Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 28 June 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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     28 June 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 6:00pm.

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 24 May 2011

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Mayoral Minutes

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

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act, the General Manager is required to keep a register of Councilor voting on planning matters. Planning matters are any decisions made in the exercise of a function of a council under the EP&A Act and include decisions relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act. In addition, Randwick City Council has resolved (22 July 2008) that its register of voting include the voting on all tender matters.

CP39/11    5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee (Deferred)

CP40/11    83 Bream Street, Coogee

CP41/11    18-20 Stanley Street, Randwick

CP42/11    27 Waverley Street, Randwick

CP43/11    38 Lasseter Avenue, Chifley

CP44/11    6 Brighton Road, Coogee

CP45/11    3 Milford Street Randwick

CP46/11    B 502/106 Brook Street, Coogee

CP47/11    47 Bream Street, Coogee

CP48/11    23 Byron Street, Coogee

CP49/11    46 Mons Avenue, Maroubra

CP50/11    159 Alison Road, Randwick

CP51/11    6 Greville Street, Clovelly

CP52/11    15 Sully Street, Randwick

CP53/11    255 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

CP54/11    71-73 Denning Street, South Coogee

CP55/11    205 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

CP56/11    32 Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

CP57/11    Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the month of May 2011

CP58/11    Draft Final Planning Proposal for the Western Part of Malabar Headland

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP59/11    Community Partnerships Funding Program 2011-12 Recommended Allocations

CP60/11    NAIDOC Week 2011

CP61/11    Proposed activities for 2011 Local Government Week

General Manager's Reports

GM14/11    Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2011-12

GM15/11    Reuse of Council street banners

GM16/11    2011 Sister Cities Australia Conference

GM17/11    2011 International Cities, Town Centres & Communities Conference

GM18/11    Invitation to visit new Sister City - Narrabri, NSW

Director City Services Reports

CS8/11      DA/571/2008 - 6-28 Harvey Street, Little Bay - Naming of Street

CS9/11      Buildings for our Community - South Maroubra Surf Club grant funding........ 551

CS10/11    Buildings for our Community - Baker Park Toilet Building Project public exhibition

CS11/11    Randwick Rugby Club Waiving of Fees for Park Hire

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF21/11    Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Annual Review

GF22/11    2R & 12R Lowe Street, Clovelly - Land held by Trust Companies

GF23/11    Investment Report - May 2011

GF24/11    Acquisition of Crown Land - Part of Broadarrow Reserve Maroubra Beach

GF25/11    Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy - results of public exhibition

GF26/11    Communication Devices Policy for Councillors

GF27/11    Review of Model Code of Conduct - Council submission on DLG Discussion Paper

GF28/11    Writing Off of Outdoor Dining Licence fees for 178-182 Marine Parade, Maroubra  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM17/11    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Sydney Sports Coast Design

NM18/11    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Matthews - Re-opening Malabar Police Station

NM19/11    Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Malabar Headland

NM20/11    Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Restriction on wage increases for Local Government employees  

NM21/11    Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen – Pedestrian Safety – Kensington Rd/Roma Ave, Kensington ………………………………………...............................................615

Closed Session (record of voting NOT required)

GF29/11    Kensington Bowling Club partnership with KikOff Soccer Centres Pty Ltd - 1 Day Lane Kensington

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

GF30/11    Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2011-12: Confidential Fees and Charges

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

Closed Session (record of voting required)

GF31/11    Traffic Control Services - Tender No T11/11

GF32/11    SSROC Tender for the Supply and Delivery of Road Brooms and Brushes

Items GF31/11 & GF32/11 are considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, as they deal with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil.                                                                   

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     28 June 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP39/11

 

 

Subject:                  5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/81/2011

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

Council at the Planning Committee Meeting held on 14 June 2011, resolved:

 

“RESOLUTION: (Andrews/Nash) that:

 

… the following item be brought forward for immediate consideration and the matter be deferred to the June Council Meeting

 

5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee (deferred in accordance with the applicant’s request).”

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:          Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/81/2011 for an increase in height of existing fence on south western corner of site by 500mm at No. 5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

Referenced plans:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

 

2.       The proposed increase of the southern side boundary fence is not approved and shall be deleted from the plans prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the issue of a ‘Construction Certificate’ by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Consent Requirements

3.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

 

4.       4.   External materials, finishes and colours of the south-western corner fence are   required to match, as closely as possible, the existing fence

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

5.       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).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’, as applicable.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Construction Certificate, Principal Certifying Authority & Commencement of Works

6.       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 any 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.

 

Home Building Act 1989

7.       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 Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, in writing.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

8.       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.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW DECC Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works. A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

9.       Temporary site safety fencing must be provided 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 site fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

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

 

Temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services before placing any item or article on the road, footpath or nature strip.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

10.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction 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;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Site Signage

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

 

·          name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

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

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

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

 

d)     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 department.

 

e)     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.

 

f)     Temporary safety fencing is to be provided to any swimming pools under construction, pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

13.     Prior to undertaking any demolition, excavation or building work in the following       circumstances, a report must be obtained from a professional engineer which details the methods of support for the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

·          when undertaking excavation or building work within the zone of influence of the footings of a dwelling or associated structure that is located on the adjoining land;

·          when undertaking demolition work to a wall of a dwelling that is built to a common or shared boundary (eg. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

·          when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

14.     Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

 

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.

 

Inspections During Construction

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

 

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).

 

Building Encroachments

16.     Details are to be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed works will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

Use of premises

18.     The premises must only be used as a single residential dwelling and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

·          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 requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

·          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.

 

Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team can issue Construction Certificates and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          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.

 

·          A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

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

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

§  Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          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.

 

·          Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

D63/11 5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee - Report

 

 

 

 


D63/11 5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee - Report

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D63/11

 

 

Subject:                  5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/81/2011

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Increase in height of existing fence on south western corner of site by 500mm and increase in height of existing brush fence on part of the southern boundary

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Ms M A Bresnahan

Owner:                         Ms M A Bresnahan

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.      Executive Summary

 

The development application has been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Andrews, Seng and Nash.

 

The proposal is for the increase in height of the existing fence on the south western corner of the site by 500mm and increase the height of the existing brush fence on part of the southern boundary.

 

The proposal was notified from 17 February 2011 to 3 March 2011 and the adjoining neighbour (7 Gordon Avenue) was re-notified for amended plans on the 27 April to 11 May 2011. Two objections were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the objections are primarily related to the excessive height of the proposed side boundary fence, unreasonable overshadowing and view loss.

 

The increase in height of the existing brush fence on the southern boundary does not comply with the objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation) or Council Policies including the Development Control Plan for Dwelling houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, consequently this component of the subject application is recommended for refusal.

 

However, the proposed 500mm increase to the front boundary fence will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts and will be in keeping with the existing streetscape. Consequently, the subject application is recommended for approval.

 

2.      The proposal

 

The proposal involves an increase in height of the existing fence on the south western corner of the site by 500mm and increase the height of the existing brush fence on part of the southern boundary.

 

The proposal increases the total height of the brush fence on the southern boundary at different points. The proposed side boundary fence reaches a maximum height of 3.8 metres.  

 

3.      The subject site and surrounding area

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Gordon Avenue, it is presently occupied by an existing three storey dwelling house with garage to the street alignment. The site has a frontage at Gordon Avenue, of approximately 17.4 metres and side boundary depth of 47.6 metres along the southern boundary and 49.2 metres along the northern boundary. The subject site has an overall area of 729.6 square metres.

 

Neighbouring the property to the south and to the north is an existing free standing dwelling, to the east of the subject site Gordons Bay and to the west is Gordon Avenue.  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.      Photographs of the site and surrounds

 

The subject site (5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee)

 

 

The existing side boundary fence as viewed from a ground floor living room at 7 Gordon Avenue, Coogee


The existing side boundary fence as viewed from a ground floor living room at 7 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

The existing side boundary fence from the first floor deck at no.7 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

 

The existing side boundary fence from the ground floor deck at no. 7 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

 

The existing side boundary fence from the ground floor deck at no. 7 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

 

The available overlooking to the adjoining subject sites at the ground floor deck at no. 7 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

 

 

The ground floor deck of no.7 Gordon Avenue, view is within the subject sites living area.

 

The existing side boundary fence

5.      Site History

 

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

 

DA/1087/2002

An application was approved on the 28th of March 2003 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the erection of a new three storey dwelling house with garage to street alignment.

 

DA/1087/2002/A

An application was approved on the 4th of June 2004 to modify condition no.1 and delete conditions 4 to 10 and 18 relating to the garage, bulk and bedroom size, eastern wall, balcony size, rear deck, access to rear reserve and front fence height.

 

DA/582/2009

An application was approved on the 23rd of October 2009 for the construction of an awning to the front of the dwelling.

 

The applicant has submitted amended plans to support the application by indicating the height of an original fence line. The purpose of this is to demonstrate that the existing fence is similar in height to the proposed side boundary fence. However, Council records do not show a previous approval for an original fence height along the southern side boundary.

 

6.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was notified from 17 February to 3 March 2011 and the adjoining neighbour (7 Gordon Avenue) was re-notified for amended plans on the 27 April to the 11 May 2011 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. 

 

6.1      Objections

 

No. 7 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

Issue

Comment

No objections to the increase in height of the south-western corner of the site.

Noted.

The proposed increase of the side boundary fence will impact on views from living areas.

Refer to Section 9: View Loss

The proposed increase of the side boundary fence will not comply with the performance requirements for rear boundary setbacks under the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The proposed side boundary fence will contribute to the visual bulk and scale. The proposal will also compromise the objector’s amenity.

 

The proposed increase of the side boundary fence will not comply with the objectives and performance requirements for foreshore development under the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. 

 

The proposal will not achieve the aims as stated by the applicant. The increase of the side boundary fence height will not reduce privacy concerns to the adjoining neighbour as overlooking is still possible. Given the topology of the surrounding residential dwellings overlooking to all rear yards is possible

 

Noted. This part of the application has been recommended for refusal.

The proposal does not comply with SEPP 53 – Metropolitan Residential Development, clause 32(c)(i) which is to ensure adequate daylight to the main living areas of neighbours. 

 

SEPP 53 – Metropolitan Residential Development is not applicable.

The proposed plans incorrectly show the existing ground line of the objector’s premises.

Noted. Council requested additional information on the 23 March 2011 to include the ground line of 5 Gordon Avenue and 7 Gordon Avenue to be shown on the plans. The applicant provided this additional information on the 6 May 2011.

The amended plans submitted by the applicant will continue to impact the amenity and the visual bulk and scale of the objector’s property.

This part of the application has been recommended for refusal.

The amended plans submitted include a previously approved fence height labelled ‘top of original fence’ are misleading.

Noted. Council records do not show a previous approval for a side boundary fence being approved at that height. 

 

6.2    Support

No letters of support have been received.

 

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

 

7.1    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 increase in height of the southern side boundary fence will result in significant environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwelling at no. 7 Gordon Avenue and compromise the amenity of the existing residential area, in particular its location of Gordon Bay. It is considered the above objectives of the Zone No. 2A are not maintained.

 

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 raise the height of the existing southern side boundary fence which is much higher then the neighbouring side boundary fences of Gordon Bay. Given there is a significant slope from the front to the rear of the subject site (fall of approx. 15 metres) the neighbouring dwellings all experience a sharing of views and consequently preserves the scenic qualities of Gordon Bay. The increased southern side boundary fence height will visually detract from the aesthetic appeal of the foreshore location. The development is unsatisfactory with regard to Clause 29 of RLEP 98 (consolidation).   

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. The subject site has been continuously used for residential purposes for a prolonged period. There is no known previous industrial usage on the site, which would potentially contribute to land contamination. Accordingly, no contamination report is required in this instance.

 

7.3      State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No.71 Coastal Protection 

The subject site adjoins the foreshore at Gordons Bay and is contained within a coastal zone and therefore SEPP 71 is relevant to the proposal. The Council is required to consider the aims of the policy and other environmental criteria when considering a development application in the Coastal zone. The aims of the policy seek to minimise the impact of development on the coastal zones and ensure their ongoing protection. The matters contained in clause 8 are as follows:

 

(a)    the aims of this Policy set out in clause 2,

(b)    existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be retained and, where possible, public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be improved,

(c)    opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability,

(d)    the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area,

(e)    any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore,

(f)    the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities,

(g)    measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats,

(h)    measures to conserve fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats

(i)     existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors,

(j)    the likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards,

(k)    measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities,

(l)     measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals,

(m)   likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal waterbodies,

(n)    the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance,

(o)    only in cases in which a council prepares a draft local environmental plan that applies to land to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities,

(p)    only in cases in which a development application in relation to proposed development is determined:

(i)     the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment, and

(ii)    measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is efficient.

The proposal is not consistent with the relevant aims of the SEPP for Coastal Protection. Whilst the proposal will not affect the existing public access along the Gordon’s Bay foreshore or impact threatened and endangered species, it will however compromise the scenic qualities of Gordons Bay.

 

The proposed increase of fence height along the southern side boundary is not considered to be an appropriate design, bulk and scale in the context of the surrounding development that is characterized by fence heights that are sympathetic to the surrounding area. The proposed increase of the side boundary fence height will be out of character with other fences that are visible along the Gordon’s Bay reserve and consequently will not be suitable with the surrounding area. In relation to the surrounding developments it will appear visually unattractive and compromise the amenity of the coastal foreshore as viewed from the coastal walkway and surrounding domain.

Further, it is expected that the proposal will result in unreasonable overshadowing impacts to the adjoining dwelling and in a development that does not positively contribute to the scenic qualities of the foreshore. 

The proposal is considered unacceptable with respect to the matters for consideration under SEPP 71.

8.      Council Policies

 

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.

 

4.8: Fences

The relevant objectives of Clause 4.8.1 include:

·      To ensure adequate privacy, amenity, safety and security for occupants of new and existing dwellings.

 

The proposal involves increasing the height of the existing 2.1 metre southern side boundary fence to a 3.5 metre fence. As the fence falls towards the south-eastern corner the increase of the fence height becomes less.

 

The subject site and the adjoining dwellings along Gordon Bay are characterized by a significant slope with a fall of approximately 15 metres from the front to the rear of the dwelling. As a result overlooking to the rear private open spaces of neighbouring dwellings is evident throughout. Nevertheless, increasing the height of the proposed side boundary fence will not improve existing privacy levels as the subject rear yard will still be visible from ground and first floor levels. Further, overlooking into the private living areas of the subject site is only possible in a standing position on the north-eastern corner of the ground floor deck at 7 Gordon Avenue; and even then overlooking is oblique and full view of the private living areas is not possible. Consequently, the intended purpose of increasing the side boundary fence height will not improve existing privacy levels. 

 

Notwithstanding this, the increase to the existing side boundary fence will result in significant adverse impacts to the adjoining dwelling (7 Gordon Avenue). The orientation of the subject site being east to west facing and the excessive height of the side boundary fence will result in unreasonable overshadowing to the neighbouring property. Further it will contribute to the bulk and scale of the development in relation to the foreshore and reduce the amount of natural light to the adjoining premises.  

 

The relevant performance objective of Clause 4.8 include:

 

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

 

The application also seeks approval to erect a front fence to a height of 1.5 metres. Council’s preferred solution states solid front fences higher then 1.2 metres may increase to 1.8 metres if the fence has openings that make it at least 50% transparent. The proposed front fence does not comply as it is not designed as 50% open.   

 

The minor variation from Council’s preferred solution is considered acceptable given the adjoining neighbours have front fences at a similar height. Consequently the front fence will not compromise the appearance of the dwelling within the streetscape..  

 

 

4.9: Foreshore Development 

The relevant objectives of Clause 4.9.2 include:

·      To protect the landscape qualities and aesthetic appearance of ocean foreshore areas

·      To conserve the natural form of the land and water interface and reinforce the original character of the foreshore.

 

Notwithstanding the above objective it is necessary the proposed development complies with the performance requirements for foreshore development which details:

 

P5       Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments and are sympathetic to the landscape and visual qualities of the foreshore.

 

The side boundary fence heights along the rear yards of Gordon Avenue are standard in height and around 1.8 metres. Consequently, the proposed 3.8 metre side boundary fence will be out of character in relation to the foreshore and will not protect the aesthetic qualities of the foreshore development.  The fence height is unsympathetic to its surroundings and will not preserve the appearance of the ocean foreshore area.

 

Whilst it may appear that the side boundary fence between properties 11 and 11A is also significant in fence height; this is not the case. An original application (DA/336/2010) states that this fence height is between 1.73 and 2.23 metres in height.

 

 

9.      View Loss 

 

Introduction

An objection regarding potential view loss was received from the owners of the adjoining property No. 7 Gordon Avenue, Randwick directly south of the subject site. The objection states that the view of the Gordon Bay Reserve 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 to the north-east from a ground floor living area and deck of the adjoining dwelling to the south (7 Gordon Avenue). The view includes an outlook of the Gordon’s Bay Reserve. Although partially obscured by the existing side boundary fence the view may be described as a partial view.

 

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-east facing) view from a ground floor family room and deck of the adjoining dwelling. The view is obtained through a standing position, however is only possible across the northern side boundary. The planning principles recognise that side views are also harder to maintain, however whilst the view may be impacted within the ground floor family room and rear deck the view is still preserved from first floor level.

 

It is noted that the view is partially obscured by the subject dwelling (no. 5 Gordon Avenue) and the primary vista enjoyed by the adjoining dwelling is not the obscured outlook to the north-east (overlooking the Gordon Bay Reserve) of the objectors dwelling, rather to the north-east which will maintain an uninterrupted view of the Gordon 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 living area and deck and is therefore assessed as being more significant. However, only a small portion of the view of the Gordon Bay reserve will be reduced. No water views are impacted on. 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, however is considered to be reasonable in terms of view sharing.    

 

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.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:          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 proposed increase of the southern side boundary fence is inconsistent with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), compromise the scenic qualities of the foreshore 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.

 

The proposed increase in height of existing fence on the south western corner of site by 500mm has been recommended for approval. Consequently conditions of consent have been included. 

 

 


D63/11 5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee - Report

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/81/2011 for an increase in height of existing fence on south western corner of site by 500mm at No. 5 Gordon Avenue, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

Referenced plans:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

 

2.       The proposed increase of the southern side boundary fence is not approved and shall be deleted from the plans prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the issue of a ‘Construction Certificate’ by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Consent Requirements

3.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

 

4.       4.   External materials, finishes and colours of the south-western corner fence are   required to match, as closely as possible, the existing fence

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

5.       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).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’, as applicable.

 

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Construction Certificate, Principal Certifying Authority & Commencement of Works

6.       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 any 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.

 

Home Building Act 1989

7.       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 Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, in writing.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

8.       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.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW DECC Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works. A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

9.       Temporary site safety fencing must be provided 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 site fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

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

 

Temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services before placing any item or article on the road, footpath or nature strip.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

10.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction 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;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Site Signage

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

 

·          name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

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

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

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

 

d)     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 department.

 

e)     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.

 

f)     Temporary safety fencing is to be provided to any swimming pools under construction, pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

13.     Prior to undertaking any demolition, excavation or building work in the following       circumstances, a report must be obtained from a professional engineer which details the methods of support for the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

·          when undertaking excavation or building work within the zone of influence of the footings of a dwelling or associated structure that is located on the adjoining land;

·          when undertaking demolition work to a wall of a dwelling that is built to a common or shared boundary (eg. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

·          when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

14.     Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

 

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.

 

Inspections During Construction

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

 

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).

 

 

Building Encroachments

16.     Details are to be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed works will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

Use of premises

18.     The premises must only be used as a single residential dwelling and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

·          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 requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

·          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.

 

Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team can issue Construction Certificates and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          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.

 

·          A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

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

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

§  Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          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.

 

·          Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     28 June 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP40/11

 

 

Subject:                  83 Bream Street, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/809/2010

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing building and construction of multi-unit residential building with 4 levels containing 6 apartments, part basement/part ground level parking for 6 vehicles and associated works (SEPP1 Objections to FSR and external wall height)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Dr S F Ng

Owner:                         Dr S F Ng

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.      Executive Summary 

 

The subject proposal is referred to Council for determination as it has a development that involves variation to the FSR development standard in excess of 10%. 

 

The subject application was originally for demolition of existing building and construction of multi-unit residential building with 4 levels containing 6 apartments, part basement/part ground level parking for 6 vehicles and associated works

 

Following concerns raised with the applicant regarding loss of views and visual bulk and scale, amended plans were submitted on 16 March 2011 for a building with reduced height. These plans were also subject to a view loss analysis from objectors’ dwelling units, (Units 4, 5, 6 and 8) in a nearby property at No. 11 Hill Street. This view loss analysis indicated that all except one affected property (Unit 8) would retain relevant views of Coogee Bay or Wedding Cake Island or both. As such, the applicant was requested to make further amendments to ensure that the views to Unit 8 were also retained. A further amended proposal was lodged on 8 June 2011 to address the view loss to Unit 8. These latest amended plans contained the following changes:

 

·      Deletion of the front section of the upper most floor, Level 3, from the street front boundary thus setting back this level by a maximum 15.4m from the front boundary.

·      Reduction in the number of dwelling units from 6 to 5.

·      Reduction in FSR from the original 1.44:1 to 1.38:1.

·      Reduction in building and external wall height from the original maximum 12m to 11.6m.

 

The amended plans of the 8 June 2011 are the subject of this report, and are considered to be satisfactory, addressing not only the view loss issues, but also showing an improved overall proposal in relation to visual bulk and scale.

 

The amended proposal has an FSR of 1.38:1 (compared with the maximum 0.65:1 FSR standard applicable under the Randwick LEP 1998). The amended proposal also has an external wall height of 11.6m (at RL 30.61) which varies from the maximum 10m wall height standard under the Randwick LEP 1998. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) objections have been lodged in support of these variations to the FSR and external wall height standards. It should be noted that the existing residential flat building on the subject site has an FSR of approximately 0.9:1; a maximum height of approximately 9.5m (at RL27.75); and a zero setback to max 1.3m from the western boundary and minimum 900mm and max 1.2m from the eastern boundary for the main building. Accordingly, the proposed building will be compatible in height, bulk and scale to the existing building on-site but for an additional floor level (that is, Level 3) which, notwithstanding, has been compressed and significantly setback from the front and rear boundaries. In this context, the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the subject site.

 

The SEPP 1 Objections have been assessed and found acceptable as the resultant height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is consistent with the existing scale and character of development in the immediate streetscape along Bream Street which is predominantly comprised of 3-4 storey residential flat developments. The breaches in the standards do not give rise to unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, view sharing, solar access and privacy. Additionally, the proposal is consistent with the planning objectives for the locality and purposes of the standard.

 

The proposal generally complies with the performance requirements of the DCP - Multi-unit Housing (with the exception of the FSR control which has been assessed as part of the SEPP 1 Objection).

 

The proposal also does not comply with the numerical car parking requirement of the DCP – Carparking having a shortfall of 2 car spaces. The variation has been assessed in relevant sections of the report and are considered justified in the circumstances.

 

Eight objectors have raised issues relating to overdevelopment, loss of solar access, view loss, increased traffic and insufficient parking, and non-compliance with development standards. The objectors’ issues are addressed in relevant sections of this report.

 

The proposal would be suitable for the site and would have acceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.      The Proposal

 

The current amended proposal lodged on 8 June 2011 includes the following elements:

 

·      Demolition of all existing structures on site.

 

·      construction of multi-unit residential building with 4 levels containing 5 apartments, part basement/part ground level parking for 6 vehicles and associated works

 

Basement :         Carpark containing 6 carspaces, lift and garbage room

Groundfloor:        1 x 2-bedroom unit; storage space and services

Level 1:              1 x 2-bedroom unit and 1 x 1 bedroom unit

Level 2:              1 x 2-bedroom unit and lower level of stacked 2 bedroom unit containing master bedroom and en-suite, bedroom and w.c.

Level 3:              upper level of stacked 2 bedroom unit containing kitchen, dining and living room

 

3.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 2 in DP 973348, No. 83 Bream Street, Coogee. The site is located on the northern side of Bream Street, approximately 21m from the intersection with Arden Street. The land area and dimensions of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

 

The site falls steeply from the northern rear to the southern street front by 8.4m.

 

Existing on site is a two storey residential flat building containing 4 dwelling units and an outdoor laundry to the rear. The site is adjoined by residential flat buildings to the north (No. 174 Arden Street), and west (No. 81 Bream Street), a recently approved multi-unit housing development currently under construction to the east (No 85 Bream Street). The locality is characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential development.

 

Figure 1 Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding built environment

 


4.      Site History

 

A Pre DA proposal was lodged and assessed by Council previously under PL/65/2010. Pre DA advice was provided on 5 May 2010.

 

5.      State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objections

 

Clause 20F        Floor space ratios

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 being Clause 20F - Floor Space Ratio.

 

A maximum FSR standard of 0.65:1 (232.57 sqm) is applicable to the subject site (being less than 700 sqm in area) pursuant to Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposed multi-unit housing development will result in an FSR of 1.38 : 1 (495 sqm) on the 357.8 sqm site.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 20F of Randwick LEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. Principles for assessing SEPP 1 Objections have been established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. The case has established that the upholding of a SEPP 1 objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before a proposed development can be approved by the consent authority. The principles established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council are addressed in the assessment of the applicant’s current SEPP 1 Objection:

 

Matter 1

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

 

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

 

Purpose: 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 the following arguments in support of the SEPP1 Objection:

 

 

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

 

·      The excess floor area, amounting to 261.1 sqm, will be suitably distributed throughout the proposed building mass such that it would have a height, bulk and scale (maximum RL of 30.61) consistent with, and no higher than, the adjoining approved multi-unit housing development currently under construction at No. 85 Bream Street (under DA/656/2003 and DA/344/2009) which also has an identical maximum RL of 30.61. Furthermore, the proposed development will be in keeping with the existing height and scale of multi-unit housing development in neighbouring sites.  Accordingly, the proposed development will not be visually intrusive and will not read as an overdevelopment in the existing streetscape and locality.

 

·      Because of the significant fall of the subject land from the rear to the streetfront, a significant portion of the ground level at the rear will be excavated into and hidden as sub-floor area. This area amounts to approximately 135 sqm (27 % of the gross floor area) which, significantly, will not add to the visual bulk and scale of the proposed development.

 

·      The proposal will have a maximum building height (11.6m) which complies with the maximum 12m building height applicable in the Residential 2C zone under Clause 20G of the Randwick LEP.

 

·      The proposed multiunit housing development will have adequate landscape area (183 sqm or 51.1% of site area) which complies with the minimum 50% requirement under Clause 20E (2) of the Randwick LEP 1998 and adequate deep soil landscaping with 40.9% of this landscaped area over podium basement, which complies with the maximum 50% limit under Clause 20E (3) of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

·      The proposal will replace an existing residential flat building on-site which has a significant height, bulk and scale being an elevated two storey building with a footprint almost similar in size and depth to that of the proposed development. The existing residential flat building on the subject site has an FSR of approximately 0.9:1; a maximum height of approximately 9.3m (at RL27.75); and a zero setback to max 1.3m from the western boundary and minimum 900mm and max 1.2m from the eastern boundary for the main building. Accordingly, the proposed building will be compatible in height, bulk and scale to the existing building on-site but for an additional floor level (that is, Level 3) which, notwithstanding, has been compressed and significantly setback from the front and rear boundaries. In this context, the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the subject site.

 

·      The proposal will replace an existing residential flat building on-site which has a significant height, bulk and scale being an elevated two storey building with a footprint almost similar in size and depth to that of the proposed development. The existing residential flat building on the subject site has an FSR of approximately 0.9:1; a maximum height of approximately 9.5m (at RL27.75); and a zero setback to max 1.3m from the western boundary and minimum 900mm and max 1.2m from the eastern boundary for the main building. Accordingly, the proposed building will be compatible in height, bulk and scale to the existing building on-site but for an additional floor level (that is, Level 3) which, notwithstanding, has been compressed and significantly setback from the front and rear boundaries. In this context, the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the subject site.

 

·      As such, the proposed development will not introduce a new intrusive built form into the streetscape but rather replace an existing the building with a similar, albeit modern and contemporary, built form that complies with the 12m building height standard under the Randwick LEP.

 

·      The proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2C zone in which the site is located as primarily it will contribute towards the variety of housing types in the area; provides housing opportunities in a location that is highly accessible and is well serviced; is designed to ensure that no unreasonable adverse environmental impacts on adjoining properties in respect to overshadowing, visual and acoustic privacy and views; is appropriately designed and landscaped to be compatible with adjacent residential developments and the existing environmental character; and will increase the housing stock within the area thus assisting in housing affordability.

 

·      In terms of scale, the proposed height provides a stepped modulation from the street; is appropriate for its context and is consistent with the scale and character of the streetscape and surrounding residential buildings. In particular, the upper most floor, Level 3, has been further setback to a maximum 15.4m from the Bream Street boundary in the amended proposal to reduce visual bulk and scale as well as to maintain views to adjoining properties.

 

·      The proposal will not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas in terms of privacy, solar access, views and bulk and scale impacts as indicated in relevant assessment sections of this report.

 

In conclusion, the proposal has adequately addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard and the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The SEPP 1 objection has been provide that appropriately justifies that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The variation from the FSR control is consistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 because it would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) in that the resultant development would promote the orderly use and development of the subject land because

 

·      it will have a height, bulk and scale that will not detract from the predominant existing character of its specific location containing predominantly medium to high density residential development typically older style residential flat buildings, 1970’s three to four storey walk-ups and large duplexes. 

 

·      it will create additional floor area that will not negatively impact upon the amenity of adjoining and surrounding uses  in terms of privacy, solar access, views and visual bulk and scale impacts.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

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 be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low to medium density housing forms in the locality, including dwelling houses and semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not 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:

Compliance would, in this case, be unreasonable to achieve the underlying objective of the standard.

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The maximum FSR development standard has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

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

 

·      External Wall Height (Clause 20G)

The proposal seeks a variation to the maximum external wall height. The proposal has a maximum building height of 11.6m (to top of lift roof slab), which exceeds the maximum external wall height specified in Clause 20G Randwick LEP 1998 of 10m.

 

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 standards as outlined in the LEP is:

 

Purpose: To operate together with controls for floor space ratio 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 the following arguments in support of the SEPP1 Objection:

 

 

The applicant’s arguments are considered sound for the following reasons:

 

·      The additional external wall height is localised in the middle section of the upper most floor (ie., the third floor) and occurs as a consequence of the steep fall in the slope of the land at this point but is nonetheless mitigated by its generous setback from the northern front and southern rear boundaries. The minor localised breach of the wall height limit is warranted as it does not create excessive visual bulk and scale; is not considered intrusive or dominant; and does not give rise to detrimental amenity impacts on adjoining/surrounding properties. More importantly, the current position where the breach in wall height occurs results from an increased set back of the top floor (Level 3) from the street front boundary as part of the amended proposal of 8 June 2011 to improve and preserve the views Coogee Bay currently enjoyed by dwelling units in No. 11 Hill Street (see assessment in Section 10 below).

 

·      The height of the proposed building should be viewed in relation to the existing topography of the subject site. This topography sees a considerable fall in the ground line of approximately 8.4m throughout the length of the site. As such, any impacts of the proposed breach in wall height standard will be mitigated by the sloping nature of the site, the considered design of the proposed development including significant setbacks from the front and rear boundaries, a compressed builtform, and flat roof. The proposal maintains the objectives governing height as listed within the DCP – Multi-unit Housing :

 

·      To use maximum height limits to assist in responding to the desired future character of the local context.

·      To minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby land.

·      To control the bulk and scale of development.

 

Accordingly, the increase in the wall height arises from the steep topography of the subject site but results in a building envelope whose location and orientation will not give rise to any significant adverse visual bulk and scale, overshadowing impacts, view loss, privacy or visual or streetscape impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties as indicated in relevant parts of this report.

 

·      A significant portion of the ground level at the rear will be excavated into and hidden as sub-floor area because of the steep fall of the subject land from the rear to the streetfront, This sub-floor area amounts to approximately 135 sqm (27 % of the gross floor area) and will be buried at its deepest point to a depth of 2m which, significantly, will not add to the visual bulk and scale of the proposed development.

 

·      The proposal will have a height, bulk and scale (maximum RL 30.61) consistent with, and no higher than that of the approved multi-unit housing development currently under construction at No. 85 Bream Street (under DA DA/656/2003 and DA /344/2009) which also has an identical  maximum RL of 30.61.

 

·      The proposal will replace an existing residential flat building on-site which has a significant height, bulk and scale being an elevated two storey building with a footprint almost similar in size and depth to that of the proposed development. The existing residential flat building on the subject site has an FSR of approximately 0.9:1; a maximum height of approximately 9.5m (at RL27.75); and a zero setback to max 1.3m from the western boundary and minimum 900mm and max 1.2m from the eastern boundary for the main building. Accordingly, the proposed building will be compatible in height, bulk and scale to the existing building on-site but for an additional floor level (that is, Level 3) which, notwithstanding, has been compressed and significantly setback from the front and rear boundaries. In this context, the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the subject site.

 

·      There are comparably large, as well as higher, multi-unit housing developments on both the northern and southern side of Bream Street beyond the subject site and its immediate adjoining properties. Having regard to the nature of existing surrounding development in Bream Street and the locality, including a number of examples of substantially large  contemporary multi-unit housing developments, the proposed development will have a height that will be commensurate with the height of a number of other buildings in the immediate locality and is not considered to be out of context in the streetscape nor inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development and will satisfy the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regards to floor space ratio.

 

·      The proposal will comply with the maximum building height standard in that it will be a minimum 0.4m below the maximum 12m overall height limit for buildings in the Residential 2C Zone.

 

·      The proposal’s use of a flat roof form in an overall contemporary well-articulated and well-modulated building not only moderates the visual bulk and scale of the proposal but also contributes to the streetscape by providing a building that is compatible in building bulk and scale as well as roof ridge levels.

 

·      The proposed non-compliance do not result in any inconsistencies with the objectives of the 2C zone in which the site is located or the general objectives for the built and natural environment and amenity or the objectives of the external wall height standard. In particular, the proposed development will be in keeping with the existing height and scale of housing development in adjoining and surrounding sites, and will not dominate these developments.

 

The proposal satisfies the purpose of the building height standards and the SEPP 1 Objection is well founded.

 

Matter 2

Matter 2: The Court must be of the opinion that “granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3” (clause 7 of SEPP 1).

 

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

 

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

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

 

The applicant has presented a case to establish that compliance with the standards would not hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act. The proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character of the locality and this is consistent with the objects as quoted in the SEPP. The variation from the External Wall Height standards is consistent 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.

 

Matter 3

Matter 3: The Court must be satisfied that a consideration of the matters in clause 8(a) and (b) of SEPP 1 justifies the upholding of the SEPP 1 objection. The matters in clause 8(a) and (b) are:

 

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

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not 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:

 

Table - Establishing compliance is unreasonable or necessary

Method

Assessment

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 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 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 external wall height 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 considered to be appropriate for the locality.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standards, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 

6.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was notified from 6 October to 20 October 2010 to adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Eight objectors have submitted a number of submissions raising the following issues:

 

·      Excessive height bulk and scale/overdevelopment of site sets a bad precedent

The SEPP 1 assessment above indicates that the proposal does not represent an overdevelopment of the site. In particular, the proposal does not have built form that is visually intrusive or overwhelming upon adjoining and nearby existing housing developments. Rather, the applicant has amended the proposal to the extent that it would fit well it its immediate existing streetscape on Bream Street in terms of architectural design and visual bulk, scale and height. The proposal has a maximum roof height of RL 30.61 which is identical to the maximum roof height of the adjoining property under construction at No. 85 Bream Street. Furthermore, the immediate adjoining properties contain residential flat buildings that are compatible in height bulk and scale to the proposed development including No. 79 Bream Street and No. 85A Bream street. Furthermore, the visual bulk and scale of the proposal is mitigated significantly by the declining topography of the subject site which the proposed development addresses by way of a stepped upper floor level.

 

·            Loss of views

Objections regarding loss of views have been received from objectors in Units 4, 5, 6 and 8 in No 11 Hill Street. These objections are addressed as follows:

 

No. 4/11 Hill Street

Applying the planning principles for assessing view loss established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council, the impact of the amended proposal on views from Unit 4 is as follows:

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg 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 that is currently obtained from the kitchen window of Unit 4 is a view of the Pacific Ocean comprising an unbroken distant horizon of the interface of sky and water (Photo 1 below). There are also intermittent glimpses of Coogee Bay and its southern headland in between the predominant view of roofs of existing development around Coogee Bay. Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, while the view of the ocean horizon and intermittent views of Coogee Bay do not qualify as iconic, they are significant and valuable because they are the remnants of an earlier panoramic view of Coogee Bay and the wider ocean from this Unit that should be preserved.

 

 

Note: The red cross marks indicate the clerestory roofs and front section of Level 3 that have now been deleted in the current amended plans lodged on 8 June 2011 such that the view impact is further improved.

Photo 1: Standing from the kitchen window of the objectors’ property at Unit 4/11 Hill Street , the existing view is that of ocean and sky horizon (in the centre foreground) and glimpses of Coogee Bay and headland (to the right).

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.”

The views in question are generally obtained across a southern side boundary and in an oblique direction looking south-east. Whilst the planning principle states that views across side boundaries would be difficult to retain, the loss of the subject views in this case is not supported as the ocean and sky horizon is unbroken and therefore significant especially when viewed as part of a remnant view of a once intact panoramic vista including Coogee Bay and headland as detailed in Step 1 above.

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… 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)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

The affected view primarily is obtained form the elevated kitchen window of the objector’s property. The amended development submitted on 16 March 2011 will slightly obstruct the views of the fringe of Coogee Bay but the view of the ocean horizon will not be affected. (see Photo 1 above). Additionally, the remaining intermittent views of Coogee Bay also will not be affected. As such, given the considerations in Steps 1 and 2 above, the view loss is considered minor. It should be noted that a significant amount of existing water view, including views of Wedding Cake Island, are already obstructed by existing development in the background including the western wall of new building under construction at No. 85 Bream Street. Additionally, an equally significant view of the Coogee Bay, Coogee Oval and surrounding district further to the south and south-west is obtained from the same kitchen window which will not be affected by the proposed development at all.

 

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 noncompliance 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.”

 

While views of the fringe of Coogee Bay will be obstructed by the proposed development, this impact is not considered to be exacerbated by the proposal’s non-compliance in FSR and external wall height standards for the following reasons:

 

(1)      Subsequent amended plans lodged on 8 June 2011 to address the loss of views to Unit 8 (see below) incorporate a deletion of the front section of the upper most floor (Level 3) of the proposal that further improves the view for Unit 4 as well. This latest amendment results in a building that complies with the maximum building height standard of 12m. The increase in set back of the uppermost floor (Level 3) from the street front southern boundary will be well in excess of the minimum front setback requirement of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing so as to preserve views to Coogee Bay.

 

(2)      Additionally, the amended proposal of 8 June 2011 removes the projecting clerestory roofs and therefore results in a building height at maximum RL 30.61 consistent with, and no higher than that of the approved multi-unit housing development currently under construction at No. 85 Bream Street (under DA DA/656/2003 and DA /344/2009) which also has an identical  maximum RL of 30.61 so that the proposal’s impact on view loss will be largely identical to that created by the new development at No. 85 Bream Street. 

 

(3)      The non-compliance in external wall height (max 11.6m) is confined to the  middle section of the proposed building which will only minimally obstruct the fringe of Coogee Bay with the existing view of the southern Coogee headland remaining wholly unaffected.

 

Therefore, notwithstanding the departure in the FSR and external wall height, the proposal overall has been compacted to reasonable footprint and envelope, and has been adequately amended, so that the impact of visual bulk and scale in the outlook from No. 4/11 Hill Street will not be significant. Overall, the proposal is satisfactory with regard to views to this unit.

 

No. 5/11 Hill Street

Applying the planning principles for assessing view loss established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council, the impact of the amended proposal on views from Unit 5 is as follows:

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg 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 that is currently obtained from the kitchen and living room windows of Unit 5 is a view of the Pacific Ocean comprising an unbroken distant horizon of the interface of sky and water; a view of Wedding Cake Island and a view of Coogee Bay and the southern headland. Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, while the view of the Wedding Cake Island, Coogee Bay and the southern headland do not qualify as iconic (see Photos 2 and 3 below), they are significant and valuable not least because it contains a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible”. Furthermore, these views are obtained from the subject dwelling unit in an almost intact panoramic vista.


 

 

Note: The red cross marks indicate the clerestory roofs and front section of Level 3 that have now been deleted in the current amended plans lodged on 8 June 2011 such that the view impact is further improved.

Photo 2: Standing from the kitchen window at Unit 5/11 Hill Street, the existing view is that of the Pacific Ocean comprising an unbroken distant horizon of the interface of sky and water; a view of Wedding Cake Island and a view of Coogee Bay and the southern headland

 

 

Note: The red cross marks indicate the clerestory roofs and front section of Level 3 that have now been deleted in the current amended plans lodged on 8 June 2011 such that the view impact is further improved.

Photo 3: Standing from the living room window at Unit 5/11 Hill Street, the existing view is that of the Pacific Ocean comprising an unbroken distant horizon of the interface of sky and water; a view of Wedding Cake Island and a view of Coogee Bay and the southern headland

 


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.”

The views in question are generally obtained across a southern side boundary and in an oblique direction looking south-east. Whilst the planning principle states that, views across side boundaries would be difficult to retain, the loss of these views in this case is not supported due to the significant quality and nature of these views especially as a reasonably intact panoramic vista as detailed in Step 1 above.

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… 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)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

The affected view primarily is obtained from the kitchen and living room windows of the objector’s property. The amended development submitted on 16 March 2011 will slightly obstruct the views of the fringe of Coogee Bay. However, the views of Wedding Cake Island and Coogee Bay headland will remain intact and unaffected by the proposed development (see Photos 2 and 3 above). As such, given the considerations in Steps 1 and 2 above, the view loss is considered minor. It should be noted that a significant amount of existing water view is already obstructed in the background by existing development including to a limited extent the western wall of new building under construction at No. 85 Bream Street. Additionally, an equally significant view of the Coogee Bay, Coogee Oval and surrounding district to the south and south-west is obtained from the same kitchen and living room windows which will not be affected by the proposed development at all.

 

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 noncompliance 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.”

While views of the fringe of Coogee Bay will be obstructed by the proposed development, this impact is not considered to be exacerbated by the proposal’s non-compliance in FSR and external wall height standards for the following reasons:

 

(1)      Subsequent amended plans lodged on 8 June 2011 to address the loss of views to Unit 8 (see below) incorporate a deletion of the front section of the upper most floor (Level 3) of the proposal that further improves the view for Unit 5 as well. This latest amendment results in a building that complies with the maximum building height standard of 12m. The increase in set back of the uppermost floor (Level 3) from the street front southern boundary will be well in excess of the minimum front setback requirement of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing so as to preserve views to Coogee Bay.

 

(2)      Additionally, the amended proposal of 8 June 2011 removes the projecting clerestory roofs and therefore results in a building height at maximum RL 30.61 consistent with, and no higher than that of the approved multi-unit housing development currently under construction at No. 85 Bream Street (under DA DA/656/2003 and DA /344/2009) which also has an identical  maximum RL of 30.61 so that the proposal’s impact on view loss will be largely identical to that created by the new development at No. 85 Bream Street. 

(3)      The non-compliance in external wall height (max 11.6m) is confined to the  middle section of the proposed building which will only minimally obstruct the fringe of Coogee Bay with the existing views of Wedding Cake Island, Coogee Bay and the southern Coogee headland remaining wholly unaffected.

 

Therefore, notwithstanding the departure in the FSR and external wall height, the proposal overall has been compacted to reasonable footprint and envelope, and has been adequately amended, so that the impact of visual bulk and scale in the outlook from No. 6/11 Hill Street will not be significant. Overall, the proposal is satisfactory with regard to views to this unit.

 

No. 6/11 Hill Street

Applying the planning principles for assessing view loss established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council, the impact of the amended proposal on views from Unit 6 is as follows:

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg 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 that is currently obtained from the kitchen window of Unit 6 is a view of the Pacific Ocean comprising an unbroken distant horizon of the interface of sky and water; a view of Wedding Cake Island and a view of Coogee Bay and the southern headland (Photo 4 below). Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, while the view of the Wedding Cake Island, Coogee Bay  and the southern headland do not qualify as iconic, they are significant and valuable not least because it contains a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible”.

 

 

Note: The red cross marks indicate the clerestory roofs and front section of Level 3 that have now been deleted in the current amended plans lodged on 8 June 2011 such that the view impact is further improved.

Photo 4 : Standing from the kitchen window of the objectors’ property at Unit 6/11 Hill Street, the existing view is that of the Pacific Ocean comprising an unbroken distant horizon of the interface of sky and water; a view of Wedding Cake Island and a view of Coogee Bay and the southern headland.

 

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.”

The views in question are generally obtained across a southern side boundary and in an oblique direction looking south-east. Whilst the planning principle states that views across side boundaries would be difficult to retain, the loss of the subject views in this case is not supported due to the significant quality and nature of these views especially as a reasonably intact panoramic vista as detailed in Step 1 above.

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… 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)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

The affected view primarily is obtained from the kitchen of the objector’s property. The amended development submitted on 16 March 2011 will slightly obstruct the views of the fringe of Coogee Bay. However, the views of Wedding Cake Island and Coogee Bay headland will remain intact and unaffected by the proposed development (see Photo 4 above). As such, given the considerations in Steps 1 and 2 above, the view loss is considered minor. It should be noted that a significant amount of existing water view is already obstructed in the background by the western wall of the new building under construction at No. 85 Bream Street. Additionally, an equally significant view of the Coogee Bay and district to the south is obtained from the same kitchen window which will not be affected by the proposed development at all.

 

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 noncompliance 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.”

While views of the fringe of Coogee Bay will be obstructed by the proposed development, this impact is not considered to be exacerbated by the proposal’s non-compliance in FSR and external wall height standards for the following reasons:

 

(1)      Subsequent amended plans lodged on 8 June 2011 to address the loss of views to Unit 8 (see below) incorporate a deletion of the front section of the upper most floor (Level 3) of the proposal that further improves the view for Unit 5 as well. This latest amendment results in a building that complies with the maximum building height standard of 12m. The increase in set back of the uppermost floor (Level 3) from the street front southern boundary will be well in excess of the minimum front setback requirement of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing so as to preserve views to Coogee Bay.

(2)      Additionally, the amended proposal of 8 June 2011 removes the projecting clerestory roofs and therefore results in a building height at maximum RL 30.61 consistent with, and no higher than that of the approved multi-unit housing development currently under construction at No. 85 Bream Street (under DA DA/656/2003 and DA /344/2009) which also has an identical  maximum RL of 30.61 so that the proposal’s impact on view loss will be largely identical to that created by the new development at No. 85 Bream Street. 

(3)      The non-compliance in external wall height (max 11.6m) is confined to the  middle section of the proposed building which will only minimally obstruct the fringe of Coogee Bay with the existing views of Wedding Cake Island, Coogee Bay and the southern Coogee headland remaining wholly unaffected.

 

Therefore, notwithstanding the departure in the FSR and external wall height, the proposal overall has been compacted to reasonable footprint and envelope, and has been adequately amended, so that so that the impact of visual bulk and scale in the outlook from No. 6/11 Hill Street will not be significant. Overall, the proposal is satisfactory with regard to views to this unit.

 

No. 6/11 Hill Street

Applying the planning principles for assessing view loss established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council, the impact of the amended proposal on views from Unit 6 is as follows:

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg 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 that is currently obtained from the south-facing balcony of Unit 8 is a view of the Pacific Ocean comprising an unbroken distant horizon of the interface of sky and water and a view of the tip of the southern Coogee Bay headland (Photo 5 below). Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, while the view of the Coogee Bay headland does not qualify as iconic, they are significant and valuable not lease because it contains a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible” especially in the remaining view of the tip of the southern Coogee Bay headland. Furthermore, the view is significant and valuable because they are the remnants of an earlier panoramic view of Coogee Bay and the wider ocean from this Unit that should be preserved.


 

 

Note: The montage of the proposed building in this case (ie., in relation to for Unit 8) has been amended in accordance with current amended plans lodged on 8 June 2011 showing the deletion of clerestory roofs and front section of Level 3.

Photo 5 : Standing from the south-facing balcony linked to an adjoining living room of the objectors’ property at No. 8/11 Hill Street, the existing view is that of the Pacific Ocean comprising an unbroken distant horizon of the interface of sky and water and a view of the tip of the southern Coogee Bay headland.

 

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.”

The view in question are generally obtained across a southern side boundary and in an oblique direction looking south-east. Whilst the planning principle states that views across side boundaries would be difficult to retain, the loss of the subject views in this case is not supported as the ocean and sky horizon is unbroken and therefore significant especially when viewed as part of a remnant view of a once intact panoramic vista including Coogee Bay and headland as detailed in Step 1 above.

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… 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)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

The affected view primarily is obtained form the south-facing balcony of the objector’s property. Photo 5 shows the impact of the latest amended development submitted on 8 June 2011 which deleted the front portion of the top floor (Level 3) of the proposed development to maintain existing views of the ocean horizon, and remnant views of Coogee Bay and the tip of the southern headland. As such, given the considerations in Steps 1 and 2 above, any view loss to Unit 8 will be minor. It should be noted that a significant amount of existing water view, including views of Wedding Cake Island, are already obstructed by existing development in the background including the western wall of new building under construction at No. 85 Bream Street. Additionally, an equally significant view of the Coogee Bay, Coogee Oval and surrounding district further to the south and south-west is obtained from the same balcony and will not be affected by the proposed development at all.

 

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 noncompliance 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.”

While some minor views of the fringe of Coogee Bay will be obstructed by the proposed development, this impact is not considered to be exacerbated by the proposal’s non-compliance in FSR and external wall height standards for the following reasons:

 

(1)      The amended plans lodged on 8 June 2011 specifically addressed view loss to Unit 8 and incorporated a deletion of the front section of the upper most floor (Level 3) of the proposal to preserve the views of the Coogee Bay headland. These amended plans also result in a building that complies with the maximum building height standard of 12m. These amendments have significantly stepped and set back the uppermost floor (Level 3) from the front southern boundary well in excess of the minimum front setback requirement of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing so as to preserve views of Coogee Bay headland to Unit 8.

(2)      The amended proposal of 8 June 2011 also removed the projecting clerestory roofs and therefore results in a building height at maximum RL 30.61 consistent with, and no higher than that of the approved multi-unit housing development currently under construction at No. 85 Bream Street (under DA DA/656/2003 and DA /344/2009) which also has an identical  maximum RL of 30.61 so that the proposal’s impact on view loss will be largely identical to that created by the new development at No. 85 Bream Street. 

(3)      the remaining non-compliance in external wall height (max 11.6m) is confined to the  middle section of the proposed building which will only minimally obstruct the fringe of Coogee Bay with the existing view of the southern Coogee headland remaining wholly unaffected.

 

Therefore, notwithstanding the departure in the FSR and external wall height, the proposal has been adequately amended so that the impact of visual bulk and scale in the outlook from No. 8/11 Hill Street will not be significant. Overall, the proposal is satisfactory with regard to views to this unit.

 

Loss of sunlight

Objectors in the adjoining western property at No 81 Bream Street have raised concerns at the potential loss of sunlight. Solar access to adjoining properties is addressed in section below which essentially indicates that in relation to the adjoining western property, the proposal will have acceptable overshadowing impacts as shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the eastern wall of No. 81 Bream Street is already overshadowed to a significant extent by the existing building on the subject site. The existing shadow coincides with the overshadowing that will be generated by the proposed development such that the increase in overshadowing in the winter morning resulting from the proposed development will be moderate. In fact, the proposed development will result in some slight improvements in solar access to the rear of the adjoining east-facing wall of No. 81 Bream Street because of the significant setback of the upper most floor from the rear boundary. By 12 mid-day no overshadowing from the proposal will occur onto No. 81 Bream Street. Additionally, the proposal; complies with the DCP – Multi-unit Housing Preferred solution in that no north-facing living areas and open spaces of No. 81 Bream Street will be overshadowed by the proposed development. 

 

Wind tunnel effect on eastern side of No. 81 Bream Street

Whilst a portion of the proposed development will be built to the western side boundary, the effect of this in terms of wind tunnelling is considered reasonable and acceptable as there are a number of similar parallel configuration of adjoining walls in the locality given the large number of narrow width blocks containing large existing dwellings and flat buildings in the area.

 

Non compliant setbacks

As assessed in Section 10 below, while the proposal does not comply with the side setback requirements of the DCP, it achieves the performance requirements of the control in that:

 

·      Solar access is maintained to the adjoining western and eastern properties.

·      Privacy is adequately maintained between adjoining dwellings and to adjoining open spaces mainly through the orientation of window openings north and south.

·      Landscaping and private open space is adequately provided in the proposed development.

·      Streetscape amenity is maintained as the proposal complies with the front setback requirements while having an overall height, bulk and scale consistent with that of existing residential flat developments in the locality.

 

Furthermore, the proposed zero setbacks on the eastern and western side boundaries are considered reasonable and acceptable as they will be consistent with the setbacks for the approved development currently under construction at no 85 bream Street which has a zero setback on the western boundary where the lift wells are located on Levels 2, 3 and 4; and a setback of 240mm to the remainder of the wall line for Levels 2 and 3.

 

The existing residential flat building on-site is a large two storey elevated residential flat building which already has limited setbacks to the western and eastern side boundaries due to the narrowness of the subject site. As such, the proposed side setbacks are consistent with the character of the streetscape which is generally characterised by 4 to 5 storey residential flat developments, a number of which are on narrow lots with similar close setbacks. 

 

Loss of on street parking

The proposal has a shortfall of two carparking spaces which has been addressed in Section 10 below. Essentially, the non-compliance in carparking in this case is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The shortfall is minor considering that the amended proposal of 8 June 2011 now results in 5 dwelling units and not 6 as originally intended. Accordingly, the proposal will not result in significant additional parking demand in the area.

 

·      The proposed development is located on Bream Street and close to Arden Street and Coogee Bay Road which are major well served by public buses linking the subject site to the Sydney CBD, local and regional centres.

 

·      There is adequate on-street carparking available given the existing restrictions applicable to parking on Bream Street and surrounding local streets.

 


Structural damage to adjoining properties due to demolition, excavation and construction work

Appropriate conditions requiring excavation works to be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property and buildings will be applied should approval be granted. Additionally, a condition requiring dilapidation reports to be prepared for adjoining properties will be applied should approval be granted. Moreover, silt fencing and sediment control measures as required by condition of consent will be applied.

 

Incorrect streetscape elevation

The accuracy of a streetscape perspective has been raised by an objector. It is acknowledged that the streetscape perspective submitted with the original proposal is an indicative representation of the massing and scale of buildings in the immediate street front adjoining the subject site. Notwithstanding this, the amended plans of 8 June 2011 show a maximum building height for the proposed development at 11.6m to a maximum RL of 30.61. The adjoining development under construction at No. 85 Bream Street also has an identical maximum RL of 30.61 so that the proposed development will not have a higher building height than this adjoining development.

 

7.      Technical Officers Comments

 

7.1    Building Comments

The subject application has been referred to Council’s Building Surveyor for assessment. The comments provided are extracted below:

 

BCA Building Classification

Class - 2 (Residential Units)

Class - 7a (Carpark)

 

Background

The existing building on site is a post war brick RFB bounded by buildings of a similar nature.

 

Key Issues

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Noise:

There is potential for the generation of noise from the proposed development due to the installation of plant and equipment, such as any mechanical exhaust system serving the basement car park. Conditions should be imposed on the consent to address potential noise emissions from the development.

 

Site Management:

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

 

7.2    Development Engineers Comments

“An amended application has been received for the demolition of the existing building and construction of multi-unit residential building with 4 levels containing 6 apartments, part basement/part ground level parking for 6 vehicles and associated works (SEPP1 Objections to FSR and external wall height) and strata subdivision at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by Robert Jurukovski dated August 2010;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by Council 21st September 2010

·      Geotechnical Report by GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd.

·      Draft Strata plans by surveyor Allan Bruce Stephens stamped by Council .

 

Landscape Comments

There are two 4m tall Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwoods) located on Council’s Bream Street verge, being one each in line with both the western and eastern boundaries, which are in fair health and poor condition due to the heavy and repeated pruning of their canopies away from the roadway, footpath and overhead wires.

 

Regardless, they are still covered by the TPO given their location on public property, and as they are part of a single species avenue planting along the length of this roadway, are seen to provide a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

The most eastern street tree is the poorer of the two, and consistent with advice provided for PL/65/2009, Council requires that it be removed and replaced at the applicant’s cost, as this will serve the long term interests of the development and public domain.

 

As the vehicle crossing is now shown centrally across the width of the site, rather than along the western boundary as it was previously, it will be possible to retain the most western tree, with relevant conditions (and a refundable bond) to ensure its preservation having been included in this report.

 

There is no significant vegetation within this site at all, and while this proposal does not comply with some of Council’s numerical controls for a development of this size in this Zoning, the steep topography is a major constraint that needs to be considered as a factor in the overall assessment.

 

The submitted landscape plan addresses the steep topography through terracing and raised planters, and also shows proposes

 

The Olea europaea subsp africanna (Wild Olive) located within 174 Arden Street to the east, is an environmental weed that is exempt from the TPO, and will not be affected, with the same also applying to the row of 4-5 metre tall Syzygium leuhmannii (Small Leafed Lilly Pillies) located beyond the rear boundary of this site, within 166-172 Arden Street, which perform a desirable screening and privacy function between the two sites.

 

Parking Comments

Parking Layout

The proposed carpark layout is generally satisfactory and complies with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004. The clearance concerns of the turntable outlined in previous memo dated 28th October 2010 have been addressed by extending the basement further towards the rear of the property creating more room for the turntable and car spaces.

Comments on Parking Provision

There is currently no provision for off-street parking on the site with residents of the existing 4 unit building forced to park in the surrounding street network. The area suffers from a high parking demand due to the close proximity of Coogee Beach and other old parking deficient developments in vicinity. The provision of off- street parking is therefore strongly encouraged.

 

Parking requirements for the development have calculated as per Council’s DCP-Parking. Parking Rate for the development is calculated as follows

4 x 2 bedroom unit (Units 1,2,4,6) , Parking Rate = 4 x 1.2 = 4.8 spaces

2 x 1 bedroom unit, (Units 3,5) Parking Rate = 2 x 1 = 2 spaces

Visitor parking = 1 space per 4 dwellings = 6/4 = 1.5 spaces

Total required = 8.3 spaces = say 8 spaces

Total provided = 6 spaces

Shortfall = 2 spaces

 

The provision of 6 spaces is a significant improvement on the current building but the development has to be considered in its own right and the parking deficiency of 25% would normally be considered excessive as it is outside the 10-15% leeway that is generally granted in such circumstances.

 

It is acknowledged that the shortfall only relates to the visitor parking and each of the units has been allocated 1 carspace.

 

It is acknowledged that the site has good public transport links with several bus routes passing in close proximity such as the 374,353,372,373 & 314.

The land use of the premises is not changing and it is acknowledged the applicant has significantly improved the parking provision on the site. An argument can be made that they are actually increasing the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity (by about 3-4 spaces). 

 

For these reasons Development Engineering will not object to the parking deficiency of 2 spaces in this instance.

 

Geotechnical Comments

The Geotechnical report by Geo-Enviro Consultancy has indicated the site generally consists of loose sandy soils with no rock encountered at 4.0m below the ground surface. They infer that rock is likely to be encountered at about 5.5 below the ground surface. An excavation of about 5m will be required at the rear of the basement carpark due to the slope of the site.

 

Although no ground water was encountered the sandy profile was found be moist and some movement & the presence of groundwater would be expected during wet periods.

 

The Development Engineer will therefore require the basement carpark to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. .

 

Drainage Comments

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.

 

On site stormwater detention is generally not required for this development but the post development discharge shall not exceed 25 L/S for the 1 in 20yr (5% AEP) storm event.

 

Waste Management Comments

For normal garbage and recycling Councils ‘Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Developments’ requires the provision of a total of 6 x 240L bins (3 garbage bins & 3 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. The submitted plans indicate the provision of a bin room that contains 8 bins and therefore complies with this requirement. As some landscaping is proposed Development Engineering recommends the surplus of 2 bins be filled with 2 green waste bins.

 

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

 

8.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

8.1         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The subject site is zoned Residential 2C under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The following Clauses of the RLEP also apply to the proposal:

 

Clause 20E   Landscaped areas

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

20E (2) - Landscaped Area for Zone 2B and 2C

50% of site area (or 178.9  m2)

51% (or 183 m2)

Yes

31(3) – Landscaped Area over Basement

Max 50% of landscape  area requirement

(max 89.4 m2)

40.9% (75 m2)

Yes

 

Clause 20F  Floor Space Ratio

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

20F  –  Floor Space Ratio

0.65:1 (232.57m2)

1.38:1 (495m2)

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

 

Clause 20G Building heights

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

33(1) – Building Height

 

Max 12m

Max 11.6m (to top of lift roof slab).

Yes

33(3) – External Wall Height

Max 10m

Max 11.6m (to top of lift roof slab).

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

 

The following relevant clauses also apply to the proposal (and are addressed in detail in Section 11.1 below):

 

Clause 9 - Objectives

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

Clause 40 - Earthworks

8.2    Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

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

 

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

-   State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing 2009

 

The application of these policies to the proposal is addressed in Section 10.1 below.

 


9.         Policy controls

 

The following Development Control Plans are applicable in the subject site:

·      Development Control Plan – Multi-unit housing

·      Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The application of these DCPs is addressed in Section 10.2 below.

 

The following policy is also applicable to the proposed development:

·      Randwick City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2007

 

10.    Environmental assessment

 

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

 

10.1    Statutory Controls – S79C(1)(a)

 

10.1.1       Randwick LEP 1998

Clause 9 - Objectives

Clause 9 of RLEP 1998 requires Council to consider the aims of the LEP and Zone objectives prior to determining any DA on land to which the RLEP applies. The purpose of this Clause is “To require the general aims of this plan and the specific objectives of each zone to be taken into account in the assessment and determination of development applications”. With reference to the general aims, the proposed development will not compromise the aims of the LEP in relation to heritage, aesthetic character, sustainability, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality and contribute to the variety of housing types that does not compromise the amenity of the residential area, consistent with the zone objectives as detailed under Clause 12 below.

 

Clause 12 Zone No 2C (Residential C Zone)

The subject site is zoned Residential C under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP). The proposed development for multi-unit housing is permissible with Council's consent under the zoning provisions applying to the land.

 

The proposal is also considered to be in general accordance with the relevant objectives of the Residential 2C Zone, which are:

 

·      To provide for a medium density residential environment, and

·      To maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas, and

·      To protect the amenity of existing residents, and

·      To encourage housing affordability,

 

Clause 40           Earthworks

Clause 40 of the Randwick LEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct foundations and basement carpark for the building. Overall, the excavation works are required to make the site functional for the proposed development but will not result in any detrimental impact on the topography of the site; is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability; and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality subject to appropriate drainage and building conditions should approval be granted. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 


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

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. The application has been considered by Council’s Design Review Panel on 2 November 2009. The Panel essentially found the proposal satisfactory subject to a number of suggestions as reflected in the Panel’s comments in italics below (followed by Council’s comments in bold wherever necessary):

 

1.      Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

Bream St in this location is characterized by three and four storey apartment buildings of various ages.  The proposed building is adjacent to a new four storey apartment building of very similar design and allotment width and would fit well into its context.

 

Comment: The amended proposal with its increased front setback at the upper floor and deletion of protruding clerestory roof openings will further improve the proposal’s fit into its context and streetscape. 

 

2.      The Scale of the Proposal

Satisfactory, however no ceiling height should be less than 2.7m, as required by the RFDC.

 

Comment: The amended plans now indicate that no floor to ceiling heights will be less than 2.7m.

 

3.      The Built Form of the Proposal

The form of the building is logical and relates well to neighbouring structures. 

Although not critical it should be noted that the photomontage provided does not appear to be consistent with the plans and elevations in the way that the projecting balconies are shown.

Reduction of the height of the lift overrun should be investigated.

The Panel’s previous comments (below in italics) have been addressed except for the need for a BCA/Fire report, which is reiterated.

·      the Level 1 terrace and street level entrances should be set back from the street line to match the new apartments to the east, leaving space, albeit small, to establish a tree and appropriate understory planting. 

·      The garbage bin store should be relocated to within the garage.

·      The additional space beyond the position of the existing rear wall and the adjoining buildings should not be permitted as this reduces the size and clarity of the shared space.

·      A BCA report will be required that addresses fire issues and ventilation.

 

Comment: relevant amended floor plans, sections and elevations show accurate representations and dimensions of the projecting balconies.

 

In relation to  fire protection to openings exposed to side boundaries, the applicant has advised Council in an e-mail dated 16 June 2011 that windows which are less than 3m to boundary will be treated with fire shutters which are always in open position and sit on top of window and only open when there is a fire in the building, the shutters sit in a small colorbond box approximately 100mm x 100mm. A condition will be applied requiring the installation of non-intrusive fire protection measures.

 

4.      The Proposed Density

Although in excess of the FSR for the site, as the scale and site cover of the proposed building is satisfactory, the Panel supports the Applicant’s SEPP1 Objection.

 

The property to the west may, in the future, also build to the boundary. The current proposal should be reviewed in the light of there being reduced amenity from the western aspect. 

 

Comment: The amended plans have resulted in a reduction in FSR from the original 1.44:1 to an amended 1.38 :1 mainly as a result of the deletion of one dwelling unit and associated increased setback of the upper floor from the street front boundary. Accordingly, the amended proposal will further improve the visual bulk and scale of the proposed development. 

 

It is noted that the Panel raises no objections to the zero setback of a portion of the west and east elevations from their respective boundaries. In particular, the Panel noted that there would be minimal benefit to be gained by introducing a setback along the western boundary when the adjoining western property, being also a narrow block, may also seek to build to the boundary. Apart from the Panel’s support on this matter, other considerations as to why a limited degree of zero setback to side boundaries is acceptable in the subject proposal is detailed above.

 

5.      Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

Cross ventilation of the apartments is possible, however windows that can be securely left open must be identified on the plans and elevations.

A skylight should be provided to the main bathroom on Level 3.

Ceiling fans in living rooms should be specified.

Sun shading to the north facing bedrooms should be provided.

Operable windows and fire protection methods to be clarified.

The awning over the entry could be designed to allow light into the foyer below. 

Glass doors to the foyer would also increase the amount of natural light.

 

Comment: Conditions will be applied requiring these measures to be included for the amended proposal.

 

6.      The Proposed Landscape

It is not clear how the proposed roof gardens, some of them inaccessible, can be safely maintained. 

It is not possible to read the planting schedule provided.  It is the Panel’s view that the trees to be established in the rear garden should be large.  Their scale needs to be confirmed.

 

Comment: The amended proposal only proposed perimeter planter beds along the roof top terrace which can accessible and can be maintained appropriately. In relation to planting schedules in the rear garden, standard landscape conditions will be applied requiring details of plantings prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

7.      The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

·      The orientation of the site makes the provision of solar access difficult, however the apartments are well planned and should offer a good standard of amenity.

·      Floor to floor heights should be increased to 3.1 metres.

·      The door leading to the storage area on the ground floor should be glazed.

·      Units 3 and 5 could be re-planned so that the living areas are on the north and the bedroom is next to the bathroom.  This would make a more use of the northern aspect for these lower units.

 

Comment: Floor to floor heights have been increased to a maximum 3.2m and minimum 2.9m such that the amenity of each dwelling unit will be significantly improved over the original proposal. A condition requiring glazed door to the storage area will be applied. Under the amended plans, the living areas of units 3 and 5 will have adequate exposure to the northern aspect.

8.      The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

Generally satisfactory.  However as noted above it is unclear how the planter beds on the southern and eastern façades outside the railing can be safely maintained.

Comment: The amended plans and elevations have satisfactorily detailed the access to planter beds from associated balconies.

 

9.      Social issues

The Panel makes no comment on the SEPP 10 / affordable housing issue.

 

10.        The Aesthetics of the Proposal

Generally satisfactory, however wall cross section details provided indicate crude detailing which should be refined.  For example it is unclear whether it is intended to express concrete slab edges and if so, how. 

As noted above, further window and door details that indicate how cross ventilation can be maintained should be provided.

The purpose and type of the metal cladding on the western façade is unclear.

 

Comment: The amended plans and elevations have satisfactorily detailed the cross ventilation flow for each unit and the materials to be used on building’s external walls. A condition requiring an amended sample board of materials and finishes will be applied should approval be granted.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

This should be a satisfactory development.  The issues raised should be addressed to the satisfaction of the assessing planner

 

10.1.3             State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The applicant has provided an assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in the Statement of Environmental Effects. The applicant advises that the existing residential flat building contains 4 units of which 1 is a one bedroom unit and 3 are two bedroom units. Data on weekly rents for each unit from August 2008 to July 2009 has been provided that show that all 4 units are currently being leased below median weekly rents in Coogee. Accordingly, the applicant advises that the existing residential flat building on-site has been a low rental residential building for eth past 24 months.  

 

The assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 addresses the provisions of Part 3, Clauses 49, 50, and 51 of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The details of this assessment are provided below.

 

 

Clause 49: Buildings to which this part applies

Clause

Criteria

Applicants Comment

49, 1)

This Part applies only to those buildings that were low-rental residential buildings as at 28 January 2000, and does not apply to any building that becomes a low-rental residential building after that date.

No comment has been provided by the applicant in this regard and no rental information has been provided for Jan 2000.

 

Planner’s Comment: The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP is considered to apply to all 4 units within the existing building at 83 Bream Street based on Clause 49, 1) and the definition of “low-rental residential building”. No evidence has been found or provided by the Applicant to suggest otherwise.

 

49, 2) a) b) c)

Not applicable.

 

 

Clause 50: Reduction of availability of affordable housing

When applying for consent to reduce the number of affordable rental housing units through any of the activities identified in Clause 50, 1) Council must assess the proposal against the provisions of 50, 2) a) to h).

 

50, 1)  A person must not do any of the following in relation to a building to which this Part applies except with development consent:

 

a)  demolish the building.

 

50 2) a) to h): In determining a development application referred to in subclause (1), the consent authority is to take into account the guidelines and each of the following:

 

Clause.

Criteria

Applicants Comment

50, 2) a)

Whether there is likely to be a reduction in affordable housing on the land to which the application relates,

“All 4 units are classified as affordable having weekly rents of beneath $360 for a 1 bedroom unit (Unit 1) and beneath $400-$460 for a 2 bedroom unit (Units 2, 3 and 4) within the last 24 months.”

 

Planner’s Comment: The proposal is for demolition of the existing building which contains affordable rental housing as defined in the SEPP, and its replacement with a new multi-unit housing building.

 

50, 2) b)

Whether there is available sufficient comparable accommodation to satisfy the demand for such accommodation

 

NB: For the purposes of subclause (2) (b), sufficient comparable accommodation is conclusively taken to be not available if the average vacancy rate in private rental accommodation for Sydney as published monthly by the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales is, for the 3 months immediately preceding the date of lodgement of the development application, less than 3 per cent.

 

The applicant advises that vacancy rate has been below 3% for a considerable period so that there is insufficient comparable accommodation. The applicant has also provided specific details of rental properties available in Coogee and surrounding areas that below the median weekly rent for 2 bedrooms in Coogee.  

 

 

 

Planners Comment: Average vacancy rate in private rental accommodation for Sydney in January 2011 was 1.5% (source: www.reinsw.com.au) and to date this rate remains below 3%. In accordance with the SEPP, there is insufficient comparable accommodation.  

 

50, 2) c)

Whether the development is likely to cause adverse social and economic effects on the general community,

“Given that the loss of affordable units is only 4, the proposed demolition of the existing residential flat building and construction of a new residential flat building is unlikely to cause adverse social and economic effects on the general community.”

 

Planner’s Comments: The removal of 7 low-rental bedrooms is expected to have minimal adverse social and economic effects within the general community. Any effects of the proposal are considered to be adequately offset by the financial contribution that will be imposed on the applicant as detailed below pursuant to Clause 51.

 

50, 2) d)

Whether adequate arrangements have been made to assist the residents (if any) of the building likely to be displaced to find alternative comparable accommodation,

“The owner has indicated that they are willing to assist in the relocation costs for the existing tenants if required.”

 

Planner’s Comment: The owner’s offer, whilst commendable, does not constitute “adequate arrangements … to assist the residents … of the building likely to be displaced”. The contribution that will be applied pursuant to Clause 51 of the SEPP to offset the loss of low rental dwelling will be a more appropriate means of addressing the reduction in the availability of affordable housing.

 

50, 2) e)

The extent to which the development contributes to any cumulative loss of affordable housing in the local government area,

“The loss of 4 low rental units from the housing stock is not considered to have an impact on the cumulative loss of accommodation due to the available rental stock in the Randwick Local Government Area and surrounding suburbs”

 

Planner’s Comment: The proposed development will have a limited contribution to the cumulative loss of affordable housing in the LGA area, Notwithstanding this, the loss of the 4 low rental dwellings should and will be adequately offset by the contribution that will be imposed pursuant to Clause 51 of the SEPP.

50, 2) f)

The structural soundness of the building, the extent to which the building complies with any relevant fire safety requirements and the estimated cost of carrying out work necessary to ensure the structural soundness of the building and the compliance of the building with the fire safety requirements,

 

“The applicant refers to various details and documents indicating existing residential flat building is in a very poor condition.

 

Planner’s Comment: The applicant has not identified any costs associated with carrying out necessary work to the existing structure to ensure the structural soundness of the building and the compliance of the building with the fire safety requirements.

 

50, 2) g)

Whether the imposition of a condition requiring the payment of a monetary contribution for the purposes of affordable housing would adequately mitigate the reduction of affordable housing resulting from the development

“Given that the existing building is in a very poor condition and possibly structurally unsound and that the proposal will result in the loss of only 4 units, the reduction of affordable housing as a result of the proposed development is considered to be minimal.

 

Planner’s Comments: The loss of 4 low rental dwelling units containing 7 bedrooms remains a fact that flows from the demolition of the proposed building. Using the Department of Planning’s online tool a contribution of $174,650.00 has been calculated to offset the loss of 7 bedrooms. It is considered that a condition imposing this contribution would adequately mitigate the reduction of affordable housing resulting from the development. Payment of the monetary contribution would off set the loss of low cost accommodation and assist with the big picture issue of affordable housing.  Typically, the money will be issued to the low cost housing provider and assist low rental households.  A payment of $174,650.00 is significant and can be used to support low income households.

 

50, 2) h)

In the case of a boarding house, the financial viability of the continued use of the boarding house.

Not applicable.

 

 

Clause 51: Contributions for Affordable Housing

51, 2

For the purposes of section 94F (3) (b) of the Act, this Policy authorises a condition to be imposed under section 94F of the Act if:

(a)  the consent authority, when determining a development application referred to in clause 50 (1), is satisfied that the proposed development will or is likely to reduce the availability of affordable housing within the area, and

(b)  the condition is imposed in accordance with the scheme for dedications or contributions set out in subclauses (3) and (4).

No comments provided by applicant.

Planner’s Comments: As discussed in the preceding assessment, the proposed development is considered to result in a reduction of affordable housing units within the area. Sub-clause 2 (a) of Clause 51 states that Council needs to be  satisfied that the proposed development will or is likely to reduce the availability of affordable housing within the area. The loss of 4 dwelling units as a result of the demolition associated with the construction of the proposed multi-unit housing development is likely to reduce the availability of affordable housing within the area considering the definitions under the SEPP.

 

The payment of a contribution for the loss of low cost accommodation is justified in this instance and assists in achieving the outcomes of the Departments State housing initiatives.

 

Using the Department of Planning’s online tool a contribution of $174,650.00 has been calculated to offset the loss of 7 bedrooms. It is considered that a condition imposing this contribution would adequately mitigate the reduction of affordable housing resulting from the development.

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

 

10.2.1                 DCP – Multi-unit Housing

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

 

Performance requirements

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Site analysis plan provided

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 an allotment width of 9.145m and does not comply with the preferred solution. However, the current proposal is an improvement over the original proposal in terms of height, bulk and scale such that the proposal now achieves the performance requirements of the control by making the proposed development commensurate with the areas/dimensions of the subject site.

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

Not applicable

Height

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

 

The application is accompanied by a SEPP 1 Objection to the external wall height standard which has been assessed and found to be reasonable and well-founded. In this assessment, amongst other things, the location and orientation of the proposed building will not cause substantial adverse impacts on streetscape or adjoining properties. Furthermore, the proposal complies with the maximum building height standard of the Randwick LEP.

P2 Variations in massing and height create visual interest, distribute the bulk of the building.

g and minimise amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

The amended proposal has deleted the top floor front section thus increasing the stepping of the building to preserve views and minimise overall amenity impacts on adjoining properties, and provide consistency in scale to the streetscape, as well as provide adequate visual interest in terms of articulation and façade treatment.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

 

Front setback of min. 4.75m (to glass line) consistent with setback of adjoining building 85 Bream Street.

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

o     No part closer than 3.5 metres.

o     Minimum average setback 5 metres.

o     Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

o     Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

West & East

o     No – the proposal has a 0-1.5m setback to the western boundary and 0-1.2m setback to eastern boundary.

o     No – the proposal has a 0-1.5m setback to the western boundary and 0-1.2m setback to eastern boundary.

o     Yes – no wall without articulation exceeds 10m length.

o     Yes – approx 1m (min) step

 

While the proposal does not comply with the side setback requirements of the DCP, it achieves the performance requirements of the control in that :

·    to the adjoining western and eastern properties.

·    Solar access is maintained Privacy is adequately maintained between adjoining dwellings and to adjoining open spaces

 

 

·    (through the orientation of window openings north and south) and the use of privacy screens on the east elevation.

·    Landscaping and private open space is adequately provided in the proposed development.

·    Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

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.

 

North

 

·    Yes the proposal will be setback 10m from northern rear boundary

·    Yes – no wall without articulation exceeds 10m length.

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.

No adverse impacts on adjoining properties arising from eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection

Density

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

 

The bulk and scale of the proposed building when viewed from adjoining public spaces, streetscape and private properties is visually compatible with existing 3-4 storey RFBs and duplexes/dwelling houses in adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:

·      consistent with streetscape;

·      Entrances highlighted; and

·      Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

Yes - proposed all open planter beds with future hedging to Bream Street will be max 1.2m high. 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum dimension for landscaped area 2 metres.

Yes - landscaped areas are sufficiently sized in excess of 2m.

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

 

Yes –  the Preferred Solution (S1) of minimum dimension for landscaped area of 2 metres has been met.

 

 

 

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

 

Yes – private open space in the form of courtyard/ terraces for dwelling units is provided.

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

 

 

N.A. - dwelling unit 1 with private open space to street front will be setback and fenced.

P5  Townhouses

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

 

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

N/A

P6  Flats and apartments

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

 

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

Ground floor apartment will have ground level open space while apartments above will be provided with terraces/balconies.

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.

Yes (see Section 10.3.2.2 below)

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Yes

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Yes

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

Required to comply with BCA

View Sharing

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

 

Yes (see Section 10.3.2.2 below)

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

 

As above

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

N/A

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties.

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

 

 

Yes (see Section 10.3.2.2 below)

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

 

 

N/A

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

 

 

Yes (see Section 10.3.2.2 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.

 

Yes (see Section 10.3.2.2 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.

Proposal achieves compliance with BASIX targets.

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.

N/A – solar collectors not proposed

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Yes

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Yes

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

Yes

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

 

Yes in that overall carpark will be secured by roller door entry.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

 

Yes by condition

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

Yes by condition

P7 Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

Yes by condition

P8 External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

Yes 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.

 

See Section 10.2.2 below.

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

 

Yes – all carparking in basement.

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

 

N/A

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Yes on basement level

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Yes

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Yes

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

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

Yes, the proposal will not have a long gun-barrel driveway.

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

 

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

Yes.

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

Yes

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

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

Yes by condition to comply with Australian Standard

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.

Yes – Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling provided.

Barrier-free access

 

 

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

0-14 dwellings     0

15-29 dwellings   1

30-44 dwellings   2

45-60 dwellings   3

and so on.

 

N/A as only 5 dwellings are proposed.

Utilities/Site Facilities: subject to  appropriate conditions of consent

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

 

Yes by condition

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

 

Yes – centralised garbage storage area provided at basement level.

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.

Waste facility provided in basement level therefore not visible from street.   

 

The assessment in the table above indicates that the proposal would comply with all the preferred controls / performance requirements of the DCP – Multi-unit housing with the exception of FSR and external wall height which have been addressed in the assessment of the SEPP No. 1 Objections in Section 5 above, and setbacks which have been addressed in terms of the performance requirements. 

 

10.2.2                 DCP – Parking

Compliance with DCP – Parking

 

Use

Requirement (dcp – parking)

Proposed number and/or floor area

Required provision

Proposed provision

 

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

 

1 x one bedroom dwelling

1

 

 

6 carspaces

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

 

4 x two bedroom dwellings

4.8

 

1.5 spaces per three bedroom dwellings

Nil

NA

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 5

1.25 spaces

TOTAL

 

 

8 spaces

6 spaces

 

The proposal will result in a shortfall of two carparking spaces. The non-compliance in carparking in this case is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The shortfall is minor considering that the amended proposal of 8 June 2011 now results in 5 dwelling units and not 6 as originally intended. Accordingly, the proposal will not result in significant additional parking demand in the area.

 

·      The proposed development is located on Bream Street and close to Arden Street and Coogee Bay Road which are major well served by public buses linking the subject site to the Sydney CBD, local and regional centres.

 

·      There is adequate on-street carparking available given the existing restrictions applicable to parking on Bream Street and surrounding local streets.

 


10.2.3                 Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost more than $200,000

$ 1,661,440

1%

$16,614.40

 

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

 

10.3.1        Natural Environmental Impacts

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

 

10.3.2        Built Environmental Impacts

 

10.3.2.1    Urban Design

The proposal has been reduced in height, bulk and scale to that originally lodged. The original proposal had a roof level of RL50 to the top of the lift overrun. The current amended proposal has a RL 47.594 to the highest part of the flat roof that is now proposed. Additionally, the front setback of the upper floor has been increased from 5.5m to a maximum 15m. The current proposal therefore includes an improved step down in the building block from the rear boundary to the street level whereas the original (pre-amended) proposal maintained a more monolithic level that tended to accentuate visual bulk and scale and eliminate existing ocean views of the adjoining property. This stepped format is considered acceptable as it will reinforce the proposal’s compliance with the maximum building height whilst minimising non-compliance with the maximum wall height standard as well as upholding view sharing principles. Accordingly, the amended proposal will have a significantly lower degree of prominence in the streetscape and, importantly, will allow for view sharing with the nearby north-western property at No. 11 Hill Street.

 

The proposal will have a combined face brick and rendered masonry external walls with select paint and textured finish interspersed with select cladding and aluminium framed glazed and louvre elements, that will provide a modern contemporary building in the street.

 

The proposal will have some sections of the western and eastern elevations built to the side boundaries. The application of a zero setback in these limited instances is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The zero setbacks will be consistent with the setbacks for the approved development currently under construction at no 85 bream Street which has  a zero setback on the western boundary where the lift wells are located on Levels 2, 3 and 4; and a setback of 240mm to the remainder of the wall line for Levels 2 and 3 (see Photo A below).

 

 

1.     Solar access is maintained to the adjoining western and eastern properties.

2.     Privacy is adequately maintained between adjoining dwellings and to adjoining open spaces mainly through the orientation of window openings north and south.

3.     Landscaping and private open space is adequately provided in the proposed development.

4.     Streetscape amenity is maintained as the proposal complies with the front setback requirements while having an overall height, bulk and scale consistent with that of existing residential flat developments in the locality.

 

·      The proposed side setbacks are consistent with the character of the streetscape which is generally characterised by 2 to 3 storey residential flat developments, a number of which are on narrow elevated lots with similar close setbacks. 

 


10.3.2.2.   Sunlight, Privacy and Views

 

Sunlight

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that at 9am in the winter solstice, most of the eastern wall of the adjoining western property at No. 81 Bream Street will be overshadowed up to the 3rd level. This wall is already overshadowed to a similar extent by the existing building on the subject site such that the increase in overshadowing in the winter morning is moderate. In fact, the proposed development will result in some slight improvements to this adjoining east-facing wall because of the significant setback of the upper most floor from the rear boundary. By 12 mid-day, the proposed overshadowing will occur predominantly on the Bream Street carriageway and the front yard of the proposed development. By 3:00pm, the western wall of the adjoining property currently under construction at No 85 Bream Street will be overshadowed. As with No. 81 Bream Street, the overshadowing from the proposed building will largely overlap that generated by the existing building such that the increase will be moderate. Overall, the overshadowing impact is considered reasonable especially considering that the subject site is orientated north-south with Bream Street directly on eth southern side so that overshadowing impacts will be distributed reasonably to adjoining properties throughout the winter day. Accordingly as well, the living areas and open spaces of adjoining properties will not have their minimum 3 hour solar access in mid-winter reduced by the proposed development.

 

Privacy

The proposal performs adequately in relation to maintaining the privacy of adjoining properties in that :

 

·      No window openings are proposed on the west elevation except for translucent glassblock windows.

·      The window openings on the east elevation comprise high sill windows and narrow slit windows to bedrooms and a stair landing which are also largely off-set from the living room windows of the adjoining property under construction at No. 85 Bream Street.

·      North-facing rear balconies will be located at a distance in excess of 10m to the closest adjoining northern residential flat building at 166 Arden Street which is adequate to mitigate any potential loss of privacy to these flats.

·      The north-facing balconies are recessed corner balconies that are separated by 10m from the west facing rear yard of the ground floor unit in No 174 Arden Street such that these balconies will not be conducive to overlooking.

 

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

 

Views

The impacts on views currently available to adjoining/surrounding properties that have raised specific objections to view loss have been assessed within the body of this report at Section 6 above. In summary, the assessment shows that the amended proposal will result in a reasonable retention of views to relevant units at No 11 Hill Street.

 

10.3.2.3    Traffic and access

The proposal for 5 dwelling units is expected to result in a low traffic generation which will have minimal impact on the performance of existing intersections in the locality. There will be adequate capacity in the surrounding road network to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development. It should be noted that the net increase in the number of dwellings will be 1 unit given that there are already four dwellings on-site so that in real terms the impact of traffic will be further minimised. Overall, the increase in traffic generation in the proposed development is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network and intersections nor on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

10.3.2.4    Ecologically Sustainable Development

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

 

The proposed development will be well served by public buses along Bream Street and nearby Arden Street, linking the subject site to the CBD and Randwick Junction in keeping with the promotion of public transport usage as a primary means of enhancing ecological sustainability and the reduction of greenhouse gases in the Sydney Region. The proposal would assist in encouraging the use of public transport in line with urban consolidation and ESD principles.

 

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

 

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

The proposal will increase the availability of housing and promote the key directions and actions for the Randwick City Plan and the objectives of the Residential 2C zone contained in the Randwick LEP 1998. The effect of the proposal would be to bring more people to the locality potentially linking them to existing economic, institutional and service facilities in the area. Overall the proposal presents a positive impact within the site and locality.

 

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

The subject site is zoned Residential 2C. The subject site is therefore suitable for the proposed medium density residential development whilst retaining the existing and desired future character of the locality. The site is well located in relation to the Coogee, Bondi Junction, Randwick and the CBD with public bus services available in the immediate locality.

 

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

The DA was notified and advertised from 6 October to 20 October 2010. The issues raised in submissions to this notification/advertising process have been addressed in relevant sections of this report including specifically in Section 5 above.

 

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

The proposed development will be in the public interest as it will provide additional housing stock in an area that is highly accessible by public buses and private vehicles. In addition, the proposal will consolidate the residential character of the locality by enabling residential development of a medium density housing form without compromising the amenity of surrounding residential area in accordance with the Randwick City Plan and the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 12:               Excellence in urban design and development – The proposal has a good architectural quality in that it maximises the potential of the subject site in the context of the existing surrounding development whilst minimising impacts on adjoining and nearby residential properties.

Direction 4a &

associated key action:  Improved design and sustainability across all development –The proposal will achieve a good design in conjunction with a significant sustainable outcome for the proposed development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site. The proposal does not comply with the maximum FSR and wall height standards contained in the RLEP. A SEPP No.1 objection in relation to this breach has been submitted with the application and considered to be well founded in the circumstances. The breaches in the standards do not give rise to unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, view sharing, solar access and privacy. Additionally, the resultant height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is consistent with the existing RFB on eth subject site as well as the existing scale and character of development in the immediate streetscape along Bream Street.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant preferred solutions and performance requirements in the DCP - Multi-unit Housing (with the exception of FSR and wall height standards which has been addressed in the SEPP 1 objection).

 

The shortfall in the numerical carparking requirement of the DCP – Parking has been adequately justified in relevant sections of this report. 

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and views.

 

The recommendation is for approval of the application subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20F and Clause 20G of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to maximum floor space ratio and external wall height, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

and

 

B.     That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA809/2010 for the demolition of existing building and construction of multi-unit residential building with 4 levels containing 6 apartments, part basement/part ground level parking for 6 vehicles and associated works at 83 Bream Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 2050DA02, 2050DA03, 2050DA04, 2050DA05, and 2050DA06 all Issue C, dated June 2011, and stamped received by Council on 8 June 2011, and Draft Strata Plans Sheets 1 to 6 prepared by Allan Bruce Stephens, (Surveyor’s Reference : 09286) and stamped received by Council on 21 September 2010, and the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the proposed development are to be compatible with adjacent developments to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape. Specifically, the use of brick material rather than the proposed predominantly rendered and painted surface shall be provided and a consistent external treatment of the front façade to Dine Street between all levels shall be undertaken.

 

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

 

3.       Details of bicycle storage as required in the Development Control Plan – Parking shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

4.       The following amendments to the proposal shall be undertaken:

 

·      Provision of a skylight should be provided to the main bathroom on Level 3.

·      Provision of ceiling fans in living rooms.

·      Sun shading to the north facing bedrooms should be provided.

·      Provision of awning over the entry designed to allow light into the foyer below. 

·      Provision of glass doors to the foyer to increase the amount of natural light.

·      Provision of glazed door leading to the storage area on the ground floor.

·      Provision of fire protection devices for all openings exposed to the side boundaries comprising open sensor triggered fire shutters within colorbond box as indicated in the e-mail to Council dated 15 June 2011.

·      Details of front fence to comply with the relevant fence controls contained in the DCP – Multi-unit housing. 

 

Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

       

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

 

6.       Metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted and form part of the colour scheme and external finishes for the development. The reflectivity index of materials used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  The details and samples of the materials to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of City Planning, prior to the commencement of works.

 

7.       The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent. Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

8.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed in accordance with AS4282 – 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.

 

9.       In accordance with the provisions of clauses 143A and 154A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a ‘Design Verification Certificate’ must be provided to the Certifying Authority and the Council, prior to issuing a construction certificate and an occupation certificate, respectively.

 

10.     Public access to the visitor’s carparking spaces is to be maintained at all times and an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the carpark, together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use.

 

11.     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.

 

12.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

14.     A monetary contribution of $174,650.00 is required for the purpose of mitigating the loss of low cost rental accommodation on the site caused by the development, pursuant to Clause 51 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Affordable Rental Housing 2009. The contribution must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card to Council prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate relating to the development.

 

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

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost more than $200,000

$ 1,661,440

1%

$16,614.40

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

16.     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.

 

17.     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.

 

18.     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 relevant legislative requirements and to provide reasonable levels of health, safety and amenity:

 

Building regulation and construction site management

 

19.     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.

 

20.     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).  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate.

 

21.     Prior to the commencement of any excavation or 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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

24.     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.

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor (and a copy of any relevant Certificate of Insurance) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencement of works.

 

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

 

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

28.     Prior to issuing an interim or final Occupation Certificate, a single and complete Fire Safety Certificate, which encompasses all of the essential fire safety measures contained in the fire safety schedule must be obtained and be submitted to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate must be displayed in the building entrance/foyer and a copy of the Fire Safety Certificate must also be forwarded to the NSW Fire Brigades.

 

An annual Fire Safety Statement is also required to be submitted to the Council and the NSW Fire Brigades, each year after the date of the Fire Safety Certificate, in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

29.     A report or written correspondence must be obtained from a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer and be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, confirming 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.

 

30.     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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

32.     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 and ancillary structures located upon all of the premises adjoining the subject site (eg. dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, verandah’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.).

 

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.

 

33.     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 an occupation certificate being issued, which certifies that the building works satisfy the relevant structural requirements of the Building Code of Australia and approved design documentation.

 

34.     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”.

 

35.     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 and conditions, including:

 

·       Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·       Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

·       WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·           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 Department of Environment & Climate Change (DECC) / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW 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.

 

36.     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 (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 be provided to Council.

 

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

 

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

 

a)     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.

 

b)     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.

 

c)     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.

 

d)     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.

 

38.     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.

 

39.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 E of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

1)     If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development must, at the person’s own expense:

 

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

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

 

2)     The condition referred to in subclause 1) does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying.

 

40.     Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

 

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.

 

41.     A Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the Department of Climate Change Guidelines for Construction Noise and Assessing Vibration, by a suitably qualified person, is to be developed and implemented prior to commencing site work and throughout the course of construction, to the satisfaction of the Council.

 

a)     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents. 

 

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.

 

b)     The Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan must include details of measurements, analysis and relevant criteria and demonstrate that the noise and vibration emissions from the work satisfy the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, current DECC Guidelines for Construction Noise and Assessing Vibration and Councils conditions of consent.

 

c)     A further report/correspondence must be obtained from the consultant as soon as practicable upon the commencement of works, which reviews and confirms the implementation and suitability of the noise and vibration strategies in the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and which demonstrates compliance with relevant criteria.

 

d)     Any recommendations and requirements contained in the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and associated reports 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 Council and the PCA.

 

A copy of the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and associated acoustic/vibration report/s must be maintained on-site and a copy must be provided to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority accordingly.

 

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

 

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

 

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 & Regulatory Services department.

 

d)       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.

 

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

 

g)       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

h)       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.

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

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.

 

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

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development. For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

j)        The owner/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.

 

43.     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 Council and Principal Certifying Authority.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

44.     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 Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in the Construction 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.

 

45.     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.

·       Landscaping and revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

46.     A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or compliance certificate is to be obtained at the following stage/s of construction, to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

§   prior to construction of the first constructed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete),

§   prior to construction of each additional new floor level,

§   upon completion of the building, prior to issuing an occupation certificate,

§   as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The survey documentation must 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.  

 

Occupant Safety

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

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

 

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

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

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

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

v.    Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

Environmental health & amenity

48.     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 & Climate Change (DECC) Noise Control Guidelines.

49.     Where the building is provided with plant and equipment (e.g. air-conditioners, mechanical ventilation/exhaust systems or refrigeration motors etc) a report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW DECC/EPA Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, Council’s conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations), to the satisfaction of Council.  The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources and a copy of the report must be provided to Council prior to/upon issuing an occupation certificate.

 

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

 

 

51.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council and the location, collection, storage and removal of wastes generated within the premises must not result in a public health nuisance or cause pollution.

 

Services

52.     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 applicable, the Construction Certificate plans and Structural Engineering details must be amended to satisfy the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

If the proposal is acceptable to Sydney Water, 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 is required to ensure that a Quick Check Agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the commencement of any works.

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

53.     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.

 

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

54.     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.

 

a)   Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full site frontage except opposite the vehicular entrance to the site

 

b)   Re-construct concrete footpath along the full site frontage.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

55.     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.

 

56.     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.

 

57.     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.

 

58.     The driveway opening at the Bream Street frontage must be a minimum of 3.0m metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

59.     A Works Zone is to be provided in Bream 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.

 

60.     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:

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

 

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

 

63.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $402 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:

64.     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.

 

65.     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.

 

66.     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 whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

67.     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.

 

68.     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.

 

69.     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 of Requirements must be issued to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

The Section 73 Compliance Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to whichever occurs first of the following;

§ An Occupation Certificate being issued for the development.

§ Release of the Strata Subdivision Plans.

 

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

70.     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.

 

71.     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.

 

72.     All site stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) to the kerb and gutter along the site frontage in Bream Street.

 

73.     Stormwater detention is generally not required for the development on the provision that the post development discharge does not exceed 25 L/S for the 1 in 20yr (5% AEP) storm event. If discharge exceeds this amount then stormwater detention is required.

 

74.     Any required detention area must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

75.     Any onsite detention area shall be located in areas accessible by residents of all units.

 

76.     The maximum depth of ponding in above ground detention areas (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) shall be as follows:

a)     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)

b)     600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10.

c)     1200mm in landscaped areas where a childproof fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

 

Notes:

§  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

 

77.     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.

 

78.     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).

 

79.     A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

80.     A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

81.     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.

 

82.     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 gutter.

 

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.

 

83.     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:

 

a)     The location of any detention basin with finished surface levels;

b)     Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

c)     Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

d)     The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

e)     The orifice size(s) (if applicable);

f)     Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

84.     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.

 

85.     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).

 

86.     Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

87.     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.

 

88.     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:

 

89.     The waste storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

90.     The waste storage area shall be clearly signposted.

 

91.     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 proposed units. A total of 8 x 240L bins (3 garbage, 3 recycling & 2 green waste) will be required for the development.

 

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

92.     The PCA must ensure that landscaping at this site has been installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Concept Plan by Vision Dynamics Landscape Design, drawing no. 10106DA 1, revision B, dated 24.02.11, prior to the issue of a Final (or any other type of Interim) Occupation Certificate, with suitable strategies to be put in place by the body corporate (or similar) to ensure that it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition, in accordance with these plans.

 

Street Tree Removal & Replacement

93.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $349.25 (including GST), being to cover Council’s costs for the following:

 

          a.       To remove the existing street tree, Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwood) from the Bream Street verge, near the eastern site boundary, due to its poor health and condition; and;

 

b.       To supply and install 1 x 25 litre replacement of the same species back on the verge, in line with the eastern site boundary, at the completion of all works.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income 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 removal of the street tree prior to the commencement of site works, as well as upon completion, to arrange for planting of the replacement street tree.

 

Tree Removals

94.     No objections are raised to removing any of the existing vegetation within the site where necessary in order to accommodate the proposed works as shown, as all were observed to be insignificant, and not covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO), but is subject t o full implementation of the approved landscape plan.

 

 

Protection of Street Tree

95.     In order to ensure retention of the Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwood) located on Council’s Bream Street verge, near the western site boundary in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of this street tree, with the position and diameter of both its trunk and canopy to be clearly shown on all drawings.

b.       Excavations for the western edge of the proposed centrally located vehicle crossing must be setback a minimum distance of 2 metres from the trunk of the existing Cottonwood street tree, located on Council’s Bream Street verge, in line with the western site boundary, measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level.

c.       This tree is to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 1.5 metres to its east and west (measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level), matching up with the back of the kerb to its south, and pedestrian footpath to its north, in order to completely enclose this tree for the duration of works.

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

e.       In order to prevent soil/sediment being washed over its root system, erosion control measures shall be provided at ground level, around the perimeter of the TPZ.

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

g.       Within the TPZ, there is to be no storage of materials, machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble, with all Site Management Plans needing to acknowledge these requirements.

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

i.        A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card or cheque for an amount of $2000.00 shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of this street tree.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Strata Subdivision Conditions

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

96.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must be constructed prior to the issue of a strata subdivision certificate.

 

97.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must correspond to those depicted in this development consent and future construction certificate for the building.

 

98.     Prior to endorsement of the strata plans, all facilities required under this development consent (such as parking spaces, terraces and courtyards) must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements.

 

99.     The applicant shall provide Council with a copy of the ‘Plan of Redefinition’ of the property prior to receiving strata subdivision approval.

 

100.    The applicant shall create suitable rights of carriageway, easements for services, support and stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

101.    A formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier and all conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

102.    If stormwater detention is provided then prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development/ strata subdivision of the site (whichever occurs first), a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E/88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention 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.

 

103.    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.

 

104.    Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority, together with any other certification relied upon, must be provided to Council or the accredited certifier prior to the issuing of a subdivision certificate.

Advisory

 

A1.     The assessment of this development application does not include an assessment of the proposed building work under the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

All new building work must comply with the BCA and relevant Australian Standards and details of compliance must be provided in the Construction Certificate application.

 

A2.     Access for persons with disabilities, suitable access ramp/s should be provided from the entry to the premises and to the building to the satisfaction of the certifying authority and details should be included in the construction certificate.

 

A3.     A separate Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Health, Building & Regulatory Services department prior to commencing any of the following activities:-

 

§  Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures on any part of the nature strip, road or footpath

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

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

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     28 June 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP41/11

 

 

Subject:                  18-20 Stanley Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/891/2008/C

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification to condition 6 of the development consent relating to the use of the 2 pedestrian access gates to the ground level entry forecourt and basement carpark on Chepstow Street frontage, of the Emanuel School

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                The Emanuel School

Owner:                         The Emanuel School

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

DA/181/2009 was approved at a Council meeting on 8 February 2011 as a Stage 1 concept application to set building envelopes and school uses.  Condition 11 of the approval required that a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) was to be submitted to Council within 3 months of the date of the consent for the Stage 1 Concept and was to be approved by Council and the Randwick Traffic Committee prior to the lodgement of any future development applications for this site.

 

The TMP was submitted to Council on 5 May 2011 and is currently under review for comment by Council’s Traffic Committee. Regardless, the current application is a s.96 application and does not constitute a development application; thereby satisfying the requirements of Condition 11 of the consent for DA/181/2009.

 

The proposal is to amend the consent to allow the use of two pedestrian access gates to the ground level entry forecourt and basement carpark on the Chepstow Street frontage of the Emanuel School. The application is referred to Council as the original application was approved by Council’s Planning Committee Meeting on 12 May 2009.

 

The application was advertised and notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 30 March 2011 to 13 April 2011 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of 11 submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The main issues raised within the submissions are the impact of the proposal on the locality with regard to noise and traffic generation and that the waste and delivery functions of the school should continue to be undertaken at the existing Stanley Street service entrance.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The original proposal (DA/891/2008) was for the construction of a 3-storey educational building (science building) with basement car park for 12 vehicles, provision of a new driveway crossing, modification of the masonry boundary wall and general landscaping in the western section of the Emanuel School.

 

The new building has been constructed and includes a vehicular crossing and electric gate which is accessed from Chepstow Street. Two pedestrian gates are located within the vicinity of the electric gate (see Figure 1 below). The current proposal does not seek to use the approved vehicular crossing and electric gate to the science building for service deliveries.

 

Rather, it is proposed to use the pedestrian gates for service deliveries, noting that the pedestrian gates are currently approved for the purposes of emergency egress only.  Specifically, condition 6 of the consent reads as follows:

 

6.     The two pedestrian access gates to the ground level entry forecourt and the basement car park on the Chepstow Street frontage shall be kept closed at all times, and shall not be used for general access purposes, except during emergency circumstances.

 

It is now proposed to amend condition 6 of the original consent to allow the gates to be used by security personnel and maintenance personnel, as well as to receive deliveries and for waste collection. The applicant submits that this would enable a more efficient use of school resources, mainly in terms of shortening the time taken to walk between the primary service areas at the base of the school (primarily the new canteen at the northern end of the school) and the existing service entry gate on Stanley Street (at the southern end of the school).  It is noted that the Traffic Management Plan received on 5 May 2011 (relating to a deferred commencement condition for DA/181/2009) states that All deliveries are proposed through the driveway access per current situation; that is, via the existing vehicular entrance gate on Stanley Street.

 

Justification for the proposed changes is given as:

 

·      Being able to exit through the pedestrian gates would enable security personnel to more conveniently check in-coming vehicles which are entering via the new Chepstow vehicular gate. Security personnel must currently walk to the exterior of the school around Stanley and Chepstow Streets or through the existing gates for the preschool on Chepstow Street;

·      Milk deliveries are currently made at 4.00am to a service entry at the southern end of the site on Stanley Street (see Figures 2 & 3 below). The current proposal would allow milk deliveries to be received at the Chepstow Street gate which is located in a more convenient location with reference to the new school canteen; and

·      Waste trolleys (wheely bins) are currently transported to the service entry at the southern end of the site on Stanley Street for collection (see Figures 2 & 3 below). The proposal would allow wheely bins to be deposited from the pedestrian gates directly onto Chepstow Street from within the school, so that they may be collected from the Chepstow Street gate; and without the need to open the vehicular access electric gate. The applicant submits that this would be advantageous for staff as they would need to cover less distance in order to transport the wheely bins to the appropriate service gates. The existing service gates are located up a steep hill and further from the canteen and the canteen is stated to comprise the main source of waste from the school.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is bounded by Stephen Street to the north, Avoca Street to the east, Stanley Street to the south, and Chepstow Street to the west. The site has a land area of 1.471 hectares and presently contains various permanent and demountable educational buildings, outdoor playing courts, landscaping and open parking. The new Chepstow Street entrance is located to the northern end of Chepstow Street.

 

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.

 

Figure 1:  Completed 3-storey educational building (science building) on the subject site, vehicular entry gate and two pedestrian gates. Signs on the two pedestrian gates state: ‘No pedestrian access’ and ‘Emergency use only’.

 

 

 

Figure 2:  The existing service entry gate on Stanley Street, as viewed from within the site.

Figure 3:  Sloping pathway between the service entry gate on Stanley Street at the northern end of the site and the canteen at the southern end of the site.

 

4.    Site History

 

The original application (DA/891/2008) was for the construction of a 3-storey educational building (science building) with basement car park for 12 vehicles, provision of a new driveway crossing, modification of the masonry boundary wall and general landscaping in the western section of the Emanuel School. Two subsequent amendments were made to the original development as follows:

 

·      DA/891/2008/A was approved under delegated authority on 12 February 2010 to replace the existing boundary wall along a portion of the Chepstow Street frontage with a new masonry wall to match existing; and

 

·      DA/891/2008/B was approved under delegated authority on 30 April 2010 to demolish another section of the existing boundary wall along the Chepstow Street frontage and replace it with a new masonry wall to match the existing. 

 

Further development applications relating to the site:

 

Application No.

Details

 

DA/181/2009

Stage 1 Development Application setting out the conceptual building envelopes and uses on the Emanuel School site.

Approved by Council on 8 February 2011 (see part 7 below).

 

DA/925/2008

Erection of 2 shade structures over existing outdoor seating areas.

Approved by Council on 6 April 2009.

 

DA/874/2008

Demolition of the existing structures in the service yard in the centre of the site, and construction of a single-storey specialist learning facility.

Approved by Council on 6 June 2009.

 

DA/657/2008

Demolition of the brick section of the existing boundary wall along the Avoca Street frontage, and construction of a temporary lapped and capped timber fence.

Approved by Council on 5 December 2008.

 

DA/608/2008

Demolition of the existing brick wall along the northern boundary, and construction of a fence with a concrete masonry base, brick piers, and lapped and capped timber panels.

Approved by Council on 5 December 2008.

 

DA/607/2008

Demolition of the brick section of the existing boundary wall along the Avoca Street frontage, and reconstruction of the wall in two stages.

Application withdrawn.

 

DA/889/2007

Demolition of 4 temporary classrooms and installation of a double-storey demountable building containing 8 classrooms.

Approved by Council on 23 January 2008.

 

DA/698/2006

Construction of an extension to the pre-school (Kornmehl Centre).

Approved by Council on 31 October 2006.

 

DA/196/2006

 

 

Partial demolition and reconstruction of the boundary wall on the Avoca Street frontage.

Application withdrawn.

 

DA/311/2002

Demolition of the existing outbuilding attached to the Saunders Administration Building.

Approved by Council on 20 June 2002.

 

DA/1223/2002

Reinstatement of the existing masonry wall on the northern boundary.

Approved by Council on 1 October 2003.

 

DA/1067/2001

Construction of a storage room on the side elevation of the Hanna Weisz Building.

Approved by Council on 11 April 2002.

 

DA/958/2000

Dismantling of 2 temporary classrooms.

Approved by Council on 30 November 2000.

 

DA/1623/1999

Installation of demountable classrooms.

Approved by Council on 3 February 2000.

 

DA/1206/1999

Staged development of the Emanuel School involving demolition of various existing buildings; construction of interim and permanent car park, demountable class rooms, teaching and library buildings,

shade structures and on-site drop-off zone; and landscaping works. 

Application withdrawn.

 

DA/853/1999

Installation of shade structures in the pre-school playground.

Approved by Council on 25 November 1999.

 

DA/257/1997

Construction of a single-storey pre-school building for use by 60 children aged 3-5 years.

Approved by Council on 20 March 1998.

 

DA/475/1996

Internal alterations of the Brender Moss Building.

Approved by Council on 5 December 1996.

 

DA/55/1994

Construction of a multi-purpose hall, classrooms and ancillary facilities.

Approved by Council on 9 May 1994.

 

DA/416/1989

Construction of a high school wing, administration offices and gymnasium, and partial demolition of boundary walls.

Approved by the Land and Environment Court on 14 April 1990.

 

DA/112/1987

Alterations and additions to existing buildings for use as a school.

Approved by Council on 28 July 1987.

 

DA/382/1985

Installation of 2 single-storey demountable classrooms.

Approved by Council on 25 March 1986.

 

DA/363/1984

Use of the existing novitiate site and facilities as a primary and secondary school.

Approved by Council on 12 February 1985.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified to nearby properties from 30 March 2011 until 13 April 2011 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans.

 

5.1 Objections

The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process, objecting to the proposal:

 

·      24 Stephen Street, Randwick

·      10 Chepstow Street, Randwick

·      Petition from 13 nearby properties

·      2 Chepstow Street, Randwick

·      Randwick Precinct Committee

·      1/16, 2/16 & 6/16 Chepstow Street, Randwick

·      9 Monmouth Street, Randwick 

·      13 Monmouth Street, Randwick 

·      8/5 Stanley Street, Randwick 

·      14 Chepstow Street, Randwick

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues raised

Comment

The morning period is very busy around the school area. Cars proceed through local streets in a southerly direction up to Stanley Street.

 

The traffic counter that the school has placed is on the wrong street. It should be on the top of Castle Street to give a true indication of the number of traffic movements.

  

Noted. A Traffic Management Plan was required as a condition of consent for DA/181/2009 and was required to be submitted within three months of the consent being granted. The Traffic Management Plan was submitted to Council on 5 May 2011 and is currently before Council’s Traffic Committee for consideration.

The residents of Chepstow Street have enough traffic to deal with and it would not be fair to impose additional traffic and noise impact on such a narrow street.

 

See further discussion below – Part 8.3.1.

The entrance from Chepstow Street was intended as a vehicular entrance only. Pedestrian access is not necessary from Chepstow Street and the condition preventing pedestrian access was imposed to protect the amenity of the surrounding area as a result of the new building and entrance from Chepstow Street. The original Statement of Environmental Effects (DA/891/2008) stated that ‘garbage will be picked up from the existing designated garbage bay in the school grounds’ (p.27).

 

See further discussion below – Part 9.1.1.

The proposal states that the basis for the proposed change is ‘costly inefficiencies’ for the school. There would be benefits to the school only with detrimental impacts on residents of the area. 

The proposal is recommended for refusal.

The original proposal (DA/891/2008) stated that the gates were only required for emergency egress purposes.

 

It was noted in the planning report for the original DA/891/2008 that the gates were only required for emergency egress purposes and that condition No. 6 had been recommended to prevent the use of the pedestrian gates from imposing any unreasonable impact on neighbouring dwellings with regard to  noise and traffic generation. 

The gates have been used as a regular entry and exit point by staff for several years, in contravention of the original condition imposed by Council.

 

Noted.

The requirement for security personnel to use the gates is not accurate as there are usually one or two guards stationed at the entrance to the preschool. It is not far from the gates of the preschool to the new vehicular entrance under the new building.

 

See further discussion below – Part 9.1.3.

It is not crucial that waste collection takes place at the new pedestrian gates as waste is generated throughout the whole site. Similarly, milk deliveries can occur on Stanley Street where they are currently received and have been since the building was completed.

 

See further discussion below – Part 9.1.3.

 

Condition 7 of the original consent already allows service vehicles to enter via the vehicular entrance.

 

Noted.

The Council report for the recent Stage One development application approved by Council (DA/181/2009) made reference to Condition 6, specifically that it was intended as a safeguard of the amenity of the local area.

 

The proposal is recommended for refusal.

The submitted Traffic Management Study does not include details of waste management, deliveries or security staff movements.

 

See further discussion below – Part 7.

The school has chosen to avoid community consultation by submitting a s.96 application. Approval of the current s.96 will lead to other applications being lodged to further intensify the use of the pedestrian gates.

 

The submission of a s.96 application does not avoid the required notification and advertising of the proposal to nearby properties. The proposal was notified to the owners of adjoining properties from 30 March 2011 until 13 April 2011 and was advertised in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans.

 

 

5.2 Support

No submissions were received in support of the 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:-

 

6.1      Development Engineer Comments

The following comment was received from Council’s Development Engineer:

 

We would be unlikely to support the use of this entry from Chepstow Street for deliveries unless it can be demonstrated that delivery vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction; that is, we would not support delivery trucks reversing out into Chepstow Street from the site.

 

We also do not support trucks delivering milk at 4am. We would advise that if you intend to approve the application you restrict the delivery hours in the conditions so this does not occur. Currently it appears that milk deliveries occur from Stanley Street. We would prefer this to remain if the restricted hours are not convenient for the applicant as it would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of Chepstow Street.

 

6.2      Heritage Planner

No changes are proposed to the physical fabric of the buildings or the walls for the heritage listed site. Consequently, the subject application was not required to be referred to Council’s Heritage Planner.

 

6.3      NSW Heritage Office

The subject site is listed under the State Heritage Register. Pursuant to Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is identified as an Integrated Development and requires concurrence from the NSW Heritage Office.

 

Nevertheless, no changes are proposed to the physical fabric of the buildings or the walls for the heritage listed site and the subject application was not required to be referred to the NSW Heritage Office.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

Given that the site has a site area in access of 10,000sqm, Clause 40A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) - Site specific development control plans - applies to the site.

 

DA/181/2009 was approved on 8 February 2011 for a Stage 1 Development Application, setting out the conceptual building envelopes and uses on the Emanuel School site.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

8.1      State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007

The aim of the Policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. Clause 28(2)(a), Division 3 of Part 3 stipulates that development for the purposes of educational establishments on land, where there is an existing educational establishment, is permissible with development consent. Accordingly, the subject application is submitted for Council’s approval.

 

8.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

8.2.1   Clause 17 Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone)

The proposal is defined as an “educational establishment” under the LEP and is a permissible use within the Special Uses Zone.

 

8.2.2   Clause 40A  Site specific development control plans

Given that the site has a site area in access of 10,000sqm, Clause 40A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) - Site specific development control plans - applies to the site.

 

DA/181/2009 was approved on 8 February 2011 for a Stage 1 Development Application, setting out the conceptual building envelopes and uses on the Emanuel School site.

 


8.2.3   Clause 43 Heritage conservation

The Emanuel School site is listed as a heritage item (Inventory No. 398: former Little Sisters of the Poor Chapel, Novitiate and “Aston Lodge”) and within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The site is also listed on the State Heritage Register.

 

The proposal has been referred and considered by Council’s Heritage Planner who raised no objections to the proposal.

 

8.3 Policy Controls

8.3.1   Parking Development Control Plan

Clause 3.4.3  - Service and Delivery Areas

 

Standard

Requirement

Check

Compliance

1

Design and layout should consider the type and size of the vehicles using the facility and the types of goods being handled.

The area which is the subject of this application was designed and constructed as an entry driveway for a car parking area beneath a new building, with a capacity of 12 cars. Information submitted with the application does not sufficiently detail the size of the vehicles which are proposed to use the driveway area. The proposal to use the area for waste disposal suggests that waste services trucks would need to access the driveway.

 

No

2

Section 2.4 specifies the minimum requirements for an appropriate standard of facilities for service and delivery areas.

 

Section 2.4 specifies the minimum requirements (number of parking spaces which are required).  The science building has been constructed and no further buildings are proposed.

N/A

 

3

Service areas should be adequately screened from public view and located to minimise noise and disturbance to adjoining development.

The area which is proposed to be used for the delivery of goods to the site is within close proximity of dwellings on Chepstow Street. The proposal would impose an unreasonable impact on neighbouring dwellings with regard to noise disturbance, particularly during the early morning hours when milk deliveries and waste collections are proposed.

 

No

4

Manoeuvring areas associated with service areas and loading bays should be separated from the general car parking areas and associated vehicle circulation routes. Special consideration should be given to the safety and movement of pedestrians. 

 

The manoeuvring area associated with proposed service area would not be separated from the entry way to the general car parking area beneath the science building. Pedestrian safety would not be guaranteed, given that vehicles would be required to reverse into or out of the site when making deliveries.

No

5

The RTA Guidelines provide the following further points for consideration:

 

·  The layout of the service area should be designed to facilitate operations relevant to the development and thus discourage on-street loading and handling;

·  Service areas should be a physically defined location which is not used for other purposes, such as storage of goods and equipment;

·  Separation of service vehicle and car movements;

·  All vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forwards direction;

·  Internal circulation roadways should be adequate for the largest vehicle anticipated to use the site; and

·  Manoeuvring areas should be designed in accordance with the RTA guidelines to provide adequate turning areas.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed service area was not originally designed to facilitate deliveries to the site, rather as a driveway to a car parking area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed service area would not be a physically defined location.

 

 

 

 

 

Service vehicles and car movements would not be separated.

 

Cannot comply – see Development Engineer comments above (Part 6.1).

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

See Development Engineer’s comments above – Part 6.1.

No

 

8.3.2   Section 94A Contribution DCP

No works are proposed as part of the current application and the proposal is not subject to the requirements of the Section 94A Contribution DCP.

 

8.4    Council Policies
No Council Policies are applicable to the proposal.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

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

The proposed amendment to the original condition of consent, which is to allow deliveries to be received via the pedestrian gates at the Chepstow Street entrance, is considered to result in unreasonable environmental impacts on the neighbouring properties and the surrounding built environment.

 

9.1.1   Noise generation:

As stated above, it is noted that the Traffic Management Plan received on 5 May 2011 (relating to a deferred commencement condition for DA/181/2009) states that All deliveries are proposed through the driveway access per current situation; that is, via the existing vehicular entrance gate on Stanley Street.

 

The current proposal whereby deliveries would be enabled at the Chepstow Street gates, is considered to result in unreasonable environmental impact on the neighbouring dwellings with regard to noise generation, particularly during the early morning hours when milk deliveries and waste collections are proposed.

 

9.1.2   Pedestrian and traffic safety:

The proposed service area was not originally designed to facilitate deliveries to the site, rather as a driveway to a car parking area. The proposed service area would not be a physically defined location and service vehicles and car movements would not be separated.  The proposal cannot comply with the requirement that all vehicles are to enter and leave the site in a forwards direction and it is considered that pedestrian and vehicular safety would be compromised by the proposed amendment, given that vehicles would be required to reverse into or out of the site when making deliveries.

 

9.1.3   Staff convenience and economic impact:

The statement that the use of the pedestrian gates is required in order to enable security personnel to check in-coming vehicles which are entering via the new Chepstow vehicular gate is not supported given that security staff are permanently stationed at the existing gates for the preschool on Chepstow Street which is located only a short distance away from the pedestrian gates.

 

The statement that milk deliveries are required to be made at the Chepstow Street gates at 4.00am, in order to ensure more efficient operation of the school, is also not supported. It is considered that milk deliveries to Chepstow Street would impose an unreasonable impact on dwellings to the locality with regard to noise generation, as well as imposing an unreasonable impact on vehicular and pedestrian safety (see above).

 

The proposal that waste trolleys (wheely bins) be collected from the pedestrian entrances at Chepstow Street is also not supported given that service vehicles and car movements would not be separated, and that the proposal cannot comply with the requirement that all vehicles are to enter and leave the site in a forwards direction. It is considered that waste collection from the subject gates would impose an unreasonable impact on dwellings on Chepstow Street with regard to noise generation, as well as imposing an unreasonable impact on vehicular and pedestrian safety (see above).

 

9.2    The suitability of the site for the development:

For the reasons discussed above, the development is assessed as being unsuitable development for the site. The proposed development would impose an unreasonable impact on neighbouring dwellings with regard to noise generation and would impose an unreasonable impact with regard to pedestrian safety, given that vehicular movements could not take place in a forwards direction. The development is therefore considered to be wholly unsuitable for the site. 

 

9.3    The public interest.

Should approval be granted for the proposal, it is considered that unreasonable adverse impacts on surrounding properties and the locality would result. The proposed development is considered not to be in the public interest and refusal is recommended.

 

Relationship with the City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4          Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4A:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the Parking DCP. If approved, the proposed development would result in unreasonable and significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality. Refusal is therefore recommended.

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Section 96(2) Application DA/891/2008/C relating to the use of the 2 pedestrian access gates to the ground level entry forecourt and basement carpark on Chepstow Street frontage, of the Emanuel School,  18-20 Stanley Street, Randwick for the following reasons:

 

1.       The development does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the Parking DCP;

 

2.       The proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact on neighbouring dwellings with regard to noise generation; and

 

3.       The proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact with regard to pedestrian and vehicular safety.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     28 June 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP42/11

 

 

Subject:             27 Waverley Street, Randwick

Folder No:             DA/118/2011

Author:              Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Ground and first floor alterations to rear of existing dwelling (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Promax Commercial Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Mr M K Delf

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal includes a SEPP 1 Objection to the floor space ratio that exceeds the standard by more than 10%.

 

The application proposes ground and first floor additions to the rear of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

 

In accordance with the legal advice a semi-detached dwelling within a Residential 2C zones should be considered as multi-unit housing rather than undertaken as a dwelling house. Consequently, the development standards within the RLEP 1998 (consolidation) are now taken into consideration and the assessment has been under Council’s Development Control Plan for Multi-Unit Housing. 

 

The applicant provided a SEPP 1 objection detailing a floor space ratio of 0.92:1. However Council’s calculations reveal a floor space ratio of 0.758:1 and exceed the maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1. The submitted SEPP 1 objection to the floor space area has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the development standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is for ground and first floor additions to the rear of the existing dwelling house (Heritage Conservation Area). Ground floor internal alterations are proposed by increasing the size of an existing kitchen and reducing the size of the bathroom and an awning to the rear is to be extended for the full width of the dwelling. On the first floor level an existing bedroom is to be extended and a new bathroom is proposed.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Waverly Street, and is currently occupied by an existing two storey Victorian style terrace comprising nos. 25-35 Waverly Street. The site has a frontage width of 3.5 metres and a side boundary depth of 28.4 metres and has an overall subject site area of 99.4 square metres. Neighbouring the property to the rear is one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling and to the north and south are adjoining terraces. The subject site is also located within the Gordon Square heritage conservation area under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation). 

 

4.    Site History

 

No relevant pathways application history.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

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

 


5.1 Objections

29 Waverly Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

The proposed first floor addition will overshadow the objectors courtyard.

29 Waverly Street, Randwick is located on the southern side of the subject site and the proposed first floor addition will result in only a small increase in overshadowing. Council calculations revealed the objectors courtyard are already overshadowed by the existing subject site between the hours of 9am – 3pm. The extent of the additional overshadowing from the proposed works will not reduce the overshadowing further than what is existing. Consequently the proposal will not result in any significant adverse overshadowing impacts to the adjoining dwelling.

 

(Refer section 9.4.1 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency)

The proposed first floor addition will result in a loss of views.

 

The proposed first floor addition will not impact on any views.

The proposed first floor addition will result in a loss of ambient light to the objectors’ private courtyard and north-facing windows.  

Given the orientation of the site and the existing site constraints; the additional shadow cast from the proposed first floor addition will result in unavoidable overshadowing and loss of light. Further, the courtyard is already overshadowed by the existing dwelling house between the hours 9am to 3pm.   

 

(Refer section 9.4.1 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency)

 

5.2 Support

 

No letters of support have been received.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

Heritage Planner

The dwelling is part of a two storey Victorian style terrace comprising nos.25 – 35 Waverley Street.  The site is within the Gordon Square heritage conservation area.  The terrace retains much of its original character including high parapet with rendered mouldings and precast urns, timber windows and french doors, iron lacework to balconies and iron palisade fencing on a sandstone base.  The terrace makes a positive contribution to the heritage value of the conservation area.  Immediately to the north is another two storey Victorian terrace comprising nos.11 – 23 Waverley Street which has a considerably lower wall height with a pitched corrugated iron roof and no parapet.  Further to the north at nos.2 – 26 Gordon Street is “Gordon Terrace” listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998.  The Statement of Significance for the conservation area notes that the housing stock is an interesting mix of small and large terraces, semi-detached, single storey row houses and freestanding cottages.  The mixture of periods and styles, from Victorian to Federation, results in a remarkably varied streetscape for such a small area.  The Statement of Significance notes the importance of the fine terraces on Gordon and Waverley Streets, and suggests that the precinct is now the best surviving example of early workers’ housing in Randwick. 

 

The application proposes alterations and additions at ground and first floor level.  At ground floor level it is proposed to carry out internal and external alterations to provide a reduced bathroom and an enlarged kitchen.  At first floor level it is proposed to provide a new rear wing containing a bathroom and wardrobe, (existing bedroom reduced in size to provide access). 

 

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which includes a section on Heritage.  The SEE notes that the front façade with remain unchanged, while alterations and additions to the rear will be in character with the style of the existing dwelling. 

 

In relation to ground floor changes, the proposal will retain the existing building envelope in conjunction with changes to internal walls.  There are no heritage objections to the proposed changes. 

 

In relation to first floor changes, it is noted that the terrace group comprises a two storey section front section with a skillion roof which falls towards the rear and a single storey rear wing with a skillion roof which falls towards the side.  The terrace has undergone little change towards the rear and retains a high degree of integrity.  To date there have been no first floor additions and only minimal ground floor change.  It is regretted that the proposed upper level addition will compromise the integrity of the relatively intact rear wings of the group comprising nos.25 – 35.  Rather than providing a skillion roof falling towards the side which would traditionally be used for a rear wing, the proposal uses an extension of the existing skillion roof.  The use of such a non-traditional roof form will assist in differentiating the addition from original building fabric. 

 

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:

 

- Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

- Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

- Building Code of Australia.

 

(a) Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 13: No.2C (Residential C Zone)

The relevant objectives of zone No.2C are:

 

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

(c) To protect the amenity of existing residents

 

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

 

The proposal falls under the definition of “multi-unit housing” as outlined in the RLEP 1998 (consolidation) and is permissible within the Zone 2C.

 

Clause 20E – Landscaped Area

Clause 20E of RLEP 1998 (consolidation) states that a minimum of 50% of the site area must be provided as landscaped area for multi-unit housing in a 2C zone. Landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas must not exceed 50% of this requirement.

 

The proposal will not change the amount of landscaped area currently on the site. 

 

Clause 20F – Floor Space Ratio

Clause 20F of RLEP 1998 (consolidation) states that a maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 2B is 0.65:1 and land zoned 2C is 0.9:1.  However, if the site is located on land zoned 2C and has less than a total site area of 700 m2, the floor space ratio is 0.65:1.

 

The proposal will result in a floor space ratio of 0.758:1 which does not comply. Refer to SEPP 1 section of this report for a detailed assessment of this non-compliance.

 

Clause 20G – Building Heights

Clause 20G of RLEP 1998 (consolidation) imposes a maximum overall building height of 9.5 metres for buildings on land zoned 2B and 12 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C.  It also imposes a maximum external wall height of 7 metres for buildings on land zoned 2B and 10 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C. 

 

The proposed addition has a maximum wall height of 5.9 metres and the rear addition has a maximum overall building height of 7 metres and therefore complies.

 

Clause 43 – Heritage Conservation

The objectives of this clause are “to conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick City”, and “to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas including associated fabric, settings and views”.

 

The subject site is occupied by a two storey Victorian style terrace comprising no. 25 – 35 Waverly Street. The terraces retains much of its original character and is located within the Gordon Square heritage conservation area. 

 

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment and it was considered that the proposed first floor addition and rear awning extension will not have a significant impact on the dwelling and the streetscape setting of Waverley Street as the proposed works are located behind the front building line.  Appropriate conditions have been included to maintain the appearance and minimise the potential for damage to the existing fabric of the building.

 

The proposal will satisfy the objectives and requirements of Clause 43 of RLEP (consolidation). 

 

9.    State Environmental Planning Policies

 

9.1 State Environmental Planning Policy no.1 – Development Standards

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 20F of RLEP 1998, the maximum floor space ratio within 2C Zones is 0.9:1 and has a total site area greater then 700 m2. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Existing Floor space ratio

0.61:1 (65.73m2)

Proposal

0.758:1 (75.375m2 )

LEP development standard

Maximum 0.65:1 (69.62m2)

Variation from the LEP standard

0.148:1 (9.645m2)

 

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).

 

Floor Space Ratio – (Clause 20F)

The stated purpose of the floor space ratio standard as outlined in the LEP 1998 (consolidation) 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 locality”

 

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

 

o   The variation of Council’s development standard for floor space ratio is considered minor and unreasonable given the minor nature of the proposal.

o   The proposal seeks to construct a new first floor bathroom and will not result in an intensification of the existing dwelling house.

o   The proposal will maintain the appearance of the existing dwelling house within the streetscape.

 

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

 

·         The proposal will be slightly increasing the floor space ratio on site to 0.758:1. It is considered that the shortfall is minor (9.64m2) and will not contribute to any unreasonable loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties and will not significantly contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development.

·         The proposal will not impact the amenity of the streetscape nor will it detract from the individual character as the proposed alterations and additions will not be visible given it is located at the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

·         It is not considered the proposed ground floor and first floor alterations will result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the immediately surrounding terraces nor will it detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the subject site and the locality.

 

·         The proposal will continue to be within the building envelope and will therefore not contribute to the height and scale of the existing dwelling.

 

·         There is adequate private open space to accommodate the recreational needs of the occupants and the proposal will not adversely impact adjoining properties.

 

·         Given the existing site constraints it is difficult for the applicant to comply with Councils current development standards whilst providing an adequate amount of private living spaces. 

 

·         The proposal will not result in any significant additional overshadowing to the adjoining premises.

 

·         Given Councils recent legal advice involving the definition of semi-detached dwellings and its classification of ‘attached dual occupancies’ the assessment of floor space ratio previous to this would be assessed under Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies which would continue to comply with Council’s objectives and performance requirements. Consequently the proposal would continue to comply with the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies had this legal advice not been sought.  

 

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.”

 

Floor Space Ratio Comments:

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

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2C Zone in that it will allow multi unit 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”.

 

Floor Space Ratio Comments:

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 use of the site and the delivery of the proposed enclosed sunroom.

 

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 standards 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 standards is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

The application is exempt from a BASIX certificate as the estimated construction cost is valued at less than $50,000.

 

9.3 Council Policy

No Council Policies are relevant to the proposal.

 

9.4 Policy Controls

 

9.4.1   Development Control Plan for 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.)

Height

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

 

The overall height of the proposed first floor addition is 7 metres and is consistent with the existing semi-detached dwelling. Complies.

Building Setbacks

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

(Excluding common wall boundaries)

The proposed first floor addition is setback 950mm from the southern side boundary and nil along the northern side boundary. Which does not comply with Council’s preferred solution of minimum side setback of 5m. Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that previous to Council’s legal advice that under the assessment of the DCP for Dwelling Houses it allowed for buildings to be sited to the boundary when it is

 

 

proposed to extend semi-detached dwellings along the alignment of a common boundary. Further, it is unreasonable to provide a 5 metre setback as prescribed under the DCP for Multi-Unit Housing given the existing site constraints. It is considered impossible to comply with Councils preferred solutions given the existing site constraints; nevertheless the non-complying side setback to the northern and southern side will not have any significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. The proposed first floor extension will continue to provide adequate access to natural light, day light and fresh air to the adjoining neighbour at 29 Waverly Street, Randwick. Complies.

 

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

The proposed first floor addition is setback 14.8 metres from the rear boundary. Complies

P4  General

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

S4 No device may encroach more than 25% of the Preferred Solution.(approx. 5m on the subject site)

The proposal seeks to extend the length of an existing awning to the rear from the northern side boundary to the southern side boundary. The proposal will not comply with councils preferred solutions with a nil side setback however, is not expected to result in any significant overshadowing or adverse impacts to the adjoining property. 

 

Density

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

 

The proposed works will not impact the amenity of the streetscape nor will it detract from the individual character as the proposed alterations and additions will not be visible given it is located at the rear of the existing dwelling. Complies.

 

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 proposal will result in an unchanged landscaping percentage. Complies.

 

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

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.

South Elevation:

The proposed window located on the northern has a sill height of greater then 1.5 metres and will maintain existing privacy levels.

 

 

East Elevation:

The proposed ground floor and first floor windows overlook the subject sites rear yard and will not compromise existing privacy levels. To maintain a reasonable level of privacy to the adjoining properties, the proposed first floor bathroom window to the northern elevation is to be of obscure glazing. 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

(See Solar Access and Energy and Efficiency Discussion below)

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.

 

Heritage Conservation Areas and Heritage Items

P1  Design and construction of development:

§ Compliments architectural character of adjacent items or the conservation area;

§ Does not detract or overwhelm the conservation area in scale and proportions;

§ Retains the identified significance of the item or area;

 

No objections have been received from Council’s heritage officer. Conditions of consent have been included in ensuring the heritage values of the Gordon Square heritage conservation area are maintained.

§ Pays attention to the nature of design in terms of massing, style, roof pitch, window design and proportion, and external materials; and

Compliments but does not mimic features of a heritage item.

 

P3 The design is in accordance with heritage advice.

 

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

The height and scale of the proposed development meets the preferred solutions in the Randwick DCP for Multi-Unit Housing. According to the DCP for Multi-Unit Housing; living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year and at least 50% of the principle landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings does not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year. The DCP also states that if less than this is available in the existing situation, the new development is not to reduce this further. The proposed first floor addition will not significantly alter overshadowing levels from what already exists. The minor increase in overshadowing from the proposed first floor addition will fall to the rear yard of the neighbouring property at 33-35 Waverly Street during the afternoon only. In regards to the adjoining premises of 29 Waverly Street, council calculations and shadow diagrams provided indicate that the existing dwelling impacted the courtyard to such an extent that overshadowing occurred between the hours of 9am – 3pm. The proposal will continue to comply with Councils preferred solutions in that the neighbouring dwellings rear garden which makes up more than 50% of the principal landscaped area will continue to maintain solar access during 9am – 3pm. Further given the orientation (east/west facing site) and the site constraints in that the dwelling forms part of a Victorian style terraces it can be difficult for neighbouring dwellings to maintain access to natural light.         

 

9.4.2   Development Control Plan for Parking

The proposal will not result in any additional car parking demand.

 

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.

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

Refer to Section 8. Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

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 Section 9.2 Council Policies

 

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character 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 has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

Refer to Section 5.1 Objections 

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 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 Multi-Unit Housing 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 Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20F of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Floor Space Ratios respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application DA/118/2011 for ground and first floor alterations to the rear of the existing dwelling (Heritage Conservation Area), at 27 Waverly Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA02, DA04, DA05, DA07

Revision A

ICR Design

September 2009

28 February 2011

DA06

Revision B

ICR Design

September 2009

20 April 2011

DA03

Revision B

ICR Design

September 2009

15 March 2011

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the issue of a ‘Construction Certificate’ by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Consent Requirements

2.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

3.       External materials, finishes and colours of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building and any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) to limit the level of reflection and glare.

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

4.       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).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Structural Adequacy

5.       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), certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the upper floor addition.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

6.       The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, must be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, 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.

 

Stormwater Drainage

7.       A surface water/stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate:-

 

a)    Surface water/stormwater drainage systems must be provided in accordance with Part 3.1.2 of the Building Code of Australia (Volume 2);

b)    The surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or, subject to site suitability, the stormwater may be drained to a suitably designed absorption pit;

c)    Any absorption pits or soaker wells should be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance;

d)    Details of any proposed drainage systems or works to be carried out in the road, footpath or nature strip must be submitted to and approved by Council before commencing these works.

 

Energy & Water Efficiency

8.       The following energy efficiency and water saving measures are to be implemented in all new and upgraded building work and details included in the construction certificate:

 

a)    The consumption of water shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.

b)    New 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.

c)    New hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

Smoke Alarms

9.       Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or 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 are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’, as applicable.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Construction Certificate, Principal Certifying Authority & Commencement of Works

10.     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 any 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.

 

Home Building Act 1989

11.     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 Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, in writing.

 

Dilapidation Reports

12.     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 terraced dwellings),

·          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.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

13.     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.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW DECC Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

14.     Temporary site safety fencing must be provided 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 site fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

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

 

Temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services before placing any item or article on the road, footpath or nature strip.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

15.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction 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;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

 

Sydney Water

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

 

Prior to the commencement of excavation or building works, the approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre, 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 works.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Site Signage

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

 

·          name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

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

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

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

 

d)     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 department.

 

e)     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.

 

f)     Temporary safety fencing is to be provided to any swimming pools under construction, pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

Excavations, Back-filling & Retaining Walls

19.     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 must 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.

 

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.

 

Support of Adjoining Land

20.     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.

 

21.     Prior to undertaking any demolition, excavation or building work in the following circumstances, a report must be obtained from a professional engineer which details the methods of support for the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·          when undertaking excavation or building work within the zone of influence of the footings of a dwelling or associated structure that is located on the adjoining land;

·          when undertaking demolition work to a wall of a dwelling that is built to a common or shared boundary (eg. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

·          when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

22.     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, vibratory rollers/compactors 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.

 

Inspections During Construction

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

 

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).

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:         For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

·          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 requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

·          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.

 

Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team can issue Construction Certificates and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          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.

 

·          A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

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

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

§  Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          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.

 

Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     28 June 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP43/11

 

 

Subject:                  38 Lasseter Avenue, Chifley

Folder No:                   DA/873/2010

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

   Proposal:                  Demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of a new part 2, part 3 storey attached dual occupancy with semi basement patio areas and laundries and associated site works (SEPP 1 objection wall height control)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Mariccad Design

Owner:                         Mr M Kraljevic

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to Council for determination as it contains variations to the external wall height development standard stipulated in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) by more than 10%.

 

The proposal details the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling house and construction of a 2/3 storey attached dual occupancy with garaging, associated landscaping works and provision of vehicular access for each dwelling.

 

The application was notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 13 – 28 October 2010 in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Four (4) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process detailing issues regarding setbacks, solar access, bulk and scale, visual consistency with the streetcape, privacy, view loss, height and accuracy of the plans and accompanying statement of environmental effects.

 

The site is within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). Although dual occupancies are permissible with consent within Residential 2A Zones, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that the development will detract from the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the area and compromise the amenity of the adjacent dwellings and existing streetscape. The proposed works will result in a development which is inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development and with the built form outcome envisaged by the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

The proposal complies with the maximum building height, maximum floor space ratio and minimum landscaped area controls of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height control. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 – Development Standards justifying that the above breach will not result in significant adverse amenity or visual impacts on the area.

 

The SEPP No. 1 Objection has been assessed and is not supported as it is considered that applicant’s arguments for a SEPP 1 objection are not well founded. The proposal fails to address the stated underlying purpose of the standard in that the proposal does not reflect satisfactory building mass and distribution of bulk and scale toward the rear of the site. The rear lower ground patio component which is enclosed on two sides and recessed into the building unnecessarily increases the bulk and scale of the building and contributes significantly to the excessive external wall height at the rear without inclusion into the overall floor space ratio.

 

The proposal does not demonstrate consistency with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and will result in unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the character of the locality.

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal details the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling house and construction of an attached dual occupancy with garaging, associated landscaping works and provision of vehicular access for each dwelling.

The proposal encompasses the following floor space elements for each dwelling:

 

Lower g/floor:       Laundry, access stairs to floors above, patio and alfresco terrace area.

Ground floor:          Living room, dining area, kitchen, WC, and rear terrace adjacent to the living room with double garages to the eastern side of the site accessed from Lasseter Avenue.   

First Floor:          3 x bedroom, bathroom, ensuite, WIR and external balconies to the eastern and western elevations.

 

2.1    Application History

The application was lodged on 8 October 2010 proposing a new part 2, part 3 storey attached dual occupancy on the subject site. The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified from 13 – 28 October 2010 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, four (4) submissions were received at the close of the notification period.

 

Preliminary assessment of the application and subsequent site inspections revealed that the proposal was inconsistent with the desired streetscape character and result in adverse impacts to the amenity of the adjoining dwellings. Council’s Assessing Officer requested the following amendments to be made to the proposal: -

 

·      Compliant side setbacks at the southern side of the proposed dual occupancy to minimise unnecessary and unreasonable overshadowing to the adjoining site to the south.

·      SEPP 1 objection was inadequate for a full and proper assessment of the breaches to RLEP 1998 development standards. Revised SEPP 1 objection was requested.

·      Improved articulation and framing to the facade of the dwelling to minimise the appearance of bulk and scale, create visual interest, and reduce the visual dominance of the parking structures at the front of the site.

·      Revision of the sloping roof plane toward the rear of the site to achieve a 'stepping down' effect, consistent with that of the rest of the building. The initial sloping plane creates an unnecessary appearance of bulk when viewed from the rear of the site. Stepping down the sections of roof and keeping a parapet roof form will afford the building with better transition down the length of the site.

·      Clarification of the proposed use of the lower ground floor areas.

·      Revised and comprehensive shadow diagrams. 

·      Dimensions of the first street facing windows.

·      Additional landscaping details within the front setback including perimeter planting to establish a landscape ambience to the development should be introduced to soften the appearance of the development.

·      Relocation of the proposed bin area away from the grass area adjacent to the entrance.

·      Proposed fencing details. 

 

Following extensive consultation between Council’s Assessment Officer and the applicant, a final set of amended plans were on 30 March 2011 to reflect the above recommendations and form the subject of the current assessment. These revised plans were not re-notified as they represent an improvement to the original proposal and minimises the extent of impact upon adjoining and surrounding sites.

 

The revised plans feature the following modifications: -

·      Roof split in 2 sections to enable lowering the height at rear of both dwellings.

·      SEPP 1 objection to external wall height.

·      Notation added to basement floor plan delineating patio and landscaped areas.

·      Landscaping to front yard shown on ground floor plan.

·      Front balcony balustrade amended from masonry to glass to both dwellings.

·      Amended shadow diagrams.

·      Garage levels modified to reduce driveway gradient.

 

However, the bulk and scale of the rear section of the dwelling is still considered to be excessive and will result in unreasonable impacts to the solar access and general visual amenity of the surrounding dwellings, particularly the adjoining dwelling to the south at No. 40 Lasseter Avenue. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is described as Lot 39 in DP 36836, No. 38 Lasseter Avenue in Chifley and is located on the eastern side of Lasseter Avenue between Hall Road and Little Bay Road. The site is presently occupied by an existing single storey detached dwelling house located below the street/footpath level. The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

41.155m

 

Southern, side boundary

40.34m

 

Eastern, Lasseter Avenue boundary

16.155m

 

Western, rear boundary

11.58m

 

 

 

562.8m²

 

The site slopes from the east (front) to west (rear) with a fall of RL 33.5 to RL 26.19, a difference in level of up to 7.3m (see figure below of the rear yard of the subject site). 

 

Figure 1: Rear of the existing single storey dwelling

 

The site is adjoined to the north and south by north by a single storey dwelling and a double storey dwelling, respectively. To the east is Lasseter Avenue, and to the west (rear) is a single storey dwelling. The locality is predominantly characterised by a mixture of single and double storey residential dwellings. Refer to table below for photographs of the site and surrounds.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The existing dwelling and carport to street alignment (as seen on right).

2. Adjoining dwelling to the south at No. 40 Lasseter Avenue. 

3. Adjoining carport located at No. 36 Lasseter Avenue, an existing single storey dwelling house. 

4. Difference in levels from the street/footpath to the front yard of the subject site.

5. Existing development across Lasseter Avenue to the east of the site.

6. Dr Walters park to the north east of the site, across Lasseter Avenue. 

 

4.    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

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

 

Maximum External Wall Height

Clause 20G(3) specifies a maximum external wall height of 7 metres for buildings on land zoned 2A and 2B, and 10 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C. 

 

The proposal has a maximum overall building height of 8.7m and a maximum external wall height of 8.4m and does not comply with Clause 20G(3) of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

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 maximum building and external wall height standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

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

 

Maximum external wall height

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 Objection outlining the following key justifications for the variations to the standard:

 

·      The breach in external wall height occurs to due the aggressive slope of the natural ground level and its topography.

·      It is considered a design with intermittent steps throughout the dwelling is not a practical solution in order to make a structure on this site comply with building height.

·      The location of these heights over the 7.0m height limit will have no adverse effect to the streetscape as it occurs mainly toward the rear of the structure and is not visible from Lasseter Avenue.

·      The overall proposal is considered to have a minimal effect due to all other controls complying with development standards i.e. Landscaping, Setbacks and Parking.

·      This non-compliance is also in context with other applications whose development consent has been granted despite being over allowable height limits.

·      Provided there are no adverse effects, the precedent for the surrounding environment allows deviation from this height control as required in the LEP.

·      For these reasons it is requested that a concession be allowed for non- compliance of building height.

 

Assessment Officer Comments: It is considered that the proposal is unsatisfactory and compliance with the purpose of the development standard should be required for the following reasons:

 

·      Although the height variation is confined to the rear of the dwelling, where the topography of the site falls significantly toward the rear yard, the design is not effective in distributing mass and scale, resulting in a 3 storey scale to the rear.

 

·      The recessed open patio area at the lower ground level with floor space above contributes to a significant level of impacts to the solar access and visual amenity of the surrounding dwellings (particular reference is made to the adjoining dwelling to the south at No. 40). This area does not provide any real benefits to the future amenity of occupants of the proposed dual occupancies but significantly exacerbates overshadowing impacts to the south due to pushing up the non-compliant external wall heights.

 

·      The site is has the benefit of being located slightly below the street and footpath levels, and reduction of the overall height and bulk toward the rear will serve to achieve a more appropriate stepping down in height from Lasseter Avenue, effecting a reasonable transition in building height and scale of development from the street and minimising the effect of bulk and scale and is commensurate with dwellings in the vicinity. The current design of the dual occupancies fails to achieve a reasonable gradation of building mass. 

 

·      Due to the elevated nature of the rear section, and the significant drop of the adjoining dwellings to the north and the west, the proposed bulk in the rear of the dwelling is more prominent and results in a bulk and scale which is not commensurate with the established or desired future character of the immediate area.  

 

·      It is considered that the proposal fails to respond to topography, dimensions, and orientation of the site and surrounding properties.

·      As indicated in relevant assessment sections of this report, the proposal will generate unreasonable impacts upon the amenity currently enjoyed by adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection does not adequately address the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standards, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection fails to justify that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of each case. The proposed development does not satisfy the purpose of the standard, the applicant’s case is not well founded, and compliance with the development standard is therefore considered reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The variation from the standard for maximum external wall height is 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). In this respect the proposed development would not represent an orderly and economic development of the subject land.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that the development it will detract from the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the area and compromise the amenity of the adjacent dwellings. The proposed works will result in a development which is inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

·      Comments:

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However, as discussed above, it is considered that the strict application of the external wall height development standard is reasonable and necessary to ensure orderly development and to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the surrounding residential development. Public interest will be well served by the adherence and upholding of the adopted controls.

 

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:

 

 

5.    Site History

 

There is no relevant history for the subject site.

 


6.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified from 13 – 28 October 2010 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, four (4) submissions were received raising the following issues: - 

 

6.1 Objections

Owners of:

 

- 1 Hall Street, Chifley,

- 36 Lasseter Avenue, Chifley,

- 35 Lasseter Avenue, Chifley and

- 40 Lasseter Avenue, Chifley.

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

·      Overshadowing to the adjoining site to the south

·      Southern side setback does not meet the DCP requirements

·      The proposal compromises privacy and amenity of the rear yards of the adjoining properties

Refer to Section 9.1 of this report for detailed discussion of issues relating to solar access, setbacks, and visual and acoustic privacy.

 

·      Building and external wall heights exceed the maximum LEP requirement

The proposal complies with the maximum building height control as prescribed by the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height control. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 – Development Standards justifying that the above breach will not result in significant adverse amenity or visual impacts on the area.

 

However, the SEPP No. 1 objection lodged in respect to the non-compliance with respect to maximum external wall height is not considered to be well founded. The proposal will result in a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding development in terms of visual bulk, scale, and solar access. For detailed assessment, refer to Section 4 of this report.

 

·      The proposed development of a dual occupancy is inconsistent with the existing streetscape character and approval of the application will set a poor precedent for future development in the street.

The current application is not considered to be reasonable within the context of the site and recently approved development in the area and it has been demonstrated that the proposal will result in inconsistencies with the objectives of the DCP – Dwelling Houses or the Residential 2A Zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998. Accordingly, the subject application is recommended for refusal.

Although dual occupancy development is permissible within the 2A Residential Zone, the proposed bulk would set a poor precedent for future development in the area, resulting in built form, proportions, massing and landscaped area allocation which do not maintain the desirable attributes of the existing low density residential environment, or protect the amenity of the existing residences.

 

·      Increased traffic flow due to additional generation of traffic

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

 

·      The plans and accompanying SEE are misleading and make a number of incorrect references and inaccurate statements relating to levels and fails to indicate the true impacts of the development 

The applicant has submitted a survey prepared by a registered surveyor to verify the existing level on the subject and adjoining sites. Further, Council’s Assessment Officer has undertaken a detailed and independent analysis of the levels of adjoining properties and has not relied solely upon the levels provided by the applicant in the assessment of the current development application.

 

·      Loss of views to Botany Bay and district views from across Lasseter Avenue

There are some distant district and Botany Bay views across the site to the west. These views, as defined in the planning principle for view loss assessment are not considered to be iconic in nature.

 

Further, it is considered that whilst there is a degree of view loss as a result of the proposal, the view from across Lasseter Avenue is considerably more difficult to protect due to the topography of the sites and the arrangement of lots in this section of Lasseter Avenue. Any development to a double storey height on the subject site will invariably result in some degree of loss of district outlook. A built form on the subject site similar to that of others in the same section of Lasseter Avenue will interfere with views enjoyed from the affected property. The section of the proposed dwelling affecting this outlook has a compliant building and external wall height will relate compatibly with those in the surrounding streetscape with acceptable impacts in terms of privacy and views.

 

Notwithstanding this, the current proposal does not adopt an appropriate distribution of building mass for the site fails to achieve compliance with the relevant controls of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

·      Loss of privacy to the front of No. 35 Lasseter Avenue

The proposed balconies extending from the first floor bedrooms have been assessed in accordance with the relevant objectives for privacy and deemed to be acceptable. The balconies overlook Lasseter Avenue and any overlooking impacts are restricted to the front yards of surrounding properties, which are presently visible from the street. The street facing areas and window/door openings of all the properties along Lasseter Avenue are susceptible to some degree of overlooking. It is considered that the proposal and its associated degree of overlooking is acceptable and does not contravene the objectives of the DCP relating to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Further, the objectors dwelling is separated from the subject dwelling at least 27m, which is significantly in excess of the minimum 9m identified in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as a preferred solution. This separation distance is sufficient in addressing any concerns regarding loss of privacy. The application therefore complies with the relevant controls for privacy and separation between dwellings.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided:-

 


Development Engineers

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

 

Development Engineers Comments

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

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by MaricCAD Design (Sheets 1106-01 Rev A to 1106-05 Rev A  dated 28/03/2011

 

General Comments

The amended plans include amended garage levels and driveway grades to meet Council’s required alignment levels.

 

Landscape Comments

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

Drainage Comments

Onsite detention of stormwater is required for this application.

 

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

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

8.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. The proposal falls under the definition of “attached dual occupancy” as outlined in the RLEP 1998 and is permissible within the Zone 2A.

 

The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

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

The relevant objectives of Zone No 2A are:

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will compromise the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

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

 

Clause 20B – Minimum allotment sizes

Clause 20B(4) of the RLEP states that the minimum allotment size for the erection of an attached dual occupancy within Zone No 2A is 450 square metres and the allotment must have a frontage of at least 15 metres.

 

The subject site has an overall site area of 562.8m 2 and a site frontage of 16.155m and therefore, complies.   

 

Clause 20E - Landscaped Area

Clause 20E(1) of the RLEP 1998 states that a minimum of 40% of the site area must be provided as landscaped area for areas zoned 2A.

 

Clause 20E(3) states that landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas must not exceed 50% of the landscaped area requirements specified in subclauses (1).

 

The proposal has 56% of the site as landscaped area and no landscaping is to be provided over podium areas. The proposal therefore complies with this Clause.

 

Clause 20F – Floor Space Ratio

Clause 20F(1) of RLEP 1998 states that the maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 2A is 0.5:1.

 

The proposed dual occupancy has an FSR of 0.5:1 and therefore, complies. However, the “patio” area is enclosed on two sides and recessed within the building and contributes to the overall bulk and scale of the development without technically being included in the FSR calculation.

 

Clause 20G – Building Height

Clause 20G(1) of RLEP 1998 imposes a maximum overall building height of 9.5 metres for buildings on land zoned 2A and 2B, and 12 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C. 

 

Clause 20G(3) also imposes a maximum external wall height of 7 metres for buildings on land zoned 2A and 2B, and 10 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C. 

 

The proposal has a maximum overall building height of 8.7m and a maximum external wall height of 8.4m and does not comply with Clause 20G(3) of the RLEP.

 

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

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

 

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

 

The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate (certificate no. 338937M, date of issue 7 October 2010) for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX have been included in the recommendation section of this report.

 

9.    Policy Controls

9.1 Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

 

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

56% of the site is landscaped area. Complies.

S1

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

Each rear yard has a minimum area of 88sqm. Complies.

S1

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

The above area has dimensions of 11.5m x 4.7m. Complies.

S1

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

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

Over 40% of the site is permeable. Complies.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed FSR is 0.5:1. Complies.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 8.4m. Does not comply – SEPP 1 objection provided, refer to Section 4 of this report for detailed assessment.

S1

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

No separate rear buildings proposed. Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

The proposal requires excavation and retaining to approximately 1.7m to accommodate the sub floor laundry and patio areas. Although the allocation of use and design of this area is not supported in this assessment, should a future proposal be submitted and approved for the subject site, suitable conditions will be imposed to ensure that adjoining properties are adequately supported and no damage is caused to the adjoining properties as a result of works on the subject site. Any proposal for the site will need to resolve the steeply sloping topography.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Northern setback – minimum 600mm, standard conditions will be applied to any future approval to ensure that construction work on the subject site will not result in adverse impacts to the health and amenity of residents in the surrounding dwellings. Works are subject to compliance with the Building Code of Australia and other policies with regard to construction noise, hours, waste management and minimising dust and debris.

Southern setback – minimum 900mm, Complies.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

The proposed dwelling is located 14.2m from the rear boundary. Complies.

S4

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

The entire southern elevation of the proposed dwelling is 1.5 metres from the southern side boundary at first floor level. Complies.

S5

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

Not applicable.

 

Comment:

The development to adopt a contemporary design, featuring a parapet roof articulated by balcony areas above the ground level garages. This is considered to be a reasonable solution. However, the northern, southern and rear elevations, as well as massing toward the rear of the site where the site drops towards the west lacks refinement and articulation through appropriate staggering of wall planes unnecessary elevation of the top floor at the rear. The lack of depth in the rear of the dwellings further exacerbates the appearance of excessive visual scale and bulk of the structures.

 

The development will be visually intrusive and form a dominant element in the streetscape, subsequently detracting from the generally open nature featured in the prevailing character of the locality.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed dwelling is set back 4.5m from the front boundary. It should be noted that this section of Lasseter Avenue approaching the intersection of Hall Street features inconsistent and varying front setbacks due to the drastic changes in allotment shape, orientation, and topography. The proposed front setback is considered to be generally consistent with the average setback of the adjoining swellings and their associated ancillary structures.

 

S2

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

The proposed dwelling is 14.2m from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

Northern boundary

The proposed development is set back 0.6 metres from the side boundary. Although this does not strictly meet the preferred solution for side setbacks at the ground floor, this minor variation is considered to be acceptable given section of non-compliance includes only a garage. Complies

Southern boundary

The proposed development is set back 1.5m from the side boundary (at the front). Complies.

 

It should be noted that for this level, “ground floor” side setbacks do not apply at the rear as there is another level below of enclosed patio recessed into the building.

The area features lower ground section accommodating stairs, laundry and patio area for each dwelling. This forms a small portion of the overall length of the dwelling and the site due to the steep drop of the site from the street to the rear. This section is located significantly below the street level and as such, can be seen as “ground floor” when viewed from the rear of the site. Refer to assessment below for discussion of side setbacks. n provided with the following side setbacks: -

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

Due to the topography of the site, the middle floor of the dwelling is seen as the ground floor when viewed from the front and second floor when viewed fro the rear. This floor has been afforded with the following setbacks: -

Northern boundary

The proposed development is set back 600mm - 1635mm from the side boundary.

Southern boundary

The proposed development is set back 1.5m from the side boundary (at the rear). Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Northern side setback of third storey at the rear: 1.52m – 1.8m

The height variation is confined to a section of the northern side and attributed to the significant fall of the site from the front to the rear.

Southern side setback of third storey at the rear:

1.5m - Does not comply, see assessment below.

 

Comment:

The front of the proposed dwelling meets the relevant objectives of the DCP and presents as a standard double storey dwelling with an external wall height which readily meets the preferred solution of the DCP.

The proposal generally meets the preferred solution controls for side setbacks of 900mm and 1500mm at the lower and entry levels. However, given the complicated site topography, the upper floor (second) which presents as ‘first storey’ from the rear elevation does not meet the 3m side setback requirement. Whilst the proposal (when viewed from the street) presents distinctly as a two storey dwelling and is set slightly below the street level, it is considered that the excessive external wall height will exacerbate even minor or partial non-compliance with the preferred solution side setback requirements.

 

It is acknowledged that the subject site is irregular in shape and it would be onerous to impose strict compliance with side setback controls. However, the current design is not considered to be refined in terms of stepped heights and articulation and its monolithic expanse of wall on the northern and southern elevations creates the appearance of excessive and unnecessary bulk and scale.

 


Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

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

The majority of balconies, terraces and large openings have been adequately screened and window openings have been concentrated toward the eastern and western elevations on all floors to reduce the extent of overlooking into adjoining sites.

Most windows are adequately offset and sufficiently protect the privacy of adjacent properties and the upper floors are generally occupied by bedrooms, ensuite and WIR areas, which are not considered to be areas of high traffic. Further the upper floor windows have been provided with

 

 

appropriate sill heights of 1.5m above the finished floor level. Furthermore, given the variation in levels between the subject site and the adjoining properties, the windows are offset from adjoining windows or overlook the roof area of the adjoining dwelling to the south.

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

 

S1

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

The proposal’s street facing balconies above the garages are not anticipated to generate any overlooking concerns.  These can partially overlook the front yards of surrounding dwellings. This is acceptable given that all front yards are susceptible to some degree of overlooking.  

The rear balconies at ground and first floor are designed to take advantage of the district outlook toward Botany Bay and have been provided with appropriate screening devices to mitigate overlooking to the north and south.

 

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The proposed front doors face the street. Complies.

S1,3

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

The proposed dwelling has windows that overlook the street. Complies.

S2

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

 

Suitable condition included.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposal provides 2 parking for each dwelling. Complies.

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 5m x 5.6m. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 3 metres wide and is set back at least 1 metre from the side boundary. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 3 metres at the front boundary. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway gradients are 1 in 8. Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed garage is located behind the building line. Complies.

S2

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

The proposed garages occupy about 61% of the width of the site frontage. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

The proposed garages occupy 61% of the site frontage. This is in excess of the preferred solution 35% as stated by the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. However, the parking structures are considered to be adequately integrated into the design of the building and do not dominate the façade in terms of bulk and scale. The location of the garages slightly below street level, combined with the provision of balconies above the garages serve to minimise the visual bulk of the parking structures by creating visual interest and generally satisfy the relevant objectives of the DCP and the proposed garages are not obtrusive in the overall scale of the streetscape or inconsistent with parking structures in the vicinity.

 

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S1

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

The application does not propose front or side boundary fencing.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

See BASIX

S2

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

The rear yard will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

Does not comply, see assessment below. 

S9

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

Does not comply, see assessment below. 

S9

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

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

 

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

 

The rear yard of No. 40 (adjoining site to the south) will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. Given the east-west orientation of the site, it is acknowledged that the proposed development will result in some degree of unavoidable overshadowing to the adjacent dwelling at No. 40 Lasseter Avenue.

 

However, it is noted that given the length of the proposed first floors, combined with the excessive height, bulk and scale of the building as it progresses toward the rear of the site, the resultant overshadowing upon No. 40 (to the south) is significant. It is only by virtue of the very deep allotments in this area that there remains a part of the adjoining site that receives 3 hours of sunlight between the hours of 9am and 3pm. The primary useable private open space and pool area (immediately adjacent to the rear of the dwelling at No. 40) of the dwelling to the south would receive less than 3 hours of sunlight over these times and experience significant overshadowing. The building design does not adopt any measures to mitigate these overshadowing impacts. 

 

Overall height and building bulk at upper levels are significant elements of the envelope and carry determinative weight in Council’s assessment of the application. The proposal therefore fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of this clause in that: 

 

·      The proposed dual occupancy is not well-proportioned

·      Resultant overshadowing is not well managed or justified

·      The proposed development does not achieve a visual transition between the heights of dwellings along Lasseter Avenue and buildings along Hastings Avenue to the rear of the site.

·      The proposal does not respond to the site topography and results in excessive bulk through wasted space at the lower ground floor.

 

9.2 Development Control Plan – Parking

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

 

9.3 Section 94A Contributions

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

 

 

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.

 

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)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

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

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

The application is not inconsistent with the planning proposal prepared in response to legal advice that under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP), where semi-detached dwellings fall within the definition of attached dual occupancy development or the proposed amendments to the definitions of ‘dwelling house’, ‘attached dual occupancy’  and ‘multi-unit housing’ in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Consolidation).

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

Clause 7 of the EP&A Regulation 2000 requires the consent authority to consider the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Accordingly, appropriate conditions of consent are recommended for imposition should this application be considered suitable for approval.

 

Clause 92 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider relevant Australian Standards relating to demolition of structures. Accordingly, a specific condition is recommended for imposition to require compliance with Australian Standard 2601.

 

Clause 93 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider the structural capacity and fire safety aspects of a building. Accordingly, appropriate conditions are recommended to address the above matters.

 

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

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

 

The proposed development is consistent with the predominant 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 has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land uses 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 submission have been addressed in this report.

 

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

The proposal is not considered to result in significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered satisfactory in public interest terms.

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

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

 

Development for the purpose of an attached dual occupancy is permissible with the consent of within Residential 2A Zones. However, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that the development it will detract from the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the area and compromise the amenity of the adjacent dwellings and existing streetscape. The proposed works will result in a development which is inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

The SEPP 1 Objection relating to variation from the external wall height control has not presented appropriate evidence to demonstrate the satisfaction of the zoning objectives and purpose of the development standard, and accordingly is not considered to be well founded.

 

The proposal fails to address the underlying purposes of the standard in that the proposal does not reflect satisfactory building mass and distribution of bulk and scale. The proposed dual occupancy is not considered to be compatible with the surrounding development and streetscape and would unduly impact upon the amenity presently enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal does not demonstrate consistency with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and will result in unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the character of the locality.

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the recommendation below.

 


 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20G(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to maximum external wall height, on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply 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, refuses development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/873/2010 for demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of a new part 2, part 3 storey attached dual occupancy with semi basement patio areas, laundries and associated site works, at 38 Lasseter Avenue, Chifley 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 has a maximum external wall height of 8.4m and exceeds the 7m external wall height development standard specified in Clause 20G(3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal has an adverse impact on the aesthetic character and environmental amenity of the area and does not satisfy the purpose for the standard. The accompanying objection to the development standard is not well founded as required by Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards.

 

3.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Clause 3.1 of the Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies with respect to appropriate Solar Access and Energy Efficiency.  

 

4.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements for height, form and materials set-out in Clause 4.3 of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

5.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or performance requirements for building setbacks set-out in Clause 4.4 of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     28 June 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP44/11

 

 

Subject:                  6 Brighton Road, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/1139/2010

Author:                   GAT & Associates , Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of new two storey dwelling house with a detached building consisting of three car garage at ground level and 2 bedroom studio above, new rear in ground pool, associated landscape works and installation of solar panels on roof

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                G S Miller

Owner:                         Mr G S Miller & Ms J J Trinca

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application seeks Council approval to the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of a new two storey dwelling house facing Brighton Road. The site also has frontage to Dolphin Street. The proposal provides for garaging at the ground level with a new 2 bedroom dwelling above the garage. The proposed garage will provide two spaces for the main dwelling that fronts Brighton Road and one car space for the dwelling fronting Dolphin Street.

 

The application was advertised from the 24 January to 2 February 2011. There have been no submissions made to the proposal.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the cost of works is greater than 2 million dollars.

 

The site is zoned Residential 2B under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed development is permitted subject to Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is satisfactory and creates no unreasonable impacts. A minor variation is sought to Council’s floor space control and height control for the rear section of the building facing Dolphin Street.

 

It is recommended that this proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions of consent.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of an existing detached dwelling on land known as 6 Brighton Road, Coogee.

 

The subject site has two street frontages. The principle street address is Brighton Road however the site also has frontage to Dolphin Street. In fact Brighton Road is a narrow street and has a laneway appearance while Dolphin Street presents as a standard suburban street.

 

The site has a considerable fall from Brighton Road (RL 23.6) to Dolphin Street (RL 15.58) of 8.02metres. Given this fall, the building has been designed so it steps down the site, noting that the building is no more than two storeys at any one point.

 

As such, the dwelling facing Brighton Road reads as a single storey building while the building off Dolphin Street becomes a two storey building. The scale of the building as read from both street frontages is characteristic to the building form in the area.

 

The proposal provides for the following configuration:

 

Upper ground floor – Brighton Street:

Provision of a master bedroom with ensuite and walk in robe, 3 additional bedrooms, formal entry to the dwelling, bathroom and laundry. A central courtyard is provided which is accessible via a deck off one of the bedrooms. A front verandah/porch is also proposed to Brighton Street. A terrace is also proposed off the master bedroom facing towards Dolphin Street.

 

Lower ground level:

Provision of a study facing the central courtyard with highlight windows given the level of the courtyard is between the floor level and sill of the study window, bathroom, and rumpus/guest room, created by sliding doors that are located off an open plan that includes a kitchen, dining and living area. An outdoor dining area is proposed off the living space with a vergola above and lap pool located along the eastern boundary. A series a steps are proposed to a lower landscaped area that separates the dwelling facing Brighton Road and the garage with the second dwelling above facing Dolphin Street.

 

Ground floor – Dolphin Street:

Provision of a garage that creates three car spaces is proposed. This will be in the form of a double garage for the main dwelling fronting Brighton Road and a single space for the 2 bedroom dwelling above. The two garages are separated by a central access path that will service the second dwelling and provides access for the Brighton Road dwelling to the garage and to Dolphin Street.

 

First floor above garage level:

The proposal provides for a second dwelling that creates two bedrooms with bathroom and open plan kitchen/living area over the double garage and a roof terrace over the single garage space, directly off the living area.

 

The building is a contemporary design reflecting newer buildings in the area. The proposal also incorporates photovoltaic solar panels on the roof over the main dwelling. The dwelling has been designed in a manner that achieves an 8.5 star rating.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Brighton Road between Carrington Road and Melody Street, Coogee. The site also has street frontage to Dolphin Street.

 

The subject site is directly opposite a public reserve off Dolphin Street.

 

The site currently contains an existing two storey dwelling that faces Brighton Street. To the rear, being the Dolphin Street frontage, the site contains two detached garages. Although the site does have some vegetation it has little merit for retention.

 

The site has a considerable fall from Brighton Road to Dolphin Street in the order of 8 metres.

 

The site has a frontage width of 10.375m to Brighton Road and 10.32m to Dolphin Street. The side boundaries vary from 42.950m to west with the eastern boundary being 42.965m. The site has an overall site area of 447 m². 

 

This site has a unique characteristic of having two street frontages as being there front and rear boundaries. This situation also applies to the adjoining properties, with numbers 2, 4 and 8 having this arrangement, although No 8 has been redeveloped so there are two dwellings with one facing Brighton Road and the other facing Dolphin Street.

 

Brighton Road presents itself as a laneway with a narrow road pavement and little road reserve for pedestrian movement, yet it is generally the principle street address for all these properties. Dolphin Street can be characterized as a standard suburban street with a wider road pavement and a footpath reserve on either side of the pavement allowing an avenue of street trees. Notwithstanding these characteristics, Dolphin Street services these properties for garaging.

 

Surrounding properties are generally detached dwellings that vary in height. Generally the properties in the area are two storeys in height of varying architectural styles.

 

 

 

4.    Site History

 

There is no recent history associated with this site.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The application was notified and advertised to the adjoining and nearby properties from 24 January 2011 – 7 February 2011 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. In response, no submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers and the following comments have been provided:-

 

Landscape Comments

The existing vegetation in the main yard facing Dolphin Street is insignificant, and would not pose a constraint to the proposed development of this property in anyway, and can be removed as necessary.

 

While construction of the new dwelling and garages are obviously the main focus of this application, a major component will also be terracing of the land which falls steeply down to the north (Dolphin Street), as this will not only improve both the amount and usability of private open space that is available to occupants, but will also increase opportunities for new plantings that will complement the new dwelling, and assist with its integration into the area.

 

There is a small tree growing on the neighbouring prope