Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 8 February 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            8 February 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee Meeting

 

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 at 6:00pm.

 

 

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

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members.

 

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

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 7 December 2010

 

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

 

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

D1/11       65 Earl Street, Randwick (deferred)

D2/11       18 Winchester Road, Clovelly

D3/11       95 Wentworth Street, Randwick

D4/11       21 Bay Parade, Malabar

D5/11       18 - 20 Stanley Street, Randwick

D6/11       88-102 Moverly Road, South Coogee

D7/11       257 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

D8/11       110 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

D9/11       51 Mons Avenue, Maroubra

D10/11      4 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

D11/11      17 Castle Street, Randwick

D12/11      6 Cooper Street, Maroubra

D13/11      379-401 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

 

Miscellaneous Report (no voting record required)

M1/11       Liquor Licence Application - 'The Spot' Food and Film Festival - 13 March 2011    

 

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                            8 February 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D1/11

 

 

Subject:                  65 Earl Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/608/2010

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 23 November 2010, Council considered

Development Application (DA/608/2010) seeking consent to alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, construction of hardstand carpark space with access from Castle Street, and new rear fence (Heritage Conservation Area).

 

It was resolved at the 23 November 2010 meeting:

 

“(Woodsmith/Tracey) that the application be deferred for mediation and the applicant consider increasing the southern side setback on the first floor to 1.5 metres.”

 

A mediation session was held on the 16 December 2010 and attended by the applicant and the objector The main focus of discussion related to the southern side boundary setback.

 

The following agreement was reach at the mediation:

 

·      That the applicant agrees to set back upper floor level by 1.4m (Southern side) master bed room walk in robe.

·      The length of rear bedroom to be extended by 300mm with a 600mm balcony.

·      The lower ceiling height to be reduced by 30mm. Overall height reduced by 50mm

·      The objector accepts the above amendments.

 

The recommendation has been revised to include the amended plan that incorporates the matters agreed to between the parties at the mediation. The application is therefore referred back to Council for determination.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 17/12/2010 and received by Council on the 23 December 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.       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.

 

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 condition is applied to meet additional demands for public facilities;

 

5.       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.

 

6.       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.

 

7.       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.

 

8.       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)

 

9.       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:

 

10.     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:

 

11.     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.

 

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, 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).

 

13.     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.

 

14.     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).

 

15.     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”.

 

16.     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.

 

17.     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.

 

18.     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.

 

19.     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:

 

20.     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.

 

21.     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.

 

22.     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.

 

23.     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.

 

24.     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.

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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.

 

30.     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. 

 

31.     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.

 

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:

 

32.     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.

 

33.     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:

 

34.     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 the driveway access, shall be:

 

·              RL 49.20 (Refer to submitted Survey Plan by Viktor Sikais dated June 2010)

 

35.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $135.00 (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:

 

36.     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.

 

37.     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:

 

38.     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.

 

39.     Stormwater runoff from 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.       Through a private drainage easement(s) to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system); OR

 

3.       To a suitably sized infiltration area. As a guide the infiltration area shall be sized based on a minimum requirement of 1 m2 of infiltration area (together with 1 m3 of storage volume) for every 20 m2 of roof/impervious area on the site.

 

Prior to the use of infiltration in rear draining lots (where there is no formal overland escape route to Council’s kerb and gutter/street drainage system),  a geotechnical investigation will be required to determine whether the ground is suitable for infiltration. Should rock and/or a water table be encountered within two metres of the proposed base of the infiltration pit, or the ground conditions comprise low permeability soils such as clay, infiltration may not be appropriate.

 

NOTE: Should the applicant be unable to obtain a private drainage easement over properties to the rear of the development site (to facilitate stormwater discharge in accordance with option b)); and ground conditions preclude the use of infiltration (Option c), consideration may be given to the use of a charged system or a pump out system to drain that portion of the site that cannot be drained by gravity to the kerb and gutter at the front of the property.

 

40.     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.

 

41.     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.

 

42.     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:

 

43.     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 applicants 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:

 

1.View

Ordinary Council Report on 23 November 2010

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Report on 23 November 2010

Attachment 1

 

 

 

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 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.     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:

 

12.     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.

 

13.     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).

 

14.     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.

 

15.     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).

 

16.     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”.

 

17.     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.

 

18.     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.

 

19.     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.

 

20.     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:

 

21.     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.

 

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.

 

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 provisions for future civil works in the road reserve:

 

35.     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 the driveway access, shall be:

 

·              RL 49.20 (Refer to submitted Survey Plan by Viktor Sikais dated June 2010)

 

36.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $135.00 (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:

 

37.     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.

 

38.     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:

 

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 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.       Through a private drainage easement(s) to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system); OR

 

3.       To a suitably sized infiltration area. As a guide the infiltration area shall be sized based on a minimum requirement of 1 m2 of infiltration area (together with 1 m3 of storage volume) for every 20 m2 of roof/impervious area on the site.

 

Prior to the use of infiltration in rear draining lots (where there is no formal overland escape route to Council’s kerb and gutter/street drainage system),  a geotechnical investigation will be required to determine whether the ground is suitable for infiltration. Should rock and/or a water table be encountered within two metres of the proposed base of the infiltration pit, or the ground conditions comprise low permeability soils such as clay, infiltration may not be appropriate.

 

NOTE: Should the applicant be unable to obtain a private drainage easement over properties to the rear of the development site (to facilitate stormwater discharge in accordance with option b)); and ground conditions preclude the use of infiltration (Option c), consideration may be given to the use of a charged system or a pump out system to drain that portion of the site that cannot be drained by gravity to the kerb and gutter at the front of the property.

 

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.

 

42.     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.

 

43.     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 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 applicants 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

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            8 February 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D2/11

 

 

Subject:                  18 Winchester Road, Clovelly

Folder No:                   DA/1043/2010

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                   Ground level addition to the side of the existing semi-detached dwelling and the construction of a single storey cabana to the rear yard of the dwelling (SEPP1 objection to floor space ratio control).

Ward:                    North Ward

Applicant:              Mr A M Grant

Owner:                       Mr A M Grant

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The proposal is for a ground level addition to the side of the existing two storey semi-detached dwelling and the construction of a single storey cabana to the rear yard of the dwelling.

 

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 has submitted a SEPP1 Objection that is considered well founded. It should be noted that if the application was considered under the DCP- Dwelling Houses in relation to floor area it would comply.

 

No submissions were received as a result of the notification of the application to the owners of surrounding properties. 

 

The main issues are 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 a ground level addition to the side of the existing two storey semi-detached dwelling and the construction of a single storey cabana to the rear yard of the dwelling.  An existing ground floor lounge room is proposed to be extended by BLAH m towards the south.  A laminated glass roof is proposed to the single storey extension. 

 

To the rear yard of the site is proposed a detached cabana building with a sheet metal roof. Glass doors will open onto the rear yard of the site and north-facing highlight windows are also proposed.  A water tank is proposed to be located on the southern side of the structure.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is on the western side of Winchester Road, has a frontage of 6.7m, depth of 45.7m and a site area of 306.2 square metres. The site falls towards Winchester Road from the rear.

 

A masonry two storey semi-detached dwelling currently exists to the site. The locality is residential in nature, consisting predominantly of single and two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings.

 

Figure 1:  Aerial photo of the subject site.

 

Figures 2 & 3: The two storey semi-detached dwelling on the site and the rear yard of the subject site.

 

 

 

Figures 4 & 5:   The southern side of the dwelling – proposed to be extended by BLAH m towards the south; and the proposed location of the cabana structure within the rear yard.

 

 

Figures 6 & 7:  Vegetative screening to the boundaries for the neighbouring properties at 16 and 20 Winchester Road.

 

4.    Site History

 

Council approved DA/66/2009 for the construction of a studio to the rear of the existing dwelling, demolition of an existing shed, and extension of a pergola at the rear.

 

Council approved DA/575/2002 for alterations and ground and first floor additions to the existing pair of semi-detached dwelling houses including a ground floor and first floor additions.

5.    Community Consultation

 

In accordance with the DCP – Notification, the proposal was notified for a period of 14 days from 9 December 2010 until 23 December 2010. No submissions were received regarding the application. 

 

5.1 Objections

 

No submissions objecting to the proposal were received.

 

5.2 Support

 

No submissions in support of the proposal were received.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

Landscape Comments:

 

There is no objection to the removal of the Kentia Palm Tree located within the centre of the backyard. The Palm Tree is not covered by council’s T.P.O

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No master planning requirements apply to the site.

 

8.    State Environmental Planning Policy 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 applicant supplied a SEPP 1 Objection which included calculations for gross floor area.  Council’s Officer checked the applicant’s calculations as they appeared to demonstrate an excessive gross floor area over that which is proposed. The proposed variation to the development standard is summarized in the table below.  The applicant appears to have used an incorrect site area and to have calculated the FSR using the DCP Controls rather than the Development Standard within the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). For the purposes of assessing the application, Council’s calculations will be applied. 

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Proposal

Applicant’s calculations:

0.66:1 - gross floor area of 202.1m2

 

Council’s calculations:

0.6:1 - gross floor area of 183.2m2

LEP development standard

0.5:1

Excess above the LEP standard

Applicant’s calculations:

49.0m2 above the development standard which equates to a proposed 32% excess.

 

Council’s calculations:

30.1m2 above the development standard which equates to a proposed 19.6% 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 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 standard:

 

-   The additional gross floor area for the existing semi-detached dwelling will be 3.8m2 only and will not add materially to the bulk of the building;

 

-   The proposed detached cabana to the rear yard will not create excessive additional bulk or scale to the site; and

 

-   The proposal complies with the development control for open space (landscaped area provision).

 

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

 

-   The proposal includes an extension of the existing semi-detached dwelling towards the south at the ground floor level only. The increased width of the existing dwelling will not cast any additional shadow towards the south (over that which is currently cast by the existing two storey semi-detached dwelling on the site) and should not impose any unreasonable  impacts on the neighbouring dwelling to the south with regard to  visual bulk and scale (20 Winchester Road);

 

-   The proposed cabana development to the rear yard includes a wall height of 3m only and is centrally located within the rear yard. Existing vegetative screening to the rear and side boundaries and the low scale of the proposed structure will ensure that no unreasonable impacts are imposed on adjoining dwellings with regard to  visual bulk and scale and privacy (see Figures 6 & 7 above);

 

-   Given that the development is ancillary to the use of the semi-detached dwelling on the site and that the materials for the proposal are in keeping with the semi-detached dwelling on the site and adjacent development, it is considered that the proposal is in keeping with the existing low density of the locality; and

 

-   The cabana development will present a low-profile flat roof as viewed from the rear yards of neighbouring properties and from the dwelling to the subject site.  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. 

 

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 (semi-detached dwelling) 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 addition  and cabana structure 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.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

- Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

- Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

- Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following clauses of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) have been considered during the assessment of the application:

 

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

 

The site is zoned 2A Residential under 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 character of the established residential area; and

·      Protect the amenity of existing residents,.

 

Clause 20E  - Landscaped area

The proposed landscap1ed provision on the site is 60% and the proposal is consistent with the development standard and objective of Clause 20E.

 

Clause 20F  - Floor space ratios

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the development standard for Clause 20F (See part 7 above).

 

Clause 20G  - Building Height

The proposed building heights for the additions to the dwelling and the cabana structure are 3m respectively. The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with the development standard for Clause 20G.

 

9.1 Policy Controls

Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

 


Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

50 % of site provided as landscaped area

60%

Yes

Floor area

(Site area 306.2m2) maximum FSR 0.6:1.

0.6:1 (Council calculations)

Yes

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

3m

Yes

External wall height to the rear maximum 3.5m.

3m

Yes

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

0m

Yes

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

1200mm

Yes

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

1.4m – excavations for cabana footings

Suitable conditions have been included to ensure excavations are appropriately supported.

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

No change from existing – 2.9m - average of adjoining dwellings

Yes

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m

1.4m

No however the non-compliance is supported given that the proposed cabana structure should not impose any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring dwellings with regard to  privacy, solar access, air flow or visual bulk and scale.

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

800mm (south)

No however the non-compliance is supported given that the proposed cabana structure should not impose any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring dwellings with regard to  privacy, solar access, air flow or visual bulk and scale.

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.

None

Yes

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

No direct view into the open space of an adjoining dwelling

Yes

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

1.5m

North-facing windows for proposed cabana have sill heights of 2.2m. Proposed windows for the ground floor extension should not impose any unreasonable impact on the dwelling to the south. An existing 1.8m dividing fence is considered to form an effective privacy screen between the two dwellings.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

New dwellings comply with 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

The proposed alterations and additions are valued at less than $50,000 and are not subject to BASIX requirements.

N/A

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

Private open space 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.

Living areas are west-facing and will experience no decrease in solar access as a result of the proposed alterations and additions.

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.

Living areas of neighbouring dwellings are west-facing and will experience no decrease in solar access as a result of the proposed alterations and additions.

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

No decrease in solar access.

Yes

 

9.2 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.      Privacy

As discussed above, the proposed development is not considered to result in any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties with regard to privacy. 

 

B.      Perceived bulk and scale

As discussed above, the proposed development is not considered to result in any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties with regard to perceived bulk and scale. 

         

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. The proposed development will not result in the creation of a separate dwelling on the site and would not add unreasonably to the existing building envelope. The proposal would therefore result in a development which is wholly suitable 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. The proposed development is therefore 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 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 complies with a relevant development standard of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and with the objectives and performance requirements of the Dwellings and Dual Occupancies DCP. If approved, the proposed development would 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 the Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Floor Space Ratios on the grounds that the proposed use complies with the objective of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly

 

B.       That Council as the consent authority grant development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application DA/1079/2010 for a ground level addition to the side of the existing two storey semi-detached dwelling and the construction of a single storey cabana to the rear yard of the dwelling for 18 Winchester Road, Clovelly, 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 73/10, dated 29 November 2010 and received by Council on 3 December 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 building 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 conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for access, transport and infrastructure:

 

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

 

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

 

5.       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 landscaping and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

6.       Approval is granted for the removal of the Kentia Palm located within the construction zone of the proposed studio in the rear yard.

 

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

 

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

 

8.       In all new and upgraded building work, external timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturers details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

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:

 

9.       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.

 

10.     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:

 

11.     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.

 

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, 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).

 

13.     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.

 

14.     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).

 

15.     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”.

 

16.     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.

 

17.     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.

 

18.     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.

 

19.     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:

 

20.     The proposed works 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.

 

21.     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.

 

22.     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.

 

23.     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.

 

24.     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.

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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. 

 

30.     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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

       

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

●     before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate security provisions are made for vehicular access, parking and public infrastructure:

 

32.     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.

 

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

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            8 February 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D3/11

 

 

Subject:                  95 Wentworth Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/767/2009

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 82A Review: Demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a 3-storey multi-unit housing development comprising 5 x 2-bedroom dwellings and 2 x 1-bedroom dwellings, basement car parking for 10 vehicles, landscaping and associated works.

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Ballas Mendes Constructions

Owner:                         J Mendes, H Mendes, P Balafoutis and E Balafoutis

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


1.      Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to the Planning Committee Meeting as the original determination was made by Council. The proposal also contains variation to the FSR development standard by more than 10%.

 

The subject application is made pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to review Council’s decision to refuse the original development application DA/767/2009. The reasons for refusal are as follows:

 

1.     The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio.

2.     The proposal does not comply with the setback requirements of the DCP – Multi Unit Housing.

3.     The proposal will adversely impact on the streetscape.

4.     The site is not suitable for the proposed development.

 

The current Section 82A proposal will reduce the depth of the first floor rear balconies from 3050mm to 2380mm. The depth of the second floor rear balconies will also be reduced from 1930mm to 1000mm. There are no significant amendments to the overall form and envelope of the development.

 

The applicant has provided detailed justifications for the proposed development embodied in the current Section 82A application, and has addressed the reasons for refusal. It is considered that the arguments presented are well founded and that the proposal will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of relevant planning controls. Council’s assessment of the original application concludes that the proposal is satisfactory and should be supported. The conclusion of the original assessment is concurred with and the proposed development is recommended for approval.

 

The proposal was advertised and notified from 24 November to 8 December 2010 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of 19 submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the submissions are primarily related to development density, streetscape, heritage, building height, bulk and scale, setbacks, view loss, solar access, privacy, traffic congestion, parking, site suitability, construction related disturbances and reduction in property values.

 

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

 

The subject site is located within Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal will deliver a multi-unit residential development which is consistent with the desired character for the locality and the zoning objectives.

 

The proposal has an FSR of 0.93:1, which exceeds the LEP development standard by 0.28:1.

 

The site is elongated in shape and slopes from the rear to the front. The development scheme proposes the construction of two separate building blocks which are attached to each other at the basement level, in lieu of a single monolithic mass. The design incorporates a central courtyard in between the blocks, which provides visual relief and avoids continuous wall planes. The design scheme presents a building height and scale which are compatible with other existing multi-unit buildings in the surrounding areas, and will not detract from the character of the locality.

 

The Randwick Multi-Unit Housing DCP specifies detailed built form, setbacks and amenity controls for residential flat buildings across Randwick City. The building height, landscaped open space provision, façade treatment, solar access and privacy protection measures of the development comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and are considered to be satisfactory. In particular, the proposed side and rear setbacks will not result in unreasonable streetscape and amenity impacts and satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

The proposal has also incorporated appropriate off-street car parking facilities and satisfies the requirements of the Parking DCP. The proposal is unlikely to significantly reduce availability of kerb side parking spaces in the surrounding streets.

 

The proposal is considered to have implications on the distant City and district views currently available to the northern balconies of the adjoining residential flat building at No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. The potential view loss impacts on the aforementioned property have been assessed. It is considered that the proposal is skilfully designed, and retention of the significant elements of the views is not possible given that they are obtained obliquely across the side boundary from the rear section of the adjoining site.

 

The proposed development meets the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls. Therefore, it is recommended that Council alters its previous decision of the development application pursuant to Section 82A of the Act, and approve the proposal subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

 

2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is described as Lot 2 in DP 305794, No. 95 Wentworth Street, Randwick. The site is located on the eastern side of Wentworth Street, between Stanley and Sydney Streets, and has secondary frontage to Waverley Street. The land falls from the east to the west with a fall of approximately 5.1m. The dimensions and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land Area

Northern, side boundary

45.72m

585.3m2

Southern, side boundary

45.72m

Eastern, Waverley Street boundary

12.8m

Western, Wentworth Street boundary

12.8m

 

At present, the site accommodates a single-storey dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction, with detached storage shed and single garage at the rear fronting Waverley Street.

 

The site is adjoined to the north by a 4-storey residential flat building (No. 93 Wentworth Street) with car parking at ground level and 3 levels of dwelling units above. A detached garage building containing 2 car spaces is located at the rear off Waverley Street. To the south is a 4-storey residential flat building (No. 97-99 Wentworth Street) with a driveway located along the northern boundary of the property leading to an undercroft parking area. There is a detached garage with 6 car spaces located to the rear of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street, which forms part of the property at No. 101-103 Wentworth Street.

 

Wentworth Street is a 4-lane (2 x parking lanes plus dual carriageways) local distributor road and is characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential developments.

 

Waverley Street contains a single carriageway and a parking lane. A row of double-storey terraced cottages are located on the eastern side of Waverley Street (Nos. 11-35 Waverley Street). Another group of terraces are located at the corner of Waverley and Gordon Streets (Nos. 2-26 Gordon Street).

 

Figure 1 Wentworth Street elevation of the existing dwelling on the subject site (middle); the adjoining residential flat buildings at Nos. 93 and 97-99 Wentworth Street are seen on the left and right hand sides of the photograph respectively

Figure 2 Existing single garage on the Waverley Street frontage of the site

Figure 3 Rear courtyard area of the site as viewed from the first floor balcony of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street

Figure 4 The group of terrace buildings located on the eastern side of Waverley Street.

 

3.      The Proposal

 

The subject application is made pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, for the review of Council’s decision regarding Development Application 767/2009 for the following:

 

·      Demolition of all existing structures on site.

·      Site formation and earthworks.

·      Construction of 2 x 3-storey residential flat buildings above a common basement, which comprise 5 x 2-bedroom units and 2 x 1-bedroom units.

·      Construction of a basement car park for 10 vehicles.

·      Removal of existing trees.

·      General landscape works.

 

The current Section 82A Review application makes the following amendments to the original development proposal:

 

·      Reduction of the depth of the first floor eastern balconies, which are attached to the living areas of Units 5 and 6, from 3050mm to 2380mm, being a reduction of 670mm. The originally proposed 1300mm wide planter box along the edge of the above balconies will remain unchanged.

·      Reduction of the depth of the second floor eastern balconies, which are attached to Bedrooms 1 of Units 5 and 6, from 1930mm to 1000mm, being a reduction of 930mm.

 

There are no significant amendments to the overall form and envelope of the development. The number of dwelling units and bedrooms remains unchanged.

 

4.      Section 82A Assessment

 

Section 82A of the Act enables an applicant to request a review of Council’s decision to refuse a Development Application, or a condition(s) imposed in a development consent granted by Council. In the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development proposal, Council must be satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same as that originally described in the application.

 

The current Section 82A Review application has reduced the depth of the rear-facing balconies at the first and second levels. It is considered that the nature and form of the amended proposal remain substantially the same as that described in the original application.

 

The applicant has submitted a letter dated 4 November 2010 addressing the reasons for refusal stated in the Notice of Determination. The key arguments contained in the letter are extracted and discussed as follows:

 

Reason 1 The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio.

 

Response from applicant:

Under State Environmental Planning Proposal 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1) where a development could, but for a development standard, be carried out under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), an applicant may make a development application, which is supported by a written objection that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and specify the grounds of that objection.

 

The proposed development proposes a floor space ratio(FSR) of 0.927:1 which exceeds the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1 set out within the Randwick LEP 1998 (LEP 1998) by 162.5m2, the development application submitted to Council in October 2009, was accompanied by a SEPP 1 Objection report. This report specified the grounds for the objection and concluded that the strict compliance with the FSR development standard pursuant to clause 32 of LEP 1998 was unnecessary and unreasonable in that the proposal:

 

·      is consistent with the underlying purpose of the FSR control;

·      complies with other relevant environmental and residential amenity controls;

·      is consistent with the planning principles established by case law for height, bulk and scale;

·      exceeds the landscaped area requirement and deep soil planting controls, as required within LEP 1998 and the DCP - Multi-Unit Housing (DCP);

·      has been designed to avoid and does not generate any adverse impacts on neighbouring properties;

·      provides a high visual quality and consistency of scale and character to the streetscape;

·      fully complies with Council's car parking and bicycle parking rates and is unlikely to increase demand for on street parking;

·      takes into account the context of the surrounding area and the positive attributes of the sites location;

·      does not result in a density that compromises the amenity of the residential apartments proposed. All units have a large areas of private open space and are naturally cross ventilated, they also have allocated secure parking spaces, separate storage areas within the basement and good landscaped common open space surrounding and between the buildings;

·      will not result in any unacceptable overshadowing effects on principle living areas in adjacent properties. The proposal maintains an acceptable level of solar access to both 97-99 Wentworth Street and 93 Wentworth Street;

·      does not generate any different environmental impacts compared to a complying scheme;

·      is consistent with the Objectives of the Zone; and

·      is consistent with the key aims of the Metropolitan Strategy.

 

LEP 1998 does not provide specific objectives for the floor space ratio control. The purpose stated in clause 20F 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 objectives of the Residential 2 C zone include:

a) to provide for a medium 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 encourage housing affordability, and

 

In the NSW Land & Environmental Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, the Chief Judge set out five reasons why strict compliance with a development standard might be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

1) That the underlying objectives of the development standard are achieved, despite the non-compliance and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

2) The underlying purpose/ objective is not relevant to the development proposed and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

3) The underlying purpose/ objective would be thwarted or defeated if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

4) The development standard has been virtually abandoned/ destroyed by Council's own actions and therefore is unnecessary and unreasonable;

5) The zoning of the land was unreasonable/ inappropriate and therefore a development standard appropriate for the zone is also unnecessary or inappropriate.

 

Reasons '1' and '3' are particularly relevant in this instance. The size, scale and site coverage of the proposed development is consistent with the aesthetic character of the area. The scale of the building sits comfortably betweens its two larger neighbours and is of a contemporary design that makes a positive contribution to the streetscapes of Wentworth and Waverley Streets. In addition, an appropriate amenity is maintained to adjoining buildings both with respect to privacy and overshadowing. To further reduce the scale of the proposal would result in a development of an inappropriate scale that fails to address the streetscape in a positive manner. In addition a reduction in the proposed floorspace would hinder attainment of the objectives for the 2C zone and in particular objectives a), b) and e).

 

Council's Design Review Panel also assessed the proposed development in regard to the principles of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, (SEPP 65). In regard to scale and density of the proposal, the Panel considered the proposed development to be satisfactory and "the scale and height to be compatible with other multi-unit residential buildings in the area".

 

The assessing officer addressed the principles established from Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. The assessing officer agreed with the justification set out within the SEPP 1 objection and considered that the proposal was satisfactory and that compliance with the development standard was unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

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

·      an accepted measure of the impacts on amenity is the degree of compliance a proposal achieves with Council's amenity standards for overshadowing, visual privacy views etc. As discussed in this report, and the applicants SEPP 1 objection the FSR non-compliance will not result in unreasonable overshadowing, inadequate landscaping or privacy impacts. The design of the building minimises its visual bulk.

·      the redevelopment of the site for multi-unit housing is consistent with the objectives of the 2(C) zoning of the site. Current development on the site has a density less than that envisaged in the 2(C) zone.

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

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

·      The proposal has provided a central courtyard between Wentworth Street and Waverley Street buildings. This scheme has the effect of breaking the mass of the proposed building by providing a centralised open space to ensure reasonable solar access is maintained to southern adjoining development.

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

·      The proposal will present as being partially over 2 storeys to the Waverley Street elevation (due to the lower level being substantially excavated into the site). This is considered to be consistent with the low scale development to the east across Waverley Street and concentrated higher elements toward the Wentworth Street frontage, which is commensurate with surrounding buildings and has a height and scale, which are compatible with the existing flat development in the surrounding built environment, and do not detract from the prevailing residential character of the locality.

·      The development will not be visually intrusive or form a dominant element in

the streetscape".

 

Further the assessing officer considered the SEPP 1 objection to be well founded on the basis that:

 

·      the proposal is considered to satisfy the underlying purposes of the FSR standard;

·      the proposed FSR provision will not result in detrimental streetscape or amenity impacts on the locality; and

·      the resultant built form and scale is compatible with the surrounding residential premises and represents a suitable infill development.

 

Overall, in consideration of the overwhelming justification that strict compliance with the FSR development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, and the SEPP 1 objection is well founded, the refusal of the development application on the basis that the development exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio is not justified.

Assessment Officer’s comments:

·      The applicant has made reference to the SEPP 1 Objection submitted with the current Section 82A proposal. As will be discussed in the following section of this report, the submitted SEPP 1 Objection for variation to the FSR control is considered to be well founded.

 

The site is elongated in shape and slopes from the rear to the front. The development scheme proposes the construction of two separate building blocks which are attached to each other at the basement level, in lieu of a single monolithic mass. The design incorporates a central courtyard in between the blocks, which provides visual relief and avoids continuous wall planes. The design scheme presents a building height and scale which are compatible with other existing multi-unit buildings in the locality, and will not detract from the character of the area.

 

·      The assessment report for the original development application has outlined reasons for supporting the SEPP 1 Objection submitted by the applicant at the time. The original assessment report has been reviewed and the justifications presented are generally concurred with.

 

One of the key justifications for supporting the SEPP 1 was the absence of unreasonable amenity impacts upon the adjoining residential properties as a result of the proposed floor space and density.

 

The current assessment officer considers that there is possibility for overlooking from the stairwell of the western building into the bedroom windows of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. A special condition has been recommended to require adequate privacy screens to be installed to minimize adverse privacy impacts. Subject to the above condition, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory having regard to the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

·      The current assessment also concludes that a wider landscape strip should be provided adjacent to the Waverley Street frontage, in order to improve visual amenity and privacy for the occupants of the proposed ground floor units. Appropriate condition to the above effect has been included in the “Recommendation” section of this report.

 

·      The proposed design has satisfactorily addressed the concerns of the Design Review Panel and is consistent with the design quality principles stipulated under SEPP 65.

 

Reason 2 The proposal does not comply with the setback requirements of the DCP - Multi Unit Housing.

 

Response from applicant:

 

Front setback

The proposed development complies with the front setback requirement set out within the DCP in that the Waverley Street building is setback 6.09m from the street, this is consistent with the setbacks of 93 and 97-99 Waverley Street, which are noted in assessing officer's report to the Planning Committee as being 6m and 4m respectively.

 

Side setbacks

The objectives of the side setback controls are as follows:

"Buildings are setback from the side boundary to ensure that:

·      there is adequate separation between buildings to maintain reasonable levels of solar access and minimise overshadowing.

·      reasonable levels of privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces are provided.

·      opportunities for landscaping and private open space are provided.

·      streetscape amenity is maintained."

 

In order to achieve the above objectives, the DCP outlines the following preferred solutions:

·      "buildings (including balconies) maintain a minimum average setback (measured for the length of the boundary) of 5 metres from any side boundary.

·      no part of the building is closer than 3.5m from any side boundary.

·      the maximum length of any one section of wall (without any articulation) is 10 metres.

The minimum length of any step is 3 metres".

 

As noted within the SEE, the proposed development has been sited to provide greater setbacks to than the existing building, and provides a minimum of 1.42m from the northern boundary but generally 3m for the Wentworth Street building, and a minimum of 1.42m from the northern boundary but generally 1.65m for the Waverley Street building.

 

The setback to the southern boundary is 3.0m (excluding the open stair case) for the Wentworth Street building and generally 2.1m for the Waverley Street building.

 

The site has a 12.8m frontage to both Wentworth Street and Waverley Street. Due to the narrow nature of this site it is considered that strict compliance with the minimum 3.5m setback is unnecessary when the development provides suitable internal amenity for future residents and the proposal achieves the objectives of the control. It is noted that the existing building provides side setbacks of approximately 1m on the northern boundary and a variable setback to the southern boundary, which for the most part is 1.6m, although part of the building is on a zero setback.

 

As demonstrated within the SEE, this minor non-compliance does not prevent the proposed development from achieving the objectives of the setback control in that:

 

·      the proposed development will not cause unacceptable adverse overshadowing impacts upon adjacent buildings, in particular the principal living areas and the rear area within 97-99 Wentworth Street which will receive 3 hours of solar access during the winter solstice;

·      the proposed buildings are designed to minimise the potential for adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts, with privacy screens proposed on north and south facing balconies and windows;

·      the proposed development provides in excess of the landscape area and deep soil area requirements; and

·      the amenity of the streetscape is maintained and indeed improved (as discussed under Reason 3 below).

 

Furthermore, the assessing officer's report concluded that this non-compliance was also acceptable in that:

 

"the proposal does not result in unreasonable adverse impacts to the privacy, ventilation and solar access of the adjacent sites.

 

The proposed built form has incorporated staggered wall planes, select indentations, window openings, terraces, louvres and balcony areas, which all appropriately articulate the building facades and create visual interest. This assists in breaking any potential visual height, bulk and scale. Accordingly, the variations in setbacks are considered to be non-intrusive and visually

amendable."

 

Setback to Waverley Street

The proposed development has been designed to provide two buildings which front Wentworth Street and Waverley Street respectively. As set out within the SEE, the development originally sought to adopt the front setback requirement for both street frontages and align the buildings with the dominant setbacks of these streets. As the site has dual frontage, it is our view that the development does not have a rear setback and the proposal complies with the front setback control for each street.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Council's assessing officer considered that the setback to Waverley Street should be assessed against the rear setback control.

 

The performance requirements of the rear setback controls are:

 

"Buildings are set back from the rear boundary to ensure that:

·      there is adequate separation between buildings to maintain reasonable levels of solar access and minimise overshadowing.

·      reasonable levels of privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces are provided.

·      opportunities for landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces are provided.

·      buildings are built across a site rather than down its length"

 

Furthermore, the preferred solutions to achieve these performance requirements are:

 

·      "Buildings (including balconies) maintain a minimum average setback (measured for the length of the building along that boundary) of 8 metres from the rear boundary.

·      No part of the building is closer than 6 metres from the rear boundary.

·      The maximum length of any on section of wall (without any articulation) is 10 metres.

The minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Since the original submission in October 2009, the proponent has amended the setback of the Waverley Street building. The current proposal achieves a setback of 4.88m at ground floor, 8.57m at first floor and 8.66m at second floor. The proposed setbacks of the first and second floor levels therefore comply with the rear setback control, however the ground floor component of the Waverley Street building encroaches into the rear setback by 1.12m.

 

Despite this perceived non-compliance, the proposed development does not prevent the performance requirements of the rear set back control being achieved, i.e. the positioning of the ground floor level does not affect the privacy or solar access received by the Waverley Street terraces opposite the site. Nor does it prevent the provision of landscaping or private open space (note the proposal exceeds the LEP requirement for landscaped areas).

 

Furthermore, whilst the assessing officer noted that the ground floor level did not meet the preferred solutions of the DCP, they considered the proposal acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      the rear facing balconies and terraces will be provided with adequate screening devices such that there is minimal impact to the privacy of the adjoining properties across Waverley Street;

·      there is ample building separation between the Waverley Street terraces and the eastern façade of the proposed development;

·      the staggered eastern facade is effective in reducing the bulk of the development as the noncompliance ground floor section is excavated into the site to create a terrace below the Waverley Street level;

·      the ground floor level is not readily visible from the street and more generous setbacks at the first and second levels are adequate and effective in reducing the appearance of bulk and scale, resulting in a building which is commensurate with the low scale nature of Waverley Street;

·      the proposal effectively addresses both street frontages and responds to the established character of both Wentworth and Waverley Streets;

·      the proposal will achieve an appropriate stepping down in height from Wentworth to Waverley Street to the rear of the site, effecting a reasonable transition in building height and scale of development; and

·      the development has been articulated through the incorporation of balconies and a combination of solid and open elements..and the building form proposed, having a front and rear wing with landscaping between has reduced bulk and scale impacts on the adjoining properties and both street frontages.

 

Assessment Officer’s comments:

·      As will be discussed in the body of this report, the proposed front, rear and side setbacks are considered to be satisfactory. The development scheme has a suitable built form and will not create unacceptable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

·      The applicant has reiterated the reasons put forward by the original assessment officer for supporting the proposed setback arrangement. These reasons have been reviewed as part of the Section 82A process and are concurred with.

 

·      It should be noted that additional rear setback has been provided in this Section 82A Review proposal. A special condition is also recommended to widen the proposed deep soil landscape strip adjacent to the Waverley Street alignment. The subject proposal will further improve visual amenity for the Waverley Street frontage and should be supported.

 

Reason 3 The proposal will adversely impact on the streetscape.

 

Response from Applicant:

The surrounding character of the area is dominated by 1960's-1980's flats. The typical form and massing of the streetscape therefore is three to four storey residential buildings with garages at the ground floor and balconies which are generally cantilevered slabs dividing the mass of the building into vertical modules.

 

The existing single storey dwelling currently occupying the site, is illustrated in the photographs included at Figure 1 below. Figure 1 illustrates that this building has lost its context amongst the adjacent older style residential flat buildings. By comparison, the photomontages of the proposed streetscape (Figure 2) illustrate a development which is of an appropriate height and mass and is comparable in scale to the adjacent properties and is of a contemporary design which enhances the character of the streetscape and contributes to the variety of buildings within the locality.

 

Based upon the above photographs and illustrations, it is considered that the proposed development will have a positive impact upon the streetscape for the following reasons:

 

·      the proposed buildings are of a high quality contemporary architectural design, which use a mix of neutral and modern materials and finishes to blend comfortably between the two older adjacent buildings;

·      the proposed height is in keeping with the adjacent buildings and provides consistency of scale and character to both streetscapes;

·      the setback of the first floor and second floor levels of the Waverley Street building from Waverley Street, provides greater separation between the proposed development and the existing development on the eastern side of the street;

·      the development provides landscaping at both street frontages to screen private courtyards but also soften the appearance of the buildings;

·      the proposed building replaces an older style residential dwelling that has lost its context as a result of the redevelopment of adjoining sites and in the locality and therefore is a more appropriate urban design response;

·      the articulation of both facades break up the bulk and form of each building to provide a more attractive and interesting built form.

 

Furthermore, Figure 3 provides an illustration of the proposed Waverley Street streetscape when viewed from the north looking south, without the proposed landscaping treatments and the removal of the garage. As shown, the proposed development will be seen to be considerably setback from the site boundary and the proposed removal of the garage and the embellishment of landscaped verge and the proposed landscape treatments within the site will significantly improve the existing unkempt streetscape.

 

The assessing officer also considered the proposal to have positive architectural merits and that it would be sympathetic to the character of the existing streetscape (pg 76, Development Application Report No. DA65/10).

 

The proposed development will not adversely impact the streetscape.

 

Assessment Officer’s comments:

The proposed built form has incorporated suitable articulation and is compatible with the scale and height of the adjoining buildings. The proposal will replace an existing aged dwelling with a modern development which is compatible with the bulk and scale of other multi-unit housing buildings in the locality. The proposal is considered to contribute to the existing streetscape. The justifications presented by the applicant are considered to be well founded.

 

Reason 4 The site is not suitable for the proposed development.

 

Response from Applicant:

Randwick Council's Development Application guide (Page 12) provides the following list of considerations in showing whether a site is suitable for a proposed development:

 

·      site constraints, such as slope, flooding, geotechnical and groundwater issues;

·      proximity to transport services, shops, community and recreational facilities;

·      compatibility with adjoining development;

·      compatibility with land zoning;

·      size and shape of the allotment;

·      age and condition of buildings.

 

Having regard these considerations, we contend that the site is suitable for the proposed development on the basis that:

 

·      the site's constraints as specified within the accompanying SEE do not preclude a scale of development such as is proposed. In fact, it is considered that the proposed development suitably addresses its constraints and proposes a development which will not adversely impact upon any surrounding properties and will provide a positive contribution to the character of the area and streetscape;

·      the site is within 500m of Belmore Road - the commercial centre of Randwick, which includes transport services, shops, community and recreation facilities to support the future residents;

·      the surrounding area is residential in character and consists of predominantly large older style residential flat buildings. The proposed use of the site for a residential flat development is also compatible with adjoining development which are both older style residential flat developments;

·      the site is zoned 2C - Residential Zone C, whereby development for the purpose of multi-unit housing is permissible;

·      as demonstrated above and in the accompanying SEE, the size and shape of the site can suitably accommodate the proposed development without causing adverse environmental impacts to the surrounding development or local road network;

·      the building which currently occupies the site is an older style residential dwelling, that has lost its context, therefore the redevelopment of the site in this locality is a more appropriate urban design response; and

·      the site has utility services available to support the development;

 

The assessing officer considered that the site was also suitable for the proposed development in that "the site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land uses and structures".

 

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the relevant planning controls and will provide a development that sits comfortably within its context. The proposed development will set a positive precedent for future development given its high architectural quality and compliance with SEPP 65. In light of the above merits and in the absence of any adverse environmental impacts we recommend that the application be approved subject to conditions of consent.

 

Given the proposal remains substantially the same to the one determined by Council, we see no reason why the proposed would need to be presented to the Design Review Panel for a fourth time.

 

Assessment Officer’s comments:

The proposal has a height and scale, which are compatible with the existing flat developments in the surrounding built environment, and do not detract from the prevailing residential character of the locality. The proposal will not generate unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining and nearby properties.

 

As will be discussed within the body of this report, the subject proposal satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of relevant planning controls. Therefore, the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

 

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

 

5.1    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.

 

Floor space ratio

Pursuant to Clause 20F(2) of the LEP, the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C where the site is less than 700m2 is 0.65:1 or 380.4m2 gross floor area (GFA). The proposal has an FSR of 0.93:1 or 543m2, and exceeds the development standard by 0.28:1 or 162.6m2. The proposal entails a variation to the standard by 42.7%.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio (FSR)

Gross floor area (GFA)

Proposed FSR / GFA

0.93:1

543m2

Permissible FSR /  GFA

0.65:1

380.4m2

FSR / GFA in excess of LEP standard

0.28:1

162.6m2

 

5.2    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 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 key justifications for the variation to the FSR standard:

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the underlying purpose of the FSR control.

·      The proposal complies with other relevant environmental and residential amenity controls.

·      The proposal is consistent with the planning principles established by case law for height, bulk and scale.

·      The proposal exceeds the minimum landscaped area and deep soil requirements as required within LEP 1998 and DCP Multi-Unit Housing.

·      The proposal has been designed to avoid and does not generate any adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

·      The proposal provides high visual quality and consistency of scale and character to the streetscape.

·      The proposal fully complies with Council’s car parking and bicycle parking rates and is unlikely to increase demand for on-street parking.

·      The proposal takes into account the context of the surrounding area and the positive attributes of the site’s location.

·      The proposal does not result in a density that compromises the amenity of the residential apartments proposed. All units have large areas of private open space and are naturally cross ventilated; they also have allocated secure parking spaces, separate storage areas within the basement and good landscaped common open space surrounding and between the buildings.

·      The proposal will not result in any unacceptable overshadowing effects on principal living areas in adjacent properties. The proposal maintains an acceptable level of solar access to both 97-99 Wentworth Street and 93 Wentworth Street.

·      The proposal does not generate any different environmental impacts compared to a complying scheme.

·      The proposal is consistent with the Objectives of the Zone No. 2C.

·      The proposal is consistent with the key aims of the Metropolitan Strategy.

 

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

 

-      The subject locality is characterised by a mixture of multi-unit, semi-detached and detached residential developments. The proposal will create a 3-storey residential flat development. The design scheme fully complies with the maximum building height and external wall height standards stipulated in RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal has a height and scale, which are compatible with the existing flat developments in the surrounding built environment, and do not detract from the prevailing residential character of the locality.

Despite the fact that there are single- and double-storey dwellings in the immediate surroundings, the current planning controls specified in the LEP allow for higher density developments. The proposal represents a reasonable attempt to realise the full development potential of the site.

-      The site is elongated in shape with a depth of 45.72m and slopes significantly from the rear to the front. The development scheme proposes the construction of two separate building blocks which are attached to each other at the basement level, in lieu of a single monolithic mass. The design incorporates a central courtyard in between the blocks, which provides visual relief and avoids continuous wall planes.

-      The site is adjoined by 4-storey residential flat buildings to the north and south. The ridge and parapet heights of No. 93 Wentworth Street to the north are RL75.63 and RL73.89 respectively. The parapet height of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street to the south is RL75.85.

In comparison, the parapet heights of the western and eastern building blocks (excluding the skylight) are RL72.315 and RL74.385 respectively. The height and scale of the proposed development are slightly less than the existing adjoining buildings. Refer to the photomontage images below.

Photomontage: Proposed western building block as viewed from Wentworth Street

Photomontage: Proposed eastern building block as viewed from Waverley Street

 

Detached garage located to the rear of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street which fronts onto Waverley Street (the garage forms part of No. 101-103 Wentworth Street); the residential flat building at the corner of Waverley and Sydney Streets is seen in the left hand side of the photograph

Detached garage (foreground) and residential flat building (background) at No. 93 Wentworth Street

 

o    At present, the western side of Waverley Street is characterised by a mixture of detached garages, fencing and vegetation. The garages are generally built closely to the street alignment.

 

The proposal will introduce a building block, which is setback 4.883m to 7.655m from the rear boundary. The eastern block will present as a 2 ½-storey building with deep soil planting being provided adjacent to the Waverley Street frontage. The progressive increase in rear setback in conjunction with the proposed landscaping will appropriately soften the appearance of the building structures and minimise privacy impacts on the terraced cottages on the opposite side of Waverley Street. The proposed design is also justified by the amenity benefits offered by the central courtyard, which will maintain solar access to the southern neighbour and enable cross ventilation to all proposed apartments.

 

-      The proposed built form has incorporated staggered wall planes, balconies, window openings and a combination of compatible surface finishes, which will appropriately articulate the building facades and create visual interest. The design scheme adopts a flat roof, which will minimise the overall building height.

 

The above design measures will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, despite non-compliance with the FSR development standard. Overall, the architectural character and form of the proposal are considered to carry satisfactory design merits. (Refer to the photomontage images.)

 

-      The submitted landscape plan indicates the provision of shrub planting along the perimeter of the site. The design scheme will deliver a suitable landscape ambience to the building and minimise adverse privacy impacts on the neighbours. Council’s landscape officer has also recommended special conditions to require the planting of a canopy tree within the central courtyard and additional screen planting near the side boundaries to enhance the visual amenity.

 

-      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, privacy or view loss, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

-      The site is located in close proximity to public transport services along Alison Road and Centennial Park. The scale and density of the development are justified by the site’s high accessibility. The proposal represents an orderly and economic use of the land for urban consolidation.

 

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 FSR 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 Residential 2C Zone in that it will allow multi-unit residential housing, 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”.

 

Comments:

The proposal 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 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 FSR 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 standard is relevant to the subject development. As discussed above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the underlying purposes 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 are compatible with other multi-unit residential buildings in the locality, and the proposal represents 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 development 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 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 existing Residential C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality. The current RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) has maintained the 2C zoning for the site.

 

6.      Site History

 

6.1    Previous development application relating to the subject site

 

DA/767/2009

Demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a 3-storey multi-unit housing development comprising 7 residential units, basement car park for 10 vehicles, landscaping and associated works.

 

The application was recommended for approval by Council’s assessment officer and refused by Council at its Planning Committee Meeting on 14 September 2010. The reasons for refusal are as follows:

1.     The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio.

2.     The proposal does not comply with the setback requirements of the DCP - Multi Unit Housing.

3.     The proposal will adversely impact on the streetscape.

4.     The site is not suitable for the proposed development.

 

7.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application has been advertised and notified from 24 November to 8 December 2010 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Consultation of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

·      2 Gordon Street, Randwick

·      16 Gordon Street, Randwick

·      22 Gordon Street, Randwick

·      26 Gordon Street, Randwick

·      14 St. Paul’s Lane, Randwick

·      2 Sydney Street, Randwick

·      4 Sydney Street, Randwick 

·      6 Sydney Street, Randwick

·      11 Waverley Street, Randwick

·      13 Waverley Street, Randwick

·      15 Waverley Street, Randwick

·      17 Waverley Street, Randwick

·      21 Waverley Street, Randwick

·      29 Waverley Street, Randwick

·      31 Waverley Street, Randwick

·      2/97-99 Wentworth Street, Randwick

·      9/97-99 Wentworth Street, Randwick

·      19/103 Wentworth Street, Randwick

·      Randwick Precinct Committee

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The proposed development has an excessive density, bulk and scale, and will detrimentally impact on the local streetscape.

 

The proposed floor space ratio does not comply with the controls stated in the LEP. 

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objection is not well founded and should not be supported. 

The proposed built form, height and scale are considered to be satisfactory. The proposed floor space and density are considered to be appropriate to the locality and the surrounding built environment.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objection for variation to the FSR control has been reviewed and is considered to be well founded.

 

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

The proposed development will create detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the locality. 

Council’s heritage officer has assessed the application and raised no objections on conservation grounds.

The development scheme does not reserve adequate front, rear and side setbacks. The proposal does not comply with the provisions of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

The proposed setbacks are considered to be satisfactory and meet the performance requirements of the DCP. 

The site has insufficient width to accommodate an appropriately configured residential flat building.

 

The proposal does not comply with the site planning requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

The site is not suitable for the proposed development.

The site has dual frontages and sufficient dimensions to accommodate the proposed land use and structures. The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development. Refer to the “DCP” and “Environmental Assessment” sections of this report for details.

 

 

The proposal does not comply with Council’s planning controls and represents an over-development of the site.

The proposed density and built form are considered to be adequate for reasons detailed in the body of this report.

The garbage storage area is located in close proximity to the kitchen and bedroom windows of the dwelling units within the adjoining building at 97-99 Wentworth Street.

The proposed waste storage area is separated from the bedroom and kitchen windows of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street by the latter’s access driveway. A solid boundary wall is also proposed adjacent to the bin area. The above features will minimise any odour or visual impacts on the neighbouring dwellings.

The proposal involves the replacement of dividing fences. The development proponent should consult with the neighbouring property owners in this matter.

A standard condition relating to dividing fence and consultation with the neighbouring property owners has been included.

The development scheme does not provide adequate deep soil planting along the Waverley Street frontage and the side boundaries.

A landscape plan has been submitted showing the provision of shrub planting along the perimeter of the site.

 

Council’s landscape officer has also recommended special conditions to require the provision of additional screen planting along the side boundaries and within the central courtyard.

 

Subject to the above conditions, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory having regard to site landscaping.

The proposal should reduce the number of dwelling units facing Waverley Street as well as the size of the central courtyard.

As discussed, the proposed density and floor space are considered to be satisfactory. Any reduction to the courtyard dimensions would adversely affect solar access to the southern adjoining property.

The development will adversely affect the privacy of the adjoining buildings as well as the terraces on the eastern side of Waverley Street.

 

The east-facing balconies should incorporate solid balustrades.

 

The eastern elevation of the rear building block should incorporate privacy screens to minimise overlooking.

The eastern building block is appropriately setback from the Waverley Street boundary.

 

A special condition has been recommended to require the balustrades to the second floor eastern balconies to be constructed with obscured glazing. The condition also requires the installation of operable louvre screens at the above balconies to enhance privacy protection for the properties on the eastern side of Waverley Street.

 

The development will significantly overshadow the adjoining residential flat building to the south and the terraces on the eastern side of Waverley Street.

The proposal will not result in unreasonable overshadowing. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The proposal will obstruct views currently available to 9/97-99 Wentworth Street.

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

The proposed development has not reserved sufficient side setbacks, and will not enable views of the sky from 13 Waverley Street through the gap between buildings.

The proposed side setbacks are considered to be adequate. The development is not considered to result in detrimental visual or amenity impacts on the terraces on the eastern side of Waverley Street. The proposal is not considered to obstruct any significant views from the above terraces.

The proposal will adversely affect the physiological and psychological well being of the neighbouring residents. 

The design scheme is considered to maintain a reasonable level of amenity to the neighbouring residential properties in terms of solar access, privacy and view sharing. The development is not considered to create unacceptable impacts on the well being of the neighbouring residents in the light of the relevant controls and planning principles.

The proposal does not encourage housing affordability.

The development scheme proposes 1- and 2-bedroom dwelling units and is considered to broaden housing choice in the locality. The proposed dwelling units may not be identified as “affordable housing” as defined in relevant State policies. Notwithstanding, the dwelling mix is suitable for different household composition and is considered to deliver a net social benefit.

The proposed development will significantly increase traffic generation and parking in the surrounding road network. 

Council’s development engineer has reviewed the application and raised no objections on traffic grounds.

The proposed development will reduce kerb-side parking spaces in the surrounding areas.

The proposal fully complies with the car parking requirements stipulated in Council’s Parking DCP. The proposal is unlikely to significantly reduce kerb side parking in the area.

Parents are using the kerb side parking for the drop-off and pick-up of children attending the local schools. This practice has reduced availability of parking for the surrounding residents.

This matter is not relevant to the assessment of the subject application.

The proposed building work is likely to encounter sub-surface drainage problems. 

Council’s development engineer has reviewed the application and raised no objections on drainage grounds, subject to the recommended conditions.

The construction phase of the proposal will create detrimental amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties, including dust and noise emission. The building works are likely to cause structural damage to the adjoining premises.

Standard construction management conditions have been recommended to ensure proper execution of works on the site. A further condition is recommended to require the preparation of a dilapidation report to provide a basis for monitoring any damages to the adjoining properties.

The proposed development will reduce the values of the surrounding residential properties.

Variations in property values are not considered to be a valid objection on town planning grounds.

 

8.      Technical Officers Comments

 

8.1    Heritage Planner

The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. The comments provided are extracted under the “RLEP” section of this report.

 

8.2    Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

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

 

Landscape Comments

With the exception of the 6 metre tall Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) located in the rear yard, along the western edge of the existing free standing storage shed, towards the northeast corner of the site, all other existing vegetation throughout the site was observed to be insignificant, and would not pose a constraint to the development in anyway.

 

While retention of the Bangalow Palm as an existing site feature would be desirable, there is no way this could be achieved given the direct conflict with all levels of the proposal from the basement to upper levels, with consent also granted for its removal.

 

The landscape plan proposes a suitable mixture of evergreen screening trees, exotic deciduous species, as well as smaller decorative feature plants, which will cater the amenity needs of future occupants, as well as assist with presentation of the development to the street, with conditions requiring that it be implemented.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

Traffic Comments

The internal driveway must be a minimum 3.00m wide (clear width).

 

Parking Provisions

The parking requirement for 5 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 1 bedroom units is as follows (compliance with Council’s DCP Parking):

 

        5x 2 bedroom units                           = 5 x 1.2   = 6.0

        2x 1 bedroom units                           = 2 x 1.0   = 2.0

        Visitor Spaces is 1 per 4 dwellings                = 2.0

        TOTAL REQUIRED                                              10

        TOTAL PROVIDED                                              10

 

Car park layout

Amended plans Drwg No DA01 Rev D dated 20/5/09 and received by Council by e-mail on the 20/5/10 show car space dimensions satisfactory.

 

Service Authority Comments

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, it was resolved on the motion of Councillors Nash and Belelli that:

 

(a) the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million;

 

(b)  the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site, when the cost of works on the site exceeds $1 million up to $2 million; and

 

(c)  the Director, City Planning investigate the feasibility of funding the undergrounding of existing overhead cables for new development under the new options provided for in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (Developer Contributions) Act 2005.

 

A site inspection reveals overhead wires are located on the other side of Wentworth Street.

 

9.      Master Planning Requirements

 

The site has a land area of only 585.3m2 and a master plan is not required.

 

10.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

The site is located within Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal is consistent with the general aims of the LEP and the specific objectives of Residential C Zone in that the development will deliver multi-unit housing, which is compatible with the desired character of the locality.

 

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

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

20E Landscaped area

(2) Minimum 50% of site area (292.65m2)

54.1% or 316.6m2

Complies

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

155.2m2 deep soil landscaped area, which is more than 50% of the minimum required landscaped area provision

Complies

20F Floor space ratios

(2) Maximum 0.65:1 for sites less than 700m2 (380.445m2)

0.93:1 or 543m2 GFA

No, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

20G Building heights

(2) Maximum building height 12m

10.7m

Yes

(4) Maximum external wall height 10m

10m

Yes

40 Earthworks

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

The proposal requires significant excavation to accommodate a basement car park. Specific conditions are recommended to ensure that suitable retaining walls and protection measures are installed during works on the site. The proposal is not considered to adversely impact on the drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the recommended construction management and engineering conditions.

Complies, subject to conditions

 

Clause 43 Heritage conservation

The site is located adjacent to the Gordon Square Conservation Area, which covers the eastern side of Waverley Street. The row of terraced cottages at Nos. 2-26 Gordon Street is listed as a heritage item under the LEP (Inventory No. 275: “Gordon Terrace”, c 1885).

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for review. The comments provided are extracted below:

 

The Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site has frontages to both Wentworth Street and Waverley Street and is occupied by a single storey Californian Bungalow cottage which retains much of its original character including face brick walls, timber windows and timber gable detailing.  Surrounding development in Wentworth Street comprises a mixture of single storey and double storey cottages and three storey residential flat buildings.  Surrounding development on the western side of Waverley Street comprises rear garages to the single dwellings and residential flat buildings which front Wentworth Street with plantings in some rear gardens and on the street verge which contribute to the visual qualities of the streetscape.  The eastern side of Waverley Street comprises the Gordon Square conservation area, with two Victorian terrace groups which contribute to the heritage value of the conservation area.  The Statement of Significance for the conservation area notes that the housing stock is an interesting mixture of terraces and row houses, and detached and semi-detached cottages with a number of intrusive residential flat buildings. 

 

Controls

The Matters for Consideration included in Section 79C of the EP and A Act require Council to consider the likely impacts of a development on the natural and built environment, while Clause 43(5) of Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) allows Council to require the preparation of a heritage impact statement for development in the vicinity on the heritage significance of a heritage item. 

 

Proposal

The application proposes to replace existing cottage with a medium density development of three storeys over basement carparking.  The development is to be in the form of two separate blocks, one fronting Wentworth Street and one fronting Waverley Street.  The Wentworth Avenue block will have a scale of three storeys on a low podium, while the Waverley Street block will have a scale of two storeys on a low podium. 

 

Comments

The proposed development will introduce a new building envelope into the Waverley Street streetscape which currently comprises rear gardens as well as single storey garages built to the street alignment (with the higher main building on the site considerably set back).  The setback and scale of the proposed two storey block will break the predominant building line.  It is considered however that the form of the proposed development will not adversely impact on the heritage significance of the Gordon Square Conservation Area.  Surrounding buildings include rendered and painted walls to the terraces in the conservation area, and blonde and red face brickwork to the more recent residential flat buildings, so there is considerable diversity in materials and finishes with little consistency which would dictate a particular wall finish for the proposed development. 

 

The 4.8m setback of the new building from Waverley Street will comprise a 3.5m wide terrace and a 1.3m wide landscaped strip.  This strip will include a retaining wall incorporating a 300mm wide planter box and an additional 700mm wide deep soil zone.  It is noted that the landscape plans have not taken into account the reduction in area due to the retaining wall.  It is considered that the width of the landscaped strip is insufficient to allow for plantings which would contribute to the visual quality and amenity of the Waverley Street streetscape and the outlook of the terraces in the heritage conservation area.  Additionally, it would be preferable if the existing dense plantings within the street verge area were retained as part of the proposed development. 

 

Comments:

The heritage officer has raised no objections to the proposed building envelopes and exterior finishes and colour scheme.

 

There is concern relating to the limited width of the planter box (300mm) attached to the rear retaining walls, which directly abut the Waverley Street alignment. A special condition is recommended to increase the width of the raised planter box as well as the deep soil areas behind the retaining walls. The above condition will enable suitable screen planting to be provided to visually soften the physical structures and improve the streetscape presentation of the development.

 

10.2  State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

The original development proposal (DA/767/2009) was first referred to the DRP in November 2009. Following various design changes, the proposal was referred again to the Panel on 1 March 2010. The current Section 82A Review proposal is substantially the same as the revised design scheme that was presented to the DRP in March 2010. Therefore, the DRP comments provided at the time are relevant to the subject application.

 

The design principles stipulated in the SEPP and the comments provided by the DRP are addressed as follows: 

 

Principle 1: Context

 

The site extends west to east from Wentworth St to Waverley St.  Waverley St is approximately 4.5 m higher than Wentworth St.  It is surrounded by many multi-storey residential flat buildings and some lower scale town houses.

 

The preliminary planning report does not identify any significance for the existing dwelling or garden that is to be demolished.

 

Some contextual information has been provided describing the immediate neighbours and some photography of surrounding buildings is included.  The area is mixed and of varying quality.  Some new and old buildings in the area have architectural merit.

 

The proposal has two buildings 8m apart with separate access and a central open space.  The Applicant describes the two buildings as having separate character to reflect that of the two differing street frontages of Wentworth and Waverley Streets.

 

It is the Panel’s opinion that there does not need to be a noticeable variation in the fabric and detail of the buildings as the heights and proportions are the more important issues.

 

No new contextual information was provided to the Panel.  There is also a lack of information on the immediate relationship with the neighbours and the Panel suggested that a series of north/south sections be prepared along the east/west boundaries so that the wall heights and ground lines can be fully understood and impacts to neighbours known.

 

Comments:

Detailed cross and long sections in conjunction with relevant reference level data have been submitted. The drawings have included outlines of the adjoining buildings to enable detailed assessment of potential amenity impacts on the neighbours.

 

Principle 2: Scale

 

In July 2008 two schemes were presented:

 

The drawings SK-01-01 and SK-01-02 show a long building that covers the entire site (bar minimal setbacks) and has a large undercroft area shown in the centre of the ground floor.  This proposal does not provide any consolidated landscaped out door space, adversely affects the amenity to neighbouring living rooms by reducing privacy and sun access, creates extra bulk where balconies project forward of the streets’ predominant building lines, creates single orientation apartments in the centre of the upper floors and the undercroft area is considered inappropriate and low in amenity. The density is also double the permitted floor space.

 

The second scheme shown on SK-02 has two separate buildings connected at half levels with a central bridge and stair.

 

The second scheme is preferred by the Panel as it has the potential to create good amenity for the occupants and reduced impacts on the neighbours.

 

The Applicant has developed the second scheme and removed the need for a bridge between the two buildings.  This has improved the proposal and creates a consolidated deep soil area in the centre of the site. The scale of the proposal is considered appropriate.

 

Two photo montages were presented to the Panel – one from each street frontage.

The scale of the proposal is considered satisfactory.

The Panel encouraged the Applicant to refine the details of the building so that the architectural drawings and the end product could match the intended proportions shown in the photo montages.

 

Comments:

An external colours and finishes plan has been submitted. The photomontages are consistent with the design as shown on the architectural drawings.

 

Principle 3: Built form

 

The Panel considers that the built form shown in SK-02 is a better planning strategy for the site and should be improved along the following lines:

 

-      Raise the floor level of the lower apartment to Waverley St.

-      Reduce the number of levels to Waverley St to two or two and a half storeys, in keeping with the character of the street

-      An additional floor could be considered for the Wentworth Street wing, as that street is already characterized by 4 storey buildings

-      Provide 3m setbacks to windows on side elevations to allow for operable windows and       added privacy between neighbours

-      Create a landscaped central courtyard with a strip of deep soil on the northern boundary

-      Do not extend balconies into the building street setbacks

 

As previously mentioned it would be the Panel’s preference that the building on the eastern portion of the site (Waverley St frontage) be raised to increase the amenity of the lowest apartment.  However the Applicant has demonstrated that this will increase overshadowing of the neighbour’s outdoor private space.  An alternative is to improve the planning of the one bedroom apartments on the ground floor.  These apartments are large and yet the ability to have courtyards on the north and south has not been explored.  An alternate entry and stair to the east, directly off the street may create more private space for the ground floor building occupants. 

 

The height at Wentworth Street seems appropriate however detail of the raised planter box should be included in a 1:50 section showing construction and materials for fences, gates, facades, balconies and roofs.  The sections provided are schematic and therefore insufficient for DA assessment.  The detail for the proposed fire protection of windows should also be indicated.

 

The extended balcony on the north of the Wentworth Street building should be reduced in length to minimize its impact on the neighbour.

 

The roof form on the eastern building could be adjusted to create ventilating skylights over the internal stair.

 

The roof plan should include the roof over the stairs and show roof materials, falls and downpipes for the balconies.  The sections and elevations should reflect the roof falls.

 

The Panel has requested more detailed drawings so that there can be some surety that the building’s finishes, materials and construction detail support the illustrated design.   The drawings are still considered to be lacking in informative detail about the construction.  There are also anomalies between the drawings and the montages which need to be corrected.

 

Window numbers and positions were discussed and the Panel would like to see more opportunities for cross ventilation and natural daylight.

 

Window fire treatment should be shown on the photo montage and elevations.

 

The lower terrace to Wentworth Street is shown with retained earth and an area for planting at the top edge and base of the retaining wall.  The footings and construction (retaining wall faced with brick) have not been shown in adequate detail.

 

The ground floor apartments to Waverley Street are below the street level.  This is not considered desirable and if the floor level cannot be raised, the Panel would encourage some initiatives to lower the perceived height of retaining walls and increase landscape design including trees, bamboo, or the like to achieve good privacy and amenity.

 

Comments:

·      Adequate design details relating to the external finishes, materials and roof construction have been included in the submitted drawings.

·      Fire protection measures for the side windows are clearly annotated on the elevations.

·      Detailed sections showing the footings and load bearing walls have been submitted.

·      A special condition is recommended to increase the width of the raised planter box and deep soil areas behind the retaining walls adjacent to the Waverley Street frontage. The above condition will appropriately screen and reduce the apparent scale of the retaining walls as viewed from the proposed ground floor units.

 

Principle 4: Density

 

The proposed number of apartments is considered acceptable however their size and bulk will need to be moderated to achieve reasonable outcomes with regard context and the amenity for neighbours. Some reductions as outlined above need to be considered.

 

The issues of size and bulk have been addressed in the current proposal however the proposal exceeds the FSR requirements for the site.  In this regard the Panel would like the Applicant to reconsider the 2 one-bed below ground level apartments to improve their amenity.

 

The density is considered appropriate.

 

Comments:

The immediate adjoining properties are 4-storey residential flat buildings. The height and scale of the proposed development are considered to be compatible with the neighbouring premises and other multi-unit residential buildings in the locality.

 

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

 

The proposal has the potential to provide good passive solar design outcomes.  The Panel notes that the planning arrangements in the second scheme have provided good natural daylight and cross ventilation opportunities.  Winter sun access could be improved by developing the roof section.

– this applies to the eastern building also.

 

Window and door placement and operation should be designed to allow night time ventilation without compromising security.

 – this is not clear on the drawings.

 

Water retention for garden watering and car washing should be provided.

– a better position for the rainwater tank should be investigated as it currently sits in the middle of the central courtyard area.  A storage tank under the driveway would be a better outcome.

 

Ceiling fans should be provided in bedrooms.

– these are not clear on the drawings

 

Window types to all rooms should be considered to accommodate different weather conditions, and allow occupants a variety of ventilation options.

– The door and window design and operation is not clearly shown on the drawings.  Areas of fixed glass, and reliance on sliding doors for ventilation are not considered good outcomes.

 

The roof slab will require foam insulation covered with pebble ballast, or metal deck and insulation to provide effective thermal comfort to the top floor apartments.

 – This is not clear on the drawings.

 

Outdoor clothes drying areas should be provided – possibly within screened areas on balconies.

– These have been provided.

 

The roof construction is not clearly described however it seems that foam insulation with pebble ballast is intended which will perform well.

 

With the inclusion of additional windows as previously noted this development should perform well with regard to environmental design.

 

Comments:

·      A detailed roof section demonstrating the construction and insulation methods has been submitted.

·      Each of the proposed dwellings will enjoy adequate cross-ventilation and natural lighting.

·      A BASIX Certificate has been submitted and standard conditions are recommended to ensure the listed commitments are complied with.

 

Principle 6: Landscape

 

A landscape design prepared by a Landscape Architect will be required for the DA.

–  A planting diagram has been provided however this is not a Landscape Architect design.  The Panel recommends that a Landscape Architect be engaged to assist with the design. 

 

Rainwater tanks will need to be provided for irrigation.

– see earlier comment with regard to position of tank.

 

The deep soil area should be increased (and driveway/basement area decreased) to provide for the inclusion of large trees in the landscape design.

– The central courtyard area would be improved if the driveway width below was reduced to create deep soil area on the north boundary.  The planted area on the southern boundary should reflect the deep soil area below.  The path across this area could be reduced to stepping stones within the garden.

 

Adjustments should be made to the east and west street terraces as previously noted in this report.

 

It is suggested that a planting terrace with shrubs in it be provided to protect the privacy of the ground floor apartments below Waverley Street.

 

Comments:

·      A landscape plan with a detailed planting schedule has been submitted.

·      A special condition is recommended to widen the planter box and deep soil planting areas behind the retaining walls, in order to minimize overlooking of the ground floor apartments from the Waverley Street footpath.

 

Principle 7: Amenity

 

With changes in line with the above comments the site planning will have the capacity provide good amenity, sun, air and privacy to all units.

 

The design of the balconies to Wentworth Street could be used to improve attenuation of traffic noise and part solid balustrades would also assist with privacy.

– this has been incorporated successfully into the design.

 

Comments:

The balcony balustrades fronting Wentworth Street are made partially solid and will contribute to attenuation of traffic noise.

 

Principle 8: Safety and security

 

Satisfactory.  Casual surveillance of all public and communal spaces around the building would be possible.

 

Comments:

Satisfactory.

 

Principle 9: Social dimensions

 

It is understood that larger apartments are preferred by the applicant however a mix of larger apartments in one wing and smaller apartments in the other would allow better general site planning, amenity and mix.

– this has been achieved.

 

Comments:

The application proposes 5 x 2-bedroom units and 2 x 1 bedroom units. The proposed dwelling mix is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Principle 10: Aesthetics

 

The aesthetics have not been assessed at this Pre DA stage however the Panel stated a preference for a balance of natural materials rather than predominantly painted surfaces.

 

The photo montage indicates that the Wentworth Street frontage is dominated by rendered and painted walls that are lacking in refinement with regard to heights, stepping, car park entry, gates, balustrade and colour.  The Panel recommends that a well regarded Landscape Architect be engaged to assist with the design of this area.

 

The roof details for the main roofs and balconies need to be clarified as the simplicity shown in the montage may not be achievable.

 

A materials board and a montage for the Waverley Street elevation would assist the Panel in its assessment of the aesthetics of this proposal.

 

The aesthetics, as indicated in the photo montages is satisfactory.  The applicant needs to coordinate the drawings with the montages.

 

Comments:

·      A detailed materials and finishes plan has been submitted.

·      The building facades are appropriately articulated by a mixture of finishing materials, including fibre cement sheeting, face bricks and rendered masonry, balconies and window openings.

 

Summary and recommendation

The panel does not need to review this project again if the issues raised in this report are addressed to the satisfaction of the Council’s assessing officer.

 

Comments:

The matters raised in the above DRP comments have already been addressed in the revised drawings for the original development application DA/767/2009. The subject Section 82A Review scheme is substantially the same as that contained in the original application. The current proposal is considered to have satisfied the recommendations of the DRP.

 

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

SEPP: BASIX applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied with a BASIX Certificate. The commitments listed on the certificate will be imposed by appropriate standard conditions pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

11.    Policy Controls

 

11.1  Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 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.

 

A detailed site analysis plan has been submitted.

 

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

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

The site has a width of 12.8m and does not meet the preferred solution. Notwithstanding, the site has a uniform configuration and dual frontages. The dimensions and land area are considered to be adequate for a multi-unit housing development.

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

The site is not a corner allotment.

 

The design scheme is considered to appropriately address the Wentworth Street and Waverley Street frontages.

Height

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

 

The proposal complies with the overall building and external wall height controls stipulated in the LEP. The proposal has a height and scale that are compatible with other residential flat buildings in the locality and will not detract from the prevailing character of the locality.

 

As will be discussed in this report, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing or view loss.

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

 

The design scheme includes a central courtyard that divides the development into two building blocks. The above solution will minimise the visual bulk and scale of the structures and enable adequate solar access to the neighbouring properties and the proposed dwelling units.

 

The buildings are appropriately articulated with staggered wall alignments, balconies, windows and a combination of finishing materials. The proposal will achieve a satisfactory urban design outcome. 

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

Wentworth Street frontage:

6.1m to front walls

3.7m to balconies

 

The existing front setbacks of Nos. 93 and 97-99 Wentworth Street are approximately 6.1m and 4.5m respectively.

 

The proposed front setback to the external walls is consistent with the adjoining premises.

 

The proposed balconies protrude marginally beyond the alignment of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. Notwithstanding the balconies are substantially open and will not detract from the streetscape pattern.  

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.

Northern boundary

1.42m to 3m

 

Southern boundary

1.847m to 3m

 

Length of wall sections

Less than 10m, complies

 

Refer to comments below.

 

 

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

Ground floor

4.883m to walls

 

First floor

4.885m to balcony planter boxes

8.565m to walls

 

Second floor

7.655m to balconies

8.655m to walls

 

Length of wall sections

Less than 10m

 

Refer to comments below.

P4  General

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

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

The proposed shading devices will not result in material shadow impacts on the adjoining properties.

Density

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

 

The proposed density and FSR are considered to be satisfactory. Refer to the “SEPP 1” section of this report for details.

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:       

§ consistent with streetscape;

§ Entrances highlighted; and

§ Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

Waverley Street

The Waverley Street frontage is provided with a 1.4m high open style picket fence with security gate. The fencing design is compatible with that of the terrace row houses on the eastern side of the street. 

 

Wentworth Street

A 1.6m to 1.7m high masonry wall (which partially functions as a retaining wall to the courtyard of Unit 1 at ground level) is provided along the Wentworth Street frontage. An open style balustrade defining the boundary of the Unit 1 courtyard is provided above the masonry wall.

 

Notwithstanding the height of the masonry wall, a 2m wide landscape strip will be provided forward of the fence line. The landscape plan shows the planting of 2 x Griffith’s Ash (mature height 6m) and a variety of low shrubs within the planting strip, which will appropriately soften the appearance of the masonry structures.

 

Furthermore, a special condition is recommended to require the masonry wall to be finished in face brickwork, in order to provide a high quality presentation to the street.  

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.

The private and communal courtyards at the ground level are of functional dimensions and enable the provision of adequate screen planting. Satisfactory.  

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

 

Communal open space is provided within the central courtyard and the southern side setback areas.

 

Private courtyards are provided in the front, rear and northern side setback areas.

 

The open space arrangement is considered to be satisfactory and will allow a range of passive recreational activities by the occupants.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Each dwelling unit is provided with a private courtyard or balcony with direct access from the main living areas. Satisfactory. 

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

 

Private courtyards are provided adjacent to both the Wentworth and Waverley Street frontages. The private open space is appropriately screened by landscape planting and is considered to offer a satisfactory level of amenity to the occupants.  

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.

Living room balconies

Approx. 14.5m2 to 18m2 in area

 

The balconies are of functional dimensions and will allow passive recreational activities.

 

Courtyards

Approx. 20m2 to 51m2 in area

 

Satisfactory. 

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.

 

Refer to comments below.

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Refer to comments below.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Refer to comments below.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

A standard condition is recommended to ensure compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

View Sharing

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

 

Refer to comments below.

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

 

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

 

Based on the shadow diagrams, the proposed development will not cast shadows on the roof of the adjoining building to the south at No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. Satisfactory.  

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.

 

Refer to comments below.

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.

 

Refer to comments below.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

§ Living areas are orientated to the north.

§ Larger windows are located on the north.

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

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

Refer to the “BASIX” section of this report.

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

The proposed roof design supports the installation of solar collectors in the future.

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Satisfactory.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Satisfactory.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

Satisfactory.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

Satisfactory.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

To be required by condition.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

To be required by condition.

P7 Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

To be required by condition.

P8 External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

To be required by condition.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

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

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

 

The car parking facilities are located at the basement level. The car park entry and driveway are integrated with the design of the building and will not dominate the streetscape.

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

 

Not required.

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

The bicycle parking area is located with the secured basement level.

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

The driveway leading to the basement car park has a width of 3m at the property boundary. Screen planting is proposed adjacent to the driveway areas. The access facility is not considered to result in unacceptable visual impacts.

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

The proposed parking design has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and no objections were raised on traffic or safety grounds.

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

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

Satisfactory.

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

S4 Driveways have a minimum width of 3m

 

Driveways are at least 1m from any side or rear fence.

Satisfactory.

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

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

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

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

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

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

Suitable storage areas have been provided within the dwelling units and the basement areas. Satisfactory.

 

 

 

Barrier-Free Access

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

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

To be required by condition.

P2  Dwelling requirements:

0 – 14 dwellings 0

15 – 29 dwellings 1

30 – 44 dwellings 2

45 – 60 dwellings 3 so on…

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

 

Not applicable as the proposed development only contains 7 dwellings.

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

 

Not required. 

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

 

Not required. 

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1 Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Satisfactory.

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

 

To be required by condition.

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

 

To be required by condition.

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

 

To be required by condition.

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

 

To be required by condition.

P6 Telephone lines provided in accordance with the service provider.

 

To be required by condition.

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

 

Satisfactory.

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.

The kitchen area has sufficient dimensions to accommodate waste storage facilities.

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

 

The proposed waste storage facility is located near the Wentworth Street frontage behind the front building line. The facility will be obscured by 1500mm high slatted screen and will not cause significant impacts on the streetscape.

 

The waste facility is located adjacent to the access driveway of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. The plans also show the construction of masonry fence along the common boundary. The location of the waste facility is not considered to cause unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring residential flat building.

 

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.

 

Refer to comments above.

P3 Ancillary structures do not dominate and detract visually. 

 

 

Satisfactory.

 

11.1.1 Setbacks

 

Side setbacks:

The northern and southern side setbacks do not meet the DCP preferred solutions. Notwithstanding, the windows and balconies have been appropriately staggered away from those of the adjoining properties, and will not create unacceptable privacy impacts. As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, the proposal will not result in unreasonable shadow impacts on the southern adjoining neighhour. Given the relatively narrow allotment width, the strict adherence to the preferred solution will not enable floor plates with functional dimensions.

 

In this instance, the development scheme has a suitable built form and will not create unacceptable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties. The proposed side setbacks are therefore considered satisfactory.

 

Rear, Waverley Street setback:

The proposal does not meet the preferred solution of the DCP.

 

At present, the western side of Waverley Street is characterised by a mixture of detached garages, fencing and vegetation. The garages are generally built closely to the street alignment.

 

The proposal will introduce a building block, with a rear setback ranging from 4.883m to 7.655m. The eastern block will present as a 2 ½-storey building with deep soil planting being provided adjacent to the Waverley Street frontage. The progressive increase in rear setback in conjunction with the proposed landscaping will appropriately soften the appearance of the building structures and minimise privacy impacts on the terraced cottages on the opposite side of Waverley Street. The proposed design is also justified by the amenity benefits offered by the central courtyard, which will maintain solar access to the southern neighbour and enable cross ventilation to all proposed apartments.

 

Therefore, the proposed rear setback is considered satisfactory in this instance.

 

11.1.2 Privacy

 

Windows and balconies:

The principal living room windows and balconies are oriented to the east and west towards the streets. The northern balcony returns of the western block are provided with privacy screens. The above measures will minimise cross viewing into the adjoining properties. 

 

All of the proposed balconies are located away from bedroom windows of the adjoining apartment blocks and are not considered to create unreasonable noise impacts.

 

The submitted landscape plan indicates the provision of shrub planting along the perimeter of the site, which will enhance visual amenity and privacy protection for the neighbours.

 

Eastern block fronting Waverley Street:

The eastern block is oriented towards Waverley Street and has a setback ranging from 4.883m (ground floor glazed walls) to 7.655m (second floor balconies). The eastern windows and balconies of the rear block are attached to the bedrooms, which are low intensity use areas within the building and will not result in unacceptable privacy impacts. The first floor eastern balconies (which are situated approximately 1.3m above the footpath level) are bounded by 1300mm wide planter boxes. The landscape plan shows the provision of a deep soil landscape strip adjacent to the Waverley Street alignment. Based on the above design features, it is not considered that the proposal will result in unreasonable overlooking of the terrace houses on the eastern side of Waverley Street.

 

A special condition is recommended to require the balustrades of the second floor balconies to be constructed with obscured glazing and the provision of a sliding louvre screen to enhance privacy protection for the aforementioned terrace houses.

 

Stairwell:

The stairwell of the western block is substantially open on the southern elevation, and is capable of obliquely overlooking the bedroom windows of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. A special condition is recommended to require the installation of full-height privacy screens, in order to minimise adverse privacy impacts.

 

11.1.3 Solar access

The performance requirements of the DCP relating to solar access are as follows:

 

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.

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.

 

Solar access to windows and balconies:

The proposal will affect solar access to the northern elevation of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. The development will not result in material shadow impacts on the terraces on the eastern side of Waverley Street.

 

A survey plan indicating the window location on the northern façade is provided below:

 

Location of windows on the northern façade of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street (source: Survey Plan, Citi Surv Pty. Ltd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The northern elevation of No. 97-99 contains the following window openings:

 

·      3 x balconies / living room windows and 3 x bedroom windows attached to Unit 5 (1/F), Unit 9 (2/F) and Unit 13 (3/F), which are located in the rear section of the building.

·      4 x bedroom windows attached to Unit 2 (G/F), Unit 4 (1/F), Unit 8 (2/F) and Unit 12 (3/F), which are located in the front section of the building.

·      The other windows are attached to kitchens, bathrooms and laundries and are not deemed to be critical in the assessment having regard to the DCP control.

 

Based on the submitted elevational shadow diagrams, the following is noted:

 

·      The majority of the surface areas of the balconies / living room windows to Units 5, 9 and 13 will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight on 21 June.

·      The entire glazed areas of the bedroom windows to Units 5, 9 and 13 will receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight on 21 June.

·      The entire glazed areas of the bedroom windows to Units 4, 8 and 12 will receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight on 21 June.

·      The bedroom window to Unit 2 at the ground floor level will be substantially overshadowed on 21 June. However, it is noted that the principal living room windows and balcony of Unit 2 are located on the western façade fronting Wentworth Street. The proposal will not affect these windows and they will receive satisfactory sunlight on the winter solstice.

 

Therefore, the proposal is considered to satisfy performance requirement P1.2.

 

Solar access to communal open space:

 

There is an elevated concrete podium immediately to the rear of the multi-unit building at No. 97-99 Wentworth Street, which is currently being used as a clothes drying area. This podium is located adjacent to a hard paved area belonging to No. 101-103 Wentworth Street, which contains clothes drying facilities and hard stand car spaces.

 

Based on the submitted shadow diagrams, the following is noted:

 

·      More than 50% of the hard paved areas of No. 101-103 Wentworth Street will receive 3 hours of sunlight from 12 noon to 3 pm on 21 June.

·      More than 50% of the elevated podium to the rear of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street will receive direct sunlight at 12 noon, 21 June. However, it will be substantially overshadowed at 9am and 3pm, 21 June.

 

The proposal does not meet the performance requirement P1.3. Refer to comments below.

 

Planning principle relating to solar access:

 

An assessment has been made against the planning principle established in the Land and Environment Court case, The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010], NSWLEC 1082:

 

Where guidelines dealing with the hours of sunlight on a window or open space leave open the question what proportion of the window or open space should be in sunlight, and whether the sunlight should be measured at floor, table or a standing person’s eye level, assessment of the adequacy of solar access should be undertaken with the following principles in mind, where relevant:

 

·        The ease with which sunlight access can be protected is inversely proportional to the density of development. At low densities, there is a reasonable expectation that a dwelling and some of its open space will retain its existing sunlight. (However, even at low densities there are sites and buildings that are highly vulnerable to being overshadowed.) At higher densities sunlight is harder to protect and the claim to retain it is not as strong.

 

Comments:

The subject site and the adjoining properties that will be affected by overshadowing from the proposed development are zoned Residential 2C under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The objective of the 2C zone aims at enabling residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms. As is discussed under the “SEPP 1” section of this report, the proposed building scale and density are considered to be compatible with the surrounding environment and are suited to the site’s highly accessible location. The proposal represents an acceptable attempt to realise the full development potential of the site and will contribute to the diversity of housing form in the locality. 

 

Given that the zoning and development standards contained in the LEP envisage a medium density housing form, and that there are other similarly scaled residential flat buildings in the area, it is much more difficult to achieve strict compliance with the performance requirements in the DCP, as compared to the scenario of a lower density residential zone.

 

·        The amount of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of sunlight retained.

 

Comments:

As discussed, the northern and eastern living room windows and balconies of the flat building at No. 97-99 Wentworth Street, which is located due south of the site, will receive satisfactory solar access in compliance with the DCP performance requirement.

 

More than 50% of the clothes drying area to the rear of the building will receive direct sunlight at 12 noon, 21 June.

 

·        Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.

 

Comments:

The development has been split into two blocks to avoid a monolithic visual mass. The height and profile of the buildings follow the natural topography of the site. The proposed design is considered to be satisfactory and will not result in detrimental streetscape impacts. The shadows created by the development are not a result of poor design and site planning. It should be noted that the 3pm shadows falling on the podium in question are created by the existing building at No. 97-99 Wentworth Street itself.

 

·        For a window, door or glass wall to be assessed as being in sunlight, regard should be had not only to the proportion of the glazed area in sunlight but also to the size of the glazed area itself. Strict mathematical formulae are not always an appropriate measure of solar amenity. For larger glazed areas, adequate solar amenity in the built space behind may be achieved by the sun falling on comparatively modest portions of the glazed area.

 

Comments:

The proposal will maintain adequate solar access to the majority of the glazed areas to the principal living room windows on the northern façade of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street.

 

·        For private open space to be assessed as receiving adequate sunlight, regard should be had of the size of the open space and the amount of it receiving sunlight. Self-evidently, the smaller the open space, the greater the proportion of it requiring sunlight for it to have adequate solar amenity. A useable strip adjoining the living area in sunlight usually provides better solar amenity, depending on the size of the space. The amount of sunlight on private open space should ordinarily be measured at ground level but regard should be had to the size of the space as, in a smaller private open space, sunlight falling on seated residents may be adequate.

 

Comments:

The proposal will maintain adequate sunlight to the northern balconies of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. The building contains shared laundries on each floor and it is not unreasonable to expect that a significant portion of the residents would utilise the private balconies for clothes drying.

 

The residential flat building in question is bounded by driveways along both side boundaries with minimal open space at the rear. The shadow condition of the podium is partially attributed to the existing layout of the building.

 

Approximately 20% of the podium will receive sunlight at 9am, 21 June. The areas under sunlight will gradually increase to more than 50% at 12 noon, 21 June. Given the east-west orientation of the subject and adjoining sites, the degree of solar access is considered to be reasonable.

 

·        Overshadowing by fences, roof overhangs and changes in level should be taken into consideration. Overshadowing by vegetation should be ignored, except that vegetation may be taken into account in a qualitative way, in particular dense hedges that appear like a solid fence.

 

Comments:

The submitted shadow diagrams do not take into consideration impacts generated by vegetation. They relate to shadows created by the proposed building structures.

 

·        In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites should be considered as well as the existing development.

 

Comments:

Wentworth Street has experienced gradual changes where the older building stock is being replaced by new apartment developments permissible under the 2C zoning.

 

11.1.4 View sharing

The proposed development is considered to result in varying degree of impacts on the views currently available to the northern balconies / living room windows of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. A submission has also been received from the occupant of Unit 9 of the above building.

 

The following provides a four-step analysis of view loss established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004):

 

Step 1: The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

13/97-99 Wentworth Street (3rd / top floor unit)

Current views:

Views from the balcony of Unit 13 which is attached to the living room areas.

They consist of distant views of the skyline of Sydney CBD, restricted district views of Centennial Park, and the roofs of buildings in the area.

The views are obtained at both a standing and sitting position.

 

Anticipated impacts:

Based on the proposed building height, it is anticipated that no impacts on any significant elements of the views, including the CBD skyline and glimpse of Centennial Park, will result. The roofs of the surrounding buildings will be obscured.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9/97-99 Wentworth Street (2nd floor unit)   

Current views:

Views from the balcony of Unit 9 which is attached to the living room areas.

They consist of distant views of the Sydney CBD skyline punctuated by local vegetation, restricted district views of Centennial Park and the roofs of buildings in the area.

The views are captured at a standing position. A lesser extent of the views are obtained at a sitting position.

 

Anticipated impacts:

Based on the proposed building height, it is anticipated that the CBD skyline and district parkland views will be obscured.

Current views:

Views from the northern bedroom window.

They consist of restricted views of part of the Sydney CBD skyline and limited outlook of Centennial Park. 

The views are obtained with a person standing close to the window pane at a specific angle.

 

Anticipated impacts:

Based on the proposed building height, it is anticipated that the restricted CBD skyline and district parkland views will be obscured.

 

5/97-99 Wentworth Street (1st floor unit)

Current views:

Views from the access balcony outside the main living room windows of the unit.

They consist of a highly restricted glimpse of the CBD skyline and views of vegetation and buildings in the vicinity.

The views are obtained from a standing position.

 

Anticipated impacts:

Based on the proposed building height, it is anticipated that the currently restricted glimpse of Sydney CBD as well as part of the local vegetation will be obscured.

 

Step 2: The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.”

 

Unit 13 (3rd floor)

Living room balcony

Views obtained across the side boundary; standing and sitting views

Unit 9 (2nd floor)

Living room balcony

Views obtained across the side boundary; standing and sitting views

Bedroom window

Views obtained across the side boundary; standing views only

Unit 5 (1st floor)

Access balcony

Views obtained across the side boundary; standing views only

 

Step 3: The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

Unit 13 (3rd floor)

Living room balcony

It is anticipated that there will no material impacts on any significant elements of the views, including the Sydney CBD skyline and Centennial Park. The impact is considered to be negligible.

Unit 9 (2nd floor)

Living room balcony

It is anticipated that the CBD skyline and district parkland views will be obscured. The impact is considered to be severe.

Bedroom window

It is anticipated that the restricted CBD skyline and district parkland views will be obscured. Given that the existing views are highly oblique, the degree of the impact is considered to be moderate only.

Unit 5 (1st floor)

Access balcony

It is anticipated that the currently restricted glimpse of a minor portion of Sydney CBD as well as part of the local vegetation will be obscured. The impact is considered to be minor in nature.

 

Step 4: The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.”

 

·      Based on the above analysis, it is anticipated that the proposed development will not result in any material impact on the views obtained from the top floor balcony / living room windows (Unit 13). They will continue to enjoy distant views of the Sydney CBD and glimpse of Centennial Park.

 

·      The proposed development will obscure the views of the CBD skyline and the glimpse of Centennial Park from the second floor balcony / living room windows (Unit 9).

 

It is considered unreasonable to refuse the development application on the grounds of view loss from the aforementioned areas, as the views are obliquely obtained across the side common boundary, which by virtue of the planning principle are much more difficult to retain. Additionally, the views are obtained from balcony and windows which are located at the rear section of the building and setback approximately 19m from the street boundary.

 

The views in question are not considered to be iconic in nature having regard to the planning principle, and do not contain water elements.

 

It should be noted that the proposal fully complies with the building height standards stipulated in the LEP. The distant views of the CBD would not be retained even with a 5m southern side setback that fully meets the DCP preferred solution. The above views could only be retained with a substantial reduction in the development potential of the site, which is considered to be unreasonable in this instance.

 

·      The loss of views from the bedroom of Unit 9 is not considered to be significant in nature, as they are obtained obliquely across the side boundary. In fact, the views can only be captured when a person deliberately standing close to the window pane and looking at a particular direction.

 

·      The loss of views from the first floor access balcony adjacent to the living room of Unit 5 is not considered to be material in nature. The views only contain a very limited extent of CBD buildings obtained obliquely across the side boundary. The first floor position of the balcony also contributes to the difficulties in retaining the views.

 

The balcony in question is an access balcony which connects with the rear podium areas as well as the common laundry. The loss of the views is not considered to result in a detrimental impact on the amenity of the dwelling unit.

 

·      It is acknowledged that the proposed development contains deviations from the FSR standard contained in the LEP. Notwithstanding, as is discussed in the body of this report, the proposal has adopted a form and scale that are suitable to the site and the surrounding context.

 

The development will not constitute a dominant or intrusive element in the area given the existing diversity of housing form, nor will it result in unreasonable overshadowing or privacy impacts. Overall, the proposed development is considered to be reasonable and satisfies the broad performance requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The proposed works represent a reasonable attempt to realise the permissible development potential of the land having regard to its 2C zoning. 

 

Therefore, the intrusion of the views is justified when considering the architectural merits of the proposal. It is considered that the potential view loss is reasonable in this instance.

 

11.2  Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) Parking

The parking requirements stipulated in the DCP are addressed as follows:

 

 

Parking rate

Requirement

Proposal

1-bedroom units

1 per unit

1 x 2 units  = 2

9 spaces

2-bedroom units

1.2 per unit

1.2 x 5 units = 6

Visitor

1 per 4 units

7 units / 4 = 1.75

1 space

Total

 

9.75 or 10

10 spaces

Bicycle

1 per 3 units + 1 visitor per 10 units

3

3 bicycle racks

 

The proposal satisfies the requirements of the Parking DCP. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the design and configuration of the basement parking. No objections are raised against the proposal subject to standard engineering conditions.

 

11.3  Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2007, is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$2,209,000

1.0%

$22,090

 

12.    Environmental Assessment

 

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.

 

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

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 assessed 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 land use and 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 unreasonable adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to the recommended conditions. The development is considered to be within the public interest.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject application is made pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to review Council’s previous decision to refuse the development application.

 

The applicant has provided detailed justifications for the proposed development embodied in the current application, and has satisfactorily addressed the reasons for refusal. It is considered that the arguments presented are well founded and that the proposal will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls. Council’s assessment of the original application concludes that the proposal is satisfactory and should be supported. The conclusion of the original assessment is concurred with and the proposed development is recommended for approval.

 

The SEPP 1 Objection lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard is considered to be well founded. The proposal will not result in unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding residential properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, view sharing, solar access and privacy.

 

The proportions and massing of the buildings are considered to be satisfactory. The development scheme carries positive design merits and will enhance the streetscape character.

 

Therefore, it is recommended that Council alter its previous decision of the development application pursuant to Section 82A of the Act, and approve the proposal subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council supports the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to the non-compliance with Clause 20F(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining premises and the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, changes its previous determination of Development Application No. 767/2009 under Section 82A(4A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, and grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the same Act, for demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a 3-storey multi-unit housing development comprising 5 x 2-bedroom dwellings and 2 x 1-bedroom dwellings, basement car parking for 10 vehicles, landscaping and associated works, at No. 95 Wentworth Street, Randwick NSW 2031, subject to the following conditions:

 

Conditions of Consent

 

Referenced Plans

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following plans:  

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

DA-01(D)

20/05/09

8 November 2010

Nexus Architecture Pty. Ltd.

DA-02(E)

27/10/10

DA-03(E)

28/04/10

DA-04(E)

28/04/10

DA-05(F)

27/10/10

DA-06(E)

27/10/10

DA-09(F)

27/10/10

DA-12(E)

27/10/10

 

, 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:

 

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

 

2.       The finished floor levels, parapet levels and roof ridge levels of the eastern (rear) building block fronting Waverley Street shall be in accordance with drawing numbered DA-05(F), dated 27/10/10, prepared by Nexus Architecture Pty. Ltd., and stamp-received by Council on 8 November 2010.

 

If there is an inconsistency in the floor level details between the aforementioned drawing and the approved floor plans, the aforementioned drawing shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

 

3.       A full-height fixed privacy screen shall be installed on the southern elevation of the stairwell of the front (western) building at first and second levels. The screen shall be constructed with 35mm wide metal slats, vertically positioned, and spaced at a maximum of 20mm, or another appropriate design that effectively restricts cross viewing to the northern windows of No. 97-99 Wentworth Street. Details demonstrating compliance shall be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

4.       The balustrades of the second floor balconies attached to Bedroom 1 of Unit 5 and Bedroom 1 of Unit 6 on the eastern elevation of the rear (eastern) building shall be constructed with obscured / translucent glazing.

 

In addition, an operable sliding louvre screen of 1m in width shall be provided for the above balconies. The screens can be configured as full-height screens or installed above the balustrades.

 

Details demonstrating compliance shall be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

5.       The proposed privacy screens attached to the northern elevations of the first and second floor balconies of the front (western) building, shall have a height of not less than 1700mm as measured from the finished floor level, and be constructed with permanently fixed vertical louvers that are oriented away from the windows of No. 93 Wentworth Street. Details demonstrating compliance are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

6.       The raised planter box attached to the retaining walls adjacent to the Waverley Street boundary shall be widened to 500mm.

 

In addition, the deep soil planting areas behind the aforementioned retaining walls shall be widened to 1000mm.

 

Details demonstrating compliance shall be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

7.       The proposed masonry retaining wall supporting the courtyard of Unit 1, which fronts onto Wentworth Street, shall be finished with face bricks. The colour of the face bricks shall be consistent with that used on the building facades.

 

8.       Suitable security lighting is to be installed at the main pedestrian entry path to the development. The above lighting device is to be low level lighting where the light source is not located higher than 1.2m above the finished ground level, and is to be directed towards the ground. Details demonstrating compliance are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

9.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed in accordance with Australian Standard 4282-1997: Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting, 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.

 

10.     Any fencing located on the side property boundaries of the site shall have a maximum height of 1800mm, as measured from the existing ground levels.

 

On sloping sites or at changes in ground levels, the maximum height of the fence may exceed the above-mentioned 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 should be obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land beforehand.

 

11.     Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that will not open over the footway or a public place.

 

12.     The reflectivity index of external glazing for windows and balcony balustrades shall be no greater than 20%. Written confirmation of the reflectivity index of glazing materials shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application. 

 

13.     A minimum of three (3) bicycle parking spaces are to be provided within the proposed development. The design and construction of the bicycle parking facilities are to be compliant with Australian Standard 2890.3: Bicycle parking facilities. Details of compliance are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

 

14.     The proposed car parking bays are to be line-marked in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 2890.1: Off Street Car Parking. The proposed visitor car space is to be appropriately sign-posted. 

 

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

 

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

 

17.     A single common television aerial, and/or satellite dish (having a maximum diameter of 700mm and not located on the front or street elevation of the building) is to be installed to serve the development.

 

18.     In accordance with the provisions of Clauses 143A and 154A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, a ‘Design Verification Certificate’ must be provided to the accredited certifier / Council, prior to issuing a Construction Certificate and an Occupation Certificate, respectively.

 

19.     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 condition is applied to meet additional demands for public facilities:

 

20.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2010, the following monetary levy must be paid to Council:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$2,209,000

1.0%

$22,090

 

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 applied to promote occupant safety in the building:

 

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

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

 

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

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

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

·      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),

·      Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

The following conditions have been applied to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

22.     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 (excluding plant and equipment during the construction phase) 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.

 

23.     A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services.

 

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

 

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

 

 

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.     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.

 

27.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

 

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

 

i)        appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work, and

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

31.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

34.     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.

 

35.     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.

 

36.     As a minimum, the building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

Additional requirements regarding the design and installation of the smoke detection and alarm system may be specified in the construction certificate for the development.

 

37.     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 the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

38.     Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

39.     A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of potential vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises.

 

Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises, must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

A copy of the engineers report is to be submitted to the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

40.     Driven type piles/shoring must not be provided unless a geotechnical engineer’s report is submitted to the certifying authority, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, which demonstrates that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

Any practices or recommendations specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises or land must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

41.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures (i.e. including dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, verandah’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon all of the premises adjoining the subject site.

 

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status and condition of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the abovementioned premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

42.     The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises (including the Council if bounding a public roadway or public place) and where applicable, details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

 

43.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, which certifies that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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:

 

44.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

·       effectively support  the excavation and building; and

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

 

Notes

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

48.     A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and a copy is to be provided to Council upon commencement of works or as otherwise specified by the PCA or Coucnil, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the construction of the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Councils conditions of consent and relevant Standards relating to noise and vibration.  In support of the above, it is necessary to submit all relevant readings and calculations made.

 

Any recommendations and requirements contained in the report are to be implemented accordingly and should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to the PCA and Council.

 

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

 

b)     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.

 

c)     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 Health, Building & Regulatory Services department.

 

d)     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.

 

e)     A temporary timber, asphalt or concrete crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, to the satisfaction of Council, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

f)      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 or nature strip or in any public place:-

 

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

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

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

 

g)     The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $10 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council.

 

h)     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.

 

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

 

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

 

a)     Prior to construction of the first completed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete), showing the area of land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being construction at the approved levels.

 

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

 

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

 

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

·       location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·       location of building materials for construction;

·       provisions for public safety;

·       dust control measures;

·       site access location and construction;

·       details and methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·       protective measures for tree preservation;

·       provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·       location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·       details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·           construction noise and vibration management;

·           construction traffic management provisions.

 

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

 

52.     During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

 

·       Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·       Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·       Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·       Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·       Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·       Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

53.     During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

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

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any 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.

 

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

 

§   Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

§   Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

§   Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

§   WorkCover NSW – Guidelines and Codes of Practice

§   Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

§   Details of hazardous materials, including asbestos

§   Method/s of demolition and removal of asbestos

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

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

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

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

§   Date the demolition and removal of asbestos 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 works.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be forwarded to Council and a copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

b)     A 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.

 

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

 

d)     Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996. Asbestos waste must be disposed of at an approved waste disposal depot (refer to the DEC or Waste Service NSW for details of sites). Copies of all receipts detailing method and location of disposal must be maintained on site and be provided to Council officers upon request, as evidence of correct disposal.

 

e)     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 upon completion of the works prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued, which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant requirements contained in the Asbestos Survey and conditions of consent in relation to the safe removal and disposal of asbestos, have been satisfied.

 

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

 

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

 

a)   $2000.00   -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Traffic Conditions/Civil Works Conditions

 

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

 

59.     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 full width concrete heavy duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

b)     Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback at the rear of the site in Waverley Street and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c)     Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full Wentworth Street site frontage except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit points.

 

d)     Carry out a minimum 1.00m wide road re-knit in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

e)     Reconstruct the concrete footpath along the Wentworth Street site frontage.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

60.     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.

 

61.     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.

 

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

 

63.     The driveway opening at the Wentworth Street frontage must be a minimum 3.00 metres wide and located at least 1.0 metres clear of the side property.

 

64.     The basement carpark layout with column location and parking space dimensions shall be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted to Council by e-mail on 20/5/10 shown as Drwg No DA01 Rev D dated 20/5/09.

 

65.     The internal driveway shall be constructed so as not to exceed a grade of 1:8.

 

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

 

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

 

67.     Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, the applicant shall submit for approval and have approved by Council's Traffic Engineer a detailed construction traffic management plan. The plan shall demonstrate how construction and delivery vehicles will access the development site during the demolition and construction phase of the development.

 

All traffic associated with the subject development shall comply with the terms of the approved construction traffic management plan.

 

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

 

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

 

Wentworth St Frontage - match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

Waverley St Frontage – 170mm above the invert of the concrete gutter.

 

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

 

70.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer has been issued at a prescribed fee of $1,126.00 calculated at $44.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

71.     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.

 

72.     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.

 

73.     Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

                                         

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

 

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

 

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

 

76.     A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney water Act 1994 must be obtained. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

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

 

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

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation of the development or release of the plan of subdivision, whichever occurs first.

 

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

 

77.     Stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of this development consent. Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)       A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)       A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system. 

 

c)       Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)       The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

e)       Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)       Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)       The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

78.     All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

79.     All site stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

·      The kerb and gutter or drainage system at the front of the property; OR

·      A suitably sized infiltration system (subject to geotechnical investigation confirming that the ground conditions are suitable for an infiltration system).

 

80.     Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, on-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by Council.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the on-site detention system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible the detention tank must have an open base to infiltrate stormwater to the groundwater. Note that the ground water and any rock stratum has to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

81.     Should stormwater be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be  sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 20 year storm event with provision for a formal overland flow path to Council’s Street drainage system.

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the infiltration system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

82.     Any Infiltration systems/Absorption Trenches must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

83.     The detention area/infiltration system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

84.     Any onsite detention/infiltration systems shall be located in areas to be dedicated as common property.

 

85.     The maximum depth of ponding in above ground detention areas (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) shall be as follows:

 

·      300mm in landscaped areas (where child proof fencing is not provided around the outside of the detention area and sides slopes are steeper than 1 in 10)

·      600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10.

·      1200mm in landscaped areas where a childproof fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

 

Notes:

§ It is noted that above ground storage will not be permitted in basement carparks or in any area which may be used for storage of goods.

§ Mulch/bark must not be used in onsite detention areas

 

86.     Any above ground stormwater detention areas (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

87.     The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level in the detention area for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be constructed.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

88.     A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

89.     A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

90.     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 permissible 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 "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

91.     A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

·      within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

·      prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

The sediment/silt arrester pit shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:-

 

·      The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

·      The pit constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

·      A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

·      A galvanised heavy-duty screen located over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

 

·      The grate being a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

·      A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

 

·      A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

“This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

Note: Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

92.     Prior to occupation of the development or in conjunction with registration of the plan of subdivision, whichever is first, a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention/infiltration system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention/infiltration system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.    The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

 

b.    The works as executed drainage plan and hydraulic certification must be submitted to Council prior to the “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” being executed by Council.

 

93.     One covered car washing bay shall be provided for this development.

 

a)       The car washing bay must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)       The car washing bay must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system.

 

c)       The car washing bay may be located within the visitor parking spaces provided they are signposted with ‘Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

d)       The car washing bay must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay (or equivalent)

 

e)       A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bay.

 

94.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and shall include the following details:

 

·      The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

·      Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·      Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

·      The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

·      The orifice size(s) (if applicable);

·      Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

·      Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

95.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

96.     As the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation, the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & 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 carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

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

 

98.     If any temporary dewatering of the site is required to facilitate construction of any part of the basement car park and/or detention tank a licence under Part V of the Water Act 1912 will be required. The licence must be obtained from the NSW Department of Water and Energy prior to installation of the works. A copy of the license agreement must be forwarded to Council prior to any dewatering being undertaken.

 

99.     A separate written approval from Council is required to be obtained in relation to any proposed discharge of groundwater into Council’s drainage system external to the site, in accordance with the requirements of Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

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

 

100.    The garbage room areas will have to be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 8 x 240 litre bins (4 garbage bins & 4 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

101.    The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

102.    Prior to the 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 development site.

 

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

 

103.    Landscaping at the site must be installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan by Wendy Balafoutis, dated March 2009, subject to the following additional requirements being shown on an amended plan, which must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, prior to the commencement of site works, including:

 

a.       In order to make full use of the deep soil zone in the central courtyard, at least 1 x 100 litre (pot/bag size at the time of planting) feature tree, or a grove of at least 3 native palms, all of which must attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity, shall be planted in this area;

 

b.       In order to maximise screening and privacy between the subject site and those adjoining multi-storey unit blocks to both the north (no.93) and south (no.97-99), suitable screening trees shall be incorporated into those garden beds proposed halfway along the length of both the northern and southern boundaries, similar as to what can be seen along the rear boundary, as well as at the northwest and southeast corners of the site.

 

c.       Soil and mulch/pebble/gravel details, irrigation, lighting, edging, paving, fencing/screening details, retaining walls and surface finishes, as well as any other elements in order to sufficiently describe the proposed landscape works.

 

d.       All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm.

 

e.       In order to reduce the amount of storm-water generated by the site, as well as to recharge groundwater supplies, porous/permeable paving shall be used in all hard surfacing not over slab.

 

f.        To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic drip irrigation system shall be installed throughout all planted areas. Details shall be provided showing that the system will be connected to the sites rainwater tanks, with back-up connection to the mains supply, in accordance with all current Sydney Water requirements.

 

g.       All detention tanks and below ground stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping.

 

104.    Prior to issuing a Final Occupation Certificate, the PCA must ensure that the landscaping is installed in accordance with the approved plan, with the body corporate required to ensure that it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity, for the life of the development.

 

Planting of new street tree

 

105.    The applicant shall submit a total payment of $107.25 (including GST), being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre street tree on the Wentworth Street verge, to the south of the proposed vehicle crossing, at the completion of all works.

 

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 must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working weeks notice, to arrange for planting of the new street tree upon completion of all site works.

 

106.    Approval is granted for the removal of all existing vegetation within the site, including the Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) in the rear yard, near the northeast corner of the site, in order to accommodate the proposed works as shown, as all are relatively insignificant, and will also be in direct conflict with the proposed demolition and construction works, but is subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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.

 

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

 

In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

a)     Part B1                  -     Structural provisions

b)     Part C1                 -     Fire resistance and stability

c)     Part C2                 -     Compartmentation and separation

d)     Part C3                 -     Protection of openings

e)     Clause C3.2&C3.4    -     Protection of openings in external walls

f)      Part D1                 -     Provisions for escape

g)     Clause D1.2            -     Number of exits required, particularly, the basement car park

h)     Part E1                  -     Fire fighting equipment

i)      Part E2                  -     Smoke Hazard Management

j)      Part E4                  -     Emergency lighting, exit signs & warning systems

k)     Part F1                  -     Damp and weatherproofing

l)      Part F4                  -     Light and ventilation

m)     Part F5                  -     Sound Transmission and Insulation

n)     Section J               -     Energy efficiency

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

The applicant/developer is advised to ensure that the development is not inconsistent with Council's consent and if necessary consult with Council’s Building Certification Services or your accredited certifier (as applicable) prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

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

 

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

 

A3      The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            8 February 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D4/11

 

 

Subject:                  21 Bay Parade, Malabar

Folder No:                   DA/927/2010

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Reconstruction of awning at front of existing dwelling

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Brian Eastwell

Owner:                         Brian and Irene Eastwell

Summary

Recommendation:    Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The development application is referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Charles Matthews and Robert Belleli

 

The proposal is for the reconstruction of an awning at the front of the existing dwelling. Council records do not show a previous approval for the existing awning.

 

The proposal was notified from 28 October to 12 November 2010 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of eight (8) objections and three (3) letters of support were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the objections are primarily related to impact on the existing streetscape, unauthorised works and the potential future enclosure of the awning.

 

It is considered that the above the proposed reconstruction of an awning at the front of the existing dwelling will detract from the overall appearance of the dwelling within the streetscape as the awning protrudes considerably forward of the front building line in relation to the neighbouring properties along Bay Parade. The proposal compromises the character of the locality and the probable aesthetic appearance in relation to the foreshore.    

 

The proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation) and the subject application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal includes the reconstruction of an awning to the front of the existing dwelling. Council’s record database does not show a record of a previous approval for the construction of the ‘existing’ awning. 

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the south-western side of Bay Parade. It is presently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling with garage to the rear of the dwelling. The site has a frontage at Bay Parade of approximately 12.3 metres, the subject site has an area of 438 metres squared.


Neighbouring the property to the south-east is an existing free standing dwelling, to the south-west of the subject site is the rear of a free standing dwelling house which fronts Victoria Street and to the north-east of the subject site is Malabar Bay. The subject site is located within a residential 2A zone and the locality is primarily residential in nature and contains predominately free standing dwellings.

 


4.    Photograph of the site and surrounds

 

The existing awning located in front of the dwelling 

 

The subject site

 

The appearance of the awning in relation to the immediate adjoining neighbours

                

The appearance of the awning in relation to the immediate adjoining neighbours

 

 

 

 

The neighbouring property at 23 Bay Parade

 

View of the front building lines from the first floor balcony of 21 Bay Parade (south-easterly direction)

 

 

 

Viewed of the front building lines from the first floor balcony of 21 Bay Parade (north-westerly direction)

 

View of the front building lines from the Council footpath adjoining No.15 Bay Parade (north-westerly direction)

 

 

View from the Bay Parade (south-easterly direction)

 

5.    Site History

 

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

 

BA/1343/1968 – An application was approved on the 1st of January 1968 for the construction of a new family room and bedroom to the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

BA/348/1975 – An application was approved on the 1st of January 1975 for the construction of a garage and playroom to the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

BA/164/1984 – An application was approved on the 1st of January 1984 for the construction of a new first floor addition to the existing dwelling house.

 

DA/57/1984 – An application was refused on the 8th of May 1984 for the construction of a new first floor addition to the existing dwelling house.

 

DA/179/1984 – An application was approved on the 11th of September 1984 for the construction of a first floor addition to the existing dwelling house.

 

DA/179/1984/A – An application was approved on the 2nd of October 1984 for the deletion of condition 4 that the western wall of the proposed addition is to be constructed from masonry.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The subject application was notified from 28 October to the 12 November 2010 to adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. 

 

5.1 Objections

 

19 Bay Parade, Malabar 2036

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed reconstruction of the existing awning creates an undesirable precedent for structures forward of the building alignment.  

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

Enclosure of the awning would further compromise the consistent building alignment of the adjoining properties.

Council cannot speculate on works that have not been indicated on the plans and may be subject to a future approval. 

The proposal will result in a direct loss of north-westerly ocean views.

Refer to Section 8 for full assessment of view sharing.

 

17 Bay Parade, Malabar 2036

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed colorbond awning exceeds the length of the front building alignment by 2.5 – 3 metres and detracts from the visual appearance of the dwelling within the streetscape.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

Enclosure of the awning would further compromise the consistent building alignment of the adjoining properties.

Council cannot speculate on works that have not been indicated on plans and may be subject to a future approval.

The consequences of the development are likely to negatively impact on the value of my property.

Value of a property is open to various factors and the assertion that the proposed development would reduce the value of the neighbour’s site is a tenuous one.

 

35 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra 2035

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal should not be approved under existing use rights

The subject dwelling does not operate under existing use rights. 

The existing awning should not have been approved.

Council’s planning officer reviewed all previous development application approvals on the subject site and it was discovered that there was no record of approval being granted for the construction of the ‘existing’ awning.

 

25 Bay Parade, Malabar 2036

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed colorbond awning exceeds the length of the front building alignment and will create an undesirable precedent if approved.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

Enclosure of the awning would further compromise the consistent building alignment and will result in a loss of views and value to the objectors property

Council cannot speculate on works that have not been indicated on plans and may be subject to a future approval.

 

Address Unknown

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed awning will significantly impact the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

The applicant intends on enclosing the awning once it has been approved by Council.

The application has been recommended for refusal. Nevertheless Council cannot speculate on works that have not been indicated on plans.

The existing awning is illegal and does not have a prior Council approval.

Noted. Council’s planning officer reviewed all previous development application approvals on the subject site and it was discovered that there was no record of approval being granted for the construction of the ‘existing’ awning.

 

15 Bay Parade, Malabar 2036

 

Issue

Comment

Enclosure of the awning will result in a loss of views

Council cannot speculate on works that have not been indicated on plans.

 

1/33 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra 2035

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed colorbond awning exceeds the length of the front building alignment by at least 2.5 metres and will be detrimental to the existing streetscape.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

Enclosure of the awning would further compromise the consistent building alignment and will result in a loss of value to the neighbouring properties.

Council cannot speculate on works that have not been indicated on plans and may be subject to a future approval.

The existing awning is illegal and does not have a prior Council approval. Consequently the existing awning should be removed.

Noted. Council records do not show a previous approval for the existing awning.

 

The matter regarding the existing unapproved awning structure has been referred to Council’s Regulatory Compliance officer. 

 

5.2 Support

 

Three (3) letters of support were received from adjoining neighbours at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The letters of support were received from the following adjoining neighbours:

 

·      29 Bay Parade, Malabar 2036

·      1/23 Bay Parade, Malabar 2036

·      15 Bay Parade, Malabar 2036

 

7.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

-      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

-      Building Code of Australia

-      Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation)

 

The site is zoned residential 2A under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation) the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal falls under the definition of “Dwelling house” as outlined in the RLEP 1998 (consolidation) and is permissible within the Zone 2A.

 

The following clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:

 

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

The relevant objectives of the Zone No 2A are:

 

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

 

(c)      To protect the amenity of existing residents

 

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the RLEP 1998 (consolidation). The proposed awning projects considerably forward of the front building line and is not in keeping with the setback of the adjoining dwellings. Consequently the proposal will compromise the character of the existing streetscape and the design and scale will set an undesirable precedent on the future character of the neighbourhood.

 

Clause 29: Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

The site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. Clause 29 of the RLEP 1998 (consolidation) requires Council to consider the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed awning in relation to the foreshore.

 

The proposal seeks to reconstruct an existing awning, however given that the existing awning has no previous Council approval and protrudes much further then the building alignment from the neighbouring properties it is considered that the proposal will compromise the scenic qualities of this foreshore location. The development is unsatisfactory with regard to Clause 29 of RLEP 98 (consolidation).

 

8.    Council Policies

 

8.1      Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

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

 

4.4 Building Setbacks

 

The relevant objectives of Clause 4.4.1 include:

·      To integrate new development with the established setbacks of the street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

Notwithstanding the above objective it is necessary the proposed development complies with the performance requirements for front building setbacks which details:

 

P1     Front building setback generally conforms with the setback of adjoining development or the dominate setback along the street.

 

 

Upon inspection of the subject site, it was evident that the existing awning projected considerably further beyond the front building line of the adjoining dwellings within the streetscape. Council’s planning officer has conducted a comparative setback analysis along the immediate locality of Bay Parade including houses no.33, 31, 29, 27, 25, 23, 21, 19, 17 and 15 Bay Parade, Malabar. The investigation involves measuring the setback distance from the front boundary to the front of the dwelling. Below is a table measuring the length of each individual dwelling.

 

Address: (Bay Parade, Malabar)

Setback distance from the front boundary to the front of the dwelling

No. 31

4.7 metres (in accordance with DA/268/2007)

No. 29

4.9 metres (in accordance with DA/37/2007/C)

No. 27

4.4 metres (approx.)

No. 25

4.4 metres (approx.)

No. 23

4.9 metres (approx.)

No. 21

1.2 metres (in accordance with subject DA)

No. 19

5.65 metres (approx.)

No. 17

6.2 metres (approx.)

No. 15

3.32 metres (approx.)

 

Average setback distance (not including no.21 Bay Parade given the existing awning does not have previous Council approval)

4.8 metres

 

Given there is a significant difference between the proposal and the average distance from the front boundary to the front of the dwelling, Council cannot support this application as it does not meet the objectives and performance requirements within the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposed awning will provide an inconsistent setback of adjoining dwellings and compromise the dominant setback along the streetscape. 

 

9.    View Sharing

 

Introduction

 

An objection regarding potential view loss was received from the owners of the adjoining property No. 19 Bay Parade, directly south-east of the subject site. The objection states that an existing water view of Long Bay will be obscured by the proposed works. This assessment is guided by a four step process identified by the Land and Environment Court as a planning principle

 

In the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140, the Land and Environment Court has established a Planning Principle to assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable. This provides a four stage method of assessing view loss:

 

1. Quality of Views:

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

The view which is likely to be affected by the proposal is from the north-west and north-east facing window of the ground floor bedroom of the adjoining dwelling to the south-east (19 Bay Parade). The view includes an outlook of the Long bay headland with clear distinction between land and water. Although substantially obscured by the subject dwelling, the view may be described as a whole view (see images below).

 

The view from the north-west facing window of the ground floor bedroom of no.19 Bay Parade

 

The view from the north-east facing window of the ground floor bedroom of no.19 Bay Parade

 

 


2. From what part of the property the views are obtained?

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

The view is a side (north-west facing) view from the main bedroom of the adjoining dwelling. The view is obtained through a standing position, however is only possible if positioned in an acute angle (less than 90 degrees from the window face). If the standing position is directly in front of the (north-west facing) window the view is completely obscured by the subject dwelling (21 Bay Parade). The planning principle recognises that side views are harder to maintain and it is considered that the protection of the side view could only be achieved by the complete abandonment of the proposal to reconstruct the awning.

 

It is noted that the view is substantially obscured by the subject dwelling (no. 21 Bay Parade) and the primary vista enjoyed by the adjoining dwelling is not the partial obscured outlook to the north-west of the objectors dwelling, rather to the north-east which will maintain an uninterrupted view of the Long Bay headland.

 

3. An assessment of the extent of the impact?

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

With regard to the extent of the impact, the view is from a bedroom and is therefore assessed as being less significant as should it be enjoyed from a deck or living area within the neighbouring dwelling. The loss of the view could therefore be assessed qualitatively as minor.

 

4. An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact?

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

When considering the reasonableness of the proposal, it is noted that the proposal does not comply with the relevant objectives within the RLEP 1998 and the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and is recommended for refusal. Nevertheless the proposal includes the loss of a minor view and is considered to be reasonable in terms of view sharing.    

 

 

 

 

9.      Environmental Assessment

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:               Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Comment: The proposal does not constitute excellent or improved urban design and would have the effect of detracting from the amenity of the established streetscape and its relationship within the foreshore scenic protection area. 

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), creates an undesirable precedent with structures built significantly forward of the building line and has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 927/2010 for the reconstruction of an awning at the front of the existing dwelling at No. 21 Bay Parade, Malabar for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives of the Residential 2A Zone as set-out in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

2.     The proposal does not satisfy clause 29: Foreshore Scenic Protection Area as set-out in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

3.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or the performance requirements for building setbacks set-out in clause 4.4 of the Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

4.     The proposed works have been constructed without prior consent from Council.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            8 February 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D5/11

 

 

Subject:                  18 - 20 Stanley Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/181/2009

Author:                   Roger Quinton, Coordinator Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Stage 1 concept development application to set building envelopes and uses for Emanuel School site

Ward:                           North Ward

Applicant:                The Emanuel School

Owner:                         The Emanuel School

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject application is for a Staged development application and has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the estimated development cost is more than $2 million, although no specific work is proposed in the application and Stage 2 development consent would be required for any building work.

 

The subject site is bounded by Peace Park to the north, Avoca Street to the east, Stanley Street to the south and Chepstow Street to the west. The site has an area of 1.471 hectares and presently contains various permanent and demountable educational buildings, outdoor playing courts, landscaping and open car parking.

 

This application is intended to provide the framework for future development on the site, including building envelopes, uses and pupil numbers.

 

The application was notified and advertised in accordance with the provisions of Council’s Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of  seven submissions in opposition to the application were received, raising issues such as the adverse impact the school has on vehicular traffic and parking in area, pedestrian access to the school, numbers of students at the school, use of the school outside normal school hours, impact of proposed building including lack of detail, impact on views, shading, streetscape and so on, heritage impacts, lack of consultation and lack of design detail.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) and the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998. The site is listed as a heritage item under both RLEP 1998 and the State Heritage Register.

 

The application was referred to the Heritage Branch of the NSW Department of Planning for concurrence pursuant to the Integrated Development provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. General Terms of Approval have been granted by the Heritage Branch. Council’s Heritage Planner is also satisfied with the application. 

 

Only one significant new building is envisaged on the site, which is a new Block D adjacent to the Chepstow Street frontage of the site. This building would replace demountable classrooms currently located in this position on the site. A Stage 2 DA at a future date would be required and this would include a detailed design for assessment at that time, however it is considered that the proposed height limit of 12 metres and general building location proposed are acceptable.

 

The application does not seek an increase in student numbers presently at the school, but does however, seek to formally have the upper limit of students permitted on the site increased from to 725 to allow for the variance in student numbers from year to year.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions, including a condition requiring the submission of a traffic management plan addressing certain traffic and parking issues arising as a result of the operation of the school within three months of the date of any approval for this application.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

This application is intended to provide the framework for future development on the Emanuel school site, including proposed building envelopes and uses.

 

Documentation provided with the application details the existing built form on the site, heritage buildings, landscaping and internal public domain areas. Details are also provided of:

 

·      Proposed built form parameters (including heights, development sites, landscape and circulation areas;

·      Staging of development on the site;

·      Pedestrian movement within the site and access to the site;

·      Sectional views of the site and streetscape views.

 

No building works are proposed as part of this application, it is intended however that it will form the basis for any future development if that was to occur.

 

Future anticipated works are detailed as being:

 

·      Modifications to the existing Arts and Crafts building;

·      Internal alterations to the Brender Moss Building;

·      Erection of decking around the existing trees to the north of the existing basketball courts;

·      Works to the undercroft of the existing Multi Purpose Hall;

·      Remove the existing demountable buildings (known as Block X);

·      Replacement of the demountable buildings to the immediate south of the  Science Building, fronting Chepstow Street (known as Block D).

 

The school presently has approval for 650 students, as stated in DA/416/1989. DA/257/1998 gave approval for a childcare centre on the site catering for 60 children. The site therefore presently has approval for 710 students of all ages.  The school has indicated that it is operating above this level, with over 700 students at the school. The application states that approval is sought to have the maximum number of students at school set to 725 pupils, which will allow for fluctuation in enrolments over different years from a minimum of 625 to a maximum of 725 students.

 

The following diagram indicates proposed stages of development on the site as detailed in the application. It should be noted that the Stages 1, 2, 10 and 11 have either been completed or development consent has been issued for these works since the submission of this application. 

 

 

 

 

 

The above is a plan of the proposed built form parameters for future development on the site as detailed in the application. Potential development areas are divided into three with the following potential heights applying:

 

Height Area A: 1.5 storeys above boundary wall.

 

Height Area B: 2 storey potential height.

 

Height Area C: 12 metre potential height.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is located on the northern side of Stanley Street and also has frontage to Avoca and Chepstow Streets. The northern boundary of the site abuts Peace Park.   The site slopes steeply from the south of the site down towards the north and it is enclosed on all sides by a boundary wall.

 

The property was originally developed in the 1860s as a suburban villa estate and then from 1901 by the roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor. The Emanuel School purchased the property in 1985.

 

The school comprises eleven principal buildings, comprising a mix of new and heritage structures and the site also contains basketball courts and car parking. There are two main vehicle entry points and two principal pedestrian access and service entry points to the site with the main gate for pedestrian access located at the corner of Stanley and Avoca Streets. Heritage items on the site are: Aston Lodge, Little Sisters of the Poor Novtiate and the Little Sisters of the Poor Chapel.

 

Surrounding development is generally residential with a mix of multi-unit housing, semi-detached and single dwellings. The Little Sisters of the Poor Catholic Church, Nunnery, Aged Care facility and primary school are located on the opposite side of Avoca Street.

 

Below is an aerial view of the school site and surrounding area. (Figure 2)

 

 

 

Figure 2:

 

 

4.    Site History

 

4.1      Plan amendments

 

The application as originally submitted included a potential 12 metre height limit for future development for the whole of the Stanley Street frontage and approximately half of the Chepstow Street frontage of the site. The amended Concept Site Development Plan submitted in January 2011 reduces potential heights on the Stanley Street frontage of the site to Height Area A with a limit of 1.5 storeys above the boundary wall and Height B with a two storey height limit at the corner of Stanley and Chepstow Streets. Chepstow Street is broken into Height Area C with a 12 metre limit and Height Area a with a limit of 1.5 storeys above the boundary wall. The “zone for new development” was also deleted from the plan. The amended details were not renotified to neighbours as they generally involved a reduction in scale of potential development.

 

The application was also amended to have the number of pupils at the school set at 725, which is approximately the number at which the school has been operating for some years.

 

4.2 Previous development applications relating to the site

 

DA/416/1989

Construction of gym/ classroom wing approved 14/4/90

 

DA/55/1994

Construction of multi-purpose hall/classrooms approved 9/5/94

DA/475/1996

Internal alterations to Brender Moss building, approved 5/12/96

DA/257/1998

Construction of Preschool with 60 children aged between 3 and 5, approved 20/3/98

DA/853/1999

Construction of shade structures for Preschool, approved 25/11/99

DA/1623/1999

Relocation of demountable classrooms on to site, approved 3/2/00

DA/958/2000

Relocation of demountable classrooms on to site, approved 30/11/00

DA/1067/2001

Construction of storage room, approved 11/4/02

DA/311/2002

Demolition of outhouse, approved 20/6/02

DA/1223/2002

Reinstate masonry wall on northern boundary, approved 1/10/03

DA/698/2006

Extension of Preschool, approved 31/10/06

DA/889/2007

Removal of four existing demountable classrooms and placement of two storey demountable building with 8 classrooms on the site, approved 23/1/08

DA/608/2008

Construction of new northern boundary wall, approved 5/12/08

DA/657/2008

Construction of temporary fence on Avoca Street frontage, approved 5/12/08

DA/874/2008

Construction of single storey learning centre, approved 5/6/09

DA/891/2008

Construction of 3 storey building adjacent to Chepstow Street frontage, approved 12/5/09

DA/925/2008

Erection of 2 shade structures over existing outdoor seating areas 

approved 6/4/09.

DA/514/2010

Construction of permanent fence on Avoca Street frontage, approved 23/9/10

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised as integrated development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. Seven submissions were received from the following properties:

 

·      1/30 Avoca Street

·      28 Avoca Street

·      46 Avoca Street

·      14 Chepstow Street

·      13 Monmouth Street

·      48 Earle Street

·      7 Monmouth Street

·      2 Chepstow Street

 

5.1 Objections

 

Issues raised:

 

·      Significant traffic and parking problems in the neighbourhood as a result of the operation of the school.  Inadequate information provided with this application addressing the issue.

 

Comment:

 

A traffic and parking report by URaP – TTW was submitted on 19 November 2009 at Council’s request. Council’s Development Engineer is of the view that development consent could be granted subject to a condition of consent requiring a detailed traffic management plan, to be approved by Council officers and the Randwick Traffic Committee prior to the lodgement of any further development applications and lodged within three months of the date of any approval of this application. The following matters are to be addressed in this report as a minimum: on-site parking provision, student and staff numbers, management of pick up/drop off activities, on-street parking and the operation of intersections in the vicinity of the school.   

 

·      Issues in relation to pedestrian access to the site. Access should not be from Chepstow Street because of resultant impacts on residents. Inadequate detail provided of hierarchy of pedestrian entries.

 

Comment:

 

The main entrance to the school is through the entrance at the corner of Stanley and Avoca Streets. Pedestrian access for emergency purposes only is also available at the new science learning centre being constructed adjacent to the Chepstow Street frontage of the site. Impacts from this were dealt with in the assessment of the development application for the construction of that building and a condition of approval stated that these access gates are not to be used for general access purposes.   

 

·      The school is operating above approved number of students. The application states there will be no increase in students but makes no mention of staff numbers.

 

Comment:

        See discussion in section 9 of this report.

 

·      The school is increasingly being used for other activities outside school hours with adverse impacts on surrounding residents.

 

Comment:

 

The school may be used outside normal school hours for activities which fall within the range of general educational uses, as do all schools. Any uses which are not ancillary or subservient to the dominant use of the school would require development consent.

 

·      No details were provided of the massing of proposed buildings with associated details of impacts on views, shadows, streetscape etc. No detail provided of proposed floor space ratio for the site or setbacks of buildings. No detail provided of constraints/opportunities for development on the site.

 

Comment:

 

As detailed previously in this report, the only potential new building of significance detailed in this application is the new Block D adjacent to the Chepstow Street frontage of the site. The amended Proposed Built Form Parameters plan indicates that the new Block D falls within the 12 metre height area (Height Area C) and the proposed development site is also indicated on this plan, as it is on the site section and streetscape plan. This information is considered to be adequate for this assessment. Potential environmental impacts of any proposed new development on the site are discussed in section 9 of this report.   

 

·      No discussion in the application of impact on the heritage significance of the surrounding area.

 

Comment:

 

Council’s Heritage planner has reviewed the application and is satisfied that the application, as amended, is satisfactory including any impacts on the surrounding heritage conservation area.

 

·      The application does not contain detail of how ecologically sustainable design is to be addressed. No detail provided of garbage areas on site.

 

Comment:

 

As the only new building of any significant scale proposed in the application would be the new Block D, it is considered that these are issues which can be addressed on the submission of any stage 2 development application. 

 

·      There has been a lack of consultation by the school with the surrounding community.

 

Comment:

 

This application was notified and advertised in accordance with the requirements of Councils DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans, which gave surrounding residents the opportunity to comment on the application. The school has stated that it has also sought to engage the local community with little response from surrounding residents.

 

·      The application implies that the Federal Government will be funding much of the development on the site through it’s economic stimulus package. This should not be a contributing factor in approving this application.

 

Comment:

 

The applicant has stated that Federal Government funding has been received for some works on the site. The source of funding for development on the site is not, however, of relevance to this assessment or a matter for consideration under section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

·      The application implies much of the work on the site can be undertaken under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

Comment:

 

The SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 stipulates that development for the purposes of educational establishments on land where there is an existing educational establishment is permissible with development consent. Minor work may be exempt from requiring consent under the provisions of the SEPP. 

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

Heritage Branch, NSW Department of Planning

 

General terms of approval were granted for the application by the Heritage Branch on 14 January 2011 as follows:

 

 

Council’s Heritage Officer:

Comments on current amendments submitted January 2011:

My previous comments raised concerns in relation to a number of the Figures contained within the CSDP, particularly the following:

 

Figure 5- Heritage

Figure 6- landscape

Figure 10 Built Form Parameters

Figure 11 Current + Future Development

Figure 12- Staging

 

In accordance with comments from Council and the Heritage Office of the Department of Planning, these figures have now been amended to  demonstrate greater sensitivity to the heritage elements on site, including buildings and landscape items, and to the adjacent heritage conservation area.  The figures also better embody the conservation principles identified in previous conservation documents.

 

Development Engineer/Manager Integrated Transport

 

Traffic and Parking Comments

 

Council’s Manager Integrated Transport and Development Engineer reviewed the Traffic and parking report by URAP-TTW consulting services. Areas of concern with the data and conclusions provided included: detail and management of drop-off  and pick-up areas, times at which on-street parking surveys were undertaken, management of intersections in the vicinity of the school, detail of maximum pupil numbers and provision of mobility parking. The concerns of surrounding residents were also not adequately dealt with.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has therefore recommended that a comprehensive traffic management plan be provided by the applicant for approval of Council’s traffic committee and road safety officer. This is to examine ways to improve traffic flow around the site and address the above areas of concern. The plan will then need to be clearly communicated to staff, students and parents to be effective.

 

Conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent which requires submission of the traffic management plan within 3 months from the date of any consent to this application. A further proposed condition requires that the plan be approved prior to the submission of any further development applications for the site.

 

Landscape Comments

 

The development proposal is a Stage 1 DA / Masterplan. Development of the site in general accordance with the Masterplan will require submission of separate Development Applications, (referred to in conditions below as Stage 2 Development Applications). Detailed conditions ensuring the adequacy of landscape treatments and protection of significant trees will be included within any development consent for the Stage 2 DA’s. General landscape conditions advising the applicant of future development application submission requirements have been included within this report.

 

Drainage Comments

 

Detailed conditions ensuring the adequacy of stormwater drainage systems and protection of openings/habitable floor levels will be included within any development consent for the Stage 2 DA’s. General drainage conditions advising the applicant of future development application submission requirements have been included within this report.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

Clause 40A of Randwick LEP requires the preparation and adoption of a site specific development control plan (master plan or deemed DCP) for the redevelopment of sites having an area in excess of 10,000 square metres and which must be adopted and in force prior to the granting of development consent for development on the site. Amendments to Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (Section 83C) in September 2005 provided for staged development applications to be lodged as an alternative to the preparation of Masterplans/DCPs for such sites. Accordingly, this application is a Stage 1 concept development application but is referred to in various documents as a “masterplan”.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Special Uses 5 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 17 Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone)

 

The proposed continued use of the site falls within the definition of “educational establishment” under the LEP and is a permissible use within the Special Uses Zone. The relevant objectives of the zone are addressed as follows:

 

(b)    To accommodate development fo