Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 11 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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            11 October 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 at 6:00pm.

 

 

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

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

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

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 13 September 2011

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Urgent Business

Planning Matters

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.

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

D121/11    14 Eurimbla Avenue, Randwick (DA/596/2011)

D122/11    121-123 Haig Street, Maroubra (DA/223/2011)

D123/11    21 Fern Street, Clovelly (DA/583/2011)

D124/11    152-154 Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/373/2011)

D125/11    28 Duncan Street Maroubra (DA/590/2011)

D126/11    1 Kemmis Street, Randwick (DA/360/2011)

D127/11    16 Napper Street, South Coogee (DA/1068/2010)

D128/11    39-41 Partanna Avenue, Matraville (DA/617/2011)

D129/11    142 Bundock Street, Randwick (DA/1051/2010/A)

D130/11    98-104 Beach Street, Coogee (DA/404/2011)

D131/11    6 Gordon Avenue, Coogee (DA/1012/2010/A)

Miscellaneous Reports

M20/11     Randwick Environment Park: Plan of Management Review

M21/11     Appointment of Committees 2011-12    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                            11 October 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D121/11

 

 

Subject:                  14 Eurimbla Avenue, Randwick (DA/596/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/596/2011

Author:                   Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations to front of dwelling and construction of a new carport and associated car space to the front of existing dwelling

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Mr S A O'Brien

Owner:                         Mr S A O'Brien

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The Development Application seeks consent for the provision of a carport structure forward of the building line for a semi-detached dwelling. It includes the demolition of the front part of the verandah and the replacement of front fence with a wrought iron fence incorporating a sliding gate. Plans submitted to Council on 5 August 2011 show the length of the proposed car space being 5.05 metres. The plans submitted were previously approved for carport to the dwelling on 20 March 1999 as part of determination of BA/122/1997. No works commenced since and the consent had lapsed. Council’s Development Engineer measured the length of the space on site and found that distance from the front of the existing dwelling to the front property alignment to be 4.85 metres. The plans submitted for this proposal are therefore inaccurate.

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2007 Council passed a resolution that:

 

(a) Councillors resolve not to use call up powers for a development application on the sole basis of a residential car parking space where the space does not comply with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 Parking Facilities or has a length of at least 5 metres, whichever is lesser; and

 

(b) Council not rely on the minimum dimension for open car spaces detailed in the Parking and Single Dwelling DCP and assess all the current and future Development Applications against the Australian Standard or a minimum length of 5 metres, whichever is the lesser.

 

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Nash and Seng, although the length of the proposed car space is less than the Australian Standard (AS 2890.1 (2004)) or a minimum length requirement specified above.

 

The proposed car space will not meet the minimum length specified in the Australian Standard. Prior to the adoption of Council’s resolution, parking spaces with associated structures similar to the proposed development were supported along Eurimbla Avenue due to the extreme parking pressures within the area.

 

The proposal will set an undesirable precedent for similar development, as it departs from Council’s adopted resolution and it fails to satisfy, the objectives and performance requirements of DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Occupancies and Parking DCP. Furthermore, the proposal also fails to satisfy the general aims and specific objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).   

 

The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application proposes the construction of timber framed and tiled roof carport at the front of a semi-detached dwelling. The proposed works include the demolition of the front portion of the existing verandah and the relocation of the brick works and timber posts to the south of the dwelling to accommodate the width of the carport structure and fence. The existing fence will be demolished and be replaced with a wrought iron fence incorporating a sliding gate to provide openings for the driveway. The existing tree at the front of the property is located within the area for the proposed car space structure and is due for removal. 

 


3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site no. 14 is located on the western side of Eurimbla Avenue within Zone 2A (Residential A Zone). The site has a frontage of 6.73m, a depth of 33.53m and a total area of 221.3m². The site presently occupied by an existing semi-detached dwelling that adjoins to another semi-detached dwelling located at no. 16 on southern side of subject dwelling (Figure 1). The streetscape contains of semi-detached dwellings to the western side and a mixture of semi-detached and free standing dwellings to the eastern side.

 

Figure 1:          The subject dwelling as viewed from Eurimbla Avenue

 

4.    Site History

 

Application number:

Details:

BA/563/1927

Approved – 2 garages

BA/122/1997

Approved – Carport to dwelling

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Notification and no submissions were received.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to the Development Engineer and the following comments have been provided:

 

6.1 Development Engineer

An application has been received for alterations to the front verandah and construction of a new carport and associated car space to the front of existing dwelling at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

·      Plans drawn by M.A. and stamped by Council 5 August 2011;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Scott O’Brien and stamped by Council 5 August 2011

 

Car space Issues

In an Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2007 Council passed a resolution that;

 

(a) Councillors resolve not to use call up powers for a development application on the sole basis of a residential car parking space where the space does not comply with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 Parking Facilities or has a length of at least 5 metres, whichever is lesser; and

 

(b) Council not rely on the minimum dimension for open car spaces detailed in the Parking and Single Dwelling DCP and assess all the current and future Development Applications against the Australian Standard or a minimum length of 5 metres, whichever is the lesser.

 

A site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer has revealed that the distance from the front of the dwelling to the front property alignment (being the total length of the car space) is approximately 4.85m. This is less than the Australian Standard (5.4m) and the 5.0m minimum requirement specified above and will likely lead to vehicles overhanging Council’s footpath. The length of 4.85m is, therefore, not supported.

 

Power Pole Issues

The assessing officer is advised that there is a power pole currently situated on Council’s street verge which will likely present an obstruction for vehicles using the proposed vehicle crossing. There is potential for vehicle collisions with this pole.

 

Energy Australia requires clearances of 300mm to power poles which will result in the crossing being constructed at less than 90 degrees to the property alignment so as to manoeuvre around the pole. This is not supported by Development Engineering.

 

The proposed car space is not supported by Development Engineering and the assessing officer is advised to refuse the application.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The site has an area less than 10,000m² and is not subject to the requirements of Clause 40A of Randwick local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) – Site Specific Development Control Plans.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

8.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

Clause 10 2A Zone

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will not maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas and not adequately protect the amenity of existing residents. Consequently, the design of the car space will set an undesirable precedent on the future character of the locality.

 

Clause 20E Landscaped Area

The minimum landscaped area within 2A Zone for the development, other than for the purpose of a dwelling house, must be 40% of the total site area. The proposal complies with the development standard, as it proposes to provide 46% of the total site area as landscaped area.

 

8.2 Policy Controls

8.2.1   Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 


Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

46%

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

Approx. > 20%

Yes

 

Site Area

(Site Area 221.3 m2) maximum FSR 0.5:1

No change proposed from the existing FSR

Yes

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

2.4 metres

Yes

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

Nil from the northern side boundary

[Refer to Section 9.2 of this report]

No

Building setbacks

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

Nil setback from the northern side boundary

[Refer to Section 9.2 of this report]

No

Garages & Driveways

 

 

 

 

1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

1 space being provided

Yes

Parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

The carport has dimensions of 4.85 metres x 2.52 metres

[Refer to Section 9.1 of this report]

No

Driveway minimum width of 3m and side setback 1m

2.52 metres wide; and nil setback from the northern side boundary.

[Refer to Section 9.2 of this report]

No

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

No

[Refer to Section 9.2 of this report]

No

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

40.5 %

[Refer to Section 9.2 of this report]

No

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

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

Yes

Yes

North-facing living areas receive at least 3 hrs sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June.

Yes

Yes

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained 9am - 3pm.

No impact to solar collectors

Yes

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

No impact to north facing living room windows

Yes

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

No impact to outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings

Yes

Fences

Fences in front of building line are no higher than 1.8 metres and are designed so the upper two-thirds is at least 50% open.

1 metres iron wrought fences incorporating a sliding gate

Yes

 

8.2.2   Development Control Plan – Parking

 


Development Control Plan – Parking

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Parking Layout

 

Parking spaces must be clear of all obstructions

A power pole situated on Council’s street verge to the northern boundary of subject site

[Refer to Section 9.5 of this report]

No

Minimum dimensions 5.5m x 2.5m

The carport has dimensions of 4.85 metres x 2.52 metres

[Refer to Section 9.1 of this report]

No

 

Length and width may be varied in the following circumstances:

(i)  End overhang

(ii) Small car space

Provision of smaller space will lead to vehicle overhanging that obstructs existing footway

[Refer to Section 9.4 of this report]

No

 

8.3 Council Policies

No Council policies are relevant to the proposal.

 


9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

9.1      Minimum requirement of car space is not met

Plans submitted to Council show that the length of the proposed car space 5.05 metres in length. Council’s officer measured the length on site and found that distance from the front of the existing dwelling to the front property alignment to be 4.85 metres. The architectural plans submitted for this proposal are therefore incorrect.

 

The applicant argues that the family small sedan will be parked within the space. However, it is impossible to guarantee that the car space will only be used by small cars in the future. The length of the proposed car space is less than the Australian Standard (AS 2890.1 (2004)) and the minimum requirement of Section 4.7 of DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Occupancies and Section 3.1 of Parking DCP. Consequently, it is not considered to be an acceptable length for most motor vehicles. The proposed car space does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCPs.

 

Figure 2:             Proposed development viewed from street level

 

9.2      Side setback and site frontage

The proposed carport occupies 40.5% of the width of the allotment and has nil setbacks on the northern side boundary. This does not comply with Council’s preferred solutions of a side setback of 900mm and only 35% of frontage should be occupied as detailed in Section 4.7 of DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Occupancies.

 

Although this type of development is not uncommon along Eurimbla Avenue, as the streetscape is dominated by semi-detached with carports attached to the front of main dwellings and sited up to their respective side boundaries.

9.3      End of vehicle overhangs

The length of car space is measured manually at 4.85 metres from the front of the existing dwelling to the front property alignment on site. Parking DCP allows the variation to the length of car space if the public area behind the space will not be obstructed and not required as footway. The proposed car space is not considered to be acceptable, as it does not comply with these objectives in Section 3.1. The length of the car space will not provide sufficient space for the different lengths of cars potentially using the space and potentially will lead to the end of vehicles overhanging on the footpath compromising public safety.

 

9.4      Parking is not clear of obstruction

A power pole is located at Council’s street verge to the northern boundary of the subject site (figure 2). As the development proposes with nil setbacks to the northern boundary, an obstruction is clearly located within the proposed area for the vehicle crossing. If approved, the crossing must be constructed in a way that enables vehicle manoeuvring around the pole.  The proposal therefore fails to comply with the controls and objectives of Section 3.1 Parking DCP. 

 

9.5      Poor precedence for off-street parking

The Parking DCP suggests that the provision of off-street parking must be kept in perspective with the overall development assessment process. However, Section 2.1 the objectives of Parking DCP also state that an acceptable level of off-street parking is to be provided in consideration of specific standards, recognising the needs of flexibility and specific parking solutions for the site. The proposed car space will also contribute to the reduction of on-street parking within a locality that is already facing extreme parking measures, as the space that fits for an additional vehicle will be taken off the street (figure 2).

 

9.6      Insufficient details

The architectural plans submitted to accompany the application are not drawn to scale. The proposed length of car space shown on the plans is inaccurate when measured on site. The plans are deficient in details and fail to provide relevant dimensions and the true north point required for the assessment.   

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not meet the relevant assessment criteria, the preferred solutions, objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Occupancies and Parking DCP. Furthermore, the proposal also fails to satisfy the general aims and specific objectives of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation), creating an undesired and unwanted precedence for the proposed carport and associated car space measuring less than the minimum requirement. This will result in significant adverse impacts will result in adverse impacts upon the amenity of the subject site and surrounding development.

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/596/2011 for alterations to the front verandah and construction of new carport and associated car space to the front of the existing dwelling, at No. 14 Eurimbla Avenue, Randwick, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives for the Residential 2A Zone as set-out in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) in that: 

 

(i)     The proposal fails to maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas.

 

2.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of Section 2.1 of the Development Control Plan for Parking, as it fails to ensure that acceptable level of off-street vehicle parking is provided through specific standards to meet parking demand.

 

3.     The proposed car space does not comply with minimum requirement for length specified in the preferred solutions or the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies Section 4.7.

 

4.     The length of the proposed car space does not comply with the minimum length specified in Section 3.1 of the Development Control Plan for Parking or the Australian Standard for off-street parking (AS 2890.1 (2004)).

 

5.     The architectural plans accompanying the development application are deficient in details and fail to provide relevant dimensions and positions required for a full and proper assessment of the application. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            11 October 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D122/11

 

 

Subject:                  121-123 Haig Street, Maroubra (DA/223/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/223/2011

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey affordable housing development comprising 20 residential units, basement level parking for 20 vehicles, strata subdivision and associated works (Affordable Housing SEPP)

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr A P Naimo

Owner:                         Mr A P Naimo

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.        Executive Summary

 

The subject site is referred to the Council for determination as the cost of works is more than $2 million ($4,589,830). The DA has also been called up by Councillors Andrews, Matthews and Nash.

 

The proposal is for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey affordable housing development comprising 20 residential units, basement level parking for 20 vehicles, strata subdivision and associated works. The subject site is located on the southern side of Haig Street at the eastern cul-de-sac end of this street. The subject site and the surrounding residential area south of Haig Street are zoned Residential 2A under the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). Under the LEP, multi-unit housing is prohibited in the Residential 2A zone.

 

The subject application was lodged on 29 March 2011 pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) applicable at the time of lodgement (that is, prior to the amendments to the SEPP made on the 20 May 2011. The amending SEPP included savings and transitional provisions under Clause 54A (2) which allows any application for, amongst other things, infill affordable housing that was made before the amending SEPP to be determined “as if the amending SEPP has not been made”. Accordingly, the subject application has been assessed relevantly under Clause 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the SEPP in its pre-amended form. More significantly, Clause 54A (3) of the amending SEPP also included the following additional provision for any infill affordable housing DAs made prior to the amending SEPP:

 

“(3)  If an existing application relates to development to which Division 1 or 3 of Part 2 applied, the consent authority must not consent to the development unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.”

 

As required under Clause 54A (3), a character test has been undertaken for the proposed development as detailed in Section 7.2 of this report which draws from the planning principles established in the case of  Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 (following a request from Council, the applicant has also provided a character test for the proposed development in a letter to Council dated 1 June 2011 referring to the same planning principles, which has been addressed in Council’s overall assessment below). In line with the planning principles, the proposed development must satisfy two major criteria to determine whether or not the proposal can exist in harmony with existing surrounding development, namely:

 

§ It must have acceptable physical impacts on the adjoining and surrounding developments within the local area.

 

§ It must be visually compatible with, and respond to, the desirable elements of the local area.

 

In terms of physical impacts, the relevant assessment sections of this reports indicates that proposal will result in adverse impacts in that:

 

§ The proposed development will result in loss of privacy from a number of proposed balconies overlooking adjoining and surrounding properties specifically upon the rear yards of the adjoining French Street properties of Nos. 30, 32 and 34 French Street; the rear yard of the adjoining semi-detached properties at Nos. 117 and 119 Haig Street; and the living and habitable areas with west facing windows in No. 119 Haig Street. More significantly, while the proposal has included screening measures, it introduces an intensity of overlooking, both actual and perceived, that is uncharacteristic in the local area.

 

§ The proposed development will result in loss of sunlight to living room and kitchen windows of No. 119 Haig Street which currently receive less than 3 hours sunlight in the winter morning; and to more than 50% of the rear yard of this same property effectively reducing its solar access to less than 3 hours per day in winter.

 

§ While the proposed design has sought to provide some relief to the visual bulk and scale of the proposed development through its articulation, setback, landscaping and external treatment, its built form will remain visually dominant and overbearing to adjoining and surrounding properties, particularly upon the outlook of Nos. 117 and 119 Haig Street and Nos. 30, 32 and 34 French Street. In particular, its west and south elevation will comprise an elongated 2 – storey wall element orientated along the boundary and extending almost the full length of the western side boundary and the width of the southern rear boundary, a presentation that is typical of a residential flat building as distinct from that of the existing compact, low-scaled detached and semi-detached dwelling houses in the local area.

 

§ The proposed development provides more on-site car parking (20 spaces) than the minimum requirement of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) which specifically limits the amount of parking provided for such development given the SEPP’s requirement for a minimum 400m walking distance to a bus stop. The increased car parking provision allows for the proposed dwelling units to at least be allocated with one car parking space each whether sold individually or rented, which is incongruous with the SEPP requirement in that it physically encourages car ownership and car travel rather than the SEPP’s affordable option for bus travel. The provision of excess car parking results in increased traffic on Haig Street particularly at the cul-de-sac end that not only significantly changes the character of this street but becomes acutely perceptible to, and detrimental to the amenity of, residents in Haig Street.

 

§ The proposal potentially adds demand pressure on on-street car parking particularly in the Haig Street cul-de-sac where limited on-street car parking and illegal nuisance parking is a significant concern of local residents in this street. The applicant’s traffic and parking assessment advises that, as the proposal provides for more on-site car parking than the minimum SEPP requirement, no additional on-street car parking will occur and, by implication, a broader parking study on Haig Street has not been undertaken and is not necessary. However, local residents’ experience of the shortage of on-street car parking at critical times potentially will be exacerbated by the introduction of 20 additional dwelling units on the subject site due to the attendant occurrence of two-car ownership and absence of visitor parking in the proposed development.

 

In terms of visual compatibility, the character test essentially finds that the proposed development will be incompatible with the character of the local area, this area being defined as the “visual catchment” of  the proposed development and comprising the area south of Haig Street and bounded by Mons Avenue, French Street and Maroubra Road. The local area has a predominant low density residential character, comprising overwhelmingly detached and semi-detached dwelling houses on individual allotments with steeply hipped or gable-end tiled roofs, well defined entrance porches and/or front doors addressing Haig Street and French Street, rear landscaped gardens and a number of street level garages. In contrast, the subject proposal has significant site coverage, substantial physical mass and a dominant built form that extends across the majority of the allotment length and width.  The proposal also has  no sizeable courtyard with the exception of some unbuilt upon areas along the front and rear setback areas, such that the proposal detracts from the strong open landscape rear yard element in the residential properties in the locality. It is therefore considered that the footprint, scale and bulk of the building and the landscape treatment are not consistent with the predominant character of the locality. This is reflected in a large building orientated along the boundaries and occupying a substantial portion of site area compared to smaller building footprints of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses in individual allotments with well-defined rear yards in the local area. Furthermore, the local area is significantly intact in terms its consistent detached and semi-detached residential character with only a small number of dispersed low scale residential flat buildings located further towards the intersection of Mons Avenue and French Street all of which are historical exceptions due to their approval under previous different planning regimes. Furthermore, these residential flat buildings have low density and low scale built forms with compact footprints and  substantial rear yards that are similar to that of the existing detached and semi-detached dwellings in the local area. Accordingly, these residential flat buildings provide no precedent or basis for the proposed infill development which in contrast has a dominant massing and large site coverage. Furthermore, the proposal will be visually incompatible with the existing character of local area and fails to respond to the desirable elements of this area and its desired future character. The proposed design uses indented setbacks, some articulation, landscaping and external materials to mitigate its incompatible massing and dominant physical form. These measures provide some screening of the proposed built form but not to the extent that the proposal would be compatible with the existing low scale, low density single and semi-detached residential built forms in the local area.

 

Contrary to the applicant’s claim of compliance, the proposed development will exceed the proposed FSR standard of 0.75:1 under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing). The proposal will have an FSR of 0.79:1 when enclosed internal circulation areas, excluded by the applicant, are included in the GFA calculation which adds to the overall visual bulk and massing of the proposed development. The proposal also falls short of the minimum dwelling size standard of 50 sqm for one bedroom units required under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

The subject application was advertised and notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification and submissions from 120 objectors have been received as well as a petition with 38 signatures. The issues raised in the submissions relate to the bulk and scale, streetscape, overshadowing, privacy, parking, traffic, social impacts, and a general opposition to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 legislation.

 

The proposal fails to meet relevant objectives and purposes of the Randwick LEP and is inconsistent with relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.        The Proposal

 

The proposal involves demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey affordable housing development comprising 20 residential units, basement level parking for 20 vehicles, strata subdivision and associated works. Specifically, the proposal comprises the following:

 

Basement

20 car parking spaces

Storage areas

Garbage room

Plant room

Lift, lobby & stair access

 

Ground Level

Side entrance and lift lobby

9 x studio dwelling

1 x 1 bedroom dwelling

 

Level 1

9 x studio dwelling

1 x 1 bedroom dwelling

 

3.        The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is located on the southern side of Haig Street, at the cul-de-sac which marks the eastern end of Haig Street.

 

Figure  1 : Cadastral Plan showing the subject allotments in

the context of the existing sub-division pattern of the local area.

 

The subject site comprises two distinct allotments as follows:

 

No. 121 Haig Street being Lot 1 DP 389223 containing a single storey brick and tiled roof dwelling house with detached fibro garage at the rear and accessed via a driveway adjoining the western boundary. The site has a gentle fall to the rear of approximately 0.5m and has an area of approximately 650 sqm with the northern boundary to Haig Street being 13.7mm, eastern side boundary of 46.28m, western side boundary of approximately 47.8m and southern rear boundary of approximately 13.8m.

 

No. 123 Haig Street being Lot 2 DP 389223 containing a single storey dwelling house with detached brick garage on the western boundary and an inground swimming pool at the rear. The site has a gentle fall to the rear of approximately 0.5m and has an area of 660 sqm with the northern boundary to Haig Street being 13.9m, eastern side boundary of approximately 47.8m, western side boundary of 49.72m and southern rear boundary of approximately 13.8m.

 

Both sites are located on the southern side of Haig Street, at the cul-de-sac which marks the eastern end of Haig Street. The overall site area of the two properties is 1317 sqm.

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview17272.png

Figure 2 : Subject site in aerial view

 

Development in the locality is predominantly low density residential uses comprising detached and semi-detached dwellings particularly in the wider residential block surrounding the subject site to the west, south and east and bounded by Haig Street, Maroubra Road, Mons Avenue and French Street. 

 

Immediately adjoining the subject site to the east at No. 339A Maroubra Road is a single storey church hall which is an ancillary building to the St John’s Anglican Church building also within this adjoining site. Three residential properties at Nos. 30, 32 and 34 French Street adjoin to the south with each allotment containing a dwelling house fronting French Street and deep rear yards. Abutting the subject site to the west is an unformed lane way called French Lane and is approximately 5m wide which is currently used as a pedestrian access from Haig Street to French Street. Adjoining on the western side of this unformed lane are semi-detached dwellings at Nos 117 and 119 Haig Street.  The subject site is bounded on the northern side by the cul-de-sac that forms the eastern end of Haig Street and beyond this street is Maroubra Road. To the north-west across Haig Street is an existing early learning/child care centre with a primary frontage to Maroubra Road (with primary address as No. 339 Maroubra Road) and secondary frontage to Haig Street.

 


 

Photo 1: The St John’s church hall at No. 339A Maroubra Road adjoining to the east of subject site.

 

 

Photo 2: An unformed laneway (French Lane) and semi-detached dwelling at Nos. 117 and 119 Haig Street adjoining to the south of subject site

 

Photo 3: An unformed laneway (French Lane) and semi-detached dwelling at No. 117 and 119 Haig Street adjoining to the south of subject site

 

  Photo 4: Haig Street and the cul-de-sac immediately abutting the subject site to the north. The subject site is part of a line of properties on the southern side of Haig Street (left side of photo) where there are no pre-existing residential flat buildings  but rather, predominantly, is characterised by single and semi detached dwellings on individual lots of land with steeply hipped or gable-end tiled roofs, well defined entrance porches and/or front doors addressing Haig Street, rear landscaped gardens and a number of street level garages.  

 


 

Photo 5: The Maroubra Road (primary) frontage of the child-care centre at No 339 Maroubra Road. Note that the child care centre forms part of a wider mixed use block towards the Maroubra Town Centre because of this primary frontage whereas the subject site has no frontage to Maroubra Road.

Photo 6: The Haig Street (secondary) frontage of the child-care centre.

 

 

4.      Site History

 

The individual dwelling houses at No. 121 and No. 123 Haig Street were subject to separate early building approvals (in this case 1960s)  as is typical of many older dwelling houses in the locality and surrounding residential zone.

 

5.      Community Consultation

 

The proposal was advertised and notified from 13 April to 2 May 2011 in accordance with the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Council has received submissions from approximately 120 objectors as well as a petition with 38 signatures objecting to the proposal. The issues raised in the submissions are detailed and addressed below:

 

Issues

Comments

The proposal will be out of character with the streetscape and locality as it involves the construction of a multi-unit housing development in a low density residential 2A zone. It will have an adverse impact on the low density development in Haig Street.

As detailed in this report, it is considered that the proposed development is unacceptable in this location and will not be compatible with the predominant character of the locality being overwhelmingly detached and semi-detached dwelling houses on individual allotments with significantly deep rear yards. Refer to the “Environmental Assessment” section of this report.

 

The proposal will put pressure on on-street parking and generate significant additional traffic.

The proposed development provides more on-site car parking than the minimum requirement of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 which specifically limits the amount of parking provided for such development. However, it is noted that many objectors living in Haig Street (especially towards the cul-de-sac end of Haig Street) have raised concerns regarding the existing high demand for, and incidence of illegal, on-street car parking drawn from direct experience of living in the street. Specifically, concern has been raised when competing demand for on-street car parking occurs from the existing child-care, church and general public use (including commuters parking private vehicles to catch the bus on Maroubra Road) which will be exacerbated by the possibility of two-car ownership and absence of visitor parking in the proposed development. However, the applicant’s traffic and parking assessment advises that, as the proposal provides for on-site car parking in excess of the minimum SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) requirement, no additional on-street car parking will occur and, by implication, a broader parking study on Haig Street is not required. Notwithstanding the applicant’s parking advice, local residents experience of the shortage of on-street car parking are considered valid and potentially will be exacerbated by the occurrence of two-car ownership and absence of visitor parking in the proposed development.

 

In relation to traffic, the applicant’s traffic and parking assessment advises that Haig Street currently carries traffic flows well below the desirable upper limit of 200 vehicles per hour for their “local” road classifications. However, while it is possible to argue that technically Haig Street currently carries traffic flows well below the desirable upper limit for this category of road, the increase in traffic generated by the proposed development is considered a significant change in the character of the existing street and detrimental to the amenity of, residents in Haig Street. The increase is in the order of 8 peak hour vehicle trips or 1 additional vehicle trip every 7.5 minutes over the existing circumstances.

The development will have adverse shadow impacts.

As detailed in the relevant assessment section below, the proposal will result in unreasonable and unacceptable shadow impacts on the adjoining western property at No. 119 Haig Street.

The development will have adverse privacy impacts.

As detailed in the relevant assessment section below, the proposal will result in unreasonable and unacceptable privacy impacts on the adjoining southern and western properties.

Affordable housing results in crime and anti-social behaviour.

The application relies on the State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Housing.  The applicant notes that it  "seeks consent for in-fill affordable housing pursuant to the provisions of the SEPP".  The applicant in its planning reports notes that the "development achieves the aims of the SEPP by providing 20 dwellings of which 50% will be used for affordable housing”. Underlying the aim of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing is the rationale that there is a shortage and need for affordable rental housing in appropriate locations especially for workers close to work places and disadvantaged people who may require support services. The provision of such housing in appropriate locations assists in achieving this social goal and the perception that it correlates with, or entails, an increase in crime or anti-social behaviour is not necessarily valid. However, as assessed in this report, the proposed infill affordable housing development is not appropriate in the subject location due to its adverse physical impact on adjoining and surrounding residents, and its incompatibility with the character of existing development in the local area. 

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the subject site with excessive bulk and scale

As detailed in the relevant assessment section of this report, the proposal has a significant site coverage, substantial physical mass and dominant built form orientated to the boundaries that fails to respond to the essential elements of the local area, namely, the predominant low density detached and semi-detached dwelling houses on individual allotments with landscaped rear yards. 

The SEPP reserves 50% of dwelling units for affordable housing for only 10 years but creates an incompatible massive development for a significantly longer time.

The SEPP Affordable Housing 2009 is a statutory instrument duly gazetted and coming into force in July 2009. The provision requiring 50% of dwelling units to be used for affordable housing for a period of 10 years from the date of issue of occupation certificate is contained in Clause 17 of the SEPP. While objectors have expressed these views regarding the perceived transient social benefit provided by the SEPP vis-a-vis the long term disbenefit of an incompatible development, the applicant has indicated that this specific provision of the SEPP will be met. Notwithstanding this, the DA is recommended for refusal primarily on the grounds of incompatibility of the proposed development with the existing character of the local area.

Approval of the DA will set an undesirable precedent for incompatible dense development in Residential 2A zones.

On the contrary, the amended SEPP now prohibits the proposed development in Residential 2A zones such that approval of the proposed development will result in an anomalous incompatible high density built form in a local area that has predominantly low scale and low density single and semi-detached residential built forms. As such, the proposal should be refused.

Proposal is a blight on the streetscape and consistency of existing homes.

The proposal attempts to mitigate its incompatible massing and dominant physical form through indented setbacks, some articulation, landscaping and external materials. These measures have resulted in some screening of the proposed built form but not to the extent that the proposal would be compatible with the existing low scale, low density single and semi-detached residential built forms. Accordingly, the DA is recommended for refusal.

 

6.      Technical Officers and External Comments

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and, generally, no objections on technical grounds are raised subject to conditions.

 

7.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

The subject site is located within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed development is defined as a “multi-unit housing” and is a prohibited development in the Residential 2A Zone.

 

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

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

2 Aims

Clause 2 of RLEP 1998 requires Council to consider a range of general aims of the Randwick LEP.

The proposed development will meet aim (b) under Clause 3 of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 However, the proposal will compromise the aims of the LEP in ration to  (e) aesthetic character of the city, (g) environmental qualities of the city, sustainability, (h) ecological sustainability, (j) community economic well being and welfare, and (l) housing mix.

 

Apart form the SEPP aim relating to the provision of affordable housing, the proposal is inconsistent with a range of relevant aims under Clause 2 of  the Randwick LEP. 

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”.

 

While the proposed development is made permissible in the Residential 2A zone by the provisions of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, and therefore is consistent with aim (b) under Clause 3 of the SEPP, the proposal is inconsistent with a range of relevant aims of the Randwick LEP as indicated in the preceding row above in relation to Clause 2 of the Randwick LEP, and with the specific objectives of the zone, as indicated in the row below in relation to Clause 10 of the Randwick LEP.

The proposal is predominantly inconsistent with the aims of the Randwick LEP detailed in Clause 2 and the objectives of the zone detailed in Clause 10. 

10 Zone No 2A (Residential A Zone)

The Objectives of Zone 2A relevant to the proposal are

(a) to provide a low density residential environment

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

(c) to protect the amenity of existing residents

(e) to encourage housing affordability

 

 

 

 

While the proposed development is made permissible in the Residential 2A zone by the provisions of  the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing, and consistent with aim (b) under Clause 3 of the SEPP and the zoning objective (e) under Clause 10 of the Randwick LEP, it should be noted that  the proposed development will still be inconsistent with objective (a) to provide a low density residential environment, (b) to maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas and (c) to protect the amenity of existing residents.

 

The proposal is predominantly inconsistent with relevant objectives of the zone relating to (a) to provide a low density residential environment, (b) to maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas and (c) to protect the amenity of existing residents

 

40 Earthworks

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

The proposal requires significant excavation to create the basement carpark and a levelled surface for the  ground floor units. Specific conditions are recommended to ensure that suitable retaining walls and protection measures are provided during works on the site.

 

Usually subject to conditions

43 Heritage Conservation

Clause 43, requires among other things, that Council consider the effect of development on the heritage significance of heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site.

 

The closest heritage items are located at No. 306 Maroubra Road (being the ‘Eden Monaro’ brick mansion c 1927) and No. 325 Maroubra Road (being the Maroubra Fire Station c 1920s). These items are located at a considerable distance from the subject site. Accordingly no heritage impact assessment has been made in the DA.

No heritage impact assessment has been made in relation to nearby heritage items at No 306 Maroubra Road (being the ‘Eden Monaro’ brick mansion c 1927) and No. 325 Maroubra Road (being the Maroubra Fire Station c 1920s).Notwithstanding, these heritage items are located at a considerable distance from the subject site such that any impact on heritage significance would be minimal.  Furthermore, the heritage items are not located within the defined visual catchment of the subject site.

 

7.2    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The subject application was lodged on 29 March 2011 pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) applicable at the time of lodgement (that is, prior to the amendments to the SEPP made on the 20 May 2011 pursuant to savings and transitional provisions under Clause 54A (2) which states:

 

“(2)    If a development application (an existing application) has been made before the commencement of the amending SEPP in relation to development to which this SEPP applied before that commencement, the application may be determined as if the amending SEPP has not been made”

 

Accordingly, the subject application is made pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) and requires assessment relevantly under Clause 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the SEPP in its pre-amended form.

 

The following tables outline the assessment:

 

Assessment of Clause 10   Land to which the Division applies

Provision

Assessment

(1) Infill affordable housing provisions apply in the following land use zones or equivalent land use zones but only if development for dwelling houses, multi-unit dwelling housing or residential flat buildings is permissible within the zone:

(a) Zone R1 General Residential

(b) Zone R2 Low Density Residential

(c) Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

(d) Zone R4 High Density Residential

 

Having regard to Clause 5 – ‘Interpretation – references to equivalent land use zones’, the existing Residential 2A zone is equivalent to R2 Low density Residential Zone.

(2) Development site is within:

 

(a) 800 metres walking distance to railway station

 

(b) 400 metres walking distance to light rail station

 

(b) 400 metres walking distance to bus stop of regular bus service

Subject site within 400m walking distance of bus stops near the corner of Maroubra Road and Flower Street . 

(3) Does not apply to land identified in an environmental planning instrument as a scenic protection area.

Land not identified as within a scenic protection area.

 


 

Assessment of Clause 11  Development to which Division applies

Provision

Assessment

(a) Development for the purposes of dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings where at least 50% of dwellings will be used for  affordable housing, but only if:

 

(i) the development does not result in a building on the land with a building height of more than 8.5 metres, and

 

(ii) residential flat buildings are not permissible on the land otherwise than because of this Policy

 

The proposed multi-unit housing development will have 50% of dwellings used for affordable housing and will:

 

 

(i) result in a building no higher than 8.5 metres, and

 

(ii) be on land where residential flat buildings are not permissible otherwise than because of this Policy

 

 

Assessment of Clause 14 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

Standard

Assessment

1(a) If, for development application lodged before 30 June 2011, the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than 0.75:1

The drawings and SEE indicate a compliant FSR of 0.75:1 based on a total gross floor area of 987 sqm which, as advised in the DA, excludes, among other things, “unenclosed circulation space”. Contrary to the applicant’s claim, the “unenclosed circulation space” excluded from the proposed gross floor area is considered to be enclosed, and therefore should be included as GFA,   for the following reasons:

 

·      The subject circulation space will be embedded well within the proposed building and, as such, within the inner face of the external enclosing walls

 

·      The subject circulation space will be well undercover and will form part of the building footprint

 

·      The subject circulation space will be  enclosed by a floor to ceiling louvered screen wall-like element on the first floor and likely to be enclosed by some form of security and weather protection wall element on the ground floor in addition to the low enclosing wall. These screen walls add to the visual bulk of the proposed building resulting in a dominant physical mass. 

 

When, the area of the  “unenclosed circulation space” on the ground and first floors (56.3sqm) is included as per the gross floor area definition in the Standard Instrument  (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006,  the proposed FSR amounts to 0.79:1 which exceeds the SEPP requirement. The excess floor area is enclosed behind screen walls that add to the overall visual bulk and physical massing of the proposed development which taken, in toto, will result in a development that will be out of character with the predominant low scale dwelling house and semi-detached built forms in the local area.

 

Does not comply.

1(b) If the site area is at least 450 sqm

The subject site has an area of 1317 sqm.

Complies.

1(c) If at least 30 % of site area is to be landscaped.

The proposed development provides  38.17% of the site area (502.79 sqm) as landscaped area.

Complies.

1(d) If 15% of site area is to be deep soil zone with minimum dimension of 3m

 

The proposed development provides 20.25% of site area as deep soil landscaped area with minimum dimension in excess of 3m.

Complies.

1(e) If the living rooms and private open spaces for  a minimum of 70% of the of the dwellings receive  a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter

Solar Access Analysis submitted with DA  indicates that 14 of the 20 proposed dwelling units will receive adequate solar access.

Complies

2(a) If at least 0.5% car spaces are provided for each dwelling 

The proposal will require at least 10 car spaces. The proposal will provide 20 car parking spaces.

2(b) If each dwelling has a gross floor area of 30 sqm for bedsitter/studio, or 50 sqm for 1 bedroom dwelling, or 95 sqm for 3 or more bedroom dwelling.

All studio dwellings will be in excess of  35 sqm in size. The two proposed 1 bedroom dwellings (Units 1 and 11) will be 47.64 sqm.

1 bedroom dwellings do no comply.

 

Does not comply.

 

Assessment of Clause 15  Design Requirements

Provision

Assessment

Development to take into consideration the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development published by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, March 2004.

The DA includes an analysis of the proposal against the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development.

 

 

 

Assessment of Clause 16  Continued application of SEPP 65

Provision

Assessment

SEPP 65 applies to any infill affordable housing development that is 3 or more storeys high and contains 4 or more self contained dwellings.

The proposal does not exceed two storeys so that SEPP 65 does not apply.

 

 

 

Assessment of Clause 17 Must be used for affordable housing for 10 years

Provision

Assessment

Any development consent for infill affordable housing development must impose conditions requiring that

 

(a) for 10 years from the issue of occupation certificate:

 

(i) the dwellings proposed to be used for the purposes of affordable housing will be used for the purposes of affordable housing

(ii) all accommodation to be used for affordable housing will be managed by a registered community housing provider

 

(b) a restriction will be registered, before the end date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919.

50% of dwellings (ie 10 dwelling units) are to be used as affordable housing for 10 years from date of issue of occupation certificate.

 

Conditions to impose the requirements of Clause 17 will be applied should approval be granted for the proposed development.

 

 

 

Assessment of Clause 18  Subdivision

Provision

Assessment

Subdivision of development carried out under Division 1, Part 2 of the SEPP for  infill affordable housing is permitted with the consent of the consent authority. 

The application seeks consent for strata subdivision of the proposed development.

 

 

 

Assessment of Clause 54A  Savings and transitional provisions  (2011 Amending SEPP) 

Provision

Assessment

“(3)  If an existing application relates to development to which Division 1 or 3 of Part 2 applied, the consent authority must not consent to the development unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.”

 

Division 1 of the SEPP relates to in-fill affordable housing and therefore Clause 54A (3) relates to the subject application.

 

The character test required under this Clause is undertaken below.

 

 

 


Character test

 

Local Area

The applicant’s planner has provided an assessment of the compatibility of the proposal to the local area in a letter dated 1 June 2011. In this letter, the planner  essentially contends that the unformed lane (French Lane) forms an appropriate demarcation line for the proposed development such that it places the proposal in a specifically self-defined  geographical context which encompasses the St  Johns Church, the Child care centre and the Haig Street cul-de-sac. The planner advises that, in this context, the subject site is:

 

“isolated from the neighbouring dwellings  having only one contiguous boundary at the rear of the site. The presence of the neighbouring St Johns Church and French Lane as two adjoining side boundaries isolates the site in terms of an infill opportunity and its immediate residential neighbour.”

 

The applicant’s planner goes on to specify the local area as follows:

 

“The locality of the Church and the child-care opposite and the physical change in circumstances of the cul-de-sac at the Maroubra Road junction provides a setting that is different to the established residential area of Haig street generally”

 

Notwithstanding this narrow definition of the local area, the planner also advises that

 

“In the broader context the locality includes commercial/retail premises in Maroubra Road and significantly larger single dwellings on the high side of Maroubra Road 

 

The applicant’s varying definitions of the “local area” are not supported for the following reasons:

 

·      A more appropriate “local area” for the subject site is one in which there is a visual connection between the proposed development and surrounding buildings (ie., a visual catchment) and one within which the proposed development will be viewed and compared. In this context, the local area is more appropriately defined as the immediate residential block to the south of Haig Street within which the subject site is located, and which is  bounded by Haig Street, Maroubra Road, French Street and Mons Avenue (see Map 1 below). For ease of reference this block is referred to as the ‘Haig Street Block’ in this report.

 

Map 1: The Haig Street Block (bound in red) in which the subject site (coloured

light red) is located, and which forms the visual catchment of the subject site.

 

Geographically, the subject site is more appropriately identified as being part of the Haig Street Block generally because of its position within and orientation towards this block being on the southern side of Haig Street. Furthermore, the subject site has a Residential 2A zoning in common with all other properties within the Haig Street Block, and a sub-division pattern that is consistent with those of existing residential properties within this Block.

 

·      The applicant’s self-defined local area (outlined in black in Map 2 below) appears ad hoc and expedient as well as significantly restricted and limited in extent to be considered a proper local context for the subject site. Even when the applicants defined local area is extended to include commercial/retail premises in Maroubra Road and significantly larger single dwellings on the high side of Maroubra Road (outlined in green in Map 2 below), this extended local area does not represent the visual catchment of the subject site primarily because of the orientation of the subject site within and towards the Haig Street Block, that is, the proper local area within which the test of compatibility must be applied. The applicant’s approach to this issue in effect  excises the subject site from its natural position south of Haig Street within the Haig Street Block and places it in an anomalous location within an unrelated development block north of Haig Street. For comparison, the Haig Street Block can be distinguished from an adjoining mixed use block to the north bounded by Maroubra Road, Mons Avenue and Haig Street (referred to as the Maroubra Road Block in this report). This block essentially contains shop front businesses on Maroubra Road including the Child care centre at No. 339 Maroubra Road as well as residential flat buildings, typically three to four storeys high, with frontage to Maroubra Road. There are also dwelling houses and dual occupancies on the northern side of Haig Street within this block.  

 

Map 2: The applicant’s defined local area comprises (1) an isolated immediate area centred around the St John’s Church, the child-care centre and cul-de sac bordered in black, and (2) a wider area orientated to Maroubra Road bordered in green.

 

·      The child care centre and the Church (defined as a ‘place of worship’) are permissible uses in the respective Residential 2A zone whereas multi-unit housing is prohibited. Therefore there are no compelling grounds for creating a specific pocket of area based on these two uses to which the proposed development can then be made to be consistent. In fact, the child-care centre geographically is considered to form part of the Maroubra Road Block, given, among other things, its frontage to Maroubra Road and its location on the northern side of Haig Street,  which as described above is a block containing a variety of land uses. In contrast, the Church, together with the subject site, forms part of the Haig Street Block given their location on the southern side of Haig Street, which is a highly intact, undiversified and reasonably homogenous residential block with a predominant detached / semi-detached dwelling house on single allotment of land character. 

 

Compatibility

In the matter of  Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 Senior Commissioner (SC) Roseth provided planning principles that can assist in considering the  compatibility of a proposal to its locality (the applicant’s planner has also referred to these planning principles in letter dated 1 June 2011). Essentially, the planning principles require an evaluation of whether the proposal 'responds to', 'contributes to' and 'complements' its surrounding area, that is, whether it is 'compatible'. SC Roseth in discussing the principles for assessing the compatibility between what is proposed and what exists, states as follows:.

“22.  There are many dictionary definitions of compatible . The most apposite meaning in an urban design context is capable of existing together in harmony . Compatibility is thus different from sameness . It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve.

 

24    Where compatibility between a building and its surroundings is desirable, its two major aspects are physical impact and visual impact. In order to test whether a proposal is compatible with its context, two questions should be asked.

 

Are the proposal's physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites? and

 

Is the proposal's appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

 

25.   The physical impacts, such as noise, overlooking, overshadowing and constraining development potential, can be assessed with relative objectivity. In contrast, to decide whether or not a new building appears to be in harmony with its surroundings is a more subjective task. Analysing the existing context and then testing the proposal against it can, however, reduce the degree of subjectivity.

 

26.   For a new development to be visually compatible with its context, it should contain, or at least respond to, the essential elements that make up the character of the surrounding urban environment. In some areas, planning instruments or urban design studies have already described the urban character. In others (the majority of cases), the character needs to be defined as part of a proposal's assessment. The most important contributor to urban character is the relationship of built form to surrounding space, a relationship that is created by building height, setbacks and landscaping. In special areas, such as conservation areas, architectural style and materials are also contributors to character.”

 

Applying the planning principles in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council, it is recognized that, to achieve compatibility the proposed development does not have to be same as the predominant form of development in the identified local area but it must satisfy two major criteria to determine whether or not the proposal can exist in harmony with existing surrounding development, namely:

 

§ It must have acceptable physical impacts on the adjoining and surrounding developments within the local area.

 

§ It must be visually compatible with, and respond to, the desirable elements of the local area.

 

Physical impacts on the adjoining and surrounding developments

The Section 79C (Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) assessment in Section 9 below indicates that the proposal will have adverse physical impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding developments in terms of the following:

 

§ The proposed development will result in loss of privacy to adjoining and surrounding properties specifically upon the rear yards of the adjoining French Street properties of Nos. 30, 32 and 34 French Street; the rear yard of the adjoining semi-detached properties at Nos. 117 and 119 Haig Street; and the living and habitable areas with west facing windows in No. 119 Haig Street. While the proposal has incorporated screening measures on the relevant elevations in recognition of these privacy impacts, and while  loss of privacy in terms of the overlooking of adjoining properties by other dwellings is not uncharacteristic of the local area, the proposed development introduces a intensity of overlooking (six and four separate balconies on the south and east elevation respectively bearing upon the privacy of existing low scaled residential properties and rear yards) that would be unreasonable and unacceptable and that introduces a degree of privacy impact that is uncharacteristic of  the area. This intensity of privacy loss would normally not occur in the existing Residential 2A zoning of the local area where skilful and considerate dwelling house or dual occupancy designs are employed.  

 

§ The proposed development will result in loss of sunlight to living room and kitchen windows of No. 119 Haig Street which currently receive less than 3 hours sunlight in the winter  morning. Additionally, the proposed development will result in more than 50% of the rear yard of the adjoining western property at No. 119 Haig Street having its solar access reduced to less than 3 hours per day in winter due to the increase overshadowing of this rear yard generated by the proposed development in the winter morning.

 

§ The proposed development will be visually intrusive and have an overbearing and overwhelming visual impact, particularly upon the outlook of Nos. 117 and 119 Haig Street and Nos. 30, 32 and 34 French Street as its west and south elevation will comprise a 2 – storey wall element orientated to the boundary and extending almost the full length of the western side boundary and the width of the southern rear boundary, a presentation that is typical of a residential flat building as distinct from that of the existing low-scaled detached and semi-detached dwelling houses in the local area. Even a large dwelling house or pair of semi-detached dwellings, sensitively designed, would alternatively have a built form to these elevations that would be significantly less intrusive and less overbearing than that of the proposed development. While the proposed design has sought to provide some relief to the visual bulk and scale of the proposed development through its articulation, setback, landscaping and external treatment, its built form will remain visually dominant and overbearing to adjoining and surrounding properties. 

 

§ The proposed development provides more on-site car parking (20 spaces) than the minimum requirement of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) which specifically limits the amount of parking provided for such development to 0.5 spaces for each dwelling (maximum 10 spaces required). The provision of excess car parking allows for the proposed dwelling units to at least be allocated with one car parking space each whether sold individually or rented, which is incongruous with the SEPP requirement in that it physically encourages car ownership and car travel rather than the SEPP’s affordable option for bus travel. The provision of excess car parking has two impacts. Firstly it will result in an increase in traffic in Haig Street. The applicant’s traffic and parking assessment advises that Haig Street currently carries traffic flows well below the desirable upper limit of 200 vehicles per hour for their “local” road classifications. However, while it is possible to argue that, technically, Haig Street currently carries traffic flows well below the desirable upper limit for this category of road, the increase in traffic generated by the proposed development is considered a significant change in the character of the existing street particularly at the cul-de-sac end, and one that would be acutely perceptible to, and detrimental to the amenity of, residents in Haig Street. The increase is in the order of 8 peak hour vehicle trips or 1 additional vehicle trip every 7.5 minutes over the existing circumstances. Secondly, it potentially increases the demand for on-street car parking particularly in the cul-de-sac where car parking is already significantly limited. Many objectors living in Haig Street (especially towards the cul-de-sac end of Haig Street) have raised concerns regarding the existing high demand for, and incidence of illegal, on-street car parking in the cul-de-sac drawn from direct experience of living in the street. Specifically, concern has been raised regarding competing demands for on-street car parking resulting in illegal car parking, particular when there is a convergence of demand from the existing child-care, church and general public use (including commuters parking private vehicles to catch the bus on Maroubra Road). It is noted that the applicant’s traffic and parking assessment advises that, as the proposal provides for on-site car parking in excess of the minimum SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) requirement, no additional on-street car parking will occur and, by implication, a broader parking study on Haig Street is not necessary. Notwithstanding this, local residents’ experience of the shortage of on-street car parking potentially will be exacerbated by the occurrence of two-car ownership and absence of visitor parking in the proposed development. It is worth noting that if Council’s DCP car parking standards are applied, the proposal will have a deficiency of 5 visitor car spaces.

 

Visual impact on the adjoining and surrounding developments

The character test for the proposed development should demonstrate that the proposal is visually compatible with, and respond to, the desirable elements of the local area. The NSW Heritage Office booklet “Design In Context” provides a guideline for the assessment of infill development and it is useful for the assessment of the impact of the subject application on the character of the area. It states that the following contribute to the character of an area:

 

·      The date and style of the buildings;

·      Distinctive landscape elements;

·      Setbacks of the buildings;

·      The scale and form of the buildings;

·      Street and subdivision patterns;

·      Materials, building techniques and details;

 

Based on these fundamentals, the essential desirable elements that make up the local area (that is, the Haig Street Block) and ones that should be emulated by the proposal and any future development of the subject site, are described as follows:

 

·      In terms of style and design, the block contains, along the southern side of Haig Street, existing buildings that demonstrate predominant built forms of solid masonry with hipped roof or gabled-end tiled roof construction interspersed with more recent rendered / painted brick and tiled roof dwellings, rear landscaped gardens and a number of street level garages; and similarly along the northern side of Mons Street and French Street there is a mixture of masonry buildings with tiled hipped or gabled roof as well as contemporary modern dwelling houses on individual allotments.

 

·      In terms of landscaping and setbacks, with the exception of the residential flat building at No. 46 French Street and the St Johns Anglican Church at No. 339A Maroubra Road, all residential premises in this block contain landscaped open space at the rear of the allotments. The rear sections of these premises are substantially well setback from rear boundaries to provide for deep open landscaped rear yards with occasional swimming pools and outbuilding structures.

 

·      In terms of scale and form, the block is zoned wholly Residential 2A and is predominantly characterised by a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings. There are 5 dispersed, low density and low scale residential flat buildings further towards intersection of Mons Avenue and French Street, however, all of these buildings were approved under different planning regimes. Furthermore, these residential flat buildings have low scale built forms, compact footprints, and substantial rear yards that are similar to that of the existing detached and semi-detached dwellings in the local area. Accordingly, these residential flat buildings provide no precedent or basis for the proposed infill development which in contrast has a dominant massing and large site coverage. Accordingly, the proposal will be visually incompatible with the existing character of local area and fails to respond to the desirable elements of this area and its desired future character.

 

·      In terms of street address and sub-division pattern, the existing dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings in the local area have well defined entrance porches/features and/or front doors addressing main streets; predominantly low and open front fences; and individual sub-division allotments dedicated to each residential building .

 

In contrast, the proposed development has the following characteristics that make it visually incompatible with that of existing development in the local area as described above:

 

§ The proposal has a building width and depth that results in significant site coverage of about 62% with a built form orientated along the side boundaries resulting in a substantial physical mass, heavy visual bulk and extensive building length across the majority of the two allotments combined See Figures 3 and 4 below). The use of screening elements to enclosed circulation areas results in a non-compliant FSR of 0.79:1 which exacerbates the dominant physical mass of the building. 

 

Figure 3: Photomontage illustrating the front (Haig Street) elevation of the proposed development

 

Figure 4: Bird’s eye view of the development (north-east view) indicating the extensive site coverage.

 

§ The proposal has extensive two–storey wall element orientated to the boundary and extending almost the full length of the western side boundary and the width of the southern rear boundary, a presentation that is typical of a residential flat building as distinct from that of the existing low-scaled detached and semi-detached dwelling houses in the local area (see Figures 3 and 4 above).

 

§ The proposal has extensive walls orientated along, and extending almost the full length, of all the subject site’s boundaries resulting in a scale of built form that is significantly greater than that which exists on-site and in the local area.  These walls are compartmentalised into individual bays each containing a dwelling unit in all elevations such that the proposed development would present as an apartment building (see Figures 3 and 4 above) in contrast to the traditional/individual dwelling house presentation of existing residential development in the local area.

 

§ The proposal will result in a strata title sub-division of the proposed development with attendant body corporate common areas that would detract from the existing predominant sub-division pattern of individual allotments dedicated to single or semi-detached dwellings.

 

§ There is no sizeable rear yard with the exception of some unbuilt upon areas along the front and rear setback areas, such that the proposal detracts from the strong open landscape rear yard element in the residential properties in the Haig Street Block.

 

§ The footprints, scale and bulk of the building and the landscape treatment are not consistent with the predominant character of the locality (see Figures 3 and 4 above). This is reflected in a large building footprint that occupies a substantial portion of site area compared to smaller building footprints of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses in the residential block.

 

§ The main pedestrian entry is via a non-descript side accessway while front dwelling units to Haig Street are fortified with a 1.8m to 2m high masonry fence with no legible approach or entries into individual dwellings (see Figure 3 above) in contrast to the well-defined entrance porches/features and/or front doors addressing main streets of the single and semi-detached dwelling houses in the local area.

 

These characteristics of the proposed development, if approved, would introduce a built form with a dominant massing that would be unprecedented in the subject site,  particularly in view of the fact that the amending SEPP has amended clause 10 and deleted Clauses 11 and 12 of the unamended SEPP such that the proposed development would no longer be permissible under the amended SEPP (but for the savings and transitional provisions in Clause 54A). 

 

Future desired character of the local area

As indicated above, the Haig Street block/local area is significantly intact in terms of the consistency in its character comprising largely single and semi detached dwellings on individual lots of land with steeply hipped or gable-end tiled roofs, well defined entrance porches and/or front doors addressing main streets, deep rear landscaped gardens and a number of street level garages. There is a small number of low scale residential flat buildings further towards the intersection of Mons Avenue and French Street, however, all of these were approved under different previous planning regimes and have low density, low scale built forms, compact footprints, and substantial rear yards that are similar to that of the existing detached and semi-detached dwellings in the local area. Accordingly, the existing low density residential character, as supported by the current Residential 2A zoning, will remain the desired future character of the area. Given the Residential 2A zoning, it follows that the numerical built form standards in the LEP and controls in the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, will apply to future dwelling house and attached dual occupancy developments in the area presently and into the future.

 

Furthermore, the amended SEPP now prohibits the proposed development in the existing zone such that approval of the proposed development will result in an anomalous built form with an unprecedented massing and scale in a local area that is significantly intact in terms of its existing low scale and low density residential built form and environment.

 

7.3    State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004

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

 

8.      Policy Controls

 

8.1    Development Control Plan – Multi-unit housing

The DCP – Multi-unit housing does not apply to land zoned Residential 2A as multi-unit housing development is prohibited in Residential 2A zone. Notwithstanding this, the provisions of the DCP are related to the form of the proposed development and an assessment of the proposal ’ against the Preferred Solutions of the DCP – Multi-unit housing, and where variations occur, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements is reasonable especially given the sensitivity of the existing residential 2A zone to the proposed development compared to Residential 2B or 2C zone.  

 


 

Performance requirements

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

A site analysis plan has been provided. However, this site analysis is considered inadequate as it fails to provide an adequate analysis of the relationship of the proposed development to all neighbouring properties (including levels on floor plans and relevant sections). In this regard, the application has not been supplemented with comprehensive information to address this deficiency. All design options for the subject site must be explored and detailed on the basis of a comprehensive site analysis to ensure optimum design outcomes In this regard, a comprehensive Site Analysis/Context Plan is essential and must include, amongst other things, existing and finished Relative Levels, footprint of existing buildings within and adjoining the subject site, and existing survey details including details of ground levels and dwellings of adjoining properties to AHD;  RLs for existing and finished ground levels, roof ridge levels, external and building wall heights, ceiling and eaves level and levels of cut and fill

 

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

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

Combined frontage to Haig Street of 27.46m.

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

N.A.

Height

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

 

While the proposal is compliant with the 8.5m maximum building height under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing), it fails to satisfy the character test applicable in its immediate context, locality and streetscape as it will have an over bearing and monolithic built form oriented to the boundaries.  The proposal will also have an adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of loss of privacy and solar access as assessed in relevant sections of this report.

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

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

 

See comment for P1 above.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

Front setback of max 6.5m from Haig Street which is not consistent with the predominant front setback dwelling houses on the same (southern) side of Haig Street which are predominantly 8-10 metres in width. 

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

 

·    Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

 

·    Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

 

·    Landscaping and private open space provided.

 

·    Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2B

 

o     No part closer than 2.5 metres.

o     Minimum average setback 4 metres.

o     Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

o     Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

East & West

o     Yes – no part of building is closer than 2.5m from eastern and western side boundaries.

 

o     Yes – approx 5m and 6m average for northern side

o     No – there will walls in excess of 10m in length without articulation on the east and west elevation which will accentuate the  

o     No – some steps in the east and south elevations will be less than 3m

 

However, these setbacks would be applicable for a permissible development in a Residential 2B & 2C zone.

 

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

·    Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

·    Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

·    Building built across site.

·   

S3  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

No part closer than 4.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

o     Yes – no part of building is closer than 4.5m from  southern rear boundary.

 

o     Yes – approx 4.5m average from southern rear boundary.

 

o     Yes – No walls in excess of 10m in length without articulation on southern rear boundary.  

 

However, these setbacks would be suitable for a permissible development in a Residential 2B & 2C zone.

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 details of window hoods and sun-shading devices shown on plan.

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; in the streetscape and in relation to neighbouring properties on the southern side of Haig Street will be incompatible with the surrounding built form as detailed in relevant assessment sections of this report. Additionally, the proposal will have adverse impacts on adjoining properties in terms of loss of privacy and solar access and visual bulk and scale as assessed in relevant sections of this report.

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:

·      consistent with streetscape;

·      Entrances highlighted; and

·      Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

The submitted photomontage (no details shown on plan and sections) shows stone / masonry walls approximately 1.8m to 2m high to Haig Street which will be significantly out of character with the low to nil fence structures on neighbouring residential properties  on the same (southern) side of Haig Street. 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum dimension for landscaped area 2 metres.

While preferred minimum dimensions are achieved,  landscaped areas are perimeter largely perimeter planting strips that are significantly out of character with the strong contiguous rear yards of adjoining and surrounding properties in the Haig Street Block.

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

 

No – landscaped areas around the proposed development will be privately allocated as private courtyard to individual ground floor units.  

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Private open space in the form of courtyard terraces and balconies for dwelling units is provided.

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

 

No – proposed private open in front of the building will be contained behind a 1.8m to 2m high masonry fence with a design that is significantly unsympathetic to existing front fences in Haig Street.

P5  Townhouses

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

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

N/A

P6  Flats and apartments

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

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

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

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

Yes (see Section 10.3.2.2 below)

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Yes

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Yes

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Required to comply with BCA

View Sharing

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

 

No iconic or significant views will be affected.

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

 

As above

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

N/A

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties.

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

 

No the proposal will result in unreasonable shadow impacts on the adjoining western property at No. 119 Haig Street.

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.

 

Overshadowing on the adjoining western property at No. 119 Haig Street will eliminate all solar access to its living room window which currently already receives less the than the minimum 3 hours winter solar access as assessed in Section below.

 

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

 

Overshadowing on the rear yard of the adjoining western properties at No 119 Haig Street will occur to less the than the minimum 3 hours required over at least 50% of outdoor open space.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·      Living areas are orientated to the north.

·      Larger windows are located on the north.

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

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

Proposal achieves compliance with BASIX targets

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

N/A – solar collectors not proposed

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Yes - only from upper level dwelling units.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

No – main pedestrian entry is via a non-descript side accessway while front dwelling units to Haig Street are fortified with a 1.8m to 2m high masonry fence with no legible approach or entries into dwellings.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

No – high wall masonry fence to Haig Street

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

No - not shown on drawings.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

N.A.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

Condition can be applied for compliance.

P7 Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

Condition can be applied for compliance.

P8 External lighting does not create a nuisance.

 

 

Standard condition available.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

While the proposal complies with the car parking requirement of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing, it is worth noting that if these DCP car parking standards are applied, the proposal will have a deficiency of 5 carspaces as all proposed dwelling units are over 40sqm and thus considered 1 bedroom dwellings. Accordingly, the car parking rate will be

Residential Spaces = 20 x 1 = 20 spaces

Visitor Spaces = 20 x 0.25 = 5 spaces

Total Required = 25 Spaces

Total Provided = 20 Spaces Deficiency = 5 Spaces+

 

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

 

All car parking in basement.

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

 

Condition can be applied for compliance.

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

None shown in drawings.

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Driveway confined to north-east corner.

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Yes

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

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

The driveway will be approximately 17m long from kerb to bottom of ramp.

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

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

Yes.

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Yes

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

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

Yes by condition to comply with Australian Standard

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

Yes – Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling provided in basement.

Barrier-free access

 

 

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

0-14 dwellings     0

15-29 dwellings   1

30-44 dwellings   2

45-60 dwellings   3

and so on.

 

Consideration for access for people with a disability is required.

Utilities/Site Facilities: subject to  appropriate conditions of consent

 

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

Yes by condition

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

 

Yes – centralised garbage storage area provided at basement level.

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

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

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

 

8.2    Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$4,589,830

1.0%

$45,898

 

9.      Environmental Assessment

 

9.1    Section 79C assessment

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

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

Not applicable. 

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

Appropriate standard conditions can be imposed to address the relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. However the DA is recommended or refusal.  

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 that are otherwise not assessed within the body of this report, are addressed below.

 

The proposed infill affordable housing  essentially a residential use and is not considered to create any detrimental economic impacts.

 

The proposed infill affordable housing would promote housing affordability and broaden accommodation choice in the locality.

 

However, the proposed building footprints, bulk and scale are considered to be excessive and would adversely affect the amenity of the neighbouring residential developments in terms of solar access and privacy. The negative implications of the proposal would more than offset the potential social benefits delivered by the scheme.

 

A more skilful design for a permissible use under the Randwick LEP 1998 that respects the existing character of the surrounding environment would be needed to minimise the environmental and social impacts of the proposed infill affordable housing development.

 

Based on the current design, it cannot be justified that the proposal will not result in unreasonable environmental and social impacts.

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

The proposal in its current form would visually overwhelm the adjoining residences and result in significant amenity impacts. Therefore, the site is not considered to be 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 within the body of this report.

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

The proposal in its current form is not considered to lead to an appropriate environmental and social planning outcome in the locality. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to be within the public interest and is not supported (see section 9.7 below).

 

9.2    Built form

The proposal aims to maximise the floor space ratio allowable under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing). This has resulted in an FSR of 0.79:1 (which exceeds the SEPP maximum FSR of 0.75:1), as compared to the LEP standard of 0.5:1 for a dual occupancy which would otherwise apply to the site. Despite the bonus FSR permissible under the SEPP, the design scheme has not explored adequate measures to distribute the floor space in a manner that minimises visual bulk and scale and amenity impacts on the street and the neighbouring properties. In particular, the proposal raises the following built form issues:

 

·      As is demonstrated in the 3-D model (see Figure 4 above), the proposal has a significant site coverage that amounts to approximately 62% of the allotment. The proposal has reserved some landscaped areas along the northern, southern and eastern setback zones as well as an entrance courtyard on the western side of the building. However, the above landscaped areas are not considered to function effectively in minimising visual impacts on the street and adjoining properties, given the substantial height, scale and mass of the building. The built form occupies a substantial footprint that not only diminishes the perimeter landscaping in this manner but will also be out of character with the footprint of established detached and semi-detached dwelling houses in the Haig Street Block.

 

·      The site has an elongated configuration with a length of over 30m. In the light of the site characteristics, the proposal would be better served by a reduced mass suitably broken built form instead of the proposed single dominant mass which would offer visual relief and avoid continuous wall planes as well as maximise solar access to the affected western neighbour.

 

·      The proposed built form has incorporated some wall indentations and articulation. However, despite these design features, the length and dominant massing of the proposed building will be visible from adjoining and surrounding properties in the local area and also from the street to the extent that this massing and scale will be incompatible.

 

·      The dominant physical mass orientated along the boundaries means that all side windows and terraces will be oriented directly towards the adjoining residences and will result in an undesirable privacy outcome.

 

In conclusion, the form, massing and footprints of the development are considered to be visually incongruous to the established built form in the local area and would  result in detrimental impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring residences and are not supported.

 

9.3      Landscaping

The proposal has reserved 38.17% of the allotment as landscaped areas. For the purpose of comparison, the LEP requirement that generally applies for dual occupancy development in Residential 2A zones is 40%.

 

Despite the numerical amount of unbuilt upon areas being reserved on the site, the landscape design is not considered to be satisfactory as the scale and footprint of the development relegates landscaping in some places to perimeter strips that are inadequate for screen planting and softening the physical structures. The submitted landscape plan does not provide adequate canopy trees on the site. In particular, there are sections of unarticulated/unrelieved exposed walls on the east and west elevation that will not be screened effectively given the constrained nature of the planter beds adjacent to the long driveway on the eastern side and the side pedestrian path on the western side. The overall landscape and planting design are not responsive to the scale and nature of the development and do not efficiently utilise the amount of unbuilt upon areas being provided. Furthermore, the function and use of the landscape area in the southern rear setback will be constrained as the landscaping in this area will be subject to the vagaries of private ownership given their appropriation in the strata plan as courtyards for individual units rather than being in communal ownership. More importantly, given the large scale and footprint of the proposed development, the provision of landscaped areas in this rear southern setback, at a maximum 6m wide, is out of character with the predominantly deep rear yards typical of the Haig Street block (approximately 10-15m deep for properties fronting Haig Street and sometimes more for properties fronting French Street). 

 

9.4    Privacy

As the proposal essentially is a multi-unit housing development, it will result in six balconies (three on each floor linked to living areas) in the south elevation facing the rear yards of the adjoining French Street properties of Nos. 30, 32 and 34 French Street. The DA drawings show the proposed installation of angled privacy screens on top of the balustrades. However, overlooking into these rear yards will still be possible from the balcony sides given the projecting nature of the proposed balconies.

 

The proposal will also introduce four recessed balconies on the west elevation which will overlook east-facing windows and the rear yard of the adjoining semi-detached properties at No. 117 and 119 Haig Street. In particular, the proposal’s ground floor level is almost at the same level as the east-facing window sills of No. 119 Haig Street. The proposal’s west elevation show privacy screens to these balconies but there are no notations to explain the nature and effectiveness of these screens and these screens are not shown on the floor drawings.  Accordingly, the privacy impact upon the adjoining western property is unreasonable and unacceptable.

 

While it is recognized that loss of privacy in terms of the overlooking of adjoining properties by other dwellings is not uncharacteristic of the local area,  the intensity of six and four separate balconies on the south and east elevation respectively bearing upon the privacy of existing low scaled residential properties and rear yards is unreasonable and unacceptable and introduces a degree of privacy impact that is uncharacteristic of  the area. This intensity of privacy loss would normally not occur in the existing Residential 2A zoning of eth local area where skilful and considerate dwelling house or dual occupancy designs are employed.  

 

9.5    Overshadowing

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that at 9am in the winter solstice, the whole of the eastern wall of the adjoining western property at No. 119 Haig Street and the adjoining unformed lane way (French Lane). This eastern wall contains, among other things, one window to a living room and one window to a kitchen which currently receives less than 3 hours sunlight in the winter morning. The proposed development will completely eliminate the existing limited solar access available to these adjoining windows, particularly to the living room. As indicated in Section 8 above, the proposal would not comply with the Performance Requirement of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing in relation to solar access which requires that if less than 3 hours solar access to living room areas is available in an existing situation, a new development is not to reduce this further. Additionally, contrary to the DCP – Multi-unit Housing, more than 50% of the rear yard of the adjoining western property at No. 119 Haig Street will have its solar access reduced to less than 3 hours per day in winter due to the increase overshadowing of this rear yard generated by the proposed development in the winter morning.

 

In conclusion, the proposed shadow impacts in relation to No 119 Haig Street are not considered to be reasonable to the amenity of the residents in this adjoining property and would not comply with the performance requirement of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing.

 

9.6    Traffic and parking

The proposed development provides more on-site car parking (20 spaces) than the minimum requirement of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) which specifically limits the amount of parking provided for such development given the SEPP’s requirement for a minimum 400m walking distance to a bus stop. The increased car parking provision allows for the proposed dwelling units to at least be allocated with one car parking space each whether sold individually or rented, which is incongruous with the SEPP requirement in that it physically encourages car ownership and car travel rather than the SEPP’s affordable option for bus travel. The provision of excess car parking results in increased traffic on Haig Street particularly at the cul-de-sac end that not only significantly changes the character of this street but becomes acutely perceptible to, and detrimental to the amenity of, residents in Haig Street.

 

The proposal potentially adds demand pressure on on-street car parking particularly in the Haig Street cul-de-sac where limited on-street car parking and illegal nuisance parking is a significant concern of local residents in this street. The applicant’s traffic and parking assessment advises that, as the proposal provides for more on-site car parking than the minimum SEPP requirement, no additional on-street car parking will occur and, by implication, a broader parking study on parking Haig Street has not been undertaken and is not necessary. However, local residents’ experience of the shortage of on-street car parking at critical times potentially will be exacerbated by the introduction of 20 additional dwelling units on the subject site due to the attendant occurrence of two-car ownership and absence of visitor parking in the proposed development.

 

9.7    The public interest

The applicant advises in section 4.6.5 of the SEE that the proposal, pursuant to SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009, is in the public interest as it:

 

“will meet a clear demand for affordable housing within the Pittwater Local Government Area (sic)”

 

While the reference to an incorrect local government area (ie., Pittwater) is a typographical error based on other similar assessments of similar developments undertaken in another Council, the subject affordable housing proposal, importantly, applies to a site within the Randwick LGA, which in turn, specifically, relates to a visual catchment (the Haig Street Block) to which the proposal must positively respond, in the public interest, in terms of physical and visual impacts. As indicated in this assessment report, the proposal has failed to meet this compatibility test as required under Clause 54A (3) of the amended SEPP Affordable Rental Housing. It is contended that the public interest is not served by imposing an incompatible development that has an incongruous bulk and scale, unprecedented physical mass, unsuitable landscaped open space and as well as  adverse physical impacts in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, bulk and scale, traffic and parking in the local area. Accordingly, approval of the proposed development would not be in the public interest.

Conclusion

 

The subject DA was lodged on 29 March 2011 and at the time of lodging, it relied on the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 which allowed for “in-fill affordable housing” in a range of residential zones including in Residential 2A zones. Since lodgement of the DA, an amendment to the SEPP has been passed and gazetted, which essentially permits “in-fill affordable housing” and the relevant form that such development takes (eg, dual occupancies or multi-unit housing development) only in existing zones where such forms of development are permissible. The subject proposal is not subject to this particular amendment of the Act by virtue of savings and transitional provisions included in the amending SEPP under Clause 54A (2). These savings and transitional provisions under Clause 54A(3) of the amending SEPP also require that consent must not be granted to development unless a compatibility test of the design of the proposed development to the character of the local area has been undertaken.

 

In line with this requirement, a character test of the proposed development in the local area has been undertaken. The character test essentially indicates that the location, bulk and scale of the building will be incongruous in the context of existing residential development in the local area. It will be highly visible from the adjoining and surrounding dwellings. The form, massing and proportions of the development are not considered to contribute to an appropriate architectural outcome and would detrimentally impact on the visual and general amenity of the neighbouring residences, the streetscape and the local area. The development scheme has not responded to the desirable elements of the local area and therefore does not demonstrate a skilful design that fits into the local character. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 54A (3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, as amended and Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

The proposed development will adversely affect the character and amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties and the locality in terms of loss of sunlight, loss of privacy, overbearing bulk and scale,  increased traffic and increased car parking. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 54A (3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, and Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

The proposed development will not comply with the FSR standard of 0.75:1 under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing). The proposal will have an FSR of 0.79:1 when enclosed internal circulation areas, excluded by the applicant, are included in the GFA calculation which adds to the overall visual bulk and massing of the proposed development. The proposal also falls short of the minimum dwelling size standard of 50 sqm for one bedroom units required under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

For the above reasons, it is recommended that the subject application be REFUSED.

 

 

Recommendation

 

        That Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/223/2011 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey affordable housing development comprising 20 residential units, basement level parking for 20 vehicles, strata subdivision and associated works at 121-123 Haig Street, Maroubra, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The application does not satisfy the objectives for Zone No. 2A stipulated under Clauses 10(1)(a), (b) and (c) of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) in that the proposed building will have a dominant physical mass with an inappropriate envelope and bulk, and that the development fails to deliver a suitable landscape treatment to the site. The development scheme will not be compatible with the desired residential character of the locality and will not protect the amenity of the existing residents.

 

2.       The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 14 (1)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in relation to building density and scale and dwelling unit size. Specifically, the proposal has a non-compliant FSR of 0.79:1 that results in an excessive visual bulk and physical massing that will be out of character with the predominant low scale dwelling house and semi-detached built forms in the local area.

 

3.       The form, massing and proportions of the infill affordable housing are not considered to be compatible with the existing development pattern in the local area and will dominate the adjoining and nearby residential buildings. The proposal will not contribute to a satisfactory architectural outcome and will adversely affect the character of the local area and streetscape. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 54A (3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, as amended.

 

4.       The landscape and open space provisions of the proposed infill affordable housing are not considered to be compatible with the existing development pattern of rear open space and yards in the area such that it will be inconsistent with the character of the local area and steetscape. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 54A (3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, as amended.

 

5.       The proposal will result in a sub-division that would detract from the existing predominant sub-division pattern of individual allotments dedicated to single or semi-detached dwellings in the local area. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 54A (3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, as amended.

 

6.       The form, massing and proportions of the infill affordable housing are not considered to be compatible with the existing development pattern in the local area and will dominate the adjoining and nearby residential buildings. The proposal will not contribute to a satisfactory architectural outcome and will adversely affect the character of the local area and streetscape. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

7.       The landscape and open space provisions of the proposed infill affordable housing are not considered to be compatible with the existing development pattern of rear open space and yards in the area such that it will be inconsistent with the character of the local area and steetscape. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

8.       The proposal will result in a sub-division that would detract from the existing predominant sub-division pattern of individual allotments dedicated to single or semi-detached dwellings in the local area. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

9.       The subject site is unsuitable for the proposed development as it is located within a local area that has an existing and desired future residential character with which the proposed development will be incompatible. Therefore,  the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

10.     The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that the proposed bulk, scale, built form and design will detract from the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

11.     The proposal dos not provide for a legible front entrance to Haig Street which will have a stone / masonry fence approximately 1.8m to 2m high and significantly out of character with the predominant low to nil fence structures on neighbouring residential properties on the same (southern) side of Haig Street. 

 

12.     The proposed development will be visually bulky and intrusive and therefore will adversely affect the visual amenity of the local area and be overbearing when viewed from surrounding streets and residential properties and does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

13.     The proposed development will result in detrimental overshadowing of the adjoining western dwelling house by eliminating the remaining solar access available to the living room and kitchen windows of this adjoining property and reducing solar access to the rear yard of this adjoining property. The proposed degree of overshadowing on the adjoining dwelling could be reduced by a more skilful design for a permissible development that respects the character of the locality and configuration of the site. In this regard, the proposed shadow impacts are not considered to be reasonable. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

14.     The proposed development will result in detrimental privacy impacts on the neighbouring residential buildings and does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

15.     The proposed development will result in an increase in vehicular traffic in local streets, in particular Haig Street, which is considered unreasonable and unacceptable because the amenity of residents living on this street will suffer as a result of the high and increased frequency of vehicular movements in and out of the site and does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

16.     The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and details relating to a thorough and comprehensive site analysis, including but not limited to:

 

·      internal and external site factors that affects the design and siting of development on the subject site

·      comprehensive details of RLs for existing and finished ground levels for the subject site and for adjoining sites to provide an understanding of the amenity impacts of the proposal on adjoining properties

·      development opportunities and constraints that have been instrumental in shaping the design of the proposed development having regard to its location. 

·      Integration of the proposed building with existing vegetation in and outside the site that is likely to be affected by the proposal.

 

17.     The drawings submitted with the application is deficient of the following details:

 

·      figured dimensions of existing and proposed works

·      relative levels to Australian Height Datum

·      walls, partitions, features and elements that should correspond to those shown in elevations / sections

 

18.     The proposal is not within the public interest and does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            11 October 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D123/11

 

 

Subject:                  21 Fern Street, Clovelly (DA/583/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/583/2011

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to existing semi detached dwelling, (SEPP 1 Objections in relation to Building Height, Floor Space Ratio and Landscaping Controls)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Cape Cod Australia Pty Ltd

Owner:                         D Boquist & S Smith

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling to provide for a first floor addition. As per Council’s advice the semi-detached dwelling house in the Residential 2A Zone should be classified as an attached dual occupancy.

 

As the proposal is now classified as an attached dual occupancy and not a dwelling house the development standards contained in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) now apply. The proposal does not comply with the relevant controls in the LEP in that the dwelling will have a floor space ratio of 0.74:1 and exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1, the area of landscaping is 36% of the site in lieu of the required 40% and the external wall height at the highest point is up to 7.995m which exceeds the maximum of 7m.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal includes a SEPP 1 Objection that exceeds the standard by more than 10%. If the proposal was assessed under the provision of the DCP – Dwelling House the preferred solution for floor space ratio would be 0.65:1, the landscaping and external wall height controls in the DCP are in this instance identical to those in the LEP control.

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a first floor addition. The main issue is the potential for any impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling to enlarge the existing ground level to provide for an addition to the rear of the dwelling and a deck to the side of the dwelling sited up to the boundary. An existing garage to the rear of the site will be demolished to accommodate the new development. A new upper level is proposed which will comprise two bedrooms and a bathroom with rear balcony. The proposal will provide for 60m of additional floor area to the dwelling.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Fern Street near the corner of Varna Street and contains an existing semi detached dwelling with carport to the front boundary amongst a group of semi detached and free standing dwellings and multi unit housing development. The site has a street frontage of 9.19m and depth of 27.225m/27.425m and an area of 215m.

 

4.    Site History

 

There is no relevant site history for this property.

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within RLEP 1998. The following SEPP 1 objections have been submitted to Council.

 

5.1 Landscaping

Pursuant to Clause 20E of the RLEP 1998 the minimum of 40% of the site area is to be provided as landscaped area. The proposed variation is summarised below.

 

 

Landscaping

Proposal

36% (77m2 )

LEP development standard

40% (86m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

10% shortfall (9m2)

 

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).

 

Landscaping 20E

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

 

“To operate together with controls for floor space ratio and building height 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 variation sought is not significant and the landscaped area provided is consistent in size with existing adjoining and nearby lots that already accommodate existing similar size two storey dwelling houses and semi detached dwellings.

 

The existing landscaping is non compliant.

 

The proposal satisfies the objectives of Clause 20E of the LEP in that the proposal will provide the dwelling with a usable outdoor recreation space, improve stormwater management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of housing through integrated landscape design.

 

The proposal will not require the removal or trimming of any trees or shrubs upon this or the adjoining sites with no additional hard paved areas being proposed or required as a result.

 

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

 

Due to the existing site constraints of a very small allotment there are already limited opportunities to provide for landscaping and also improve the amount of habitable floor area for the occupants. In this instance it would be an unreasonable impost to require strict compliance with the minimum landscaping control when it can be demonstrated that the area of landscaping proposed will meet the overall objectives of the LEP control. The resultant landscaping area will still allow for an adequate area of open space for recreation and planting of vegetation and the encroachment upon the existing landscaping area by the development is not significant with only a minimal increase in the existing building footprint.

 

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.”

 

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

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2A Zone in that it will allow attached dual occupancy development, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

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 planning 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 development standard.

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is unreasonable.

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The landscaping 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 zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

5.2 Floor Space Ratios

Pursuant to Clause 20F of RLEP 1998, the maximum FSR within 2A Zones is 0.5:1 respectively. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Proposal

0.74:1 (159m2 )

LEP development standard

0.5:1 (108m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

24% excess (51m2)

 

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 proposed gross floor area of the building is consistent with the bulk and scale of the existing surrounding dwellings and three storey residential unit buildings.

 

The proposal mirrors the form of development that has been carried out upon similar semis in the local area when viewed from the street.

 

A complying development would look at odds in terms of proportion and character with the existing dwelling and adjoining development.

 

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 exceeds the floor space ratio control however in the context of the existing locality which includes a number of dwellings of similar bulk and scale, and some three and four level residential flat buildings it cannot be argued that this development will be substantially out of keeping with the established character of the locality.

 

The proposed upper level provides for a generous front boundary setback of 10m which maintains a substantial portion of the existing façade and will have minimal impact upon the existing streetscape.

 

The amenity impacts to the adjoining properties as a result of the additional floor area will not be significant as the upper level footprint does not extend past that of the adjoining two storey building at No.23 Fern Street which has a larger building envelope and the upper level being to the south of the property at No.19 Fern Street will not result in any loss of direct sunlight or additional overshadowing.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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 2A Zone in that it will allow attached dual occupancy development, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

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 development standard.

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is unreasonable.

 

Fourth

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

 

 

Comments:

The FSR development standards 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 zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

5.3 Building Heights

Pursuant to Clause 20G of RLEP 1998, the maximum building heights within 2A Zones are 9.5m overall and 7m to the external wall. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Building height

Proposal

8.3m maximum height and 7.995m external wall height

LEP development standard

9.5m maximum height and 7m external wall height

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

14% excess (995mm)

 

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).

 

Building Heights

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

 

“To operate together with controls for landscaped area and floor space ratio 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 non compliance with the external wall height control is not of that greater importance as it does not greatly influence the bulk or scale (overall envelope) of the development, with the proposal being easily fully compliant with the overall height and in keeping with the existing built form of the local area.

 

The area of non compliance is localised towards the rear and is not apparent to the streetscape or visible from the public domain.

 

The proposal mirrors the form of development that has been carried out upon similar semis in the local area when viewed from the street and is therefore there is no doubt that the proposed bulk and scale of the development is consistent with the built form of the surrounding developments on these sloping sites.

 

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

 

The overall height of the building does not exceed the maximum of 9.5m and at it’s highest point to the rear of the building the external wall height is 7.995m. The departure from the external wall height standard to the rear of the dwelling arises because of the fall of the site towards the rear and is not because of an unreasonable or inappropriate building design.

 

The wall height to the southern side of the dwelling exceeds the height of the adjoining dwelling at 23 Fern Street by 500mm at the front and up to 1200mm to the rear, however that dwelling has a solid wall of two storey scale sited upon the side boundary and there are no windows in that dwelling opposite this wall that would be impacted by either the visual appearance of the wall or be affected by any overshadowing from the dwelling.

 

In relation to the dwelling to the north at 19 Fern Street the portion of the wall which exceeds the control is sited 1190mm from the side boundary and for the most part is opposite the party wall between the two semi detached dwellings and the roof of the that dwelling. Therefore, to that adjoining dwelling there will not be any adverse impact to their amenity because of the position and setback of the wall to the party wall and the orientation of the site will not result in any overshadowing upon that dwelling from the new upper level.

 

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.”

 

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

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2A Zone in that it will allow attached dual occupancy development, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

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 development standard.

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is unreasonable.

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The building height development standards 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 zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 


6     Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

Clause 20E Landscaped area

Development other than for the purpose of a dwelling house within a 2A zone must provide a minimum of 40% of the total site area as landscaped area. The resultant area of landscaping represents 36% of the site area which is less than the minimum and a SEPP 1 Objection to this standard has been lodged by the applicant for consideration. 

 

Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house within 2A zones is 0.5:1. This proposal has a total floor space ratio of 0.74:1 which exceeds the maximum in the control and a SEPP 1 Objection to this standard has been lodged by the applicant for consideration.

 

Clause 20G Building Heights

The maximum height for a building other than a dwelling house within a 2A zone is 9.5m from any point on ground level with a maximum external wall height of 7m. The building height is 8.3m with an external wall height of 7.995m. The external wall height exceeds the control maximum and a SEPP 1 Objection to this standard has been lodged by the applicant for consideration.

       

7       Policy Controls

 

Development Control Plan Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies

 


Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

36%

No see comment below

25m² of private open space provided.

41m2 +

Yes

Min. dimensions of 3m x 4m & minor level change

Various dimensions which satisfy the minimum

Yes

Open space behind the building line.

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

20%

Yes

 

The area of landscaping does not meet the minimum preferred solution, however the area provided satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that it will provide for a usable area of outdoor recreation and private open space for the occupants of the building and does not require the removal of any existing vegetation.

 

 

Floor area

(Site area 215m2) maximum FSR 0.65:1 

0.74:1

See below

 

The proposal does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP, however in this instance there are no major objections as the resultant floor area of the dwelling will not be out of keeping with the established character of the immediate locality which contains dwellings of similar bulk and scale and therefore whilst the preferred solution is not complied with it can be demonstrated that the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied. In any case, FSR is controlled by LEP development standards in this case.

 

 

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

7.995m

No, see comment below

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

No more  than 1m

Yes

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

Up to side boundaries

See below

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Up to 1.5m from rear boundary

See below

 

The external wall height of the dwelling exceeds the preferred solution of the DCP, however in this instance there are no objections as the external wall height is exceeded to the rear of the dwelling only and arises because of the fall of the site towards the rear and in itself the external wall height of the dwelling will not result in any significant impacts to the amenity of the adjoining properties or be excessive in height and scale in comparison with the existing character of the locality.

Excavation for the addition will be up to the side boundary and up to 1.5m from the rear boundary. Conditions of consent are included with respect to ensuring that both the subject and adjoining sites are properly maintained during and after building works.

 

 

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

No change

Yes

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m

1.5m

See below

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

Up to northern and 1000mm from southern side boundaries

See below

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

Up to 150mm from the northern side and 1000mm from southern side boundaries

See below

 

The northern boundary setback of the dwelling up to the side boundary maintains the party wall and fire separation between the two semi detached dwellings and will not result in any impacts to the amenity of that adjoining dwelling.

In relation to the southern side boundary there will not be any impact to the adjoining dwelling at the setback is opposite a solid two storey blank masonry wall of the adjoining dwelling and will therefore not have any impact upon light and ventilation to that dwelling.

The rear boundary setback of the dwelling reflects the allotment subdivision pattern with the rear boundary angled across the site rather than being perpendicular to the side boundary. The setback of up to 1.5m will not restrict access to natural daylight and fresh air to the adjoining property as the setback is directly opposite the side wall to the adjoining dwelling and not opposite any window openings in that portion of the dwelling.

 

 

 

Privacy

The proposal includes an upper level balcony to the rear off bedroom 1, there is a potential for direct overlooking into the private outdoor living areas of the adjoining dwellings and a condition of consent is recommended to require the provision of a privacy screen to both sides of the balcony. There will not be any impact from the new ground level deck as this is sited directly opposite the solid blank wall of the dwelling opposite which is sited up to the boundary.

 

 

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

New dwellings comply with 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

 

See BASIX

n/a

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

No significant reduction

Yes

North-facing living areas receive at least 3 hrs sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June.

Yes

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained 9am - 3pm.

 

No impact to solar collectors

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

No north facing windows in the existing dwelling which has a solid blank wall to the northern side boundary.  Additional overshadowing upon the dwellings sited beyond the adjoining dwelling is not significant.

 

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

 

See comments below

 

 

There will be some additional overshadowing onto the adjoining properties, however the extent of overshadowing is unavoidable and not unreasonable as it arises because of the orientation of the sites on an east west axis rather than because of any unacceptable design. 

 

 

 

 


8     Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Notification. No response has been received.

 

9     Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200000

$ 364 980

1.0%

$ 3 649.80

 

10   Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the application to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dwelling be approved 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 20 E, 20F and 20G of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to landscaping, floor space ratio and building heights respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/583/2011 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 21 Fern Street, Clovelly 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

Sheets 1-8 Job No. 7302/11

Matthew Beesley

22/7/2011

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

A118401

21st July 2011

 

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 both sides of the rear upper level balcony to maintain the privacy of the outdoor private living areas of the adjoining properties. 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.

 

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.

 

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 are to be consisten with the External Finishes and Colour Schedule dated 9th March 2011 received by Council with the Development Application on the 1st August 2011.

 

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 $ 364 980, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $ 3 649.80.

       

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

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

 

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

 

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

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 with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Smoke Alarms

8.       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

9.       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.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

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

 

Construction Certificate, Principal Certifying Authority & Commencement of Works

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

 

a)     a Construction Certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

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

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Dilapidation Reports

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

 

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

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

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

·           as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

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

 

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.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works on site.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Construction Site Management Plan

15.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

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

·        location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·        location of building materials for construction;

·        provisions for public safety;

·        dust control measures;

·        site access location and construction

·        details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·        protective measures for tree preservation;

·        provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·        location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·        details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·        provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·        construction noise and vibration management;

·        construction traffic management details.

 

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

 

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

 

Sydney Water

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

 

Prior to the commencement of excavation or building works, the approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au and go to the Building, Developing and Plumbing, then Quick Check or Building and Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

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

 

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

 


Inspections During Construction

17.     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

18.     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

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, 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.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

20.     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.

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

21.     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 are to be included in the Construction Site Management Plan.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

·        Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other articles must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

·        The road, footpath, vehicular crossing and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe, clean condition and free from any excavations, obstructions, trip hazards, goods, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway, vehicular crossing, nature strip or any public place must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

·        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.

 

·        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.

 

·        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.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

23.     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.

 

24.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations 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.

 

25.     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.

 

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

26.     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

27.     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

28.     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.

 

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

29.     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.

 

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)

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            11 October 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D124/11

 

 

Subject:                  152-154 Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/373/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/373/2011

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Restoration and refurbishment of two attached terraces to provide 6 x 1-bedroom apartments; demolition of the existing rear block to the terraces; construction of a new 3-storey rear extension comprising 3 x 1-bedroom apartments and 1 x 2-bedroom apartment; provision of 2 levels of basement parking for 12 vehicles; landscaping and associated works. (Heritage Item & Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                ESI Property Pty. Ltd.

Owner:                         ESI Property Pty. Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


1.      Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to the Planning Committee as it contains variations to the FSR and external wall height standards by more than 10%.

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 8 to 23 June 2011 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of three (3) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the submissions are primarily related to overshadowing, traffic obstruction in Greenstead Lane during the construction phase, stormwater management and internal amenity of the proposed development.

 

The subject site is zoned Residential 2C under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed multi-unit housing development is permissible with Council’s consent and is considered to satisfy the zoning objectives.

 

The two existing attached Victorian terraces on the site are identified as a heritage item under the LEP. The site is located within the Randwick Junction Conservation Area and is adjacent to a number of heritage items listed under the LEP. The existing terraces have suffered fire damage and are in very poor condition. The proposal involves demolition of the rear wing to the terraces, which has already been substantially modified and does not carry material heritage values. The main terrace buildings will be retained and extensive restoration to the architectural elements will be undertaken. In this regard, the proposal is considered to deliver positive planning benefits.

 

The proposed FSR is 0.96:1, which exceeds the LEP standard by 0.31:1 or 213m2 GFA. The proposed external wall height amounts to 11.2m and exceeds the development standard by 1.2m.

 

The existing Victorian terraces are 3 storeys in height. The original design scheme proposes a 4-storey rear extension to the terraces. At Council’s request, the applicant has submitted amended plans which include deletion of the original 3rd level from the rear building block with corresponding reduction in height by 2.4m. The revised design now presents a stepped built form where the rear block is generally one level below the terrace buildings (due to the lower floor to ceiling height of the rear block). The new additions are visually subservient to the heritage terraces in terms of bulk and scale, and will significantly reduce overshadowing on the southern neighbours to an acceptable level. The amended proposal is considered to contribute to a suitable built form and amenity outcome.

 

The development has a minor deviation from the landscaped area standard in the LEP by 3.2% or 22m2. Notwithstanding, the design scheme provides functional private and communal open space with adequate landscape planting, which will offer a high degree of amenity for the occupants and improve the visual amenity of the street and neighbouring properties.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objections for variations to the aforementioned development standards have been reviewed and are considered to be well founded.

 

The proposal includes 12 car spaces at the basement levels and entails a minor departure from the DCP requirement by only 1 space. Given the high accessibility of the site within the Randwick Junction centre and that at least one car space can be allocated to each of the dwelling units, the proposed parking provision is considered to be satisfactory. Due to the constraints of the development involving conservation and retention of the terraces, it is proposed to utilise a mechanical car hoist for access to the basement car park. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections on safety or traffic grounds, subject to the recommended conditions, which include requirements to repave the rear laneway to improve vehicular manoeuvrability.

 

The proposal satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed development meets the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is described as Lot 1 in DP 91045, No. 152-154 Avoca Street, Randwick. The site is located on the western side of Avoca Street, between Alison Road and Short Street. Vehicular access to the site is obtained from Greenstead Lane. The dimensions and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

37.035m

677.4m2

Southern, side boundary

37.175m

Eastern, Avoca Street boundary

18.195m

Western, Greenstead Lane boundary

18.345m

 

The site is relatively flat with a fall of up to approximately 1.47m.

 

At present, the site is occupied by a pair of 3-storey attached Victorian terraces with a double-storey rear extension. Detached garages are located at the rear fronting Greenstead Lane. The existing buildings have suffered fire damage and are in very poor condition.

 

To the north of the site is a group of three similarly configured two-storey buildings (Nos. 146, 148 and 150 Avoca Street), which are listed as heritage items under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan [Inventory No. 70: “Clovelly”, “Ilfracombe” and “Torquay”, Italianate houses, c 1906]. To the south is a pair of attached Victorian terraces (Nos. 156 and 158 Avoca Street), which are also listed as heritage items under the LEP [Inventory No. 73: two late Victorian terraces, c 1890]. To the west on the opposite side of Greenstead Lane is a school complex.

 

The western side of Avoca Street is characterised by two- to three-storey historical buildings, with a focus on commercial and retail uses towards the intersection with Alison Road. The eastern side of the street consists of a range of 1960’s residential flat buildings, recent mixed commercial and apartment development, older style retail buildings with shop top housing and a heritage listed hotel [Inventory No. 71: “Coach and Horses Hotel”, c 1859].

 

1. Front (Avoca Street) elevation of the existing terraces on the subject site

2. Rear (Greenstead Lane) frontage of the subject site

 

Streetscape elevation and panoramic photo of the western side of Avoca Street (Source: Pad Architects)

 

3.      The Proposal

 

The proposed development includes the following components:

 

·      Demolition of the existing rear wing to the terrace buildings.

·      Refurbishment and restoration of the existing terrace buildings to provide 6 x 1-bedroom apartments.

·      Construction of a 3-storey building attached to the rear of the terraces, which comprises 3 x split-level single bedroom apartments and 1 x two-bedroom apartment.

·      Construction of two basement parking levels with 12 car spaces accessible by a mechanical hoist off Greenstead Lane.

·      General landscaping.

 

4.      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). SEPP 1 Objections have been submitted to Council.

 

4.1    Deviation from the development standards

 

(i)     Landscaped areas

Pursuant to Clause 20E(1) of the LEP, a minimum of 50% of the site is to be reserved as landscaped areas (being 339m2). A total of 46.8% or 317m2 is provided. This represents a shortfall of 3.2% or 22m2. The proposal entails a variation to the development standard by 7%.

 

(ii)    Floor space ratio

Pursuant to Clause 20F(2) of the LEP, the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C is 0.65:1 or 440m2 gross floor area (GFA) for sites with a land area of less than 700m2. The proposal has an FSR of 0.96:1 or 653m2 GFA, and exceeds the development standard by 0.31:1 or 213m2. The proposal entails a variation to the standard by 48%.

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio (FSR)

Gross floor area (GFA)

Proposed FSR / GFA

0.96:1

653m2

Permissible FSR /  GFA

0.65:1

440m2

FSR / GFA in excess of LEP standard

0.31:1

213m2

 

(iii)   Building heights

Clause 20G(4) specifies the maximum external wall height of 10m in Residential 2C Zone. The proposed external wall height exceeds the development standard by 1.2m. The proposal entails a variation to the standard by 12%.

 

4.2    SEPP 1 assessment

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

Comments:

The stated purpose of the 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 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 stated purpose of the building height standard as outlined in the LEP 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 written SEPP 1 Objections, which outline the following key justifications for the variations to the standards:

 

Landscaped area:

Applicant’s SEPP 1:

 

It is considered that the proposed landscaped area provision is satisfactory, and compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

-      The proposal aims to retain and refurbish the heritage listed Victorian terraces on the site, with the demolition of the rear wing which has already been substantially modified and has limited heritage value. Due to the proposed conservation works, the location and footprints of the new in-fill building block are significantly restricted. The existing development on the site reserves only 48% of the allotment (or 325m2) as landscaped areas. The proposal will only result in a minor numerical reduction in the current provision by 8m2 (from 48% to 46.8% of the site area), despite the aforementioned development constraints. It is considered that the benefits delivered by the development in terms of the meticulous restoration of the historic buildings will outweigh the minor non-compliance with the standard.

 

-      The proposal includes suitably landscaped and dimensioned north-facing private gardens for the ground floor apartment units within the new building. Communal recreation and service courtyards have also been incorporated in the development. The proposal provides aesthetically pleasing and functional private and communal open space and will offer a high level of amenity for the occupants.

 

-      The landscape design includes careful restoration of the front gardens and will improve the character of Avoca Street. Furthermore, a combination of feature trees and shrubs will be planted along the side boundaries, which will improve the visual amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties.

 

-      The application has included estimates of the existing landscaped area provision of the adjoining and nearby properties on the western side of Avoca Street:

No. 146: approx. 39%

No. 148: approx. 55%

No. 150: approx. 38%

No. 156: approx. 37%

No. 158: approx. 40%

No. 160: approx. 34%

No. 162: approx. 51%

 

Comparative landscaped area analysis for urban block on western side of Avoca Street (source: Pad Architects)

 

The quantum of the proposed landscaped area provision is commensurate with the development pattern of the subject urban block.

 


Floor space ratio:

Applicant’s SEPP 1:

 

External wall height:

Applicant’s SEPP 1:

 

 

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and compliance with the FSR and external wall height standards is unreasonable and unnecessary based on the following reasons:

 

-      The subject site is located within the Randwick Junction town centre. The locality is characterised by a mixture of 2- and 3- or more storey residential, commercial and mixed use developments.

 

The site is also located within the Residential 2C Zone under the LEP. The zone objectives aim to enable medium density residential development, and the relevant development standards allow for buildings with a 12m maximum height and FSR of 0.9:1. These controls envisage future development of a 3- to 4-storey envelope in this location, representing a scale and bulk that are commensurate with the proposed rear block. The proposal will deliver medium density housing which is consistent with the intention of the 2C Zone.

 

-      The existing Victorian terraces are 3 storeys in height with a ridge level at RL85.55 (excluding chimney stacks).

 

At Council’s request, the applicant has submitted amended plans which include complete deletion of the 3rd level from the new rear extension with corresponding reduction in height by 2.4m (from RL84.25 to RL81.85).

 

The revised design now presents a stepped built form where the rear block is generally one level below the terrace buildings (due to the lower floor to ceiling height of the rear block). The new additions are visually subservient to the heritage terraces in terms of bulk and scale and will significantly reduce overshadowing on the southern neighbours. The amended proposal is considered to contribute to a suitable built form and amenity outcome.

 

-      The proposed rear building has a maximum height of 11.2m, and is 800mm well below the overall height standard of the LEP.

 

-      The LEP stipulates a more stringent FSR limit to 2C zoned sites with less than 700m2 land area. The subject site has a land area of 677.4m2 and falls short of the 700m2 threshold by 22.6m2. Therefore, the 0.65:1 control applies.

 

The purpose of the development standards is to achieve a satisfactory environmental amenity and aesthetic character for the area. Additionally, the aims of the Multi Unit Housing DCP (as outlined in Section 1.1) include the encouragement of environmental and architectural design excellence to produce an urban environment that inspires the community, as well as the promotion of environmental design standards that enhance the desired character of existing neighbourhoods.

 

As discussed, the proposed development will retain the heritage terraces and meticulously restore the architectural detailing that has been lost. The proposal will significantly enhance the heritage character of the terraces as well as the visual amenity of Avoca Street. Furthermore, the rear block will be situated behind the terraces and will not be prominently visible from Avoca Street.

 

The height, bulk and scale of the rear building are consistent with the objectives of the 2C Zone. The rear building has been oriented and configured to maximise northern light. The development scheme has incorporated suitable environmental initiative and will achieve good energy efficiency outcome. The Design Review Panel has assessed the proposal and made positive comments relating to the architectural character of the rear block.

 

The potential amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing and privacy are considered to be within reason (refer to the “DCP” section of this report for detailed discussion on environmental amenity matters).

 

Based on the above, the proposal is considered to have satisfied the purpose of the development standards. In the context of the highly urban character of the site and the locality, which fall within the Randwick Junction precinct, the proposed level of floor space and height are considered to be acceptable.

 

-      The facades of the new rear building are finely articulated by a coherent pattern of grid and rectilinear forms and a combination of compatible finishes. The design scheme adopts a flat roof, which will minimise the overall building height.

 

The above design measures will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, despite non-compliance with the FSR and external wall height standards. Overall, the architectural character and form of the proposal are considered to carry positive design merits.

 

-      The proposal aims to retain and refurbish the heritage listed Victorian terraces on the site, with the demolition of the already extensively modified rear wing only. It is considered that the benefits delivered by the development in terms of the meticulous restoration of the historic buildings will adequately compensate for the deviation from the FSR and external wall height standards.

 

-      The proposed housing density is justified by the site’s location within the Randwick Junction town centre, and its proximity to the hospital and UNSW precincts and public bus services along Avoca Street, Alison Road and Belmore Road. The proposal is considered to introduce a suitable amount of residential population to a locality, which is highly accessible to retail, commercial and community services and public transport. The proposal represents an orderly and economic use of the land for urban consolidation.

 

-      As will be discussed in the following sections, the revised proposal will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing and privacy subject to condition.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 Objections have addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standards, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objections have appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objections are well founded.

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 


Comments:

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

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2C Zone in that it will allow multi-unit residential housing, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

The proposed development and variations from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or Regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standards will not allow the best economic use of the site and the delivery of a suitably scaled in-fill residential development in an established neighbourhood. In the circumstances of the case, the strict compliance with the standards will hinder the delivery of good public benefits.

 

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 standards in question is unreasonable and unnecessary as the design scheme will achieve the underlying purposes of the standards.

 

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 landscaped area, FSR and external wall height standards.

 

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 numerical compliance in this particular instance is unreasonable. The proposed landscaped area provision, external wall height and FSR will not result in detrimental streetscape or unreasonable amenity impacts on the locality. The resultant built form and scale are compatible with the heritage item on the site and the surrounding residential premises, and represent a suitable infill development.

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The landscaped area, FSR and external wall height development standards have not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

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

 

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

The existing Residential C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality. The RLEP (Consolidation), effective from 15 January 2010, has maintained the 2C zoning for the site.

 

5.      Site History

 

There are no recent planning approvals relating to the subject site.

 

Revised drawings were submitted on 6 September 2011. The amended design includes the deletion of one level from the proposed rear building. These revised plans form the subject of this assessment.

 


6.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 8 to 23 June 2011 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

·      162 Avoca Street, Randwick

·      Randwick Precinct Committee

·      1 x anonymous submission (address withheld)

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

Suitable stormwater management measures should be installed to avoid ponding or flooding of Greenstead Lane.

Specific engineering conditions have been recommended to require the installation of appropriate stormwater management devices.

 

Provisions should be made to keep Greenstead Lane accessible at all times during construction.

Given that the proposal involves retention of the existing heritage buildings fronting Avoca Street, construction traffic would need to utilise Greenstead Lane to a large extent.

 

It is anticipated that a degree of disturbance or obstruction of traffic in Greenstead Lane is inevitable during the construction phase. In order to minimise inconvenience to the neighbouring premises, a specific condition is recommended to require the preparation of a traffic management plan prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

A further condition is recommended to require the ceiling slab above basement level 1 to be able to withstand truck traffic, so that construction vehicles could park within the site when the car park is completed.

The development will result in significant overshadowing of the neighbouring properties.

 

The roof form and layout of the top level should be adjusted to reduce overshadowing.

 

The shadow diagrams do not provide comparison with the existing shadow situation.

The revised design scheme has deleted the top (mezzanine) floor from the rear block so that a 3-storey scale is maintained. The above change will significantly improve solar access to the southern neighbours. The amended development is considered to maintain reasonable sunlight to the adjoining properties. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

 

The shadow diagrams have differentiated between shadows cast by the existing and proposed building structures.

 

Vehicular access to the site should be relocated to the north to allow additional sunlight to the courtyard areas of the southern neighbour.

The location of the car park entry on Greenstead Lane is considered to be appropriate as any potential vehicle queuing could be contained at the site frontage, thereby minimising impacts and disturbance to the adjoining properties.

 

The main pedestrian access from Avoca Street should be relocated to the south.

 

A thoroughfare should be created along the southern boundary connecting Avoca Street with Greenstead Lane.

The proposed pedestrian access to the development is considered to be appropriate. The Design Review Panel has assessed the proposal and raised no objections. No further changes in this regard are warranted.

 

Part of the northern side setback areas close to the Avoca Street frontage should be allocated as private open space for the ground floor unit within the heritage building.

The provision of a northern courtyard to Apartment 1 within the heritage building is not warranted as no direct access from the living areas will be possible without substantial changes to the fenestration pattern of the northern façade. Given the heritage constraints, the development in its current form is considered to be satisfactory.

 

The stairs direction should be reversed.

The reversing of the stairs direction is not considered to carry any material benefits.

 

Access to the basement car park should be secured.

 

An intercom system should be provided.

The car hoist entry will be secured by roller door.

 

An intercom system is shown to be installed at the pedestrian entry to the building.

 

The location of toilets and showers within the heritage buildings should be reversed.

 

Transom windows over the doors to the toilets and showers should be installed to improve natural lighting.

The reversing of the toilet and shower locations is not considered to carry material benefits.

 

Given the location of internal walls within the heritage buildings, the provision of transom windows over the shower and toilet facilities would have limited effect in admitting light to the amenity space. The proposal in its current form is considered to be satisfactory.

 

The toilets within the heritage buildings should have small wash basins.

Small wash basins will be provided in the toilets within the heritage buildings.

 

It is unclear as to where laundry facilities are located.

Laundry facilities will be provided to each of the apartment units.

 

The balustrades to the ground and first floor balconies should be constructed with opaque glass.

The Design Review Panel has raised no objections to the materials of the balcony balustrades. No changes are deemed necessary.

 

Outdoor space should be provided on western side of the top floor apartment of the new wing.

Suitable private open space has already been provided to the top floor apartment within the rear building in the form of balcony.

 

There is possibility for accommodating commercial uses at the ground floor level.

The site is zoned Residential 2C under the LEP and business premises are not listed as a permissible use. The proposal in its current form appropriately satisfies the objectives of the 2C zone.

 

7.      Technical Officers Comments

 

7.1    Heritage Planner

The comments provided by Council’s heritage consultant are extracted under the “LEP” section of this report.

 

7.2    Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

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

 

Drainage Comments

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

 

On site stormwater detention will be required for the redeveloped portion of the site.

 

Traffic/Parking Comments

In previous memo dated 23rd June 2011 Development Engineering raised concerns about a single car hoist serving 16 carspaces which may result in significant queuing in the rear laneway. It was suggested that the applicant either provide a second car hoist or provide a waiting bay adjacent to the laneway to alleviate these concerns. It was also suggested that as the development was over-compliant in parking a reduction in the parking provision would be accepted as the site is adjacent to Randwick Town Centre and good public transport. 

 

The applicant has submitted amended plans that now propose 12 carspaces (reduced from 16) to be provided for the development. It is also noted that the number of units has been reduced to 10 (reduced from 12) consisting of 9 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom unit. This will generate the following parking demand using the rates provided in Council’s DCP-Parking.

 

Parking required = 9 x 1 + 1 x 1.2 + 10/4 (visitor)

                              = 12.7 = say 13 carspaces

Parking Provided         = 12 carspaces

Parking Shortfall = 1 carspace

 

Due to the sites proximity to good public transport and Randwick Town centre Development Engineering will not object to the shortfall of 1 carspace in this instance. It is also noted that the parking provision is sufficient to provide at least 1 carspace for each unit.

 

As no parking allocation has been proposed in the plans it is recommended that the carspaces be allocated in the following way;

Apartment 1 -7, 9,10  =  9 carspaces (1 carspace each)

 

Apartment 8 = 2 carspaces

Visitor Space = 1 carspace (recommended that 6.B1 be allocated)

TOTAL          = 12 carspaces

                         

A condition requiring the above allocations has been included in this report.

 

Bicycle Parking

Council’s DCP-Parking requires that bicycle parking be provided at the rate of 1 space per 3 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 dwellings.

For proposed development

Bicycle parking proposed     =10/3 + 1 visitor

                                      = 4.3 = say 4 spaces

Bicycle parking provided      = 6 spaces (complies)

 

Carpark layout -

The carpark generally complies with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 in regards to carspace dimensions and aisle widths. A point turn manoeuvre will be required to access the carspaces adjacent to the car hoist (3.B1, 2.B1, 3.B2, 2.B2) which is generally not supported. The width of the aisle however is beyond the minimum requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 which partially compensates for this and it is not anticipated to have any undesirable impact due to the low number of carspaces.

 

Waiting Bay

In similar recent developments Development Engineering has requested the provision of a waiting area within the subject property so any delay for other vehicles using the lane is removed or minimized. Given the number of carspaces served by the car hoist, it is our view that this should be provided at minimum for the proposed development. The applicant will also be required to reconstruct the road pavement of the rear lane along the site’s frontage to maximise the trafficable width.  The submitted plans indicate a 1.0m wide strip of land adjacent to the rear lane boundary. This in combination with the resurfacing the rear lane will permit vehicles to wait for the car hoist while still allowing other vehicles to pass. It is also noted that only a few properties are served past this point in Greenstead Lane which will also contribute to minimizing any delays. 

 

There are now no objections to the parking and traffic provisions for the site from Development Engineering

 

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.

 

Waste Management Comments

Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed building, a Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development, is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Services.

 

Geotechnical Comments

A geotechnical report from Asset Geotechnical has been submitted which investigates the subsurface conditions at the subject site. It finds the presence of sandy soils down to 1.5m below ground surface on a bed of sandstone which then continues down to at least 8.0m in depth.

 

Excavation for the basement carpark will be conducted predominantly in sandstone.

 

Seepage flows may be encountered within the depth of the excavation which shall be managed in accordance with the conditions provided in this report. The basement carpark shall be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

Landscape Comments

Landscaping is to be provided to the site in general accordance with the landscaping plans/specifications submitted with the development application (Drawings LA-001, LA-002 by Aspect Studios dated 2nd September 2001

 

Approval is granted for the removal of those trees located within the area occupied by the approved works.

 

Assessment Officer’s comments:

The Development Engineer has recommended parking allocation between the dwelling units and the nomination of 1 visitor space. Given the rear lane and car hoist access to the basement car park, it is unlikely that there would be active usage of any visitor spaces. It is also considered unnecessary to nominate the exact allocation of parking spaces between units. However, a condition is recommended to ensure at least one space is allocated for each of the dwelling units.

 

7.3    Building Surveyor

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

 

BCA Building Classification

Class 2 – Residential units

Cass 7a - Carpark

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

·      A ‘rise in storeys’ of 4

·      Masonry walls, tiled roof and timber floors

·      A total of 12 sole occupancy units,

·      External balconies

·      Side boundary building setbacks of approximately nil

 

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.

 

8.      Master Planning Requirements

 

The site has a land area of less than 10,000m2 and a master plan is not required.

 

9.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

9.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The site is zoned Residential 2C under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific zoning objectives in that the development will deliver multi-unit housing, which is compatible with the desired character for the locality.

 

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

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

20E Landscaped area

(2) Minimum 50% of site area

46.8% (317m2)

No, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

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

On-slab landscaped areas amount to 28.3% of required provision

Yes

20F Floor space ratios

(2) Maximum 0.65:1 for 2C zoned land less than 700m2 in area

0.96:1 (653m2 GFA)

No, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

20G Building heights

(2) Overall building height maximum 12m

New building at rear: 11.2m

Yes

(4) External wall height maximum 10m

New building at rear:

11.2m

No, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

40 Earthworks

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

The proposal requires significant excavation to accommodate two levels of basement car park.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the application and raised no objections on engineering or safety grounds.

 

Specific conditions are recommended to ensure that suitable retaining walls and protection measures are implemented during works on the site.

 

The proposal is not considered to adversely impact on the drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the recommended engineering and construction management conditions.

Complies, subject to conditions

 

Clause 43 Heritage conservation

The two attached Victorian terraces are listed as a heritage item (Inventory No. 72: two x three-storey Victorian terraces, c 1890) and are located within the Randwick Junction Conservation Area under the LEP. The site is also located adjacent to a number of heritage items listed under the LEP:

 

·      146-150 Avoca Street: Inventory No. 70 – Italianate houses, c 1906

·      156-158 Avoca Street: Inventory No. 73 – Victorian terraces, C 1890

·      160-162 Avoca Street: Inventory No. 74 – “Somerset” and “Glastonbury”

 

The application has been referred to Council’s heritage consultant for review. The key comments provided are extracted below:

 

Assessment Officer’s comments:

The existing terraces have suffered fire damage and are currently in very poor condition. As such most of the architectural detailing has been lost. The subject proposal incorporates extensive restoration and reconstruction works as part of the development. The application contains comprehensive information describing the scope of the conservation works. The proposal will offer meticulous reinstatement of façade detailing and is considered to deliver significant planning benefits.

 

The revised development scheme proposes a 3-storey rear addition (originally 4 storeys and reduced to 3 at Council’s request) to be accommodated behind the heritage terraces, and will not be prominently visible from Avoca Street. The proposed rear building, as contained in the amended plans, steps down from the higher scale of the terraces and is compatible with the height and form of the heritage item.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the provisions of Clause 43 of the LEP.

 

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

SEPP No. 65 applies to the proposed development. The application has been referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) for assessment. The design principles stipulated in the SEPP and the key comments provided by the DRP are addressed as follows:

 

Principle 1:         Context

·      There are concerns about the overshadowing of the property to the south. The Panel considers that this can be addressed by setting back the top floor along the south side.

Officer’s comments:

The revised design has deleted the 3rd level from the rear block, which will significantly improve solar access to the southern neighbours.

 

·      Alternative strategy that could have been explored was to arrange the new rear wing along the lane boundary.

Officer’s comments:

The site planning and layout in their current form have satisfactory relationship with the heritage terraces and will provide good amenity for the dwelling units. The re-design of the whole development is unnecessary and is not warranted.

 

Principle 2:         Scale

·      The Panel suggests that this is perhaps a lost opportunity to interpret successive changes, and create more character and amenity for the current proposal. This is particularly the case on the north façade, where non-standard openings would admit more daylight and sun.

Officer’s comments:

The proposal includes faithful restoration of the original facade elements in the terrace buildings. The amended design has included two north-facing windows for each level of the terrace and will provide suitable natural lighting and ventilation for both the living and bedroom areas.

 

Principle 3:         Built form

Officer’s comments:

Satisfactory.

 

Principle 4:         Density

Officer’s comments:

Satisfactory; refer to the “SEPP 1” section of this report for further information.

 

Principle 5:         Resource, energy and water efficiency

·      The environment, the area and the application would all benefit from more deep soil landscape area and less cars.

Officer’s comments:

The revised proposal has reduced the number of basement parking from 16 to 12 spaces. Additional deep soil planting areas have been included.

 

Principle 6:         Landscape

·      The basement may be able to be further compacted, which would provide more deep soil landscape area.

Officer’s comments:

The revised proposal has reduced the number of basement parking from 16 to 12 spaces. Additional deep soil planting areas have been included.

 

·      While the service court at the rear is an excellent initiative, it could have at least a tree. The water tanks could be raised, and the bins located beneath, freeing the lane frontage for more landscaped area.

Officer’s comments:

The revised proposal has relocated the garbage storage area to the basement level. Due to the footprints of the basement car park, the provision of trees in the service courtyard adjacent to the laneway is highly difficult to achieve. However, a row of small shrubs has been included along the Greenstead Lane boundary to improve visual amenity.

 

Principle 7:         Amenity

·      The space between the lift and the stair is a little tight. Ventilation to the stair could be improved if the amount of enclosure with fixed glass is reduced.

Officer’s comments:

The amended plans have reconfigured the entry / lift lobby to increase the distance between the lift and stairwell. North-facing operable windows have been included for the lobby.

 

·      The slot windows could be retained within the west-facing openings proposed to be bricked-up.

Officer’s comments:

This is not possible as the reinstatement of the old west-facing windows would compromise the visual and acoustic privacy of the apartments within the terraces.

 

·      The first floor balcony could be left enclosed or operable for better acoustic screening, rather than strictly reinstated as a balcony.

Officer’s comments:

The retention of open balconies on the Avoca Street elevation would appropriately preserve the heritage character of the terraces. The application includes an acoustic report which contains recommendations on appropriate construction measures to protect the amenity of the apartments. These measures will be imposed via a condition of consent.

 

Principle 8:         Safety and security

·      The Panel does not support setting in the car lift from the lane alignment, as it risks creating a furtive spot in the lane.

Officer’s comments:

The car hoist will only be setback approximately 650mm from the laneway alignment and will not create any entrapment point.

 

Principle 9:         Social dimensions

Officer’s comments:

The revised proposal has broadened the dwelling mix by providing a 2-bedroom unit. The development is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

 

Principle 10:      Aesthetics

Officer’s comments:

Satisfactory.

 

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

SEPP: BASIX applies to the proposed development. The revised drawings are accompanied with BASIX Certificate numbered 374674M_02. The commitments listed on the BASIX Certificate will be imposed by appropriate standard conditions pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

10.    Policy Controls

 

10.1 Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

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

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

A detailed site analysis has been submitted with the development application.

 

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

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

The developable area to the rear of the heritage terraces is rectangular in shape and has dimensions of approximately 18m (width) x 22m (depth). The site configuration is considered to be suitable for multi unit housing development.  

 

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

 

Not applicable.

Height

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

 

A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted for non-compliance with the external wall height standard in the LEP. The Objection has been assessed and is considered to be well founded. Refer to the “SEPP 1” section of this report for details.

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 proposed extension is located to the rear of the heritage terraces. The new floor space is suitably distributed over an architectural form that creates visual interest through appropriate articulation and façade treatment. The proposal is considered to have minimised streetscape and amenity impacts.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

As existing, approximately 3.5m. No change.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

Northern boundary

2.56m to balconies

5.155m to walls/windows

 

Southern boundary
4.085m

 

The proposal does not meet the preferred solutions. Notwithstanding, the development scheme is considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·    The strict adherence to the preferred solutions will detrimentally restrict the provision of functional floor plates and private balconies for the apartment units, which are considered to be unreasonable in this instance.

 

 

 

·    The northern elevation of the new building contains a balcony attached to the top (2nd) floor unit. Operable privacy screens have been included to minimise overlooking to the adjoining neighbour at 150 Avoca Street (this property is currently occupied by commercial premises but is zoned Residential 2C).

 

·     The ground and first storeys of the new building contain 3 x split-level apartments with private terraces at grade. The terraces are defined by 1.8m high masonry fence along the shared boundary. The mezzanine level does not contain any balconies and the bedroom areas are separated from the northern windows by a void. The above design features will effectively minimise any adverse privacy impacts on the northern neighbour.

 

 

 

·     The top floor apartment contains continuous louvered windows along the southern elevation. In order to minimise overlooking into the southern neighbour (currently occupied by commercial and residential uses), a special condition is recommended to require the lower portions of the windows to be constructed with fixed and obscured glazing or be replaced with solid walling. This means that it is not necessary to adhere to the setback preferred solution to protect the privacy of the neighbours.

 

·    As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, the proposal will maintain a reasonable level of solar access to the adjoining properties.

 

·     The submitted landscape plan shows the planting of a range of medium sized feature trees and shrubs along the side boundaries. The proposal will provide a suitable level of visual amenity to the site and the adjoining properties.

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

Western boundary

3.865m to building

0.6m to car hoist entry

 

The proposed rear setback is considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·    The proposal aims to retain and refurbish the heritage listed Victorian terraces on the site. Due to the proposed conservation works, the new building could only be accommodated behind the heritage terraces and inevitably reduces the rear setback. It is considered that the benefits delivered by the development will adequately compensate for the deviation from the rear setback preferred solution.

 

·     At present, the properties on the western side of Avoca Street contain a number of garages and outbuildings that abut the Greenstead Lane (rear) boundaries. The proposed rear setback is not considered to detract from the existing character of the laneway.

 

·     The rear setback arrangement will not cause unreasonable privacy and shadow impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

·    

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.

Satisfactory.  

Density

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

 

 

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

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:       

§ consistent with streetscape;

§ Entrances highlighted; and

§ Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

§

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

 

Satisfactory.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Satisfactory.

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

 

Functional communal open space has been reserved along the southern and western boundaries of the site. The landscape plan has provided suitable planting along the site boundaries to visually soften the physical building structures.

 

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

 

Satisfactory.

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

 

The private open space (in the form of balconies and front porches) of the apartments within the existing terrace building is oriented towards Avoca Street.

 

The design scheme aims to restore the historic detailing and character of the terrace buildings. Therefore, the private open space arrangement is considered to be satisfactory.

P6  Flats and apartments

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

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

The balconies to the dwelling units within the existing terrace buildings do not meet this requirement. Notwithstanding, given the heritage constraints, the proposal is considered to have maximised amenity for the apartments.

 

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 northern elevation of the new building contains a balcony attached to the top (2nd) floor unit. Operable privacy screens have been included to minimise overlooking to the adjoining neighbour at 150 Avoca Street (this property is currently occupied by commercial premises but is zoned Residential 2C).

 

The ground and first storeys of the new building contain 3 x split-level apartments with private terraces at grade. The terraces are defined by 1.8m high masonry fence along the shared boundary. The mezzanine level does not contain any balconies and the bedroom areas are separated from the northern windows by a void. The above design features will effectively minimise any adverse privacy impacts on the northern neighbour.

 

The top floor apartment contains continuous, full-height louvered windows along the southern elevation. In order to minimise overlooking into the southern neighbour at 156 Avoca Street (currently occupied by commercial and residential uses), a special condition is recommended to require the southern windows to be constructed with fixed and obscured glazing, or be replaced with solid walling, up to at least 1300mm.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

 

 

 

The above measure will not fully avoid overlooking. However, given the need to provide adequate ambient light and cross-ventilation to the top floor dwelling, the above solution is considered to suitably restrict sightlines and would offer a reasonable level of privacy for the existing and any future development at 156 Avoca Street.

 

The submitted landscape plan shows the planting of a range of medium sized feature trees and shrubs along the side boundaries, with mature height of up to 4m. The landscape planting will provide visual screening that enhances privacy protection for the neighbours.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Satisfactory.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

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

View Sharing

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

 

No significant view loss impact will result.

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

 

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

Refer to comments below.

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

 

The western roof panes of 156 and 158 Avoca Street will receive direct sunlight from 11am to 3pm on 21 June. Satisfactory.

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

 

 

Refer to comments below.

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

 

 

Refer to comments below.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

§ Living areas are orientated to the north.

§ Larger windows are located on the north.

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

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

 

Refer to “BASIX”.

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

 

Satisfactory.

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Satisfactory.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Satisfactory.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

Satisfactory.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

Satisfactory.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

Not applicable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

To be required by condition.

P7 Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

To be required by condition.

P8 External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

 

To be required by condition.

Parking

 

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

 

 

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

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

 

The entry to the car hoist is located off the rear lane and occupies only a minor portion of the frontage width. Satisfactory.

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

 

 

Not required.

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

 

Satisfactory.

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

 

Satisfactory.

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

 

Satisfactory.

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

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

Satisfactory.

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

 

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

Satisfactory in terms of safety and manoeuvring efficiency. 

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

Satisfactory.

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

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

 

Satisfactory.

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

The proposal has included adequate storage unit for each dwelling in the basement car park.

Barrier-Free Access

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

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

The plans show levelled access from Avoca Street to the main entry and lift lobby. A standard condition is recommended to require compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

P2  Dwelling requirements:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 so on…

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

 

Not required.

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

 

Not applicable.

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

 

A passenger lift has been provided.

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1 Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Satisfactory.

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

 

To be required by condition.

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

 

To be required by condition.

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

 

 

To be required by condition.

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

 

 

To be required by condition.

P6 Telephone lines provided in accordance with the service provider.

 

 

To be required by condition.

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

 

 

 

Satisfactory.

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

Satisfactory.

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

 

A centralised waste storage area has been provided in basement level 1.

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.

A centralised waste storage area has been provided in basement level 1, which is not visible from the public domain.

Heritage Conservation Areas and Heritage Items

P1  Design and construction of development:

 

§ Compliments architectural character of adjacent items or the conservation area;

§ Does not detract or overwhelm the conservation area in scale and proportions;

§ Retains the identified significance of the item or area;

 

 

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

§ Pays attention to the nature of design in terms of massing, style, roof pitch, window design and proportion, and external materials; and

§ Compliments but does not mimic features of a heritage item.

 

 

P2 Respects nearby heritage buildings.

 

P3 The design is in accordance with heritage advice.

 

P4  New development:

§ Maintains a curtilage between heritage buildings and new buildings;

§ Is massed to provide transition in scale between old and new; and

§ Retains sightlines from public areas to the heritage item.

 

 

Solar access

The performance requirements of the DCP relating to solar access are extracted below:

 

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

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

 

The following provides a summary of the expected shadow impacts on 156 and 158 Avoca Street on 21 June based on the submitted shadow diagrams:

 

Time

Courtyard No. 156

Courtyard No. 158

North Windows No. 156

9am

No sun

No sun

No sun

10am

No sun

No sun

No sun

11am

No sun

Very minor sunlight

No sun

12noon

No sun

Approx. 12.5m2 receives sunlight

No sun

1pm

Approx. 3.2m2 receives sunlight

Approx. 15.3m2 receives sunlight

No sun

2pm

Approx. 5.5m2 receives sunlight

Approx. 13.7m2 receives sunlight

No sun

3pm

No sun

No sun

No sun

 

The proposal does not meet the performance requirements of the DCP relating to solar access.

 

Planning principles relating to solar access:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Given the 2C zoning of the subject and adjoining sites, the subdivision pattern in the area, and that the locality is within the Randwick Junction town centre with taller buildings, it is much more difficult to achieve strict compliance with the performance requirements in the DCP, as compared to the scenario of a lower density residential zone.

 

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

 

Comments:

In relation to No. 156 Avoca Street, the northern windows of the rear wing will receive no sun between 9am and 3pm on 21 June due to their relative low levels and location deep within the allotment. At 1pm and 2pm, sunlight covering up to 5.5m2 will be retained for the rear courtyard.

 

In relation to No. 158 Avoca Street, the rear courtyard will receive sunlight at 12 noon, 1pm and 2pm covering an area of up to 15.3m2.

 

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

 

Comments:

The proposal initially includes a 3rd floor level within the rear building block. At Council’s request, the applicant has submitted amended plans to delete this 3rd level with corresponding reduction in height by 2.4m. The revised design now presents a stepped built form where the rear block is generally one level below the terrace buildings. The new additions are visually subservient to the heritage terraces in terms of bulk and scale and will achieve a suitable built form outcome.

 

      The rear block has incorporated suitable roof form, façade modulation and setbacks. The high degree of overshadowing is primarily attributed to the east-west subdivision pattern and is not a result of poor design.

 

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

 

Comments:

The north-facing windows of No. 156 Avoca Street will be overshadowed between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. However, the east-facing windows will receive full sun at 9am, 10am and 11am in the winter solstice.

 

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

 

Comments:

In relation to No. 156 Avoca Street, sunlight covering an area of up to 5.5m2 will be retained for the rear courtyard at 1pm and 2pm on 21 June. This will enable some passive outdoor recreational activities in the early afternoon period.

 

In relation to No. 158 Avoca Street, the rear courtyard will receive sunlight at 12 noon, 1pm and 2pm covering an area of up to 15.3m2. It is considered that a satisfactory level of sunlight will be retained for this property, which will enable a range of outdoor living activities.

 

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

 

Comments:

The submitted shadow diagrams do not take into consideration impacts generated by vegetation. They relate to shadows created by the proposed building structures. The shadows created by the proposed landscaping will generally be within those casted by the building structures and will not be readily perceivable.

 

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

 

Comments:

The subject urban block is within the Randwick Junction town centre and has convenient access to local services. The site and the adjoining allotments have a highly urban character, and given their 2C zoning are considered to be appropriate for medium density housing uses. The adjoining allotments to the north and south have regular configuration and appropriate land sizes. Despite the heritage listing of the immediate neighbours, it is possible for new residential extensions to be constructed to the rear of the historic buildings in a similar manner to the subject proposal. The locality has also experienced gradual transition where the older building stocks have been replaced by larger scale residential or mixed use developments.

 

In this context, it is a reasonable expectation that the southern neighbours are likely to be redeveloped in the foreseeable future. Suitable design measures could then be incorporated to maximise natural lighting to any new building.

 

10.2  Randwick Development Control Plan – Randwick Junction

The Randwick Junction DCP applies to the proposal. The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed as follows:

 

Section

Control

Comments

3.1

Site analysis and planning

A site analysis plan must be submitted with each development application involving new work.

A site analysis plan has been submitted with the application.

3.2

Density, height and setback

New development should be built to the street alignment and side boundaries.

The proposal will not affect the existing front setback of the terraces. The proposed side setbacks to the new rear block are considered to be adequate and will maintain a suitable level of amenity to the adjoining properties.

3.3.1

Pedestrian and disabled access

Address requirements for people with a disability.

A standard condition is recommended to require compliance with the BCA.

 

 

3.3.2 & 3.3.3

Vehicular access and car parking

On-site parking to be provided either at ground level or as basement parking.

Basement parking is provided in the development.

3.3.4

Solar access and energy efficiency

Refer to the “Multi Unit Housing DCP” section of this report.

3.3.5

Privacy

Refer to the “Multi Unit Housing DCP” section of this report.

3.3.6

Sound insulation

Provide adequate sound insulation between individual dwellings within a building and from adjacent buildings.

 

Provide adequate sound insulation from external noise sources such as vehicular traffic and air-conditioning plant and equipment. 

Appropriate conditions have been recommended to ensure adequate acoustic amenity is provided for the dwelling units.

3.3.7

Safety and security

 

Building facades should not use recessed doorways and windows at ground level.

The principal pedestrian entry is adequately configured and clearly identifiable.

Foyers should be designed at a human scale and clear sight lines to alternative exits should be maintained.

Satisfactory.

Corridor lengths and number of dwellings accessing each corridor should be minimised.

Satisfactory. 

Corridors should be designed so that they have access to natural light and ventilation.

The corridor and entry foyer are naturally lit and ventilated.

Buildings that contain multi-unit dwellings shall provide a security system.

An intercom system will be provided. 

Buildings should address the street.

The proposed rear block does not address Avoca Street due to the retention of the heritage terraces. However, adequate casual surveillance will be provided for both Avoca Street and Greenstead Lane. 

3.3.8

Private and communal recreation areas

 

Provide a private recreation area for each dwelling in the form of a balcony. Balconies shall have a minimum area of 10m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m.

Suitable balconies and terraces have been provided for the dwelling units. 

Balconies should be recessed into the façade so that they do not dominate the appearance of the building façade.

Satisfactory.

3.4

Building character

 

New development must include design elements at the parapet which are compatible with the architectural detail of existing development adjoining the site and in the locality.

The design of the rear block is compatible with the existing heritage terraces on the site.

Recessed balconies should be incorporated in the design of new development.

Satisfactory.

The materials and the way in which they are used in the finishes of the building should reflect the materials used in adjoining and nearby development.

Satisfactory.

Colours should enhance the locality.

The proposed colour scheme for the rear block adopts both earth and neutral hues, and is considered to be compatible with the existing Victorian terraces and the locality.

 

10.3  Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

The DCP specifies the following car parking rates for multi-unit housing:

 

 

Rate

Requirement

Proposal

Resident

1 / 1-bedroom dwelling

1.2 / 2-bedroom dwelling

10.2

12

Visitor

1 / 4 dwellings or part thereof

2.5

Bicycle

1 / 3 units plus 1 visitor / 10 units

4.3 or 5

6

Total car parking

 

12.7 or 13

12

Car wash bay

1 / 12 dwellings

Not required

Nil

 

Under the DCP, a total of 13 car spaces are required for the development. The proposal includes 12 spaces and falls short of one car space. Notwithstanding, the proposed parking provision and arrangement are considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal aims to retain the existing Victorian terraces fronting Avoca Street, which are listed in the LEP as heritage item. Given the above development constraint, the proposed parking has to be accommodated within the basement levels at the rear section of the site. Although it is possible to extend the basement footprints to the north to provide additional parking, such a solution would substantially eliminate the deep soil planting zone along the northern boundary. The Design Review Panel has specifically requested additional deep soil planting to be provided in that location to improve amenity for both the proposed dwellings and the adjoining neighbour. The design scheme is considered to have presented a balanced approach to landscaping and car parking provision.

 

·      The proposal contains 12 car spaces and only 10 dwellings are included in the development. This means that each of the dwelling unit will be allocated with at least 1 parking bay.

 

·      The proposal does not nominate any parking allocation. No visitor parking has been nominated. The provision of no visitor parking is considered to be acceptable in this instance as the rear lane and car hoist access to the basement is likely to discourage active usage of any visitor spaces.

 

·      Due to the development constraints described above, vehicular access to the basement car park is made possible only by a mechanical car hoist. There is insufficient land area in the rear section of the site for constructing an adequately graded ramp without affecting the heritage terraces to be retained. Therefore, the sole reliance on car hoist is considered to be acceptable in this instance.

 

The design scheme has reserved a 1m wide strip along the rear boundary to facilitate the passing of vehicles, where queuing to the car hoist occurs in Greenstead Lane. A traffic indicator light will also be installed to provide signals to drivers when the car hoist is being utilised. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

·      The design of the proposed parking bays and access aisles generally complies with Australian Standard 2890.1: Off-street car parking.

 

·      A standard condition has been recommended to ensure any plant and machinery (including car hoist) will not emit offensive noise to the neighbours. Subject to this condition, the car hoist operation is not considered to create detrimental noise impact. 

 

10.4  Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$4,086,500

1.0%

$40,865

 

11.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 have been addressed by the recommended standard conditions.

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

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

 

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

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

The site is located within an established residential neighbourhood and has convenient access to the local and regional road network. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and structures. Therefore, the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

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

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

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

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

 

 Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

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

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development, integrating transport and pedestrian links between town centres and key locations.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant Local and State planning controls.

 

The SEPP 1 Objections lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the landscaped area, floor space ratio and external wall height standards are considered to be well founded. The development scheme will not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

The proportions, massing, colours, materials and finishes proposed are considered to be satisfactory, and the design will be compatible with the character of the existing heritage buildings on the site and the locality.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20E(2), 20F(2) and 20G(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to landscaped area, floor space ratio and external wall height respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining premises and the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/373/2011 for restoration and refurbishment of two attached terraces to provide 6 x 1-bedroom apartments; demolition of the existing rear wing to the terraces; construction of a new 3-storey rear extension comprising 3 x 1-bedroom apartments and 1 x 2-bedroom apartment; provision of 2 levels of basement parking for 12 vehicles; landscaping and associated works, at No. 152-154 Avoca Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

Referenced Plans:

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

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

A01(C)

17.05.2011

24 May 2011

Pad Architects

A02(C)

17.05.2011

24 May 2011

A03(C)

17.05.2011

24 May 2011

A10(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A11(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A12(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A13(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A14(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A15(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A16(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A20(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A21(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A22(C)

17.05.2011

24 May 2011

A23(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A26(B)

17.05.2011

24 May 2011

A30(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A31(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A32(E)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

A33(C)

07.09.2011

6 September 2011

M11025 LA-001(D)

02/09/2011

7 September 2011

Aspect Studios

M11025 LA-002(D)

02/09/2011

7 September 2011

 

BASIX Cert. No.

Project Name

Dated

Received by Council

374674M_02

152AvocaStRandwick_02

2 September 2011

6 September 2011

 

the application form and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be consistent with the approved drawings and the “Preliminary Report – Suppliers of Reproduction Heritage Elements”, dated 9 May 2011, prepared by NBRS + Partners, and stamp-received by Council on 24 May 2011.

 

3.       The southern windows of the top floor (level 1) dwelling unit (Apartment 08) within the new rear building shall be re-designed so that they are constructed with fixed and translucent / obscured glazing up to a minimum of 1300mm above the finished floor level.

 

Alternatively, the southern elevation of the aforementioned top floor unit is to be re-designed so that it is constructed with solid walls up to a minimum of 1300mm above the finished floor level.

 

Details demonstrating compliance are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation to the satisfaction of the Council / Accredited Certifier.

 

4.       The timber paling fence along the Greenstead Lane boundary of the site shall be designed and constructed in a manner so that the gaps between the planks do not exceed 10mm.

 

5.       The noise attenuation measures stated in Section 4.3 of the Noise Impact Assessment, Project Number 20110250.1, Revision 2, dated 20/07/2011, prepared by Acoustic Logic and stamp-received by Council on 8 August 2011, including glazing requirements and STC rating, are to be incorporated into the development. Details demonstrating compliance are to be included in the Construction Certificate documentation to the satisfaction of the Council / Accredited Certifier.

 

6.       The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façades of the development must not exceed 20 per cent. Details of compliance are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

7.       Suitable security lighting is to be installed at the main pedestrian entry on the northern elevation of the building. The design and construction of the lighting system are to be consistent with the relevant provisions of Australian Standard 1158: Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces. Details are to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation to the satisfaction of the Council / Accredited Certifier.

 

8.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed to meet the relevant requirements of Australian Standard 4282: Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting, so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area.

 

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

         

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

 

10.     Power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Heritage Conservation

14.     An architect or tradesperson suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation shall be engaged to oversee the carrying out of repairs and refurbishment works to the existing windows and doors and where the works will impact on the significant fabric.

 

15.     All work shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter.

 

16.     A Digitally based archival recording of the property with particular attention to the areas that will be affected by the current works shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. The recording should include both interiors and exteriors of the building. This recording shall be in accordance with the Guidelines for the preparation of archival recordings set out by the NSW Heritage Office, titled “Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture”. Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

18.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $4,086,500, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $40,865.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Building regulation and construction site management

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

 

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

 

20.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

32.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to an occupation certificate being issued, which certifies that the building works satisfy the relevant structural requirements of the Building Code of Australia and approved design documentation.

 

33.     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”.

 

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

 

·      Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·      Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

·          Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·          Method/s of demolition (including removal of any asbestos)

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

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

·          Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be provided to Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

d)     A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council upon completion of the works prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued, which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant requirements contained in the Asbestos Survey and conditions of consent in relation to the safe removal and disposal of asbestos, have been satisfied.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Additional requirements for all development (except for single residential dwellings)

·   Saturdays and Sundays where the preceding Friday and/or the following Monday is a public holiday - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

d)     Any recommendations and requirements contained in the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and associated reports are to be implemented accordingly and should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to Council and the PCA.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

c)     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council. Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services department.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

42.     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.

 

43.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

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

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

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

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

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

·       Landscaping and revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

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

§   prior to construction of each additional new floor level,

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

§   as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The survey documentation must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority.  

 

Occupant Safety

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

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

 

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

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

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

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

v.    Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

Environmental health & amenity

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Security Deposit

51.     The following damage / civil works security deposit requirement must 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; 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:

 

a)     $8000.00    -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit 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.

 

Sydney Water Requirements

52.     The relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be complied with and a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water. 

 

An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following the application, a “Notice of Requirements” will be provided, detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

A copy of Sydney Water’s ‘Notice of Requirements’ must be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to issuing a Construction Certificate.

 

The Section 73 Compliance Certificate is required to be obtained before an occupation certificate or subdivision certificate is issued, whichever the sooner.

 

Electricity Substation

53.     The applicant must liaise with Energy Australia prior to obtaining a construction certificate (for any above ground works), to determine whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development. 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 relevant construction certificate and landscape plans.

 

Traffic conditions

54.     A traffic light system shall be installed for the car hoist so as to be visible from vehicles in Greenstead Lane to indicate when the car hoist is in use or free to enter. Details are to be included in the construction certificate documentation. 

 

55.     A 1.0m wide strip of land within the subject property fronting Greenstead Lane shall be dedicated as a waiting bay for vehicles wishing to use the car hoist. Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate the waiting bay complying with the following requirements;

 

a)       The waiting bay shall be approximately 8m long to allow for adequate car manoeuvring and passing of vehicles on Greenstead Lane.

b)       The waiting bay shall be clearly distinguished from the road way with a finish of concrete or brick paving.

c)       A sign shall be installed adjacent to the waiting bay and within the subject property stating “Waiting Bay – No Parking”.

 

56.     A sufficient portion of the roof of the western edge of the basement carpark shall be designed to accommodate vehicle and truck loads.

 

NOTE: This condition has been included to accommodate vehicle loads associated with construction traffic and parking once construction of the development reaches ground level and any vehicle loads associated with the waiting bay.

 

57.     The vehicular access to the car hoist shall be graded up at a grade of 1 in 8 from the rear of the new layback to maximize the height of the car hoist above gutter levels and to minimize the possibility of stormwater flows in Greenstead lane from entering the car hoist entry. The entry level of the car hoist shall be adjusted accordingly. Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Design Alignment levels

58.     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:

 

For Driveway

·       Not to exceed a grade of 1 in 8 from rear of layback consistent with previous condition. 

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council 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 0881.

 

59.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $843 calculated at $46.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

60.     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 prepared by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer and 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)       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

 

d)       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.

 

e)       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.

 

f)       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.

 

61.     The site stormwater drainage system is to be provided in accordance with the following requirements;

 

a)     The stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and the conditions of this consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

b)     The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) to the kerb and gutter in Avoca street.

 

c)     On-site stormwater detention system must be provided for the redeveloped portion of the site to ensure that the maximum discharge from the site does not exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of one hour duration for existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the street drainage system, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

An overland escape route or overflow system (to Council’s street drainage system) must be provided for storms having an average recurrence interval of 100 years (1 in 100 year storm), or, alternatively the stormwater detention system is to be provided to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm.

 

d)     Determination of the required cumulative storage (in the on-site detention and/or infiltration system) must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible any detention tanks should have an open base to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. Infiltration should not be used if ground water and/or any rock stratum is within 2.0 metres of the base of the tank.

 

e)     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 (i.e. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage (detention/infiltration) system.

 

f)      A sediment/silt arrestor pit must be provided within the site near the street boundary prior to discharge of the stormwater to Council’s drainage system and prior to discharging the stormwater to any absorption/infiltration system.

 

Sediment/silt arrestor pits are to be constructed generally in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·         The base of the pit being located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

·         The pit being constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

·         A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (or equivalent) 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 being provided 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 being provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

·         Provision of a sign adjacent to the pit stating, “This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned”.

 

Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

g)     The floor level of all habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas located adjacent to any detention and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be provided.

 

(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).

 

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

i.     150mm in uncovered open car parking areas (with an isolated maximum depth of 200mm permissible at the low point pit within the detention area)

ii.    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)

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

iv.   1200mm in landscaped areas where a safety fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

v.    Above ground stormwater detention areas must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

Note: Above ground storage of stormwater is not permitted within basement car parks or store rooms.

 

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

 

j)      A ‘V’ drain (or equally effective provisions) are to be provided to the perimeter of the property, where necessary, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

k)     The site stormwater system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it operates as required by the design.

 

l)      Mulch or bark is not to be used in on-site detention areas.

 

m)     Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line.

 

n)     Any onsite detention/infiltration systems shall be located in areas accessible by residents of all units.

 

o)     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.

 

Site seepage

62.     The following requirements shall be undertaken to ensure site seepage and sub-soil drainage (from planter boxes etc) is appropriately managed:

 

a)    Seepage water and subsoil drainage (from planter boxes etc) must not be collected & discharged directly or indirectly to  Council’s street gutter or underground drainage system

 

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

 

c)    The walls of the basement level/s of the building are to be tanked and waterproofed to restrict the entry of any seepage water and subsoil drainage into the basement level/s of the building and the stormwater drainage system for the development.

 

d)   Details of the proposed stormwater drainage system including methods of tanking/waterproofing the basement level/s and any sub-soil drainage systems (as applicable) must be prepared or approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Professional Engineer to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

Waste Management

63.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed building, a Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development, is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Services.

 

The Waste Management plan is required to be prepared in accordance with Council's Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Development and must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·      The use of the premises and the number and size of occupancies.

·      The type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development.

·      Demolition and construction waste, including materials to be re-used or recycled.

·      Details of the proposed recycling and waste disposal contractors.

·      Waste storage facilities and equipment.

·      Access and traffic arrangements.

·      Details of recycling outlets and land fill sites

·      The procedures and arrangements for on-going waste management including collection, storage and removal of waste and recycling of materials.

 

64.     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.

 

Landscaping & Environmental amenity:

65.     Landscaping is to be provided to the site in substantial accordance with the landscaping plans/specifications submitted with the development application (Drawings LA-001, LA-002 by Aspect Studios dated 2nd September 2001 and stamp-received by Council on 7 September 2011, subject to the following amendments and requirements.

 

i.      Landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

Construction Traffic Management

66.     Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, an Application for a ‘Works Zone’ and Construction Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Councils Integrated Transport Department, and approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee, for a ‘Works Zone’ to be provided in Greenstead Lane for the duration of the demolition & construction works. 

 

The ‘Works Zone’ must have a minimum length of 12m and extend for a minimum duration of three months.  The suitability of the proposed length and duration is to be demonstrated in the application for the Works Zone.  The application for the Works Zone must be submitted to Council 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 varied or waived only 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) can and will be undertaken wholly within the site.  The written approval of Council must be obtained to provide a Works Zone or to waive the requirement to provide a Works Zone prior to the commencement of any site work.

 

67.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must include the following details, to the satisfaction of Council:

·       A description of the demolition, excavation and construction works

·       A site plan/s showing the site, roads, footpaths, site access points and vehicular movements

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

·       Size, type and estimated number of vehicular movements (including removal of excavated materials, delivery of materials and concrete to the site)

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

·       Impacts of the work and vehicular movements on the road network, traffic and pedestrians

·       Proposed hours of construction related activities and vehicular movements to and from the site

·       Current/proposed approvals from other Agencies and Authorities (including NSW Roads & Traffic Authority, Police and State Transit Authority)

·       Any activities proposed to be located or impact upon Council’s road, footways or any public place

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience.

·       Provide on site parking for construction vehicles once development has reached ground level.

 

Sydney Water

68.     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

69.     A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on 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.  The assessment should include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of services.

 

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 demolition, excavation or building works.

 

70.     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.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

71.     Any openings within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place (i.e. for proposed drainage works or installation of services), must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

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

 

b)     Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer must be notified at least 48 hours in advance of commencing any excavation works and also immediately upon completing the works (on 9399 0691 or 0409 033 921 during business hours), to enable any necessary inspections or works to be carried out.

 

c)     Relevant Road / Asset Opening Permit fees, construction fees, inspection fees and security deposits, must be paid to Council prior to commencing any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place,

 

d)     The owner/developer 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 or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner).

 

e)     Excavations and trenches must be back-filled and compacted in accordance with AUSPEC standards 306U.

 

f)     Excavations or trenches located upon a road or footpath are required to be provided with 50mm depth of cold-mix bitumen finish, level with the existing road/ground surface, to enable Council to readily complete the finishing works at a future date.

 

g)     Excavations or trenches located upon turfed areas are required to be back-filled, compacted, top-soiled and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf.

 

h)     The work and area must be maintained in a clean, safe and tidy condition at all times and the area must be thoroughly cleaned at the end of each days activities and upon completion.

 

i)      The work can only be carried out in accordance with approved hours of building work as specified in the development consent, unless the express written approval of Council has been obtained beforehand.

 

j)     Sediment control measures must be implemented in accordance with the conditions of development consent and soil, sand or any other material must not be allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system or cause a pollution incident.

 

k)     The owner/developer must have a Public Liability Insurance Policy in force, with a minimum cover of $10 million and a copy of the insurance policy must be provided to Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place.

 

Stormwater Drainage

72.     Adequate provisions must be made to collect and discharge stormwater drainage during construction of the building to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority.

 

The prior written approval of Council must be obtained to connect or discharge site stormwater to Council’s stormwater drainage system or street gutter.

 

Demolition & Construction Waste

73.     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.

 

Tree Removal

74.     Approval is granted for the removal of only those trees located within the area occupied by the approved works, as detailed in this development consent.  Requests for the removal (or pruning) of any of the remaining trees on the site are subject to separate application under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

75.     The owner/applicant is required to ensure the retention and long term health of all trees located on adjoining properties adjacent to the proposed development. As a general guide there shall be minimal excavation or root pruning within the dripline/s of the subject tree/s.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

76.     Prior to issuing a final occupation certificate for the development, the owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

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

b)        Construct dish drain at the gutter line opposite the waiting bay.

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

d)        Carry out a full depth 4.2 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter, dish drain and layback along the full site frontage to maximize the trafficable width.

 

77.     Prior to issuing a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner), the owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, roadway 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Service Authorities

79.     The Section 73 Compliance Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate (whichever the sooner).

 

80.     The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines and telecommunication cables located along the Avoca Street site frontage to be relocated underground. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be relocated. All cables most be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

Stormwater Drainage

81.     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.

 

82.     Upon completion of the works and prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council. The works-as-executed plan must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·      The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

·      Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·      Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

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

·      The orifice size/s (if applicable);

·      Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

83.     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, which confirms that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standard AS3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and conditions of this development consent. 

 

The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the Hydraulic Engineers to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

84.     Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate certification must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced professional Engineer, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority confirming that the basement tanking/waterproofing and any sub-soil drainage systems (as applicable) have been provided in accordance with the conditions of consent and relevant Standards. A copy of the certification must be provided to the Council with the Occupation Certificate.

 

Landscaping

85.     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.

 

Waste Management

86.     Prior to the occupation of the development, the owner or applicant is required to contact Council’s City Services department, to make the necessary arrangements for the provision of waste services for the premises.

 

87.     The waste storage area shall be clearly signposted.

 

Stormwater Detention/Infiltration  System

88.     The detention system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

Advisory

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

A4    Engineer Advisory

·        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

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            11 October 2011

 

 

Development Application Report No. D125/11

 

 

Subject:                  28 Duncan Street Maroubra (DA/590/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/590/2011

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to existing dwelling (SEPP 1 Objections to floor space ratio)

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Archivision

Owner:                         T Mundy

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

The application details alterations and additions to an existing semi detached dwelling to provide for a first floor addition. As per Council’s advice semi-detached dwelling houses in the Residential 2A Zone should be classified as an attached dual occupancy.

 

As the proposal is now classified as an attached dual occupancy and not a dwelling house the development standards contained in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) now apply. The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.63:1 and exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal includes a SEPP 1 Objection that exceeds the standard by more than 10%. If the proposal was assessed under the provision of the DCP – Dwelling House the preferred solution for floor space ratio would be 0.6:1

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a first floor addition. The main issue is the potential for any impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties, which are considered to be acceptable.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including an addition to the rear of the dwelling to provide for an open plan kitchen and living areas and a new upper level comprising two bedrooms, bathroom and balconies to front and rear. The proposal will provide for 105m of additional floor area to the dwelling.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is on the western side of Duncan Street and has a frontage of 7.11m, a depth of 45.77/45.80m and an area of 325m. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings.

 

4.    Site History

 

There are no relevant matters relating to this property.

 

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

 

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

 

5.1 Floor Space Ratios

Pursuant to Clause 20F of RLEP 1998, the maximum FSR within 2A Zones is 0.5:1 respectively. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Proposal

0.63:1 (206m2 )

LEP development standard

0.5:1 (163m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

26% excess (43m2)

 

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 proposal is in keeping with the streetscape which includes numerous large dwellings, multi unit housing developments, dual occupancies and two storey semi detached dwellings.

 

The proposal will not affect the streetscape as is has been located behind the main hipped roofline of the pair.

 

The proposal does not create any adverse effects to adjoining dwellings and therefore easily meets the performance requirements of the DCP in that the proposed building bulk must be compatible with surrounding building forms and mist minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours, streets and public open space. An assessment of this application clearly demonstrates the proposal meets these requirements,

 

The degree of non compliance is minimal ie: 42.25sqm and contained over 2 levels.

 

The height of the proposal is well under the DCP guidelines which, in turn controls bulk and scale.

 

The proposal does not compromise the outdoor private open space of the occupants.

 

From the above statements the proposal meets the aims and objectives of Council’s policies in that the proposal ensures the height and scale relates to the topography of the site with minimal cut and fill, the size, form and bulk is suitable for the lot size it will be sited upon, it will be compatible with the character of the suburb, neighbourhood and street, it will preserve privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents and allows sharing of views.

 

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 exceeds the floor space ratio control however in the context of the existing locality which includes a number of dwellings of similar bulk and scale, and some three and four level residential flat buildings it cannot be argued that this development will be substantially out of keeping with the established character of the locality.

The proposed upper level provides for an ample front boundary setback of 11.5m which maintains a substantial portion of the existing façade and will have minimal impact upon the existing streetscape.

 

The amenity impacts to the adjoining properties as a result of the additional floor area will not be unreasonable in the context of similar upper level additions to semi detached dwellings as the upper level footprint does not extend to an excessive degree past that of the adjoining building at No.30 Duncan Street. There will be additional overshadowing resulting from the new upper level however the degree of overshadowing arises in this instance because of the orientation of the site and not because of an inappropriate design.

 

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.”

 

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 2A Zone in that it will allow attached dual occupancy development, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

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 development standard.

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is unreasonable.

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The FSR development standards 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 zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

6.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

Clause 20E Landscaped area

Development other than for the purpose of a dwelling house within a 2A zone must provide a minimum of 40% of the total site area as landscaped area. The resultant area of landscaping represents 50% of the site area which is complies with the minimum standard.

 

Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house within 2A zones is 0.5:1. This proposal has a total floor space ratio of 0.63:1 which exceeds the maximum in the control and a SEPP 1 Objection to this standard has been lodged by the applicant for consideration.

 

Clause 20G Building Heights

The maximum height for a building other than a dwelling house within a 2A zone is 9.5m from any point on ground level with a maximum external wall height of 7m. The building height is 7.8m with an external wall height of 6.1m. 

 

6.1      Policy Controls

 

Development Control Plan Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies

 


Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

50%

Yes

25m² of private open space provided.

109m2 +

Yes

Min. dimensions of 3m x 4m & minor level change

7m x 15.5m

Yes

Open space behind the building line.

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

40%

Yes

Floor area

(Site area 325m2) maximum FSR 0.6:1 

0.63:1

See below

 

The proposal does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP, however in this instance there are no major objections as the resultant floor area of the dwelling will not be out of keeping with the established character of the immediate locality which contains dwellings of similar bulk and scale and therefore whilst the preferred solution is not complied with it can be demonstrated that the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied. In any case, FSR is controlled by LEP development standards in this case.

 

 

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

6.1m

Yes

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

Less than 1m

Yes

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

Up to side boundaries

See below

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

In excess of 15.5m

Yes

 

Excavation for the addition will be up to the side boundary. Conditions of consent are included with respect to ensuring that both the subject and adjoining sites are properly maintained during and after building works.

 

 

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

No change

Yes

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m

15.5m

Yes

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

Up to southern  and 1670mm from northern side boundaries

See below

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

Up to southern side and 1670mm from northern side boundaries

See below

 

The southern boundary setback of the dwelling up to the side boundary maintains the party wall and fire separation between the two semi detached dwellings and will not result in any unreasonable impacts to the amenity of that adjoining dwelling.

 

 

 

Privacy

The proposal includes an upper level balcony to the rear and front of the upper level. The rear balcony is recessed within the southern elevation by the continuation of the party wall to the end of the balcony which will prevents direct overlooking. The other side of the balcony includes a louvered screen, a condition of consent is recommended to require that the louvres in the screen be fixed in position. The balcony to the front of the building will overlook the footpath and roadway and not into any adjoining private outdoor living areas of adjoining dwellings.

There is a large feature window in the northern elevation to the kitchen at ground and void above. This window is off set from the ground level windows of the dwelling opposite and within the upper portion will look upon the roof of that dwelling and not into any private living areas.

 

 

 

Garages and car parking

The proposal details the provision of a new carport above the existing car space to the front of the dwelling. The overall dimensions of the carport do not reduce the complying dimension of the car space. In relation to the streetscape there will not be any adverse impact to the existing streetscape as there are a number of similar structures sited to the front of dwellings in the locality and the design and open nature of the carport will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling.

 

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

New dwellings comply with 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

See BASIX

n/a

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

No significant reduction

Yes

North-facing living areas receive at least 3 hrs sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June.

Yes

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained 9am - 3pm.

 

No impact to solar collectors

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

No north facing windows in the neighbouring dwelling which has a solid blank wall to the northern side boundary.  Additional overshadowing upon the dwellings sited beyond the adjoining dwelling is not significant.

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

 

See comments below

 

 

There will be some additional overshadowing onto the adjoining properties, however the extent of overshadowing is unavoidable and not unreasonable as it arises because of the orientation of the sites on an east west axis rather than because of any unacceptable design. 

 

 

 

7.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Notification. The following response has been received.

 

Issue

Comment

 

30 Duncan Street Maroubra

 

-The proposed floor area is considered excessive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The development extends past the end of their dwelling.

 

 

-The development will result in overshadowing upon their property, which is already impacted by a large tree in the subject property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-There are concerns in relation to impacts upon their privacy from the upper level balcony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-There are concerns in relation to any future development which could result in further privacy and overshadowing issues.

 

 

 

 

The proposed floor area of the dwelling is 0.63:1 which is in keeping with other recently approved alterations to similar dwellings in the locality and there will not be any unreasonable impacts to the amenity of the adjoining residents because of the proposed floor area of the dwelling.

 

The proposal extends up to 2.4m past the end of the adjoining semi detached dwelling which is not excessive.

 

The resultant overshadowing upon their property is mostly upon the roof with the remaining additional overshadowing to their rear yard satisfying the minimum requirements of at least 3 hours during the period between 9.00am to 3.00pm. The existence of the large tree in the rear yard is noted. However, the proposal only provides for minimal additional overshadowing to the rear yard of the adjoining property.

 

The rear upper level balcony is off the master bedroom suite and includes a louvered privacy screen to the northern side and the continuation of the party wall within southern elevation to the end of the balcony. Both of those measures will maintain privacy to the adjoining properties.

 

Any proposed future development will be the subject of an assessment of any impacts at that time, it is not possible to assume any likely additional impacts by future development.

 

8.    Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200000

$ 380 000

1.0%

$ 3 800.00

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the application to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dwelling be approved 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 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/590/2011 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 28 Duncan Street, Maroubra 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

635/11

Archivision

May 2011

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

A117673

13th July 2011

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.     The proposed louvered privacy screen to the northern side of the rear upper level balcony is to be of louvres fixed at a 45 degree angle and non open able.

 

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.


 

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 $ 350 000, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $ 3 500.00.

       

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

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

 

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

 

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

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 with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Smoke Alarms

8.       Smoke alarms are required to be installed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (volume 2) and 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

9.       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.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

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

 

Construction Certificate, Principal Certifying Authority & Commencement of Works

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

 

a)     a Construction Certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

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

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Dilapidation Reports

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

 

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

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

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

·           as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

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

 

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 on site.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

14.     Temporary site safety fencing must be provided to the perimeter of the site (unless the site is separated from the adjoining land by an existing structurally adequate fence, having a minimum height of 1.5 metres). 

 

Temporary site fences are to have a 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

15.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

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

·           location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·           location of building materials for construction;

·           provisions for public safety;

·           dust control measures;

·           site access location and construction

·           details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·           protective measures for tree preservation;

·           provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·           location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·           details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·           provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·           construction noise and vibration management;

·           construction traffic management details.

 

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

 

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

 

Demolition Work Plan

16.     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 (including asbestos)

·           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

17.     A Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development.

 

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

18.     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

19.     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.

 

Inspections During Construction

20.     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

21.     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

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, vibratory rollers/compactors or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

23.     All work and activities must be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements 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