Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 18 October 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                                                                                                18 October 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, 18 October 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 - 20 September 2011

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 27 September 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.

 

 

CP102/11   147-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/1115/2010)

CP103/11   24B & 24C Arthur Street, Randwick (DA/1040/2010)

CP104/11   91-95A Frenchmans Road, Randwick (DA/794/2010)

CP105/11   15 Wood Street, Randwick, (DA/461/2011)

CP106/11   11 Storey Street, Maroubra (DA/588/2011)

CP107/11   97 Perry Street, Matraville (DA/575/2011)

CP108/11   Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the month of September, 2011

Director City Planning Reports (no record of voting required)

CP109/11   The Spot Festival 2011

General Manager's Reports

GM32/11    Randwick City Council 2010-11 Annual Report

GM33/11    Rules and Procedures of precincts and precinct funding

Director City Services Reports

CS17/11    Emergency repairs to lighting fixtures on Maroubra Beach Promenade

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF59/11    Hall Hire Policy

GF60/11    Affixing of the Council Seal

GF61/11    Investment Report - September 2011

GF62/11    Constitutional Recognition of Local Government

GF63/11    Ward Boundary Review

GF64/11    2010-11 Disclosure of Interest Returns  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

Nil 

Closed Session

CS18/11    T12/11 - Randwick City Council Materials Supply and Disposal Panel Contract

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

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                18 October 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP102/11

 

 

Subject:                  147-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/1115/2010)

Folder No:                   DA/1115/2010

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to the existing motel/restaurant including a total of 67 motel suites with a total of 29 car parking spaces.

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Antonio Caminiti Design P/L

Owner:                         The Owners - Strata Plan No. 48068

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

Development Application DA/1115/2010 proposes alterations and additions to an existing mixed use building which contains a motel, associated parking and a ground floor restaurant.  The proposal includes internal reconfiguration and refurbishment of the existing floors and the construction of an additional two (2) storeys. The application is referred to the Council as it has a development cost of over $2 million. The proposal has received a number of objections and as a result of issues raised by Council the application was amended. The exhibition of the amended plans resulted in additional objections.

 

In the past, the restaurant use has been associated with the motel use of the site.  The proposal represents a significant variation to this; the size of the restaurant now will cater for large number of patrons independent of the motel use.  The result is that the restaurant will be an independent trip generator to the site and therefore previous considerations as to the overlap between parking for motel and restaurant uses are not as relevant.  The proposed size of the restaurant, and the additions to the motel, cannot be adequately accommodated on the site in terms of parking provision, built form design and amenity impacts.

 

The DA originally proposed a total of six storeys of motel rooms and two levels of basement parking.  As the result of the submissions received and consultation with the applicant, amended plans were submitted 6 July 2011. 

 

The alterations and additions include extensions to the building footprint along all facades.  The amended proposal is for a total of 67 motel rooms and 29 car spaces and a significantly enlarged restaurant space.  The amended proposal also includes two outdoor areas, being on the ground floor, to the rear of the building and on the fourth floor, to the rear of the building.  The ground level outdoor area includes a large portion of paved space.

 

The Design Review Panel examined the original proposal and suggested a number of extensive amendments, of which some were made.  Generally the Design Review Panel was not supportive of a number of elements of the design outcome.  The amended plans do not overcome a number of matters raised by the Design Review Panel.

 

The proposal was also referred to Councils engineers.  Their assessment suggests that the parking arrangements cannot be supported.

 

The development application was notified twice, 9 February 2011 – 23 February 2011 and 10 August 20011- 24 August 2011.  As a result, 34 submissions were received from adjoining residents expressing a number of concerns relating to the proposed development.

 

The amended proposal was reviewed in relation to the relevant planning criteria for the site.  The proposal was found to be inconsistent with key objectives of the zone and the controls for the subject site.  The proposal fails to comply with the identified building envelope and fails to address the potential impacts of the proposal.  In summary, the proposal does not represent a desirable built form outcome for the Kensington Town Centre.

 

The overall concept for the redevelopment of the site is supportable in that a new development has the potential to address a number of the amenity issues currently experienced on the site.  The scale and intensity of the proposal raises a number of concerns when assessed against key planning criteria.  On this basis, the proposal is considered unsatisfactory and recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is for extensive alterations and additions to an existing motel and restaurant.  The amended application includes the following:

 

-      A lower ground level of carparking with a single driveway for two way traffic.  The driveway runs along the northern boundary of the site.  The parking is at a level of RL 23.360.  There will be 29 car spaces provided, with five (5) of these being double parked spaces and two (2) of these being disabled spaces.

 

The design also proposes three (3) fire stairs, two (2) fire hydrants, three (3) store rooms, a pump room, a main electrical room, loading dock and a new water tank.  Also proposed are two (2) guest lifts and a goods lift. 

 

-      On the ground floor the scheme proposes; the entrance to the motel, a restaurant and a large area of podium gardens.  This floor is at the existing floor level of RL 25.980, and is above the street level.  The proposed entry incorporates six (6) stairs from Anzac Parade.  Disabled lift access is also provided adjacent to the stairs.

       

The entrance to the motel is located on the southern side of the building. A concierge desk is proposed adjacent to the stairs with access to two lifts.  The two lifts provide access to all subsequent floors.  The majority of the ground floor contains the restaurant and associated facilities.  The restaurant has an area of approximately 512.48m2.

 

The ground floor also includes male and female bathrooms, five (5) dining rooms with individual toilets, a disabled toilet, a new kitchen and associated stores, a garbage room and fire stairs.  This floor is also serviced by the goods lift which also services Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.  The total proposed floor area is 713m2.

 

-      Levels 1, 2 and 3 have identical floor layouts and each contain 17 motel rooms with associated bathrooms.  The floors also contain a storage room and staff amenities.  Cross ventilation is also proposed for Levels 1, 2 and 3, via louvered windows, at the ends of the corridors that run north south. 

 

Level 1 is proposed at RL29.630, with a floor to ceiling height of 2.77m. Level 2 is proposed at RL32.400, with a floor to ceiling height of 2.75m. Level 3 is proposed at RL35.150, with a floor to ceiling height of 2.87m. The total proposed floor area for each of these levels is 851.85m2.

 

-      Level 4 contains a large reception room, seven (7) motel rooms with associated bathrooms and balconies, an office, an unmarked connecting room and an external area which will contain a pond and garden.  The floor to ceiling height is varied across this floor, with the motel rooms having a height of 3m and the reception area having a ceiling height of 6m.  The floor level for Level 4 is RL38.02.  The total proposed floor area for this level is 561.55m2.

 

-      Level 5 contains nine (9) motel rooms with associated bathrooms. Level 5 is at a height of RL41.02.  The total floor area of the level is 399.07m2.

 

-      The roof contains a plant room which is accessed via a ladder, the area of the room is 77.1m2.  The roof also contains solar panels.

 

The building has a total proposed height of 25.07m.  The application proposes a total of 67 motel rooms, 29 car spaces and a restaurant of approximately 512.48m2.

 

The proposal also seeks to amend the current operating conditions on the use of the building.  The current development consent requires the use of the restaurant to be ancillary to the use of the motel.

 

 

Image 1| Proposed front elevation of the site, addressing Anzac Parade.

Image 2 | Proposed cross section of the motel.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as SP 48065, No. 147-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington. The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade between Todman Avenue and Addison Street. The site has an irregular configuration with a frontage width to Anzac Parade of 32m and a land area of 1384m2.

 

At present, the site accommodates a five (5) storey detached mixed-use building containing a ground floor restaurant and four levels of motel.  The existing building is set off all boundaries.  A section at the front of the site is omitted from the lot and contains an electrical substation.  Addressing Anzac Parade is a deck area that can be enclosed and is used as an outdoor eating area for the restaurant. There is a driveway along the northern boundary that services a rear parking area. The parking area is covered.

 

To the north of the site is a 2-storey mixed retail and residential development that currently contains a baby shop.  Further north there is a mix of residential and retail tenancies that range in height and built form. There is a service station on the corner of Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue. 

 

Directly adjoining the site to the south is a three storey residential flat building that addresses Anzac Parade. The building has windows along the length of the boundary and has a side setback of approximately 1- 1.5m. Occupying the rear portion of the southern boundary is the rear of a three storey residential flat building that fronts Addison Street.  A detached garage building forms part of the adjoining development and is located on the rear boundary. 

 

On the corner of Addison Street and Anzac Parade is a single storey building which contains medical suites and a kitchen design shop.  A small area of parking is provided within the front setback of the buildings to the south of the site.  Further south of the site, on the corner of Addison Street and Anzac Parade, is a seven (7) storey mixed use building that primarily contains university accommodation.  Addison Street primarily contains residential buildings, in the section of the street that is closest to Anzac Parade.

 

Opposite the site to the east is a mix of new high density mixed use building, which has a height of seven (7) storeys that occupies the corner of Darling Street and Anzac Parade.  The high density is maintained along Anzac Parade to the corner of Doncaster Avenue.  To the north of Darling Street are a mix of single and two (2) storey residential, commercial and retail buildings. 

 

To the rear of the site (west) is primarily occupied by a three storey residential building with basement car parking at 21 Villiers Street.  To the north of 21 Villiers Street, and adjoining the rear of the site, are single storey detached residential dwellings, being 11, 13 and 15 Villiers Street.  Adjoining the site, to the south west, is 23 Villiers Street which is occupied by a two storey residential building with associated basement car parking.  

 

The locality is characterised by a mixture of commercial premises, shop top housing and multi-unit residential developments surrounding Anzac Parade. Anzac Parade is a major arterial road that links much of the east and south east of Sydney to the city centre.  Anzac Parade also connects to the University of New South Wales, the Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick Racecourse and is a major route from Kingsford Smith Airport.  More modern development has resulted in significantly higher densities and a series of landmark buildings such as the one opposite the site and the university accommodation. 

 

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

 

4.    Site History

 

March 1971                 DA768/71 was approved for the erection of a motel building.

August 1992                DA 282/92 was approved for alterations and additions to the existing motel dining facilities.

September 1993           DA 248/93 was refused for the conversion of the existing motel units within the building to sole occupancy.

February 1994             DA 553/93 was refused by Council for the strata subdivision of the building into 82 lots and in the installation of ‘wet bars’ containing a sink and cooking facilities in each of motel units.   The DA was subsequently approved for 44 lots on appeal to Land and Environment Court. This approval was subject to a Restriction as to User, requiring that the restaurant (Lot 43) not be used other than as a restaurant for the use of restaurant customers and the motel unit licensees, employees or invitees of the motel and caretakers/ managers units (Lot 1-42 and 44 inclusive) and that the motel units (Lots 1- 42) only be used for motel occupancy. Approval also granted by the Court for the installation of the wet bars.

June 1994                   DA 008/94 was refused for the use of one apartment as a permanent residence for the manager and the addition of breakfast bars.

August 1994                DA 171/94 was refused for conversion of the roof area of the building to a roof top garden terrace.

February 1995             DA 663/94 was approved for conversion of an existing roof space to a rooftop garden terrace.

May 1999                   DA 13/99 was refused to construct two additional floors containing 18 additional motel units.

August 2002                DA02/84/GN was approved for the change of use of the existing motel units for the building to be serviced apartments. 

January 2009               DA 835/2008 was approved for the addition of new outdoor dining and associated shade structures to the front of the site. This development application was amended as the result of an approved Section 96 application in April 2011.

November 2009            DA 566/2009 was submitted for alterations and additions to the existing Addison Motel including extension of the floor levels of the existing motel into a front section and facade containing 51 new suites. This application was subsequently withdrawn.

 

The current development application was submitted in December 2010 which included an additional three (3) storeys, with a total of 75 motel suites.  The original proposal included an additional level of basement car parking.  The original proposal was exhibited from 9 February 2011 – 23 February 2011. A preliminary assessment was undertaken and as the result of ongoing discussions with the applicant, a set of amended drawings were submitted.

 

The amended drawings were submitted 6 July 2011 and were exhibited from 10 August 2011 to 24 August 2011. A number of submissions were received as a result.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. The proposal was notified twice, the first time occurred between 9/02/2011 and 23/02/2011. This first exhibition period resulted in a total of 34 submissions and a signed petition, with 51 signatories.

An amended proposal was notified from the 10/08/2011 to the 31/08/2011.  As a result of the second notification there were 14 submissions received and a petition signed by 36 people.

 

The objectors raised a series of concerns which have been grouped according to the issue to avoid repetition.

 

Issues raised include:

 

5.1      Objections

 

General Noise Impacts

-      The proposal will increase the lack of privacy and noise impacts currently experienced as a result of the existing motel.

-      As a result of the proposed development being built to the southern boundary there will be noise impacts.

-      The proposal will result in additional noise impacts, on top of what is currently experienced.

-      The Level 4 roof garden will result in excessive noise impacts and anti social behaviour for surrounding residents.

-      The ground level landscaped area will be used as a recreation area and have noise impacts.

-      The level 4 roof top garden will result in noise and privacy impacts and will accommodate functions which will result in anti social behaviour

-      The ground level garden has the potential to be uses for outdoor dining or as a beer garden.  This would resulting excessive noise, lighting and anti social impacts.

-      The proposed banquet rooms will have noise impacts on surrounding residents.

 

The amended proposal seeks to remove the existing balconies which are currently located to the rear and both sides of the existing motel and internalise the space. This proposal will represent an overall improvement in the noise impact of the motel use as the individual rooms will no longer have direct access from the rooms to outside and allow for the direct generation of noise.  Additionally the amended proposal does not include operable windows for the rear motel rooms, or the motel rooms addressing the side boundaries which would address current noise impacts.

 

The landscaped garden proposed garden at Level 4 and the rear landscaped area on the ground level have to potential to allow for significant noise generation, particularly during the night when background noise is reduced.  The amended plans indicate that the ground floor outdoor area will have a landscaped buffer surrounding the boundary on all sides of a minimum of 2.5m which will provide some protection from the potential noise impact.  Despite this, the level of the paved area is significant and will be able to hold a large number of people. The outdoor area is likely to generate a high-level of noise, especially given that it is directly accessible via the lobby, for both restaurant and motel guests.  This element of the proposal is unacceptable due to the potential amenity impacts.

 

The Level 4 roof top garden is less of a concern in terms of noise impacts.  The space appears to be a more passive area with no large areas to hold numerous people. Further the access to the garden is via two doors off the reception only, hence use of the area can be easily controlled by motel staff and locked after hours. There is no suggestion from the design that the area would be used for any other purpose than passive recreation.

 

The proposed banquet rooms have no doors or windows to the external façade.  There is no reason to suggest that they would represent any noise impact on the surrounding residential dwellings.

 

Another possible noise generator would be associated with traffic. The location of the single driveway along the northern boundary is unlikely to affect adjoining residents. The proposal includes the enclosure of the driveway and the car park.  There will be little or no opportunity for the noise generated to reach the residents and will offer an improvement to the rear.  

 

Privacy Impacts

-      The proposal will compromise the privacy of the adjoining building and result in a lack of privacy for the adjoining dwelling.

-      The proposal will result in an over development of the site and will have adverse impacts in terms of overshadowing and result in a lack of privacy.

-      The proposal will have a significant impact on the visual privacy of adjoining residents. In particular the 4th floor outdoor garden will result in significant overlooking as well as noise impacts.

-      There are existing noise and privacy issues with the motel which will be increased with the proposal.

-      The outdoor eating area (ground floor) and the 4th floor garden will result in privacy and noise impacts and generally anti social behaviour.

-      As a result of the proposed development being built to the southern boundary there will be a reduction in privacy.

-      The proposed Level 4 garden will result in privacy impacts and excessive noise impacts.

-      Privacy impacts as a result of the proposed development being built to the boundary.

-      The impacts of the level 4 garden are excessive in terms over privacy and amenity. Details on the use of the garden are requested. The option of incorporating the garden into the front setback should be considered.

-      There will be overlooking from the motel rooms into the bedroom windows.

-      The ground floor podium garden will result in noise and privacy impacts.

-      The ground level outdoor area will reduce privacy to the private open space.

 

The privacy impacts are also focused around the two outdoor areas of the proposal.  The nature of the use means that the clientele will have a high turnover and little regard for the surrounding areas.  Despite this, there is little potential for overlooking from the ground floor outdoor area or the fourth floor garden.  The ground floor outdoor area will be located at a similar level to that of the surrounding residential developments and surrounded by 2.5m of landscaping.  This will mean that people using the space will not be able to view the surrounding private open spaces and are unlikely to be able to look into the surrounding dwellings.

 

Level 4 roof top garden, the proposed landscaping will have a minimum width of 1.5m for the perimeter of the garden.  The garden will directly address the windows from the reception area.  As previously stated, the plans indicate limited opportunity for the space to be used and as such overlooking from this space would be unlikely and difficult. 

 

The areas of the proposed design that appear to offer the most opportunity for overlooking are the rooms which are located in the north west and south west of the motel on Levels 1-5.  These rooms appear to have windows which look directly out from the building with no mitigation.  The overlooking from these rooms could be treated with some louvers or angling of the windows, yet it appears that no such measures are proposed.  The overlooking impact from these rooms is directly into residential dwelling to the rear (west) and either side, (to the north and south).  The impact is considered unacceptable and unreasonable.

 

Structural Integrity of the building

-      There is potential for structural damage to the existing buildings surrounding the subject site as a result of the proposed construction work.

-      As a result of the excavation there is concern over the structural integrity of the adjoining building.

-      The structural integrity of the footings is questionable.

-      The proposal will potential has structural impacts on the existing retaining wall along the boundaries of the subject site.

-      Building to the boundary will result in adverse structural impacts of the adjoining building.

-      The construction of the two storey car park has the potential to affect surrounding dwelling’s structural integrity.

-      There is no geotechnical report to support the 2 storey car park.

-      There is concern over the instability of the building and the adjoining buildings in the case of an earthquake.

-      The owners of 7 Addison street) SP 11800 object to any development touching our common (North or rear) cantilevered brick retaining boundary wall. Such development includes drilling, construction and installation of pillars to support podiums and landscaping"

 

A number of the objections raised concerns relate to the structural integrity of the subject site and the surrounding area.  A geotechnical investigation has been provided by the applicant. The geotechnical investigation, along with the amended plans was reviewed by Council’s engineers. The comments are provided in Section 6.1.2 of this report. 

 

Many of the objections suggested that Council should be held liable for any damage to private property.  There is a standard condition for development approvals that the applicant is responsible for ensuring that the surrounding sites are protected.

 

The concerns relating to structural integrity were generally in relation to the proposed two tier car park. This element of the proposal has been removed and the amended plans now show a single level of car parking.

 

The Car parking

-      There is insufficient parking provided and the streets cannot accommodate additional cars.

-      The proposed parking is not adequate for the site given that there is still an existing problem with parking.

-      The proposed parking is inadequate given the proposed intensification and that the outdoor areas will allow additional patrons.

-      The proposed access from Anzac Parade is inadequate.

-      The right of carriage way does not comply with the controls and will affect traffic flows on Anzac Parade.

-      The proposed carpark design will not allow access for larger vehicles.

-      The access way to Anzac Parade is not adequate to service the site.

-      The rear access lane easement would result in the garden being removed and being at the same level and at the doors of room 4 of the restaurants..

-      The access driveways will not adequately service the site and 4WD vehicles will not be able to use them.

-      The access to Anzac Parade is inconsistent with the RTA submission.

-        The proposal does not comply with the car parking provision in the DCP basement car parking cannot be constructed due to the developer's intention of retaining the existing old building; the non-compliance with the car parking DCP is excessive and constitutes a significant impact on residential amenity.

-      The development does not comply with the DCP (page 66) rear vehicular access Rights of Carriageway located on the existing South driveway.  Instead this plan proposes building over the South driveway.

 

A number of the concerns raised regarding the car parking have been addressed in other parts of this report.  The proposal represents a significant intensification to both the motel and the restaurant facilities of the building. The provision of parking is considered inadequate and the proposal is considered unsatisfactory on these grounds.

 

Council’s engineers and the RTA have been referred the application for review. Their comments are provided in Section 6.2.3 of this report. The Council engineers address the concerns regarding height of the parking and parking design.

 

In the current form, the car parking arrangement is insufficient and fails to comply with the relevant controls.

 

Lack of compliance with controls

-      Level 7 represents an excessive height and is not consistent with the controls. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. It sets a precedent for a higher density. 

-      No SEPP 1 has been provided with the application.

-      The proposal has a non compliant number of storeys and building width.

-      The proposal will not allow for sufficient natural light.

-      The proposal does not comply with the building envelope and results in excessive impacts on the surrounding residents as a result.

-      The building does not adopt energy efficient strategies

-      The proposed works do not comply with the controls for the subject site and will result in amenity impacts due to the excessive height, number of storeys and the bulk and scale of the built form.

-      There is no natural ventilation proposed and no natural light.

-      The proposal is non compliant with DCP controls relating to the building zone.

-      Does not comply with the Kensington Tow Centre DCP for rights of carriageway.

-      Due to DCP non compliance the proposal obtains the benefit of an extra 11m width.

-      Non energy efficient finishes. The use of glazing is not consistent with the controls.

-      The proposal represents an over development of the site.

-      The proposal does not represent the desired future character of the area and is an over development with excessive bulk and scale.

-      The proposal is too bulky and too high.

 

The amended application resulted in a considerable improvement in the compliance of the proposal. A number of the non compliant elements were deleted or amended.  Notwithstanding, as described in Section 8.2.1 of this report, the proposal remains noncompliant with a number of the development controls contained within the Kensington Town Centre.  The height, bulk and building envelope proposed remain inconsistent with the controls and will result in amenity impacts for the surrounding buildings. The proposal has failed to address these concerns adequately. 

 

The proposal has been designed to accommodate a building envelope which is consistent Block 08 of the Kensington Town Centre DCP, of which zero setbacks are an element of presenting a uniform façade.  The proposal also has a large existing building envelope which occupies a large portion of the rear of the site.

 

The DCP does allow for the retention on the original build form “subject to suitable design resolution”.  In this case, limited design resolution has occurred and the retention of the existing building has resulted in a larger than envisaged building that results in considerable amenity impacts for surrounding residents.

 

The amended proposal does not seek to vary the deemed development standards and hence does not require a SEPP 1 objection.

 

Over shadowing

-      Excessive overshadowing as a result of the 7th Level.

-      The proposal will result in excessive overshadowing.

-      The proposal will result in significant over shadowing and loss of privacy. The proposal does not comply with the controls for the site.

-      As a result of the proposed development being built to the southern boundary there will be overshadowing impacts.

-      The proposal will result in overshadowing of the rear bedrooms.

-      The proposal has an excessive height that will result in overshadowing on the adjoining rear yards.

-      The increased size will reduce sun access and ventilation.

 

No amended shadow diagrams have been provided by the applicant.  Despite this, as the building is generally within the same building footprint, if not slightly smaller, it is reasonable to assume that the shadow impact of the building would be constant or slightly reduced from the original design.

 

The shadow diagrams indicate that currently the dwellings to the south, being 7 Addison Street and 155 Anzac Parade, are affected by overshadowing from before 9am to after 12 noon and 155 Anzac parade continues to be partially affected after 3pm.  The proposed shadow diagrams indicate that the overshadowing impact would be generally consistent with what currently occurs.  Number 155 Anzac Parade is in complete shadow at 12 noon.

 

The proposed shadow impacts are consistent with the DCP envelope.

 

The use of the site as a Hotel

-      The use of the site as a Hotel is illegal.

-      The DA misrepresents the application as being for a Motel.

-      The use of the site as a Hotel is prohibited.

-      The use as a “Hotel” has not been approved and should not be as it would result in anti social behavior and amenity impacts for surrounding residents.

-      The use of a hotel has not been approved and a hotel would result in antisocial behavior.

-      The proposal appears to be a “back door” way of getting approval for use of the site as a hotel, rather than a motel.

 

The applicant has described the building as a “motel” which is a permitted use within the zone.  The application, and its use, is consistent with the definition of a “motel” in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan.  The application is not being considered for a change of use to a “hotel” despite being called the Addison Hotel. This does not relate, in planning terms, to the actual use as defined by the RLEP.

 

General Objections

 

-        The proposal will result in anti-social behavior

The objectors raised concerns over the intensification of the use resulting in anti-social behavior. As discussed in reference to privacy and noise impacts, the proposed building will predominantly address Anzac Parade, with no private balconies being proposed addressing the rear of the site which adjoining with other dwellings.  As a result, the only area of concern is the rear landscaped area on the ground floor, the area is able to accommodate large numbers and in its current form has the potential to pose a significant impact on the adjoining residents. 

 

The objectors had a concerns related to anti-social behavior on the streets, there is no suggestion that this would eventuate from the motel.  Despite this the lack of parking on the site would result in patrons using the adjoining streets which potentially could result in adverse impacts and the areas of the restaurant are large and therefore capable of catering to very large groups.

 

-        Loss of the sea breezes/ air flow to adjoining residents.

A number of the adjoining residents raised concerns regarding the zero setbacks resulting in a loss of the sea breezes currently enjoyed.  Given that the Block 08 building footprints propose zero setbacks to result in a consistent street form, the impact in this case is seen as not unreasonable.  Further as the breeze is accessed across the adjoining lot there it is not a reasonable expectation to maintain this arrangement.

 

-        There is no need for the hotel to expand given that it currently has low occupancy rates.

The current occupancy rates are not an issue which can be dealt with in terms of this application.

 

-        The proposal will result in a reduction in the property value

Generally, this is not a matter for consideration.

-        The existing grease trap

The issues associated with the existing grease trap are not matters for the current application.

 

Kensington Precinct

The Kensington precinct provided a submission for the proposed development application.  The submission has been considered as part of the assessment proposal. The reasons provided for the Committee to not support this application are as follows. 

 

(1)    Insufficient onsite car parking provision of 27 spaces and non-compliance with Council’s Car Parking DCP which requires 117 spaces; and

 

(2)    Non-compliance with the 21.6m height standard; the Applicant has not filed a SEPP 1 objection; and

(3)    Non-compliance with DCP building envelope resulting in overdevelopment of bulk and scale of the project which does not represent the desired future character of Kensington and

 

(4)    The Applicant’s non-disclosure of ground floor use, that is, whether the ground floor indoor space of 713sqm is to be used as a licensed restaurant or independently as a facility serving alcohol to the public whether or not in conjunction with service of meals, and/or whether the proposed activities will include gambling / poker machines and whether the proposed external landscaped area above the podium is to be used as a “beer garden”; and

 

(5)    Whether the level four 220sqm space and connected trafficable roof garden is for separate use as a function/ reception room available for group hire; such use is prohibited since the RLEP Schedule 2 limits commercial uses to ground and first floors only; and

 

(6)    The project’s combined use of the North driveway for vehicular entry and exit on to Anzac Parade, a state road, despite the RTA’s written objections recorded in its letter to council of February 2011; and

 

(7)    Non-compliance with Council’s “Rights of Carriageway” vehicular access; and

 

(8)    Building to boundary on and above the existing Motel South driveway resulting in the potential for subsidence of existing adjacent residential development due to the loss of density and / or differential settlement of sandy soils due to drilling, vibration and construction adjacent to and above the South boundary wall; and

 

(9)    “Hotels” are prohibited in both 2C and 3B zoned land.  This site does not have Hotel existing use rights.  It’s approved planning use is service apartments and/ or a motel.

 

5.2      Support

No letters of Support were received.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary, external bodies and the following comments have been provided:-

 

6.1    Internal Comments

 

6.1.1   Manager Health, Building and Regulatory Services

The proposal

It is proposed to construct new additions to the existing Addison Motel and Golden Kingdom Restaurant. The redevelopment includes the retention of the existing basement car parking and building envelope.

 

A new addition to the front facade and additional floor levels (over the existing front portion of the building) are proposed in accordance with the new building envelope and massing controls contained within the Development Control Plan.

 

The front facing (Anzac Parade) motel suites are modified to integrate into new suites which form the new facade of the motel. The rear facing suites are modified to enclose the existing rear balconies and provide new cladding over the existing face brick facade. A roof garden is proposed to the existing rear portion of the building.

 

Vehicle access is provided adjacent the northern boundary, and is modified into two way access, which is consistent with the objectives under the DCP.

 

Additional carparking is proposed below the existing carpark location to the rear.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class 3      -      Motel

Class 6      -      Restaurant

Class 7a    -      Car park

 

Background

Existing multi-storey mixed residential/commercial building.

 

Key Issues

 

Noise

Noise is considered an issue. The premise is located in the Commercial area fronting Anzac Parade. There are no adjacent external residential properties. The area is a commercial precinct.

 

No current noise complaints are being

 

A compliance acoustic report has also been required.

 

Food Safety Standards

Food Safety Standards are required to be complied with as such appropriate conditions have been included in this report.

 

Building/Demolition  Works

Standards for building works have been conditioned in Building Compliance report.

 

6.1.2   Development Engineers

An amended application has been received for extensions to the building footprint to the north, south, east and west of an existing motel/restaurant development.  The amended proposal is for a total of 67 motel rooms/serviced apartments and 29 car spaces and a significantly enlarged restaurant space.  The amended proposal also includes two outdoor areas, being on the ground floor, to the rear of the building and on the fourth floor, to the rear of the building.  The ground level outdoor area includes a large portion of paved space.

 

The comments provided within this report are prepared on the basis that, for a number of planning and engineering reasons, the application in its amended form will not be supported by Council. The principal areas of concern for the Development Engineer have been the proposed parking provision, protection of the basement carpark from stormwater inundation and the design of the driveway (both external and internal). Comments have been provided regarding these areas within this report.

 

Parking Comments

The applicant has stated that the current development site contains the following:

 

·      42 motel rooms;

 

·      a ground floor restaurant fragmented into individual tables and banquet rooms with a customer serving area of approximately 200 sq metres GFA, Ground level foyer, management offices and kitchen; and

 

·      Undercroft and outside parking for a total of some 37 vehicles.

 

The Assessment Planner is advised, however, that the plans submitted with the application do not show 37 spaces within the existing carpark.

 

The amended proposal is for a total of 67 motel rooms/serviced apartments and 29 car spaces and a significantly enlarged restaurant space. The amended proposal also includes two outdoor areas, being on the ground floor, to the rear of the building and on the fourth floor, to the rear of the building.  The ground level outdoor area includes a large portion of paved space.

 

The nature of the development, and the fact that it is a redevelopment of an existing site as opposed to demolition and construction of a new development, throw up a range of options for considering parking demand and parking shortfalls. This report only looks at 2 options, additional demand resulting from the proposed development based on the development being for motel rooms and parking provision required should the development be considered as a new motel/restaurant development, (given that it is such a major redevelopment of the existing structure).

 

·      Option 1 – Using parking rates for a motel and examining additional demand.

Using Council’s DCP-Parking for motel rooms the increase in parking spaces required would be 25 spaces for the additional 25 motel rooms plus 1 space per 2 additional employees. Given that the motel contains a restaurant an additional parking provision of 1 space per 20 square metres of increased restaurant / bar area is also required for strict compliance with the DCP. The application is lacking in definitive information on both increases in staff numbers and the increase in area of the restaurant. If an assumption was used that the staff increased by 4 and the usable floor area of the restaurant increased by 150-200 square metres an increased parking provision of 8-10 would be required.

 

Therefore, looking at the increased demand generated by the development the increased parking demand calculated using Council’s DCP-Parking would be 33-35 spaces. The application, however, reduces the current parking level from 37 to 29 and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the development proposal becomes deficient by 41 to 43 spaces.

 

·      Option 2 – Parking provision required if the development was treated as a new development.

Parking demand for 67 motel rooms would be 67 spaces. The restaurant area is approximately 500 square metres in total requiring 23 spaces. If a staff provision of 10 spaces was required, (as a minimum), the minimum provision required under Council’s DCP would be 100. The application proposes 29 spaces with a number of spaces provided in a tandem arrangement.

 

Internal Driveway Comments – protection against stormwater inundation.

The most recent flood levels derived from Council’s flood study for 147-151 Anzac Parade Kensington (SM48068) are as follows:

 

·      The level of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is 28.4m AHD

·      The level of the 0.2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood is 26.0m AHD

·      The level of the 1% (1:100) AEP flood is 25.5m AHD

·      The level of the 5% (1:20) AEP flood is 25.2m AHD

 

The internal driveway needs to provide a high point of RL 26.0 m AHD if a 500mm freeboard is applied to the 1 in 100 year (1% AEP) flood level. The application shows the high point of RL 26.00 metres AHD being achieved. The RTA requires the internal driveway gradients to be a maximum of 1 in 20 (5%) for the first 6 metres into the site and the applicant has complied with this requirement. The changes in grade at other points along the driveway are quite irregular and need to be thoroughly reviewed prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

 

Internal Driveway Comments – bin enclosure

Widening of the internal driveway to comply with RTA and Council requirements appears to reduce the area for the garbage bin enclosure. The bin enclosure area appears inadequate for the likely demand generated by the proposed development.

 

External Driveway Comments

Reconstruction of the vehicular crossing in Anzac Parade to serve the internal driveway and carpark requires the current driveway to be extended to the south. Extension of this driveway requires relocation of a power pole, such pole having wires connecting with the other side of Anzac Parade. In principle approval for altering the power pole, together with the required undergrounding of power along the site frontage, will need to be obtained form Ausgrid prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

6.2    External Comments

The application was referred to the following external referral agencies:

-      Design Review Panel

-      Sydney Airport Corporation Limited

-      RTA – Development Assessment Unit

-      NSW Police Service – Crime prevention protocol

 

6.2.1          Design Review Panel

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) convened under SEPP 65. The proposal was originally referred to the Design Review Panel for a previous application.  The DRP recommendations in relation to the design quality principles for residential flat buildings, as set out in Part 2 of SEPP 65, from its meeting February 2011, are set out below (in italics), followed by Council’s comments to conclude:

 

Minutes

It was noted that this was a Development Application and the second time the Panel has seen the application. Although the proposal is for extensions to an existing 1970s hotel, Council chose to refer the proposal to the Panel for their comment.  Although currently proposed as a hotel, the building nonetheless comprises sole occupancy units that could be converted at some future time to residential use. Therefore, although SEPP 65 may or may not technically apply, the proposal has nonetheless been reviewed relative the design quality objectives of SEPP 65 and the RFDC.

 

The Applicant again did not attend the Panel’s meeting to consider this application.

 

The Panel has visited the site.

 

The September 2009 report is copied below and new comments from the February 2011 meeting are listed in italics.

 

PANEL COMMENTS:

The site sits within the Kensington Town Centre, and is subject to the Town Centre DCP.

 

The existing multi-storey hotel, which is to be retained and overbuilt, is set in the middle of its block and so already departs from the DCP envelopes.

 

The building and its surrounds will benefit from a well considered upgrade that embraces good urban design and environmental principles.

 

The Panel considers that there are a series of major design deficiencies that require comprehensive improvements before the proposal could be considered satisfactory. These include:

Site Planning

 

-        The contextual information submitted with the application is woeful, and needs to be totally revised.

-        The design seeks to exploit the DCP envelope, without any articulation or account for the existing mass on the site.

-        The canted street façade, which encroaches into the Anzac Parade reservation, and low floor to floor height are totally unacceptable.

-        The relation to the retained substation is crude in the extreme, expressed as dumb slot gouged into the major facade. Options which incorporate the substation as a chamber should be investigated.

-        The impact on the existing apartment building to the south needs some consideration, as the impacts proposed are excessive.

 

The scheme remains bulky and out of scale within its context.  There seemed to be a misunderstanding that the council recommended a two storey or larger scale appearance however this was clarified not to be the case.  The Panel recommends that a finer grain of detail be brought to the facade as it currently presents as a bland commercial building.  There are a number of environmental performance issues listed below that, if addressed, will give more detail and purpose to the design.

 

The sloped, over-scaled, solid looking facades are not recommended as they do not appear to increase amenity and performance, or provide good aesthetics.  The outline of the DCP building zone should be followed where possible on the street elevation, the exception could be some sunshading devices.

 

The possible impacts on the neighbour to the south need to be addressed even though the building may change over time.  An elevational study of the neighbour’s north wall showing the position of windows and the use of the rooms on a floor plan would assist in assessment.  Elevational shadow drawings should include the existing and additional shadows of the proposal for June. The council assessors can then make an informed view of the benefits and disadvantages of the proposal.

 

The Panel’s substation comment was included to encourage the Applicant to have discussions with Energy Australia and look for opportunities to improve the street presence of the substation site.  The Panel recommends the applicant investigate this as there may be mutual benefit.

 

Massing

-        The roof terrace could have some roofed area for sun and weather protection, and could be a combination of communal and private space.

-        Design alternatives for the roof terraces need to be advanced.

-        The top floor lacks any articulation with regard to DCP objectives.

 

A good sized roof garden and pond has been provided on the west side of Level 4 and adjoins a new foyer atrium.  This appears to be a reasonable solution as it would ensure surveillance and management of the area.  More detail is required as to the levels and depths of the pond and whether the internal floor height matches the external decking.

 

The large area of sloping glass is not  considered a good solution.  The lower third and top third have some sunshading however the middle section does not.  Afternoon summer sun will place a high heat load on this space.  It is recommended that the glazing be vertical (for self cleaning), clear glass (for night time viewing of the pond area) with operable panels and external sunshading (to stop the heat entering the space and reduce glare).  The atrium would best have a roof pitched in the opposite direction to reduce glass area; and good venting in the roof ridge through the plant area.  The DCP building envelope could be adhered to for levels 4 to 6.

 

The awning over the footpath to the east should be lowered to match neighbouring awnings and the design should be simplified

Environmental Design

 

-        The proposal would rely on energy intensive systems to provide even minimal levels of environmental amenity, which is not acceptable.

-        The roof design could incorporate some clerestorey windows to deliver natural light and winter sunlight into the centre of plan.

-        No insulation, planting or surface cover is shown to the expansive, baking roofs and roof terraces.

-        Windows should have sun shading and weather protection appropriate to their orientation. Small balconies (more like a double facade system) would assist in achieving good thermal performance.  Issues such as guests dropping rubbish from the balconies need to be controlled by management rather than by sealing the building facade.

-        Natural light and ventilation to corridors and lift lobbies is should be achieved.  

 

An environmental design strategy needs to be adopted that:

 

-        uses external sunshading rather than reliance on tinted glass.

-        has operable windows so that guests can choose to use air-conditioning or natural ventilation. Openings should also have weather protection.

-        provides shade or insulation to roof and large balconies

-        achieves natural light and ventilation to corridors. The existing donut corridor needs to be opened through to the facade in at least on point to achieve natural light and ventilation.

 

Landscape

-        There is virtually no landscape included in the proposal, which is unacceptable for such a large site. Some car parking spaces or aisle space should be deleted to allow an area(s) of deep soil planting with major trees to be incorporated along the western or northern boundary.

 

-        The barren, shade-less, west-facing terrace should be totally redesigned to include pergolas, awnings, planters, useable outdoor areas and the like. Currently it is a glary, heat sink liability.

-        The proposal should include landscape and paving improvements to the wide Anzac Parade verge, which should be put forward in consultation with Council’s landscape officers.

 

The landscape opportunities have been improved however a comprehensive landscape plan designed by a landscape architect is required as part of the DA documentation. The trees that have been indicated on the car park podium will need deeper soil areas which can be achieved by lowering spot areas over the bonnet zone of parked vehicles.  This should be done on the north and south boundaries as well as the west. Street trees and footpath improvements should be discussed with the Council.

 

Amenity

-        The communal corridors at all levels lack any daylight, outlook or natural ventilation. There arrangement needs to be revised to include all three.

-        A second lift should be considered to enable better planning arrangements, the introduction of natural light and ventilation and higher amenity.

-        There needs to be a much greater percentage of bathrooms with daylight and fresh air. All bathrooms on exterior walls should have openable windows or ventilating skylights.

-        The room module width to Anzac Parade is mean. Reconfiguring the plan with the benefit of the substation slot is strongly recommended.

-        BCA considerations seem to have been ignored in the proposal, which lead to changes in the design. The satisfactory resolution of major BCA issues needs to be addressed in the DA.

 

Improvements have been made however a recommendation for approval will require further development of light and ventilation to the corridors and ventilation to the bedrooms.  Rooms 208 and 216 (and similar) are not acceptable due to minimal access to light and ventilation.  Better planning arrangements need to be investigated.

 

Apart from the above items the Applicant has improved the room designs, provided a new lift lobby and lifts, upgraded the check-in area and provided top floor access to natural light - all of which are to be commended.

 

Architectural Character

-        The architectural character is extremely poor, and needs total revision. The scale-less gridded glass facades would be awful in the context, and antithetical to good environmental design.

-        The use of materials, sound detailing, window design and operation, resolved treatment of sun shading and the like, all need to be convincingly shown on the DA drawings.

 

The architectural character is still unacceptable however, if the recommendations contained in this report are satisfactorily addressed the Panel is confident that the aesthetics will improve.  The proposed combination of up-scaled facade elements, dark colours, inoperable facade, reflective glass and lack of sunshading combine to make a very undesirable intrusion into the streetscape.

 

Articulation as needed for climate control including operable windows, sunshades, balconies, weather protection hoods etc.  With careful and fine detailing the facade will have enough interest without resorting to pastiche. Floors 4 - 6 should reflect the DCP building outline and the visual impacts of the roofs should be minimised.

 

Large scale wall sections, clearly documenting the proposed detail construction of balconies, roofs, handrails, windows, sunshading, rainwater collection and insulation need to be included in the DA drawings.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel considers that the application is grossly deficient, and that the design quality is unacceptably poor in all respects. As the application stands, the Panel strongly recommends that it be refused, for the reasons set out above.

 

If the application is to be redesigned, the Panel strongly recommends that a respected urban designer be engaged to assist with the application.

 

The Panel recommends the Applicant discusses these issues with Council’s assessing officers before substantially revising the Development Application for further review. 

 

The Panel acknowledges that the existing building is a blight on the Anzac Parade streetscape and that design improvements have been made. The Panel requests that all issues in this report be genuinely dealt with at the next Panel review. 

 

Comment

The amended plans submitted after their comments addressed some of the issues raised by the Design Review Panel, however not a sufficient number to warrant a review of the amendments.  Consequently a number of the original comments remain applicable to the proposal.

 

6.2.2          Sydney Airport Corporation Limited

 

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT -147-151 ANZAC POE. KENSINGTON

I refer to your recent application for information on obstacles in regard to the above development.

 

Height Restrictions

In this instance, Kevin Dyer of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised that CASA has no objection to this Development as it will not penetrate the OLS and is unlikely to impact on PANS-OPS. The Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd (SACL) has no objection to the erection of this structure to a height of 50.54 metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD).

 

The approved height is inclusive of all lift over-runs, vents. chimneys, aerials. TV antennae, construction cranes etc. Should you wish to exceed 50.54 metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD), a new application must be submitted. Should the height of any temporary structure and/or equipment be greater than 50 feet (15.24 metres) above existing ground height (AEGH), a new approval must be sought in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations Statutory Rules 1988 No. 161. Construction cranes may be required to operate at a height significantly higher than that of the proposed controlled activity and consequently, may not be approved under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations. SACL advises that approval to operate construction equipment (ie cranes) should. be obtained prior to any commitment to construct. Information required by SACL prior to any approval is to include:

 

•      the location of any temporary structure or equipment, ie. construction cranes, planned to be used during construction relative to Mapping Grid of Australia , 1994 (MGA94);

•      the swing circle of any temporary structure/equipment used during construction;

•      the maximum height, relative to Australian Height Datum (AHD), of any temporary structure or equipment ie. construction cranes, intended to be used in the erection of the proposed structure/activity;

•      the period of the proposed operation (ie. construction cranes) and desired operating hours for any temporary structures. Any application for approval containing the above information, should be submitted to this Corporation at least 35 days prior to commencement of works in accordance with the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations Statutory Rules 1996 No. 293, which now apply to this Airport. For further information on Height Restrictions please contact Ms Lynne Barrington on (02) 9667-9217.

 

Under Section 186 of the Airports Act 1996, it is an offence not to give information to the Airport Operator that is relevant to a proposed "controlled activity" and is punishable by a fine of up to 50 penalty units. The height of the prescribed airspace at the site is 51.0 metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD). In accordance with Regulation 9 of the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations Statutory Rules 1996 No. 293. "a thing to be used in erecting the building, structure or thing would, during the erection of the building, structure or thing, intrude into PANS OPS airspace for the Airport, cannot be approved".

 

 

Bird and Obstacle Hazard Management

To minimise the potential for bird habitation and roosting, the Proponent must ensure that the following plans are prepared prior to construction commencing:

 

•      Landscape Plan which only includes non-bird attracting plant species;

•      Site Management Plan which minimises the attractiveness for foraging birds, i.e. site is kept clean regularly, refuse bins are covered, and detention ponds are netted.

•      The proposed development incorporates anti-bird roosting measures to discourage bird habitation.

 

All trees to be planted shall not be capable of intruding into the Obstacle Limitation Surface when mature.

 

Planning for Aircraft Noise and Public Safety Zones

 

Current planning provisions (s.117 Direction 3.5 NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) for the assessment of aircraft noise for certain land uses are based on the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF). The current ANEF for which Council may use as the land use planning tool for Sydney Airport was endorsed by Air services Australia on 13 March 2009 (Sydney Airport 2029 ANEF).

 

-      Whilst there are currently no national aviation standards relating to defining public safety areas beyond the airport boundary, it is recommended that proposed land uses which have high population densities should be avoided.

 

6.2.3          The Roads and Traffic Authority

 

 

6.2.4          NSW Police Department

Given that the development application is being recommended for refusal, the recommendations of the NSW Police have not been included in this report. 

 

Development Application No: DAf111512010

Property: 147 -151 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

Proposed: Alterations and additions to the eXis1ing motel/restaurant including 3 additional storeys and extension of the existing building into a new front section and facade for a total of 75 motel suites; changes to the existing car parking including an additional basement level for a total of 48 spaces; deletion of title restrictions on use of restaurant enclosure of rear balconies of the existing building; modification of existing lift tower; and modification of existing driveway to provide 2-way access

 

In April, 2001 the NSW Minister for Planning introduced The Environmental Planning &Assessment Act, 1979, Section 79C Crime Prevention Guidelines (1). These guidelines require consent authorities to ensure that any development within their Local Government Area provides safety and security to users and the community. If a development presents a crime risk, the guidelines can be used to justify modification of the development to minimise crime risk, or refusal of the development on the grounds that crime risk cannot be appropriately minimised.

 

In line with these guidelines, Eastern Beaches Local Area Command has conducted a Safer by Design Crime Risk Evaluation as requested by Randwick City Council, 30 Frances Street Randwick on the proposed development The developer will also need to consider the Randwick City Council Development Control Plan No: 23 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (2) in reviewing this development.

 

The development proposes alterations and additions to the existing motel restaurant including 3 additional storeys and extension of the existing building into a new front section and facade for a total of 75 motel suites; d1anges to the existing car parking including an additional basement level for a total of 48 spaces; deletion of title restrictions on use of restaurant enclosure of rear balconies of the existing building; modification of existing lift tower; and modification of existing driveway to provide 2-way access.

 

The proposed development has the potential to introduce new victims, crime opportunities and offenders to the development and its surroundings. It is highly probable therefore, that reported crime will increase in the future.

 

The NSW Police Safer by Design Evaluation process is based upon the Australian and New Zealand Risk Management Standard ANZS4360:1999 (3). It is a contextually flexible process that identifies and quantifies crime hazards and location risk. The process includes measurement of crime f1kelihood (probability), consequence (outcome), distributions of reported crime (hotspots). socio-economic index for areas (SEIFA) (disadvantage), crime opportunities. As a result of this process a Medium crime risk rating has been identified for this development on a sliding scale of low, medium and high crime risk. The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, Section 79C Crime Prevention Guidelines (2) requires that Randwick Council (consent authority) ensure that this development provides safety and security to users and the community. With this in mind natural, low organised and low technical/mechanical Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) treatment options need to be considered to reduce opportunities for crime.

 

1. Introduction

In April, 2001 the NSW Minister for Planning introduced the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, Section 79C Crime Prevention Guidelines (1). These guidelines require consent authorities to ensure that any development within their Local Government Area provides safety and security to users and the community. If a development presents a crime risk, the guidelines can be used to justify modification of the development to minimize the risk on the grounds that crime risk cannot be appropriately minimised. In line with these guidelines, Eastern Beaches Local Area Command has conducted a Safer by Design Crime Risk Evaluation as requested by Randwick City Council, 30 Frances Street, Randwick on 147 -151 Anzac Parade, Kensington, NSW.

 

Site description

The development proposes alterations and additions to the existing motel/restaurant including 3 additional storeys and extension of the existing building into a new front section and facade for a total of 75 motel suites; changes to the existing car parking including an additional basement level for a total of 48 spaces; deletion of title restrictions on use of restaurant, enclosure of rear balconies of the existing building; modification of existing lift tower; and modification of existing driveway to provide 2-way access. This proposed development has the potential to introduce new victims, crime opportunities and offenders to the development and its surroundings. It is highly probable therefore, that reported crime will increase in the future.

 

 


Site risk rating

The Safer by Design Crime Risk Evaluation for this development has identified the crime risk rating as medium on a sliding scale of low, medium and high crime risk. With this in mind natural, low organised, and low technical/mechanical Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) treatment options need to be considered to reduce opportunities for crime.

 

2. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a crime prevention strategy that focuses on the planning, design and structure of cities and neighbourhoods. It reduces opportunities for crime by using design and place management principles that reduce the likelihood of essential crime ingredients from intersecting in time and space.

 

Predatory offenders often make cost-benefit assessments of potential victims and locations before committing crime. CPTED aims to create the reality (or perception) that the costs of committing crime are greater than the likely benefits. This is achieved by creating social and environmental conditions that:

 

•          Maximise risk to offenders (increasing the likelihood of detection, challenge and apprehension)

•          Maximise the effort required to commit crime (increasing the time. energy and resources required to commit crime)

•          Minimise the actual and perceived benefits of crime (removing. minimising or concealing crime attractors and rewards), and

•          Minimise excuse-making opportunities (removing conditions that encourage/facilitate rationalisation of inappropriate behaviour).

 

There are four principles that need to be considered in the assessment of development applications to minimise the opportunity for crime:

 

•      Surveillance

•      Territorial reinforcement

•      Space/activity management

•      Access control

 

Surveillance

Natural surveillance increases the threat of apprehension by taking steps to increase the perception that people can see and be seen. Surveillance occurs by designing the placement of physical features, activities and people in such a way as to maximise visibility and foster positive interaction among legitimate users of private and public space. Potential offenders will often feel threatened by the increased scrutiny and limitations on escape ways.

 

Where natural surveillance opportunities are restricted it may be necessary to increase surveillance opportunities by using either technical/mechanical (Closed Circuit Television Systems, etc) or organized (using people to supervise areas) treatment options.

 

There is a proven correlation between poor street lighting, fear of crime, the avoidance of public places and crime opportunity (Painter, 1997). With this in mind the Australia Standards, Lighting AS:1158 now require lighting engineers and designers to factor-in crime risk and fear when choosing the type of luminaries/lighting levels. Lighting (lox) levels for this development must be commensurate with a high crime risk identified in this evaluation.

 

 


Territorial reinforcement

Territorial re-enforcement promotes control through increased definition of space and improved proprietary controls. An environment designed to clearly delineate privates and public space does a number of things. Owners have a vested interest in the space and are more likely to take the appropriate action to protect the space. Strangers or intruders stand out in that space and are more easily identified. By using buildings, fences, footpaths. signs, lighting and landscape can be used to delineate space and express ownership of space. Space which is not clearly defined may encourage anti-social or criminal behaviour.

 

Territorial reinforcement can be achieved through:

•      Design that encourages people to gather in space and to feel some responsibility for its use and condition

•      Design with clear transitions and boundaries between public and private space

•      Clear design cues on who is to use space and what it is to be used for. Care is needed to ensure that territorial reinforcement is not achieved by making public spaces private spaces, through gates and enclosures.

 

Space/Activity management

Popular space is often attractive, well maintained and well used space. Linked to the principle of territorial reinforcement space activity management ensures that space is appropriately utilised and well cared for. Space/activity management strategies should include activity coordination, maintenance, rapid repair of vandalism and graffiti, and the replacement of burned out lighting and the removal or refurbishment of decayed physical elements. Space activity management can support and increase the use of the built environment for safe activities with the intent of increasing the risk of detection to criminals and undesirable activities.

 

Access control

Access control should be designed to limit the opportunity for crime by taking steps to clearly delineate public, semi-public and private space. This can be achieved by using physical and symbolic barriers to attract. channel or restrict the movement of people into and throughout the development By making it clear where people are permitted to go or not go, it becomes difficult for potential offenders to reach and victimise people and their property. Illegible boundary markers and confusing spatial definition make it easy for criminals to make excuses for being in restricted areas.  However, care needs to be taken to ensure that the barriers are not tall or hostile, creating the effect of a compound.

 

Effective access control can be achieved by creating:

•      Landscapes and physical locations that channel and group people into target areas

•      Spaces which attract, rather than discourage people from gathering

•      Restricted access to internal areas or high-risk areas (like car-parks or other rarely visited areas). This is often achieved through the use of physical barriers.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The site does not necessitate a master plan.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Policy Controls

 

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

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, as amended

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No 55: Remediation of Land

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality for Residential Flat Buildings.

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998

-        State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

-        Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan

-        Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

-        Development Control Plan

 -       Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans

-        Randwick Asbestos Policy

-        Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

-        Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

8.1    Relevant Statutory Controls – 79C(1)(a)

 

8.1.1   Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

The likelihood of encountering contaminated soils on the subject site is extremely low.  No substantive excavation is proposed.  The subject site and adjoining properties have been used for residential purposes for a considerable number of years.  No potentially contaminating activities are currently being undertaken on the site, or adjoining properties.  To avoid any contamination, conditions are recommended to ensure that appropriate measures / safety standards are adhered to with respect to any lead paint and asbestos removal.

 

Given the above factors, no further investigation of land contamination is warranted in this case.  The site is suitable in its present state for the proposed residential development. 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 – Advertising and Signage

The amended plans indicate where proposed signage may be located. Despite this no additional information regarding the signage is provided. As a result the signage is not considered to be part of this application and would be subject to a separate approval.  Despite this there are some concerns relating to the proposed future signage area in accordance with this SEPP.

 

The proposal is for a 7.2 x 5.2m sign on each side of the building, approximately 15m above ground level (based on the amended plans provided).

 

Under clause 18 of this SEPP the proposal was referred to the RTA as the signage is within 250m of a classified road.

 

The proposal is contradictory to clause 22 of the SEPP and under this clause is required to delete one of the signs.

 

The location of the proposed building is in a very prominent position on a major arterial road.  The proposed future signage will be visually obtrusive and would not contribute positively to the amenity of the area.

 

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

The proposal is not for residential flat development. Notwithstanding, Council considered the design of the proposal significant enough to be reviewed by the design review panel none the less. The comments provided by the panel are provided in Section 6.2.1 of this report.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure

SEPP)

The RTA’s concurrence was sought pursuant to Clause 101 of the Infrastructure SEPP.  The RTA have provided comment on the proposal (refer to Section 6.2.3 of this report).

 

8.1.2   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

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

 

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

The site is located within Zone No. 2C where in “motels” are permissible, with consent.  The use of the restaurant is prohibited, despite this in accordance with Clause 42, the restaurants are permissible as an additional use.

 

The proposal will potentially intensify the existing use of both the motel and the restaurant, upgrade an aged building and potentially improve its streetscape presentation to Anzac Parade.  The proposal will provide refurbished motel rooms to an improved modern standard

 

Potential impacts of the proposal on the amenity of the surrounding residential dwellings have been addressed in Section 5.1 as part of the submissions.  The likely impacts of most significance are noise, privacy and parking.  The amended proposal fails to adequately address these issues.

 

Clause 42 Development of Land for certain additional purposes

Clause 42 provides that a person may, with the consent of the Council, carry out development on land described in Column 1 of Schedule 2 that is specified in Column 2 of that Schedule, subject to any conditions that may be specified in Column 3 of that Schedule.

 

The relevant part of Schedule 2 is extracted below:

Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Land comprising the Kensington Town Centre within Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone)

All development that is permissible within Zone No. 3B (Local Business Zone).

Only if the development is located at the ground floor, or the ground floor and first storey of motels, multi-unit housing and serviced apartments. Any proposed retail development must be subject to an economic assessment of its impact on existing retail development in the town centre. The development must be in accordance with the Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan 2002 approved by the Council on 26 November 2002.

 

The site is located within the boundary of the Kensington Town Centre according to the LEP map. The existing restaurant will remain located at ground floor level.  No economic assessment has been submitted with the development application as the use is not a retail use. Accordingly, the land uses permissible in the 3B Local Business Zone, including a restaurant, are allowed on the subject site.

 

Clause 42C Kensington Town Centre

The Council must not grant consent to the carrying out of development on land within the Kensington Town Centre unless it is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the following objectives for the Kensington Town Centre:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The relevant objectives for the proposal have been addressed as follows. Due to the use of the site as a motel, not all apply.

 

In relation to objective (a), the use of the site as a motel and restaurant is consistent with this objective. 

 

The continued occupation of the ground level for the use of a restaurant provides an active street use, thus satisfying objective (b).  Despite this the proposal disconnects this use from the street and does not allow for the activity to engage with the street.

 

In relation to objective (d), despite the proposal not relating to medium density housing, the impact of the proposal should be considered.  The proposal has failed to address the potential amenity impacts of the development on the adjoining residential dwellings.

 

In relation to objective (e), the existing site is being maintained, no amalgamation is proposed.

 

In relation to objective (g), there is no suggestion that the social and cultural needs are considered in this proposal.

 

In relation to objective (h), the parking provision is also discussed in Section 6.1.2 by Council’s engineers. The amended proposal includes the provision of 26 car spaces, servicing 67 motel rooms and a large restaurant.  The provision of parking is considered to be unacceptably low given the intensification of the use of the site and the existing demand for parking in the surrounding streets.

 

In relation to objective (l), there proposal has not demonstrated that it will improve the overall environmental quality of the Kensington Town Centre. The application has been reviewed by the Design Review Panel to ensure that the design provides an acceptable outcome, the comments of the Design Review Panel are provided in Section 6.2.1.  The amendments made to application have failed to address the key concerns of the panel as the proposal fails to provided an adequate design outcome for the site.

 

As a result, the proposal is not considered to adequately address the objectives of the Kensington Town Centre.

 

Part (3) of this clause states that clause 30E, 30F, 20G and 35 do not apply to the subject site.  Instead part (4) states, “the following requirements of the Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan 2002 adopted by the Council on 26 November 2002 apply to the development of land within the Kensington Town Centre as if they were incorporated into this plan:

 

(a)    maximum number of storeys,

(b)    maximum height of development,

(c)    minimum frontage for development,

(d)    minimum allotment size for development”.

 

Section 4.2.4 Building Heights of the Kensington Town Centre DCP states that the proposal must comply with the maximum building envelope heights specified in the Block by Block Controls.

 

An except has been provided below.

 

Image 1 | Excerpt from page 64 of the Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan.

 

The accompanying text states

 

Defined Parcel B represents the Addison on Anzac, a 5 storey motel with more floor space than envisaged under this Plan. The complex currently dominates the streetscape, it highly visual features inconsistent with this Plan’s Design Controls ( e.g. lift overruns and other structures visible on the roof).

 

The proposal is for four (4) levels directly abutting Anzac Parade.  The setback to the next portion is 5m at the south end of the site and 4m at the north.  An additional two (2) storeys is provided at the setback level.  To the rear of the site, the elevation presents four (4) clear levels with a roof top garden.

 

A seventh level, which is predominantly contained within the roof, is not a “storey” under the definition of height and storeys in the Kensington Town Centre DCP. 

The site also contains a semi basement level of parking.

 

The Kensington Town Centre further stipulates a maximum and minimum height for a six storey building, being 19.4- 21.6m for a building fronting Anzac Parade, the proposal has a height of 21.6m which compiles.

 

The frontage of the site and the area of the site, 32m and 1384m2 respectively, are compliant.

 

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

 

8.2.1     Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) Kensington Town Centre

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

 

Clause

Requirements

Comments

Part 4 Development and Design Controls

4.1.1

Site Amalgamation

Minimum frontage for new development is 20m, except for corner sites

Note: this provision is incorporated as part of the LEP pursuant to Clause 42C(4)(c) of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation)

As existing, 32m - Complies.

4.1.2

Site Analysis

The site analysis information provided is inadequate and fails to address the different levels of neighbouring properties, surrounding buildings, significant trees, private open space of surrounding dwellings, views and solar access of surrounding dwellings – Non Complying

4.2.1

New Built Form

Gross floor area occupies no more than 80-85% of the Building Envelope

The proposal includes the incorporation of the existing building on the site which is acceptable. Despite this the proposed building occupies nearly 100% of the building envelope.  The built form is not constant with the envelope – Non Complying.

4.2.2

Architectural Character

Address the design principles contained in SEPP 65

Explore innovative technologies and design approaches to maximise accessibility, natural ventilation, solar orientation and energy efficiency

An amended SEPP 65 statement has not been provided. The comments from the Design Review Panel indicate that the proposal has not adequately addressed this clause– Non Complying.

 

4.2.3

Articulation Zone

Articulate all facades to achieve an Articulation Zone with a minimum depth of 600mm and a maximum depth of 2.5m within the most extreme points of the Building Envelope

There is minimal articulation across the facades of the building, with the front portion of the site having little articulation at all and the both the north and south setbacks having only a small degree of articulation.  This is considered insufficient given prominence of the building.  Higher levels of the building adopt additional setbacks for the front and rear but still occupy 100% of the building envelope - Non complying

4.2.4

Building Heights

Note: this provision is incorporated as part of the LEP pursuant to Clause 42(4)(a) and (b) of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation)

 

iv. Comply with the maximum height of any building as a relationship between storey and height to the underside of the ceiling of the top most floor.

Refer to the “Block 08” section for details.

 

 

 

 

For the subject site the control is for six storeys with a maximum height of 21.6. The proposal has a height of 21.6m which complies with the controls – Complying.

4.2.5

Building Zone

 

The building zone is indicated in Image 1.  As stated previously the depth of the building is non compliant and the retention of the existing building has not been suitable resolved in terms of design.  Overall the proposal is not considered to reflect the objectives of the DCP and will represent an over development on the site – Non Complying

4.2.6

Contributory Buildings

The subject site is not listed as a heritage item or identified as being within a conservation area. The site is not located in the vicinity of any heritage items.

4.2.10

Setbacks

Refer to the “Block 08” section for details.  The setbacks are considered to not be justified and will result in excessive amenity impacts for surrounding residents – Non Complying.

Block 08 controls

 

Building Height:

4 storeys with 0m front setback, 2 additional storeys above with 4m front setback

Note: this provision is incorporated as part of the LEP pursuant to Clause 42C(4)(a) and (b) of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation)

The proposal is for four (4) storeys with a zero front setback and two additional storeys with a minimum setback of 4m – Complying.

 

 

 

Top Floor Ceiling Height (as measured from ground level to underside of ceiling of topmost floor):

Storey 6:

minimum 19.4m and maximum 21.6m

 

The proposal has a height of 21.6m which compiles – Complying.

 

Special provisions for Defined Parcels A, B and C

 

The subject site is defined Parcel B.  The DCP states, “in order to achieve a better built form than currently exists, Council may consider development proposals incorporating portions of the existing buildings, subject to suitable resolution of that incorporation”.

 

The retention of the existing building is seen as acceptable in this case.  Despite this the proposed design does not adopt adequate articulation of the walls, urban design and parking provision.  As a result, the proposal is not considered to adopt an acceptable level of resolution - None complying.

 

Building Zone 22m

The proposal has a maximum building depth of 34m which includes the existing building, as detailed above.  As the proposed building has not adopted an acceptable level of design resolution the Building Zone requirement is not considered to have been met, - Non complying.

4.4

Accessibility

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

The proposal allows for disabled access from the footpath level, via a lift, - Complying

4.5.1

Access for Vehicles

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

 

 

 

ii.    Provide 6m wide two way vehicle access via existing rear lanes, new below ground rear right of Carriageway or side streets as indicated on the Block by Block Controls.

 

iii.   Negotiate with adjoining property owners to achieve below ground rights of carriageway in locations indicated.

 

iv.   Provide driveways and below ground rights of carriageway which are a minimum of 6 metres in width.

 

v.    Design driveways to basement and semi basement parking to minimise visual impact on the streets and maximize pedestrian safety.

 

vi.   Design driveway ramps and entrances to mitigate against any potential for flooding.

 

vii.  Do not locate access ways to basement or semi-basement driveways adjacent to the doors or windows of habitable rooms.

 

viii.  Alternatively submit evidence that rear access forms part of the common property of a Strata Title or Community Title scheme.

There is an indicated right of carriage way along the southern boundary of the site. The amended design includes access via the northern boundary of the site. The proposed driveway currently exists on the site and is considered acceptable.

 

The subject site is required to provide a rear underground right of carriageway, 5.8m, two way traffic has been provided, as the proposal does not provide adequate width it is technically non compliant –Non complying.

 

 

No indication of negotiation has been provided.

 

 

 

 

A right of carriageway has been provided for in the semi basement, despite this the width is only 5.8m – Partially complying.

 

 

The driveway design has been accommodated along the northern side boundary. It is enclosed within the building – Complying.

 

 

 

Refer to Council’s engineer’s comments.

 

 

 

The access way is located below the hotel rooms. – Complying.

 

 

 

 

 

There is a rear access way proposed to allow through traffic. If approved this would be required as a condition of consent – Complies.

4.5.2

On-Site Parking

i.     Comply with the Randwick DCP Parking.

ii.    Incorporate parking within and/or beneath the building, No on-site parking is to be provided neither on a site frontage nor as surface parking external to the building.

iii.   Design parking to ensure pedestrian safety.

iv.   Provide on-site bicycle parking in accordance with the Randwick DCP Parking.

v.    Car parking areas may be designed as semi-basement car parking provided that:

- roof is not more than 1.5m above ground level;

- the roof is landscaped a communal and/or private open space.

- the design results in building frontages that are level with the street.

 

vi.   Where the roof to a semi-basement carpark abuts with a street frontage ensure that the roof is not higher than 900mm above ground level, measured across any sloping frontage.

 

vii.  Where a semi basement carpark is built to the boundary of a strata title building unlikely to change, provide advanced planting in a 3m setback from that boundary, to achieve visual privacy.

The proposed car parking provision and design are considered to be adequate. Refer to Section 6.1.2 of this report for details.

 

The car parking areas are located in a semi-basement carpark. There are no bicycles spaces provided to the rear of the site and will not result in detrimental impacts on the streetscape. The distance of the basement level above ground level is not indicated on the plans, it appears to be less than 900mm above ground level.

 

The basement carpark is proposed to be built up to the boundary and has a landscaped buffer on the podium level with a minimum width of 2.5m. A traffic Study was submitted with the original application an amended copy has not been supplied.

 

The given the intensification of both uses on the site, the provision of parking is insufficient - Non complying.

4.6.1

Active Frontages

i.    Provide continuous retail frontage on the ground floor within the Core Retail Precinct.

ii.    Minimise blank walls at ground level

iii.   Minimize blank walls at ground level and allow for visual interest such as retail display cases on the external face of fire escaped, device doors and equipment hatches.

iv.   Do not use opaque of reflective glass on the ground floor.

 

The frontage will be predominantly blank glass within no opportunity for an active street frontage – Non complying.

4.6.2

Awnings

Provide continuous street frontage awnings to all new development to the extent indicated on the Block controls

No awning is proposed due to a zero setback to the front, if required it would form part of a separate DA in consultation with Randwick Council.

4.6.3

Building Entrances

Provide clearly identifiable, sheltered, well lit and safe spaces to enter the building, meet and collect mail

 

The entrance will be clearly identifiable. – Complying.

4.6.4

Façade Composition and Articulation

-Design buildings to address the street, but ensure that rear and side facades also provide visual interest to the street and surrounding neighbours

-Provide architectural features which give a ‘human scale’ to the building, particularly at street level

The design of the proposal has been considered by the design review panel, (refer to Section 6.2.1). The façade will present a blank façade to the frontage that will not represent any visual interest or give a human scale – Non Complying.

4.6.5

Materials and Finishes

-Utilise high quality and durable materials and finishes

-Use pastel or earthy colour schemes and avoid corporate and bright colours

The application has included an exterior colour and finish schedule has not been provided – Non Complying.

4.6.6

Outdoor Eating

No outdoor eating is proposed. 

4.6.8

Rear Colonnades

No rear colonnade has been provided in the amended design – Non Complying.

4.6.9

Roof Forms

Achieve design excellence in roof forms which contribute to the existing character of the centre.

The proposed roof will fully contain all servicing.  The proposed roof design is considered acceptable. The roof of the fourth level is proposed to contain a roof top garden - Complies.

4.6.10

Signage

There is proposed signage on the side of the building.  See the review of the Outdoor Advertising DCP and SEPP No. 64in Section 8.1.1.  There is limited detail on the signage proposed and will form part of a separate DA – Non Complying.

4.6.11

Solar Access, Overshadowing & Natural Daylight

-   Minimise the negative impact of overshadowing on the internal and outdoor areas of neighbouring buildings.

-   To optimise solar access to habitable rooms and to minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

-   To retain the amenity of the public domain by maximising solar access.

No amended shadow diagrams have been provided with the amended drawings. 

 

Based on the original shadow diagrams it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant impact. The original diagrams suggest that the current overshadowing will not be accentuated - Partially Complying.

4.6.13

Visual Privacy

-To minimise the direct overlooking of internal and external living areas through: site layout and building layout; location of windows and balconies; design of windows and use of screening devices.

-To ensure adequate visual privacy to residential developments in the town centre and to associated private open space.

Generally, the rooms have been designed to have minimal visual impact on the neighbouring residents to the rear and to the north. The rooms on Levels 1 to 3 have been designed with very small windows which are treated with louvers addressing the rear of the site. The only rooms that present a risk of overlooking are 1.08, 1.16, 2.08, 2.16, 3.08 and 3.16, these rooms have large west facing windows with no treatment at all.  It is considered that these rooms present an unacceptable impact on privacy - Non Complying.

4.7.1

Acoustic Privacy

To ensure adequate acoustic privacy to residential developments

A standard condition is recommended to require compliance with the BCA requirements in order to ensure the acoustic performance of the dwellings achieve the current industry standard.  The garden on level 4 is predominantly landscaped and does not present any large open areas capable of being uses for a party and is considered to not pose a significant threat to acoustic privacy.

 

The proposed outdoor seating in the ground level rear garden presents a significant potential for acoustic impact with a large area of untreated space that has the ability to hold a large number of people.  The area is accessed via the entry lobby which means that both restaurant and motel guests could access the space, which would result in significant acoustic impacts, particularly during the night, - Non Complying.

4.7.5

Building Use

Development fronting Anzac Parade:

Ground floor: retail and commercial uses

Storey 2: commercial / residential

The existing ground restaurant is being retained fronting Anzac Parade and will be significantly larger. The existing use, of the remainder of the building as a motel, will be retained - Complies

4.7.6

Floor to Ceiling Heights

G/F: Min 3.5m, Max 4.5m

1/F: 2.7m

2/F: 2.7m

3/F: 2.7m

4/F: 2.7m

5/F: 2.7m

 

 

 

No detail on floor to ceiling heights is provided.  Based on the drawings, the floor to ceiling heights appear to comply, despite this the existing rooms do not comply – Non Complying.

4.7.9

Stairs, Lifts and Corridors

To provide adequate, safe and pleasant circulation spaces in which people can easily circulate.

The amendments to the proposal significantly improved the hall ways. There are two lifts allocated to service the 67 rooms, which is adequate. Natural ventilation has been introduced for the north and southern ends of the corridors – Partially Complying.

4.8.2

Energy Efficiency

To eliminate or reduce the need for mechanical heating / cooling of the building.

 

To eliminate/ reduce the need for mechanical heating /cooling of the building.

 

To minimize greenhouse gas generation.

 

To maximize the thermal performance of the building.

Solar panels are proposed on the roof of the building.  The retention and alteration of the existing building will conserve energy and is a more sustainable option than simply knocking the existing building down.  Despite this, many of the windows and balconies that are currently on the building are being removed and the access to natural sunlight and ventilation for the rooms is being significantly reduced. Air conditioning units appear to be provided for each room individually but the application lacks detail – Non Complying.  

4.8.3

Lighting Efficiency

To provide adequate lighting to meet the intended function and purpose of the space.

 

To minimize the use of artificial lighting during the daylight hours.

 

To maximize use of nature light and minimize energy consumption.

 

To avoid wastage of energy.

Refer to comments above.  No detail is provided regarding this requirement. Had the proposed application been considered for approval a relevant condition would have been included.

4.8.4

Natural Ventilation

Ensure that all habitable rooms have sufficient airflow through them.

There is no natural ventilation for the majority of the hotel rooms. It is assumed that artificial air flow will be provided - Non Complying.

4.8.5

Site Servicing and Waste Management

To encourage waste minimization including source separation, reuse and recycling.

 

To ensure efficient storage and collection of waste and quality design of facilities.

 

To minimize the impact of service access on pedestrian and the retail frontage.

A garbage room is proposed off the kitchen.  It is not clear where the waste from the hotel room will be held. No detail is provided as to if the waste and recycling will be kept together. The service access is considered acceptable - Partially Complying.

4.8.6

Space Heating and Cooling

To reduce or eliminate reliance on mechanical heating and cooling, both in summer and winter.

The proposal does not adopt sustainable heating and cooling practices and will be reliant on mechanical heating and cooling - Non Complying.

4.8.7

Storm Water Management

The plans have been reviewed by Council’s engineers. See comments in Section 6.1.    

4.9.2

Landscape Treatment

To add value to quality of life in new developments by assisting and improving privacy, outlook and views

The proposal has included new landscape garden areas which will improve the visual amenity of the site and privacy surrounding dwellings, - Complying.

4.10

Safer by Design

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

The proposal is adequately designed for safety – Complying.

 

Non compliance with various development controls can be justified if the proposal achieves the objective that the plan is attempting to achieve, in this case the DCP is seeking to establish desirable objectives and provide performance criteria which will achieve desirable development outcomes for the Kensington Town Centre.  Having assessed the amended proposal against the relevant clauses of the document, the level of non compliance and partial compliance is of an extent that it fails to adequately achieve the purpose of the plan.  As such, the proposal does not achieve a desirable development outcome for the Kensington Town Centre. 

 

8.2.2     Randwick Development Control Plan – Advertising

In accordance with the DCP for signage, no detail has been provided regarding the content and wording of the proposed signs on the northern and southern facades of the proposed building.  The amended plans indicate that new signage is proposed but no detail is provided other than that. Based on the plans the signs will be approx 7.2m x5.2m, hence covering an area of 37.44m2.  Due to the lack of detail provided any approval should exclude signage.

 

The proposed signage is considered to be generally inconsistent with the objectives of this document despite this it will be required that the signage form part of a separate application.

 

8.2.3          Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) Parking

The car parking controls have been dealt with in some detail in Section 6.1.2 by Council’s parking engineers, the outcome of which is that the parking provision on the site is inadequate considering the amended proposal. 

 

The proposal falls significantly short of the requirements when assessed against the requirements for a new motel and additions to an existing hotel. The proposal does not comply with the controls for the site and hence in its current form cannot be supported.

 

8.2.3     Randwick Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposal and Council Plans

The proposal was notified in accordance with this document and the submissions received have been duly considered and responded to.

 

8.3             Council Policies

8.3.1          Asbestos Policy

Conditions are recommended to ensure the safe work procedures and requirements listed in the policy are adopted

 

8.3.2          Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

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

$100,001 - $200,000

------

0.5%

 

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$8 813 585

1.0%

$88 135.85

 

9.      Section 79C 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).

The site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal is permissible with Council's consent pursuant to Clause 42.

The proposal is not consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not enhance and compliment the aesthetic character. The proposal will result in significant amenity impacts for the locality.

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

The proposal fails to generally satisfy the objectives in the Kensington DCP.

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 built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

It is considered that amenity impacts of the proposal will result in detrimental on the locality.  The amended proposal fails to adequately address amenity impacts including potential noise and privacy impacts of the proposal.

 

Additionally the proposed built form fails to adequately address the site specific built form controls contained in the Kensington Town Centre DCP.

 

The proposed building is excessive in terms of site coverage and fails to effectively provide services, such as parking, solar access and ventilation for any potential patrons.

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. Despite this, the proposed intensification of the exiting motel and restaurant uses cannot be adequately accommodated for on the site.  The extent of intensification cannot be serviced in terms of parking and the impact of the proposal cannot be sufficiently mitigated. Therefore, the site is considered unsuitable suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

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

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

The proposal fails to promotes the objectives of the zone and will result in significant adverse environmentally impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered not to be in the public interest.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:               Excellence in urban design.

Outcome 10:             A healthy environment.

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

Direction 10a:            Council is a leader in fostering sustainable practices.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject application proposes the alterations and additions to the existing motel and restaurant on the site. The proposal includes the addition of two storeys, the significant refurbishment and extension of the existing four (4) storeys and the enclosing of the existing parking level.  The proposal would result in a total of 67 motel rooms, 29 car parking spaces, an extensive ground floor restaurant which includes five (5) separate dining rooms, a landscaped garden area on the ground floor and a roof top garden on the 4th floor.  The proposal has a maximum building height of 21.7m.

 

The proposal fails to comply with a number of the controls for the site and does not satisfy the objectives of the zone.

 

The site is within the Kensington Town Centre, as such, the Kensington Town Centre DCP applies. The proposal does not meet the relevant controls of the DCP and is inconsistent with the overall objectives for the Kensington Town Centre. 

 

The proposal also fails to achieve compliance with the parking rates specified in the DCP – Parking.

 

The scale of the development is not considered to be suitable for the site or in the context of the surrounding Kensington Town Centre and is therefore recommended for refusal. 

The development has the variables that would be expected in this form of development, it is the extent to which they have been provided that causes concerns.  The extensive restaurant use is no longer ancillary to the motel use and is a large land use in its own right.  Add to this, the proposed expansion to the number of motel rooms, and the results is a significant overall intensification.  This is further represented by the extent to which the building occupies the allowable building envelope.

 

The "floor by floor" envelope indicates that the allowable building envelope is built to the maximum whereas the Kensington DCP envisages an 85% occupation.  This results in a further intensification of the use, without a corresponding provision of parking.  The occupation of the "articulation zone" also means that the building will be architecturally different from the expectations of surrounding residential development where compliance with this provision of actively pursued.  The application further exacerbates this by attempting to retain the existing building, which is outside the DCP envelope, but presses the new envelope beyond the controls.

 

The current proposal fails to provide adequate parking relative to the development outcomes.  Whilst some consideration might be possible to varying parking provision on a site so well service by public transport, the current proposal is an overdevelopment with consequential design and amenity impacts that are unsatisfactory.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council's as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/1115/2010 for alterations and additions to an existing motel at 147-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the zone objectives of the 2C Residential Zone specified in Clause 12 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) in that the scheme is contrary to the following objectives:

 

(a)      to provide for a medium density residential environment.

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

(c)      to protect the amenity of existing residents.

 

2.       The proposed development will compromise the aims of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) in relation to:

 

(e)      to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage and aesthetic character of the City.

(g)      to promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the City.

(h)      to recognise the importance of ecological sustainability in the planning and development processes.

 

3.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives of the Kensington Town Centre as contained within Clause 42C(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) in that it does not:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

4.       The proposal does not satisfy the SEPP 65 principles in relation to massing, amenity and architectural character.

 

5.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or performance criteria for New Built Form set-out in Clause 4.2.1 of Development Control Plan – Kensington Town Centre in that:

 

(a)   The proposal fails to achieve a building that responds to the building envelope controls of this plan.

(b)   The proposal proposes a gross floor area that occupies more than 80-85% of the allowable building envelope.

 

6.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or performance criteria for Setbacks set-out in Clause 4.2.10 of Development Control Plan – Kensington Town Centre in that:

(a)   The proposal has failed to provide visual and acoustic privacy between neighbouring buildings.

(b)   The proposal fails to minimise negative impact on the amenity of adjacent sites.

 

7.       The proposal provides a total of 29 car parks within a basement car park and does not comply with the parking rate specified in Clause 2.3 of Council’s DCP – Parking.  Due to the significance of the proposed parking deficiency the proposal is not considered to meet the relevant objectives of the DCP Parking and fails to provide an appropriate level of off street parking through specific standards to meet parking demand.

 

8.       The proposed expansion and intensification of use of the existing restaurant would has adverse amenity impacts on adjoining and nearby residential properties in terms of noise, anti social behaviour and parking.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                18 October 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP103/11

 

 

Subject:                  24B & 24C Arthur Street, Randwick (DA/1040/2010)

Folder No:                   DA/1040/2010

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Substantial alterations and additions to existing two attached dual occupancies including new upper level to form 6 residential units, provision of 3 additional car park spaces, strata subdivision and associated works (SEPP1 objections to floor space ratio, landscaping and wall height controls)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Brenchley Architects - Surry Hills

Owner:                         A. C. N. 075 973 714 Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject application is referred to Council for determination as the proposed development involves variations to development standards greater than 10%.

 

Development Application DA/1040/2010 proposes alterations and additions to an existing multi unit housing development (with a total of four (4) x two (2) bedroom units) to form a strata subdivided six (6) unit residential flat building. The proposal includes internal reconfiguration and refurbishment of the ground and first floors, construction of a new second storey comprising two (2) x two (2) bedroom units, and new private open space balconies to all units.

 

The DA originally proposed a mansard roof treatment for the proposed additional floor.  An assessment of the proposal was undertaken by the Design Review Panel (DRP) at its meeting of 7 March 2011.  The applicant was advised that the mansard roof was not in context with the character of the local area, and it would reduce internal amenity for future occupants.  The DRP recommended that the proposed ground floor rear terrace over the car parking be reduced in width, and that a simpler form for the additional storey would be more appropriate. 

 

Amended plans were lodged on 21 April 2011.  The DRP examined the amended plans at its meeting of 6 June 2011, and remained critical of the design.  Further amendments, in response to the DRP’s recommendations have been made to the proposal and further amended plans were submitted on 22 July 2011.  The July 2011 amended plans included:

 

-    Deleted mansard roof detail.

-    Full additional floor proposed.

-    Upper floor internal spaces rationalised to gain most benefit and amenity.

-    Balconies rationalised and privacy features included.

-    Reduction in extent of ground floor rear terrace.

-    Reduce number of car spaces to 2 and increased deep soil planting.

-    Front fence re-design.

 

The DRP examined the July 2011 plans at its meeting of 5 September 2011 and were generally satisfied with the amendments.

 

Planning and engineering concerns remained regarding the proposed car parking layout.  Final amended plans were received by Council on 14 September 2011.  These plans include re-orientating the proposed car parking resulting in increased landscaped area on the site, and as a result, improving the amenity of the site for future occupants.  Also, the re-orientation of the car parking provides additional area for deep soil planting and opportunity to plant a mature tree on the northern boundary, east of the driveway to improve the view of the development as viewed from Arthur Street.

 

The DA was notified to the general public from 8 December 2010 to 22 December 2010, during which time Council received three (3) submissions of objection.  The issues raised include overlooking, overshadowing and insufficient proposed parking provisions.  The July 2011 amended plans were notified to the general public from 10 August 2011 to 24 August 2011.  Two (2) submissions have been received during the second notification period, raising the same issues as previously raised.

 

The amended proposal has an FSR of 1.09:1 (compared with the maximum 0.65:1 FSR standard applicable under the Randwick LEP 1998). The amended proposal has an external wall height of 10.55m on the southern elevation, which varies from the maximum 10m wall height standard under the Randwick LEP 1998.  The amended proposal also has a landscaped area of 132.9m2.  Pursuant to Clause 20E(2) of Randwick LEP 1998, the minimum landscaping provision for the subject site is 186.1m2.  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) objections have been lodged in support of these variations to the FSR, external wall height and landscape area standards.

 

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 locality, which is a mix of residential developments, from single detached dwelling houses to 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 subject is zoned 2C (Residential C Zone) pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The proposed works are consistent with the objectives of the zone.

 

An assessment of the scheme concludes that compliance is achieved with the primary principles within relevant state policies or guidelines, development standards within the Randwick LEP 1998 (consolidated), and controls and objectives within the Multi Unit Housing DCP.  It performs satisfactorily with respect to the natural and built environment subject to conditions as outlined in the body of the assessment below.  In particular, conditions to ensure adequate deep soil planting and to reduce opportunities for overlooking to the neighbouring property to the south.  The proposal will not result in any adverse overshadowing.

 

Accordingly the proposal is satisfactory and recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The current, amended proposal was received by Council on 22 July 2011, further amendments were received 14 September 2011. The proposal is for substantial alterations and additions to an existing multi unit housing development of 4 x 2 bedroom residential units. The amendments include a new upper level to form 6 x 2 bedroom residential units, provision of 2 car park spaces, strata subdivision and associated works (SEPP 1 objections to floor space ratio, landscape and wall height controls).

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Arthur Street and Botany Road. The site has a frontage of 37.02m to Arthur Street and a frontage to Botany Street of 10.06m. The total site area is 372.2m2.

 

The site has a northerly aspect and slopes towards the rear (east). Currently the site contains a multi unit housing development comprising of 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings.  The site does not contain any onsite parking and has a large rear setback containing communal open space. The building presents a two storey frontage to Botany Street (west) which increases to a three storey built form at the rear (east) and visible from Arthur Street.

 

The locality is residential in character and is a mixture of densities including detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential development.

 

Adjoining the site to the south, fronting Botany Street is a three storey boarding house. Adjoining the site to the east is a single storey dwelling house.  Adjoining the site to the north, on the opposite side of Arthur Street, is a residential flat building. The residential flat building presents a part two, part there storey built form to Arthur Street. Adjoining the site to the west, on the opposite side of Botany Road is a single storey detached dwelling. On the opposite side of Arthur Street is Writtle Park.

 

Photo 1: 24B Arthur Street, Botany Road frontage.

Photo2: 24B Arthur Street, showing the existing rear setback.

Photo 3: The adjoining residential dwellings to the rear (east) of 24B Arthur Street .

Photo 4:  24B Arthur Street, as viewed from the opposite corner of Botany Road and Arthur Street .

 

4.    Site History

 

The DA was originally lodged 25 November 2010.  The application has been to the Design Review Panel on three (3) occasions, being the meetings of 7 March 2011, 6 June 2011 and 5 September 2011.  The applicant has submitted amended plans following the DRP meetings.  The current amended proposal lodged on 22 July 2011 (with further amendments lodged on 14 September 2011) is the subject of this report.

 

5.    Objections to Development Standards

 

The proposal seeks to vary three development standards contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards (SEPP 1).  The variations are for:

-      Clause 20E Landscaped Area,

-      Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios, and

-      Clause 20G Building Heights.

 

Each of the SEPP 1 objections have been considered in detail below and are found to be well supported in each case.

 

5.1      SEPP 1 for Clause 20E(2) Landscaped Area

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 20E (2) (Landscaped Area) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, development, otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No 2B or 2C must provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area”. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Landscaped Area

LEP development standard cl 20E(2)

50% (186.1m2)

Proposal

35.7% (132.9m2)

Degree of variation from the LEP standard

14.3% (53.2m2)

 

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 landscape standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

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

 

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

-      The landscaped area is greater than originally submitted.

-      Provides for a buffer to the south and east neighbours and provides for landscaping around the site’s perimeter.

-      Provides for a greater open space area at ground level to Unit 1.

-      The proposal is considered to be appropriate to the surrounding locality and the emergence of residential flat buildings;

-      The proposed alterations and additions upgrade the existing development and makes a positive contribution to the locality;

-      The provision of generous private openspace areas in exchange for the underutilised communal space is considered to be a more desirable outcome for the site and improves residential amenity for its residents;

-      Development will not result in any adverse or unreasonable impacts such as overshadowing, privacy impacts or significant view loss;

-      The provision of landscaping along both street frontages upgrades the streetscapes’ aesthetic character;

-      The proposed perimeter landscaping enhances the site’s presentation and softens the perceived bulk.

 

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

-      The existing development does not provide any existing private open space and relies only on the underutilised communal rear yard and the front setback.  The proposed private open space areas and landscaped common open space will improve the amenity for occupants of the site and will serve to soften the bulk and scale of the site as viewed from the public domain, particularly through the deep soil planting opportunities provided on the eastern, south-eastern and western boundaries of the property.  It is recommended that a condition be included in the development consent to also provide deep soil planting on the northern boundary to the east of the driveway.

-      The proposal provides adequate deep soil planting opportunities to minimise stormwater runoff.  No excavation is proposed on the site, as a result 100% of the landscaping area is considered soft soil landscaping.

-      The proposal would be consistent with the surrounding character in terms of bulk and scale;

-      The provision of balconies which are directly accessible from the proposed dwellings’ living areas results in a more useable open space option; and

-      The building design generally maintains current building setbacks and has been treated so not to present an excessive bulk and scale to the two street frontages.

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

The SEPP 1 provided has justified the variation by stating the following.

 

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

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Residential 2C Zone in that it will allow for medium density development which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.”

 

The SEPP 1 provided has adequately justified the variation in accordance with Matter 2.  The proposal is consistent with the character of the area and represents the orderly and economic use of the site.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

Comment:

The SEPP 1 provided has justified the variation by stating the following.

 

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

 

The proposal will result in additional housing stock for the area which is in the public interest.  The proposal represents an opportunity to upgrade the existing older style multi unit housing development to comply with current BCA and energy standards.  The site is constrained by the existing building on the property and the proposal is for alterations and additions, not a new RFB.  The proposal is considered to be in the public interest and the variation is justified and there is no public benefit in maintaining the control in this case.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is relevant to the subject development because it intends to protect the character of the area, the amenity for future residents, the amenity of adjoining dwellings and the integrity of the streetscape.  The proposed development will not undermine the objective or purpose of the standard taking into account the character and nature of surrounding development and the ability of the proposal to meet the underlying objectives relating to amenity and character.

 

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 proposal cannot demonstrate that the underlying objective of purpose would be thwarted if compliance was required.

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

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

 

In conclusion, the proposal has adequately 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 SEPP 1 objection appropriately justifies that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.  As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 

5.2      SEPP 1 Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 20F(Floor Space Ratio) (FSR)of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, despite subclause (1), the maximum floor space ratio for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C is 0.65:1 where the site area is less than 700 square metres”. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

LEP development standard

0.65:1

Proposal

1.09:1

Degree of variation from the LEP standard

0.44:1

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

-      The proposal is within the overall height limit, and is within the front and rear setbacks permitted under the multi-unit housing DCP. The proposed addition is therefore considered to be within the contemplated building envelop and related site coverage for the site under the controls.

-      The existing dwelling currently exceeds the FSR control. The additional floor space resulting from this application is due to the reconfiguration of the existing units and deletion of dual entrances and stairwells and the additional storey.

-      It is not considered that the proposed building envelope will adversely affect the streetscape presentation or amenity of the adjoining neighbour given it is largely consistent with the envelope generated by the pitched roof of the existing development.

-      The building’s envelope and scale is consistent with or less than the majority of developments within the immediate vicinity, and does not result in a development which is uncharacteristic of the streetscape.

-      The proposal also sits comfortably among the existing established medium density streetscape along both sides of Arthur Street, and Botany Street.

-      The proposal maintains the environmental amenity of the area through provision of legible deep soil zones at the front and rear of the site whilst the amenity of neighbours is also maintained due to retention of solar access to north-facing windows as well as privacy.

-      The articulated building form and charges in materials and colours throughout the building also breaks up its perceived bulk.

 

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

-      The building footprint remains predominantly consistent with the existing building footprint and maintains setbacks to the building (terraces on the western and eastern facade encroach on the existing setbacks),

-      The additional storey is consistent with the surrounding character and has been designed to have minimal overshadowing or privacy impacts on the surrounding dwellings.

-      The proposal will comply with the maximum 12m building height applicable in the Residential 2C zone under Clause 20G of the Randwick LEP.

-      No excavation is proposed at the site, meaning that all landscaped areas provide deep soil landscaping.

-      There is currently little articulation to the street facades of the building.  The proposal includes features such as private open space balconies to all units on the western (Botany Street) and eastern facades. 

-      The proposal will introduce a modern and contemporary built form to the streetscape.

-      The proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2C zone in which the site is located, as it will contribute towards the variety of housing types in the area.

-      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. 

-      The apparent bulk and scale does not compromise the streetscape and aesthetic character of the site.

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

The SEPP 1 provided has justified the variation by stating the following.

 

“The variation from the floor space ratio standard is not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as they would not detract from the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodies in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii).  Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Residential 2C Zone in that it will allow for medium density development which is consistent with the desired character of the locality. The development of the site and an upgrade to the existing dual occupancies to form a strata subdivided 6 unit development is therefore consistent with the orderly and economic use of the site”.

 

The SEPP 1 provided has adequately justified the variation in accordance with Matter 2.  The proposal is consistent with the character of the area and represents the orderly and economic use of the site.  The current FSR for the site exceeds the control for the site.  The retention and modernisation of the existing building represents a positive outcome, and will aid the economic welfare of the community while promoting a better environment. The proposed additional floor area 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”.

 

Comment:

The SEPP 1 provided has justified the variation by stating the following.

 

“The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not aid in maintaining the ability to develop medium density housing forms, including refurbishment and additions to the form of residential flat building, and the like, where such development does no compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development. The proposal is consistent with SEPP 32 – Urban Consolidation and is not inconsistent with any state or regional policy.”

 

The proposal does not raise any matters of state or regional significance. The proposal will result in additional housing stock for the area, while maintaining the existing building, which is in the public interest.  The proposal is considered to be in the public interest and the variation is justified and there is no public benefit in maintaining the control in this case.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposal generally achieves 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:

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 SEPP 1 objection states as follows.

“Generally, the FSR development standard has not been abandoned by any decision or actions of Council. However, there are numerous instances where Council has assessed variations on their meritys where appropriate streetscape and amendity outcomes justify departures. An assessment of the street character demontstrates that a number of sites exceed the building envelop control prescribed in the LEP including:

-   11-13 Waratah Avenue FSR of approximately 1.15:1

-   18 Botany Street 0.90:1

-   10-12 Botany Street 1.15:1

-   8 Botany Street 0.99:1

-   6 Botany Street 1.03:1

-   4 Botany Street 0.92:1

 

As demonstrated above, the proposal seeks an FSR substantially less than the majority of those above. Each of the above circumstances were assessed on their merits, enabling support of the SEPP 1 objections in each instance.”

 

The applicant has presented some examples where the development standard has not been applied, despite this, generally the development standard has not been abandoned.

 

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.

 

In conclusion, the proposal has adequately 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 SEPP 1 objection appropriately justifies that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.  As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 


5.3      SEPP 1 Clause 20G Building Heights

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 20G(4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, which states the following.

 

(4) The maximum height for any external wall of a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C is 10 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level,”

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Building Heights

LEP development standard

Maximum External Wall height – 10m.

Proposal

Maximum External wall height  - 10.55m

Degree of variation from the LEP standard

0.55m

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

-      The proposed development is considered to be appropriate to the surrounding locality and prominence of developments of 3 storeys.

-      The overall height is significantly below the overall maximum building height of 12 metres.

-      The originally submitted plans had a wall height of 11.2m which has now been reduced to 10.55m on the southern elevation while the majority of the building is now actually compliant.

 

-      The proposed application upgrades the existing development and makes a positive contribution to the locality.

-      The additional height proposed has no unreasonable overshadowing impacts.

-      The height does not result in any unreasonable loss of view or outlook from surrounding properties.

-      Development will not result in any adverse or unreasonable impacts such as overshadowing, privacy impacts or significant view loss.

-      The height will sit comfortably in the streetscape as shown in the diagram below.

 

 

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

-      The building footprint remains predominantly consistent with the existing building footprint and maintains adequate setbacks.

-      The majority of the building will comply with the standard.  The non-compliance occurs to the rear of the development as a consequence of the fall in the slope of the land.

-      Articulation of the building through balconies on all units (which will be able to be viewed from the public domain) and deep soil planting on the properties east, south-east and northern boundaries will assist to reduce the visual bulk of the building, particularly as viewed from Arthur Street, where the minor breach is wall height will occur.

-      The additional storey is consistent with the surrounding character and has been designed to have minimal overshadowing or privacy impacts on the surrounding dwellings.

-      The apparent bulk and scale does not compromise the streetscape and aesthetic character of the site.

-      There are comparably large, as well as higher, multi-unit housing developments on both Arthur Street and Botany Street beyond the subject site and its immediate adjoining properties.

-      The proposed non-compliance does 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. 

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

The SEPP 1 provided has justified the variation by stating the following.

 

“The variation from the floor space ratio standard is not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as they would not detract from the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodies in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii).  Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Residential 2C Zone in that it will allow for medium density development which is consistent with the desired character of the locality. The development of the site and an upgrade to the existing dual occupancies to form a strata subdivided 6 unit development is therefore consistent with the orderly and economic use of the site”.

 

The SEPP 1 provided has adequately justified the variation in accordance with Matter 2.  The proposal is consistent with the character of the area and represents the orderly and economic use of the site.  The current FSR for the site exceeds the control for the site and the retention and modernisation of the existing building represents a positive outcome and will aid the economic welfare of the community while promoting a better environment.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

Comment:

The SEPP 1 provided has justified the variation by stating the following.

 

“The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not aid in maintaining the ability to develop medium density housing forms, including refurbishment and additions to the form of residential flat building, and the like, where such development does no compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development. The proposal is consistent with SEPP 32 – Urban Consolidation and is not inconsistent with any state or regional policy.”

 

The proposal does not raise any matters of state or regional significance. The proposal will result in additional housing stock for the area, while maintaining the existing building, which is in the public interest.  The proposal is considered to be in the public interest and the variation is justified and there is no public benefit in maintaining the control in this case.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposed first floor addition 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 SEPP 1 objection states as follows.

“Generally, the FSR development standard has not been abandoned by any decision or actions of Council. However, there are numerous instances where Council has assessed variations on their meritys where appropriate streetscape and amendity outcomes justify departures. An assessment of the street character demontstrates that a number of sites exceed the building envelop control prescribed in the LEP including:

-   11-13 Waratah Avenue FSR of approximately 1.15:1

-   18 Botany Street 0.90:1

-   10-12 Botany Street 1.15:1

-   8 Botany Street 0.99:1

-   6 Botany Street 1.03:1

-   4 Botany Street 0.92:1

 

As demonstrated above, the proposal seeks an FSR substantially less than the majority of those above. Each of the above circumstances were assessed on their merits, enabling support of the SEPP 1 objections in each instance.”

 

The applicant has presented some examples where the development standard has not been applied, despite this, generally the development standard has not been abandoned.

 

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.

 

In conclusion, the proposal has adequately 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 SEPP 1 objection appropriately justifies that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.  As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 


6.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining properties and other likely affected properties were notified of the original proposed development in accordance with the Council’s Development Control Plan - Public Notification of Development Proposal and Council Plans.  The development application was notified for a period of 14 days from 8 December 2011- 22 December 2011.  A total of three (3) submissions were received. 

 

The amended plans were also notified from 10 August – 24 August 2011.  No additional submissions were received.

 

Submissions for the original scheme raised the following issues:

 

6.1      Objections

 

Issue

Comment

Overshadowing from planter box and trees on the southern boundary.

Recommend a condition be included requiring trees planted on the southern boundary to be deciduous, to ensure access to sunlight to 31 Botany Street.  A detailed landscape plan will be required to be lodged for approval by Council’s landscape officer, prior to issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Loss of Privacy - New windows facing the southern boundary only setback 880mm from the boundary and will result in loss of privacy.

The original proposal included kitchen windows facing the southern boundary.  The amended plans have addressed privacy concerns by relocating the kitchen windows to units 5 & 6 off the southern boundary and the provision of external louvres to all south facing windows on the proposed second floor.

 

Loss of privacy - Ground floor terrace is excessive and all terraces will reduce privacy.

The amended plans include a privacy screen proposed on the southern edge of the (Unit 6) rear (east) facing balcony.

 

The unit 2 terrace was amended in the July 2011 plans to be setback off the southern boundary by 4.0m.  The September 2011 amended plans show the unit 2 terrace setback approximately 2.0m from the southern boundary (in line with the setback of the existing building, as recommended by the DRP). 

 

It is considered that the proposed setback of  unit 2 balcony from the southern boundary and also unit 4 (also 2.0m from the southern boundary) presents an opportunity for unsatisfactory overlooking to the northern courtyard area of the boarding house at 31 Botany Street.  To maintain amenity to 31 Botany Street, it is recommended that a condition be included for privacy screens to be included on the southern and eastern ends, to 3.0m from the southern boundary, of unit 2 and unit 4’s balconies.

 

The extent of the unit 2 terrace has been substantially reduced to ensure visual and acoustic amenity to neighbouring properties.

Fence to southern boundary - The property to the south of the subject site (31 Botany Street) is setback 235mm from its northern boundary (the common boundary with the subject site) and is approximately 1.6m lower than the subject site.  A 1.8m fence on the southern boundary of the subject site will prevent access to the northern facade of 31 Botany Street. The owner of 31 Botany Street, which is a Boarding House, requires access from the subject site to the 235mm gap between the properties for periodic cleaning (rubbish tends to blow from the street and gather in the 235mm gap), maintenance and access to pipes and utilities located on the northern wall of 31 Botany Street.

 

The proposed southern boundary fence is a 1.8m timber boundary fence in accordance with Council’s controls.

 

If required, the owner of 31 Botany Street can seek access to his property under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000

Overshadowing of eastern (rear) adjoining properties,

Overshadowing as a result of the proposed second floor addition will not reduce solar access to living areas or open space areas of surrounding properties by less than 3 hours per day. 

No overshadowing of properties to the east on Arthur Street will occur as a result of the proposed alterations and additions between 9am – 12pm. 

The proposal complies with the DCP – Multi-unit Housing in this regard.

 

Loss of on street parking.

The additional 2 x 2 bedroom apartments proposed will result in a requirement of 2.4 car spaces in accordance with Council’s Parking DCP.  Originally 3 car spaces were proposed, but in order to provide greater deep soil planting opportunities, the applicant has been requested to reduce the parking to 2 spaces.  A reduction in car parking is considered acceptable in this instance, given the site’s proximity to public transport, shops, schools and employment.  Amended plans (dated September 2011) have been submitted accordingly. 

 

This matter is dealt with in further detail in Section 7.2 of this report.

 

Decreased property value

This is not a relevant planning consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

 

 

The amended plans were also notified from 10 August – 24 August 2011.  Two (2) of the three (3) original objectors lodged additional submissions as outlined below:

 

Issue

Comment

Fence to southern boundary (as above)

See above comments.

 

Overshadowing from planter box and trees on the southern boundary (as above)

See above comments.

 

Loss of privacy - Ground floor terrace is excessive and all terraces will reduce privacy.

See comments above.

 

Loss of Privacy - New windows facing the southern boundary only setback 880mm from the boundary and will result in loss of privacy.

See comments above.

Loss of on street parking. Reduction in the number of car spaces.

See above comments.

 

 

6.2      Support

No submissions were received in support of the application.

 

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:-

 

7.1      Health, Building & Regulatory Services 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

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

§ A ‘rise in storeys’ of 4

§ Masonry walls, tiled roof and timber floors

§ One exit stairway,

§ A total of 6 sole occupancy units, 2 on each floor level

§ External balconies

§ Side boundary building setbacks of up to approximately 900mm.

 

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.

 


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 substantial alterations and additions to the existing two attached dual occupancies including new upper level to form 6 residential units, provision of 2 additional carpark spaces, strata subdivision and associated works (SEPP1 objections to floor space ratio, landscaping and wall height controls) at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans  by Brenchley Architects dated Nov 2010 2010;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by

 

Parking Comments

Parking requirements have been calculated as per Council’s DCP-Parking which states the following rates for multi-unit dwellings:

 

1 bedroom unit = 1 space

2 bedroom unit = 1.2 spaces

3 bedroom units = 1.5 spaces

Visitor parking to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 4 units

Bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 3 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

1 car wash bay to be provided per 12 units (visitor spaces may be used as car wash bays)

 

Existing Development - Parking requirements

Drawing number 2010-023-A05 indicates the layout of the existing development consisting of  4 x 2 bedroom units.

Parking Required (existing) = 4 x 1.2 + 1 visitor = 5.8 = say 6 spaces

 

There is no existing parking provided on the site and hence the site is presently experiencing a parking deficiency of 6 spaces.           

 

Proposed Development - Parking requirements

An additional 2 x 2 bedroom units will be created by the addition of the proposed second floor addition.

 

The additional parking generated by the additional units is calculated as follows

 

2 x 1.2 = 2.4 spaces = say 2 spaces

 

Proposed parking provision = 2 spaces (complies)

 

The proposed parking provision has been reduced from 3 spaces in the original proposal to 2 spaces. It is Development Engineering’s preference that the 3rd space be retained to maximize off-street parking however it is noted that two spaces are sufficient to accommodate the additional demand created by the proposed development.

 

Proposed Parking layout-

The amended layout is compliant with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004. There was some initial concern regarding the loss of on-street parking due to the new vehicular crossing but this can be minimized by adopting a maximum 4.0m wide vehicle crossing. There will no net loss of on-street parking.

 

Cars will not be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction but given that it is only two spaces similar for an ordinary dwelling there is no objection from Development Engineering

 

Waste management Comments

The additional two units will generate demand for one additional 240L bin for garbage and one additional 240L bin for recycling. 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 additional two units.

 

The proposed bin area is indicated on the submitted plans as providing enough area for the storage of 6 x 240L bins which will be sufficient to accommodate normal waste and recyclables generated by the development. Given some landscaping is also proposed 1-2 green waste bins may also be required. 

 

Landscape Comments

There is no objection to the removal of the Eucalypt near the south east corner of the property subject to the provision of adequate landscaping.

 

7.3      SEPP 65 Design Review Panel

The DA was considered for a third time by the DRP on 5 September 2011.  The Panel was generally supportive of the proposed amendments subject to a number of outstanding matters to be addressed.  These matters have generally been addressed in the amended plans dated September 2011.  The Panel’s 5 September 2011 are provided below:

 

The Built Form of the Proposal

In the proposal now before the panel, the architect has made alterations to the upper floor design.

 

The terrace over the car park has not been set back from the boundary and the panel clarifies its advice that the terrace, including the planter should be no wider than the existing building, ie - does not protrude beyond the existing building.

 

The current proposal for timber floor construction does not adequately describe the probably structure and placement of beams to carry the floor and balcony bearers.  This would need to be clarified.

 

Comment:  The plans received by Council on 14 September 2011 indicate that the ground floor unit 2 terrace is no wider than the building.  However, the September 2011 plans also reduce the setback from the southern boundary from unit 2 balcony to approximately 2.0m.  In the previous (July 2011) plans, the setback from unit 2 balcony to the southern boundary was 4.0m.  In order to maintain privacy for occupants of 31 Botany Street, a condition is suggested for the development consent, requiring a Comment:  To ensure privacy screen to be constructed at the southern and eastern end of unit 2 and unit 4 balconies, within a 3.0m setback from the southern property boundary.

 

Detailed drawings for the construction certificate drawings will provide detail relating to beams and balcony bearers.

 

Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficient

These recommendations have been adopted however openings and opportunities for air flow to the terraces still appears to be provided only by doors unless the small window portions are openable - this should be clarified on the drawings.

 

adequate ventilation to habitable rooms when doors to balconies are closed, a condition is recommended for the development consent to require the small windows to all living rooms and to bed 1 of units 4 and 6 are openable.

 

The proposed landscape

As illustrated in the perspective, the proposed boundary fence appears, in the opinion of the panel, to be too high, solid and out of character with the street.  The elevations are more satisfactory however a gate should be included in the western fence for the use of the occupants of unit 1.

 

The western planter box is considered unnecessary due to the deepsoil available for planting in this area.

 

A landscape plan that includes details of the proposed boundary fences needs to be submitted.

 

Comment:  The solid boundary fence to Botany Street is proposed to be 1.4m high.  Council’s Multi Unit Housing DCP requires solid front fences to be a maximum of 1.2m high.  This may be increased to 1.8m where the fence has openings that make it at least 50% transparent.  However, the DCP states that solid front fences up to 1.8m may be considered where the site fronts a major road or other sources of undesirable noise.  The subject site is on a corner lot, and the Botany Street frontage is the secondary frontage.  The 1.4m high fence will provide privacy to ground floor unit 1’s private open space and living areas, which are orientated towards Botany Street.  The 1.4m high fence will also assist in reducing any traffic noise impact along Botany Street.  In this instance, the 1.4m high solid fence to Botany Street is considered acceptable.

 

The September 2011 plans indicate a gate in the Botany Street fence.

 

The September 2011 plans do not include a planter box on the unit 2 western facing balcony.  However concern is raised regarding the visual impact of the balcony structure as viewed from Arthur Street.  Given the reorientation of the car parking spaces and relocation of the driveway, as per the September 2011 plans, there is now a considerable area to the east of the driveway to provide deep soil landscaping.  A mature tree in this location will assist to screen the balcony structure as viewed from Arthur Street heading in a westerly direction.  It is recommended that a condition is included in the development consent, requiring deep soil landscaping to the east of the driveway on the northern property boundary.  Detailed landscape plans must be approved by Council prior to issuing of the Construction Certificate.

 

8.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The site is less than 1000m² in area and does not necessitate a master plan.

 

9.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Policy Controls

 

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

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, as amended

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1: Development Standards

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No 55: Remediation of Land

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

-        State Environmental Planning Policy(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

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

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998

-        Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

-        Randwick Development Control plan – Parking

-        Randwick Asbestos Policy

-        Randwick Rainwater Tank Policy

-        Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

-        Building Code of Australia.

 

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      Relevant Statutory Controls – 79(c)(a)

 

9.1.1   Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

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

 

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

The proposal seeks to vary three development standards contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards (SEPP 1).  The variations are for:

-        Clause 20E Landscaped Area,

-        Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios, and

-        Clause 20G Building Heights.

 

Each of the SEPP 1 objections have been considered in Section 5 and are found to be well supported in each case.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

The likelihood of encountering contaminated soils on the subject site is extremely low.  No substantive excavation is proposed.  The subject site and adjoining properties have been used for residential purposes for a considerable number of years.  No potentially contaminating activities are currently being undertaken on the site or adjoining properties.  The site is not identified under an environmental planning instrument as requiring remediation or a site audit statement.  To avoid any contamination, conditions are recommended to ensure that appropriate measures / safety standards are adhered to with respect to any lead paint and asbestos removal.

 

Given the above factors, no further investigation of land contamination is warranted in this case.  The site is suitable in its present state for the proposed residential development. 

 

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

In summary, SEPP 65 seeks to improve the design quality of residential flat development.  Its primary assessment criteria are 10 design principles, which have been reviewed and addressed by the design review panel in Section 7.3.

 

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.  The applicant advises that the existing residential flat building contains 4 (four) x 2 (two) bedroom units.  The applicant advises that the existing residential flat building on-site has been a low rental residential building for the 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

Applicant’s 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

Applicant’s Comment

50, 2) a)

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

There will be a reduction in affordable housing of 4 x 2 bedroom units due to the strata subdivision of the proposal. The units may still be tenanted, that is leased, and therefore may still be available for rental occupation. However, it is likely that the improved internal reconfiguration of the units combined with the addition of balconies and car parking will increase the rental of the units to above the threshold under the SEPP.  Nevertheless the loss of 4 units in the suburb of Randwick is considered to be inconsequential given the abundant hundreds of units that exist in the immediate and broader locality.

Planner’s comment:  The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing building which contains affordable rental housing as defined in the SEPP, resulting in a strata subdivided 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.

There are abundant (87) units of similar size and price available in the suburb of Randwick and adjoining suburbs including Coogee to the east, Maroubra to the   south   and   Kingsford   and   Kensington   to   the   west.   A   snapshot   using Realestate.com demonstrates that there are abundant units within 5% of the lowest rental rates on the subject site that are available.

Planner’s comment:  Average vacancy rate in private rental accommodation for Sydney in April 2011 was 1.2% (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.

 

The loss of 4 units is not considered to cause adverse social and economic effects on the general community given that only 4 units are being lost. It is envisaged that the occupants of the 4 units could easily find alternative accommodation given the abundant nature of similar type accommodation in terms of type, locality, and condition.

Planner’s comment:  The removal of 4 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 offered to pay the moving costs for the 4 tenants if they are displaced from the current accommodation.

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,

It is considered that the loss of 4 units is not considered to be significant in the overall accommodation within the Randwick Municipality.  The 4 units therefore represent a miniscule degree of displaced accommodation. It should also be noted that in the last 2-3 years, there has been a considerable increase in the amount of affordable  housing providing in the Randwick Municipality which would offset the inconsequential loss of housing of the site. Numerous boarding house type accommodation have been erected which would far offset the loss of these 4 units.

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 proposal will allow for an upgrading of the structural soundness of the building whilst also achieving compliance with the BCA which therefore represent a positive outcome of the proposal. 

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

It is considered that a monitory contribution would have no impact and is not required given the abundance of housing that is being provided in the locality which far outweighs the loss of these 4 units.

Planner’s comment:  The loss of 4 low rental dwelling units containing 8 bedrooms remains a fact that results from the alterations and addition and strata subdivision of the existing building. 

Using the Department of Planning’s online tool, a contribution of $199,600.00 has been calculated to offset the loss of 8 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 offset 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 $199,600 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:

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

Not comments provided by applicant.

Planner’s comment:  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 alterations and additions and strata subdivision 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 Department’s State housing initiatives.  

Using the Department of Planning’s online tool a contribution of $199,600 has been calculated to offset the loss of 8 bedrooms. It is considered that a condition imposing this contribution would adequately mitigate the reduction of affordable housing resulting from the development.

 

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

 

The subject Development Application is accompanied by an appropriate BASIX Certificate that lists commitments to ensure the water and energy targets are achieved.  Some commitments are also annotated on the submitted plans. A condition is recommended to require the implementation of all of the commitments listed in the BASIX Certificate and the submission of compliance certificate verifying implementation.

 

9.1.2   Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998

The site is zoned 2C under 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:-

 


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 20E Landscaped areas

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

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

50% of site area

37.4%

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

31(3) – Landscaped Area over Basement

Max 50% of landscape area requirement

>50%

Yes

Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

20F – Floor Space Ratio

0.65:1

1.09:1

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

Clause 20G Building heights

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

33(1) – Building Height

Max 12m

Max 12m

Yes

33(3) – External Wall Height

Max 10m

Max 10.55m

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

 

9.2      Relevant Policy Controls – Section 79(1)(a)

 

9.2.1   DCP Multi Unit Housing

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

 

Performance Requirements

Preferred Solution

Compliance

 

3.1 Site Planning

P1.  DA accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

-

Site analysis plan has been provided. Complies.

 

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 20 metres.

The site is generally rectangular in shape and has a frontage to Arthur Street (primary frontage) of 37.035m. However the site width is 10.06m and does not comply with the preferred solution.  However, there is an existing multi unit development on the site, and the proposal is an opportunity to upgrade the existing units to comply with current standards.  The proposal will improve existing amenity for occupants, whilst maintaining amenity for adjoining properties.

 

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

The proposed development responds to both the Botany Street and Arthur Street frontages.  Private balconies off living rooms and kitchens are provided to Botany Street, and the fence to Botany Street includes a gate, providing direct access from the street. 

 

The common entry to the development is proposed to be off Arthur Street .  Living room windows are provided to the Arthur Street frontage.  Complies.

3.2 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 alterations and additions 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 and minimise amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

-

The proposal incorporates adequate articulation and visual interest into the design. Complies.

3.3 Building Setbacks

P1.  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

-

North - The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing multi unit housing development involving an additional floor on the existing floor plate of the building. Consequently, no change is proposed to the existing front setback to Arthur Street of 920mm.

 

West - The front setback to the building from Botany Street is to remain as existing(5.6m), however, terraces to units 1, 3 and 5 will encroach into this setback.  The proposed front setback to the terraces is 3.3 - 3.5m from the western (Botany St) boundary. The inclusion of terraces within the front setback is consistent with RFB development south of the site on Botany Street and is considered acceptable in this instance. 

 

P2.  Side boundary setbacks

 

Ensure:

- Solar access maintained shadows minimised.

-  Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

-  Landscaping and private open space provided.

-  Streetscape amenity maintained.

S2 Zone 2c

-  No part closer than 3.5m.

-  Minimum average setback 5m.

-  Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10m.

-  Minimum length of any step is 3m.

South – the building is currently setback 905mm from the southern boundary.  The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing building involving the addition of a second storey on the existing floor plate.  As a result, no change is proposed to the existing side setback to the south.

 

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 adequately maintained.

-  Privacy is adequately maintained between adjoining dwellings and to adjoining open spaces (through the orientation of window openings – the amended plans orientate kitchen windows to the west and north boundaries.  The original scheme had window openings to the southern boundary), and the use of privacy screens on the east and west elevations to the terraces off units 5 & 6. In order to maintain privacy to the property to the south, it is recommended that a condition is included on the consent requiring privacy screen to the southern and eastern ends of the terraces off units 2 & 4 within 3.0m of the boundary with 31 Botany Street.

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

 

P3.  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

- Solar access & shadows 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: 8m

No part closer than 6m.

Maximum wall length without articulation: 10m.

 

East

 

-  Yes the proposal will be setback 12.6m from northern rear boundary to the building (as existing), and a minimum of approximately 10.5m to the east facing terraces.

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

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.

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

Complies.

3.4 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 RFBs and

duplexes/dwelling houses in adjoining and surrounding properties. 

 

As addressed in this table, no substantive impacts will result with respect to solar access, streetscape and privacy.  Complies.

 

3.5 Fences

P1.  Fences to be/have:

- Consistent with streetscape.

- Entrances highlighted.

- Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

The solid boundary fence to Botany Street is proposed to be 1.4m high.  The subject site is on a corner lot, and the Botany Street frontage is the secondary frontage.  The 1.4m high fence will provide privacy to ground floor unit 1’s private open space and living areas, which are orientated towards Botany Street.  The 1.4m high fence will also assist in reducing any traffic noise impact along Botany Street.  In this instance, the 1.4m high solid fence to Botany Street is considered acceptable.

 

The September 2011 plans indicate a gate in the Botany Street fence.

 

4.1 Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1.  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

S1 Minimum dimension for landscaped area 2m.

The side setback to the north consists of some landscaped area less than 2m in width.  Regardless, the remaining on-site open spaces will provide adequate opportunities for recreational activities and substantial vegetation.  Complies

 

 

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

 

The amended plans do not include amended submitted subdivision plans.  It is recommended that a condition is included in the consent requiring amended subdivision plans consistent with the approved amended plans prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.

 

P3.  Private Open Space

- Provides privacy;

- Is readily accessible from the main living areas so that becomes extension of dwelling;

- Provides opportunities for outdoor recreation and living.

 

-

The proposed private open space will provide privacy, be readily accessible from the main living area so that it becomes an extension of dwelling, and provides for outdoor recreation and living opportunities. Complies.

P4  Private opens space in front of building only where setback and fence design sympathetic

 

 

Dwelling unit 1 with

private open space to street

front will be setback and

fenced.  Complies.

P5.  Townhouses, row houses, villa etc

 

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

N/A

P6  Flats and apartments

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

 

S6 Minimum of 8m2 

and minimum

dimension of 2m.

Each unit has direct access to private open space complying with Council’s minimum requirements.  Complies.

4.2 Privacy

P1.  Visual Privacy

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

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

The amended plans include relocating kitchen windows from the southern boundary to the western (Botany Street) and northern (Arthur Street) frontages.  All windows to the southern boundary are proposed to have external louvers to assist in maintaining privacy to 31 Botany Street.   Complies.

P2.  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

-

An appropriate outcome will be provided.  Screening will be provided to the southern and eastern side of the terraces to units 2 and 4 within 3.0m of the southern boundary.

 

Privacy screens proposed to unit 6 terrace. Complies

 

P3.  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

-

The resultant impact will not be indifferent to the existing situation. 

P4.  Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4. Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

A condition is recommended to require compliance with the relevant requirements of the BCA. 

4.3 View Sharing

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

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

P3.  Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

-

No significant impact on views will result. 

4.4 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1.  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties. 

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

 

-

Solar access will be adequately accommodated.

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.

-

The existing building at the site currently overshadows the main building at 31 Botany Street.  The proposed development will not exacerbate the existing situation.  The proposed development will cause some additional overshadowing to the single storey studio to the rear of 31 Botany Street, however, in accordance with Council’s DCP, at least 3 hours sunlight will be received over part of the window areas between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. 

 

Over 3 hours of sunlight is maintained to neighbouring properties to the East.

 

Complies.

 

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

-

At least 3 hours sunlight access will be provided to part of the rear yard of 31 Botany Street. 

 

Over 3 hours of sunlight is maintained to neighbouring properties to the East.

 

Complies.

 

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 rating for each dwelling is provided with the application.

Proposal achieves compliance with BASIX targets.

P5.  Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

S5.  Roof between 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west or north, and slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal for solar collectors.

 

 

 

N/A – solar collectors not proposed.

 

4.5 Safety and Security

P1.  Design allows surveillance.

 

-

Yes - habitable room windows will overlook Botany Street and Arthur Street, and approaches to entry of the site and building.

 

Private open space balconies also provide opportunities for casual surveillance over the two (2) street frontages.

 

P2.  Approaches and entries are visible.

-

Yes.

P3.  High walls and structures avoided.

-

High walls and structures are avoided.

P4.  Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

-

Yes, car spaces will be located behind sliding gate in the new front fence to Arthur Street.

 

P7.  Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

-

A condition is recommended to require lighting on the front facade/front door entry and for any such lighting to face downwards and away from neighbouring properties as not to cause a nuisance.

 

P8.  External lighting does not create a nuisance.

-

Yes by condition.

5.1 Parking

Required Resident

2 bedroom dwelling

Parking: 1.2 spaces/ dwelling.

Required Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

-

2 resident spaces.

Nil visitor spaces are proposed.  This is considered satisfactory as adequate on-street parking exists to cater for any demand. 

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

-

The car parking will not dominate the streetscape.  The parking spaces will be located behind new sliding gate in the front fence to Arthur Street .

 

P2.  Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required.

 

-

No accessible spaces are required.

P3.  Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

-

Bicycle storage can be accommodated within proposed storage area.

5.2 Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1.  Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

-

The driveway will maintain a similar width to the existing.

P2.  Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

The proposal will not achieve compliance.  However it is acceptable in this case given the density, anticipated vehicle movements, aim to minimise on-site hard paving and limited site dimensions.

 

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

S3.  Long driveways provide passing bays.

The driveway is not excessive in length.

P4.  Space between boundaries, driveway, access ways & 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.

The driveway will achieve compliance with the width and setback requirements.  Complies.

P5.  Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5.  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Uncoloured concrete is not proposed.  Complies.

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

S6.  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6.

 

Complies.

5.3 Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

 

The storage room and internal dwelling spaces will provide adequate storage spaces. 

Complies.

5.4 Barrier-free access

P1.  All new development must address the provision of access for people with special access needs. This includes access to and from public foyer, parking, and landscaped areas.

S1.  Publicly accessible areas within developments are provided with facilities for access and mobility in accordance with the BCA.

The requirements are not relevant in this case as they apply to new developments. 

5.5 Utilities/Site Facilities: Subject to appropriate conditions of consent

5.6 Waste Minimisation and Management

P1.  Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

The kitchens will be capable of accommodating the required waste cupboard.  A condition is recommended for its provision. 

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

 

-

The bin storage area will be located adjacent to the car parking, within convenient access to the kerbside collection area.  Complies

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

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

The bins are not located within the front setback. Complies.

 

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, external wall height and landscape area 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.

 

9.2.2   DCP – Parking

Compliance with DCP – Parking

 

Use

Requirement (DCP – Parking)

Proposed number and/ or floor area

Required provision

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

2 car spaces

2.4 car spaces associated with the new two bedroom units (as required by DCP, round down fractions less than 0.5)

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 dwellings

Nil

Nil (as a result of the additional two (2) units)

 

TOTAL

 

2 spaces

2 spaces

 

The proposal complies with Council’s car parking requirements for the additional two (2) units on the site.  There is no off-street parking associated with the existing four (4) units on the site.  As a result, the development as a whole is deficient in car parking.  The driveway has been designed to ensure there is no loss of on-street carparking (one one-street car space is to be relocated due to the relocation of the driveway from its current position off Arthur Street).

 

The non-compliance for carparking across the site as a whole is considered reasonable and acceptable in this instance for the following reasons:

 

-   Currently there is no parking associated with the site.  The proposal includes a parking space for each additional unit.  As a result, the additional population associated with the site will not result in any additional on street parking impacts.

-   The proposed development is located on the corner of Arthur Street and Botany Street and is close to High Street, Belmore Road and Alison Road.  These roads are well served by public buses linking the subject site to the Sydney CBD, local and regional centres.

-   The proposed development is also within reasonable walking distance of shops, education facilities and health facilities.

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

-   There will be no reduction in on-street parking as a result of the proposed alterations and additions.

 

Section 7.2 also contains comments regarding the proposed parking.

 

9.3      Council Policies

 

Asbestos Policy

Conditions are recommended to ensure the safe work procedures and requirements listed in the policy are adopted.

 

Rainwater Tank Policy

The Rainwater Tank Policy requires tanks for new dwelling houses, townhouse developments and multi-unit dwellings and all new commercial and industrial premises.  2 x minimum 2000l underground rainwater tanks are proposed to be located adjacent to the car parking area. 

 

Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

This plan applies to all development lodged on or after 2 July 2007.  A condition is recommended to require the payment of the required levy.

 

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).

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

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

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

The proposal generally satisfies the preferred solutions in the DCP Multi Unit Housing, except where discussed in the key issues section of this report.

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

Not applicable.

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

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 is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. 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

 

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

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 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:      Improved design and sustainability across all development.

The residential use will generally upgrade the site and enhance the streetscape.  It will promote the principles of environmental sustainable development, comply with BASIX and be undertaken on land that will be suitable as required under SEPP No. 55 - Remediation of Contaminated Land.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site.  The proposal does not comply with the maximum FSR, wall height and landscape area standards contained in the RLEP.  SEPP No.1 objections in relation to these breaches have 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, solar access and privacy. Additionally, the resultant height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is consistent with the existing scale and character of development in the locality.

 

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

 

The shortfall (for the whole site) 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 and privacy.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20F, 20G and 20E of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to maximum floor space ratio, external wall height and landscape area respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 1040/2010 for alterations and additions to the existing multi unit housing development including new upper level to form 6 residential units, provision of 2 additional car park spaces, strata subdivision and associated works, at No. 24B and 24C Arthur Street, Randwick, subject to the following 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

2010-023-A00

Brenchley Architects

July 11

22/07/11

2010-023-A01

Brenchley Architects

Sept 11

14/09/11

2010-023-A02

Brenchley Architects

Sept 11

14/09/11

2010-023-A03

Brenchley Architects

July 11

22/07/11

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

Multi Dwelling

347838M

23/11/10

25/11/10

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

a.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above floor level must be provided to the southern and eastern end of the terraces to units 2 and 4 within 3.0m of the southern boundary to 31 Botany Street.   The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.     To ensure adequate ventilation to habitable rooms when doors to balconies are closed, the small windows to all living rooms and to bed 1 of units 4 and 6 are to be openable.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with before a ‘Construction Certificate’ is issued by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be included in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

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.

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

4.       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

5.       a)     The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

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.

 

b)     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 Manager Development Assessment prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

In this regard, an Application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of appropriate street and unit numbers for the development, prior to issuing an occupation certificate.

 

Contributions for the loss of low cost rental accommodation

7.       A monetary contribution of $199,600.00 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.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

8.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $592,209, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $5,922.09.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate [or subdivision 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.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

9.       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.

 

Security Deposits

10.     The following security deposits requirement must be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to Council’s assets and infrastructure; and 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:

 

·           $600.00     -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

Security deposits may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the civil works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's infrastructure.

 

The owner/builder is also requested 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.

 

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Director of City Services upon issuing of an occupation certificate or completion of the civil works.

 

Design Alignment levels

11.     The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) 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.

 

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

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0923.

 

12.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $135.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Driveway Design

13.     The gradient of the carspaces must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

Stormwater Drainage

14.     Stormwater runoff from the redeveloped portion of the site shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter along the site frontage by gravity (without the use of a charged system).

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

The requirements contained in the following conditions of consent must be complied with and details of compliance must be included in the construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

15.     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

16.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to issuing a construction certificate, which certifies the structural adequacy of the existing building to support an additional storey.

 

17.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to issuing an occupation certificate or strata subdivision certificate, which certifies the structural adequacy of the building, including external balconies and balustrading to the external balconies and to the main internal stairway.

 

Smoke Alarms

18.     Smoke alarms are required to be installed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (volume 2) smoke alarms must comply with AS3786.  Smoke alarms must 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.

 

BASIX Requirements

19.     In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, 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.

 

Energy & Water Efficiency

20.     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.

 

Stormwater Drainage

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

 

e)     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.

 

Building & Design

22.     The external walls of the dwelling must be located not less than 900mm from the southern site boundary.

 

23.     Eaves, gutters, hoods and similar structures or attachments are required to be setback from the southern side boundaries of the allotment a minimum distance of 450mm.

 

24.     All detention tanks and stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping on top of these services as required by these conditions of development consent. Details are to be included in the relevant construction certificate and landscape plans.

 

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

25.     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, and the Principal Certifying Authority 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

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 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.

 

Dilapidation Reports

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Temporary Site Fencing

29.     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

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

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·           WorkCover NSW Codes of Practice and Guidelines

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

 

31.     In accordance with Council’s Asbestos Policy, the following requirements are to be satisfied if any materials containing asbestos are present in the building:

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

 

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

 

b)     A Demolition Work Plan must be developed and implemented in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

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

d)     Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

e)     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.

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

g)     A certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (ie an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council upon completion of the works (prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued), which confirms that the relevant requirements contained in the Asbestos Survey and conditions of consent, in relation to the safe removal and disposal of asbestos, have been satisfied.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

32.     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.

 

33.     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.

 

34.     During demolition 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.

 

Sydney Water

35.     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.

 

Public Utilities

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

 

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

 

Landscaping

38.     A landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of either AILDM or AILA) shall be submitted to, and be approved by the PCA, prior to the commencement of works and must detail the following:

 

a.   A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which includes proposed species, botanic and common names, pot size at the time of planting, quantity, location, dimensions at maturity, maintenance practices (hedging, shaping etc), as well as any other landscape details to describe the proposed works;

 

b.   A predominance of species with low water requirements that can withstand poor quality sandy soils;

 

c.   A total number of 2 x 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) trees within the site, comprising one each within the front and rear portions of the site, selecting those species which will attain a minimum height of between 4-7 metres at maturity;

 

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.

 


Inspections During Construction

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

 

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

 

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

 

Site Signage

40.     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”.

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

41.     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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

42.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

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)     A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like.

c)     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.

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 & Regulatory Services department.

e)     During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing. Sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction. 

f)      Public access to demolition/building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted and 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.

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

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

i)      If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, the written consent from Council’s 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.

j)      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.

k)     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.

l)      A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities upon any part of the footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:

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

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

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

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

43.     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.

44.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations 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.

 

45.     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.

 

Building Encroachments

46.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

47.     A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to commencing any excavations or 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.

 

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

 

Tree Management

48.     Approval is granted for the removal of the Eucalypt located in the south east corner of the property.

 

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

49.     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.

 

50.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate a non-removable traffic bollard/s or similar device shall be constructed along eastern edge of the proposed carspaces so as to prevent vehicles using the rear lawn for stacked parking. All works to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

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

 

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

 

Fire Safety

52.     The existing levels of fire and safety within the building are to be upgraded in accordance with the following requirements and the fire safety certificate provisions of Part 9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 must be complied with, prior to issuing an occupation certificate or strata subdivision certificate:

 

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

1)     Provide a self closing fire door set having an FRL of -/60/30 to the front entry doorway of each sole-occupancy unit in accordance with clause C3.11 of the BCA,

2)     The roof space above each sole-occupancy unit and the common stairway located in the top-most storey must be separated from each other with material having a -/60/60 fire resistance level (FRL), or alternatively a ceiling having a resistance to the incipient spread of fire to the roof space above of not less than 60 minutes must be provided throughout the top-most storey,

3)     Provide a ceiling having a resistance to the incipient spread of fire to the space above of not less than 60 minutes throughout the whole of the building,

4)     Install a smoke detection and alarm system throughout the building in accordance with specification E2.2a of the BCA,

5)     Provide emergency lighting system to the common stairway and corridor/s, in accordance with clause E4.2 & E4.4 of the BCA,

 

6)     Provide an exit sign to the main entry/exit, in accordance with clauses E4.5 & E4.7 of the BCA,

 

7)     Provide a portable fire extinguisher/s within the lower ground floor storage area and adjacent to any internal electrical switchboard, in accordance with clause E1.6 of the BCA,

 

8)     The lower ground level storage area is to be separated from the remainder of the subfloor area with construction having an FRL of not less than -/60/-,

 

9)     Provide a non-combustible enclosure (ie a metal cabinet) with seals to prevent the passage of smoke to any electricity meters and switchboards located in exits and within stairways etc,

 

10)    Balustrades and handrails to stairway/s, balconies, decks or the like are to be designed and constructed to satisfy clause D2.16 & D2.17 of the BCA,

 

11)    The floors/ceilings separating the residential units throughout the building shall be upgraded to achieve reasonable levels of sound transmission, having regard to the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and details are to be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate,

 

12)    The main entry/exit door is to be provided with a ‘hold-open’ device, or swing in the direction of egress, to facilitate people seeking egress from  the building in the event of an emergency,

 

13)    Prior to commencing  the abovementioned works, a Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council’s Building Certification Services or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

b)   All new building works (including the proposed alterations/additions) must satisfy the relevant performance or deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

Occupant Safety

55.     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.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

56.     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 layback and 4.0m wide vehicular crossing widening to 5.0m at property boundary opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

NOTE: The vehicle crossing shall have a minimum clearance of 300mm to the power pole located near its western edge.

 

b.       Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c.       Remove the line-marking on the road pavement as required for the removal of the on-street carspace located in front of proposed vehicle crossing.

 

d.       Instate new line marking on the road pavement on eastern side of proposed vehicle crossing for new on-street carspace at minimum 2.5m width to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic Engineers.

 

57.     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, street trees 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.

 

58.     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.

 

59.     That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicants expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

Waste Management

60.     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 additional two units.

 

61.     The waste storage area shall be clearly signposted.

 

Landscaping

62.     The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications prior to occupation of the development and the landscaping must be maintained in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

 

Certification is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) prior to the occupation of the development, which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

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.

 

External Lighting

63.     External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Air Conditioners

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

 

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

 

Air Conditioning & Equipment

65.     Air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Rainwater Tanks

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

 

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

Rainwater Tank Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

§  before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

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.

 

A1      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.

 

A2      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.

 

A3      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A4      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.

 

A5      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.

 

A6      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.

 

A7      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.

 

A8      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

A9      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                                                                                                18 October 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP104/11

 

 

Subject:                  91-95A Frenchmans Road, Randwick (DA/794/2010)

Folder No:                   DA/794/2010

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing buildings and construction of part 3/part 4 storey mixed use development comprising two retail tenancies, 15 residential units, basement level and lower ground level car parking for 29 vehicles and associated works

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Brenchley Architects - Surry Hills

Owner:                         ASIMINA PTY LTD

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

Development Application DA/794/2010 proposes demolition of all three existing buildings at the site, and construction of a part three (3) and part four (4) storey mixed use development comprising two ground floor retail tenancies, 15 residential units, basement and lower level parking levels for 29 vehicles and associated works.  The 4 storey component faces Frenchmans Road and the 3 storey component faces the rear boundary.  The site is located within the Frenchmans Road local centre.  The application is referred to Council as it has a development cost of over $2 million. The proposal has received a number of objections and as a result of issues raised by Council the application was amended. The exhibition of the amended plans resulted in additional objections.

 

The DA originally proposed five (5) storeys facing Frenchmans Road and 16 residential units.  During the course of the assessment, the fifth floor and corresponding unit were deleted.  Other notable amendments include reducing the depth of Unit 1 on the lower ground floor plan to increase the quantity and accessibility of deep soil landscaping.  The lobby entry was also swapped with retail Tenancy 2 such that the entire lobby, which spans the depth of the building footprint, is continuous, and, therefore benefits from, improved access to open vistas and natural sunlight.

 

The DA was notified to the general public from 29 September 2010 to 14 October 2010, during which council received 13 submissions of objection.  The issues raised include increase in traffic, overlooking, excessive height, noise generation, impacts from excavation, poor proposed internal amenity and insufficient parking provision.  The application was not renotified following the amended plans given their substantial reduction in height.

 

An assessment of the scheme concludes that compliance is achieved with the primary principles of relevant state policies or guidelines, development standards within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidated) 1998. A State Environmental Planning Policy No 1: Objection has been provided regarding non compliance with the development standard for building height.

 

The proposal is a sensitive response to the site and locality, in particular its gradient and the established form of development.  The residential units will benefit from a high level of internal and external amenity, while the retail component reinforces the convenient nature of the local centre.  The proposal’s overall scale, building character, density and land uses are consistent with established development within the local centre, thereby strengthening its role.  In this case, the DA is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The DA proposes demolition of all three existing buildings at the site, and construction of a part 3 and part 4 storey mixed use development comprising two ground floor retail tenancies, 15 residential units, basement and lower level parking levels for 29 vehicles and associated works. 

 

The building envelope is essentially in two separate components, other than the 2 parking levels which span the depth of the building footprint.  One component includes the ground floor retail tenancies and 3 storeys of residential units above facing Frenchmans Road.  The other contains 3 storeys of residential units facing the rear boundary.  The two elements are separated by a central courtyard which spans the height of the development.  The central courtyard is configured with a combination of private and communal, landscaped courtyards.  Each level of the development is detailed in the table on the following page.

 

The retail tenancies are 158.5m² and 63.5m² in size respectively.  Each has direct access to Frenchmans Road.  The proposal’s residential component includes four (4), one (1) bed plus study units, eight (8), two (2) bedroom units, and three (3), three (3) bedroom units.  The unit sizes range from 52m² to 103m².  Also included is 183.9m² of deep soil landscaping.

 

Level

Frenchmans Rd envelope

Rear envelope

Basement

16 car spaces with additional individual secure storage space

Bicycle parking bay

Lift and stair access

Cleaners/storage room

Ramp to ground level parking

Lower ground

Driveway access from Frenchmans Rd

12 car spaces with additional individual secure storage space

1 loading bay/wash bay

Bicycle parking bay

Lift and stair access

Separate secure bin storage areas for commercial and residential tenancies

1 residential unit with 2 bedrooms

Communal deep soil landscaping

Upper ground

2 retail tenancies

Two 2 bedroom units with private landscaped courtyards.

Lobby entry

 

Lift and stair access

Lift and stair access

First

Two 2 bedroom units with access to private, landscaped courtyards

Two 2 bedroom units

One 1 bedroom plus study unit

One 1 bedroom plus study unit

Second

Two 2 bedroom units

One 3 bedroom unit with access to a private, landscaped terrace

One 1 bedroom plus study unit

 

Third

Two 3 bedroom units, each with access to private terraces

 

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is 91, 93, 95 and 95A Frenchmans Road, Randwick.  It is located at the north eastern end of the Frenchmans Road local centre.  The site is within zone 3(b) Local Business Centre according to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidated).  Numbers 91 and 93 comprises an original, two (2) storey, attached dwelling development.  Its built form comprises of masonry walls, with a pitched roof.  It includes a short front setback, but a deep rear setback, which is landscaped.  The lot is rectangular in shape, being 12.19 metres wide, 35 metres long and 421.1m² in area. 

 

Numbers 95 and 95A Frenchmans Road comprises a more recent mixed use redevelopment, with two commercial tenancies on the ground floor, and residential apartments on the first floor.  Both commercial tenancies are currently occupied by a hair salon.  Its built form is characterised by masonry parapet walls on all elevations, and flat roof.  The lot is approximately 10 metres longer than No. 91 to 93, while its width is identical.  Its site area is 550.4m².

 

The Frenchmans Road local centre is typical of established local centres within the Randwick Local Government Area.  It comprises a variety of land uses, including commercial, retail, light industries, food shops as well as residential.  Its built form is generally characterised by 2 – 4 storey mixed use buildings with retail tenancies on the ground floor and either commercial, retail or residential uses on the above ground floors.  Most buildings are well established and span a width of between 15 to 20 metres and depth of 40 metres.  There are several examples of recent redevelopments in contemporary styles and finishes.  Such buildings also involved amalgamation of several sites, generating wider building footprints.  The centre is well serviced in terms of public bus transport.

 

Beyond the local centre, most development is residential in nature.  It comprises predominantly of Torrens title allotments with single or double storey, attached and detached dwellings.  Most dwellings have access to landscaped front and rear setbacks.

 

4.    Site History

 

Both sites have been used for residential and commercial purposes for an extended period.  The proposal has been considered at a pre-lodgement and Design Review Panel meeting in December 2009.  

 

5.    Objections to Development Standards

 

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards (SEPP 1).  The variation is to the building height development standard, or clause 20G(5) of the RLEP 1998.

 

SEPP 1 seeks to provide flexibility in the application of development standards in cases where strict compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary.  Clause 20G(5) of the RLEP, and the corresponding zoning maps, prescribe a maximum height of 12 metres for development on land within a 3B Local Business Centre Zone.  The proposal, for a limited component, includes a height of between 12.5 metres to 13.4 metres, and separately, the lift well is up to 13.8 metres, for a width of 2 metres.  An extract of the architectural plans identifying where the non compliances occur, as marked by the architect, is provided on the following page.  The DA seeks a variation to strict application of Clause 20G(5) pursuant to SEPP 1.

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

The stated purpose of the height standard as outlined in the RLEP is:

 

“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 SEPP 1 objection:

 

 

 

Assessing Planners comment:  

The extent of the non compliance is limited in area.  The resultant overall building form is compatible with adjoining development, likely development, as well as the mixed use nature of the locality.  The proposal’s scale is in keeping with the zoning of the site and character of the area.  The proposal, and the non compliant height element in particular, do not result in any adverse amenity outcomes such as solar access or privacy, to adjoining properties.

 

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 following is an extract from the applicants SEPP 1 objection in relation to this matter:

 

Assessing planners comment:

The variation to the height control is consistent with the aims of SEPP No.1 as it can be demonstrated that the scheme would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii).  The resultant development would promote the orderly use and development of the subject land, in particular, suitable internal amenity for the subject residential units.  The resultant building envelope is consistent with adjoining development and recent redevelopments in the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

The following is an extract from the applicants SEPP 1 objection in relation to this matter:

 

 

Assessing planners comment:

The extent of the variation is minor and without adverse impacts.  The resultant built form is consistent with surrounding built form.  In this case, the proposal is without impacts to state or regional planning.  There are no additional benefits to the public in maintaining the standard in this case.

 


Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Extract from applicants objection:

 

Assessing planners comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unnecessary as the proposal generally achieves 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.

 

Extract from applicants objection:

 

Assessing planners comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is relevant to the subject development because it intends to protect the character of the area, the amenity for future residents, the amenity of adjoining dwellings and the integrity of the streetscape.  The proposed development will not undermine the objective or purpose of the standard taking into account the character and nature of surrounding development and the ability of the proposal to meet the underlying objectives relating to amenity and character.

 

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.

 

Extract from applicants objection:

 

Assessing planners comments:

The proposal cannot demonstrate that the underlying objective of purpose would be thwarted if compliance was required.

 

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.

 

Extract from applicants objection:

 

Assessing planners comments:

The building height 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.

 

Extract from applicants objection:

 

Assessing planners comments:

The existing 3B Local Business Centre zone is appropriate for the locality as the area is characterised by multi storey, mixed use developments. 

 

Assessing planners overall comments in relation to SEPP 1 objection:

Overall, the objection to the development standard has been found to be well founded.  It demonstrates that strict compliance is un reasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.  Strict compliance would hinder attaining the objects of the act.

 


6.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received.

 

- 46 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

- 5 Roscrea Avenue, Randwick

- 7 Roscrea Avenue, Randwick

- 9 Roscrea Avenue, Randwick

- 31 Park Avenue, Randwick

- 9 Park Avenue, Randwick

- 11 Roscrea Avenue, Randwick

- 4/42 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

- 8/42 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick, and

- Randwick Precinct Committeee

 

6.1      Objections

 

Issue

Comment

Height

 

A SEPP1 has been submitted to justify the variation. Refer to Section 5.

 

Traffic

The parking provision has been increased such that the Council engineer is satisfied that the provision of parking is satisfactory (refer to Section 7.1.1).

 

Overlooking into northern (rear) adjoining properties

Balconies are setback between 4m and 15m from the rear boundary.  Most of the building is setback a minimum of 7m from the nearest rear boundary.  Setbacks are embellished with landscaping.  In this case, the setback configuration is considered sufficient. 

 

Noise impacts into northern (rear) adjoining properties

The scheme includes satisfactory rear setback configurations to maintain noise impacts in line with expectations for a 3b zone.  Setbacks are satisfactorily embellished with landscaping.  Both the residential and commercial bin areas are fully enclosed, and located within the basement parking level, further limiting unreasonable noise impacts. 

 

Inadequate parking provisions

The proposals parking provisions have been increased such that they comply with the Parking DCPs objectives.  Council’s development engineer has determined that the parking arrangements are satisfactory.

 

Potential structural impacts due to excavation

The contractors are obliged to adhere to relevant standards which seek to avoid structural damage.  Alternatively, contractors are liable for damages.  It is a condition of approval.

 

Internal amenity

 

The floor plan is a sensitive response to the site’s constraints and opportunities.  Six (6) of the units have complete access to the site’s northerly orientation.  In this case, the proposed floor plan is satisfactory.

Overlooking into northern (rear) adjoining properties

Balconies are setback between 4m and 15m from the rear boundary.  The building is generally setback a minimum of 7m from the nearest rear boundary.  Setbacks are satisfactorily embellished with landscaping.  This configuration is in keeping with the nature of a 3(b) zone and its surrounds. 

 

Amended plans were not renotified on the basis they provided a sizeable reduction in height, being a direct response to several submissions.

 

6.2      Support

No letters of support were received.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided.  Further details are provided below.

 

7.1    Internal Referrals

 

7.1.1          Development Engineer’s Comments

An amended application has been received for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 4 storey mixed use development now comprising two retail tenancies, 15 residential units, basement level and lower ground level car parking for 29 vehicles and associated works.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

§ Amended Architectutal Plans by Brenchley Architects dated April 2011.

§ Statement of Environmental Effects by ABC Planning

§ Detail & Level Survey by G&R Surveying Services dated 26th June 2006

 

Landscape Comments

Within Council’s Frenchman’s Road footpath, there are two juvenile Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gums) of around 4 metres in height, which are covered by Council’s TPO due to their location on public property, being one in front of no. 93, and another one just beyond the southern extent of the site, in front of the neighbouring property at no. 89, and while a tree square exists in front of no. 91, the tree here has already been removed/vandalised.

 

These native trees were planted by Council in order to improve the appearance of the streetscape, with the proposed overhead awning shown as being setback 1m from the kerb, which would finish close to the western side of the tree in front of no 93.

 

Despite the Pre-DA advice suggesting that its removal would appear necessary, Council places a high importance on the retention of street trees in urban centres, and as the applicant will be required to underground the existing overhead wires, its canopy will have plenty of room to develop once it rises above the new awning, with only some minor directional pruning likely to be required in the short-term, with relevant conditions to ensure its preservation included in this report.

 

It should be noted that as part of upgrading the streetscape for the full site frontage (refer comments below), the final design of the awning and its relationship with this tree will need to be considered by Council’s Landscape Architect, with the provision of a cut-out to accommodate its future growth a possibility.

 

While the vehicle crossing along the southern edge of the site, in front of no 91, would not affect the street tree in front of no 89, conditions to ensure its preservation are required and have been included in this report.

 

As this site falls within the Frenchmans Road Commercial Centre, Council requires that, in order to improve the appearance of the proposed development and its interaction with the public domain, as well as to achieve consistency in treatment (as can be seen with several other recently completed developments in the immediate area) the footpath, for the full length and width of the frontage, be upgraded in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Elements Manual, at the applicant’s cost.

 

There is already a bench seat, bus stop, signs and a power pole (with street light) in front of the existing shops at no 95-95A, with the detailed site specific streetscape plan prepared by the applicant, in consultation with Council’s Landscape Architect, needing to show proposed paving design, street furniture, grades, finished levels, extent and location of awnings, doors/entranceways, the bus stop and any other details required, which must be submitted and approved by Council prior to the commencement of any external works.

 

A new street tree has not been required given the only place it could be planted would be in the same area as the bus stop.

 

Within the front yard of the adjoining property to the south, no. 89, near the common boundary, there is a mature Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) of approximately 5-6 metres in height, which is leaning to the northeast, and while its northern aspect has been recently pruned, still partially overhangs into the subject site, above the existing shared entry.

 

The basement entry ramp and southern wall is shown as being constructed right on the southern site boundary, and while the existing concrete surfacing and brick fence and garden edge would have restricted root growth into this area, protection measures will still need to be imposed, and relates to the treatment of roots and the pruning of branches.

 

All vegetation within the rear setbacks of 91-95 Frenchmans Road were observed to be insignificant, including the Avocado Tree in the southwest corner and various other weeds, and can be removed as necessary, with the proposed landscape scheme to result in a better outcome for the local environment, as well as for the level of amenity provided to neighbours and future occupants, with conditions requiring that it be implemented as shown.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

Stormwater will be required to be discharged to the kerb and gutter in Frenchmans Road or via private drainage easement to Gilderthorpe Avenue to the north of the site.

 

RTA Comments

As Frenchmans Road is classified as a state road at this location a referral to the RTA was required. Conditions have been received from the RTA and have been incorporated into this report.

It is noted that the RTA require a 5.5 metre wide driveway for a minimum distance of 6 metres within the subject site to allow for simultaneous entry and exit movements. The current proposal indicates a 4.0m wide driveway only and so does not comply with this requirement.

 

The assessing officer is advised that the widened driveway will interfere with the shopfront of the proposed retail Unit 2 and amended plans may be necessary.

 

If amended plans are requested and received then they should be referred back to Development Engineering for additional comment.

 

If amended plans are not required then conditions have been included in this report ensuring compliance with RTA Conditions.

 

Traffic Comments

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 15 residential units will be in the range of 66 to 75 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 7.5 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Frenchmans Road as a result of this development.

 

PARKING PROVISION

 

For subject proposal of 2 retail tenancies and 15 residential dwellings consisting of 3 x 1 bedroom, 9 x 2 bedroom, and 3 x 3 bedroom apartments.

 

Parking for Residential Component-

Parking Requirements for the residential component have been assessed as per Councils DCP-Parking which states the following rates for multi-unit dwellings;

1 bedroom unit = 1 space

2 bedroom unit = 1.2 spaces

3 bedroom units = 1.5 spaces

Visitor parking to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 4 units

Bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 3 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

1 car wash bay to be provided per 12 units (visitor spaces may be used as car wash bays)

 

Parking Required         = (3 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (3 x 1.5) + 15/4 (visitor)

        = 3 + 10.8 + 4.5 + 3.75

        = 22.05

        = 22 spaces

 

Parking for Commercial Component-

The subject site consists of 2 retail tenancies of 158.5m2 & 63.5m2. As the future use of the commercial component is unknown it can be problematic to assess the future parking demand that this will generate, so Development Engineering have examined two separate scenarios.

For Scenario 1 it is assumed the tenancies will be restaurants where parking is calculated at the following rate:

1 space per 40m2 for first 80m2 then 1 per 20m2 thereafter.

 

Parking requirements= 2 spaces + ((158.5+63.5)-80)/20

(Commercial)     = 9.1

= say 9 spaces

 

For Scenario 2 parking has been calculated at the standard rate for business premises as per Council’s DCP-Parking which is 1 space per 40m2.

 

Parking Required         = (158.5+63.5)/40

        = 5.6

        = say 6 spaces

 

Total Parking Required        = Residential + Commercial

        = 22 + 9 (scenario 1) or 6 (scenario 2)

        = 31 Spaces (scenario 1)

        = 28 Spaces (scenario 2)

 

Total Parking Provided = 29 Spaces

 

The parking provided is a reasonable compromise between the two scenarios. The sites proximity to major bus routes along Frenchmans Road is also noted.

 

Bicycle Parking

Number of Bicycle Spaces Required      = 15/3 + 15/10 (visitor)

        = 6.5

        = say 7 spaces

 

The submitted plans indicate two areas set aside for bike storage on the Lower Carpark level. The eastern bike storage area will be too narrow (after the adjacent carspace is widened to 2.7m) to sufficiently accommodate bicycles and cannot be supported. The western most bicycle area will not be large enough for the provision of 7 bicycles and so the development will be deficient in the amount of bicycle parking.

 

CARPARK LAYOUT

The submitted plans indicate that 29 parking spaces will be provided over two levels below ground level. Aisle widths, ramp grades, blind aisle setbacks, and carspace dimensions generally comply with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

There are some minor non-compliances with the standard which can be dealt with by condition without significant redesign and can be summarised as follows;

 

§ The entry driveway exceeds a grade of 1 in 8 within 5m of the front property alignment. The amendment required to rectify this issue should not require a major reconfiguration of the driveway. The grade after the 5m section at 1 in 8 will be allowed to steepen to 1 in 5.5 to assist in the matching to the proposed levels.

 

§ Carspace 11 on the Lower Ground Level needs to be enlarged to 2.7m and the adjacent storage area reduced to 0.7m to comply with the clearance requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004

 

§ Carspace 21 on the Lower Carpark Level needs to be enlarged to 2.7m and the adjacent bike storage area reduced to 0.825m to comply with the clearance requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004

 

Service Authority Comments

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Given that the proposed works will be in excess of $2 million the applicant will be required to meet all costs associated with replacing the overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site.

 

Awning Comments

The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath in Frenchmans Road to the underside of the proposed awning shall be 3.00 metres. All new awnings shall be set back a minimum of 600mm from the face of kerb. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

Waste Management Comments

Waste Management requirements for the development are based on Council’s document  ‘Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Developments’.

For the residential component of the development the guidelines state the following garbage generation rates for mult-unit dwellings

Garbage    = 120 Litres/week

Recycling   = 60  Litres/week

 

Assuming a standard 240L bin and weekly collection for garbage and fortnightly collection for recyclables the number of bins required by Development Engineering is as follows.

 

Number of garbage Bins      = (15 x 120)/240 weekly collection

        = 7.5

        = say 8 bins (rounded up)

 

Number of Recycling Bins    = (15 x 60 x2)/240  (fortnightly collection)

        = 7.5

        = say 8 bins (rounded up)

 

As some soft landscaping is provided Development Engineering will also require some green waste bins.

 

Number of Green Waste Bins       = 2 bins (fortnightly collection)

 

NUMBER OF BINS REQUIRED (Residential) = 18 bins

 

The garbage room for the residential component of the development must therefore be large enough to accommodate 18 x 240L bins. The submitted plans indicate the required number of bins can be accommodated within the proposed residential bin room on the Lower ground level at the rear of the basement carpark. There are no objections from Development Engineering.

 

Waste generation for the commercial tenancies is difficult to assess as the future uses of these tenancies are not yet known. In addition waste collection can be done by private contractor at an increased frequency.

 

The commercial bin room serving the two tenancies is large enough to accommodate at least 8 x 240L bins. This is considered adequate by Development Engineering.

 

In addition the bin rooms for the residential and commercial components of the development have been physically separated as required by Council’s Manager of Waste.

 

7.1.2          Health, Building and Regulatory Services

 

Building Services comments

The Proposal

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing buildings located upon the site and construction of a new 5 level mixed residential and commercial development with basement carpark.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class                5/6   (Offices/Retail/Shops)

Class                2(Residential units)

Class                7a    (Carpark)

 

Background

The existing building on site is a post war mixed residential commercial building 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 would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Site Management:

 

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

 

The proposal appears to demonstrate compliance with the BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the basement car park and the ground floor shops and, sanitary facilities for people with a disability are also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of the BCA.

 

Standard conditions should be included to confirm these requirements.

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

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

 

7.2      External Referral

 

7.2.1   The Roads and Traffic Authority

7.2.2   Design Review Panel under SEPP 65

The proposal was considered by the Design Review Panel on three occasions, initially in December 2009, followed by 11 October 2010 and then 2 May 2011.  On each occasion, the panel generally supported the scheme, but sought amendments.  Following the review on 2 May 2011, the panel formally endorsed the proposal.

 

The minutes of the panels meetings are provided below.  For comprehension, the minutes are summarised.  They include a record of the issues initially identified by the panel during their first meeting in December 2009, followed by comments from the May 2011 demonstrating how such issues had been addressed.  The panels May 2011 comments are underlined.  

 

1.       “Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

The proposed mixed-use building is located near the northern edge of a small shopping centre in which apartments above retail premises is a common building type. There are a number of recent three/four story buildings of similar scale and character, including the immediate neighbour on its northern boundary.

 

Currently there are two buildings on the site, dating from the interwar years, neither of great distinction.  The northern one (91) has retail frontage at ground floor level with apartments over and a workshop and paved car park to its rear, entered from Frenchmans Road.  Numbers 89-91 are two storey semi-detached dwellings with a garden to the rear. The rear boundaries are quite irregular, and the site falls steeply to the rear.

 

With the exception of number 91 and its northern neighbour, the street block bounded by Gilderthorpe Ave, Frenchmans Rd and Roscrea Ave is characterized by rear gardens containing some mature trees. In general terms, the proposal would fit this context.

 

The Panel is interested to understand the boundary conditions; heights of existing neighbours’ walls, ground levels and nearby openings and viewlines.

 

Satisfactory.

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

Although partly in excess of the height limit (the single unit footprint on the street façade), in the opinion of the Panel the proposal would not be out of scale in its context, as the extent of building above 12m is unlikely to be very visible.  Further illustration should be provided in the DA to demonstrate this. Some alternative solutions to the top floor are also proposed below.

 

If the top floor were to be considered by Council to be unacceptable, its area could be sensibly redeployed on the floors below.

 

The lift and stair have now been incorporated into the building, which is a clear improvement. The Panel considers that the stair may be able to be configured as an open stair, rather than a fire stair (subject to BCA advice).

 

3.     The Built Form of the Proposal

The basic diagram of two blocks with courtyard and lift tower between that has been adopted is a sensible response to the site.  Impacts on neighbours will need to be described in the DA.  The Panel however is of the view that the following modifications should be investigated.

 

·   Simplification of the design of the lower levels of the central courtyard and increasing its width to permit more light to penetrate to the rear bedrooms of units 2 & 3.

·   Adjusting the floor levels of the rear block upwards and lowering the car parking to relocate Unit 1 under unit 3 so that the rear portion of the site can landscaped as useful communal open space and accommodate large trees that would benefit the entire street block.

·   Replace unit 16 with upper floors to units 14 & 15, thus eliminating the need for the top floor of the lift and stair tower, which would improve the scale and view to the sky in the central courtyard / slot. Reducing the stair by a storey may also remove the need for the fire egress tunnel on the upper ground level, which would be highly desirable. It may also be worth flipping over the stair and lift, so that a more open, sculptural stair is seen at the end of the pedestrian entry.

·   Reducing the driveway cross over if possible, and further exploring the excellent potential in the cross section / spatial interest at the pedestrian entry.

·   Eliminating the planter box at parapet level along Frenchmans Road frontage.

·   Further considering the effect of overshadowing from the blank wall to the east, and overlooking from the elevated retail parking to the east.

 

The improvements suggested above have now been adequately addressed.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

The Panel understands that the FSR of the proposal is just under Council’s FSR of 1.5:1 and considers that this is suitable for this location.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The building should perform satisfactorily.

·   Solar access would generally be good.

·   Most units are cross-ventilated and should not need air conditioning.

·   Plenum cross ventilation should be provided to the studies of units 8 & 12 and a high level window in Unit 5.

·   Internal bathrooms, where possible, should be top lit.

·   Ceiling fans should be provided in habitable rooms and noted on drawings.

·   Sunshading appropriate to orientation should be provided.

·   The effects of overshadowing should be carefully considered.

 

The following also needs to be considered;

·   the roof design should be improved to increase ventilation, natural light and winter sun capabilities.

·   window operation should be indicated on the elevations so that the effectiveness of the natural ventilation can be assessed.

·   More natural light should be distributed to the lower floors on the south west corner - the planter box would need to be reduced to increase the area of void open to the sky.

 

6.     The Proposed Landscape

Although 173.3m² of deep soil garden space is proposed at the rear of the site, which is supported on many grounds (green buffer and outlook, privacy screening, rainwater infiltration, tree planting etc) this area needs to be readily accessible as communal space and be planted with large trees.  As noted above, unit 1 should not project into the northwestern part of the site and this area should be landscaped with large tree species and made accessible for communal use by residents of the proposed building.

 

Satisfactory - the footprint of Unit 1 has now been cut back, and the area of deep soil landscape increased.

 

Footpath improvements and extra street trees should be considered, and discussed with relevant Council officers.

 

A landscape plan prepared by a qualified will need to be submitted with the DA.

 

Satisfactory

 

7.     The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

The apartments are generally well planned and should provide a high level of amenity for residents.  The exceptions are single aspect units 8 and 12, which have inferior orientation and are subject to traffic noise.

 

More clear vision from the street to the lift lobby, and perhaps to natural light and landscape beyond would increase amenity.

 

Now generally satisfactory.  If the lift was rotated so that the doors open to the west the large lobby area in front of the central east facing unit  could be incorporated into that unit.  If the kitchen and laundry were also reconfigured more flexible living space could be provided.  The bedroom also appears too small for the furniture arrangement indicated.  West windows could also be provided reducing the need for a plenum.

 

The rooftop units could also be improved by placing two bedrooms on the north boundary (reducing the terrace) and then making the southern unit bigger by moving Bedroom 1 north.  By rearranging the planning a larger outdoor terrace could be achieved - appropriate to a 3 bedroom unit. (Alternatively a discrete roof top terrace could be provided)

 

8.     The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

This should be satisfactory.

 

An independent BCA assessment should be sought.

 

9.     Social issues

The diversity of unit types and retail frontage proposed is desirable in this mixed, well served, neighbourhood.

 

The proposed shops are well scaled.

 

10.   The Aesthetics of the Proposal

With refined detailing this proposal has the potential to be a very good building. The Panel will comment more when developed drawings are presented with the DA.

 

Further improvements have been made, delivering on the potential of the scheme.

Fire shutters should be indicated on the elevations.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel commends the improvements made by the architect and now supports the merits of this application.”

 

8.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The site is less than 1000m² in area and does not necessitate a master plan.

 

9.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Policy Controls

 

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

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, as amended

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1: Development Standards

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No 55: Remediation of Land

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

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

-        State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998

-        Randwick Development Control plan – Parking

-        Randwick Asbestos Policy

-        Randwick Rainwater Tank Policy

-        Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

9.1    Relevant Statutory Controls – 79C (1)(a)

 

9.1.1   Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning policy No. 1 Development Standards (SEPP1)

The proposal seeks to the development standards contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998), clause 20G Building Heights, in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards (SEPP 1). 

 

The SEPP 1 objection has been considered in Section 5 and is found to be well supported in each case.

 

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

The site has been tested in relation to its suitability for residential development.  Testing identified contaminated materials at the site which may be harmful to occupants of the proposal.  The testing was supported with a remedial action plan which, when implemented, will render the site suitable for residential development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65)

In summary, SEPP 65 seeks to improve the design quality of residential flat development.  The proposal was assessed against the relevant principles as in Section 7.2.2, by the Design Review Panel. The amended proposal was considered to satisfy this SEPP.

 

State Environmental Planning policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

BASIX compliance was achieved upon original submission of the DA.  The amendments would not affect its ability to comply.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastrutcure SEPP)

The RTA’s concurrence was sought pursuant to Clause 101 of the Infrastructure SEPP.  On 21 January 2011, their concurrence was received, together with relevant conditions of consent (refer to Section 7.2.1 of this report).

 

9.1.2   Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidated)1998  (RLEP)

Each of the RLEPs relevant clauses are identified and addressed below:

 

Clause 8 – Zones

The subject site is within the 3B – Local Business Zone.

 

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

The RLEP prescribes the following objectives for land within the 3B – Local Business Zone:

 

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

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

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

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

(e)    to encourage housing affordability, and

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

 

The DA is for a mixed use development including two (2) retail tenancies, 15 residential units of various sizes as well as 29 car spaces.  The development is located within a local centre which is well serviced by public us transport.  It adopts setbacks from adjoining residential properties in keeping with reasonable expectations and relative to the site’s commercial zoning.  A range of other privacy protection measures are also included.  In this case, the development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone.

 

Sub clause 4 provides that multi-unit housing (other than dwellings attached to buildings involved in other uses which are permissible in this zone) is prohibited in the subject zone.

 

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

 

The proposal’s two ground floor commercial tenancies are intended for occupations, professions or trades which may or may not provide a service or goods directly and regularly to the public.  Business premises’ are permitted in the subject 3B – Local Business Zone.

 

Dwellings are defined as a room or number of rooms occupied or used, or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used, as a separate residence. 

 

Each of the proposed units are consistent with the abovementioned definition given they’re floor layout is typical of contemporary apartments.  In this case, the development is permissible, with consent.  Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone, and permissible, with consent.  

 

Clause 20F – Floor space ratios (FSR)

Sub clause 3 and the corresponding zoning maps prescribe a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 for land within zone 3B – Local Business Zone.  The DA includes a gross floor area of 1378.19m².  Based on the total site area of 971.5m², this equates to a compliant FSR of 1.42:1.

 

Clause 20G – Building Heights

Sub clause 5 and the corresponding zoning maps prescribe a maximum overall building height of 12 metres for development within the 3B Local Business Zone.  As indicated earlier in this report, the proposal’s minor variation to this requirement is acceptable.

 

Clause 21 – Subdivision

This clause permits the proposed strata subdivision of the development.

 

Clause 22 – Services

Essential services are currently available to the subject site.  In this case, the service requirements of clause 22 are satisfied.

 

Clause 40 – Earthworks

This clause requires council to consider the impacts to existing drainage patterns or soil stability from excavation associated with proposed development.  The extent of development proposed by the DA is consistent with redevelopment expectations of land with 3B – Local Business Zones, and, in particular, the redevelopment expectations of the subject site.  In this case, the impacts to natural drainage systems are within normal expectations.  This aside, the proposal will not drastically affect existing drainage systems, and will include measures to minimise any impacts within reasonable means.  Typical engineering methods avoid soil stability and construction contractors are obliged to implement such methods.

 

9.2 Relevant Policy Controls – Section 79C(1)(a)

 

9.2.1   DCP – Parking

 

Use

Requirement (DCP – Parking)

Required spaces

Provided Spaces

Residential

1 space per one bedroom dwelling.

 

 

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling.

 

 

 

 

1.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom dwelling.

 

Three, one bedroom units are proposed = 3 spaces.

 

Eight, two bedroom units are proposed = 9.6 spaces.

 

 

Three, three bedroom units are proposed =

4.5 spaces

 

Total= 17.1 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29 spaces are provided.

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 dwellings

14 dwellings are proposed=

3.5 spaces

Business premises

1 space per 40m2

 

222m2=

5.55 spaces required

TOTAL

 

26.15

 

The parking and traffic arrangements proposed have been discussed in further detail in Section 7.1.1.  Council’s Development Engineers are satisfied about the proposed on site parking provisions.

 

9.3      Council Policies

Asbestos Policy

Conditions are recommended to ensure the safe work procedures and requirements listed in the policy are adopted.

 

Rainwater Tank Policy

The Rainwater Tank Policy requires tanks for new dwelling houses, townhouse developments and multi-unit dwellings and all new commercial and industrial premises.  A rainwater tank has been included in the basement of the building.  

 

Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

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

$100,001 - $200,000

------

0.5%

 

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$4,715,893

1.0%

$47,158.93

 

Section 79C 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).

The site is zoned Residential 3B – Local Business Centre under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

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

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives of the Parking DCP.  Any non compliances are minor and without adverse consequences. Councils development engineer is satisfied with the parking arrangements.

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 impacts on the natural, built, social and economic environments.

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.

 

 

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Existing contamination at the site can be managed such that it does not pose a risk to human health.  Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

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

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

The proposal 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 proposal is consistent with the RLEP 1998 and the city plan.

 

Conclusion

 

The Development Application a mixed use development comprising of 2 ground floor commercial tenancies, and 3 to 4 storeys above providing 15 residential units.  Also proposed is 2 levels of basement parking with 29 car spaces, and associated landscaping.

 

The proposed building envelope and character reflects closely that of adjoining development, in particular, recent redevelopments or approvals.  In doing so, the scheme will reinforce the nature of the local centre it is located within.  The design is a sensitive response to the sites opportunities and constrains.  It includes a split building envelope which affords ideal internal amenity for the proposed units.  The building envelope also adopts generous rear setbacks, complemented with suitably dense landscaping to protect the privacy and character of adjoining residential development to the rear (north).

 

This assessment of the application concludes that the proposal substantially complies with the relevant statutory developments standards and objectives, or non – statutory controls and objectives.  Items of non-compliance are minor and without adverse environmental impacts.  In this case, it is recommended council approves the development.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20G(5) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to height respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 794/2010 for construction of a mixed use development, at No. 91–95a Frenchmans Road, 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

Streetscape image

Brenchley Architects

25 August 2010

15 September 2010

Schedule of finishes

Brenchley Architects

25 August 2010

15 September 2010

Landscape plan

(Drawing numbers 0127-01 to 0172-03)

Peter Glass & Associates

8 April 2010

15 September 2010

Building Section CC(Drawing number 2008-015-A08b)

Brenchley Architects

8 April 2011

21 April 2011

Lower carpark level and lower ground level plan (Drawing number 2008-015-A01)

Brenchley Architects

8 April 2011

21 April 2011

Upper ground level plan (Drawing number 2008-015-A02)

Brenchley Architects

8 April 2011

21 April 2011

First floor plan (Drawing number 2008-015-A03)

Brenchley Architects

8 April 2011

21 April 2011

Second floor plan (Drawing number 2008-015-A04)

Brenchley Architects

8 April 2011

21 April 2011

Third floor plan (Drawing number 2008-015-A05)

Brenchley Architects

8 April 2011

21 April 2011

Building Section CC (Drawing number 2008-015-A08b)

Brenchley Architects

8 April 2011

21 April 2011

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

301615M

30 April 2010

15 September 2010

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

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

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

5.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $4,715,893, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $47,158.93.

       

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate [or subdivision 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.

 

BASIX Requirements

6.       In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, 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.

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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, 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.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

8.       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.

Security Deposit Conditions

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

 

9.       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)   $3000.00   -      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.

 

RTA/Traffic/Civil Works Conditions

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

b)  Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full site frontage except opposite the vehicular access.

 

c)  Re-construct footpath along the full site frontage in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Elements Manual for the Frenchmans Road Commercial Centre (see  Landscape Conditions) . 

 

11.     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.

 

12.     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.

 

13.     The design and construction of the gutter crossing off Frenchmans Road shall be in accordance with AS2890.1:2004 and the RTA’s requirements. Details of these requirements can be obtained from the RTA’s Project Services Manager, traffic Projects section, Parramatta Ph 8849-2144

A certified copy of the design plans shall be submitted to the RTA for consideration and approval prior to the release of any construction certificate by Council and commencement of road works.

The RTA fees for administration, plan checking, civil works inspections and project management shall be paid by the developer prior to the commencement of the works.

 

14.     All works associated with the development shall be at no cost to the RTA.

 

15.     The final location of the bus stop will be subject to the approval of Council’s traffic committee and the RTA. Approval shall be obtained prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate.

 

16.     The layout of the proposed car parking areas associated with the subject development (including grades, turning paths, sight distance requirements, aisle widths and parking bay dimensions shall be in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

17.     The developer is to submit detailed drawings and geotechnical reports relating to the excavation of the site and support structures to the RTA for assessment (prior to the approval of any Construction Certificate).  The developer is to meet the full cost of the assessment by the RTA.

 

This report would need to address the following key issues

§ The impact of excavation/rock anchors on the stability of the Frenchmans Road and detailing how the carriageway would be monitored for settlement.

§ The impact of the excavation on the structural stability of Frenchmans Road

§ Any other issues that may need to be addressed (Contact: Geotechnical Engineer Stanley Yuen on Ph 8837-0246 or Graham Yip on Ph; 8837-0245) for details.

 

18.     The proposed driveway off Frenchmans Road shall be a minimum width of 5.5m for a minimum distance of 6.0m within the subject site to allow simultaneous entry and exit movements. Should the driveway narrow after this point then it is to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

19.     Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall make the following amendments to the design of the carparking levels to ensure compliance with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

§  The first 5m of the driveway internal to the property shall not exceed a grade of 1 in 8 (12.5%). Grades may then increase to a maximum of 1 in 5.5 (18.2%) to assist in matching to the desired basement level. A suitable transition of intermediate grade and minimum length 2m is then required before proceeding onto the carpark level.

§  Carspace 11 on the Lower Ground Level shall be enlarged to 2.7m in width and the adjacent storage area reduced to 0.7m to comply with the clearance requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004

§  Carspace 21 on the Lower Carpark Level shall be enlarged to 2.7m in width and the adjacent bike storage area reduced to 0.825m to comply with the clearance requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004

 

20.     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.

 

21.     Prior to the commencement of any works on the site an application must be made to Councils Integrated Transport Department, and approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee for a ‘Works Zone’ to be provided in Frenchmans Road for the duration of the demolition & construction works.  The ‘Works Zone’ shall be a minimum length of 12m and for a minimum duration of three months. The total length and duration is to be justified and shall be included in the application for the work zone. Application for the Works Zone must be submitted at least six (6) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site to allow for assessment and tabling of agenda for the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

The requirement for a Works Zone may be waived if it can be demonstrated in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic Engineers) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) may be undertaken wholly within the site.

NOTE:

Application for a work zone will have to address how the existing bus stop in front of the property will be affected and indicate any proposed relocation.

 

22.     Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, the applicant shall submit for approval and have approved by Council's Traffic Engineer a detailed ‘Construction Traffic Management Plan’ (CTMP). 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.

 

23.     The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath in Frenchmans Road to the underside of the proposed awning shall be 3.00 metres. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

24.     All new awnings shall be set back a minimum of 1.0m from the face of kerb. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

25.     Upon completion of the construction of the awning, certification of the structural adequacy of the awning must be provided to the Council.

 

Design Alignment levels

26.     The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) 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.

 

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

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0923.

 

27.     The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

         

·       Graded 2.5% from the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

28.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer has been issued at a prescribed fee of $1073 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.

      Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0923.

Service Authority Conditions

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

29.     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.

 

30.     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.

 

31.     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.

 

32.     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.

 

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

 

34.     The applicant shall meet the full cost of the overhead power lines and telecommunication cables located in the vicinity of the development site to be relocated underground and all redundant power poles to be removed. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the wires/cables to be relocated. All wires cables must be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Driveway Design

36.     The gradient of the internal access driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

The height of the building must not be increased to satisfy the required driveway gradients.

 

Drainage Conditions

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

37.     Detailed design plans and hydraulic calculations of any changes to the stormwater drainage system are to be submitted to the RTA for approval, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

Details should be forwarded to:

The Sydney Asset Management

PO Box 973

Parramatta CBD NSW 2124.

 

A plan checking fee may be payable and a performance bond may be required before the RTA’s approval is issued. With regar to the Civil Works requirement please contact the RTA’s Project Engineer, External Works Ph: 8849 2114 or Fax: 8849 2766.

 

38.     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.

 

39.     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.

 

40.     All site stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

a)  To the kerb and gutter in Frenchmans Road at the front of the property; OR

b)  To Council’s street drainage system in Gilderthorpe Avenue by gravity via a private drainage easement through the adjoining private property at 42-44 Gilderthorpe Avenue and a new kerb inlet pit.

 

41.     On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by Council.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the on-site detention system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

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

 

43.     Any onsite detention systems shall be located in areas accessible by residents of all units

 

44.     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:

§ It is noted that above ground storage will not be permitted in basement carparks or in any area which may be used for storage of goods.

§ Mulch/bark must not be used in onsite detention areas

 

45.     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.

 

46.     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).

 

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

 

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

 

49.     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.

 

50.     A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

a)  Within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

 

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, double brick or equivalent.

·      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.

 

51.     Prior to occupation of the development, a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention/infiltration system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention/infiltration system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.  The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

b.  The works as executed drainage plan and hydraulic certification must be submitted to Council prior to the “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” being executed by Council.

 

52.     One covered car washing bay shall be provided for this development.

 

a)       The car washing bay must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the proposed development.

b)       The car washing bay must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system.

c)       The car washing bay/s may be located within the visitor parking spaces provided they are signposted with ‘Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

d)       The car washing bay/s must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay/s (or equivalent)

e)       A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bay/s.

 

53.     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 the 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).

 

54.     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.

 

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

 

Notes:

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

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

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

 

56.     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.

 

57.     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.

 

Stormwater Drainage

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

 

e)     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.

 

Waste Management Conditions

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for

 

59.     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.

 

60.     The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

61.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste for the development.

 

Landscape Conditions

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

 

62.     Landscaping at this site must be installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plans by Peter Glass & Associates, drawing no’s 0127 – 01 – 03, revision A, dated 20/04/2010; however, prior to the commencement of any site works, these plans must be amended to be consistent with the changes that have been made to the architectural plans, and must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, and must also include the following requirements:

a.       Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

b.       All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas a minimum soil depth of 300mm.

c.       In order to reduce the amount of storm-water generated by the site, as well as to recharge groundwater supplies, a porous/permeable treatment must be used for all hard surfaces not over slab.

d.       To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic drip irrigation system shall be installed throughout all planted areas. Details shall be provided showing that the system will be connected to the sites rainwater tanks, with back-up connection to the mains supply, in accordance with all current Sydney Water requirements.

e.       All detention tanks and below ground stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth for the establishment of landscaping.

f.        Any substation required shall be screened from view (in accordance with the authorities requirements for access), with the proposed location, elevation and screening method to be shown.

g.       The proposed overhead awning being setback a minimum distance of 1 metre from the back of kerb in order to facilitate retention of the existing street tree and to accommodate their future growth.

 

NOTE: Point ‘g’  above must be incorporated into the public domain works as part of the Streetscape Improvement condition shown below.

 

63.     The PCA must ensure that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved documentation and relevant conditions of consent, prior to the issue of a Final (or any other type of Interim) Occupation Certificate/s, with the owner/s to ensure it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity, for the life of the development.

 

Streetscape Improvements

 

64.     The applicant must meet all costs associated with upgrading the Frenchmans Road site frontage in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Elements Manual for the Frenchmans Road Commercial Centre, with all external works to be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property.

 

A detailed streetscape plan for the full length and width of this frontage showing existing street trees, street furniture, the bus stop, seat and timetable, as well as proposed paving design, new street furniture, grades, finished levels, extent and location of awnings (setback 1 metre from back from kerb), doors/entranceways, the bus stop and any other details required by Council’s Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to, and be approved by, Council’s Director of City Services, prior to the commencement of any streetscape works.

 

The applicant shall liaise with Council’s Co-ordinator of Landscape Design on 9399-0911, prior to preparation of the streetscape plan, in order to obtain any detailed, site specific landscape design requirements.

 

Following approval of the streetscape plan; and prior to commencement of the streetscape works on Council property, the applicant must also liaise with Council’s Pre-paid Works Designer on 9399-0922, regarding scheduling of work, inspections, fees and compliance with Council’s requirements for public liability insurance.

 

The approved streetscape works must be completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Landscape Architect and Pre-paid Works Designer, prior to the issue of a Final (or any other type of Interim) Occupation Certificate/s.

 

Tree Removals

 

65.     Approval is granted for the removal of all existing vegetation within the rear yards of 91-95 Frenchmans Road, as they were observed to be insignificant, including the Persea americanna (Avocado Tree) in the southwest corner, in order to accommodate the proposed works as shown, and is subject to full implementation of the approved landscape plan.

Tree Management

 

66.     Permission is granted for the selective pruning of only those branches from the northern aspect of the Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush), located in the front yard of the adjoining property to the south, 89 Frenchmans Road, only where they overhang into the subject site and need to be pruned in order to avoid damage to the tree; or; due to their direct conflict with the proposed works.

 

67.     This approval does not imply any right of entry onto a neighbouring property nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary; however, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, and ultimately, the ongoing health of this tree, the applicant must negotiate with the neighbour/tree owner for access to perform this work.

 

68.     All pruning must be undertaken by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level III in Arboriculture, and to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-2007 'Pruning of Amenity Trees,’ and NSW Work Cover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry (1998).

 

Protection of neighbouring tree

 

69.     In order to ensure retention of the Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) located beyond the southeast corner, in the front yard of the adjoining property to the south, 89 Frenchmans Road 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 neighbouring tree, with the position and diameter of both its trunk and canopy to be clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.       Following removal of the existing concrete surfacing on the common entry between no 89 & 91 Frenchmans Road, all initial excavations for the basement entry or southern wall alignment, within a radius of 3.5 metres of this tree (measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level) must be dug by hand, to a minimum depth of 600mm.

 

c.       Any roots encountered which are in direct conflict with the proposed works must be cut cleanly by hand, with the affected area to be backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

Protection of Street Trees

 

70.     In order to ensure retention of the two juvenile Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gums) within Council’s Frenchmans Road footpath, being one in front of no 91, and another one just beyond the southern boundary, in front of no 89 in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.     All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of both street trees, with the position and diameter of both of their trunks and canopies to be clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.     Any excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar over public property, must be setback a minimum distance of 2 metres off their trunks; or, along either side of the new crossing, so as to minimise root damage and future maintenance issues.

c.     Prior to the commencement of any site works, both trunks are to be physically protected by geo-textile, underfelt or layers of Hessian which shall extend to a height of 2 metres above ground level, to which, 2m lengths of 50mm x 100mm hardwood timbers, spaced at 150mm centres shall be placed, and are to be secured by 8 gauge wires or steel strapping at 300mm spacing. (NO nailing to the tree).

 

d.     Both trees must also be physically protected by installing a total of four star pickets within their existing tree squares, to which safety tape/para-webbing/shade cloth or similar shall be permanently attached so as to completely enclose each tree for the duration of works.

 

e.     The measures described above 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".

 

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

 

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 $2,000.00 shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of these street trees.

 

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

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the trees at any time during the course of the works, or prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, may result in Council claiming all or part of the lodged security in order to perform any rectification works necessary, as per the requirements of Section 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.

 

Smoke Alarms

71.     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

72.     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.

 

Home Building Act 1989

73.     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

74.     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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Temporary Site Fencing

76.     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 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, amenities or articles upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place at any time, 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

77.     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.

 

Demolition Work Plan

78.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures and relevant environmental/occupational health and safety requirements.

 

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

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

·           Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·           Method/s of demolition (including removal of any asbestos)

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

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

·           Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials

·           Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·           Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

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

 

Notes

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

§  Refer to the conditions within the “Requirements During Construction & Site Work”, for further details and requirements relating to demolition work, removal of any asbestos and public safety.

 

Demolition & Construction Waste

79.     A Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

The Waste Management Plan must provide details of the type and quantities of demolition and construction waste materials, proposed re-use and recycling of materials, methods of disposal and details of recycling outlets and land fill sites.

 

Where practicable waste materials must be re-used or recycled, rather than disposed and further details of Council's requirements including relevant guidelines and pro-forma WMP forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre or by telephoning Council on 9399 0999.

 

Details and receipts verifying the recycling and disposal of materials must be kept on site at all times and presented to Council officers upon request.

 

Sydney Water

80.     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.

 

Public Utilities

81.     A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out to identify all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.

 

Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The owner/builder must make the necessary arrangements and meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia, Sydney Water and other authorities to adjust, repair or relocate their services as required.

 

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.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

82.     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 & Water and Randwick City Council policies, including:

·           Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

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

·           WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

·           Relevant DECCW/EPA Guidelines

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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.

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

 

·           Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

·           Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

 

·           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.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

·           Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

Inspections During Construction

84.     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).

 

Site Signage

85.     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”.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

86.     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.

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

87.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

A copy of the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

88.     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

89.     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

90.     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.

 

91.     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.

 

Survey Requirements

92.     A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or other suitable documentation must 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 (PCA):

·           prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of the footings or first completed floor slab,

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

·           as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

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 for the development.  

 

Building Encroachments

93.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Finished Ground Levels

94.     The finished ground levels external to the building must be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised, other than for the provision of approved paving or the like on the ground.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

95.     A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to commencing any excavations or 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.

 

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

 

Site Amenities

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

 

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

97.     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.

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

Swimming Pool Safety

99.     Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926.1 - 2007.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Spa Pool Safety

100.    Spa pools are to be provided with a child resistant barrier, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected  in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Swimming Pool & Spa Pool Requirements

101.    Swimming pools (and spa pools) are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

a)     Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

 

b)     All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and

      

c)     Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2003:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

 

d)     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

Notification of Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

102.    Written notification must be provided to Council advising of the installation and completion of the Swimming Pool (or Spa Pool), to satisfy the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992.

 

Council’s “Notification & Registration of a Swimming Pool” form must be completed and forwarded to Council prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued for the pool.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

103.    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.

 

Occupant Safety

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

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

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

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

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

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

·           Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

Street Numbering

105.    Street numbering must be provided to the front of the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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.

 

External Lighting

106.    External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

Use of premises

107.    The premises is to be used as a single residential dwelling only at all times and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

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

 

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

 

Pool Plant & Equipment

109.    The pool plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Air Conditioners

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

 

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

 

Air Conditioning & Equipment

111.    Air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Rainwater Tanks

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

 

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

(Noise from domestic air conditioners)

 

Rainwater Tank Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

Waste Management

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

 

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 site

 

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                                                                                                18 October 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP105/11

 

 

Subject:                  15 Wood Street, Randwick, (DA/461/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/461/2011

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to the existing terrace including new first floor attic addition to the existing garage

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Sarina Jackson

Owner:                         Sarina Jackson & Mary Vussaritis

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

As per Council’s advice, terrace houses in Residential 2B Zones must be treated as multi unit. As the proposal is now classified as a multi unit and not a dwelling house the development standards contained in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) now apply.

 

The subject application is for alterations and additions to the existing terrace including new first floor attic addition to the existing garage. Amended plans have been submitted to address Heritage and Council Officers concerns. The amended plans have lowered the external wall height and increased the roof pitch of the rear garage to 35 degrees, the setback to the inner courtyard of the dwelling to the western side on the first floor level is increased and window and skylight modifications have been made to the northern elevation. As a result of the amendments made to the rear garage the FSR has been reduced from 1.03:1 to 0.93:1.

 

The subject application is referred to Couincil for determination as the proposed development involves variations to the Development Standard for minimum landscaped area under the LEP by more than 10% (being 39.28% and the standard is 50%) and exceeds the FSR Development Standard under the LEP by more than 10% (having an FSR of 0.93:1 or (147m²) and the standard is 0.65:1). 

 

The site is located on the western side of Wood Street, Randwick, and is generally rectangular in shape.  The site has a frontage width of 4.35m, a depth of 39.675m to the northern side boundary, a rear boundary width of 4.075m and land area of 158.1m2.  The surrounding locality is predominantly characterised by lower density attached and detached residential developments with a number of multi unit housing developments.

 

The application was advertised and notified from 6 July to 20 July 2011 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Two submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.  One of the submissions is a supporting letter having no objections to the development.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 2B (Residential B Zone) under RLEP 1998. The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2B Zone, in that the development will deliver lower density residential development, which is compatible with the desired character of the locality.

 

The proposal will provide a landscaped area of 39.28% (62.1m2) which is under the RLEP 1998 minimum landscape requirement of 50% (79.05m2). The applicant has submitted an objection under SEPP No. 1 justifying that the development is modest in scale and the site coverage and is compatible with the surrounding built form in the area.  Also, it is argued that the proposal will comply with all of the remaining performance requirements in that there is adequate permeable treatment on the site and private open space to service the needs of the occupants.

 

It should be noted that if the application was assessed against the provisions of the DCP-Dwelling Houses which were the relevant controls prior, to Council receiving that such applications are to be assessed as multi-unit development, the non compliance for the landscaped area would not be as significant and will equate to 1.14m².

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.93:1, which equates to 147m2 GFA. The proposal does not comply with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1 under RLEP 1998. The applicant has submitted an objection under SEPP No. 1 justifying that the breach will not result in significant adverse amenity or visual impacts on the area. The scale, proportion and massing of the proposed development is considered to be appropriate to the site and the surrounding built environment. The objection has been assessed and is supported.

 

The objections to the FSR and landscaped area have been assessed and are supported. The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed development satisfies the relevant legislation, State policies and Local planning controls, and is recommended for approval. 

 

2.    The Proposal

 

It is proposed to carryout alterations and additions to the existing terrace including new first floor attic addition to the existing rear garage.

 

Amended plans were submitted which addressed Heritage and Council Officers concerns.

 

The following changes were made to the proposed development:

1.     The external wall height of the rear garage/outbuilding is lowered to a maximum external wall height of 3.8m and the roof pitch is increased to 35 degrees;

2.     The width to the inner central section of the building has been increase to 5.4m to the western side on the first floor level;

3.     The bathroom window on the northern elevation is of obscure glazing;

4.     The highlight windows on the northern elevation have been deleted and replaced with a solid wall; and

5.     The roof skylight within the court yard has increased in width.

 

The assessment is based on these amended plans received by Council on 28 September 2011.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Wood Street between Rae Street and Eulalie Avenue in Randwick and is within the St Marks Conservation Area.  The site is presently occupied by an existing two storey building, which is one in a row of six late Victoria terrace house comprising nos. 15 to 25 Wood Street.  The terrace is considerably elevated above the street level and the front façade is substantially altered, including enclosure of the original front balcony at the upper level.  The site has a frontage width of 4.35m, a side boundary depth of 39.67m and has an overall site area of 158.1m². 

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of a mixture of residential type from terrace style buildings, multi unit housing developments, to single and two storey freestanding dwellings.

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/465/2005 – Approval was granted on the 30 August 2005 for alteration and new first floor rear extension to the existing terrace, including new laundry at the rear and some minor changes to the front façade.

 

DA/465/2005/A – A section 96 application to modify the approved development was granted on the 11 January 2006 to extend the rear ground floor dining room including new pergola & reconfigured roofline.

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within RLEP 1998.  SEPP 1 objections have been submitted to Council for the landscaped area and FSR.

 

 a. Clause 20E Landscaped area

Pursuant to Clauses 20E of RLEP 1998, the minimum landscaped area within 2B Zones is 50%. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

  

Landscaped area

Proposal

39.28% (62.1m2 )

LEP development standard

50% (79.05m2)

Variation of the LEP standard

Shortfall of 21.44% (16.95m2) less than the LEP standard

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

Landscaped area - Clause 20E

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

 

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

 

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

 

-    The removal of some of the landscaped areas is only areas that are currently paved and are currently undercover.

 

-    The proposal will be increasing the soft landscaping in the current paved area by 10%.

 

-    The development is in keeping with the nature of a terrace house.

 

-    The development will increase the privacy levels on the site.

 

-    Adequate storm water drains and run off.

 

-    The aesthetic of the building will be improved.

 

-    There are no impacts to adjoining properties or the aspect from the street.

 

 

Assessment officer’s comments

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

-    The proposed landscaped area of 39.28% (or 62.1m2) is not considered to contribute to any negative impacts on the amenity of the subject and adjoining properties.  If the application was assessed against the provisions of the DCP-Dwelling Houses which were the relevant controls (of 40% landscaped area) prior to the new classification of semis, the non compliance for the landscaped area would not be as significant and will equate to 0.72% (or 1.14m²).

-    There is adequate private open space in the rear yard to accommodate the recreation needs of the occupants as well as provide space for service functions. 

-    There is sufficient permeable treatment on the site to facilitate infiltration of storm water for urban runoff. 

 

Comment:

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

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 Landscaped area Comments:

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

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2A Zone in that it will allows for dual occupancy development, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

Landscaped area Comments:

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not allow the best use of the site.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

 First

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

 

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

 Comments:

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

 

Second

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

 Comments:

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

 

Third

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

 Comments:

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

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

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

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

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

 

b. Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios

Pursuant to Clauses 20F of RLEP 1998, the maximum FSR within 2B Zones is 0.65:1. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

  

 

Floor space ratio

Existing building

0.75:1 (119m²)

Proposal

0.93:1 (147m2 )

LEP development standard

0.65:1 (102.765m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

43.05% excess (59.235m2)

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

FSR - Clause 20F

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

 

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

 

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

·      The intention of the bulk and scale of the development is in keeping with and consistent with other developments in the area.

·      The development is also consistent with other multi unit housing in the street.

·      The building is under the height restriction.

·      There is negative impact on surrounding properties.

·      The development is not excessive and will increase the privacy levels on the site.

·      The development is generally in keeping with the existing foot print.

·      The front of the building is not altered and will maintain the aesthetics of the building and streetscape.

·      Most of the increase is due to the second storey on the garage.

 

Assessment officer’s comments

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

 

The proposed development has an FSR of 0.93:1 (or 147m²) which well exceeds the maximum FSR of 0.65:1 permitted for this site as stipulated in the LEP.  Whilst the degree of non-compliance is substantial it is considered that the effects of the additional building bulk will not adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining properties. 

 

The proposal is deemed to satisfy the performance requirement of DCP – Multi Unit Housing, namely, that the building bulk is generally compatible with the surrounding built forms and will not result in significant additional building bulk that will dominate the site or detract from the character of the streetscape or surrounding area.

 

It should be noted that the subject building is a terrace style dwelling within a group of terraces which are all on very small blocks of land. Council has previously been flexible in relation to floor space ratio controls given the very restrictive constraints of the site.

 

The proposal will not become a distracting visual element in the area and is not considered excessive in respect to bulk and scale. The proposed development maintains the footprint of the existing building towards the front of the dwelling.

 

The proposed development is considered to have a modest design that compliments the existing dwelling and will not overpower or unbalance the scale of the buildings on the site. The proposal is deemed to be compatible with the existing dwelling and the other residential buildings in the vicinity. The proposed development will not result in any unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings or the locality in general.

 

The development will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area and will not unreasonably compromise the amenity of existing residents.

 

As such, it cannot be argued that this development will be substantially out of keeping with the established character of the locality; and for the above reasons, the proposed FSR of the development is considered acceptable.

 

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

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

FSR Comments:

The variation from FSR standards is not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as they would not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly 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 2B Zone in that it will allow multi unit housing development, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

 

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

 

FSR Comments:

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not allow the best use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the control.

 

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 floor space ratio 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. As discussed above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the underlying purposes of the floor space ratio standard.