Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 27 March 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                   27 March 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 6pm.

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 February 2012

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Mayoral Minutes

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

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

 

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

 

 

CP12/12    16 Walenore Avenue, Kingsford (DA/641/2011) (DEFERRED)

CP13/12    80 Alison Road , Randwick (DA/611/2011) (DEFERRED)

CP14/12    27 Hannan Street, Maroubra (DA/255/2010/A)

CP15/12    135 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/885/2009/A)

CP16/12    45 Victoria Street, Malabar (DA/666/2011)

CP17/12    25A French Street, Maroubra (DA/865/2011)

CP18/12    133 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/884/2009/A)

CP19/12    Reporting variation to Development standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the month of 1  to 29 February 2012

CP20/12    Cultural and Community Grants Program - March 2012 - Recommended Allocations

CP21/12    Randwick City Council's Support and Service for Young People

General Manager's Reports

GM9/12     Rules and Procedures of Precincts and Precinct Funding

Director City Services Reports

CS6/12      Additional Alcohol Free Zones (AFZs) - Randwick and Maroubra Junction

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF13/12    Investment Report - February 2012  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM11/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Andrews - Proposed Pedestrian Crossing at Fitzgerald Avenue.

NM12/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Stevenson - Establishment of Men Sheds

NM13/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Stevenson - Proposed Community Transport Schemes

NM14/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Bowen - Technology Training for Seniors Program

NM15/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Matson - State of Climate Report: "More Ambitious Action Needed"

NM16/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Matson - "Interim Bridging Policies to Bring Council's current DCP's into alignment with the draft Comprehensive LEP".

NM17/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Matson - "Call on local Liberal MP's to oppose Centennial, Moore and Queens Park 99 year leases."

NM18/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Matson - "Demolition of structures on the Chinese Market Gardens site".   

Notice of Rescission Motions

NR2/12      Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Matson, Hughes and Woodsmith - 102-104 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/291/2009)

NR3/12      Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Andrews, Stevenson, Seng and Matthews - 7 Boomerang Street, Maroubra (DA/848/2011)  

 

……………………………………………………

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council                                                                                                   27 March 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP12/12

 

 

Subject:                  16 Walenore Avenue, Kingsford (DA/641/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/641/2011

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Introduction

 

Original application

At the Planning Committee Meeting held on 28 February 2012, Council considered a Development Application (DA/641/2011) seeking consent for the addition of a 1st floor level to the previously approved garage at the rear of the site to accommodate a study/hobby room. The report recommended refusal of the first floor addition primarily as a result of the 5.275m high wall along the western elevation; 

 

At the Planning Committee Meeting, Council, resolved:

 

“Andrews/Hughes that:

 

the application be deferred in accordance with the applicant’s request, subject to it being referred back to the Council for determination.”

 

Amended Application

The amended plans received by Council on 5 March 2012, reduce the wall along the western elevation to 3.5m, which is consistent with the proposed wall height on the opposite eastern elevation. The amended proposal is considered suitable for the site, it complies with the objectives and performance requirements under the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, it integrates well within the established streetscape along the laneway and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

Issues

 

Floor Area

The amended proposal has a floor area of 16.88 square metres and a floor space ratio of 0.75:1 across the site.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements under the DCP. In this respect, it is considered that the proposal is not excessive in bulk or scale; it is compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimises adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the streetscape.

 

Visual privacy

The amended proposal continues to show clear glazing to the proposed first floor south facing windows which will likely have an outlook into the eastern neighbour’s rear yard area. As indicated in the previous recommendation, a condition is included requiring specific treatment to these windows in order to ensure the objectives and performance requirements under the DCP are satisfied.

 


Draft LEP 2012

The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Draft LEP 2012.

 

Development Engineer

An application has been received for the addition of a 1st floor level to the previously approved garage at the rear of the site to accommodate a study/hobby room at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·           Architectural Plans by Classic Plans dated 25th July 2011;

·           Statement of Environmental Effects Plans by Renato D’ Ettore Architects dated September  2011

·           Detail & Level Survey by Geometric Surveying dated 2nd February 2005

 

General Comments

The assessing officer is advised that the ground floor has already been approved under DA/688/2008. There are no objections raised by Development Engineering to the addition of the first floor and no conditions are required from Development Engineering.

 

Flooding Comments

In response to new information received from Council’s Drainage Engineer it is apparent that there could be significant flooding issues in the rear lane.

 

At the time of assessment of DA/688/2008 which included the garage ground floor it was considered that since the garage floor was approximately 0.65m above surrounding ground levels in the rear lane it was deemed to be at minimal risk of flooding. This advice may now require review as a result of new information received from the Drainage Engineer.

 

As the current application only involves the first floor on an already approved DA it is beyond the scope of this application to require a flood study from the applicant but Development Engineering does advise to do so to ensure that the garage will not be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events.

 

Council currently requires the floor level of garages to be at or above the 1 in 100yr level plus a 0.15m freeboard.

 

It is also advised that;

 

·       The garage be constructed to withstand the forces of floodwaters, including debris and buoyancy for the 1 in 100yr flood.

 

·       The garage be constructed from flood compatible building components below the 1 in 100yr flood plus 0.5m freeboard.

 

It is advised that the assessing officer include the above recommendations in the advisory conditions of any consent.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Direction 5a: Improved design and sustainability. The proposal is well designed having regard to the amended plan and, it will contribute to good architectural design in the Randwick City Area

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape; and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

The amended proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any adverse impacts upon both the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/641/2011 for Addition of a 1st floor level to the previously approved garage at the rear of the site to accommodate a study/hobby room at 16 Walenore Avenue, Kingsford NSW 2032, 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

29/11 Sheet 1 of 3 to Sheet 3 of 3

Classic Plans

2 March 2012

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

a.       The bottom sash of the first floor south facing windows must be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height. The top window shall be operable and be of translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing.

 

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 compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

External materials, finishes and colours of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building and any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) to limit the level of reflection and glare.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

5.       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

6.       In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Structural Adequacy

7.       Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority), certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey/upper floor addition.

 

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.

 

Energy & Water Efficiency

9.       The following energy efficiency and water saving measures are to be implemented in all new and upgraded building work and details included in the construction certificate:

 

a)       The consumption of water shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.

 

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

 

c)       New hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

Stormwater Drainage

10.     A surface water/stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate:-

 

a)     Surface water/stormwater drainage systems must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia (Volume 2);

 

b)     The surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or, subject to site suitability, the stormwater may be drained to a suitably designed absorption pit;

 

c)     Any absorption pits or soaker wells should be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance;

 

d)     External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises;

 

e)     Details of any proposed drainage systems or works to be carried out in the road, footpath or nature strip must be submitted to and approved by Council before commencing these works.

 

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

11.     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

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

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of 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

13.     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

14.     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

15.     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

16.     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

17.     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

·            Details of re-use, recycling and disposal of waste demolition/building materials

·            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.

 

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

·              Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

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

·              WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·              Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

·              Relevant DECCW/EPA Guidelines

·              Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

·              Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

·              Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

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

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

·              Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

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

 

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

25.     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

26.     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

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Building Encroachments

30.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto the adjoining land, Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

Road/Asset Opening Permit

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

 

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

 

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

32.     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.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

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

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

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

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

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

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Use of premises

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

 

External Lighting

35.     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 garage be constructed to withstand the forces of floodwaters, including debris and buoyancy for the 1 in 100yr flood.

 

A2      The garage be constructed from flood compatible building components below the 1 in 100yr flood plus 0.5m freeboard.

 

A3      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.

 

A4      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.

 

A5      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.

 

A6      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.

 

A7      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.

 

A8      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.

 

A9      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.

 

A10     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.

 

A11     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:

 

1.View

Report submitted to Planning Committee Meeting of 28 February 2012

 

 

 

 


Report submitted to Planning Committee Meeting of 28 February 2012

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. 

 

 

Subject:                  16 Walenore Avenue, Kingsford (DA/641/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/641/2011

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer    

Proposal:                     Addition of a 1st floor level to the previously approved garage at the rear of the site to accommodate a study/hobby room

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Classic Plans

Owner:                         Ms J N Mitchell

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Nash, Andrews and Seng.

 

The application details the addition of a 1st floor level to the previously approved garage at the rear of the site to accommodate a study/hobby room.

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape; and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

The main issue is the excessive wall height, and associated bulk and scale of the proposed first floor addition to the approved single level garage and the impact upon the streetscape.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

Addition of a 1st floor level to the previously approved garage at the rear of the site to accommodate a study/hobby room.

 

Request to address issue with excessive height:

The applicant was advised that the proposed 5.6m external wall/overall height of the proposed development was considered excessive, given the height of existing and approved garages and their form along the rear laneway. The applicant was advised to reduce the external wall height to a maximum of 3.5m in accordance with the DCP and that they could incorporate dormers.

 

Amended plans

The applicant amended their application submitting amended plans received by Council on 9 November 2011.  The amended plans incorporate a 3.5m height (with first floor dormer above) along the eastern elevation opposite 18 Walenore Avenue and a 325mm reduction of the height along the western elevation down to 5.275m in height, opposite a Sydney water reserve access way.

 

 

An assessment of the proposed development is carried out against the amended plans received by Council on 9 November 2011.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of free standing dwellings. The subject site has a frontage to Walenore Avenue and bounded to the left and rear of the site by land that is under the management of the NSW department of Public works and Services who have indicated non objection to use of this land for vehicular access to the rear of properties.

 

The site is irregularly shaped with a frontage of 12.615m, an alternating depth of 25.96m and 39.22m and a total site area of approximately 338m². The site is on the southern side of Walenore Avenue and the land is relatively level throughout the site which sits above the rear reserve.

 

Aerial view of subject site and neighbouring properties.

 

Relevant history of garages developments at nearby sites at:

·      No 18 Walenore Avenue and

·      No 20 Walenore Avenue

 

No. 18 Walenore Avenue

Ø DA/363/2005: Refusal issued under DA/363/2005 to construct a two storey double garage.

 

Ø 82A review of DA/363/2005: A subsequent S82A review approved an amended design which incorporated a reduction in the scale of the garage providing a 3.5m external wall height, first floor dormers at laneway and rear yard side and a gable roof form.

Ø Section 96 to DA/363/2005/A: A subsequent Section 96 application approved a 200mm increase in the height of the development to a maximum wall height of 3.7m above ground level (see excerpt from S96 below).

Ø Relevance to the subject application: The applicants streetscape northern elevation shows an outline of this approved development at No. 18 Walenore Avenue, however it is not considered that this sufficiently encapsulates a realistic view of the development from laneway in so far as it fails to show the garage’s main roof which slopes away from the laneway and the dormers provide articulation/modulation and serve to reduce the buildings bulk and scale from the laneway.

 

Overall, it is considered that the issues raised with the original development application at No. 16 Walenore Avenue are similar to the issues raised with the original development sought at No. 18 Walenore Avenue which was refused.

 

Further to the above, it is noted that the proponent of the site at No. 18 Walenore Avenue has submitted a letter to Council seeking to surrender the abovementioned consent (DA/363/2005), however given they have not clearly articulated the required information under the Regulations it has not been formally been surrendered.

 

Ø A DA currently being assessed (DA/725/2011) is only seeking a single level garage structure at the rear of the site in amongst other alterations and additions (see excerpt below).

 

 


20 Walenore Avenue

Ø DA/907/2000: Approval granted to erect a garage with attic store and 1.8m high brick fencing at the rear of the property. The garage was approved with a 3.5m external wall height.

 

Ø Section 96 to DA/907/2000/A: A subsequent Section 96 application approved a 250mm increase in the height of the development to a maximum of 3.85m above ground level, which is short of the 500mm increase sought under the Section 96 application (see excerpt from S96 below)

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/688/2008, consented to the demolition of the pre-existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey dwelling house and a detached single garage at the rear, new fences front and side boundaries installation of new rainwater tanks.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

6.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

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 10 2A zone

The objectives of the 2(a) zone are as follows:

 

(a)    to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

 

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

 

(c)    to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development, and

 

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

 

(e)    to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability.

 

The height, bulk and scale of the proposal is not consistent with the surrounding residential area which is characterised predominantly by either single level garages or two level garages with walls that are generally below 4m. The non-compliance with the DCP height control results in adverse and unacceptable visual impacts on the streetscape in terms of visual bulk and scale.

 

Therefore, the proposal does not satisfy the zone objectives contained in sub-clauses (a) and (c).

 

6.1 Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan (DCP) Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Key Issues and Areas of Non Compliance:

 

Floor Area

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area (338m2) is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies. The existing FSR is at 0.7:1 and the proposed FSR is 0.77:1 (originally proposed at 0.79:1; however the area below 2.1m floor to ceiling height at the store areas on either side of the dormer have been removed from the calculation). The proposed development does not comply.

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The proposed development significantly exceeds the preferred solution FSR for the site as stipulated in the DCP. The degree of non-compliance overall represents a 28% above the DCP control, however it is noted that the approved development represented an FSR of 0.7:1 and the additional area represents an a 10% variation.

 

However, while the FSR of the approved and proposed developments do not vary greatly, it is considered that the impacts resulting from the proposal on the rear laneway is significant as it is evident that wall heights to garage structures within the laneway are well below that being proposed and the proposed garage will not be consistent with the prevailing character of the laneway. As such, and noting the additional building bulk and solid built form to the laneway, the proposed development is not deemed to satisfy the performance requirement of the DCP, namely that the proposal should be “compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street”.

 

As such the floor area of the proposal and its resultant impacts to the laneway streetscape is not supported.

 

Height, Form & Materials

The preferred solution for external wall heights of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5m. The proposed development complies along the eastern elevation; however the proposed development has varying wall heights up to 5.275m and does not comply with the solution along the other elevations facing the laneway, the rear yard of the subject site and the western elevation.

 

The Objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality; to ensure impacts in terms of privacy, natural light and views are minimised; and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the streetscape.

 

The relevant Performance Requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and the topography; buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandas, eaves and parapets; with respect to additions to semi-detached dwellings they integrate with the attached dwelling; and views are shared.

 

It is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the relevant performance requirement, namely that “buildings relate to those in the surrounding streetscape” and that buildings are designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant, existing characteristics of: mass and proportion, roof form and pitch, façade articulation..” (DCP, Section 4.3.1 Objectives, and Section 4.3.3 P1 and P2 p33).

 

Although the applicant refers to an approved development on the eastern neighbours site at No. 18 Walenore Avenue, it is noted that this development contains a garage roof at first floor level that falls back to the rear of the site with a 1st floor dormer that faces the laneway and the rear of the site representing less bulk and scale at first floor level than that being proposed at the subject site having particular regard to the overall scale of the structure and its context within the respective sites.

Overall, the proposal is not deemed to have a well considered proportion and conveys a mass of built form and solid surfaces deficient of suitable degrees, contributing to the bulkiness of the proposal and does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Section 4.3 “Height, form and materials” (p33) of the DCP.

 

As such, the applicants amended plans do not appropriately address the dominance issues raised, and it is recommended that the proposed garage not be supported.

 

Building Setbacks

The preferred solutions are that side setbacks be 1.5m at second level. The proposed garage is setback 900mm at 1st floor level from the eastern side boundary and does not comply.

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours; and with respect to front boundary setbacks the proposal generally conform to the adjoining development or dominant streetscape.

 

The proposed 1st floor addition to the approved garage will essentially be incorporated into a dormer window on the eastern elevation, failing to meet the preferred solution 1500mm setback requirements by 600mm. The degree of non-compliance is significant, however given the 1st floor is contained within a dormer that is setback from the front gable roof at this half of the 1st floor, it is not considered to have a dominating presence, However this consideration alone would not result in a development that could be supported as the proposed western half of the 1st floor addition to the garage proposes a 5.275m wall height along the western elevation and does not incorporate a gable form at the front or rear which will have a dominating presence on the laneways streetscape.

 

In other words, the proposed first floor level along the eastern elevation has a setback of only 900mm and does not comply with the preferred setback of 1.5m; however it is considered that the proposed setback from the eastern side neighbours property goes some way towards reducing the impact to neighbours and the streetscape. However the application is not considered supportable as points of concern which are considered insurmountable relate to wall height along the western half of the garage along laneway, at the southern elevation facing the rear yard and the western elevation facing the laneway.

 

Garages & Driveways

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape; and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

The built form of the garage whilst attempting to bear reference to the built form and character of the existing dwelling, does not bear any reference to the other structures in along this laneway in relation to built form, aesthetic impact or visual outlook from neighbouring properties. The proposed garage is considered to be an overtly dominant structure with little variation in form when viewed from the laneway or from the western elevation and not considered to satisfy the requirements of form or scale as required as part of the DCP.

 

As such, the proposed development is not supported.

 

Visual privacy

The Objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy. The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

 

The proposed 1st floor south facing window will result in overlooking to the eastern neighbours rear yard private open space at No. 18 Walenore Avenue. Whilst it is considered that privacy measures employed as a condition of consent could resolve concerns for privacy however it is noted that the size and placement of the window to the southern elevation is largely a consequence of the significant wall height along the western elevation which is considered to be excessive.

 

Site suitability

Having regard to the sites suitability to accommodate the first floor addition to the garage, it is noted that the existing development on site already has a non complying floor space ratio and the proposed development would result in increasing levels of non compliance with the floor space ratio control applicable to the site. Given the issues raised throughout this report are directly related to bulk and scale along the laneway and issues of dominance it is considered that it is an inappropriate form of development and a 1st floor addition to the garage would be acceptable only if its impact were minor or negligible.

 

In addition, there is a real possibility that an approval may constitute an undesirable precedent for similar developments in the area. It is noted that external wall heights have been a salient issue of concern regarding proposed garages at the rear of the two neighbouring sites to the east at No.’s 18 and 20 Walenore Avenue and these have been made to reduce their external wall heights. Consequently, if other properties were to develop along the laneway and other elevations in a similar fashion, the amenity, character and local streetscape of the laneway would be significantly and adversely impacted.

It is therefore considered that the proposed development is not a suitable development for the site.

 

7.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

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

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

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

Not applicable

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

The proposal does not satisfy the, objectives, performance requirements and various preferred solutions in the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, where discussed in the key issues section of this report.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations could be satisfied should the application be recommended for approval.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

The proposed development is inconsistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal is considered to result in detrimental built environmental impacts on the locality.

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

No submissions have been received.

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

The proposal does not promote the objectives of the zone and will result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to not be in the public interest.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Direction 5a and associated key action – Improved design and sustainability.

 

The proposal is not well designed having regard to the excessive bulk and amended a plan which presents a lopsided structure along the rear laneway. Consequently, it will not contribute to good architectural design in the Randwick City Area.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape; and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

The proposal does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and will result in any adverse impacts upon both the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal based on the reasons outlined below under the recommendation section of this report.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No. DA/641/2011 for permission to add a 1st floor level to the previously approved garage at the rear of the site to accommodate a study/hobby room at 16 Walenore Avenue, Kingsford, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed development fails to comply with the objectives of the Zone No 2A (Residential A Zone) in that it will compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas, is not compatible with the dominant character of existing development and will not maintain the character of established residential areas.

 

2.       The proposal does not satisfy the objective and performance requirement of Section 4.2 “Floor area” and Section 4.3 “Height and Form and Materials” of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan. In particular, the proposed development does not meet the 3.5m maximum height limit contained in S1 or P1 of section 4.3 of Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, and the proposed height along the western elevation represents a scale and bulk which is considered to be excessive in scale and does not relate to the existing development in the area.

 

3.       The proposed garage to the rear laneway will dominate and detract from the appearance of the approved development and the local streetscape and fails to comply with the performance requirements contained in Section 4.7.2 “Garages, Carports and Driveways” of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

4.       The proposed development does not comply with the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirement P3 of section 4.4 “Building Setbacks” of Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, in that it does not maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape. Put in title of section

 

5.       The proposed development is excessive in bulk and scale and will adversely affect the visual quality of the publicly accessible areas of the laneway (drainage easement) located along the rear of the site, its proposed height and design is in-compatible with the nature of existing outbuildings and garage structures and will have adverse dominant visual scale for the design of rear outbuildings in Councils DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                   27 March 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP13/12

 

 

Subject:                  80 Alison Road, Randwick (DA/611/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/611/2011

Author:                   Alex Van Son, Senior Environmental Planner     

 

Introduction

 

The development application was referred to the Planning Committee on 14 February 2012.

 

At the Planning Committee it was resolved: 

 

“(Andrews/Hughes) that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to submit amended plans.”

 

Original Application

The proposed development includes alterations and additions to an approved (but as yet unconstructed) part 4- and part 2-storey multi-unit housing development consisting of 5 x 2-bedroom dwellings and a semi-basement car park with 8 spaces.

 

The proposed works involve the addition of a second floor level containing 1 x one-bedroom unit to the rear of the building, the addition of a sun room with balcony at third floor level to the front of the building, the enlargement of the basement level, and minor alterations to the interior and exterior of the building.

 

The proposal was recommended for refusal due to impacts associated with increased building height and bulk, including: overshadowing, visual bulk and streetscape impacts. The proposal is not considered to satisfy Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. In particular:

 

·           State Environmental Planning Policy 1 objections to Randwick LEP development standards Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio and 20G Building Height are not considered to be well founded;

·           The proposal is not considered to satisfy State Environmental Planning Policy 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings;

·           The proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2C Zone prescribed by the Randwick LEP and does not meet principle development standards;

·           The proposal is not considered to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan - Multi-Unit Housing; and,

·           The impacts of the proposed development on the streetscape and surrounding residents are considered to be unreasonable.

 

Amended Plans

At the Planning Committee it was resolved that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to submit amended plans.

 

The Applicant has been contacted via telephone on two occasions to request that a full set of amended plans be submitted. At the time of writing, amended plans have not been submitted.

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that application be refused as amended plans have not been submitted and the issues associated with the original proposal have not been addressed.  

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No. DA/611/2011 for alterations and additions to an approved residential flat building including provision of a new level to rear with 1 bedroom unit, new sunroom at third floor level off unit 5, internal reconfiguration and associated works at 80 Alison Road, Randwick for the following reasons:

 

1.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards Objection to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio is not considered to be well founded.

 

2.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards Objection to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 Clause 20G Building Height is not considered to be well founded.

 

3.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Design Quality Principles contained within State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

4.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 12 Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 in that the proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the 2C Zone due to impacts on the streetscape and environmental amenity.

 

5.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 20F Gross Floor Area of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 in that the proposal fails to provide adequate deep soil landscaping and does not satisfy the purpose of the control due to impacts on the environmental amenity of adjoining sites.

 

6.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.2 Height as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building height is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the site’s context and will not result in visual bulk issues in relation to adjoining development or the streetscape.

 

7.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.3 Setbacks as inadequate setback is provided from the northern side boundary and the proposed third level addition to the rear, which may result in visual bulk issues and a sense of enclosure in relation to adjoining development.

 

8.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.4 Density as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building bulk is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the area and the additional building bulk will exacerbate impacts (overshadowing) on adjoining development.

 

9.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 4.3 View Sharing, as potential view loss has not been adequately qualified by the applicant and any potential impacts would arise from a development that is not considered to satisfy DCP objectives in relation to building height.

 

10.     Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 4.4 Solar Access as the increase in building bulk is not considered to allow for reasonable levels of solar access to adjoining development to the south.

 

11.     Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 5.2 Driveways and Manoeuvring areas as amendments to the driveway width and grades are required to ensure that safe and efficient access is provided to the basement parking areas.

 

12.     The proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the impacts of the proposed development on the streetscape and surrounding residents are considered to be unreasonable.

 

13.     The proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Report to Planning Committee Meeting of 14 February 2012

 

 

 

 


Report to Planning Committee Meeting of 14 February 2012

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D6/12

 

 

Subject:                  80 Alison Road, Randwick (DA/611/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/611/2011

Author:                   Alex Van Son, Senior Environmental Planner     

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to an approved residential flat building including construction of a new level to rear with 1 bedroom unit, new sunroom at third floor level off unit 5, internal reconfiguration and associated works 

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Yasser Elgammal and Vladmir Mitnoveski

Owner:                         GM Johnson and MC Kennady

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject Development Application has been referred to the Planning Committee because State Environmental Planning Policy 1 (SEPP 1) objections to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 (Randwick LEP) principle development standards in relation to floor space ratio, building height and external wall height exceed 10%.

 

The proposed development includes alterations and additions to an approved (but as yet unconstructed) part 4- and part 2-storey multi-unit housing development consisting of 5 x 2-bedroom dwellings and a semi-basement car park with 8 spaces. The proposed works involve the addition of a second floor level containing 1 x one-bedroom unit to the rear of the building, the addition of a sun room with balcony at third floor level to the front of the building, the enlargement of the basement level, and minor alterations to the interior and exterior of the building. The estimated cost of works is $150,000.00

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification between 24 August 2011 and 7 September 2011.  The application was also advertised in the local newspaper on 23 August 2011.  Submissions received have been detailed within the body of this report.

 

The proposal fails to satisfy the Design Quality Principles established by SEPP 65. The proposal was first brought before the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel (DRP) in September 2011. In response to comments received from the DRP, minor changes were made to the design of the proposed building and amended plans were received by Council on 21 September 2011. The proposal was presented to the DRP on the second occasion in October 2011. The DRP remained unsatisfied with the design and layout of the building.

 

The proposal fails to meet the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 (Randwick LEP) principle development standard in relation to floor space ratio and building height. The SEPP 1 objections lodged in support of the application are not supported as the proposal is not considered to meet the aims and objectives of SEPP1.

 

The proposal fails to meet the Randwick LEP Zone 2C objectives as it has potential to adversely effect the amenity of surrounding residents and the streetscape as a result of unreasonable building bulk.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing and is not considered to satisfy all the relevant objectives of this document.

 

The application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, and is not considered to satisfy the all the relevant heads of consideration. The proposed development application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    Site Description

 

The subject site is described as Lot 6 in DP 11300, No. 80 Alison Road, Randwick. The site is located on the eastern side of Alison Road to the south of its intersection with Cowper Street. The land slopes from the rear to the street with a fall of approximately 4m. The land area and dimensions of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

 

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern side boundary

41.53m

547.4m2

Southern side boundary

40.74m

Western, Alison Road boundary

15.24m

Eastern, rear boundary

12.08m

 

At present, the site accommodates a single-storey detached dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction. An outbuilding is located at the south-eastern corner of the site. A single hardstand car space is located in the front setback areas. A reciprocal right of carriageway with the adjoining property at No. 82 Alison Road previously existed along the southern boundary of the site. This right of carriageway has already been extinguished.

 

The adjoining properties to the north (No. 78 Alison Road) and south (No. 82 Alison Road) are both 3-storey residential flat buildings constructed in the inter-war period. The rear boundary of the site adjoins a modern residential flat building fronting Cowper Street (No. 2 Cowper Street). The locality is predominantly characterised by multi-unit residential developments interspersed with detached houses.

 

Property:

78 Alison Road

 

Location:

Southern corner of Alison Road and Cowper Street, immediately north of the subject site

 

Building type:

residential flat building

 

Height:

3 storeys

 

Property:

82 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, immediately south of the subject site

 

Building type

Residential flat building

 

Height:

Maximum 3 storeys

 

Property:

84 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, to the south of the subject site

 

Building type:

Residential flat building

 

Height:

Maximum 2.5 storeys

 

Property:

86 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, to the south of the subject site

 

Building type:

Residential flat building

 

Height:

Maximum 4 storeys

 

Property:

88 and 90 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, to the south of the subject site

 

Building type:

Residential dwelling

 

Height:

Maximum 2 storeys

 

Property:

94-96 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, to the south of the subject site

 

Building type:

Residential flat building

 

Height:

8 storeys plus 2 levels of car park

 

3.    The Proposal

 

The proposed development includes alterations and additions to an approved, but as yet unconstructed, multi-unit housing development. The building approved under DA/9/2010 involved the demolition of existing structures on the site and construction of a part 4- and part 2-storey residential flat building consisting of 5 x 2-bedroom dwellings and a semi-basement car park with 8 spaces. The proposed Development application involves:

 

·      The addition of a third level containing 1 x one-bedroom unit to the rear of the building.

·      The addition of a sun room with balcony at fourth level to the front of the building.

·      Enlargement of basement level, reduced setback at basement level from northern side boundary, internal alterations.

·      Internal alterations at ground, first and second floor level.

·      Increase size of balconies off living areas.

·      Addition of a lift and reconfiguration of fire stair.

·      Reconfiguration of windows on northern and southern elevation; new awnings and weather shading elements; new privacy screening.

 

4.    Site History

The following Development Applications have been lodged in respect of the subject site:

 

DA/939/2008         Demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a part 4- and part 2-storey residential flat building comprising 5 dwelling units and 7 parking spaces. The application was withdrawn on 6 April 2009.

 

DA/9/2010            Demolition of existing structures on the site. Construction of a part 4- and part 2-storey residential flat building consisting of 5 x 2-bedroom dwellings and a semi-basement car park with 8 spaces. SEPP 1 objections to FSR and external wall height development standards. This application was approved on 14 September 2010.

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). SEPP 1 objections has been submitted in support of non-compliance with building height and floor space ratio development standards. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objection, the following matters are addressed:

 

·    Clause 20F: Floor space ratio

Pursuant to Clause 20F(2) of Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation), the maximum floor space ratio for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C is 0.65:1, where the site area is less than 700m2.

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.97:1 (GFA of 523.2sqm) and does not comply with the requirement of Clause 20F(2) of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed floor space ratio exceeds the development standard by 47%.

 

·    Maximum external wall height

Clauses 20G(2) and 20G(4) of Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) stipulate a maximum building height of 12m and a maximum external wall height of 10m for buildings located within the Residential 2C zone.

 

The proposal has a maximum overall height of 12.98 and a maximum external wall height of 12.78m. The maximum building height exceeds the development standard by 8% and the external wall height exceeds the development standard by 27.8%.

 

5.1      SEPP 1 Objection: 20F Floor Space Ratios

Pursuant to Clause 20F, the maximum FSR within the Residential 2C zone for sites under 700sqm is 0.65:1. The FSR for the subject proposal has been calculated based on the site area of 547.4sqm as stated on the survey plan. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Approved (DA/9/2010)

0.88:1 or 483.7m2

Proposed

0.95:1 or 523.2m2

LEP development standard

0.65:1 or 355.8m2

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

0.3:1 or 167.4m2 (47%)

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

The objectives of the Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio of the Randwick LEP is stated as being:

 

To operate together with controls for landscaped area 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.

 

As such, the appropriate test in this instance is to establish whether the excess floor space area results in a development that is of a size and scale that is compatible with the established neighbourhood character and does not detract from residential amenity as defined by the objectives of the Residential 2C Zone.

 

The arguments provided by the applicant in respect of Matter 1 considerations have been summarised below:

 

·     The proposal not significantly larger than that approved under DA/9/2010. The additional floor area relates to the recessed sunroom and an addition to the rear of the building and therefore will not significantly increase the visual bulk of the building.

·     The additional bulk is not responsible for any increased overshadowing in relation to that approved under DA/9/2010.

·     The proposal is similar in bulk and scale to existing 3-4 storey developments on Alison Road, Cowper Street and Williamson Street. Adjoining developments have higher FSRs than that proposed in relation to the subject site.

·     The majority of the building complies with the 10m external wall height control. The western component of the development [excluding the proposed fourth floor sunroom] sits below the wall height approved in DA/9/2010.

·     The proposed increase in FSR will maintain environmental amenity. The proposal provides adequate deep soil planting and at the front and rear of the site and solar access is maintained to adjoining buildings.

·     The building design is appropriately articulated to break up the visual bulk of the structure.

·     The additional FSR allows for a more efficient use of the site as it allows for an additional 1-bedroom unit without adversely affecting the visual impact or amenity impact of surrounding properties.

·     The site is suitable for the proposed development as it is in proximity to amenities and public transport.

 

The justifications for the SEPP 1 objection provided by the applicant are not considered to be well founded. In particular:

 

·      Development surrounding the site on Alison Road and nearby streets is varied in relation to bulk and scale, which is considered to be a reflection of different land use zoning and non-uniformity in site area and subdivision. In establishing the character of built form and scale associated with surrounding development, the buildings located on sites to the immediate north of the subject site (No. 78 Alison Road) and those sites to the south all with a frontage to Alison Road, all zoned Residential 2C, and on sites that are similar in size and configuration are considered of particular relevance to the proposed development application.

 

·      The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed floor space ratio is comparable to those buildings that are identified above. Notwithstanding, Council records appear to indicate that development on immediately adjoining sites fronting Alison Road were approved by Council and constructed prior to the implementation of the Randwick LEP (Consolidation) 1998 and do not necessarily represent the planning outcome desired for the area and anticipated by the objective of the development standard.

 

·      The SEPP 1 objection provided by the applicant states that the additional bulk is not responsible for any increased overshadowing in relation to that approved under DA/9/2010. Shadow diagrams provided by the applicant show that the proposed amendments to the approved building will increase the overshadowing of north facing windows associated with No. 82 Alison Road, to the south, particularly during morning.

 

·      The SEPP 1 objection provided by the applicant contends that the bulk of the fourth floor addition (sunroom) is recessed and will not significantly contribute to the visual bulk of the building. This statement has not been adequately substantiated and it is expected that the fourth floor sunroom has the potential to contribute to the bulk of the building when viewed from adjoining sites and from the western side of Alison Road.

 

·      The footprint of the building and the distribution of bulk across the entire depth of the site results in a building three storeys in height and approximately 27m in depth. There is potential that the bulk of the development at the rear may create a sense of enclosure in relation to immediately adjoining sites (No. 78 an No. 82 Alison Road).

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and further non- compliance with the development standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 


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 objecives 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 standard is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as further non-compliance with the development standard is not considered necessary in this instance to achieve the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that the additional floor area proposed is required to achieve development that would promote the orderly and economic use of the land and to achieve a form of development that would not result in adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning however, the additional floor area proposed is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

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, the applicant has not demonstrated that further non-compliance with the development is reasonable and necessary or that the proposal will achieve the objectives of the development standard. In this instance the additional floor area proposed is expected to result in issues associated with visual bulk and overshadowing. 

 

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 standard would not be defeated or thwarted if compliance was achieved.

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

The existing Residential 2C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

 

5.2      SEPP 1 Objection: 20G Building Heights

Pursuant to Clauses 20G of RLEP 1998, the maximum building height within a 2C Zone is 12m and the maximum external wall height for a building is 10m. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

20G 2) Building Height

Approved

10.8m

Proposed

12.98m

LEP development standard

12m

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

0.98m 8%

 

 

20G 4) Wall Height

Approved

10.8m

Proposed

12.78m

LEP development standard

10m

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

2.78m 27.8%

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

The objective of Clause 20G Building Heights of the Randwick LEP is stated as being:

 

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

 

As such, the appropriate test in this instance is to establish whether the excess building height and external wall height results in a development that is of a size and scale that is compatible with the established neighbourhood character and does not detract from residential amenity as defined by the objectives of the Residential 2C Zone.

 

The applicant has provided the following argument in respect of Matter 1 considerations:

 

·      The height variation is limited to the sunroom at the front of the site in a recessed manner. The majority of the building complies with the Randwick LEP height controls.

·      The ground, first and second floor levels have been dropped below the levels approved by DA/9/2010.

·      The variation from the development standard in relation to the fourth floor addition (sunroom) is considered to be justified on the basis that it is recessed from each side and will not be visually bulk when viewed from any aspect. Furthermore, the sunroom will not be responsible for any adverse amenity impacts to surrounding developments in terms of overshadowing, privacy or view loss.

·      The proposal will not result in unreasonable view loss in relation to properties located to the east of the site (No. 2 Cowper Street).

·      The building will sit comfortably in the streetscape which consists of 3 and 4 storey buildings with pitched rooves. The flat roof of the building minimises the overall height of the building.

·      The height of the building is consistent with the potential height and bulk of a building comprising 3 storeys with a pitched roof. The limited component of the sunroom is within the potential bulk of a building with these aspects (i.e. 10m wall height and 12m roof height).

 

Overall, the justifications for the SEPP 1 objection provided by the applicant are not considered to be well founded. In particular:

 

·      It is agreed that the additional building height associated with the sunroom is not expected to have any impacts on adjoining buildings in relation to overshadowing that could not be reasonably expected by a complying development.

 

·      Although the maximum wall height of the development associated with the fourth floor sunroom is similar to the maximum overall height of adjoining dwellings, it is noted that all immediately adjoining developments have pitched rooves, are of a different architectural style, and their development and construction pre-dates the implementation of the Randwick LEP (Consolidation) 1998. Furthermore, the design of these buildings do not necessarily represent the planning outcome desired for the area and anticipated by the objective of the development standard or Residential 2C zoning.

 

·      The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the additional height of the building will not result in visual bulk issues, inconsistent with surrounding development, when viewed from the streetscape and immediately adjoining sites.

 

·      The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the additional height of the building will not result in unreasonable view loss from residential units located to the east of the subject site.

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and further non- compliance with the development standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

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 standard is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as further non-compliance with the development standard is not considered necessary in this instance to achieve the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that the additional height proposed is required to achieve a development that would promote the orderly and economic use of the land and to achieve a form of development that would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 


Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning however, the additional building height proposed is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

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, the applicant has not demonstrated that further non-compliance with the development standard is reasonable and necessary or that the proposal will achieve the objectives of the development standard. In this instance the additional height proposed may result in issues associated with visual bulk and potential view loss. 

 

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 standard would not be defeated or thwarted if compliance was achieved.

 

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

 

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

The existing Residential 2C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification between 24 August 2011 and 7 September 2011.  The application was also advertised in the local newspaper on 23 August 2011.  As a result of this notification the following submissions were received.

 

Anotonys Lawyers, 7 September 2011, on behalf of The Owners – Strata Plan 18810 – 82 Alison Road.

 

Objection

Comment

The proposed development, if linked to DA/9/2010, is in breach of deferred commencement conditions and will exacerbate the objections upheld by Council in relation to DA/9/2011.

 

The deferred commencement conditions relating to DA/9/2010 have been satisfied and this development application is now fully operable. The subject development application has been lodged independently and, if approved, would not be in breach of deferred commencement conditions.

 

Inconsistency between information shown on the deposited plan and information shown on the survey plan. Site area should not include extinguished ROW. 

A Survey Plan prepared by a registered land surveyor was submitted with the application. The site dimensions and land area data used in Council’s assessment are based on this Survey Plan, which is considered to be adequate. No ROW is shown on the survey plan provided.

 

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20E Landscaped Area does not satisfy the aims and objectives of SEPP 1 or the planning principle established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC827.

 

The proposal does not propose any changes to the design and layout of the landscaping scheme approved by DA/9/2010. The reduction in soft landscaping area complies with RLEP development standards.

Non-compliance with Clause 20E Landscaped Area due to the threats associated with essential services (water, sewer, gas and power)

The proposed landscaping plan is the same as that approved under DA/9/2010.

 

Whilst this is not a consideration in determining compliance with development standard, a standard condition is recommended to ensure all construction works comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Subject to compliance with the above condition and the standard construction management conditions, the proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable impacts on the existing structures and services of the adjoining properties.

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20E Landscaped Area due to increased overshadowing from landscaping and inappropriate tree species.

The proposed landscaping plan is the same as that approved under DA/9/2010.

 

This is not a consideration in determining compliance with the development standard and Council is not able to restrict the height of vegetation that may be planted within a site.

 

Proposed landscaping may cause injury to neighbouring residents due to falling palm fronds.

The proposed landscaping plan is the same as that approved under DA/9/2010.

 

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20F FSR does not satisfy the aims and objectives of SEPP 1 or the planning principle established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC827. Increase in bulk has unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20G Building Height does not satisfy the aims and objectives of SEPP 1 or the planning principle established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC827. Increase in height has unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development associated with overshadowing and visual bulk

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – building height. The proposal will have an adverse impact on adjoining sites and the streetscape.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi Unit housing within the body of this report. As detailed below, the proposal is considered deficient in relation to height, density, view sharing, solar access and efficiency, and internal driveway and manoeuvring areas.

 

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – front, rear and side setback. The proposal will have an adverse impact on adjoining sites and the streetscape.

 

The front setback, aside from slight extensions to the front balconies, are unchanged from those approved under DA/9/2010. The cantilevered balconies are partially open and do not extend continuously across the entire front facade. The balconies improve articulation of the building and will not result in detrimental streetscape impacts.

 

The proposed setbacks at ground, first and second floor level generally align with those approved under DA/9/2010, although the building has been shifted slightly towards the north and greater setback from the southern boundary is provided. Proposed side setbacks are considered to be satisfactory.

 

The basement level is located slightly closer to the northern boundary than that approved under DA/9/2010, however as it is located below ground level there are no expected impacts in relation to overshadowing, ventilation or visual bulk.

 

The proposed rear setbacks align with those approved under DA/9/2010 and are considered to be satisfactory.

 

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – density.

 

It is agreed that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the additional building bulk is compatible with surrounding built forms and will not result adverse impacts on adjoining neighbours or the streetscape, as discussed in the SEPP 1 objection within the body of this report.

 

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – solar access and energy efficiency. The proposal will have an adverse impact on adjoining sites in relation to overshadowing.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and it is agreed that potential overshadowing, particularly as a result of the third level addition at the rear, is unreasonable. 

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – landscaping and private open space.

The proposed landscaping plan is the same as that approved under DA/9/2010, which is not proposed to be amended as part of the subject development application.

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – privacy. The proposal will have an adverse impact on adjoining sites in relation to acoustic and visual privacy as a result of vehicular access, window design/placement, balconies and the fourth floor sun room.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and the potential impacts in relation to privacy are considered to be acceptable.

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – parking. Inadequate provision of parking.

 

The proposal has been assessed by Council’s development engineer in relation to parking and is considered to be acceptable. Further comment is provided within the body of this report. 

The proposal does not satisfy SEPP 65.

 

Agreed, see SEPP 65 assessment, below.

 

The proposal compromises the stability of land and buildings on adjoining sites and existing vegetation.

 

The proposal slightly changes the configuration of the basement level parking area from that approved under DA/9/2010. These changes are not likely to result in the instability of adjoining sites providing that appropriate construction methodologies were followed, as would be required by standard conditions.

 

2/82, 4/82 Alison Road.

 

Objection

Comment

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – front, rear and side setback.

 

The front setback, aside from slight extensions to the front balconies, are unchanged from those approved under DA/9/2010. The cantilevered balconies are partially open and do not extend continuously across the entire front facade. The balconies improve articulation of the building and will not result in detrimental streetscape impacts.

 

The proposed setbacks at ground, first and second floor level generally align with those approved under DA/9/2010, although the building has been shifted slightly towards the north and greater setback from the southern boundary is provided. Proposed side setbacks are considered to be satisfactory.

 

The basement level is located slightly closer to the northern boundary than that approved under DA/9/2010, however as it is located below ground level there are no expected impacts in relation to overshadowing, ventilation or visual bulk.

 

The proposed rear setbacks align with those approved under DA/9/2010 and are considered to be satisfactory.

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20F FSR.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

No compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20G Building Heights.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

The proposal will result in unreasonable overshadowing of No. 82 Alison Road.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and it is agreed that potential overshadowing, particularly as a result of the third level addition at the rear, is unreasonable. 

 

Reduced property values.

 

This is not a relevant consideration in the assessment of a development application.

 

Reduce privacy as a result of the proposed sunroom and third floor addition to the rear.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and the potential impacts in relation to privacy are considered to be acceptable, as detailed below.

 

View loss. 

 

Agreed in so far as the extent of view loss has not been adequately qualified by the applicant and that any potential view loss would be as a result of non-compliant floor area and building height.

 

Increased overshadowing from landscaping and inappropriate tree species.

The proposed landscaping plan is the same as that approved under DA/9/2010, which is not proposed to be amended as part of the subject development application.

 

Proposed landscaping may cause injury to neighbouring residents due to falling palm fronds.

The proposed landscaping plan is the same as that approved under DA/9/2010, which is not proposed to be amended as part of the subject development application.

 

The proposal compromises the stability of land and buildings on adjoining sites.

 

The proposal slightly changes the configuration of the basement level parking area from that approved under DA/9/2010. These changes are not likely to result in the instability of adjoining sites providing that appropriate construction methodologies were followed, as would be required by standard conditions.

 

Inadequate provision of parking.

 

The proposal has been assessed by Council’s development engineer in relation to parking and is considered to be acceptable. The comments are provided within the body of this report. 

 

 

3/82 Alison Road.

 

Objection

Comment

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – front, rear and side setback.

 

The front setback, aside from slight extensions to the front balconies, are unchanged from those approved under DA/9/2010. The cantilevered balconies are partially open and do not extend continuously across the entire front facade. The balconies improve articulation of the building and will not result in detrimental streetscape impacts.

 

The proposed setbacks at ground, first and second floor level generally align with those approved under DA/9/2010, although the building has been shifted slightly towards the north and greater setback from the southern boundary is provided. Proposed side setbacks are considered to be satisfactory.

 

The basement level is located slightly closer to the northern boundary than that approved under DA/9/2010, however as it is located below ground level there are no expected impacts in relation to overshadowing, ventilation or visual bulk.

 

The proposed rear setbacks align with those approved under DA/9/2010 and are considered to be satisfactory.

 

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20F FSR.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

No compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20G Building Heights.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

The proposal will result in unreasonable overshadowing of No. 82 Alison Road.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and it is agreed that potential overshadowing, particularly as a result of the third level addition at the rear, is unreasonable. 

 

Reduced property values.

 

This is not a relevant consideration in the assessment of a development application.

 

Reduced privacy as a result of the proposed sunroom and third floor addition to the rear.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and the potential impacts in relation to privacy are considered to be acceptable, as detailed below.

 

Noise impacts from garage door.

 

The proposed garage door was approved under DA/9/2010.

 

View loss. 

 

Agreed in so far as the extent of view loss has not been adequately qualified by the applicant and any potential view loss would be as a result of non-compliant floor area and building height.

 

Increased overshadowing from landscaping and inappropriate tree species.

The proposed landscaping plan is the same as that approved under DA/9/2010.

 

Proposed landscaping may cause injury to neighbouring residents due to falling palm fronds.

The proposed landscaping plan is the same as that approved under DA/9/2010.

 

The proposal compromises the stability of land and buildings on adjoining sites.

 

The proposal slightly changes the configuration of the basement level parking area from that approved under DA/9/2010. These changes are not likely to result in the instability of adjoining sites providing that appropriate construction methodologies were followed, as would be required by standard conditions.

 

Inadequate provision of parking.

 

The proposal has been assessed by Council’s development engineer in relation to parking and is considered to be acceptable. The comments are provided within the body of this report. 

 

 

1/82 Alison Road.

 

Objection

Comment

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – front, rear and side setback.

 

The front setback, aside from slight extensions to the front balconies, are unchanged from those approved under DA/9/2010. The cantilevered balconies are partially open and do not extend continuously across the entire front facade. The balconies improve articulation of the building and will not result in detrimental streetscape impacts.

 

The proposed setbacks at ground, first and second floor level generally align with those approved under DA/9/2010, although the building has been shifted slightly towards the north and greater setback from the southern boundary is provided. Proposed side setbacks are considered to be satisfactory.

 

The basement level is located slightly closer to the northern boundary than that approved under DA/9/2010, however as it is located below ground level there are no expected impacts in relation to overshadowing, ventilation or visual bulk.

 

The proposed rear setbacks align with those approved under DA/9/2010 and are considered to be satisfactory.

 

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20F FSR.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

No compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20G Building Heights.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

The proposal will result in unreasonable overshadowing of No. 82 Alison Road.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and it is agreed that potential overshadowing, particularly as a result of the third level addition at the rear, is unreasonable. 

 

Reduced privacy.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and the potential impacts in relation to privacy are considered to be acceptable, as detailed below.

 

Threats associated with essential services (water, sewer, gas and power)

A standard condition is recommended to ensure all construction works comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Subject to compliance with the above condition and the standard construction management conditions, the proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable impacts on the existing structures and services of the adjoining properties.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

7.1      Development Engineering

An application has been received to make changes to the recent approved DA (DA9/2010) which was for the following:

 

·       Demolition of existing structures on the site.

·       Construction of a part 4- and part 2-storey residential flat building consisting of 5 x 2-bedroom dwellings and a semi-basement car park with 8 spaces.

·       General landscape works.

 

The amendments under this DA (DA611/2011) include lowering the basement car park by 450mm as well as reconfiguring the basement car park to provide lift access, increased storage areas, relocated garbage bin area.

 

Parking Comments

The amendments to the top floor include the addition of a 1 bedroom unit with study giving a total of 5 x 2 bedroom units & 1 x 1 bedroom unit with study. Council’s DCP-Parking would require the following:

 

5 x 2 bedroom unit    = 5 x 1.2 = 6 space

1 x 1 bedroom unit    = 1 x 1 = 1 space

Visitor Spaces = 6 x 0.25 = 1.5 spaces

Total Required = 8.5 spaces (Rounded up to 9 spaces).

 

The above calculates to a deficiency of 1 space which may be considered to be a visitor space.

 

Internal Driveway Issues

The assessing officer is advised that part of DA/09/2010 approval was to that the vehicular crossing be a minimum of 5.5 metres wide for the first 6 metres inside the development site, this measurement can be taken from the centreline of the internal driveway. This was a requirement of the RTA (now known as Road Maritime Services - RMS) as the development fronts a classified road, (Alison Road).

 

Internal Driveway Grade Issues

Due to the proposed lowering of the basement carpark the internal driveway grades have shown the mid section of the internal driveway has been amended from a grade of 1:16 (4.965m) to a grade of 1:8 (4.800m).

 

The applicant is to be advised that the entry transition (top of the internal driveway) is to be at a grade of 1:20 and a minimum 2.0m long at the centre line of the internal driveway. The applicant is also advised that the mid section of the internal driveway is not to exceed a grade of 1:8 and the bottom transition is to be 2.0m long and not not exceed a grade of 1:15.

 

In its current form the proposal is not supported by Council’s Development Engineer as the following changes are required:

 

·      Amended plans showing the vehicle crossing amended to a minimum width of 5.5m  for the first 6m from the front boundary of the site.

·      Amended plans showing the driveway grades changed as per the Development Engineers requirements, above.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

·      State Environmental Planning Policy 1 (Development Standards), see above.

·      State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development)

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

8.1      State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development)

The proposal relates to the construction of a residential flat building that is four storeys in height and contains six residential units. In accordance with the provisions of SEPP 65 the proposal has been referred to the Design Review Panel and reviewed in September and October of 2011.

 

When reviewed on the second occasion in October 2011, the Panel was not satisfied with the amendments that the Applicant had made to the proposal since the first meeting and reached the following conclusion:

 

“The panel does not consider that the comments have been satisfactorily addressed and refer the applicant to the council to discuss the future of this application.”

 

The Panel found the proposal deficient in relation to the following SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles.

 

Scale:

“The additional storey to the rear is awkwardly designed, cramping the site and (although it is not clear from the shadow analysis presented) overshadowing the neighbour to the south (this affects not just the existing windows and garden areas, but also future development potential).

 

“The Panel is not opposed to some additional height to the street, as long as it is integrated with the overall building design and does not unduly overshadow the neighbour. However the current proposal is an awkward addition, lacking in any relationship to the host building.

 

Built Form:

In relation to the original part 2 part 3 storey development (DA/9/2010) the Panel was of the view that the basic form proposed would be satisfactory, subject to minor amendments including the lowering of the building wall height to the rear.

 

The proposed third floor addition is not supported.

 

Density

“It is noted that the proposed density is in excess of the Council controls (increased from 0.88:1 to 0.97:1), however provided that overshadowing of the building to the south is largely avoided, the Panel considers that the proposed FSR is consistent with and reasonable in this highly varied context.

 

It is noted that the increased FSR will increase overshadowing of the building to the south, No. 82 Alison Road.

 

Amenity

“The Panel considers that there is a significant amount of underused / wasted space in the entry areas of each unit type, particularly units 2 and 4. This space would be better put into habitable rooms (such as bedroom 2), or the units slightly shrunk to increase boundary setbacks. Reduce the width of bedroom 1 in units 2 and 4 to increase the width of the living rooms. Poor space planning issues have not been addressed.

 

Safety and Security

“The method for protecting windows that are less than 3m from the boundary should be described on the drawings.  This includes clerestory windows. No information has been provided on this, which is unsatisfactory.

 

“As the units have a disproportional amount of internal circulation space the planning could be tightened and indents created in the facades to allow for opening 3m+ from the boundary therefore avoiding the need for fire protection.

 

“The Panel reiterates that BCA advice and structural input be sought before resubmitting the drawings.

 

“These issues have not been addressed.

 

Aesthetics

“Elevations remain unsatisfactory as there are too many different elements within a small development.  For instance there are 3 balconies on each floor and each one has a different style.  The roof top sunroom remains unconvincing with regards to aesthetics as well as structure.

 

In conclusion, with reference to advice received by the Panel in accordance with Clause 30(2)(a) of SEPP 65, the proposed development is not considered to satisfy the Design Quality Principles contained within Part 2 of SEPP 65 and is subsequently recommended for refusal.

 

8.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998

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

 

Clause 12: Zone No 2C (Residential Zone)

Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on land only after it has considered the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone within which the development is proposed.

 

(1) The relevant objectives of the 2C zone are:

 

(a)     to provide for a medium density residential environment, and

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

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

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

(e)     to encourage housing affordability, and

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

The proposed development is not considered to meet objectives (1)(b) or (1)(c) for the reasons outlined below:

 

·      The maximum wall height of the development associated with the fourth floor sunroom is similar to the maximum overall height of adjoining dwellings and it is noted that immediately adjoining developments have pitched rooves and are of a different architectural style to that proposed. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the additional height of the building will not result in visual bulk issues, inconsistent with the scale of surrounding development, when viewed from the streetscape and immediately adjoining sites.

 

·      The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed floor space ratio is comparable to development on adjoining sites. There is potential that the bulk of the development at the rear may create a sense of enclosure in relation to immediately adjoining sites (No. 78 and No. 82 Alison Road).

 

·      The shadow diagrams provided by the applicant show that the proposed amendments to the approved building will increase the overshadowing of north facing windows associated with No. 82 Alison Road, to the south.

 

Principle Development Standards

The proposal has been assessed against the principle development standards relevant to the Residential 2C Zone, below. The proposal exceeds the LEP development standards in relation to floor space ratio, building heights and external wall height. State Environmental Planning Policy 1 objections are detailed in preceding sections of this report.

 

Development Standard

Proposed

20B Minimum Allotment Size

325sqm

No change (547.4m2)

20C Site Specific Controls

Not Applicable

 

20D Traffic and Transport

Not Applicable

 

20E Landscaped Area

50%

50.6% or 277.1m2

20E Landscaped Area Over Basement

50% maximum

47.1% or 130.6m2

20F Floor Space Ratio

0.65:1 or 355m2

0.95:1 or 523.2m2 (See SEPP1 objection, above)

20G Building Height (building)

12m

12.98m (See SEPP1 objection, above)

20G Building Height (external wall)

10m

12.78m (See SEPP1 objection, above)

 

Clause 40: Earthworks

When determining an application for consent to carry out earthworks, the consent authority must consider the likely disruption of, or detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, and the effect of the proposed works on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land.

 

The proposal requires excavation of up to approximately 3m in depth to accommodate a semi-basement car park. The proposal is not considered to adversely impact on the drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the recommended construction management and engineering conditions. The proposal is considered to satisfy Clause 40 of the Randwick LEP as the topography of the site is relatively flat and the proposal is unlikely to disrupt existing drainage patterns. Standard conditions could be attached to any approval that would address soil stability and the stability of adjoining sites.

 

9.    Policy Controls

9.1      DCP: Multi Unit Housing

 

Performance Requirements

Preferred Solution

Comment

Site Planning

P1: Development applications must be accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Satisfactory

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.

Satisfactory, no change to existing.

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 streetscapes or adjoining properties.

 

The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the additional height of the building will not result in visual bulk issues, inconsistent with surrounding development, when viewed from the streetscape and immediately adjoining sites.

 

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.

 

Unsatisfactory, see above and SEPP 65 comments in relation to scale, built form, density and aesthetics. 

Building Setbacks

P1:  Front boundary setbacks

 

The front setback should be consistent with streetscape and adjoining dwellings.

 

Front balconies:

4.8m to 5.9

Front walls:

6.1m to 9.4m

 

Satisfactory, the front setback, aside from slight extensions to the front balconies, are unchanged from those approved under DA/9/2010. The cantilevered balconies are partially open and do not extend continuously across the entire front facade. The balconies improve articulation of the building and will not result in detrimental streetscape impacts.

 

P2:  Side boundary setbacks

 

Side setbacks to ensure:

a) Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

b) Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

c) Landscaping and private open space provided.

d) Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2c

·   No part closer than 3.5 metres.

·   Minimum average setback 5 metres.

·   Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

·  Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

Northern setback:

Basement: nil to 910mm

G/F – 2/F: 1.2m to 5.2m

2/F addition: 1.2m

Maximum wall length: 11.5m

 

Southern setback:

Basement: 0m

G/F – 2/F: 1.9m to 4.5m

2/F addition: 5.17m

Maximum wall length: 12m

 

The proposed setbacks at first and second floor level generally align with those approved under DA/9/2010.

 

Although these setbacks were considered acceptable in relation to the original two level rear portion of the building approved under DA/9/2010 the separation between the proposed third level (2/F) and the northern boundary is considered to be inadequate and would contribute to visual bulk issues and a sense of enclosure in relation to No. 78 Alison Road, which would detract from the environmental amenity of this site.

 

The basement level is located closer to the northern boundary than that approved under DA/9/2010, however as it is located below ground level there are no expected impacts in relation to overshadowing, ventilation or visual bulk.

 

P3:  Rear Boundary Setbacks

 

Rear setbacks should ensure that:

e) Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

f)  Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

h) 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, minimum step 3m.

 

5.6m to 8m

Maximum wall length: 4.95m

 

The proposed rear setbacks align with those approved under DA/9/2010 and are considered to be satisfactory.

 

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.

 

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

Density

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

 

See SEPP 1 objection (FSR), above. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the additional building bulk is compatible with surrounding built forms and will not result adverse impacts on adjoining neighbours or the streetscape.

 

 

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.

 

No front fencing has been proposed.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1: Areas are sufficient size and allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum dimension for landscaped area 2 metres.

No change.

 

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

 

No change. 

P3: Private open space provides privacy for its users, is readily accessible, and provides opportunities for outdoor recreation / living.

 

The proposal has included enlarged private balconies that are directly accessible from the living areas of the dwelling units.

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

 

The front balconies are appropriately setback from the street boundary and allow passive recreational activities.

 

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.

Not applicable.

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.

Front apartments:

Living room balcony: 10m2

Bedroom balcony: 6m2

 

Rear apartments:

Living room balcony: 8m2

 

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.

Aside from windows associated with the third floor addition and impacts arising from the  proposed sunroom, the configuration of windows and balconies reflect those approved under DA/09/2010.

 

Third floor addition:

Only one small high window is located on both the northern and southern elevation of the third floor addition at the rear.  The balcony off the living room reflect those on lower floors and a privacy screen is proposed on the northern side. No unacceptable privacy impacts are anticipated.

 

Sunroom:

The proposed sunroom and associated terrace are orientated to the west and privacy screening is proposed along both the northern and southern sides. No windows are proposed in relation to the sun room. No unacceptable privacy impacts are anticipated.

P2: Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

P3: Acoustic Privacy Building layout and design minimises noise transmission of noise. Quiet areas separate noise-generating activities.

 

P4: Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Satisfactory.

 

BCA compliance would be required through condition of consent. 

View Sharing

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

 

The proposed fourth floor addition may further impact views currently enjoyed from west facing balconies of the upper level of No. 2 Cowper Street, in addition to those impacts that are expected to arise from the development approved under DA/9/2010. Although these impacts may be acceptable, the impact of the development in relation to view loss has not been adequately established in the application.

 

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.

 

As above.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1: Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties: Design, orientation, sitting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

 

The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams in support of the application that appear to indicate that the proposed third floor addition to the rear of the building exacerbates the loss of solar access that is expected to be generated by the building approved under DA/9/2010.

 

While a similar level of overshadowing could be expected as a result of complying development (due to compliance with building height and external wall height at this point), the level of overshadowing is not considered acceptable as it is in part associated with excessive gross floor area.

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

 

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.

 

As above. 

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.

 

Satisfactory.

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.

BASIX provided.

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.

 

Possible to address through consent conditions.

P6: Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

Possible to address through consent conditions.

P7: Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

Possible to address through consent conditions.

P8: External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

Possible to address through consent conditions.

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

·      1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

The proposed parking provision has been assessed by Councils Development Engineer. Councils DCP requires that 9 parking spaces are provided for visitors and residents and 8 spaces have been provided. The subject site is well serviced by public transport and a shortfall of one parking space (visitor) is considered to be acceptable.

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

 

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 applicable.

P3: Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Satisfactory.

Adequate area for bicycle storage available at basement level.

 

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.

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.

 

Proposed driveway grades are not considered satisfactory, as detailed by Councils development engineer in the comments provided. 

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.

Satisfactory.

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.

 

 

 

 Satisfactory.

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.

Satisfactory.

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

 

Satisfactory. 

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.

Satisfactory.

 

Overall, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal does not satisfy objectives of the DCP contained within 3.2 Height as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building height is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the site’s context and will not result in visual bulk issues in relation to adjoining development or the streetscape.

 

·      The proposal does not satisfy objectives of the DCP contained within 3.4 Density as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building bulk is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the area and the additional building bulk will exacerbate impacts (overshadowing, visual bulk, sense of enclosure) on adjoining development.

 

·      The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with the objectives of the DCP contained within 4.3 View Sharing, as potential view loss has not been adequately qualified by the applicant and any potential impacts would arise from a development that is not considered to satisfy DCP objectives in relation to building height.

 

·      The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with the objectives of the DCP contained within 4.4 Solar Access as the increase in building bulk will reduce levels of solar access to adjoining development to the south.

 

·      The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the DCP contained within 5.2 Driveways and Manoeuvring areas as amendments to the driveway width and grades are required to ensure that safe and efficient access is provided to the basement parking areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     DCP: Parking

 

Requirement (DCP – Parking)

Proposed Units

Parking Required

Parking proposed

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

1 x one bedroom dwellings

1

7

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

5 x two bedroom dwellings

6

Disabled Space

1 per accessible unit in accordance with MUH DCP.

0 accessible unit required

0

0

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 9

1.75

1

Total.

 

9 (8.75)

8

 

The proposed provision of parking has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and the shortfall of one parking space is considered to be acceptable given the context of the site.

 

10. Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

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

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions off SEPP 1 and objections to principle development standards are not supported, as detailed within this report.

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions off SEPP 65, as detailed within this report.

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2C zone, as detailed within this report.

 

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

Not applicable

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

The proposal does not satisfy the preferred solutions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing as detailed within this report.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

 

The proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) in that the impacts of the proposed development on the streetscape and surrounding residents are considered to be unreasonable.

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

The site is considered suitable for the use of multi-unit housing.

 

 

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

 

Submissions received have been addressed within the body of this report.  

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

The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 12:     Excellence in urban design and development – The proposal does not satisfy SEPP 65 in relation to contextual appropriateness, scale, built form, passive solar design, landscape, amenity or aesthetics.

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development – The proposal is not considered to achieve good design.

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and is not considered to satisfy the all the relevant heads of consideration. The proposed development application is recommended for refusal.

 

 


Report to Planning Committee Meeting of 14 February 2012

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No. DA/611/2011 for alterations and additions to an approved residential flat building including provision of a new level to rear with 1 bedroom unit, new sunroom at third floor level off unit 5, internal reconfiguration and associated works at 80 Alison Road, Randwick for the following reasons:

 

1.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards Objection to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio is not considered to be well founded.

 

2.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards Objection to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 Clause 20G Building Height is not considered to be well founded.

 

3.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Design Quality Principles contained within State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

4.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 12 Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 in that the proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the 2C Zone due to impacts on the streetscape and environmental amenity.

 

5.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 20F Gross Floor Area of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 in that the proposal fails to provide adequate deep soil landscaping and does not satisfy the purpose of the control due to impacts on the environmental amenity of adjoining sites.

 

6.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.2 Height as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building height is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the site’s context and will not result in visual bulk issues in relation to adjoining development or the streetscape.

 

7.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.3 Setbacks as inadequate setback is provided from the northern side boundary and the proposed third level addition to the rear, which may result in visual bulk issues and a sense of enclosure in relation to adjoining development.

 

8.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.4 Density as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building bulk is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the area and the additional building bulk will exacerbate impacts (overshadowing) on adjoining development.

 

9.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 4.3 View Sharing, as potential view loss has not been adequately qualified by the applicant and any potential impacts would arise from a development that is not considered to satisfy DCP objectives in relation to building height.

 

10.     Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 4.4 Solar Access as the increase in building bulk is not considered to allow for reasonable levels of solar access to adjoining development to the south.

 

11.     Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 5.2 Driveways and Manoeuvring areas as amendments to the driveway width and grades are required to ensure that safe and efficient access is provided to the basement parking areas.

 

12.     The proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the impacts of the proposed development on the streetscape and surrounding residents are considered to be unreasonable.

 

13.     The proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                   27 March 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP14/12

 

 

Subject:                  27 Hannan Street, Maroubra (DA/255/2010/A)

Folder No:                   DA/255/2010/A

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     S96 Modification of the approved development through retention of the existing roof parapet, alter setbacks to Hannan Street, delete side courtyard, alter front access and ground/ first floor layout, alter rear first floor alignment, alter roof configuration & 300mm increase in height of rear skillion roof

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                ISA Designs

Owner:                         J & A Triantatillon

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The original development application (DA/255/2010) was approved at the Planning Committee of 14 September 2010, for substantial alterations and additions to the existing detached dwelling, including extension of the existing first floor level, construction of a swimming pool, modification to the existing garage and associated works.

 

The subject application (DA/255/2010/A) proposes various alterations and additions to the approved plans including retention of the Hannan Street façade and parapet, deletion of a central courtyard, amendment to the internal floor plan layout at ground and first floors, alteration of various windows and amendment to the approved roof form.

 

The approved development of DA/255/2010 featured an FSR of 0.97:1. The above amendments of DA/255/2010/A will result in an additional 10.5 square metres of floor space to the site, equivalent to an FSR of 1.03:1. Despite the above, the subject application proposes minimal change to the approved building envelope.

 

The existing building appears to have been designed and constructed as a corner shop. There are minimal setbacks from the street boundaries with the scale and massing being larger than those of the adjoining dwellings. The design scheme has incorporated suitable articulations in the form of window openings and a combination of compatible surface finishes, while preserving the character and form of the existing building. The design is considered to improve the architectural presentation of the building and will not result in detrimental streetscape impacts.

 

The application was notified from 24 November 2011 to 8 December 2011 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification. One (1) submission was received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the submission cited concerns over visual and acoustic privacy from the north elevation, which have been addressed in the body of this report.

 

The applicant amended the proposal on 15 March 2012, in response to concerns raised by Council regarding the Storey Street elevation. These amendments were limited to increased provision of openings and articulation to the Storey Street elevation and reduction in the height of the roof line. Given the amendments impact only upon the street, the application did not necessitate re-notification, in accordance with DCP- Public Notification.

 

The proposed development meets the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls. The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application proposes various alterations and additions to the approved plans adopted within Condition 1 of DA/255/2010, at 27 Hannan Street, Maroubra. The proposed modifications are summarised as follows:

 

·           Retain the existing Hannan Street parapet and façade, avoiding demolition of these components as approved under the design scheme of DA/255/2010;

·           Enlarge existing north elevation window opening to 2600mm in height by 1800mm in width. The original scheme approved bricking up the window;

·           Delete a central building courtyard against the northern boundary, increasing internal floor area;

·           Internal reconfiguration of the approved development at ground and first floor levels, including relocation of staircase;

·           Reduce extent of first floor rear setback by approximately 600mm;

·           Redesign of approved south elevation, including deletion of two (2) small balconies at first floor level and installation of eight (8) openings at first floor level. The south elevation also details small openings at ground lfoor level, material variation and amended vertical planter structures (refer figures 1 & 2, below);

·           Amend approved roof form to retain the existing parapet and provide a low sloping roof toward the centre of the building (refer figures 1 & 2, below).

 

Figure 1: Approved south elevation of the building fronting Storey Street.

 

Figure 2: Proposed south elevation of the building fronting Storey Street, as amended on 15 March 2012.

 

 

2.1         Applicant justification for design amendments

The applicant justifies the need for the amendments as follows:

 

·      The overall proposed floor area and reconfigured floor plan creates a more functional internal floor plan layout over that approved. The amended building is of less bulk and scale than that of the existing building. The overall increase in floor area is an imperceptible and insignificant amount and it is suggested, is of no consequence.

·      The amendments have largely been brought about for economic reasons, to reduce the overall building costs of the project and use the existing building where appropriate.

·      The proposed amended architectural design and built form of the Section 96 amendments retain the architectural integrity of the approved development.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is known as Lot X in DP 420874, No. 27 Hannan Street, Maroubra. The site is located to the north-eastern corner of the intersection between Hannan and Storey Streets. The site is generally flat, with an area of approximately 191.7 square metres.

 

At present, the site accommodates a 2-storey dwelling of brick construction with a detached garage at the rear. To the north of the site is a single-storey dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction at 25 Hannan Street. The rear of the site adjoins the garage of a detached dwelling at 90 Storey Street. The locality is predominantly characterised by lower density detached and semi-detached residential developments.

 

 

 

Figure 3: The subject building as viewed from the intersection of Hannan and Storey Streets.

Figure 4: The building at present as viewed from Storey Street , having constructed a large portion of the upper floor extension approved under DA/255/2010.

Figure 5: The northern boundary of the subject site, with neighbouring site at 25 Hannan Street, right of frame.

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/591/2009

Proposed substantial alterations and additions to the existing building including the construction of a second floor level with rooftop terrace.

The application was considered to result in detrimental streetscape and amenity impacts on the adjoining dwellings and was refused under delegated authority.

Refused 4 February 2010

DA/255/2010

Proposed alterations and additions to the existing detached dwelling, including extension of the first floor level, construction of a swimming pool, modification to the existing garage and associated works.

Approved 14 September 2010

 

4.1    Compliance Action

As shown in the figures above, works have commenced on the site under DA/255/2010. It is noted that some works undertaken have not been in accordance with the approved plans of DA/255/2010. Specifically, a number of window openings, amendments to the front façade and internal features have been constructed according to that proposed under the current amendment application (DA/255/2010/A).

 

The works undertaken do not have specific implications for the assessment of this application, however Council’s Compliance Unit have investigated the works and seen fit to issue a penalty notice to the owner/ builder.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification, between 24 November 2011 and 8 December 2011. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

25 Hannan Street, Maroubra:

 

Issue

Comment

Visual and acoustic privacy

(Specific to the ground floor, north elevation window):

·    Proposed new window opening is 1500mm from neighbouring living and bathroom windows;

·    Audibility and easy visual connection is enabled through this opening;

·    Opening is contrary to Section 4.5 of the DCP;

·    Request the opening be bricked up to be a highlight window of 1500mm in height.

 

The enlargement of this opening to the northern elevation is considered reasonable in the interest of allowing northern sun into the ground floor living spaces. In retaining privacy to the northern neighbour, a condition has been recommended requiring fixing and obscuring of the window to a height of 1500mm.

Section 4.5 of the DCP (Visual and Acoustic Privacy) is addressed in Section 8.4 of this report.

Boundary fencing:

·      Issues with replacement of common boundary fence.

 

Consent has not been sought for any fencing within the subject amendment application and as such, does not form part of this assessment. 

 

6.    Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with:-

 

 

6.1    Substantially the Same Development

In accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the proposed changes are considered to be substantially the same as the originally approved development.  As such, the application is eligible for assessment under Section 96 of the Act.

 

7.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning instruments:

 

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

BASIX applies to the proposed development and BASIX Certification has been supplied with the application. The commitments listed in the certificate will be imposed by appropriate standard conditions pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

7.2    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is located within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that the development will maintain the existing detached housing form, which is compatible with the character of the locality.

 

7.3    Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft LEP)

Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 is a matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

The following table considers the proposed development having regard to the zoning provisions and development standards contained in draft LEP that are of relevance to the subject development application:

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

 

Zoning:

 

The site is zoned Low Density Residential R2.

Yes

Permissible under the proposed zoning?

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.5:1

1.03:1

 

No, see below.

 

Height of Building (Max)

9.5m

8.8m

 

Yes.

 

Lot Size (Min)

No minimum for single dwellings.

191.7 m2

N/A

 

7.3.1       Draft floor space controls

 

The Draft LEP proposes to adopt an FSR of 0.5:1 to the subject site. This application proposes a floor space of approximately 1.03:1.

 

The increase in floor space proposed within this application is contained within the existing building envelope. The proposed floor space will not be visible from adjoining sites, the streetscape or surrounds. No impact further to that of the originally approved development are considered to result form this aspect. The proposal is consistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the current planning controls and as such, is considered acceptable with regard to the Draft LEP.

 

7.4    Development Control Plan- Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

The proposal has been assessed against the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. In order to gain Council approval, proposed developments must demonstrate that they have fulfilled the relevant objectives for each topic. The performance requirements of the DCP provide the means by which a development will achieve the objectives for each topic. Preferred Solutions are ‘deemed to comply’ standards, not compulsory standards, illustrating how a development may achieve the performance requirement. 

 

The application has been assessed against, and is consistent with, the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. The development will not result in significant impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The issues elaborated upon within Section 8 of this report have been raised as concerns during the assessment of the application or where the ‘deemed to satisfy’ provisions have not been met.

 

8.    Key issues

 

8.1    Landscaped Area

 

Section 4.1 of the DCP outlines a number of objectives and performance requirements in regards to landscaping on the site. The following statistics of the proposal are noted in regards to landscaped area:

 

 

Landscaped area

Permeable Landsc.

Approved  (DA/255/2010)

29.7% (56.9m2)

13.6% (26.0m2)

Proposed:

(DA/255/2010/A)

28.3% (51.4m2)

13.6% (26.0m2)

 

The subject amendment application proposes to reduce landscaped area from that approved by 5.3 square metres, through the removal of an approved internal courtyard area, highlighted in Figure 6, below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: The approved ground floor plan, with internal courtyard proposed for deletion highlighted.

 

The removal of the internal courtyard is considered beneficial for the purpose of increased practicality to the internal layout, in addition to benefiting amenity to the northern neighbour. The subject courtyard is enclosed by four (4) walls and its deletion is not considered to be of significant detriment to provision of usable open space or storm water infiltration to the site. The resulting increase in building envelope will not be visible externally.

 

Given site restrictions and the existing building footprint, the proposed landscaped area is considered to remain acceptable with regard to the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and consequently, is supported by this assessment.

 

8.2    Floor Area

 

Section 4.2 of the DCP outlines the following objectives, performance requirements, and preferred solutions in regards to floor space on the site:

 

§   To ensure developments are not excessive in bulk or scale but are compatible with the existing character of the locality.

 

P1       Building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms and must minimise effects of bulk on neighbours, streets and public open space.

 

The following statistics are noted in regards to floor area:

 

Floor Space Ratio

GFA

Site Area

Existing dwelling:

 

0.876:1

167.9 m2

 

Approved  (DA/255/2010):

0.97:1

186 m2

Proposed

(DA/255/2010/A):

1.03:1

197.5 m2

 

The development as approved, supported the above floor area based upon a number of factors, including:

 

·      The proposed development will maintain the two-storey scale of the locality, which is compatible with the surrounding dwellings in Hannan and Storey Streets.

 

·      The existing building has been constructed up to both street boundaries with no front setbacks (it appears that the building was originally designed and constructed as a corner shop given its configuration, massing, parapet treatment and setback arrangements). Notwithstanding, the design scheme has incorporated suitable articulations in the form of balconies, window openings and a combination of compatible surface finishes, which will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures. Given that the site is located at a street intersection, a slightly larger built element will contribute to strengthening the corner definition, and will not result in detrimental streetscape impacts.

 

·      The existing building has a GFA of approximately 167.9 square metres. The extent of the increase is considered to be relatively minor in nature and will improve the functionality of the internal floor plates.

 

The above justifications for the variation in floor area remain applicable to the subject amendment application.

 

The proposed floor space increase is created through the deletion of a centrally located courtyard and the retention of the existing Hannan Street façade of the building. While both contribute to an increased floor space calculation, neither aspect will substantially increase the building envelope, particularly that viewed from the public domain. Further, these aspects will not incite additional shadowing or privacy issues from that previously approved, subject to the application of recommended conditions.

 

Given the above justifications supported under DA/255/2010 and the location of the increased floor area, the proposed floor area is considered to remain acceptable with regard to the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and consequently, is supported by this assessment.

 

8.3    External Wall Height

 

Section 4.3 of the DCP further outlines several objectives and performance requirements for external wall height, specifically as follows:

 

P1       The height of buildings relate to those in the surrounding streetscape, with higher buildings located to minimise impacts on neighbours and the streetscape.

 

The proposal outlines the retention of the existing building parapet and amendment of the roof form, requiring a 300mm increase to the roof height (shown in figures 1 & 2, above). These amendments will result in a maximum external wall height of approximately 8.8 metres above ground level, matching the level of the existing parapet to the Hanna Street frontage. The proposed roof form slopes down from the parapet toward the rear of the site, at a slope of approximately three (3) degrees.

 

The proposed increased roof height and subsequent 8.8 metre wall height is largely a consequence of the form of the existing building, to which the amended roof form is more sympathetic to the character and design of the building than that approved.

 

The design scheme has incorporated suitable articulations in the form of window openings and a combination of compatible surface finishes, which will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structure. Given the site fronts an intersection, a slightly larger built element will contribute to strengthening the corner definition, with the proposed amendments emphasising the architectural character and prominence of the building. 

 

The proposed external wall height is not considered to incite any unacceptable impacts upon the streetscape or neighbouring sites. The amendments generally satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and consequently, the proposal is supported by this assessment.

 

8.4    Visual and acoustic privacy

 

Section 4.5 of the DCP outlines several performance requirements and preferred solutions for visual and acoustic privacy, specifically as follows:

 

P1       Overlooking of internal living areas and private open spaces of residential development is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and, where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

S1      Where a direct view is available into the private open space of an existing dwelling, outlook from window, balconies, stairs, landings, terraces and decks is obscured or screened within 9m and beyond a 45-degree angle from the plane of the wall containing the opening.

 

S1      Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

 

Proposed to the ground floor northern elevation is a large window of 2600mm in height by 1800mm in width, facing onto an existing breezeway between the subject site and 25 Hannan Street to the north, shown below.

 

 

 

Figure 7: Proposed north elevation opening (constructed as proposed) inciting privacy concerns to northern neighbour.

Figure 8: The breezeway of 27 Hannan Street, and visual separation of windows to the neighbour at 25 Hannan Street (right of frame).

 

The proposed opening incites concerns of visual and acoustic privacy to living and bathroom areas of the northern neighbour. In the absence of appropriate design and obscuring treatment, overlooking would be readily enabled via this opening to adjoining habitable spaces.

 

Given the above, a condition is recommended requiring the fixing and obscuring of this window to a height of 1500mm above finished floor level, in accordance with the above provisions of the DCP. With the application of this condition, the proposed amendments are considered to be generally acceptable with regard to the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

8.5    Safety and Security

 

Section 4.6 of the DCP outlines a number of objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions, in regards to safety and security. As relevant to the subject application, these are highlighted as follows:

 

·      To ensure the security of residents and visitors and their property and enhance the perception of community safety.

 

P1           Buildings are designed to face the street and overlook streets and other public areas to provide casual surveillance of the public domain.

 

S1, 3       Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street.

 

The proposed amendments detail the redesign of the south and west elevations of the building facing Hannan and Storey Streets, in favour of retaining a larger extent of detail of the original building design. The building is a prominent and significant element to the intersection of these streets. The redesign of these aspects does not result in prevention of casual surveillance of either streetscape.

 

The west elevation sees opportunity for surveillance of Hannan Street through the inclusion of balconies at ground and first floors, further to bedroom and dining room windows beyond.

 

Surveillance of the Storey Street frontage from the south elevation is enabled through a number of openings included in the amended plans of 15 March 2012. The openings provide surveillance opportunity and articulation to the streetscape from a number of habitable spaces including three (3) bedrooms, in addition to the ground and first floor balconies of the Hannan Street elevation. Overall the proposed amendments represent an improvement to that of the existing casual surveillance situation.

 

The objectives and performance requirements relating to safety and security are considered to have been generally satisfied by the amendments and as such, this component of the application is supported by this assessment.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

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

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

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

The provisions of Randwick Draft LEP 2012 have been considered in the assessment of the application and are generally satisfied by the proposed development. 

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

The proposal generally satisfies the preferred solutions in the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, except where discussed in the key issues section of this report.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

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

 

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

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

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:               Leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant Local and State planning controls.

 

The design will be sympathetic to the character of Hannan and Storey Streets. The proportions, massing, colours, materials and finishes proposed are considered to be satisfactory. The development scheme will not have a significant impact on the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.         That Council as the consent authority, grants its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. 255/2010 for amendments to the approved plans to alter approved internal layout, delete internal courtyard, alter north and south elevation window locations, retain the  existing façade and parapet and amend the roof form, at No. 27 Hannan Street, Maroubra, in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

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

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

DA000(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

ISA Designs

DA005(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA006(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA007(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA008(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA009(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA010(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA011(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA012(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA013(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA014(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

DA019(G)

16.06.2010

25 June 2010

 

And where amended by the following plans, as approved and stamped under DA/255/2010/A;

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

S96_007(C)

7.11.2011

18 November 2011

ISA Designs

S96_008(C)

7.11.2011

18 November 2011

S96_009(C)

7.11.2011

18 November 2011

S96_013(C)

7.11.2011

18 November 2011

S96_014(D)

14.03.2012

15 March 2012

S96_015(C)

7.11.2011

18 November 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:

 

Add the following detail to Condition 4, reading:

 

4.a)  The ground floor window to the north elevation shall be fixed and obscured, using either glass bricks or opaque/frosted glass (at the preference of the applicant), to a minimum height of 1500mm above finished floor level.

 

Amend Condition 17 to read;

 

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.

 

An amended BASIX Certificate shall be prepared prior to the issue of an amended Construction Certificate, that incorporates the amendments shown on Plan ‘S96_014(D)’ received by Council on 15 March 2011.

 

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.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                   27 March 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP15/12

 

 

Subject:                  135 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/885/2009/A)

Folder No:                   DA/885/2009/A

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building, including extension and reconfiguration of the lower ground floor to accommodate a 2-bedroom unit, increase in the trafficable areas within the eastern terrace on the ground level, installation of balcony on the western elevation of the second level, alterations to the floor layout, amendment to the dwelling mix to provide 6 x 2-bedroom units and 1 x 3-bedroom unit and associated design changes

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Ventus Constructions Pty. Ltd.

Owner:                         M Moses, A Voloshin, G Voloshin, S Voloshin

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


1.      Executive Summary

 

The subject Section 96 modification application is referred to the Ordinary Council Meeting as the original development proposal was determined by Council at its Planning Committee Meeting.

 

The original development approval is for alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building to provide 4 x 2-bedroom and 2 x 3-bedroom dwellings, including construction of an additional floor level to create a part 4- and part 5-storey building, installation of rear balconies, conversion of the lower ground floor to living areas, provision of 2 x off-street car spaces and associated landscape works.

 

The current proposal is made pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for extension and reconfiguration of the lower ground floor to accommodate a 2-bedroom unit, increase in the trafficable areas within the eastern terrace on the ground floor level, installation of balcony on the western elevation of the second floor level, alterations to the floor layout, amendment to the dwelling mix to provide 6 x 2-bedroom units and 1 x 3-bedroom unit and associated design changes.

 

The application was advertised and notified from 23 November to 7 December 2011 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the submissions are primarily related to overlooking, noise, overshadowing, obstruction of views and insufficient off-street parking.

 

The site is zoned Residential 2B under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the proposed modification is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposed modification will increase the approved GFA by 10m2 from 545m2 to 555m2. The FSR will be increased from the approved 0.71:1 to 0.725:1, and does not comply with the development standard of the LEP, being 0.65:1. The increase in floor space is mainly attributed to the extension on the lower ground level.

 

The lower ground floor extension will be situated on the downhill side of the site and will not be readily visible from the public domain. The increase in floor space will not adversely affect the streetscape presentation of the development. In addition, the extension will not have any material impacts on the existing view corridors currently available to the adjoining properties.

 

The proposal includes a new balcony attached to the western elevation of Unit 4 on the second level, which has implications on the privacy of the adjoining residential flat building at No. 137 Carrington Road. At Council’s request, the revised design has relocated the balcony so that it is setback 5.3m from the common boundary. A privacy screen will also be installed on the southern elevation of the balcony. The above measures will effectively minimise adverse privacy impacts on the aforementioned property.

 

The modified development will retain a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight to the majority of the rear courtyard of the southern neighbour at No. 137 Carrington Road. The updated shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed west-facing balcony on the second level will not create any material shadow impacts on the aforementioned property. The proposal meets the performance requirement of the DCP and will not result in unreasonable shadow impacts on the neighbours.

 

The application seeks Council’s approval to modify the stormwater management conditions to enable an infiltration solution, in lieu of a pump-out system as required in the original conditions. The submitted geotechnical report is not considered to be adequate in relation to the assessment of the steep slope of the site, and its safety and amenity implications on the downhill properties. Based on the current information, the infiltration solution is not supported by Council’s Development Engineer and the existing stormwater management conditions should remain unchanged.

 

The proposed modifications satisfy the matters for consideration under Sections 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. Therefore, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to amendments to the existing conditions of consent.

 

2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 34 in DP 9121, No. 135 Carrington Road, Coogee. The site is located on the eastern side of Carrington Road, north of the intersection with Alison Road. The land has a steep topography with a fall of approximately 12m. The dimensions and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

55.055m

765.1m2

Southern, side boundary

59.18m

Eastern, rear boundary

14.035m

Western, Carrington Road boundary

13.41m

 

At present, the site accommodates a part 3- and part 4-storey residential flat building of brick and tiled roof construction, which contains 5 x 2-bedroom dwelling units. A detached single garage is located in the front section of the site.

 

The subject site, in conjunction with the adjoining land at No. 133 Carrington Road immediately to the north, contain a mirrored pair of similarly configured residential flat buildings. The building at No. 133 is the subject of a separate development consent for alterations and additions similar to that approved for the site.

 

Further to the north is a 3-storey residential flat building (No. 131 Carrington Road). To the south is a 2-storey residential flat building (No. 137 Carrington Road). To the east are single- and double-storey detached houses with frontage to Pauling Avenue. The western side of Carrington Road consists of a mixture of detached dwellings and multi-unit housing buildings. The locality is predominantly characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential developments.

 

Figure 1 Street elevation of the existing buildings on No. 133 (left) and No. 135 (right, subject site) Carrington Road

Figure 2 Street elevation of the existing residential flat building on the site; the existing single garage is seen on the right

Figure 3 Northern elevation of the residential flat building at No. 137 Carrington Road (middle)

Figure 4 Rear courtyard of the site

 

3.      The Proposal

 

3.1    Approved development

DA/885/2009

Alterations and additions to an existing multi-unit residential development to provide 4 x 2-bedroom and 2 x 3-bedroom dwellings, including construction of an additional floor level to create a part 4- and part 5-storey building, installation of rear balconies, conversion of the lower ground floor to living areas, provision of 2 x off-street car spaces and associated landscape works.

 

The application was approved by Council at its Planning Committee Meeting on 8 June 2010.

 

3.2    Proposed modifications

The subject application is made pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent 885/2009. The proposed modifications, as described in the revised drawings, include the following:

 

Lower ground level

·      Provision of a self-contained 2-bedroom unit at the lower ground level with associated changes to the internal floor layout.

·      Extension of the floor plate to the east by 3510mm.

·      Installation of a timber terrace adjacent to the lower ground unit.

Ground level

·      Construction of dedicated stair access to the lower ground unit.

·      Provision of a self-contained 2-bedroom unit at the ground level with associated changes to the internal floor layout.

·      Widening of the trafficable area of the eastern terrace to Unit 1.

First level

·      Reconfiguration of the floor layout.

·      Relocation of the timber deck of Unit 2 so that it is setback 5.3m from the southern common boundary.

Second level

·      Reconfiguration of the floor layout.

·      Installation of a west-facing balcony attached to Unit 4.

Third / attic level

·      Reconfiguration of the room layout of Unit 6, with increase in the size of the rear (east) facing balcony and reduction in the internal floor area.

·      Creation of a balcony on the western elevation.

 

The dwelling mix will be modified as follows:

 

 

Approved scheme

Section 96 scheme

Lower ground level

1 x 3-bedroom unit (Unit 1)

1 x 2-bedroom unit (Unit 1A)

Ground level

1 x 2-bedroom unit (Unit 1)

First level

2 x 2-bedroom units (Units 2 and 3)

2 x 2-bedroom units (Units 2 and 3)

Second level

2 x 2-bedroom units (Units 4 and 5)

2 x 2-bedroom units (Units 4 and 5)

Third / attic level

1 x 3-bedroom unit (Unit 6)

1 x 3-bedroom unit (Unit 6)

 

The proposal also seeks consent to modify the relevant drainage conditions to enable infiltration of stormwater on the site in lieu of a pump-out system.

 

4.      Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to modification of an existing development consent if the following criteria are complied with:

 

·      Substantially the same development

The proposal does not involve any substantial changes to the approved built form, envelope or landscaped open space provision on the site. Therefore, the modifications are considered to be substantially the same development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

·      Notification and consideration of submissions

The application has been advertised and notified in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed within the body of this report.

 

·      Consultation with relevant public authorities

No referrals to other public authorities are required.

 

5.      Site History

 

5.1    Previous development consent relating to the site

 

DA/887/2007

Demolition of the existing residential flat buildings at Nos. 133-135 Carrington Road and construction of a part 4- and part 5-storey multi-unit residential development comprising 1 x 1-bedroom, 7 x 2-bedroom and 4 x 3-bedroom apartments with 2 levels of basement car parking for 20 vehicles.

 

Council at its Planning Committee Meeting on 13 May 2008, granted approval to the proposed development.

DA/885/2009

Refer to paragraphs above for details.

 

5.2    Plan amendments

Revised drawings incorporating the following design changes were submitted on 17 February 2012:

 

·      The western balcony to Unit 4 has been relocated so that it is setback 5.3m from the southern common boundary. A privacy screen has been provided on the southern elevation of the balcony.

·      A privacy screen has been added to the southern elevation of the front (western) balcony at the top floor level.

·      The eastern wall to the lower ground unit has been extended by 1100mm, in order to accommodate a piling zone to support the new building works.

·      Minor alterations to the internal layout.

·      The living area of the top floor unit has been extended 1000mm to the east, with corresponding reduction in the balcony area.

 

A car parking assessment report was also submitted with the amended drawings.

 

6.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 23 November to 7 December 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:

 

·      2/131 Carrington Road, Coogee

·      137 Carrington Road, Coogee

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The front and rear balconies of the top floor unit will result in noise impact on the neighbouring dwellings.

The attic (top floor) level accommodates a 3-bedroom dwelling unit. The domestic use of the balconies as part of the same sole occupancy unit is not considered to generate unreasonable noise impacts. 

The extension at the lower ground floor may affect sightlines and views from the adjoining dwellings within No. 131 Carrington Road.

The proposal will not result in any significant impacts on the existing view corridors from the adjoining and neighbouring properties. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details. 

The proposal will create significant shadows on the northern façade and private open space of the adjoining property at No. 137 Carrington Road.

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

The western balcony to Unit 4 will create adverse privacy and noise impacts on the adjoining property at No. 137 Carrington Road.

At Council’s request, the revised design has relocated the western balcony to Unit 4 at the second level so that it is setback 5.3m from the common boundary with No. 137 Carrington Road. A privacy screen has also been included on the southern elevation of the balcony to minimise overlooking. It is considered that the above measures will effectively minimise privacy and noise impacts on the adjoining property.

The extension to the side windows will result in detrimental privacy impacts on No. 137 Carrington Road.

The side windows of the modified development are not considered to result in unreasonable overlooking. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The proposal will further reduce landscaped areas on the site.

The proposed landscaped area provision complies with the development standard of the LEP.

There is insufficient off-street parking to support the number of dwelling units proposed.

The proposal is considered to have maximised off-street parking provision in the light of the site constraints in terms of the existing building structures, landform and allotment dimensions. The proposed parking arrangement is considered to be acceptable. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for further details. 

Poles should be installed on the pavement to delineate the entry to the off-street car spaces, so that vehicles will not park across the driveway entry.

The installation of poles on the footpath or carriageway is not appropriate as they would obstruct pedestrian or vehicle movements.

The proposal involves the creation of an additional dwelling and a new balcony off Unit 4, and will not be substantially the same as what has been approved by Council in the previous consent.

The modification proposal is considered to be substantially the same as the approved development scheme as there are no significant changes to the built form, envelope and landscaped area provision. Refer to the “Section 96 Assessment” section of this report for details. 

The proposal involves significant excavation. A dilapidation report should be required should approval be granted for the proposed modification.

A dilapidation report is already required under Condition 41 of the existing consent.

 

7.      Technical Officers Comments

 

Development Engineer

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

 

Parking Comments

In memo from Development Engineering dated 5th December 2011 it was noted that the proposed additional 2 bedroom unit on the lower ground floor has created a parking deficiency on the site not previously evident in the original proposal.  In response to these concerns the applicant has submitted a parking and traffic assessment report which has included a survey on the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the development site.

 

The following comments are made in relation to this study

 

§  The study has indicated a high demand for on-street parking in the vicinity of the site

§  The days of the parking study were chosen by the Development Engineer to give a worst-case scenairio so it could be assured that the estimated number of available carspaces would be a minimum.

§  The minimum number of carspaces available was 6 (5.7%) on Saturday morning and 9 spaces (8.5%) on Thursday evening.

§  The study concludes that this is sufficient to accommodate the minor increase in parking demand

 

In addition the following characteristics of the site and proposal are noted

 

§  The site is located in close proximity to good public transport. Bus stops for routes 313 (Bondi Junction-Coogee) and 374 (City-Randwick-Coogee) are located within 200m of the site.  Bus stops for routes 339 (City-Clovelly) and 400,316 (Bondi Junction-Randwick-Airport) are within 550m.

§  The site is within a locality where a carshare scheme has been established. A dedicated carshare space (currently operated by GoGet) exists within 130m of the site (Corner of Glebe St and Carrington Road). Although it cannot be guaranteed that future residents of the development will take up carshare, the participation of other residents in the street continues to contribute to reducing the overall demand for on-street parking in the vicinity. It is estimated that 1 carshare space is equivalent to 5-7 normal carspaces.

 

The provision of parking must be balanced against a number of factors that may allow variations to the normal standards. In consideration of the sites characteristics outlined above Development Engineering will not object to the parking deficiency of 1 space in this instance. It should be noted that this would be the maximum Development Engineering would not object to. The high utilisation of on-street parking would make any further proposed increase in parking deficiencies difficult to support. 

 

Geotech/Drainage Comments

It is understood the applicant also seeks to modify the approved drainage conditions which require the provision of a pump-out system instead of the infiltration area proposed by the applicant in the original application. A pump-out system was specified since the geotech report submitted with the original application by Crozier- Geotechnical Consultants only undertook an investigation of 3 boreholes drilled within the combined sites at 133-135 Carrington Road. Only one of these boreholes extended to below 2m in depth.

 

The geotech report was not considered adequate to support the proposed infiltration system especially since down slope of the site the topography steepened significantly to over 20 degrees and other information in Council’s possession (geology map) suggested the likely presence of sandstone close to the surface in this area.

 

Development Engineering had concerns that any further injection of water into the ground could cause seepage problems with the neighbouring rear properties at 21-25 Pauling Avenue and at worst contribute to destabilization of the steep slope within these properties.

 

These concerns were forwarded to the architect Brian Welch in email from the Development Engineer dated 5th December 2011. It was also empahasized that any geotech report must make specific mention of steep slope at the rear and any likely impact of infiltration on this slope. In response to this request a new geotech assessment has been submitted which has been undertaken by SMEC Testing Services (Geotech & Environmental Engineers).

 

The following comments relate to the assessment of this new geotech report.

 

§  The number of boreholes on the combined sites at 133-135 Carrington Road has been increased to 10 including 2 boreholes located at the proposed location of the infiltration areas (BH9 & BH10).

§  BH9 & BH10 indicated that any sub-surface rock would be below 3.4m minimum.

§  Soil permeability was determined to be in the range of 0.5-1.5 litres/m2/sec* which is adequate for infiltration.

§  The geotech report has not reported on the slope profile at the rear of the site or the effect of infiltration on the stability of this slope as requested. Only infiltration rates have been provided.

§  The depth of rock on this slope is unknown and has not been reported.

 

The steep nature of the topography within the rear yards of 21-25 Pauling Avenue immediately to the east of the subject site is of significant concern to Development Engineering. The slope is in excess of 20 degrees and any increase in water infiltration upward of this slope has the potential to cause seepage problems within the properties at 21-25 Pauling Avenue and at worst contribute to destabilization of the steep slope during major storm events.

 

The geotech report has indicated the likely presence of rock below 3.4m and given the difference in height between the upper and lower portions of the rear slope is in the order of 8-10m this is not considered sufficient to guarantee that the properties at 21-25 Pauling Avenue will not be affected by the increased injection of ground water.  It is quite possible that infiltrated water will flow underground along the top of the rock and then exit the ground within the properties at 21-25 Pauling Street causing flooding and stabilization issues on these properties. This is not able to be ruled out with the current information.

 

The request for the approval of an infiltration area is therefore not supported by Development Engineering.  Drainage Conditions specified in the original consent shall therefore remain un-altered.

 

Waste Management Comments

The proposed waste bin storage areas will be large enough to accommodate the additional waste demand generated by the additional units.

 

There are no engineering conditions required to amended, added or deleted for the S96 application.

 

Comments:

The application seeks Council’s approval to modify the stormwater management conditions to enable an infiltration solution, in lieu of a pump-out system as required in the original conditions.

 

Council requested a detailed geotechnical report on 5 December 2011, including analysis of the implications of the steep site gradient on the suitability of an infiltration system. A geotechnical report prepared by SMEC Testing Services was submitted on 17 February 2012. The submitted geotechnical report is not considered to be adequate in relation to the assessment of the steep slope of the site and its safety and amenity implications on the downhill properties.

 

The site topography is in excess of 20 degrees. Any material increase in water infiltration has the potential to cause seepage problems in the downhill properties, and in the worst case scenario, may contribute to destabilisation of the slope during major storm events.

 

Based on the current information, the infiltration solution is not supported by Council’s Development Engineer and the existing stormwater management conditions (which require a pump out system) should remain unchanged.

 

8.      Master Planning Requirements

 

A master plan is not required for the proposed modification.

 

9.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

9.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The site is zoned Residential 2B under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific objectives of Residential B Zone, in that the modified 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 modification:

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

20E Landscaped area

(2) Minimum 50% of site area (382.6m2)

55.9% (428m2)

Complies

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

All landscaped areas are provided on deep soil.

Complies

20F Floor space ratios

(1) Maximum 0.65:1 (497.3m2 GFA)

0.725:1 (555m2 GFA)

Does not comply, refer to merit assessment under the “DCP” section of this report

20G Building heights

(1) Maximum building height 9.5m

No change, 14.4m

No change

(3) Maximum external wall height 7m

No change, 14.4m

No change

21 Subdivision

Subdivision permissible with consent

The proposal seeks approval for amendment to the Strata subdivision plan. The existing conditions relating to subdivision are still relevant and will remain in the consent.

Complies, subject to conditions

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 application seeks Council’s consent to modify the stormwater management conditions to enable an infiltration solution, in lieu of a pump-out system. The submitted geotechnical report is not considered to be adequate in relation to the assessment of the steep slope of the site, and its safety and amenity implications on the downhill properties. Based on the current information, the infiltration solution is not supported by Council’s Development Engineer and the existing stormwater management conditions (which require a pump out system) should remain unchanged. Full details on this matter are provided under the “Technical Officers’ Comments” section of this report.

 

The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the local drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the existing construction management conditions and hydraulic engineering conditions.

Satisfactory, subject to existing conditions

 

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

SEPP No. 65 applies to the proposed modification. The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) in December 2011. The issues raised by the DRP are addressed as follows:

 

·      Further investigation should be undertaken to ensure the proposal is capable of complying with the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standard 2010.

 

Comments:

The application has included an Access Review, prepared by Morris Goding Accessibility Consulting. The report has examined the existing site constraints and identified various essential upgrading works necessary to achieve compliance with the relevant requirements of the BCA and Access to Premises Standard. The key recommendations of the report are extracted below:

 

 

 

Condition 22 in the current consent will ensure compliance of the development with the provisions of the BCA.

 

·      The living areas of the top floor unit are too small while the eastern balcony is oversized.

Comments:

The revised design has shifted the window glazing of the living areas of the attic unit to the east by 1000mm. The floor plan shows that the living and dining room will have functional dimensions and direct access to a generous private terrace.

 

·      The amount of fixed glazing to the top floor unit should be reduced, in order to improve cross ventilation and provide protection against the late summer afternoon sun.

Comments:

Sliding glazed doors have been provided on the eastern and western elevations of the attic unit to allow direct access to balcony areas. Sliding windows with external fire screens have also been proposed for the northern and southern elevations. The design will provide effective cross ventilation throughout the apartment unit.

 

On the western elevation, external sliding shutters are proposed for the bedroom windows, which will appropriately ameliorate the low angle afternoon sun during the summer seasons. The eastern balcony is roofed and has a depth of 4.7m to 5.3m, which will provide effective sun protection for the living areas.

 

·      The drawings should clearly describe the relationship between the new building works and the existing fabrics, as well as various architectural detailing including balustrades, screens, glazing and roof construction.

Comments:

The drawings have clearly differentiated between the existing structural fabrics and the new works. The elevations have included a reasonable level of details relating to the architectural features and façade articulations, and are suitable for assessment.

 

·      No additional car parking should be provided as it would adversely affect landscaped area provision and reduce kerb side parking supply.

Comments:

The current proposal does not provide additional off-street parking beyond what has already been approved. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for further discussions on parking matters.

 

·      The new western balcony at the second floor level should not result in loss of privacy for the neighbours.

Comments:

At Council’s request, the revised design has relocated the western balcony to Unit 4 on the second level, so that it is setback 5.3m from the common boundary with No. 137 Carrington Road. A privacy screen has also been included on the southern elevation of the balcony to minimise overlooking. It is considered that the above measures will effectively minimise privacy and noise impacts on the adjoining property.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the design principles stipulated in the SEPP.

 

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

SEPP: BASIX applies to the original development proposal.

 

Clause 55A of the EP&A Regulation provides that a new BASIX Certificate is required for any Section 96 modification, which constitutes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

Revised BASIX Certificates have been submitted. Appropriate amendments to the existing condition are recommended to make reference to the latest updated Certificates.

 

10.    Policy Controls

 

10.1  Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

The Multi Unit Housing DCP applies to the proposed development. The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed as follows:

 

Density

The proposal involves extension of the lower ground floor to create a self-contained dwelling and reduction in the floor area at the attic level. The modification will result in a net increase in gross floor area by 10m2. The FSR and GFA calculations of the current modification and the approved scheme are summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Gross floor area

Existing building

0.47:1

358m2

Approved development

0.71:1

545m2

Current modification

0.725:1

555m2

Permissible FSR / GFA

0.65:1

497m2

S96 FSR / GFA in excess of LEP standard

0.075:1

58m2

 

The subject modification will increase the deviation from the FSR development standard as compared to the approved scheme. Given that the current application is made pursuant to Section 96 of the EP&A Act, no SEPP 1 Objection is required to justify the variation from the statutory control. It is considered that the proposed FSR is satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·      The site has a steep topography with a significant fall from front to rear of approximately 12m. The lower ground floor extension will be situated on the downhill side of the site and will not be readily visible from the public domain. The increase in floor space will not adversely affect the streetscape presentation of the development. 

 

·      The parapet level (RL 44.47) of the lower ground extension is commensurate with the window sill height of the lowest storey of the adjoining residential flat building at No. 137 Carrington Road, and therefore will not detrimentally affect existing views or outlook from the neighbouring property.

 

·      As will be discussed in the following paragraphs of this report, the modification will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing or privacy intrusion.

 

·      The extent of the increase in gross floor area (being 10m2) is minor in nature and the resultant built form will not create any significant additional impacts upon the neighbouring properties.

 

·      The proposal involves the installation of a new balcony on the western elevation of Unit 4 on the second level of the building. Whilst the balcony is not technically included in floor space calculation, it has implications on the visual bulk of the development.

 

The balcony is unroofed and is characterised by light-weight framed structures. Given that the balcony is setback over 11m from the front boundary and will be softened by the landscape planting within the front setback areas, it is not considered to create any significant adverse impacts on the streetscape.

 

The proposed modification is considered to be reasonable and will not result in significant additional impacts on the adjoining properties. The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the 2B zoning objectives in that the built form will not compromise the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality. The deviation from the FSR control is therefore supported.

 

Setbacks

 

Front setback:

The performance requirement of the DCP provides that the front setback of development is to be consistent with the streetscape or the adjoining properties. The proposed front balcony to Unit 4 on the second level will be setback over 11m from the Carrington Road boundary and does not detract from the existing streetscape pattern.

 

Rear setback:

The preferred solution of the DCP stipulates a minimum average rear setback of 6m, with no part of the building being closer than 4.5m.

 

The lower ground extension, including awning devices, is setback from the rear boundary by a minimum of 11.7m and complies with the preferred solution.

 

Side setback:

The preferred solution of the DCP stipulates a minimum average setback of 4m, with no part of the building being closer than 2.5m.

·      The lower ground extension will continue the approved side wall alignment with a setback of 1950mm from the southern common boundary. The proposal is constrained by the layout of the existing building. The design is considered to have provided adequate separation between the extension and the adjoining property, and will not result in detrimental privacy or shadow impacts. 

 

The lower ground extension will reserve nil setback from the northern common boundary. Notwithstanding, the Section 96 proposal (DA/884/2009/A) for No. 133 Carrington Road, which is currently being considered by Council, has included a similarly configured lower ground storey. This element of the design scheme will appropriately match that of the adjoining land, and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

·      The front balcony to Unit 4 on the second level will be setback 5.3m from the southern common boundary and satisfies the preferred solution.

 

Landscaping and private open space

The current proposal has reserved 55.9% of the site as landscaped area and fully complies with the LEP development standard.

 

Each of the dwelling unit is provided with a private terrace or balcony with minimum area and dimensions of 8m2 and 2m respectively, and therefore satisfies the preferred solution of the DCP.

 

Privacy

Eastern terrace on ground level:

In the original approval, the outdoor terrace of Unit 1 on the ground level is restricted to dimensions of 3m (depth) x 8m (length). The remaining roof areas above the lower ground storey have been made non-trafficable.

 

The Section 96 modification will extend the lower ground storey to the east by 3.51m. Additionally, the ground floor outdoor terrace of Unit 1 will be increased to 6.4m (depth) x 8.7m (length) in dimensions, via the utilisation of the roof areas above the lower ground storey.

 

The above change is considered to be satisfactory and will not result in unreasonable privacy impacts for the following reasons:

 

·      The outdoor terrace in question is not directly oriented towards any habitable room windows of the adjoining residential flat building at No. 137 Carrington Road. There is a separation distance of over 12m between the terrace and the rear wall of the aforementioned neighbour.

 

A 3m wide, full-height privacy screen will be installed on the southern elevation at the western end of the terrace. The screening device will further restrict sightlines towards the rear windows and communal courtyard of No. 137. The installation of privacy screens along the full length of the southern elevation of the terrace is not desirable in this instance, as they would increase shadow impacts on the neighbour.

 

A special condition is recommended to require fixed planter boxes to be installed on the southern side of the terrace for a distance of not less than 5m from the eastern edge of the terrace. This requirement will effectively restrict cross viewing to the communal courtyard of No. 137.

 

·      The terrace will reserve nil setback from the northern common boundary. Notwithstanding, the Section 96 proposal (DA/884/2009/A) for No. 133 has included a similarly configured terrace at ground level. This element of the design scheme will appropriately match that of the adjoining land. In addition, planter boxes will be installed along the northern edge of the terrace to minimise privacy impacts on No. 133.

 

·      The utilisation of the roof top areas (above the lower ground storey) as private open space will significantly improve the amenity for the ground floor unit.

 

Eastern balcony on attic level:

The modification will reduce the internal floor space of the attic apartment with a corresponding increase in the area of the eastern balcony by approximately 15m2. There are no significant changes to the footprints and floor plate of the attic level. The approved privacy screens along the side elevations of the eastern balcony will remain in place, and will effectively minimise cross viewing to the adjoining properties.

 

The attic (top floor) level accommodates a 3-bedroom dwelling unit. The domestic use of the balcony is not considered to generate unreasonable noise impacts. 

 

Western balcony on second level:

The proposal includes a new balcony attached to the western elevation of Unit 4 on the second level, which is generally oriented towards the street. At Council’s request, the revised design has relocated the balcony so that it is setback 5.3m from the southern common boundary. A privacy screen will also be installed on the southern elevation. The above measures will effectively minimise adverse privacy impacts on No. 137 Carrington Road.

 

The Section 96 modification application (DA/884/2009/A) for No. 133 Carrington Road has included a similarly configured and located balcony on the second floor level of the building. The two balconies (as proposed in the subject application and the Section 96 modification for No. 133) will have a separation distance of only 4.5m. A special condition is recommended to require a privacy screen to be installed on the northern elevation of the Unit 4 balcony, in order to provide mutual privacy protection for the subject and adjoining development.

 

Western balcony on attic level:

The proposal will create a new balcony on the western elevation off Bedrooms 1 and 2 of the attic unit. The balcony has a depth of approximately 1.1m to 1.6m. A privacy screen will be installed on the southern elevation. Given that the balcony has limited dimensions and is attached to low intensity use space within the dwelling unit, this element of the proposal is not considered to result in detrimental privacy impacts.

 

Northern windows:

The current proposal has reconfigured the north-facing windows attached to the living areas of the attic unit. These ribbon windows have a height of only 500mm with the window sills positioned at 900mm above the finished floor level. The design of these windows is not considered to result in unacceptable cross viewing to the neighbouring building at No. 133 Carrington Road.

 

Southern windows:

New bathroom windows are proposed on the southern elevation of the building on the ground, first and second levels. These windows are attached to amenities areas and have sill height of approximately 1.4m above the finished floor level. Based on the above characteristics, these windows are not considered to result in detrimental privacy impacts on No. 137 Carrington Road.

 

The proposal has reconfigured the south-facing windows of the attic unit. The majority of these windows are attached to bedroom areas, which are low intensity use space within the dwelling unit. The southern living room window is not directly oriented towards any habitable rooms of the adjoining property. Furthermore, due to the fire protection of opening requirements of the BCA, the drawings have indicated the installation of external fire screens outside the southern windows. Based on the above characteristics, the southern windows are not considered to result in detrimental privacy impacts on No. 137 Carrington Road.

 

Solar access

The performance requirements of the DCP stipulate the following:

 

P1.2

Living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

P1.3

At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings does not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

 

*If less than this is available in the existing situation, the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

The modified development will retain a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight to the majority of the rear courtyard of No. 137 Carrington Road on 21 June.

 

The proposed lower ground floor extension will not affect solar access to the north-, east- and west-facing windows of No. 137 Carrington Road.

 

The proposed front balcony for Unit 4 has implications on the northern windows of No. 137 Carrington Road. The revised design has setback the balcony from the southern common boundary by 5.3m. The shadows created by the balcony structure will generally fall on the blank walls in the lower portion of No. 137 and will not materially affect any northern windows.

 

Based on site inspection, the main living room windows of No. 137 are located on the eastern and western elevations of the building. The modification will not increase overshadowing on these windows beyond the extent that has been approved in the existing development scheme.

 

The proposed modification meets the performance requirement of the DCP and will not result in unreasonable overshadowing on the adjoining residential property to the south.

 

View sharing

Distant views to Coogee Bay and the ocean are available to the east and south-east of the subject and adjoining sites.

 

The proposed modification, including the lower ground floor extension, will not have any material impact on the existing view corridor currently available to the eastern windows and balconies of No. 137 Carrington Road, which is located to the south of the site.

 

The approved development scheme (which is subject to a separate Section 96 modification DA/884/2009/A currently being considered by Council) for the adjoining site to the north at No. 133 Carrington Road has incorporated eastern balconies and rear setback similar to those of the subject proposal. It is considered that the proposed design will not result in detrimental impacts on the views obtained from the northern neighbour.

 

The subject site is located at a considerable distance from the residential flat building at No. 131 Carrington Road, and will not result in any material or perceivable impacts on the latter’s existing views.

 

Barrier-free access

The modified building will only contain 7 dwellings and is not required to provide any adaptable units under the provisions of the DCP.

 

The existing consent conditions will ensure the compliance of the development works with the performance requirements of the BCA and any referenced industry standards in relation to equitable access.

 

10.2  Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

The car parking requirements of the modified development are calculated as follows:

 

 

Rate

Requirement

Proposal

2-bedroom unit

1.2 / dwelling

6 x 1.2 = 7.2

2

3-bedroom unit

1.5 / dwelling

1 x 1.5 = 1.5

Visitor

1 / 4 dwellings

7/4 = 1.75

Nil

Total

 

10.45 spaces

2 spaces

Bicycle

1 / 3 dwellings + 1 visitor / 10 dwellings

3.33 spaces

3 spaces are required as per Condition 8

 

The existing and approved parking provision is summarised in the table below:

 

Existing development

Parking demand of the existing improvements on the site

5 x 2-bedroon dwellings:

5 x 1.2 for residents plus 5/4 for visitors
= 7.25 spaces

Existing parking provision

1 x single garage

= 1 space

Existing parking deficiency / parking credit

7.25 minus 1

= 6.25 spaces

Approved development

Parking demand of approved development

9.3 spaces

Approved parking provision

2 spaces

Approved parking deficiency after deducting parking credit

9.3 minus 6.25 minus 2

= 1.05 spaces

 

The proposed modification and changes in dwelling mix will result in a total parking shortfall of 8.45 spaces (being 10.45 spaces minus 2 spaces). After allowing for the existing parking credit (being 6.25 spaces), the theoretical shortfall will be reduced to 2.2 or 2 spaces. Notwithstanding, the modified development scheme is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The site is constrained by the existing building structures, allotment dimensions and landform. The provision of an additional parking bay has been considered by the assessment officer. However, such a solution will carry adverse streetscape impacts due to the significant reduction in soft landscaping in the front setback areas. Furthermore, the widening of the driveway crossing will reduce space for kerb side parking, and hence will offset the benefit of having an additional off-street car space.

 

·      The site has convenient access to public bus services. A number of bus stops are within walking distance from the site. Specifically, the public bus route 313 connecting Coogee and Bondi Junction runs past the subject property on Carrington Road. Bus routes 339 and 374 travelling to Sydney CBD are available on the nearby Alison and Clovelly Roads.

 

·      A condition has already been included in the existing consent to require the provision of a minimum of 3 bicycle parking spaces. This will encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport for the occupants.

 

·      The applicant has submitted a parking assessment report prepared by Traffix. The assessment includes a parking survey undertaken on a typical Saturday morning (6am to 8am, 4 February 2012) and a Thursday evening (7pm to 9pm, 9 February 2012). The survey identified a limited number of spare kerb side parking of between 6 and 23 spaces within 200m from the site.

 

It is considered that the time period within which the survey was undertaken is not sufficient to fully comprehend the on-street parking situation in the area. The survey should also have covered the periods from 8am to 12noon on the Saturday, and from 5pm to 7pm on the Thursday.

 

Notwithstanding the deficiency of the submitted parking report, the site is considered to have already maximised off-street parking provision. The development is considered to deliver good planning benefits in terms of the retention and rehabilitation of existing building fabrics, broadening of dwelling mix in the locality, and improvement to the streetscape amenity. The proposal, on balance, is considered to achieve a positive planning outcome and should be supported.

 

10.3  Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The subject application is to modify a development consent previously granted by Council pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Section 94A levies are therefore not applicable to the proposal.

 

11.    Environmental Assessment

 

The site has been inspected and

 

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

The Draft RLEP 2012 has been placed on public exhibition.

 

The site is zoned Residential R3 and is subject to FSR and building height limits of 0.9:1 and 12m under the draft LEP. Both the draft FSR and building height standards are more generous than the current controls stipulated under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal would achieve full compliance with the FSR control under the draft LEP, but would exceed the height standard by 2.4m.

 

Overall, the proposal is not considered to detract from the general aims and zoning objectives stated in the draft LEP.

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 provisions of the EP&A Regulation have already been addressed by the existing conditions of consent.  

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and is not considered to result in significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to conditions. The development is considered to be within public interest.

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

 

 

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.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the original development consent satisfies Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, in that it will constitute substantially the same development, and approval of the modification will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape.

 

The application seeks Council’s approval to modify the stormwater management conditions to enable an infiltration solution, in lieu of a pump-out system as required in the original conditions. The submitted geotechnical report is not considered to be adequate in relation to the assessment of the steep slope of the site, and its safety and amenity implications on the downhill properties. Based on the current information, the infiltration solution is not supported by Council’s Development Engineer and the existing stormwater management conditions should remain unchanged.

 

Therefore, the proposed modification is recommended for approval subject to amendments to the relevant conditions of consent.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. 885/2009 for extension and reconfiguration of the lower ground floor to accommodate a 2-bedroom unit, increase in the trafficable areas within the eastern terrace on the ground floor level, installation of balcony on the western elevation of the second floor level, alterations to the floor layout, amendment to the dwelling mix to provide 6 x 2-bedroom units and 1 x 3-bedroom unit and associated design changes, at No. 135 Carrington Road, Coogee, in the following manner:

 

Amendment of Condition 1 to read as follows:

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following plans (Job Number 799) and documents listed below:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Drawn By

DA02(D)

15.02.12

17 Feb 2012

BMA Pty. Ltd.

DA03(E)

15.02.12

DA04(E)

15.02.12

DA05(E)

15.02.12

DA06(E)

15.02.12

DA07(E)

15.02.12

DA08(C)

08.11.11

DA09(E)

15.02.12

DA10(E)

15.02.12

DA11(D)

15.02.12

1069 SP – No. 135 Sheets 1 to 4

3-11-11

11 Nov 2011

Eric Scerri

 

BASIX Cert. No.

Project Name

Dated

Received

403267M

135 Carrington Road

08 November 2011

11 Nov 2011

A126743

135 Carrington Road

08 November 2011

11 Nov 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:

 

 

Amendment of Condition 7 to read as follows:

7.     The privacy screens on the northern and southern elevations of the east-facing balconies on the ground, first, second and attic levels, as well as the southern elevation of the west-facing balcony on the attic level, shall be constructed with 35mm wide fixed timber or metal slats, horizontally or vertically positioned, and spaced at a maximum of 15mm, or another appropriate design that effectively restricts cross viewing into No. 133 and No. 137 Carrington Road.

 

Details demonstrating compliance shall be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation to the satisfaction of the Council / Accredited Certifier.

 

Amendment of Condition 42 to read as follows:

42.   Fire safety and building upgrading works are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant recommendations contained in the Building Code of Australia Compliance Assessment Report prepared by AE&D consultant, dated 19.10.2009, ref: 2353 REV 01, to the proposed development as amended by any Section 96 modification.

 

Addition of Condition 84 to read as follows:

84.   Fixed planter boxes of not less than 800mm in width shall be installed along the southern edge of the east-facing terrace on the ground floor level (attached to Unit 1), for a distance of not less than 5000mm as measured from the eastern edge of the terrace.

 

Details demonstrating compliance shall be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation to the satisfaction of the Council / Accredited Certifier.

 

Addition of Condition 85 to read as follows:

85.   A 1600mm high privacy screen shall be installed along the full length of both the northern and southern elevations of the west-facing balcony attached to Unit 4 on the second floor level.

 

The screens shall be constructed with 35mm wide fixed timber or metal slats, horizontally or vertically positioned, and spaced at a maximum of 15mm, or another appropriate design that effectively restricts cross viewing to No. 133 and No. 137 Carrington Road.

 

Details demonstrating compliance shall be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation to the satisfaction of the Council / Accredited Certifier.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                   27 March 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP16/12

 

 

Subject:                  45 Victoria Street, Malabar (DA/666/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/666/2011

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two (2), part three (3) storey detached dwelling with double garage, swimming pool at rear, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                C M Hairis Architects

Owner:                         Mr M T McCleery and Mrs L C McCleery

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The development application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Nash, Belleli and Matson.

 

The site is on the north-eastern side of Victoria Street, Malabar, between Ireton and Raglan Streets. The site has a primary frontage to Victoria Street, with secondary frontage to Dacre Lane, at the rear. The surrounding area is low density residential consisting predominantly of large free-standing dwellings.

 

The application proposes demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two (2), part three (3) storey detached dwelling with double garage, swimming pool at the rear, landscaping and associated works.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on 28 October 2011, showing a reduction in the proposed rear first floor setback. A meeting was held with Council Officers on 7 November 2011, where the applicant agreed that in the instance approval was recommended, a condition would be applied to further reduce the upper floor setback of the development. This setback reduction is recommended to maximise view sharing to north-western neighbours. The application is assessed on the basis of the amendments on 28 October 2011.

 

The proposal is permissible with development consent in the Residential 2A zone as a dwelling house. The proposal is compatible with the prevailing character of the area and has acceptable impacts on the amenity of existing residents. The proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone and the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application as lodged, proposes the demolition of the existing single storey residential dwelling and construction of a part two (2), part three (3) storey dwelling.

 

The proposal was amended on 28 October 2011 at the request of Council. Further to these amendments a meeting was held with the applicant and Council officers on 7 November 2011. During this process the upper floor setback to the rear elevation was agreed to be further reduced, as detailed within this report.

 

The following assessment is based upon this most recent amendment to the plans. The application as amended outlines the following:

 

Lower ground floor level

At lower ground floor level, the application proposes a rumpus room at the rear of the building, with guest bedroom and bathroom. A water tank servicing the development is located within the sub-floor area.

 

Ground floor level

At ground floor level, the application proposes a floor plate containing open plan kitchen, dining and living area within the rear component of the dwelling, with balcony of approximately 24 square metres overlooking the rear private open space. The front component comprises laundry and study spaces, bathroom, entry foyer and double garage.

 

First floor level

The proposed first floor is shown to comprise a master bedroom with ensuite, walk-in- wardrobe and balcony of approximately 5.2 square metres overlooking the rear private open space. Also within the first floor of the building are three (3) additional bedrooms, bathroom and shower. A balcony is also detailed to one (1) of the bedrooms overlooking the Victoria Street frontage, measuring approximately eight (8) square meters.

 

External works

Landscaping works are detailed across the site, particularly to the front and rear of the proposed dwelling. An in-ground swimming pool is proposed within the existing rear open space, toward the north-west side boundary.

 

       

Figure 1: The site, as viewed from Victoria Street.

Figure 2: The subject site as viewed from the rear open space.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is on the north-eastern side of Victoria Street, Malabar, between Ireton and Raglan Streets. The site has an area of 475.5 square metres with a primary frontage of 10.58 metres to Victoria Street and a secondary frontage of 10.58 metres to Dacre Lane, at the rear. The topography of the site falls approximately seven (7) metres from Victoria Street to Dacre Lane at the rear. The site falls in two (2) directions, to both the north and east.

 

A part one (1) part (2) storey single dwelling is contained within the site. Surrounding development is low density residential, consisting predominantly of large free-standing dwellings.

 

4.    Application History

 

·      28 October 2011- In response to concerns raised by Council and during the submission period, the applicant submitted amended plans reducing the rear first floor setback by 1200mm.

·      7 November 2011- A meeting was held with the applicant and Council officers. The applicant agreed to further reduce the extent of the upper floor by approximately 600mm in the interest of view sharing.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. Six (6) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process, from the following sites:

 

·      37 Victoria Street, Malabar;

·      38 Victoria Street, Malabar;

·      39 Victoria Street, Malabar;

·      40 Victoria Street, Malabar;

·      41 Victoria Street, Malabar, (two (2) submissions received);

·      43 Victoria Street, Malabar.

 

The issues raised in the above submissions are summarised as follows:

 

Issue

Comment

Built form:

·      Floor Area:

67 square metre variation of FSR is unacceptable.

 

·      Height, form and materials:

External wall height is incorrect in SEE- wall height should not exceed DCP.

Suggest building is stepped down the block.

Request amendment to height and roof form to minimise view loss.

 

·      Building setbacks:

Side setbacks on boundary to 43 Victoria are 1m across all 3 levels, varying DCP.

Setbacks are inappropriate

Departure from established rear building alignment

 

·      Foreshore development:

Building should be more sympathetic to landscape.

 

Numerical aspects of the proposal against the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP, are further discussed where relevant in Section 7 of this report.

The overall built form has been found to be acceptable with regards to the site, surrounding development and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. The development will not pose a detrimental impact upon the foreshore scenic protection area or the immediate locality, subject to the application of recommended conditions.

View loss:

Significant loss of water and headland views

Non compliances directly result in view loss.

Better design could result in lesser view impact

No attempt to view share

Proposal must fail against the principle on the basis of iconic view obstruction.

 

The setback to the rear, upper floor of the development has been reduced through the assessment process and is recommended for further reduction in the interest of view sharing.

The issue of view sharing is assessed within Section 7.1 of this report against the planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. When assessed against the principle, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in regards to view sharing.

Parking:

Driveway measures 5.6 m at gutter, in excess of DCP and will reduce parking.

Garage should be provided to rear lane.

Garage will dominate streetscape

 

The driveway as amended, is proposed to have a four (4) metre width at the boundary.

 

Driveway, garage and parking issues are discussed further in Section 7 of this report.

 

Privacy:

Upper floor balcony will enable overlooking of indoor and outdoor living areas.

Privacy concerns from balconies.

 

The potential for overlooking from balconies is acknowledged and is common to balconies of dwellings on this side of Victoria Street, given the falling topography at the rear. 

Privacy screens to the balconies will directly obscure views to north-western neighbours. Therefore, in the interest of maximising view sharing, privacy screens have been recommended for removal.

Overlooking and view sharing are discussed in Section 7 of this report, below.

Other:

Overdevelopment of the site will set precedent for future development to exceed, in effort to recapture views.

Request height poles be installed on site.

 

·   The proposed development is not considered to constitute overdevelopment. Any future proposal on neighbouring sites will need to demonstrate consistency with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

·   The assessing officer has visited the subject site and viewed three (3) of the objecting sites, determining that while view loss would occur, height poles to confirm this are not necessary.

 

Following amendments and a subsequent meeting with the applicant, the upper floor setback of the proposal was reduced 1800mm to cater to view loss concern. This amendment was not required to be renotified, however, where enquiries were received the amended plans were informally made available for comment. The following submission was received in response:

 

41 Victoria Street, Submission No. 2

 

Issue

Comment

o   The proposal needs a further degree of stepping to be incorporated; the amendments do little to nothing to retain views.

The subject views are obtained over side boundaries and thus are difficult to protect, as discussed in Section 7.1 of this report. The amended proposal is considered to respond appropriately to view sharing with the reduction of the upper floor setback, in conjunction with the application of recommended conditions further reducing this setback.

 

6.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

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

6.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The following Clauses of the Randwick LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause 10: Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone)

The site is located within the Residential 2A Zone and the proposed development is permissible with consent. The proposal satisfies the general aims of the LEP and the specific objectives of the 2A Zone in that the development is compatible with the desired residential character of the locality.

 

Clause 29: Foreshore Scenic Protection

The site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. Dwellings in the surrounding area exhibit a mix of architectural styles and utilize various materials. The proposed design of the dwelling (including materials and finishes) is considered to be compatible with surrounding development. The design scheme will not adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the foreshore area.

 

6.3      Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP

The proposed development has been assessed against the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. In order to gain Council approval, proposed developments must demonstrate that they have fulfilled the relevant objectives for each topic. The performance requirements of the DCP provide the means by which a development will achieve the objectives for each topic. Preferred Solutions are ‘deemed to comply’ standards, not compulsory standards, illustrating how a development may achieve the performance requirement. 

 

The application has been assessed against, and is consistent with, the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. The development will not result in significant impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The issues elaborated upon within Section 7 have been raised as concerns during the assessment of the application or where the ‘deemed to satisfy’ provisions have not been met.

 

7.        Key Issues and Areas of Non Compliance:

 

7.1 View Loss

As outlined above, through the notification of the application six (6) objections were received. All six (6) raised issues in relation to view loss due to the proposed development. These concerns originated from properties on both sides of Victoria Street, both to the south-west and north-west of the subject site, as illustrated in figures 3 and 4, below.

 

Figures 3 & 4: Context of the site, with objectors sites identified in pink, subject site highlighted red.

Four (4) dwellings located to the north-west of the site currently enjoy views over their south-east side boundaries and adjoining private open spaces. Two (2) dwellings to the south-west across Victoria Street enjoy views over the subject single storey dwelling at 45 Victoria Street.

View sharing is considered in accordance with the planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140, as below.

The assessing officer visited sites at 38, 41 and 43 Victoria Street for the purpose of view loss assessment. All photographs were taken at standing eye height from affected living rooms and balconies.

 

Principles 1 and 2: Assess views to be affected, and consider from what part of the property views are obtained

Opposite side of Victoria Street (38 & 40 Victoria Street)

Views are obtained over the subject site from properties to the south-west, across Victoria Street. These views are predominantly of Malabar Headland, Maroubra Bay and beyond to the horizon, obtained from living areas, bedrooms and balconies at both ground and first floor level. Malabar Headland is located approximately one (1) kilometre from these sites, while Maroubra Bay and it’s interface with Malabar Headland is in excess of two (2) kilometres away. The subject views are achieved over an aging, single storey development on the site. These sites retain views to the east, consisting of headland and ocean-sea interfaces.

Western neighbours (37, 39, 41, 43 Victoria Street)

The affected sites to the north-west of the subject site, all achieve side views over their south-eastern boundaries, where a consistent rear setback to buildings has been established, shown in blue in the figure below. Consequently, the rear open space of the subject site acts as a view corridor to these neighbours to the north-west. The views obtained from these sites consist predominantly of the interface between Boora Point and Long Bay, with the interface between Buchan Point and Long Bay also achieved to some sites. Views are achieved from upper floor living areas and balconies, in both standing and sitting positions.

The assessing officer visited the properties of objectors at 38, 41 and 43 Victoria Street and took various photographs of the existing views at standing eye height from living rooms, bedrooms and balconies.

Principle 3: Assess the extent of the impact

Sites on the opposite side of Victoria Street (To the south-west)

45 Victoria St.

 

45 Victoria St.

 

43 Victoria St.

 
   

38 Victoria Street, Ground floor living area and balcony, Standing position: Minor view loss

The site at 45 Victoria Street is identified in the figure above. The proposed development will achieve a maximum height of 260mm above that of the ridge to the existing dwelling and 1080mm below the ridge of 43 Victoria Street. The proposed first floor will obstruct views of Malabar Headland currently obtained on either side of the existing roof form of 45 Victoria Street. Some headland- water interface views are retained to these sites, located to the right of frame, beyond 47 Victoria Street. 

47 Victoria St.

 

45 Victoria St.

 

47 Victoria St.

 
   

38 Victoria Street, Upper Floor Bedrooms:

38 Victoria Street, Upper floor bedrooms, Standing position: Negligible view loss

The site at 45 Victoria Street is identified in the photographs above. The proposed development will achieve a maximum height of 260mm above that of the ridge to the existing dwelling and 1080mm below the ridge of 43 Victoria Street. The proposed first floor will obstruct views of Malabar Headland and partially the interface with the horizon. The view is currently obtained on either side of the existing roof form of 45 Victoria Street and partially over the existing ridge. Primary headland-sea interface views are retained to this site, located to the right of frame, beyond 47 Victoria Street, shown in the above photo.

Sites to the north-west of the subject site.       

45 Victoria St.

 

43 Victoria Street: Elevated rear balcony, Standing position: Severe view loss

The proposed development at 45 Victoria Street extends approximately 6.4 metres to the rear and three (3) metres above the existing single storey rear component of 45 Victoria Street, shown above. Consequently, 43 Victoria Street will incur loss of view to headland- sea interfaces and the horizon, shown immediately above the existing roof of 45 Victoria Street, above. The extent of view loss to this site is considered severe. 

45 Victoria St.

 

41 Victoria Street; Upper floor living area, standing position: Minor- moderate view loss

The proposal will obstruct a significant portion of views from the above aspect of the living area. Headland and interface views achieved over the existing dwelling at 45 Victoria Street will be obstructed, primarily to the interface of Buchan Point. Views to the interface of Malabar Headland and the horizon to the left of frame will be partially retained. Due to amendments in rear upper floor setback negotiated during the assessment, an increased portion of horizon views will be retained from this aspect. 

 

41 Victoria Street; Upper floor balcony, Standing position: Minor- moderate view loss

As in the living room aspect discussed above, the proposal will primarily obstruct headland and interface views to Buchan Point. Due to amendments negotiated during the assessment process, a reduction in upper floor setback of the proposal will potentially allow glimpses to Buchan Point from this outlook. Views to the interface of Malabar Headland and the horizon from this aspect will be largely retained.

Principle 4: Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact

Properties to the south-west, across Victoria Street (38 and 40 Victoria Street)

While the proposal presents a side setback variation affecting views to these sites, the overall impact upon views caused by this is minor, given the extent of view these two (2) sites achieve at ground and first floor level. It is reasonable to assume that any two (2) storey development on this site will incite similar view sharing impacts to these sites. The proposal incorporates a low pitched roof and as viewed from the Victoria Street frontage, generally satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. The proposal constitutes a building that is within reason when assessed against Council’s planning controls.  

Properties to the north-west (43, 41, 39 and 37 Victoria Street)

The proposed north-west elevation, of which primarily incites view loss to the western properties sees a wall height of 7500mm, 500mm in excess of the preferred solution. This variation is considered minor in accounting for falling topography to the rear of the site, where a large portion of the lower floor is located below ground. The rear first floor setback has been reduced to increase stepping to the built form and improve view sharing, resulting in a proposal considered reasonable in the context of the site. As acknowledged within the second step of the principle, the protection of side views is more difficult, as is the case with these north-west neighbouring sites.

·      43 Victoria Street (Deemed ‘severe’ view loss)

The dwelling sited at 43 Victoria Street is aging and single storey, achieving views over its south-eastern side boundary above a single storey portion of the existing building at 45 Victoria Street. Development to either side of number 43 substantially exceeds the envelope of this building in both extent of rear setback and height. The building is no longer considered representative of the development context within the area, of which has progressively increased around this site. 

The expectation that an aging, single storey development will retain a complete view aspect over its side boundary is considered to be unreasonable. The dwelling will retain views over it’s rear boundary, across to Malabar Headland. The extent to which the proposal obstructs views to this site, while severe, is considered reasonable in the context of ongoing development within the locality.

The view sharing provided under the proposal to the north-western sites is considered reasonable.

Conclusion

Overall, the view impacts from objecting properties to the south-west and north-west is considered inevitable, with the ongoing redevelopment of aging dwellings within Victoria Street and the nature of views obtained over these aging developments. As shown in the above photos, even the existing single storey building currently imposes on views from the objecting properties to the south-west and north-west aspects.

The applicant has reduced the rear upper floor setback of the building to improve view sharing opportunities to the north-western neighbours and incorporated a low roof form in the interest of those to the south-west. The view impacts incurred result from a development which generally satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. On balance, the view-sharing that will result from the proposed development is reasonable.

 

7.2      Floor space

Section 4.2 of the DCP outlines the following objectives, performance requirements, and preferred solutions in regards to floor space on the site:

 

§  To ensure developments are not excessive in bulk or scale but are compatible with the existing character of the locality.

 

P1      Building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms and must minimise effects of bulk on neighbours, streets and public open space.  

 

The proposal has a FSR of 0.7:1:-

The building bulk is generally consistent with the character of the locality, where a number of developments have been constructed with similar floor space ratios. The building has been appropriately articulated and the distribution of bulk across the site is generally acceptable, following amendments to cater to view loss concerns from neighbouring sites, addressed above. Given the application of recommended conditions, the proposed floor area is considered to impose minimal adverse impacts upon the neighbouring sites, streetscape and open space and therefore, the proposal generally satisfies the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

7.3 External wall height

Section 4.3 of the DCP further outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions for external wall height, specifically as follows:

 

P1       The height of buildings relate to those in the surrounding streetscape, with higher buildings located to minimise impacts on neighbours and the streetscape.

 

P3       The location and design of development relates to the topography of the site, with minimal cut and fill.

 

P6        Buildings are designed to allow sharing of views.

 

S1      The external wall height of a dwelling house attached dual occupancy does not exceed 7m.

 

The submitted plans illustrate the proposed dwelling will achieve a maximum external wall height of approximately nine (9) metres to the south-east side elevation and 7.5 metres to the north-west side elevation.

 

The extent of external wall height achieved is considered largely responsive to the topography of the site, given the fall of the land in two (2) directions, both down to the rear and to the east. The non-compliant aspects of the proposal predominantly exist to the side elevations of the dwelling, where the lower ground floor level becomes increasingly apparent with the fall away of the land to the east.

 

In achieving this wall height, the proposal does not present an out of character or excessively bulky structure to the street. Dwellings in the vicinity achieving external wall heights in excess of the preferred solution to their north-east aspect are not uncommon. Further, the design of the dwelling has been appropriately modulated and articulated in offsetting the wall height variation. Given the above, the proposed external wall height is considered acceptable and is supported by this assessment.

 

7.4 Length of second storey

Section 4.3 of the DCP further outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions for the length of second stories, specifically as follows:

 

·      To ensure the height and scale of development relates to the topography with minimal cut and fill.

·      To ensure developments are not excessive in height and scale but are compatible with the existing character of the locality.

·      To ensure buildings preserve privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents and allow sharing of views.

 

P2       Buildings are designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting, where relevant, existing characteristics of:

·        Mass and proportion;

·        Materials, patterns, textures and colours;

·        Roof form and pitch;

·        Façade articulation.

 

S4      The length (depth) of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

 

The upper floor of the proposed dwelling features an overall length of approximately 20 metres. The proposed development sits on a site of approximately 47 metres in depth. A large amount of private open space is provided to the rear of the site for recreation, planting and deep soil purposes.

 

The building is designed such that the ground and first floor are split into two (2) components, separated by a central staircase. The staircase features an increased setback through which the building is effectively articulated and broken into two (2) sections, offsetting the effect of bulk upon adjoining properties.

 

The length of the upper floor component is not considered to pose a detrimental impact upon immediate neighbours in regards to privacy, solar access or built form. Given the depth of the site, the length of the overall built form is not considered to be unreasonably bulky or out of character in the context of the site. Amendments reducing the length of the upper floor have been incorporated in the interest of maximising view sharing to neighbouring sites.

 

This aspect is not considered to have an unreasonable impact upon adjoining sites or the streetscape and as such is supported by this assessment.

 

7.5 Setbacks

Section 4.4 of the DCP outlines the following provisions in regards to setbacks:

 

·      To integrate new development with the established setbacks of the street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 

P3       Building forms and setbacks allow neighbours adequate access to natural light and a share of views and preserve established tress and vegetation and be generally consistent with the setback of adjoining properties.

 

S3      Side setbacks are no less than:

·      900mm for any part of a building over 1 metre above ground level and up to one level in height.

·      1.5 metres for any part of a building, the height of which is two levels at that point.

 

The proposed setback to the north-western elevation is 1000mm off the north-western boundary, shared with 43 Victoria Street.

 

As detailed above, the proposed setbacks to the building do contribute to some view loss to those sites to the south-west, across Victoria Street. This contribution is small in the context of the total view these sites currently obtain and the loss incurred is not unreasonable with regard to the planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140, outlined above in Section 7.1.

 

The subject site has a narrow width of ten (10) metres and has been amended to the rear, reducing overall floor area. The capacity of the site to contain the proposed floor plan within a 1000mm upper floor setback is considered preferable to expanding the envelope at the rear, where greater view loss concerns would be incited to a larger number of properties. As such, the proposed setback is considered to enable the site to effectively meet user requirements, while providing a considerable setback at first floor level. The proposed setback is considered reasonable in the context of the site width, retaining solar access, ventilation and fresh air to the north-western neighbour at 43 Victoria Street.

 

On balance of competing interests, the imposition of a 1500mm setback upon this aspect of the proposal is not considered to present appreciable benefit to neighbouring sites and as such, the proposed setback is considered generally acceptable with regard to the performance requirements of the DCP.

Figure 5: Current view obtained from 38 Victoria Street.

Figure 6: Montage prepared with the proposed development imposed within the view obtained from 38 Victoria Street.

 

7.6 Solar access

Section 3.1 of the DCP outlines the following in regards to overshadowing:

 

·                           To protect solar access enjoyed by neighbours

 

P2       Buildings are sited and designed to maximise solar access to north-facing living areas and areas of open space.

 

P9       The design and siting of new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties. Solar access is to be maximised to the north facing windows of living areas and the principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings.

 

Solar access is shown to be reduced to the south-eastern neighbour at 47 and 47a Victoria Street, between 9am and 3pm. The proposal will increase the extent of existing overshadowing to the north-west side elevation of this site. Solar access to outdoor recreation spaces to this site remains generally unchanged.

In regards to the above performance requirements, the neighbouring site at 47 Victoria Street sees primary aspects of solar exposure to both it’s north-eastern and north-western elevations. The north-western side elevation upon which solar access is reduced by the proposed development, is not the primary north facing elevation. As a result of the subdivision pattern, any two (2) storey development on the subject site is considered to impose similar solar access reductions to this neighbour. The reduction in solar access incurred does not arise through bad design and consequently, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to this section of the DCP.

 

7.7 Visual and acoustic privacy

Section 4.5 of the DCP outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions for visual and acoustic privacy, specifically as follows:

 

P1       Overlooking of internal living areas and private open spaces of residential development is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and, where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

S1      Where a direct view is available into the private open space of an existing dwelling, outlook from window, balconies, stairs, landings, terraces and decks is obscured or screened within 9m and beyond a 45-degree angle from the plane of the wall containing the opening.

 

S1      Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

 

North-west elevation openings

To the north-west elevation, the application proposes six (6) openings of various size, in addition to balconies at ground and first floor levels, as shown in Figure 7, below. A number of these openings detail obscuring treatment through translucent glazing or louvers, of which is recommended to be supported through the application of a condition outlining minimum obscuring treatments.

 

Figure 7: Proposed north-west elevation.

 

Those aspects of further note to privacy and overlooking from this elevation are detailed as follows:

 

·      A window of approximately five (5) metres in height by four (4) metres in width is located adjacent to an entry foyer and is not shown to have any obscuring treatment applied. This window is considered to have significant overlooking potential and is recommended for obscuring to a minimum height of 1500mm above ground and first floor level, in accordance with the provisions of the DCP.

·      A central building window adjacent to a staircase is shown to be two (2) stories in height and is setback 3500mm from the side boundary. The window is shown to have privacy louvers applied, of which is considered acceptable, further to the location of the window, of which features a substantial setback within the building.

 

Privacy screens inciting view loss

As shown in the figure above, the ground floor balcony features a privacy screen to the north-west elevation for the benefit of privacy to both internal occupants and neighbours. The screen also serves to obstruct ocean views of north-western neighbours.

 

Regardless of the application of this screen, sites to this side of Victoria Street all generally see issues of overlooking to immediate neighbours, largely due to the falling topography of the site and the desire to obtain views over neighbouring private open space. Even with the proposed privacy screen in place, privacy issues will remain evident to the rear elevation of the building, as is the case with other balconies on this side of the street.

 

The potential benefits of removing this screen and maximising view sharing are considered to outweigh the contribution of the screen to privacy and as such, the privacy screen is recommended for removal by way of condition of consent. Further to this, the remaining balcony aspects of the building have not been recommended to have privacy screens applied in the interest of maximising view sharing to those sites to the north-west. 

 

South-east elevation openings

To the south-east elevation, the application proposes numerous openings of various size, in addition to balconies at ground and first floor levels, as shown in Figure 8 below. A number of these openings detail obscuring treatment through frosting or louvers, of which is recommended to be supported through the application of a condition outlining minimum obscuring treatments.

 

Figure 8: Proposed south-east elevation.

 

Those aspects of further note to privacy and overlooking to the neighbouring site are detailed as follows:

 

·      A number of openings are located at ground and first floor level with low sill heights and some with no obscuring treatment. A majority of these windows obtain significant views, overlooking only neighbouring roof forms, and as such are considered acceptable as proposed. The following openings are noted to have privacy implications:

 

The ground floor dining room window is located directly opposite a terrace to the immediate neighbour. In accordance with the DCP, this window is recommended to be required for obscuring up to 1500mm.

 

Several upper floor bedroom windows feature sill heights at floor level. These windows will allow view down into the habitable windows of the adjacent property and as such are recommended for obscuring to a minimum height of one (1) metre above floor level. This height is considered to discourage overlooking while allowing views to the south-east.

 

·      The central building window adjacent to a staircase is shown to be two (2) stories in height and setback 1500mm from the side boundary. The window is shown to have privacy louvers applied of which is considered acceptable, subject to the application of a condition requiring a minimum spacing of the louvers to maintain privacy to the south-eastern neighbour.

 

Given the application of recommended conditions detailed above, the application is considered to generally satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP, and as such is acceptable in regards to privacy.

 

7.8 Garages, Carports and Driveways

Section 4.7 of the DCP outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions in regards to Garages, Carports and Driveways:

 

·      To ensure onsite car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of dwellings or the local streetscape.

·      To provide convenient and safe car parking and access. 

 

Car parking areas are designed to:

P1    Conveniently and safely serve users;

 

P2    Not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape;

 

       Be compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

S1   Driveways have a minimum width of three (3) metres and are setback at least one (1) metre from the side boundary.

 

S1   Driveways have a maximum width of three (3) metres at the property boundary.

 

S2 Where vehicular access to available form the rear of the allotment, access and parking is located behind the building.  

 

S2   Driveways, car parking spaces and car parking structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the site.

 

The application proposes vehicular access via Victoria Street, where the existing situation provides a garage at the rear, from Dacre Lane.  Vehicular access is proposed via a four (4) metre wide vehicular crossing at the boundary, with a double garage structure occupying approximately 51% of the width of the site.

Relocation of garage to Victoria Street frontage.

In regards to the above provisions of the DCP, practicalities in the design of the development incite the relocation of vehicular access to this frontage. Given a strong precedence for garages within Victoria Street, the relocation of the garage is considered acceptable.

 

Garage width

The double garage structure is shown to be setback three (3) metres from the street and is proposed in providing the required two (2) onsite parking spaces, identified within Council’s Parking DCP. The subsequent garage width does not meet the above preferred solution of the DCP, primarily due to the relatively small ten (10) metre width of the site. The parking capacity within Victoria Street is acknowledged to be limited and as such, the provision of necessary parking completely on site is considered preferable in this instance. The structure is consistent with numerous examples in the street of double garages and consequently is consistent with surrounding development. With the inclusion of landscaping measures to soften this impact, the garage is not considered to dominate the streetscape. 

 

Driveway crossing width

A driveway width of four (4) metres is proposed in order to facilitate a double width garage to the site, of which is common in the street. This width will enable two (2) vehicles to be contained within the site, as opposed to on Victoria Street, of which is frequently exhausted due to the nearby Malabar RSL. The driveway will not detract from the appearance of the site or the streetscape, nor pose a detrimental impact upon neighbouring sites.

 

With the imposition of conditions recommended by Council’s Development Engineer, the driveway and parking situation proposed is considered practical and safe. As such, the proposed garage and driveway is considered acceptable in relation to Section 4.7 of the DCP.

 

8.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

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

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

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

The Randwick Draft Local Environmental Plan 2012 is currently on public exhibition. The site is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the draft instrument, with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height limit of 9.5 metres.

The site is considered to be acceptable with regard to the provisions of Council’s current planning controls.

The provisions of Randwick Draft LEP 2012 have been considered in the assessment of the application and are generally satisfied by the proposed development.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the preferred solutions in the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, except where discussed in the key issues section of this report.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

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

 

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

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

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

9.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application was reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer. A number of conditions were recommended in response, of which have included in the schedule of conditions below.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 5a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant Local and State planning controls.

 

The design will be sympathetic to the character of Victoria Street and the surrounding locality. The proportions, massing, colours, materials and finishes proposed are considered to be satisfactory. The development scheme is considered to be acceptable in regards to the amenity of surrounding properties, specifically in relation view sharing, bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/666/2011 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two (2), part three (3) storey detached dwelling with double garage, swimming pool at rear, landscaping and associated works, at No.45 Victoria Street, Malabar, subject to the following conditions:

                                             

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Received by Council

Drawing # 01, Lower Ground Floor & Ground Floor Plan.

B

C. M. Hairis Architects

28 October 2011

Drawing # 02, First Floor and Site Plan.

B

C. M. Hairis Architects

28 October 2011

Drawing # 03, West, North and East Elevations.

B

C. M. Hairis Architects

28 October 2011

Drawing # 04, South Elevation and Section A-A.

B

C. M. Hairis Architects

28 October 2011

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received by Council

Single Dwelling

393335S

31 August 2011

1 September 2011

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.     The rear wall of the first floor shall be setback a further 600mm from that shown on the above approved plans, as indicated in red.

 

b.     The following privacy measures shall be incorporated into the development;

 

North-west elevation:

§  Obscuring measures to openings shall be implemented in accordance with the detail on the approved plans.

§  The large window immediately adjacent to the foyer shall be obscured to a minimum height of 1500mm above finished floor level at ground and first floor levels. At the preference of the applicant, louvres or opaque/frosted glass may be used.

§  The privacy screen to the ground floor balcony shall be deleted in the interest of view sharing to north-western neighbours.

 

Further to the above measures, where louvres are used for obscuring treatment, a minimum of 75% of the required obscured area shall remain obstructed at all times through spacing and fixing of the louvres.

 

South-east elevation:

§  Obscuring measures to openings shall be implemented in accordance with the detail on the approved plans.

§  The small ground floor dining window shall be obscured to a height of 1500mm above finished floor level. At the preference of the applicant, louvres or opaque/frosted glass may be used.

§  The first floor windows to bedrooms identified as 2, 3 and 4 shall be obscured to a minimum height of one (1) metre above finished floor level. At the preference of the applicant, louvres or opaque/frosted glass may be used.

 

Further to the above measures, where louvers are used for obscuring treatment, a minimum of 75% of the required obscured area shall remain obstructed at all times through spacing and fixing of the louvres.

 

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 consistent with the approved drawings and the ‘External Finishes Board’ submitted with the application and received by Council on 1 September 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 $973,463, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $9734.00.

 

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.

 

Security Deposit

7.       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:

 

·           $1000.00    -      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.

 

Design Alignment levels

8.       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 as follows:

 

Victoria Street Frontage:

 

Driveway Entrance – Northwestern Edge – 250mm above the Council kerb level opposite the Northwestern edge of the driveway opening

 

Southeastern Edge – 400mm above the Council kerb level opposite the Southeastern edge of the driveway opening.

 

Pedestrian Entrance - 350mm above the Council kerb level opposite the pedestrian gate entrance.

 

Dacre Lane Frontage –100mm above the edge of the asphalt road at all points opposite the edge of roadway in Dacre Lane.

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway/kerb 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.

 

Note: The proposed levels, at the site frontages, shown on the submitted DA plans will have to be amended to show the levels issued above.

 

      Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0923.

9.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $463.00 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.

 

10.     The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

Driveway Design

11.     The gradient of the internal access driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

The height of the building must not be increased to satisfy the required driveway gradients.

         

Sydney Water

12.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate the approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water asset’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easement, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped.

 

         Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au for Quick Check agent details and Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets.

 

Stormwater Drainage

13.     Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, detailed drainage plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum (AHD), shall be prepared by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer and be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority.  A copy of the plans shall be forwarded to Council, if Council is not the certifying authority.

 

The drainage plans must demonstrate compliance with the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standard AS3500.3:2003 (Plumbing and Drainage - Stormwater Drainage) and the relevant conditions of this development approval.

 

14.     Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to an infiltration area with a minimum 5 m2 base area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit to drain to Council's kerb and gutter in Victoria St and/or to Dacre Lane.

 

NOTES:

a.       The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed:-

(i)  within the site at or near the street boundary.

(ii) with a child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system (e.g. spring loaded jay-bolt).

(iii) with a minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (preferably located in the walls of the pit at the floor level) and with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located around the weep holes.

(iv)  with the pit floor being a minimum 300mm below the invert level of the outlet pipelines.

(v) with a galvanised heavy duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipes draining to the infiltration pit and the kerb. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

b.       The infiltration/rubble pit shall:-

i.   have a minimum 300 mm of soil cover (600 mm where the pit is located under a garden/landscaping area).

ii.   be located a minimum of 3.0 metres from the dwelling or other structure (closer if a structural engineer certifies that the infiltration area will not adversely affect the structure) and 2.1 metres from the adjacent side or rear boundaries.

iii.  be constructed with a minimum 200 mm thick layer of 20 mm basalt/blue metal (or similar) that is wrapped in a suitable geotextile material covering with a high filtration rating (Geofabrics Bidim "A" range of filtration fabrics or equivalent). A suitable means of dispersing the stormwater over the area of infiltration is to be constructed. Other equivalent methods of infiltration may be adopted.

iv.  have a minimum base area of  5.0 square metres (m2).

NOTE: The outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the infiltration area shall be located at least 50 mm below the outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the kerb and gutter.

 

c.       The requirement for an infiltration/rubble pit will not be enforced should the underground soil conditions preclude the construction of the infiltration pit (eg rock is located within 300 mm of the base of the infiltration area). If the infiltration/rubble pit is not constructed then all site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter via a sediment/silt arrestor pit (as detailed in note a. above).

 

All works shall be to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

d.       The overflow pipe/s from the rainwater tank/s shall be directed into the infiltration area.

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The requirements contained in the following conditions of consent must be complied with and details of compliance must be included in the construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

15.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Smoke Alarms

16.     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.

 

Driveway Design

17.     The gradient of the internal access driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

BASIX Requirements

18.     In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

Energy & Water Efficiency

19.     The following energy efficiency and water saving measures are to be implemented in all new and upgraded building work and details included in the construction certificate:

a)       The consumption of water shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.

 

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

 

c)       New hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

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

20.     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

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

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of 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

22.     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

23.     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

24.     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

25.     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

26.     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

·          Details of re-use, recycling and disposal of waste demolition/building materials

·          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

27.     A Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

The Waste Management Plan must provide details of the type and quantities of demolition and construction waste materials, proposed re-use and recycling of materials, methods of disposal and details of recycling outlets and land fill sites.

 

Where practicable waste materials must be re-used or recycled, rather than disposed and further details of Council's requirements including relevant guidelines and pro-forma WMP forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre or by telephoning Council on 9399 0999.

 

Details and receipts verifying the recycling and disposal of materials must be kept on site at all times and presented to Council officers upon request.

 

Public Utilities

28.     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.

 

Landscaping

29.     A landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of either AILDM or AILA) shall be submitted to, and be approved by the PCA, prior to the commencement of works and must detail the following:

 

a)   A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which includes proposed species, botanic and common names, pot size at the time of planting, quantity, location, dimensions at maturity, maintenance practices (hedging, shaping etc), as well as any other landscape details to describe the proposed works;

 

b)   A predominance of species with low water requirements that can withstand poor quality sandy soils;

 

c)   A total number of 2 x 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) trees within the site, comprising one each within the front and rear portions of the site, selecting those species which will attain a minimum height of between 4-7 metres at maturity;

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

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

 

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

 

Inspections During Construction

30.     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

31.     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

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, vibratory rollers/compactors or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

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

 

·          Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

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

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

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

·          Relevant DECCW/EPA Guidelines

·          Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

 

·          Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

·          Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

 

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

 

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

 

·          Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

35.     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

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

 

·       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

37.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Building Encroachments

40.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

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

 

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

 

Tree Management

42.     Approval is granted for removal of all existing vegetation within the site due to their small size and insignificance, as well as to accommodate the proposed works as shown, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

43.     Permission is granted for the minimal and selective pruning of only those overhanging branches from the tree/s located on the adjoining property/ies.

 

This approval does not imply any right of entry onto a neighbouring property nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary; however, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, and ultimately, the ongoing health of this tree, the applicant must negotiate with the neighbour/tree owner for access to perform this work.

 

All pruning must be undertaken by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level III/V in Arboriculture, and to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-2007 'Pruning of Amenity Trees,’ and NSW Work Cover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry (1998).

 

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

44.     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

45.     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

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:

 

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

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

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

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

·          Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

The relevant measures must be implemented prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Swimming Pool Safety

47.     Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926.1 - 2007.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Spa Pool Safety

48.     Spa pools are to be provided with a child resistant barrier, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected  in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Swimming Pool & Spa Pool Requirements

49.     Swimming pools (and spa pools) are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

 

a)     Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

 

b)     All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and

                 

c)     Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2003:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

 

d)     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

Notification of Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

50.     Written notification must be provided to Council advising of the installation and completion of the Swimming Pool (or Spa Pool), to satisfy the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992.

 

Council’s “Notification & Registration of a Swimming Pool” form must be completed and forwarded to Council prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued for the pool.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

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

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

b)  Regrade and returf the Council’s nature strip along the sites Victoria Street frontage to meet Council’s issued driveway and gate entrance levels.

 

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

 

53.     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.

 

54.     The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

Stormwater Drainage

55.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with Australian Standard 3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and the conditions of this development approval. The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Use of premises

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

 

External Lighting

57.     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.

 

Waste Management

58.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Street Numbering

59.     Street numbering must be provided to the front of the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

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

 

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

 

Pool Plant & Equipment

61.     The pool plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Air Conditioners

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

 

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

 

Air Conditioning & Equipment

63.     Air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Rainwater Tanks

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

 

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

 

Rainwater Tank Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

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

 

A1      The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

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

 

A2      Demolition, building or excavation work must not be commenced until;

 

§  A Construction Certificate has been obtained from Council or an Accredited Certifier

§  Council or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority for the development

§  Council and the Principal Certifying Authority have been given at least 2 days notice (in writing) prior to commencing any works.

 

A3      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A4      Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team can issue Construction Certificates and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

A5      A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

A6      Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

A7      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).

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                   27 March 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP17/12

 

 

Subject:                  25A French Street, Maroubra (DA/865/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/865/2011

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construction of pergola structure to the rear

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                DDC Architects

Owner:                         Jennifer Armstrong

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.   
Executive Summary

 

The development application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Andrews, Matthews and Seng.

 

The subject site is located on the south-eastern side of French Street, Maroubra, and to the south western side is bounded by a secondary frontage to Duncan Lane. The surrounding area is low density residential consisting predominantly of single and two storey free-standing dwellings.

 

The application proposes ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, construction of pergola structure to the rear and a walkway awning cover along the south western side of the dwelling.

 

The application was notified from 16 November 2011 to 30 November 2011 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. One (1) submission was received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the submission cited concerns over visual and acoustic privacy, the viability of the structure within the laneway and the development not being sympathetic to the current streetscape and therefore having an adverse impact on the amenity of the area and the visual appearance of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. The above issues have been addressed in the body of this report.

 

It is recommended that the walkway awning cover along the south western side of the dwelling be deleted.  This will ensure that the design and appearance of the development is in keeping with the streetscape and that the proposed additions to the dwelling do not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing semi-detached dwelling.

 

The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), the relevant State policies, and environmental planning instrument.  The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. 

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal seeks approval for ground floor alterations and additions for the construction of a new enclosed glasshouse entry area into the existing front living room and a more open plan layout to the rear kitchen and living area.  The existing bedrooms and bathrooms are to remain unchanged.  The proposal also includes the extension of the first floor level to the front of the building with the ceiling height extended to create a full height upstairs living area and rear awing structure.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the south-eastern side of French Street, Maroubra, and to the south western side is bounded by a secondary frontage to Duncan Lane. The site has an area of 420.5m². The topography of the site falls approximately 8.85 metres from French Street to the rear boundary.

 

A part one (1) part (2) storey semi detached dwelling is contained within the site. The surrounding area is low density residential consisting predominantly of large single and two storey free-standing dwellings.

 

4.    Site History

 

There is no relevant history related to this development application.

 

5.    Community Consultation

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  As a result of this notification, the following submission was received:-

 

5.1 Objections

25 French Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

The colorbond wall cladding and metal roof are not in keeping with the original brick and terracotta tiled residence.  This will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area and the visual appearance of their property. The development is not sympathetic to the current streetscape and will also have an adverse affect on the value of their property.  The proposed glazed roof over the new entry area is not in keeping with the terracotta tiles which is not consistent in material with the subject and adjoining semi.

The DCP requires that 2nd storey addition to a semi respects the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. The pair of semi’s are non symmetrical and the proposed first floor addition is consistent with the established front building line and particularly the objectors property which is the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.  Also, the first floor addition is not readily visible from the main street frontage on French Street .  The glazed element to the front of the dwelling will be sympathetic to the adjoining semi and will not unreasonable impact or detract from the individual character of the existing semi-detached dwellings. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. 

 

The removal of the mature native trees to accommodate this development will have an adverse impact on the environment and will make the development more visible from the street within laneway.

Clause 4.b.vii of Council’s TPO allows removal without consent where trees trunks are located within 2m from a dwelling. Council Development Engineers have advised that they have no objections to the removal of this tree as it is growing only 1.2m from the western alignment of the house.  Subject to the deletion of the walkway awning cover along the south western side of the dwelling, it is not considered that the development will have an unreasonable adverse impacts on the streetscape within the lane way nor will the development detract from the individual character of the existing semi-detached dwellings.  Further, the first floor addition is in line with the front setback of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and is setback adequately from the south western side boundary.

 

The deck at the rear of the dwelling overlooks directly into their living, dining and kitchen area.  The proposed pergola structure over the rear deck will allow for increased usage of this deck area.  Recommends that a 2m high privacy screen be provided to the north eastern side of this deck.

Whilst it is noted that the existing deck overlooks the rear yard of the subject site, it is not anticipated that the construction of an awning structure over this deck will result in further overlooking concerns or result in increased usage of the deck.  Given the above, it would be unreasonable to impose a condition for the recommendation of a privacy screen.

 

5.2 Support

A supporting letter was received from the adjoining owners at no. 23 French St Maroubra.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

6.1    Development Engineers

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Plans DDC Architects, dwg’s 1015 – 01-25, issue A, dated 04.11.11.

 

Tree & Landscape Comments

There is a mature, 4m x 4m Hibiscus tiliaceus ‘Rubra’ (Ruby Hibiscus) on Council’s French Street verge in front of the site, and while it should remain unaffected given an absence of any external works in this area, as well as the fact that access can be gained to the rear yard directly off Duncan Lane, only minimal measures to avoid secondary impacts associated with the delivery of materials and similar have been imposed to ensure its preservation in the streetscape.

 

There is a mature Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) in the front yard, along the eastern boundary, at the base of the stairs, and then to the west, the mature Banksia serrata (Saw Toothed Banksia) and 4m tall Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) have both been planted by the owner on public property, and while they contribute to this well vegetated front setback, they will all remain unaffected given their distance from the works, with conditions not required.

 

Further to the southeast, in the western (side) setback, adjacent the southwest corner of the existing dwelling, there are two closely planted native trees which were obviously planted to assist with screening and privacy by reducing overlooking from the two storey dwelling to the south, 27 French Street, and were observed to perform this function well.

 

They comprise from south to north, a 6m tall Eucalyptus cinerea (Argyle Apple), hard up against the western edge of the existing ‘lean-to’, and then a slightly smaller Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle), both of which appeared in fair health but poor condition due to their restricted growing environment, with their western aspects overhanging halfway across the width of Duncan Lane, with their eastern aspects already over the roofline of the house.

 

While the plans show that the Eucalypt will be retained, the site inspection revealed that its trunk is leaning acutely to the northwest, directly towards/above the dwelling, and is not displaying any evidence of self-correcting.

 

This tree is considered dangerous, with this species regarded as one of the more unstable Gums that have a propensity for failure, and if this did occur at this site, it would definitely result in damage to the dwelling as it is directly within its target zone, and would obviously also threaten the safety of occupants, and for these reasons, conditions in this report recommend that it be removed.

 

As the submitted site survey shows that the Agonis is growing only 1.2m from the western alignment of the house, no objections are raised  to its removal as has been shown, as clause 4.b.vii of Council’s TPO allows removal without consent where located within 2m from a dwelling.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning requirements apply to the subject site.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 10: Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone)

The site is located within the Residential 2A Zone and the proposed development is permissible with consent. The proposal satisfies the general aims of the LEP and the specific objectives of the 2A Zone in that the development is compatible with the desired residential character of the locality.

 

Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft LEP)

Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 is a matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

The following table considers the proposed development having regard to the zoning provisions and development standards contained in draft LEP that are of relevance to the subject development application:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Zoning:

R2 - Low Density Residential

 

Is development permitted under zoning?

Dwelling Houses are permitted within the Zone.

The proposed Dwelling House is permissible within the zone and will satisfy the relevant objectives, aims and provisions under the Draft RLEP 2012.

 

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.5

0.41:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5

9.1

Yes

Lot Size (Minimum)

Not applicable to existing single dwelling houses.

 

N/A

 

N/A

 

Heritage:

·    Draft Heritage Item

·    Draft Heritage Conservation Area

·    In vicinity of draft item or area

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

8.1 Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses & Attach Dual Occupancies

The proposed dwelling has been assessed against the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. In order to gain Council approval, proposed developments must demonstrate that they have fulfilled the relevant objectives for each topic. The performance requirements of the DCP provide the means by which a development will achieve the objectives for each topic. Preferred Solutions are ‘deemed to comply’ standards, not compulsory standards, illustrating how a development may achieve the performance requirement. 

 

The application has been assessed against, and is consistent with, the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. The development will not result in significant impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The proposal will comply with the preferred solution requirements for FSR (0.41:1 or 173.9m²), building height (maximum external wall height of 6.6m and overall wall height of 8.6m) and landscaped area (45.7%) including soft landscaped area (more than 20% of the site area is permeable area). The issues elaborated upon within Section 7 have been raised as concerns during the assessment of the application or where the ‘deemed to satisfy’ provisions have not been met.

 

7.      Key Issues and Areas of Non Compliance:

 

Height, Form & Materials

Section 4.3 of the DCP outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions for the length of second stories, specifically as follows:

 

·        To ensure the height and scale of development relates to the topography with minimal cut and fill.

·        To ensure developments are not excessive in height and scale but are compatible with the existing character of the locality.

·        To ensure buildings preserve privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents and allow sharing of views.

·        To ensure additions to dwellings do not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

·        To ensure buildings enhance the predominant neighbourhood and street character.

 

P2       Buildings are designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting, where relevant, existing characteristics of:

 

·          Mass and proportion;

·          Materials, patterns, textures and colours;

·          Roof form and pitch;

·          Façade articulation.

 

P5       The second storey of a semi-detached dwelling should integrate with the streetscape and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

S5      The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling being confined within the existing roof space or setback from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design respecting the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

The first floor extension is sited in front of the main roof form.   The extension will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the pair of semi’s are non symmetrical and the first floor addition is in line with the front building line of the first floor level of the adjoining semi at No. 25 French Street.  Further, the first floor level is not significantly visible from the street level due to the typography of the site.

 

Building setbacks

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours; and with respect to front boundary setbacks the proposal generally conform to the adjoining development or dominant streetscape.

 

Section 4.4 of the DCP outlines the following provisions in regards to setbacks:

 

·           To integrate new development with the established setbacks of the street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

·           To ensure dwellings have adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

 

Front Setbacks

P1       Front building setback generally conforms with the setback of adjoining development or dominant setback along the street.

 

Side Setbacks

P3       Building forms and setbacks allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air. Side setbacks adjoining a street frontage, regarding corner allotments, must integrate with the established setbacks of the side street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape..

 

S3      Side setbacks are no less than:

·    900mm for any part of a building over 1 metre above ground level and up to one level in height.

·    1.5 metres for any part of a building, the height of which is two levels at that point.

 

The first floor extension to the front of the dwelling is consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings and will not unreasonably impact or detract from the individual character of the existing semi-detached dwellings.  To the south western side of the dwelling the first floor addition has a varied setback of 4.987m to 6.7m and will not have an unreasonable adverse impact on the adjoining properties or streetscape.

 

The walk way awning structures along the north western side of the dwelling and glazed awning structure attached to the front of the dwelling are sited closer than 900mm from the side boundaries.   The walk way awning structures along the north western side of the dwelling are sited on the boundary with a nil setback and the setback varies to 2.2m. The proposed glazed awning structure attached to the front of the dwelling along the north western side of the dwelling is sited on the boundary with a nil setback and the setback varies to 200mm; and to the north eastern side boundary the structure is attached along the common wall boundary with the adjoining semi (at no. 25 French Street). There are no objections to the glazed structure being sited closer to the north eastern side boundary as it is attached along the common wall boundary with the adjoining semi (at no. 25 French Street) and it will not adversely impact the streetscape or character of the existing semi’s. However, the front glazed awning structure and awning walk way structures along the south western side boundary will be predominate in the laneway and will compromise and detract from the overall character of the semi detached dwelling.  It is therefore, recommended that the front glazed awning structure including post be setback at least 700mm from the south western boundary and the awning structures over the walk way along the south western side of the dwelling be deleted.

 

With respect to the first floor level being sited on the common wall boundary with no. 25 French Street, the DCP allows for buildings to be sited closer than 900mm when it is proposed to extend an existing semi-detached dwelling along the alignment of the common wall boundary.  It is not considered that the nil setback will have any unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining dwellings in terms of privacy, solar access and fresh air.  Further, the nil setback will not adversely impact the streetscape or character of the existing semi’s.

 

It is therefore, considered that the proposal will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. 

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

Section 4.5 of the DCP outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions for visual and acoustic privacy, specifically as follows:

 

P1       Overlooking of internal living areas and private open spaces of residential development is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and, where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

S1      Where a direct view is available into the private open space of an existing dwelling, outlook from window, balconies, stairs, landings, terraces and decks is obscured or screened within 9m and beyond a 45-degree angle from the plane of the wall containing the opening.

 

S1      Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

 

It is not expected that there will be any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

The proposal includes new openings to the north west and south east of the dwelling which primarily overlook the street and rear yard of the subject site respectively. To the south western elevation the new openings are highlight windows and therefore, will not compromise privacy of the adjoining properties.

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Visual & Acoustic Privacy will be satisfied.

 

Garages & Driveways

There is one (1) existing garage car space accessed off Duncan Lane. The proposal will not be increase the number of bedrooms to the site and therefore, no additional parking is required.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

Section 3.1 of the DCP outlines the following in regards to overshadowing:

 

·      To protect solar access enjoyed by neighbours.

 

P2      Buildings are sited and designed to maximise solar access to north-facing living areas and areas of open space.

 

P9      The design and siting of new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties. Solar access is to be maximised to the north facing windows of living areas and the principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings.

 

It is not considered that the proposal will have any unreasonable overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring dwellings. The additional overshadowing is minor and is restricted to the street and subject site. The proposal will not be impacting any adjoining north facing windows or solar collectors. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements with regard to this section of the DCP.

 

8.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

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

 

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

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

The provisions of Randwick Draft LEP 2012 have been considered in the assessment of the application and are generally satisfied by the proposed development.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the preferred solutions in the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, except where discussed in the key issues section of this report.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

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

 

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

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

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Direction 4b:     New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

For the most part, the proposed development complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.  Where compliance has not been achieved with the DCP, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.  Having regard to all relevant matters for consideration, the proposal will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality in terms of visual bulk and scale, view loss, solar access and privacy.

 

The proportions, massing, colours, materials and finishes proposed are considered to be satisfactory. Subject to conditions, the design carries satisfactory architectural merits and is sympathetic to the steep landform and the character of the existing streetscape.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/865/2011 for ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construction of pergola structure to the rear at No. 25A French Street, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

1015 – 09 to 15 & 23 to 25 (Issue A)

ddc architects

04/11/2011

11 November 2011

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

A122331

4 November 2011

11 November 2011

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.   The front glazed awning structure including post must be setback at least 700mm from the south western side boundary to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the streetscape and existing semi-detached dwelling.

 

b.   The awning structures over the walk way along the south western side of the dwelling must be deleted as they will be predominate in the laneway and will detract from the overall character of the existing semi detached dwelling.

 

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.       a)     The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

External materials, finishes and colours of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building and any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) to limit the level of reflection and glare.

 

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 $115,000, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $575

       

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.

 

Protection of Street Tree

7.       The applicant will be required to ensure retention of the mature Hibiscus tiliaceus ‘Rubra’ (Ruby Hibiscus) on Council’s French Street verge in front of the site, and must ensure that:

 

a.      There will be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble within 2 metres of its trunk.

 

b.      The applicant is not authorised to perform any works to this public tree, and shall contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should pruning or any similar such work appear necessary for access reasons or similar, with the applicant required to cover all associated costs with such work, to Council’s satisfaction, prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate.

 

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

8.       In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Structural Adequacy

9.       Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority), certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the upper floor addition.

 

Smoke Alarms

10.     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

11.     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.

 

Stormwater Drainage

12.     A surface water/stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate:-

 

a)     Surface water/stormwater drainage systems must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia (Volume 2);

 

b)     The surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or, subject to site suitability, the stormwater may be drained to a suitably designed absorption pit;

 

c)     Any absorption pits or soaker wells should be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance;

 

d)     External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises;

 

e)     Details of any proposed drainage systems or works to be carried out in the road, footpath or nature strip must be submitted to and approved by Council before commencing these works.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

14.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, 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

15.     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

16.     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

17.     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

18.     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

19.     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

·           Details of re-use, recycling and disposal of waste demolition/building materials

·           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.

 

Sydney Water

20.     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

21.   A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

22.   The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

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

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

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Site Signage

24.     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

25.     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

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