referred to in subclause a) 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.

 

27.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent 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:

 

·        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,

·        new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g. additions to a semi-detached dwelling or a terraced dwelling),

·        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 may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required 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.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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 requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW DECC Guidelines must be satisfied at all times.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, is required to be developed and implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of site works.

 

The Construction Noise Management Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the DECC Construction Noise Guideline.

 

30.     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, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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.

 

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.

 

31.     A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any 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 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 amenity to the satisfaction of Council. 

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

The sediment and erosion control measures are to be in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council and details are to be provided in the Construction Site Management Plan. 

 

32.     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 or 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)     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.

 

c)     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.

 

a.     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.

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

 

33.     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.

 

34.     All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works” and the following requirements:

 

a)       All work on Council land must be carried out by Council, unless specific written approval has been obtained from Council to use non-Council contractors.

 

b)       Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Pre-paid Works Application Form, prior to issuing an occupation certificate, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

c)       If it is proposed to use non-Council contractors to carry out the civil works on Council land, the work must not commence until the written approval has been obtained from Council and the work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, Council’s design details and payment of a Council design and supervision fee.

 

d)       The civil works must be completed in accordance with Council’s conditions of consent and approved design and construction documentation, prior to occupation of the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

 

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

 

35.     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.

 

36.     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.

 

37.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate the approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water asset’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easement, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped.

 

         Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au for Quick Check agent details and Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets.

 

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

 

 

38.     All proposed footings located adjacent to the drainage easement within No.8 Waratah Avenue  shall either be:

A.       Founded on rock, or;

B.       Extend below a 30 degrees line taken from the level of the pipe invert  at the edge of the drainage reserve/easement (angle of repose).

Structural details demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

The footings must be inspected by the applicant's engineer to ensure that these footings are either founded on rock or extend below the "angle of repose”. Documentary evidence of compliance with this condition is to be submitted to certifying authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction.

 

39.       Detailed drainage plans shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The drainage plans shall demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this development approval.

 

40.     Stormwater runoff from the redeveloped portion of the site shall be discharged either:

 

1.       To the kerb and gutter along the site frontage by gravity (preferably without the use of a charged system); OR

 

2.       To Council’s underground drainage system by gravity (without the use of a charged system) along the site frontage.

 

3.       Through a private drainage easement(s) to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system); OR

 

41.     Should a charged system be required to drain any portion of the site, the charged system must be designed with suitable clear-outs/inspection points at pipe bends and junctions.

 

         NOTE: The amount of head in the charged line shall not exceed 1.0m in depth.

 

42.     Should the site discharge to Council’s underground drainage system (option b) a reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over any pipelines discharging from the site to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

43.     Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the required discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with Randwick City Council's Stormwater Code.

 

All pump out water must pass through a stilling pit prior to being discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter.

 

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

 

44.     That part of the nature-strip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works 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.

 

45.     A landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of either AILDM or AILA) shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, prior to the commencement of any site works, and must detail the following:

 

a.   A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which includes proposed species, botanic and common names, pot size at the time of planting, quantity, location, dimensions at maturity, maintenance practices (hedging, shaping etc), as well as any other landscape details to describe the proposed works;

 

b.   In order to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties from the elevated deck/pool surrounds, species provided within the raised planter shown along the eastern and southern boundaries must be those which will achieve a minimum height of 1.8 metres above the water level of the pool.

 

46.     Approval is granted for removal of the following trees as part of the proposed works:

 

·              A Pseudoacacia species (Robinia), Tibouchina granulosa (Lasiandra), Olea europaea (Olive Tree) and two Pittosporum variegatum (Native Daphne’s), all in the rear yard, due both to inappropriate location and over-crowding, as well as to accommodate the proposed pool a shown.

 

NOTE: Separate approval has already been granted for the removal of these same trees as part of TA/265/2010; however, this only lasts for 12 months (June 2011). The approval contained in this consent relates directly to the proposed development, and lasts for 5 years from the date of determination.

 

47.     In order to ensure retention of the Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) and Dypsis lutescens (Golden Cane Palm) located in the rear yard, along the western boundary in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show their retention, with the position and diameter of both their trunks and canopies to be clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.       Any excavations associated with any new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar in the rear yard, must be setback a minimum distance of 2 metres of their trunks at ground level so as to minimise root damage.

 

c.       These two palms must be physically protected by installing a total of four star pickets at a setback of 1 metre to their north, east and south (measured off the outside edge of their trunks at ground level), matching up with the western site boundary, to which shade cloth, safety tape/para-webbing or similar shall be permanently attached so as to completely enclose these two palms as one group 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 (TPZ), DO NOT REMOVE/ENTER".

 

e.       Within the TPZ, 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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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 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 (greater than 3m in length) or any container or other article.

 

A3      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

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.

 

 

Attachment/s:

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 November 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP94/10

 

 

Subject:                  65 Earl Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/608/2010

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including new first floor, construction of hardstand car space with access from Castle Street and new rear fencing

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Scott Andrew Barnes

Owner:                         Scott Andrew Barnes

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

The application details substantial alterations and additions to the ‘existing semi detached dwelling’ including new first floor level, construction of hardstand car space with access from Castle Street and new rear fencing.  Council has recently received legal advice that semi-detached dwelling houses in the Residential 2A Zone as should be classified multi-unit housing. This is due to the fact that “semis” tend to be constructed with a common dividing wall between the two dwellings and as such are not structurally independent of each other. Hence, the two dwellings are contained within the one building and the development should be classified as multi-unit housing rather than dwelling houses.

 

As the proposal is now classified as multi unit housing and not a dwelling house the development standards contained in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) now apply.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal includes a SEPP 1 Objection that exceeds the standard (of 0.50:1) by more than 10% have a FSR of 0.86:1. Note: If the development was to be assessed under the current Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP the FSR allowable would be 0.65:1.

 

The main issue is the potential for any impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 objection to the FSR area 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 and the application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

  

The application details substantial alterations and additions to the ‘existing semi detached dwelling’ to cater for an open plan living area on the ground floor level and provide for a new first floor level containing an additional two bedrooms and a bathroom, a en-suite, walk in wardrobe and balcony to the rear off the master bedroom.  The proposal also includes the construction of hardstand car space with access from Castle Street and new 1.8m high rendered masonry rear boundary fencing with a solid metal vehicle sliding gate.

 

The proposal will provide for 71.88m of additional floor area to the dwelling (5.58m² to the ground floor level and 66.3m² to the first floor level).

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject property is located on the eastern side of Earl Street between Stephen Street and Challis Lane.  The site is currently occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling. The site has a frontage width of 6.095m, a depth of 31.37m and a total site area of 191.2m2.  Neighbouring the subject property to the north at no. 63 Earl Street is the other half of the attached single semi, and adjoining the property to the west at no. 67 Earl Street is a two storey dwelling.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of a mixture of single and two storey semi detached and free standing dwelling houses.

 

4.    Site History

 

There is no relevant history related this development application.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

 

1/67 Earl Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

1. They do not believe that the shadow diagrams submitted for the proposal are accurate. There are concerns that the proposed development will overshadow their existing north facing lower window and the lower windows to their approved development.  The non compliant setbacks will directly reduce solar access and further block views from these windows.  A further submission was received by the objector showing a year data of the shadow casted to their north facing windows at a setback of 700mm (non compliant) and 1.5m (compliant). The objector states when comparing the setbacks the data shows that the proposed non compliant setback will have significant solar impacts to their property where as the complaint setback will significant improve solar access during the equinox period.

 

2. The proposed flat roof, the rear balcony and the removal of the old chimney are in congruent to the existing dwelling and to the overriding features of the locality which is dominated by steep pitched roofs, ornate ridge lines and old chimneys.  This impacts the Castle Street streetscape; and heritage significants and character of the area. A first floor addition at this semi will dominate and diminish the aesthetic of the 4 heritage listed properties within the area.  There is no mention in the plan or Heritage statement as to how the 2 original chimneys split across the shared border of the semi’s will be affected.

 

3. Due to the elevated nature of their property, there is privacy issue with the windows W5 and W10.

 

4. The ground level of 67 Earl Street is shown incorrectly in both the streetscape elevation and rear elevation.

 

5. Outlines of the existing structure are not shown in any elevations as required.

 

6. Detailed elevations showing the development against their building would aid in assessing impacts.

1. Refer to discussion below in Section 9 under Solar Access and Energy Efficiency.

 

Note: Council’s DCP requires Council to consider overshadowing impacts during the winter solstice and the assessment (discussed below) shows that the degree of overshadowing caused by the non-compliant setback is not unreasonable and is actually less than that which would occur from a fully compliant development with a 7m external wall height and 1.5m first floor side setback. Consequently, the proposal is considered acceptable.

 

2. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. Whilst there were some initial concerns in relation to the complicated design of the proposal and its prominence in the secondary streetscape; a comparison of the proposal with other development in the area (particularly the adjoining dwelling at no. 67 Earl Street), revealed that the design would not be inconsistent with existing streetscape (Refer to SEPP 1 objection to FSR, provided that the upper level balcony did not project beyond the existing rear alignment of the semi-detached dwelling. 

 

The proposal is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the setting of the heritage items within the immediate streetscape and no further objections were raised by Councils Heritage officer.  The proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Part 4 - Heritage Provisions of the Randwick LEP (Consolidation).

 

3. These windows are either highlight windows or roof skylight windows and will comply with the preferred solution requirements for Visual and Acoustic Privacy in Councils DCP.

 

4. An adequate survey plan has been submitted to AHD will allow Council to accurately depict the location and height of the objectors property.

 

5. An outline of the existing development is not considered necessary in this particular case as a site inspection with photos and adequate survey plan has been submitted to AHD will allow Council to make a proper assessment of the proposed development and any impacts to adjoining development.

 

6. This is not a requirement under Councils check list.  A site inspection with photos and survey plan are adequate to aid in assessing any potential impacts to adjoining properties and streetscape.

 

63 Earl Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

1. The proposed development contradicts the heritage character and the style of the area and therefore is directly in breach of the Council’s objectives and regulations of Zone 2A.  The front streetscape of their property will suffer from the damaged heritage streetscape of peaked roofs.

 

2.  Found the quality of the plans to be inadequate. The documents must comply with engineering and building code standards.

1. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. Whilst there were some initial concerns in relation to the complicated design of the proposal and its prominence in the secondary streetscape (Castle Street); an comparison of the proposal with other development in the area (particularly the adjoining dwelling at no. 67 Earl Street), revealed that the design would not be inconsistent with existing streetscape, provided that the upper level balcony did not project beyond the existing rear alignment of the semi-detached dwelling. 

 

The proposal is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the setting of the heritage items within the immediate streetscape and no further objections were raised by Councils Heritage officer.  The proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Part 4 - Heritage Provisions of the Randwick LEP (Consolidation).

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the development is permissible within this zone. The development is considered to be consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 in that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment of the locality.   The development will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area and will not unreasonably compromise the amenity of existing residents.

 

2. The plans were considered adequate in order for Council’s Planning officer to make an access of the proposed development. Standard conditions are included which requires the development to comply with the BCA and engineering code standards. 

 

 

13 Castle Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

1. The proposed development does not meet guidelines set out in both the DCP and North Randwick Heritage Conservation guideline.  The floor area proposed exceeds the allowable DCP requirements for the site.  The proposal is excessive in scale and will create a bulky form that detracts from the surrounding character as viewed from Castle Street and is not compatible with the existing character of the locality.  The development will detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dual occupancy.

 

2. Privacy concerns from the rear first floor balcony as it will overlook into their private courtyard.

 

3.  The documentation and plans submitted do not show the two central shared chimneys.  Would like clarification that the chimneys on their side will not be removed.

1. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. Whilst there were some initial concerns in relation to the complicated design of the proposal and its prominence in the secondary streetscape (Castle Street); an comparison of the proposal with other development in the area (particularly the adjoining dwelling at no. 67 Earl Street), revealed that the design would not be inconsistent with existing streetscape, provided that the upper level balcony did not project beyond the existing rear alignment of the semi-detached dwelling. 

 

The proposal is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the setting of the heritage items within the immediate streetscape and no further objections were raised by Councils Heritage officer.  The proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Part 4 - Heritage Provisions of the Randwick LEP (Consolidation) and the North Randwick Heritage Conservation guideline.

 

The proposal is deemed to satisfy the performance requirement of the DCP, namely, that the proposal will not become a distracting visual element in the area and is not considered excessive in respects to bulk and scale. The proposed development will not be out of keeping with the established bulk and scale of similar residential development in the immediate locality which includes examples of other upper level additions to semi detached dwellings i.e. 43 & 45 Earl Street. Also, directly adjoining the subject site at No. 67 Earl Street is a relatively large dual occupancy which has an FSR greater than the subject site.

 

Whilst the preferred solution is not complied with, the proposed development demonstrated that the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied. As such the proposed FSR is considered acceptable.

 

2. It is recommended that the rear first floor balcony be reduced in depth so that it does not project beyond the existing rear alignment of the semi-detached dwelling (refer to Heritage comments); this should minimise the scale and privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties.  Further, it is not expected that the rear balcony will have any unreasonable direct overlooking into neighbouring properties as it will primarily over the rear yard of the subject site, 1.8m high privacy screens are provided to the ends of the balcony; and the balcony is located off a bedroom which is considered to be a low use room.  Also, its size is relatively small which restricts heavily pedestrian flow.

 

3. A condition is included which requires the two chimneys between the subject and adjoining semi to be retained.

 

5.2 Support

No supporting letters have been received for this application.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

Development Engineers

An application has been received for alterations and additions at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Dwg No 39/10 by P Banfield dated 23/7/2010;

 

Landscape Comments

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

Heritage Comments

The site is within the North Randwick heritage conservation area with frontages to Earl Street and Castel Street and is occupied by a single storey semi-detached cottage, part of a pair comprising nos.63 and 65 Earl Street.  The pair retains much of its original character including slate roofing, timber and iron verandah detailing and timber double hung windows, although original face brickwork has been painted.  It is considered that the dwelling makes a positive contribution to the heritage value to the conservation area through its scale, form, materials and detailing.  To the north of the site, at no.59 and 61 Earl Street, is a pair of single storey weatherboard cottages listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).  The Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for no.61 describes it as an “outstanding picturesque timber cottage, part of good streetscape grouping … Some very good detailing.  In excellent condition.”  Further to the north at no.55 and 57 Earl Street, is a single storey weatherboard semi-detached pair, also listed as a heritage item.  To the south of the site is a two storey interwar flat building with a front façade which has been considerably altered. 

 

The application proposes alterations and additions including an upper level.  At ground floor level it is proposed to remove a number of walls and construct new walls to provide a new bathroom and laundry, and open plan kitchen, dining and family room area with a new rear patio.  At first floor level it is proposed to provide two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a walk-in robe and rear balcony.  At the rear of the site it is proposed to replace the existing garage with an open car space and to the replace the existing rear fence. 

 

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement which argues that the proposal will not dominate the streetscape or the front of the existing dwelling, that the existing parapet and chimney are retained and the simple design of the addition will be subservient to the original and not detract from the front façade. 

 

In relation to ground level changes it is noted that the existing roof of the dwelling comprises 3 sections.  The front section of the cottage which contains two bedrooms has a steeply pitched roof, the centre section has a medium pitched roof sloping to the side, and the rear section has a low pitched roof sloping to the rear.  The application proposes to retain the two front bedrooms and to replace the rear wing with a two storey wing set back from the side boundaries at the upper level but partially built to the side boundaries at the ground level.  Given that the proposed changes affect the rear wing only, the proposal will not impact on the more significant fabric at the front of the dwelling. 

 

In relation to the proposed car space, by removing the existing garage in conjunction with the rear additions to the dwelling, the proposal will retain a reasonably open rear garden area. 

 

In relation to the proposed upper level addition, the Draft Development Control Plan recommends that second level additions will be permitted only in very limited circumstances, including where roof space is converted to provide accommodation without intruding on the streetscape of an otherwise intact building, or where the second level is set back far enough to appear as a separate structure.  While a number of the cottages within the group retain their rear wings in a largely intact form, it is noted that nos.41 and 43 Earl Street have been subject to upper level additions (DA/165/2007, approved in September 2007 and DA/397/2008 approved in July 2008).  It is noted that that the approved upper level additions to this pair comprise only one bedroom and are somewhat smaller that the subject proposal and are set further to the rear.  It is noted that the proposed upper level addition is set back around 1m behind the ridge of the existing pitched roof and there are some concerns that the proposed upper level will have a greater impact on the main roof form.  It is noted that the primary frontage of the dwelling to Earl Street, with the secondary frontage to Castle Street.  The disparity in scale and bulk between original single storey rear wings and more recent two storey additions produces an inconsistent streetscape to Castle Street, accentuated by the varying massing and design of the upper level additions.  There are some concerns that the complicated design of the proposal including varying side and rear building lines at ground floor and upper floor level will increase its prominence in the secondary streetscape. 

 

It is suggested that a meeting be organised to discuss these issues.

 

Suggest inclusion of the following further comments:

 

My original memo raised concerns that the complicated design of the proposal including varying side and rear building lines at ground floor and upper floor level will increase the prominence of the addition in the secondary streetscape of Castle Street.  I support the inclusion of a consent condition requiring that the upper level balcony be reduced in depth so that its rear edge does not project beyond the line of the ground floor wall.  This amendment will reduce the top heaviness and bulk of the upper level and will simplify the form of the rear addition.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning Requirements apply to the site.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

 

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

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not compromise the desirable attributes of the residential area, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Part 2b – Principal Development Standards

 

a. Clause 20E Landscaped area

Development other than for the purpose of a dwelling house within a 2A zone must provide a minimum of 40% of the total site area as landscaped area.

 

The proposal provides a total landscaped area of 40% which complies with this clause.

 

b. Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house within 2A zones is 0.5:1. This proposal has a total floor space ratio of 0.87:1 which substantial exceeds the allowable maximum permitted for this site as stipulated in the control. A SEPP 1 Objection to this standard has been lodged by the applicant for consideration.

 

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 20F of RLEP 1998, the maximum FSR within 2A Zones is 0.5:1 respectively. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Proposal

0.87:1 (167m2 )

LEP development standard

0.5:1 (95.6m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

74.69% excess (71.4m2)

 

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).

 

FSR - Clause 20F

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

 

“To operate together with controls for building height and landscaped area to limit the size and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area”.

 

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

 

-      Notwithstanding that the proposal exceeds the numeric requirement, the design is not of a large scale and bulk and will not be visible from Earl Street;

-      The immediate adjoining premises to the south (no. 67 Earl Street) has an FSR of 1.17:1 which dwarfs the subject premises and has no positive contribution to the streetscape;

-      The increase in floor space will not affect the amenity of the adjoining premises as the overall height of the proposal has been kept to a minimum by reducing the existing ceiling height at the ground floor level and is well within Council’s external wall height requirements.  As a result, elevational shadow diagrams submitted for the existing and proposed northern facades of no. 67 Earl Street clearly show compliance, notwithstanding the preferred solution of a 1.5m  setback;

-      The open space standard of 40% complies as the footprint of the proposal together with the hardstand car space within the rear yard represents 60% site coverage. Further, the open space within the rear yard will be improved by the removal of the existing garage; and

-      In the context of the street, this proposal is consistent with other development and will in fact be less conspicuous due to it not being sighted from Earl Street.  The design, which takes in the Heritage values of the area dictated that the proposal be subservient and not readily visible. No. 45 Earl Street has an FSR of 0.8:1 and is readily visible from Earl Street.

 

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

 

The proposed development has an FSR of 0.87:1 which significantly exceeds the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 permitted for this site as stipulated in the LEP.  Whilst the degree of non-compliance is not minor, it is considered that the affects of the additional building bulk will not adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining properties. The proposed first floor addition generally maintains the footprint of the existing building and will not result in significant additional building bulk that will dominate the site or detract from the character of the surrounding area.

 

The proposal is deemed to satisfy the performance requirement, namely, that the building bulk is generally compatible with the surrounding built forms i.e. No.’s 67 Earl Street (existing FSR of approx. 1.17:1 and proposed FSR of 0.9:1), 43 Earl Street (FSR of 0.76:1) & 45 Earl Street (FSR of 0.8:1). Subject to the rear balcony being reduced in size (as required by the Heritage officer, the proposal will not become a distracting visual element in the area and is not considered excessive in respect to bulk and scale.

 

The development will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area and will not unreasonably compromise the amenity of existing residents.

 

As such, it cannot be argued that this development will be substantially out of keeping with the established character of the locality; and for the above reasons, the proposed FSR of the development is considered acceptable.

 

Comment:

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.”

 

FSR Comments:

The variation from landscaped area standards is 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 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 attached dual occupancy development, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

FSR Comments:

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 allow the best use of the site and the delivery of an accessible garage suitable for mobility impaired persons.

 

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 standards 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 design scheme 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 standard 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 development 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.

 

c. Clause 20G Building Heights

The maximum height for a building other than a dwelling house within a 2A zone is 9.5m from any point on ground level with a maximum external wall height of 7m.  The proposal has an overall height of 6.18m and a maximum external wall height of 5.88m; both of these height controls will comply with this standard.

 

Part 3 – Miscellaneous Provisions

 

a. Clause 22 – Services

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

 

The proposal will require additional services. A specific condition is recommended to require the applicant to make all necessary arrangements with the service authority for any adjustments to the utility services connections. The proposal will comply, subject to conditions.

 

Part 4 - Heritage Provisions

The subject site is within the North Randwick heritage conservation area with frontages to Earl Street and Castel Street and is occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached cottage, part of a pair comprising no’s. 63 and 65 Earl Street.

 

To the north of the site, at no’s. 59 and 61 Earl Street, is a pair of single storey weatherboard cottages listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).  Further to the north at no’s. 55 and 57 Earl Street, is a single storey weatherboard semi-detached pair, also listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

Part 4 of the LEP requires that Council take into consideration the likely effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of any heritage items, or heritage conservation areas.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. Whilst there were some initial concerns in relation to the complicated design of the proposal and its prominence in the secondary streetscape; an comparison of the proposal with other development in the area (particularly the adjoining dwelling at no. 67 Earl Street), revealed that the design would not be inconsistent with existing streetscape, provided that the upper level balcony did not project beyond the existing rear alignment of the semi-detached dwelling.  The scale, mass and design is considered to be appropriate given the disparate mix of building forms within the locality.

 

The proposal is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the setting of the heritage items within the immediate streetscape and will satisfy the requirements of Part 4 - Heritage Provisions of the Randwick LEP (Consolidation).

 

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.

 


Development Control Plan –

Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

Approx. 40% of the site is provided for landscaped area.

Yes

25m² of private open space provided.

Approx. 38.75m².

Yes

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

The rear yard is ‘L’ shaped and has approx. dimensions of 3.9m x 6.095m & 5m x 3m.

Yes

Open space behind the building line.

Yes

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

Approx. 18% is provided for soft landscaped area.

No. However, the shortfall is not significant and will not contribute to any negative impacts on the amenity of the subject and adjoining properties. 

 

There is sufficient permeable treatment on the site to facilitate infiltration of storm water for urban runoff. 

 

Floor area

LEP requirement for semi-detached dwelling is 0.5:1. 

0.87:1

No. Refer to discussion above in Section 8, PART 2B – Principal Development Standards, (b. Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios).

 

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

The dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 5.88m.

Yes

External wall height to the rear maximum 3.5m.

n/a

n/a

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

The cut and fill on the site does not exceed the maximum 1m.

Yes

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

The excavation for the dwelling and side fencing are within 900mm of the side boundaries.

 

No. However, suitable conditions have been included to ensure that excavations are appropriately supported.

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

There is minor excavation within 4m of the rear boundary for the proposed side and rear boundary fencing.

No. However, suitable conditions have been included to ensure that excavations are appropriately supported.

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

The length of the southern elevation is 13.1m and is setback less than 1.5m from the boundary.

No. However, the proposal is considered to have a setback and length that is acceptable in the context of adjoining development (No. 67 Earl Street), and the setbacks and height of the wall will be consistent with other development in the street.

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

The proposed first floor addition is located to the rear behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form.

Yes

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

The proposed first floor addition is located behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and is setback approx. 9.3m from the front boundary. The first floor addition is not visible from the street.

Yes

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m

The first floor addition is setback more than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

Yes

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

The ground level is sited on the southern and northern side boundaries with a nil setback.

No. See discussion below.

 

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The first floor addition is setback 900mm from the southern side boundary. 

 

However, to the north the first floor addition is sited on the boundary with a nil setback.

No. See discussion below.

 

 

 

 

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

n/a

n/a

 

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 that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

 

The ground level is sited on the southern and northern side boundaries with a nil setback not complying with the preferred solution requirements of the DCP. The first floor addition is setback 900mm from the southern side boundary also not complying with the preferred solution requirements of the DCP.

 

The nil setback of the ground level addition to the southern and northern side boundaries are not considered to have any unreasonable adverse impacts to the adjoining dwelling in terms of privacy, access to daylight and fresh air.  The first floor addition is not visible from the Earl Street streetscape frontage; and the nil setbacks will not adversely impact the streetscape or character of the existing semi’s.

 

The proposal involves extending a semi-detached dwelling on a narrow block (only approx. 6m wide).  It is considered reasonable for a ground level addition to be sited to the side boundaries in order to facilitate useable living space. In this particular case the ground level addition being sited up to the southern side boundary will have no impact on solar access to the adjoining property (at No. 67 Earl Street) as the subject site is at a lower level than the adjoining property. The proposal is considered to be acceptable given the site constraints and the additional overshadowing as a result of the first floor addition is not unreasonable as it is limited primarily to the lower ground level existing kitchen/dining room window and to their proposed development, the new windows on the ground level are to bedrooms. Further, a fully compliant development with the 7m external wall height and 1.5m setbacks will still overshadow these lower ground level windows. (Refer to Scenario 3 below in Section 9 under Solar Access and Energy Efficiency).

 

Finally, the proposed skillion roof is designed to minimise the height of the addition on the side boundaries and the height of the development complies with the preferred solution requirement of the DCP.

 

With respect to the non-complying setback on the north side boundary, the DCP allows for buildings to be sited less than the Preferred Solution Standard when it is proposed to extend an existing semi-detached dwelling along the alignment of the common wall boundary.  The northern side of the first floor addition is sited on the common wall boundary between No.’s 65 & 63 Earl Street.  It is not considered that the nil setback will have any unreasonable impacts to the adjoining dwellings in terms of privacy, access to daylight and fresh air.  Further, the nil setback will not adversely impact the streetscape or character of the existing semi’s as the addition is located behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form.

 

Whilst the side setbacks of the development do not comply with the preferred solution requirements of the DCP, it is considered that the development will still comply with the relevant objectives and performance criteria of the DCP.

 

Fencing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Brick rendered fencing at a height of 1.8m is proposed to the northern, southern and rear boundaries.  The rear boundary fronts Castle Street .

 

The proposed new fence at the rear is located to a secondary street frontage along Castle Street and it is quite common for the height of the fence to be at 1.8m. The proposed fencing will integrate positively with the existing fencing form within the streetscape and a fence height of 1.8m is acceptable to provide adequate levels of privacy and security to the rear yard of the subject site.

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages up to 1.8m and upper 2/3 is at least 50% open.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

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

It is not expected that there will be any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.  The new openings to the rear elevation will primarily overlook the rear yard of the subject site and the upper level windows are to bedrooms which are considered to be low use rooms.  Also, it is expected that internal privacy measures will be used within the bedrooms.

 

The new window opening to the southern elevation are either off set appropriately from adjoining windows, are high light windows or are of obscure glazing.  Also, the upper level windows are to bedrooms and bathrooms which are considered to be low use rooms.  It is expected that internal privacy measures will be used within the bedrooms.

Yes

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

It is recommended by the Heritage officer that the rear first floor balcony be reduced in size to align with the ground level; this should minimise privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties as the size of the balcony will be relatively small which will restrict heavily pedestrian flow.

 

Also, the rear balcony is located off a bedroom which is considered to be a low use room. 

 

Yes

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

Discussed above.

Not required.

Garages & Driveways

 

1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

The existing dwelling currently contains 2 bedrooms and the proposal provides for 4 bedrooms.  Council’s DCP-Parking requires that 2 spaces be provided for a property with 3 or more bedrooms. The proposal will be providing only one car parking space on the site. 

 

Given that the proposal is maintaining one car space on the site and site constraints prevent the provision of any additional parking spaces; the deficiency of one car space is acceptable in this instance. 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

New dwellings comply with 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

See BASIX

n/a

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

There will be some additional overshadowing to the rear yard of the subject site; however, the additional overshading is not considered to be unreasonable.

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

The northern side of the dwelling is on the common wall boundary with no. 63 Earl Street.

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

There is no impact to solar collectors.

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

Refer to discussion below.

 

 

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

It is not considered that the additional overshadowing will have any unreasonable impacts on the neighbouring dwellings.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the shadow diagrams submitted are slightly inaccurate, Council has undertaken their own calculations and made a comparative assessment of the likely affects the proposed development will have on the objectors property if:

 

Scenario 1) it was to remain as proposed with a setback of 900mm and a height of 5.88m;

 

Scenario 2) if the first floor addition were to be set further back (1.5m) from that side boundary and at the proposed height of 5.88m; and

 

Scenario 3) if the development had an external wall height of 7m and was setback 1.5m from the northern side boundary. (i.e. Complied with the DCP Preferred Solution maximums)

 

Scenario 1) Current setback of 0.9m - The assessment shows that the existing window and proposed new windows to the objector’s property on the lower ground level would only be overshadowed.

 

Scenario 2) Current height (5.88m) with setback of 1.5m - The assessment shows that the window will remain overshadowed in the morning and afternoon; however, it shows a slight improvement of solar access to the top of the windows at noon. 

 

Scenario 3) Fully compliant development with a height of 7m and setback of 1.5m - The assessment shows that the existing window and proposed new windows to the objector’s property on the lower ground level would be overshadowed. The shadows in this scenario extend further up the objectors north facing wall than scenario 1).  But should not reach the upper level windows.

 

As detailed above there would be minimal improvement to shadow impacts on the ground floor level by a development with a setback of 1.5m (as identified in Scenario 2). In addition, a potential development which complied with the 7m preferred solution maximum wall height control and meet the 1.5m preferred solution for first floor setback would have a greater impact in this regard compared to impacts from the current proposed development.

 

Also, the additional overshadowing is not unreasonable as it is limited primarily to the lower ground level of the existing kitchen/dining room window and to their proposed development the new windows on the ground floor level are to bedrooms; and not living rooms. 

 

Whilst the degree of non-compliance for the FSR is not minor, it is considered that the affects of the additional building bulk will not adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining properties (Refer to SEPP 1 Objection for FSR).  Also, a comparison of the proposal with other development in the area (particularly the adjoining dwelling at no. 67 Earl Street), revealed that the design appears to be modest in size as viewed from the streets, and would not be inconsistent with the existing streetscape.

 

In relation to the ground level addition being sited on the side boundary, it is not uncommon on narrow blocks for a ground level addition to be sited to the side boundaries in order to facilitate useable living space. In this particular case the ground level addition being sited up to the southern side boundary will have no impact on solar access to the objector’s property as the subject site is at a lower level than the objector’s property.

 

Finally, it is recommended that the rear first floor balcony be reduced in depth so that it does not project beyond the existing rear alignment of the semi-detached dwelling (refer to Heritage comments); this should minimise the scale, overshadowing and privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. 

 

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

 

The proposed development satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposal will improve the amenity on the site and is consistent with the relevant purposes and objectives of Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).  Subject to conditions it is not considered that the development will give rise to any significant environmental impacts on adjoining properties, or have any unreasonable adverse impacts on the visual amenity and character of the street.

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20F of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to floor space ratio 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/608/2010 for substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including new first floor, construction of hardstand car space with access from Castle Street and new rear fencing, at No. 65 Earl Street, Randwick, 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 plan numbered 39/10, dated 23/07/2010 and received by Council on the 3 August 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 colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the proposed building works are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area. Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e.- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

3.       The rear upper level balcony shall be reduced in depth so that it does not project beyond the existing rear alignment of the semi-detached dwelling.  This condition has been included to simplify the form and reduce the bulk of the rear upper level addition. The plans shall be amended to demonstrate compliance with this requirement prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

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

 

The following condition is imposed to satisfy relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

5.       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;

 

6.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $250,000 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $2500.

 

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 imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

7.       In accordance with Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 97A of the Environmental