Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 9 April 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  9 April 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 6:00pm

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor (T Bowen), Andrews, Belleli, D’Souza, Garcia, Matson, Moore, Nash, Neilson, Roberts, Seng, Shurey, Smith (Chairperson), Stavrinos and Stevenson (Deputy Chairperson)

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 12 March 2013

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for the purposes of clause 66 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Urgent Business

Planning Matters

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

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

D22/13      230A Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/181/2012) DEFERRED

D23/13      15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/465/2012) DEFERRED

D24/13      150 - 156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington (DA/656/2012)

D25/13      4 Bundock Street, Randwick (DA/18/2013)

D26/13      43 Jennings Street, Matraville (DA/66/2013)

D27/13      14 Dawes Street, Little Bay (DA/89/2013)

D28/13      59 Burnie Street, Clovelly (DA/94/2012)

D29/13      143-145 Mount Street, Coogee (DA/488/2012)

D30/13      11 Pitt Street, Randwick (DA/701/2011/A)

D31/13      49-59 Boronia Street, Kensington (DA/673/2012)

D32/13      6 Moore Street, Coogee (DA/822/2011/B)

Miscellaneous Reports (record of not voting required)

M5/13       Mayoral Aviation Council - 2013 Conference

M6/13       2013 International Cities, Town Centres & Communities Conference    

Notice of Rescission Motions (record of voting required)

NR2/13      Notice of Rescision Motion from Crs Andrews, Belleli and Stevenson - 158 Moverly Road, South Coogee (DA/584/2012)   

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                  9 April 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D22/13

 

 

Subject:                  230A Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/181/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/181/2012

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Introduction

 

The development application involves construction of a detached residential unit with garage to rear of existing building with access from Dolphin Street.

 

The application was recommended for approval and reported to Council at its Planning Committee Meeting held on 12 March 2013. At this meeting it was resolved:

 

“(Matson/Nash) that the application be deferred to allow Councillors to inspect the site and consider further information on this matter.”

 

Issues

 

The resident speaker that addressed Council at the Planning Committee Meeting held on 12 March 2013 alleged that objections to the application were not considered by Council’s assessment officer.  The application was notified from 4 April 2012 to 20 April 2012 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. All the submissions that were received during the exhibition period were addressed in the assessment of the application.  On 7 March 2013, a resident from Unit 13/52 Coogee Street, Randwick came into Council claiming that she had not received notification of the Council meeting date for the subject application and that she had made an objection to the proposal. She was advised that there was no record of objection received in Council’s document management system. The objection was subsequently submitted to Council on 7 March 2013.  The issues raised in this submission relate to visual and amenity impacts when trees are removed to the rear, devaluation of property and privacy concerns.  It is noted that these issues were already addressed in the assessment of the application.

 

In relation to the scale of the proposed dwelling it is compliant with the overall height limit in the 2B zone. The breach in the wall height standard only occurs as a result of the use of a pitched roof with dormer windows that provides a better planning outcome by significantly reducing the bulk of the building when viewed from the neighbouring properties. The SEPP 1 objections are considered to be well founded in the circumstances as the proposal meets the purpose of the standards. It is noted that under RLEP 2012 the proposal has a FSR that significantly less than the maximum FSR of 0.9:1. There are no significant amenity impacts on the adjoining properties in terms solar access and privacy when compared to that of a complying development. The proposal is also compatible with the size and scale of buildings in the immediate locality and has the characteristics of a modest dwelling house in this context.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4          Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20F & 20G of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Floor space ratios & Building heights respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/181/2012 for construction of part 2/part 3 storey detached residential unit with garage to rear of existing building with access from Dolphin Street, at No. 230A Carrington Road, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

A-01 (Issue A)

John Spiteri - Design & Drafting

11/02/2013

12 February 2013

A-02 (Issue A)

John Spiteri - Design & Drafting

11/02/2013

12 February 2013

A-03 (Issue A)

John Spiteri - Design & Drafting

11/02/2013

12 February 2013

A-04 (Issue A)

John Spiteri - Design & Drafting

11/02/2013

12 February 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

417480S_02

20 February 2013

22 February 2013

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The following windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.5m above floor level or be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height. Alternatively, external louvers must be provided below this specified height and fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking:

 

East elevation:

The kitchen window opening on the ground floor to the far northern end of the eastern elevation.

 

West elevation:

The two bathroom window openings on the first floor level.

 

3.       The undercroft area on the lower ground floor plan shall not be used for storage below RL 19.7 AHD.

 

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

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

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

5.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

6.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $330,000, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $3300.

       

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

7.       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

8.       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:

 

·           $2000.00    -      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

9.       The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage in Dolphin Street.

 

The design alignment level/s at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

    Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0881.

 

10.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $135.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Driveway Design

11.     The gradient of the internal access driveway and carspace must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

Stormwater Drainage & Flood Management

12.     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.

 

13.     The site stormwater drainage system is to be provided in accordance with the following requirements;

 

a)          The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

 

i.     Directly to the kerb and gutter or drainage system located at the front of the subject site in Dolphin Street; or

 

ii.    Directly into Council’s underground drainage system located in Dolphin Street via a new kerb inlet pit and section of pipe

 

b)     Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, an on-site stormwater detention system must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the site does not exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of one hour duration for existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the street drainage system, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

An overland escape route or overflow system (to Council’s street drainage system) must be provided for storms having an average recurrence interval of 100 years (1 in 100 year storm), or, alternatively the stormwater detention system is to be provided to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm.

 

c)     Determination of the required cumulative storage (in the on-site detention and/or infiltration system) must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible any detention tanks should have an open base to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. Infiltration should not be used if ground water and/or any rock stratum is within 2.0 metres of the base of the tank.

 

d)     If connecting to Council’s underground drainage system, a reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over the pipeline discharging from the site to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

e)     Any new kerb inlet pits (constructed within Council’s road reserve) are to be constructed generally in accordance with Council’s standard detail for the design of kerb inlet pits (drawing number SD6 which is available from Council).

 

f)      Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (i.e. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage (detention/infiltration) system.

 

g)     A sediment/silt arrestor pit must be provided within the site near the street boundary prior to discharge of the stormwater to Council’s drainage system.

 

Sediment/silt arrestor pits are to be constructed generally in accordance with the following requirements:

·         The base of the pit being located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

·         The pit being constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

·         A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (or equivalent) located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

·         A galvanised heavy-duty screen being provided over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

·         The grate being a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

·         A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system being provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

·         Provision of a sign adjacent to the pit stating, “This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned”.

 

Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

h)     The floor level of all habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas located adjacent to any detention and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be provided.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

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

 

j)      Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line.

 

k)     Any onsite detention areas shall be located in areas easily accessible.

 

14.     The proposed development shall be designed to structurally withstand hydrostatic pressure/stormwater inundation from floodwater during the probable maximum flood (PMF) event as defined in the Floodplain Management Manual (New South Wales Government, January 2001). Structural Engineering certification confirming that this condition has been complied with shall be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate.

 

This requirement does not necessitate the development being flood proof/water tight up to the PMF event, rather the requirement is to ensure that the development will not be structurally damaged in manner that could endanger lives during the PMF event.

 

15.     All proposed footings located adjacent to the existing drainage easement shall either be:

 

A.       Founded on rock, or;

B.       Extend below a 30 degrees line taken from the level of the pipe invert at the edge of the drainage easement (angle of repose).

Structural details demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

Street Tree Removal

16.     The applicant shall submit a payment of $350.00 (including GST), being to cover:

 

a.       The cost for Council to remove the existing street tree, Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) from the Dolphin Street verge, being the central tree in the row of three towards the western half of the site, so as to accommodate the new vehicle crossing associated with the proposed granny flat as shown;    

b.       The cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre replacement, Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia), further to the east, an equal distance between the existing most eastern tree and the corner of Carrington Road at the completion of all works.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working weeks notice to arrange for removal of the street tree prior to the commencement of site works, as well as upon completion, to arrange for planting of the replacement street tree.

 

Protection of Street Trees

17.     In order to ensure retention of the two remaining street trees on the Dolphin Street verge, being one Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) to the west of the proposed vehicle crossing, in line with the western site boundary, and then another Brush Box to the east of the proposed vehicle crossing in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of both trees, with the position and diameter of their trunks and canopies to be clearly and accurately shown.

b.       The plans must show that the western edge of the proposed vehicle crossing will be setback a minimum distance of 1.2m off the trunk of the western street tree (measured off its outside edge at ground level), with any other excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar over public property to be located along the eastern edge of the crossing.

c.       Both trees are to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 1 metre to their east and west (measured off the outside edge of its trunks at ground level), matching up with the back of the kerb to their south, and the pedestrian footpath to their north, in order to completely enclose both trees for the duration of works.

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

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

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

g.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card or cheque for an amount of $1,000.00 shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of the trees.

 

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

 

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

 

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

18.     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

19.     Smoke alarms are required to be installed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (volume 2) and smoke alarms must comply with AS3786.  Smoke alarms must be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.  Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

BASIX Requirements

20.     In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

22.     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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

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

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

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

 

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

·            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 Plan

27.     A Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development.

 

The Waste Management Plan must provide details of the type and quantities of demolition and construction waste materials, proposed re-use and recycling of materials, methods of disposal and details of recycling outlets and land fill sites.

 

Where practicable waste materials must be re-used or recycled, rather than disposed and further details of Council's requirements including relevant guidelines and pro-forma WMP forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre or by telephoning Council on 9399 0999.

 

Details and receipts verifying the recycling and disposal of materials must be kept on site at all times and presented to Council officers upon request.

 

Construction Traffic Management

28.     Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, an Application for a ‘Works Zone’ and Construction Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Councils Integrated Transport Department, and approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee, for a ‘Works Zone’ to be provided in Dolphin Street for the duration of the  construction works. 

 

The ‘Works Zone’ must have a minimum length of 12m and extend for a minimum duration of three months.  The suitability of the proposed length and duration is to be demonstrated in the application for the Works Zone.  The application for the Works Zone must be submitted to Council at least six (6) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site to allow for assessment and tabling of agenda for the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

The requirement for a Works Zone may be varied or waived only if it can be demonstrated in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic Engineers) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) can and will be undertaken wholly within the site.  The written approval of Council must be obtained to provide a Works Zone or to waive the requirement to provide a Works Zone prior to the commencement of any site work.

 

29.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to:

 

a)     commencement of any site work [or]

b)     a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must include the following details, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

·       A description of the demolition, excavation and construction works

·       A site plan/s showing the site, roads, footpaths, site access points and vehicular movements

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

·       Size, type and estimated number of vehicular movements (including removal of excavated materials, delivery of materials and concrete to the site)

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

·       Impacts of the work and vehicular movements on the road network, traffic and pedestrians

·       Proposed hours of construction related activities and vehicular movements to and from the site

·       Current/proposed approvals from other Agencies and Authorities (including NSW Roads & Traffic Authority, Police and State Transit Authority)

·       Any activities proposed to be located or impact upon Council’s road, footways or any public place

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience

 

Sydney Water

30.     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

31.     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.

 

32.     The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, 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

33.     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

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

 

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

35.     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

36.     All work and activities must be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·           Work Health and Safety Act 2011

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·           Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·           Relevant Office of Environment & Heritage / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

37.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

A copy of the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

a)     Public access to the building site and materials must be restricted by existing boundary fencing or temporary site fencing having a minimum height of 1.5m, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

b)     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.

 

c)     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.

 

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

 

e)     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.

 

f)      Site fencing, building materials, bulk bins/waste containers and other articles must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building and Regulatory Services department.

 

g)     Adequate provisions must be made to ensure pedestrian safety and traffic flow during the site works and traffic control measures are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Roads and Traffic Manual “Traffic Control at Work Sites” (Version 4), to the satisfaction of Council.

 

h)     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

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

 

40.     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, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

41.     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 (e.g. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

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

 

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

 

Survey Requirements

42.     A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or other suitable documentation must be obtained at the following stage/s of construction to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·            prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of the footings or first completed floor slab,

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

·            as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

The survey documentation must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority for the development.  

 

Building Encroachments

43.     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

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

 

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

 

Site Amenities

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

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

46.     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 Removals

47.     Approval is granted for removal of the stand of Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Trees) located centrally in the rear yard, due to their poor condition, being recognised as environmental weeds, as well as due to their direct conflict with the proposed granny flat as shown.

 

Tree Replacement

48.     The approval described above is subject to the planting of at least 1 x 100 litre (pot/bag size at the time of planting) native tree (not a palm) in the rear yard, which shall be located a minimum distance of 3m from any building, and must be a species which will achieve a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

Landscaping

49.     In order to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity at this site, the existing planter box along the southern site boundary, between the proposed granny flat and existing unit block, shall either be retained in-situ along with the existing Dypsis lutescens (Golden Cane Palms); or; shall be re-constructed, to provide a minimum soil width and depth of 1m, to which, species which will achieve a similar size and function to the existing Palms shall be planted.

 

50.     So as to maximise both the amount and usability of private open space that is available to future occupants, the steep fall of the land to the north shall be addressed through terracing to create a level area in the lower, northern half of the rear yard, with details explaining how this will be achieved to be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

Footings adjacent to easements

51.     Any footings adjacent to the drainage easement/s must be inspected by the applicant's engineer to ensure that these footings are either founded on rock or extend below the "angle of repose”. Documentary evidence of compliance with this condition is to be submitted to certifying authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction.

 

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

52.     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

53.     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

54.     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 (excluding upon any front or street elevation of the building) 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 issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

55.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)       Construct a concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

56.     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.

 

57.     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.

 

58.     That part of the nature-strip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicant’s expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

Sydney Water Requirements

59.     A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. 

 

Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following the application, a “Notice of Requirements” will be provided, detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Compliance Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing of an Occupation Certificate or Strata certificate (whichever the sooner).

 

Stormwater Drainage

60.     Upon completion of the works and prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council. The works-as-executed plan must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·      The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

·      Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·      Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

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

·      The orifice size/s (if applicable);

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

 

61.     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.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION/STRATA CERTIFICATE

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing a ‘Subdivision certificate’ or ‘Strata Certificate’.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

66.     Prior to the issuing of a strata certificate or occupation of the development (whichever the sooner), a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88B or 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

Notes:

a.  The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

b.  The works as executed drainage plan and hydraulic certification must be submitted to Council prior to the “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” being executed by Council.

 

67.     Prior to the issuing of a strata certificate or occupation of the development (whichever the sooner), a "restriction on the use of land”  (under section 88B or 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure the subfloor area below the  new dwelling must not be enclosed or used for the storage of goods. Such restriction shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

a)    The “restriction on the use of land” is to be to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

69.     The conditions of this development consent must be satisfied and all public roads and reserves must be satisfactorily restored prior to endorsement of the strata subdivision plans.

 

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

70.     The premises is to be used as a single residential dwelling only at all times and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

External Lighting

71.     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.

 

Street Numbering

72.     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.

 

Waste Management

73.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Plant & Equipment

74.     The operation of all plant and equipment on the premises 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 Office of Environment & Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

Air Conditioners

75.     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.

 

Rainwater Tanks

76.     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.

 

77.     The site stormwater system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it operates as required by the design.

 

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).

 

A8      The finished ground levels external to the building must be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised, other than for the provision of approved paving or the like on the ground.

 

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     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.

 

A11     The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Planning Committee Report on 12 March 2013

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee Report on 12 March 2013

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D15/13

 

 

Subject:                  230A Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/181/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/181/2012

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of part 2/part 3 storey detached residential unit with garage to rear of existing building with access from Dolphin Street

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                John Spiteri

Owner:                         Michelle McGrath

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as it contains a variation to the floor space ratio and building heights development standards in Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998 (Consolidation) by more than 10%. The applicant has submitted SEPP 1 objections to the development standards.

 

The subject site is irregular in shape and has an overall area of 436.2m². The site is located on the corner of Carrington Road and Dolphin Street having two frontages. The frontage width along Carrington Road is of 7.01m and the secondary frontage width along Dolphin Street is 44.045m. The locality contains a mixture of lower to medium density residential developments of various architectural forms.  The built form is mixed with both residential dwellings and multi unit housing developments.

 

The application was notified from 4 April 2012 to 20 April 2012 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of nineteen (19) submissions were received at the conclusion of the notification period.  The main issues in the submission related to the visual impact that the development will have upon the amenity of the adjoining objector’s properties and streetscape, bulk and scale, overshadowing; and stormwater, flooding and structural concerns.

 

It has been demonstrated in this report that the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP Multi Unit Housing have been achieved in that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the character of the locality.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 2B (Residential B Zone) under RLEP 1998. The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2B Zone, in that the development will allow diversity of housing types in the locality. The development scheme incorporates suitable design measures that minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, and is considered to carry positive design merits.

 

SEPP 1 objections have been submitted in support of the variation from the FSR and building heights standards. The SEPP 1 Objections have been assessed and found acceptable as the breach occurs as a result of the site constraints due to the flooding issues and topography of the site and does not present as being visually intrusive or dominant in the streetscape. The dormer windows are recessed within the roof design and the proposal generally presents as a two storey development when viewed from the streetscape.  The proposal will improve the amenity on the site and the aesthetics of the streetscape. The scale, proportion and massing of the proposed development is considered to be appropriate to the site and the surrounding built environment. Furthermore, the proposal accords with the purpose of the standard which requires the relevant standards to operate together with other statutory controls (landscaped area) to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area. Additionally, the proposal will not unreasonably compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas in terms of privacy, solar access, views, and bulk and scale as indicated in relevant assessment sections of this report. 

 

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

 

 

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposed development is for the construction of a new part two and part three storey detached building at the rear of the subject site fronting Dolphin Street.  The proposal also includes amendment to the existing strata plan to incorporate the proposed building and landscape works.  The proposed building comprises a two-bedroom dwelling with single garage fronting Dolphin Street. 

 

Ground floor level

The ground floor level consists of an open plan living, dining and kitchen area with a balcony off the open plan living area and laundry. 

 

First floor level

The first floor level consists of two bedrooms of which one of the bedrooms includes an ensuite and walk-in-robe, a study, bathroom and a balcony off the bedrooms.

 

Note:

Council’s raised concerns in relation to privacy; to address these concerns amended plans have been received by Council on 12 February 2013. The following amendments include:

 

-   Deletion of first floor balcony and replacement of first floor bedroom east facing doors with windows.

-   Alter window design to north facing window so that the potential for overlooking is reduced.

-   Provision of privacy screen to northern side and part of eastern side of ground floor balcony.

-   A revised BASIX certificate.

 

The assessment is based on the above amended plans.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot A in DP 341674(BEING LOTS 1-4 IN SP 12279) known as No. 230A Carrington Road and alternatively known as 43 Dolphin Street, Randwick.   The subject site is a corner allotment and has two frontages, Carrington Road being the main Street frontage and Dolphin Street being the secondary street frontage.

 

The site is irregular in shape and is presently occupied by an existing two storey residential flat building comprising of 4 x one bedroom units. The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern side Boundary

46.48m

 

Eastern frontage: Carrington Road boundary (Main Street frontage)

35.625m

 

Southern frontage: Dolphin Street boundary (Secondary Street frontage)

7.01m (splay corner of 3.45m)

 

Western rear boundary

44.045m

 

 

 

436.2m²

 

The surrounding area is characterised by low to medium density residential development of various architectural forms comprising of single/two storey dwelling houses, two to four storey residential flat buildings and various commercial development (i.e. car wash, retail shop, etc).  Adjoining the site to the north at No. 230 Carrington Road is a two storey residential flat building and to the west at No. 39 Dolphin Street is a four storey residential flat building with garage at the ground floor level.

 

4.    Site History

 

PL/56/2011: Pre DA advice for construction of 3 storey flat building with 2 units to the rear of the existing flat building was provided for the site on 23 December 2011.

 

Potential flooding issues of the site were identified by Council’s Development and Drainage Engineers.  As a result the applicant proposed an alternative scheme featuring open style support structures from the ground level landscaped area (which has a difference in level of up to 2.91m from the Dolphin Street footpath) with elevated garage and 1 x 2 bedroom unit above in lieu of the original 2 x 1 bedroom units. 

 

This option was considered to be generally satisfactory as Council’s Engineers do not support enclosed living/storage areas below street level (i.e. at ground level within the site) due to flooding issues. As a result of flood studies conducted by Council, it was also determined that introduction of fill or grading of the rear yard is not possible as the storage (net) volume of soil within the site cannot be altered.

 

5.    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objections

 

5.1      Clause 20F - Floor space ratios

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

 

A maximum FSR standard of 0.65:1 is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposed multi-unit housing development will result in an FSR of 0.711:1 (or approx. 310.36m²).

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

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

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

 

The applicant has submitted the following arguments in support of the SEPP1 Objection:

 

1)     The proposed building has been designed to be sympathetic to the character of the existing area and incorporates various building materials (i.e. colourbond roof, cladding and rendered walls) and appropriate architectural built form such as pitched roof and dormer windows, that will create visual interest when viewed from the street and also enhance the visual character of the area.

 

2)     The development will appear as a single storey building with a long dormer window and pitched roof from the street and is consistent with the bulk and scale of the adjoining development.  It is not considered that the proposed development will result in any significant adverse amenity impact on the adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy or views.

 

3)     The proposal will continue to provide adequate amount of communal and private open spaces for the occupants of the buildings and the proposed landscaped area fully complies with the relevant development standard.

 

Assessment Officer Comments:

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

  

·      The proposal will have adequate landscape area (52% or 325.7m² of site area) which complies with the minimum 50% requirement under Clause 20E of the Randwick LEP 1998 and, as such, contributes towards limiting the size, scale and site coverage of the proposed building.  Adequate private and communal open spaces are provided on site to service the needs of occupants. Also, the proposal will have adequate deep soil landscaping of approximately 28.45% (or 124.1m²).

 

·      The excess floor area, amounting to 26.83m², will be suitably distributed throughout the proposed building mass such that it would have a height, bulk and scale consistent with, and no higher than, the adjoining and surrounding development which will provide a good connection to the street.

 

·      The detached building is well articulated as it adopting an attic style design on the first level which minimises the bulk of the structure as viewed from the public domain. Refer to figure 1 below.

 

·      The character, size, bulk, scale and height of the proposed development is consistent with that of multi-unit housing development in neighbouring sites such that the proposed development will not be visually intrusive and will not read as an overdevelopment in the existing streetscape and locality.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Figure 1: Perspective view – (Looking north-west from Dolphin Street)

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

·      it will have a height, bulk and scale that will not detract from the predominant existing character of its specific location containing predominantly medium density residential development of various architectural form and design.

 

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

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low to medium density housing forms in the locality, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.  There is no public benefit in maintaining the control in this instance.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

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

 

Comments:

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

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

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

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

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

 

5.2      Clause 20G – Building heights

The proposal seeks a variation to the maximum building heights standard. The proposed building has a maximum external wall height of 8.5m which exceeds the maximum specified in Clause 20G (3) Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) of 7m.

 

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

 

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

 

The stated purpose of the standards as outlined in the LEP is:

 

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

 

The applicant has submitted the following arguments in support of the SEPP1 Objection:

 

1)  The height, bulk and scale of the proposed development are consistent with other two to four storey buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site.

 

2)  The variation with the wall height standard is relating to the sloping nature of the subject site and the provision of a gable roof and dormer window with area greater than 6m².

 

3)  The proposed development is up to 1.5m higher than the maximum wall height limit and only relates to the dormer section of the building facing north.  The variation is considered to be minor and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy and views, or visual bulk and scale.  In addition, the proposed roof form is also compatible with other buildings in the vicinity and the local streetscape.  Note: the northern wall of the dormer section facing north projects out from the pitched roof, 2.3m approximately. Refer to figure 1 above.

 

4)  The proposal provides a high quality contemporary residential development that is sympathetic to the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

Assessment Officer Comments:

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

 

·      The proposal will have adequate landscape area (52% or 325.7m² of site area) which complies with the minimum 50% requirement under Clause 20E of the Randwick LEP 1998 and, as such, contributes towards limiting the size, scale and site coverage of the proposed building.  Adequate private and communal open spaces are provided on site to service the needs of occupants. Also, the proposal will have adequate deep soil landscaping of approximately 28.45% (or 124.1m²).

 

·      The height of the proposed development is consistent with that of multi-unit housing development in neighbouring sites such that the proposed development will not be visually intrusive and will not read as an overdevelopment in the existing streetscape and locality. In particular, the proposal would present as a two storey development when view from the streetscape and the dormer windows within the roof form will further minimises the bulk and scale of the development.  Refer to figure 1 above.

 

·      The proposed built form has incorporated dormer windows within the roof design, staggered wall planes, window openings and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which will appropriately articulate the building facades, create visual interest and minimize the overall building height. The above design measures will also minimize the visual scale and bulk of the building. Overall, the architectural character and form of the proposal is considered to carry positive design merits.

 

·      The additional external wall height is manly due to the typography of the site and the open sub-floor area which was required to address flooding concerns.

 

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

 

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

 

·      The proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2B zone in which the site is located as primarily it will contribute towards the provision of a medium density residential environment.  Also, the proposal will maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas being appropriately designed and landscaped to be compatible with adjacent residential developments and the existing environmental character; protect the amenity of existing residents in terms of privacy, solar access, views and bulk and scale impacts as indicated in relevant assessment sections of this report.

 

·      Any impacts of the proposed breach in wall height standard will be mitigated by the considered design of the proposed development including dormer windows within the roof form and a relatively compressed built form. The proposal maintains the objectives governing height as listed within the DCP – Multi-unit Housing:

 

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

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

- To control the bulk and scale of development.

 

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

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The applicant has presented a case to establish that compliance with the standards would not hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act. The proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character of the locality and this is consistent with the objects as quoted in the SEPP. The variation from the building Heights standard is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it would not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not allow the best economic use of the site and the delivery of a suitably scaled in-fill residential development in an established neighbourhood.  There is also no public benefit in maintaining the control in this instance.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

Table - Establishing compliance is unreasonable or necessary

Method

Assessment

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the design scheme will achieve the objectives of the development standard.

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Third

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The external wall height standard has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

The existing Residential 2B zoning is considered to be appropriate for the locality.

 

Summary

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

 

6.    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

The site has not been identified as including any contaminated land or having sustained any previous uses which may have resulted in contamination.

 

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

 

SEPP65 is applied to the erection of any new residential flat building located within the state of New South Wales. A residential flat building is defined in Part 1, Section 3: definitions as comprising or including any residential building that is:

 

(a)   3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground level provided for car parking or storage, or both, that protrude less than 1.2 metres above ground level), and

 

(b)   4 or more self-contained dwellings (whether or not the building includes uses for other purposes, such as shops), but does not include a Class 1a building or a Class 1b building under the Building Code of Australia.

 

In accordance with Part 1, Clause 4 (Application of Policy) of the SEPP, as the proposal does not involve any modifications to the existing residential flat building on the site, none of the items contained in subclause 1 below applies to this development, that is,

 

(1)    (a)  the erection of a new residential flat building, and

(b)  the substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing residential flat building, and

(c)  the conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building.

 

As such, the proposal is not subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.  Further, it was clarified by the Department of Planning that SEPP 65 applies to the building and not the site, which is indicated in subclause 2 of the SEPP, and reads:

 

(2)  If particular development comprises development to which subclause (1) applies and other development, this Policy applies to the part of the development that is development to which subclause (1) applies and does not apply to the other part.

 

8.    Community Consultation

 

The application was advertised and notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 4 April 2012 to 20 April 2012 in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of nineteen (19) submissions were received.

 

8.1      Objections

The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

Unit 1/230 Carrington Road, Randwick

Unit 2/230 Carrington Road, Randwick (A total of 3 submissions were received from this house hold)

Unit 3/230 Carrington Road, Randwick (A total of 3 submissions were received from this house hold)

Unit 4/230 Carrington Road, Randwick

Unit 5/230 Carrington Road, Randwick

Unit 6/230 Carrington Road, Randwick

39 Dolphin Street, Randwick from the Executive Committee SP 38062

Unit 1/39 Dolphin Street, Randwick

Unit 3/39 Dolphin Street, Randwick

Unit 8/39 Dolphin Street, Randwick

Unit 14/39 Dolphin Street, Randwick

46 Dolphin Street, Randwick

Unit 11/52 Coogee, Randwick

Unit 15/52 Coogee, Randwick

PO Box 606, Coogee 2034

 

The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below and addressed as follows:

 

Issue

Comment

Bulk & scale:

- The proposed FSR is over the allowable maximum.

- The proposed two bedroom unit to the rear of the property is an over development of the site.

- The proposed development is not compatible with the objectives of the zone.

- The SEPP 1 Objection does not appropriately address the impacts of the increased bulk particularly in relation to privacy and loss of amenity.

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of Council’s planning controls in that the built form, height and scale of the development will not detract from the residential character of the locality nor result in detrimental visual impacts on the streetscape. The development is consistent with that of multi-unit housing development in neighbouring sites such that the proposed development will not be visually intrusive and will not read as an overdevelopment in the existing streetscape and locality. 

 

Furthermore, the proposal accords with the purpose of the FSR control standard which requires the relevant standards to operate together with other statutory controls (landscaped area) to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area.

 

Refer to the “SEPP 1 Objections to FSR and Building Heights” and “DCP” sections of this report which demonstrates that the proposed will be sympathetic to the character of the existing streetscape and will not result in unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, view sharing, solar access and privacy.

 

Moreover, despite the proposal not complying with the existing FSR control, it will be compliant with the control under the Draft LEP 2012 which reflects the desired future character of the area.

 

Building Height

- The proposal excesses the permissible height of 7m under Clause 20G of the LEP.

- The additional height causes overshadowing impacts.

- Non compliance with the height and FSR controls result in over development of the site.

-The height of the proposed development will impact adversely upon nearby residences, through the obstruction of views and the imposition of the loss of privacy.

 

Refer to SEPP 1 Objection for building height control and DCP section of the report which demonstrates that the character, size, bulk, scale and height of the proposed development will be suitably distributed throughout the proposed building mass.

 

The development will not result in any unreasonable amenity impact to the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy, view loss and fresh air.

 

The development is consistent in scale and height with other multi-unit housing development within the area.  The building design provides appropriate articulation with use of dormer style windows within the roof form, different building material and finishes to create visual interest to the façade of the building which will reduce the visual impact from the streetscape and adjoining sites.

 

Further, it has been demonstrated in this report that the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP have been achieved in that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the desired future character of the locality.

 

Building Setbacks

- The front setback along Dolphin Street is not consistent with the adjoining development or the dominate setback along the street.

- The rear and side setbacks are not in accordance with the DCP.

- The building that is close to the retaining wall has the potential to create ground instability between properties.

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Carrington Road and Dolphin Street. Its position as a corner site creates a situation where it effectively has two street frontages; however, it would be unreasonable to impose a requirement that both frontages respect the established front setbacks of both Carrington Road and Dolphin Street and to require that both elevations address the streetscape as a front elevation. As such, the treatment of the Dolphin Street façade is considered to be appropriate and, furthermore, has been designed with respect to the established setback of the site. Also, it would be difficult to achieve the average setback along the street and still providing a functional floor plate.

 

The proposed planter box to the front of the building will soften the appearance of the building when viewed from the public domain.  The proposed development is consistent with that of multi-unit housing development in neighbouring sites such that the proposed development will not be visually intrusive and will not read as an overdevelopment in the existing streetscape and locality.

 

The side setback controls aim to allow occupants and neighbours adequate natural lighting and ventilation. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory and will meet the above requirements. 

 

Refer to the “DCP” section 12 of this report for details, which demonstrates that the proposed development will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for setbacks and not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties and streetscape.

 

In relations to the stability of any adjoining retaining walls, suitable conditions have been included to ensure that proposed building works are appropriately supported to protect the adjoining premises from possible damage.  Also, a condition is included which requires a dilapidation report to be prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent person.

Sunlight

- Loss of sunlight.

 

The shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed will not have an unreasonable impact on the neighbouring properties as the shadows will mainly cast on the footpath, street and driveway. 

 

Also, there is adequate separation between the neighbouring sites to allow for acceptable levels of sunlight. 

 

Refer to DCP section 12, which demonstrates that the proposed development will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Solar Access and Energy Efficiency.

 

Landscaping

- The landscaped area is below the minimum requirement.

- The proposed development is in direct conflict with the zoning objectives of Clause 28 Tree preservation orders, section (7), (B) & (C).  Removal of the trees will impact and destroy the natural habitat for wild life and diminish the garden feeling which presently exists.

 

- The removal of trees in the rear yard will create a visual amenity impact to surrounding properties and will create a high-density wall around the site.

 

- Removal of the trees will reduce privacy levels.

 

- The trees currently protect views of Carrington Road this will complete change.

 

- Greening our City Strategy commits to a tree preservation process and refers to the importance of trees on urban streetscapes.  The proposed removal of trees works against that policy and will impact negatively on both views and the landscaped area.

 

- Would like the tree located on the Dolphin Street footpath to the east of the proposed driveway for the garage to be remain.

 

 

The proposed landscaped area complies with the requirements of the LEP & DCP. Also, there are both useful and adequate private and communal areas provided for the occupants of the new and existing units to satisfy the needs of the residents.  Adequate soft landscaped area will be retained on the site to facilitate infiltration of stormwater.

 

Council’s Landscape officer has reviewed the plans and has no objections to the removal of the trees in the rear yard and street.  Refer to Section 9.1 for detailed comments for justification of there removal. 

 

 

 

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

- Loss of visual privacy due to rear balconies.

 

- Privacy concerns to back yard.

 

- Increase in noise and pollution concerns.

 

 Health and wellbeing

- The dust and noise impacts caused by the building will have a health risk.

 

Amended plans have been received, which demonstrates majority of the window and door openings to the proposed development will not unreasonably impact on privacy.  Where there maybe some overlooking impacts a condition has been included to address these concerns. 

 

Generally the proposed development will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. Refer to DCP section 12 for further details.

 

Conditions have been included within the consent to ensure that the development satisfies relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction. The conditions also include that 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.

Parking

- Major parking concerns due to a loss of on-street parking from the proposed driveway along Dolphin Street.

 

- Parking will be further limited.

 

- The addition of further car movements in Dolphin Street and Carrington Road will significantly increase vehicle pressures in the area and cause congestion.

 

There is no off-street parking currently available on the site. Council’s DCP for parking only requires that additional parking be provided to cater for additional demands arising from increased in floor space or change of use.  

 

The applicant will only be required to provide parking for the additional 2 bedroom unit.  Therefore, the existing parking deficiency of 5 car parking spaces is acceptable and is considered as a parking credit.

 

Council’s DCP-Parking for multi unit dwellings requires that an additional 1.2 (or 1) spaces be provided for a 2 bedroom dwelling. This is proposed within the new garage which is accessed off Dolphin Street.

 

It is not considered that the proposal will significantly increase parking pressure or congestion in this section of the street.

 

Further, the topography and flooding issues on the site restricts the possibility of additional parking spaces. Moreover, the additional car space proposed on the site would see the loss of possibly one (1) on street car space, depending on the car lengths parking along this section of Dolphin Street; and consequently, the gain of one (1) off street car space will result in a loss of one (1) on street car space.  Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will result in a significant increase on parking pressure on this street and the benefit of the proposal out weights any deficiency. 

 

The following points above demonstrate that the proposal will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. 

Stormwater and flooding

- Increased flooding concerns.

 

- The reduction in soft landscaping will further increase the potential for major flooding issues.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal and conclude that the proposal will not significantly affect flood levels in the locality

 

There is adequate soft landscaped area on the site to facilitate infiltration of stormwater.  In any case, the above design measures will ensure that adequate drainage measures are provided for the premises, to maintain adequate levels of amenity and to avoid nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

Incorrect statement

- The Statement of Environmental Effects is misleading, incorrect and the proposal does not consider the impacts to surrounding properties. 

The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted has addressed the relevant matters for consideration in order for Council to adequately assess the application.

LEP

- The proposed development is inconsistent and in direct conflict with the zoning objectives of Zone No. 2B section (A), (B) & (C). The proposed detached dwelling with the existing residential flat building will create a severely overcrowded block of land and surrounding.

 

- The proposed development breaches Council regulation.

 

The subject site is zoned Residential B under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP). The proposal for a new detached multi dwelling house is permissible with Council's consent under the zoning provisions applying to the land.

 

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

 

§ To provide for a low to medium density residential environment, and

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

§ To protect the amenity of existing residents, and

§ To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposed development is compatible with the desired low to medium density residential environment.  The proposal will provide additional residential accommodation for the area and the proposal will have a bulk and scale that is commensurate with the adjoining development.

 

As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

Devaluation of property

Devaluation to surrounding properties.

 

The effect of a proposal on property values is not a factor that can be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act in the determination of a development application.

Excavation

- The DCP states that excavation should not occur within 3 metres of the rear boundary. In this instance the building will only be a metre from the rear boundary. 

 

- Concerns with the depth of excavation within a flood prone area.

 

The extent and location of excavation appears to be relatively moderate. Nevertheless, suitable conditions will be imposed upon any consent to protect the structural integrity of adjacent properties during construction.  Refer to section 11, Clause 40 – Earthworks for further discussion.

 

 

8.2 Support

There are no supporting letters submitted with this application.

 

9.    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:

 

9.1      Development Engineers

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by John Spiteri dated  Surveyors

·      Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by Council 20th March 2012.

·      Detail & Level Survey by Ballenden Surveyors dated 11th August 2010;

 

Flooding Comments

The site is located within an entrapped low point and contains a significant floodway.  As potentially serious flooding issues are apparent the application was referred to Council’s Drainage Engineer who has previously provided the following comments in pre-lodgement advice;

 

The site is located within a trapped low point and is below the downstream street level.  A significant watercourse/natural depression traverses the site.  The site has been identified as being located within a high hazard area. The northern portion of the site has been identified as being located within a floodway.

Flood levels for this site are as follows:

 

·      The level of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is 20.3m AHD

·      The level of the 0.2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood is 19.5m AHD

·      The level of the 1% AEP flood 19.2m AHD

·      The level of the 5% AEP flood is 18.8m AHD

Flooding related development requirements for this proposal are as follows:

·         No structures are permitted within the floodway (i.e. no structures permitted within an area bound by, the northern property boundary,  1.6m offset from the northern boundary, the east boundary and 7m from the west boundary.)

·         There shall be no net loss of floodplain storage volume below the 1% AEP flood (i.e. flood water is not to be displaced and the proposal will need to demonstrate using appropriate plans and calculations that the total volume available for floodwater on the site below 19.2m AHD is not reduced)

·         Garage floor levels shall be the greater of either the 1% AEP flood plus 0.15m freeboard (i.e. 19.2m + 0.15m = 19.35m AHD) or sufficiently above the level of Dolphin Street so as not to cause nuisance flooding of the garage.

·         Habitable and all other floor levels shall be no less than the 1% AEP flood plus 0.5m freeboard (i.e. 19.2m + 0.5m = 19.7m AHD).

·         The undercroft below the minimum floor levels shall not be enclosed and a covenant/restriction shall be placed on the property title prohibiting this area from being enclosed.

·         Vehicle and pedestrian access from the building shall be via Dolphin Street to ensure safe evacuation from the site during times of flood.

·         The structure shall be constructed to withstand the forces of floodwaters, including debris and buoyancy for the 1% AEP flood.

·         The structure shall be constructed from flood compatible building components below the 1% AEP flood plus 0.5m freeboard (i.e. 19.2m + 0.5m = 19.7m AHD).

·         No goods are to be stored below the 1% AEP flood plus 0.5m freeboard (i.e. 19.2m + 0.5m = 19.7m AHD).

 

The above comments were forwarded to applicant with pre-lodgment advice and it is noted that the plans submitted with this development application generally demonstrate compliance with the above requirements. There are some structural elements located within the restricted floodway zone but these are restricted to structural columns only and will not significantly affect overland flow or storage volume below RL 19.2 (AHD). 

 

Parking Comments

Parking provision

There is no off-street parking currently available on the site. The existing parking deficiency is therefore considered as a parking credit and the applicant will only be required to provide parking for the additional 2 bedroom unit. Hence Council’s DCP-parking for multi unit dwellings requires that an additional 1.2 (1) spaces be provided. This is proposed within a new garage with access off Dolphin Street.

 

The internal garage dimensions comply with the minimum requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

Drainage Comments

An on-site stormwater detention system must be provided for the redeveloped portion of the site to ensure that the maximum discharge from the redeveloped portion does not exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of one hour duration for existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the redeveloped portion of the site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the street drainage system.

 

 

Waste Management Comments

The additional unit will generate an additional 120L/week of normal garbage and 60L/week of recycling. The existing number of bins is adequate to cope with this additional demand.

 

Strata Plan Comments

An existing strata scheme operates on the site under SP 12279 which consists of 4 strata lots and common property. As part of this application the applicant is seeking a strata subdivision of the site to include the proposed unit within the strata scheme. This will require new strata plans be prepared for the site strata subdividing the existing site into 5 strata lots and common property. Draft strata plans have now been received

 

Tree & Landscape Comments

Growing on Council’s Dolphin Street verge, adjacent the rear portion of the site, there is a row of three, semi-mature Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box), of between 5-8m in height, which all appeared in fair health and condition, and are also covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) due to their location on public property.

 

They comprise one roughly in line with the western site boundary, which was observed to have an upright form and a sparse canopy cover, and while the next tree a few metres to its east is not as tall, it can be assigned a good condition rating as its canopy displays a more dense leaf cover and well formed branching structure; however, this tree is in direct conflict with the proposed vehicle crossing, with the third tree further to the east again, about halfway along the length of this frontage, sited well away from all works, so would remain unaffected.

 

No objections are raised to removing the centrally located tree in order to accommodate the proposed works as shown, primarily as the other trees in this area can remain which will minimise any loss of amenity or impact on the streetscape, and consistent with advice provided for the Pre-lodgement, conditions also require that the applicant cover relevant costs, with the other two trees to be protected and retained.

 

The closely growing stand of 10m tall Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Trees) located centrally in the rear yard are the only established vegetation at this property, and while they were also observed to perform a desirable screening function between this area of private open space and the unit block to the west, 39-41 Dolphin Street, they are not deemed suitable for retention in such a residential situation, irrespective of the proposed works, for a variety of reasons.

 

They are in poor condition, with their branching structure consisting entirely of mature sucker growth that has emerged from a common point near ground level, which are also ‘included’, and is justification to support their removal on the grounds of safety, even irrespective of the proposed works.

 

This species is well know for its general instability and propensity for trunk splits, branch drop, and part failure, and as they are also recognised as an invasive environmental weed, are no longer available in cultivation, and so should not pose a constraint to the proposed development in anyway.

 

Consistent with the pre-lodgement advice, approval has been given for their removal so as to accommodate the proposed granny flat as shown, with replacement plantings also needing to be provided to assist with integrating the new building into the surrounding area.

 

While the group of 3-4m tall Dypsis lutescens (Golden Cane Palms) growing in the raised planter along the southern boundary are not significant in size, they are a desirable species, and given their distance from the works, would remain unaffected, so should be incorporated as part of the site improvements.

 

The ground level of the rear yard (in the area of the proposed works) falls steeply by as much as 3m from south to north, which creates an uneven and unusable area of private open space between both buildings, with a condition included requiring that some minor terracing or similar be undertaken so as to improve the area and provide a meaningful area of private open space.

 

10. Master Planning Requirements

 

Clause 40A(1) of RLEP 1998 provides that consent may be granted to a development application made in respect of a site consisting of more than 10,000m2 only if:

 

(a)   A master plan has been adopted; and,

(b)   The consent authority is satisfied that the development is not inconsistent with the provisions of that master plan.

 

The site has a land area of 436.2m² and a master plan is not required.

 

11. Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick LEP 2012 was gazetted on 1 February 2013 and formally commenced on 15 February 2013, replacing Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).  This development application was lodged before commencement of this Plan and therefore, Clause 1.8A Savings provision relating to development application under the Randwick LEP 2012 applies.  Consequently, this application is primarily assessed under the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The site is zoned Residential 2B under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.  The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific objectives of the Residential 2B Zone; in that it will deliver a multi-unit housing development, which is compatible with the desired character for the locality.

 

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

 

Part 2B - Principle Development Standards

The proposal has been assessed against the principle development standards relevant to the Residential 2B Zone, below. The proposal exceeds the LEP development standards in relation to FSR and building heights. State Environmental Planning Policy 1 objections are detailed in Section 5 of this report.

 

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

 

Clause 20E - Landscaped areas

Clause No.

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50% of site area (or 218.1m²)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed landscaped area is 52.7% (or 230m²) and 28.45% (or 124.1m²) is proposed for deep soil landscaped area.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31(3) – Landscaped Area over Basement

 

 

 

 

 

Landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas must not exceed 50% of the landscaped area requirements. (max. 240.75m2).

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 20F - Floor Space Ratio

Clause No.

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

20F  –  Floor Space Ratio

 

 

0.65:1 (312.975m2)

 

 

 

0.711:1 (or 310.36m² GFA)

 

 

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

 

 

Clause 20G - Building heights

Clause No.

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

33(1) – Building Height

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum height is 9.5m

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant’s calculation: Max. 8.4m

 

Council’s calculation: Max. 8.89m

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

33(3) – External Wall Height

 

Maximum height is 7m

 

 

Max. 8.5m

 

 

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

 

Clause 9 - Objectives

Clause 9 of RLEP 1998 requires Council to consider the aims of the LEP and Zone objectives prior to determining any DA on land to which the RLEP applies. The purpose of this Clause is “To require the general aims of this plan and the specific objectives of each zone to be taken into account in the assessment and determination of development applications”. With reference to the general aims, the proposed development will not compromise the aims of the LEP in relation to aesthetic character, sustainability, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality and contribute to the variety of housing types that does not compromise the amenity of the residential area, consistent with the zone objectives as detailed under Clause 11 below.

 

Clause 11 Zone No 2B (Residential B Zone)

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

 

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

 

·      To provide for a low to medium density residential environment, and

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

·      To protect the amenity of existing residents, and

·      To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposed development is compatible with the desired low to medium density residential environment. The proposal will provide additional residential accommodation for the area and the proposal will have a bulk and scale that is commensurate with the adjoining development.

 

As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

Clause 22 - Services

Adequate facilities for supply of water, disposal of sewage and drainage are required to support a proposed development.

 

The provision of utility services will be required by appropriate conditions of consent.

 

Clause 40 - Earthworks

Clause 40 of the Randwick LEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require minor earthworks to be undertaken to construct foundations for the building. The works are required to make the site functional for the proposed development but will not result in any detrimental impact on the topography of the site; subject to conditions is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability. Council Development Engineers have expressed no objections with regard to flooding matters and have imposed appropriate drainage conditions to be incorporated into any development consent granted.

 

Conditions have been recommended requiring dilapidation reports to be submitted in relation to retaining walls and dwellings on adjoining sites that sit within the zone of influence associated with proposed excavations. Recommended conditions also require all excavations to 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 to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings where necessary. The volume and nature of earthworks proposed are not likely to have any impact on the future use or development potential of the site. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

(b)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Under the LEP 2012, the subject site is located in the R3 Zone – Medium Density Development. The objectives of the zone are:

 

(a)   To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

(b)   To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

(c)   To enable other land uses that provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

(d)   To recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.

(e)   To protect the amenity of residents.

(f)   To encourage housing affordability.

(g)   To enable small scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of R3 zone under the LEP 2012, in that it is compatible with the desired medium density character of the area which is characterised by a mix of residential types including multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings.

 

The main development standards applicable to the site in accordance with the Randwick LEP 2012 are outlined below. The amended proposal complies with the development standards in Randwick LEP 2012.

 

Draft LEP Clause

Draft LEP Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Floor Space Ratio.

0.9:1

0.711:1 (or 310.36m² GFA)

 

Yes

Building Height.

12 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

Applicant’s calculation: Max. 8.4m

 

Council’s calculation: Max. Approximately 8.89m

Yes

 

12. Policy Controls

a.      Development Control Plan - Multi Unit Housing

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

The application was accompanied by a site analysis plan reflecting the elements of the proposed development.  

 

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

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

The site is of regular shape and is a corner allotment having two frontages.  The Carrington Road frontage is 7.01m with a corner splay of 3.45m.  The Dolphin Street frontage is 44.045m. 

 

The development is located to the Dolphin Street frontage. While the main frontage width is to Carrington Road, there is more than adequate dimension along Dolphin Street to cater for the proposed development of an additional unit. 

 

The scale and density of the proposal is considered to be acceptable and adequate setbacks from the side boundaries have been provided which is consistent with adjoining properties.

 

Therefore, it is considered that the dimension and configuration of the site is suitable for the medium density housing purposes.

 

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

No works are proposed to the Carrington Road frontage.  The proposed development is along the Dolphin Street frontage and the development addresses this frontage appropriately.

Height

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

 

 

 

The building complies with the LEP maximum height controls of 9.5m; however, the external wall height of the development is 8.5m.

 

The proposed wall heights, location and orientation of the building do not cause adverse impacts to the streetscape or adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk, scale or unreasonable overshadowing.

 

The proposed height of the building will sit comfortably in its built form context.  The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are met.

 

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.

 

Building Setbacks

P1 Front boundary setbacks - The front setback consistent with streetscape.

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Carrington Road and Dolphin Street. Its position as a corner site creates a situation where it effectively has two street frontages; however, it would be unreasonable to impose a requirement that both frontages respect the established front setbacks of both Carrington Road and Dolphin Street and to require that both elevations address the streetscape as a front elevation. As such, the treatment of the Dolphin Street façade is considered to be appropriate and, furthermore, has been designed with respect to the established setback of the site. Also, it would be difficult to achieve the average setback along the street and still providing a functional floor plate.

 

The proposed planter box to the front of the building will soften the appearance of the building once viewed from the public domain.

 

Overall, the building design provides appropriate articulation with use of dormer style windows within the roof form, different building material and finishes to create visual interest to the façade of the building.

 

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

·      Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·      Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

·      Landscaping and private open space provided.

·      Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

The building is setback 1m on the ground floor level and 1.36m on the first floor level from the northern and southern side boundaries.

 

The proposed development does not adopt a minimum average setback of 5m from any side boundary and the maximum length of wall without articulation is greater than 10 metres on the ground floor level.  Also, the development does not adopt a minimum length of 3m for any step in the wall.

 

While the proposal does not adopt the preferred side setback solution of the DCP, it will achieve the performance requirements of the control in that:

·     Reasonable levels of solar access are maintained to the adjoining properties.

·     Subject to conditions privacy is adequately maintained between adjoining dwellings and adjoining rear private open spaces. 

·     Adequate landscaping and private open space is provided for the site.

·     The amenity of the streetscape will be retained in that the new development sits comfortably in its built form context and is consistent with the setbacks found in the street.

Overall, the detached building is well articulated as it adopting an attic style design on the first level which minimises the bulk of the structure as viewed from the public domain.

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

·      Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

·      Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

·      Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

 

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

 

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

The proposed setback will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing, visual privacy or visual bulk impacts to surrounding properties or the street. See discussion below for detailed assessment relating to density and privacy. 

 

Adequate communal area is retained to the centre of the site between the existing building and proposed unit which allows for recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces.

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation is approximately 7.45m. Complies.

 

P4  General

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

S4

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

There are no unreasonable 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.

 

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the character of the locality and the proposed detached building maintain even distribution of scale and form to ensure that adequate character/scale elements are afforded to the streetscape.

Building bulk has been distributed to avoid unacceptable impacts upon adjacent properties. (Refer to the SEPP 1 objection in Section 5.1).

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:   

·    consistent with streetscape;

·    Entrances highlighted; and

·    Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

The proposal includes a new planter box to the front of the unit which is located on the Dolphin Street boundary frontage and a vertical blade wall for the mail box.

The proposed planter box and blade wall to the Dolphin Street boundary frontage will create visual interest to the front of the building, will improve the visual athletics of the building and presentation to the rear of the subject site; and will integrate positively with the building and established fencing form and arrangement in the streetscape.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1

Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Landscaped area complies with LEP development standard.

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

 

A communal area is retained to the centre of the site between the existing building and proposed unit.  Currently the rear communal open space to the rear of the site is not fully utilised due to typography of the site.  The proposal will be slightly improving the rear communal area; however it was advised by Council’s Development Engineers that the site can not be fully flattened due to flooding concerns.

 

In addition to the above, the proposal provided for one new private balcony which is off the open living area.  This balcony provides useful area of private open space for outdoor living and recreation which will serve the needs of the future occupants and provide a reasonable standard of amenity. 

 

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Private open space in the form of balcony is provided for the proposed unit. As discussed above the balcony is readily accessible from the living area and offer adequate opportunities for outdoor recreation/living.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

P6  Flats and apartments

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

S6

Minimum of 8m2 and minimum dimension of 2 metres.

The rear private balcony is 8m² and is off the living area. Complies.

 

 

 

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

S1

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

The window and door openings along the southern elevation are considered to be acceptable as they will overlook the street. The window openings along the northern elevation are also acceptable as they have fixed obscure glazing provided to the bottom panel of the window or are of obscure glazing.  However, some of the proposed window openings to the eastern and western elevations maybe impose privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties and therefore, a condition is included which requires one of the follow design measures to be implemented:

 

·    Use of fixed obscured glazing to a sill height of 1.5m; or

·    Installation of external screening devices; or

·    Provision of 1.5m high sill windows.

 

The following window openings are of concern:

 

East elevation:

The kitchen window opening on the ground floor to the far northern end of the eastern elevation.

 

West elevation:

The two bathroom window openings on the first floor level.

 

The remaining window openings to the eastern and western elevation are acceptable as will either overlook the street, rear yard of the subject site or have fixed obscure glazing provided to the bottom panel of the window openings.

 

Provided one of he following privacy measures are implemented to the above window openings, the proposed development should not compromise privacy levels of the adjoining sites. The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Visual & Acoustic Privacy will be satisfied.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

The rear facing balcony at the elevated ground floor level is adequately screened to minimise direct overlooking of the adjoining properties.

 

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Layout is satisfactory for internal acoustic privacy.

 

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

This aspect of the proposal would need to comply with BCA.

View Sharing

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

 

Not applicable.

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

 

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

The proposal has been designed to minimise loss of solar access. Complies

 

 

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

 

The proposal will not result in unreasonable overshadowing impacts on the solar panels on the rooftops of adjoining dwellings.

 

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

 

The living room windows of neighbouring properties will not be impacted by the proposed development as the shadows will cast on the street.

 

 

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.

 

Shadow diagrams indicate that there will be no unreasonable overshadowing impacts as majority of the overshadowing will cast on the footpath, street and adjoining property’s driveway.

 

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 certificate has been provided and considered acceptable.

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

The proposed roof design is considered satisfactory in relation to supporting any potential future installation of solar panels. Complies

 

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

The building design allows for adequate street surveillance with the living and bedroom windows overlooking the street.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

No unnecessarily high walls. Complies.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

There is no off-street parking currently available on the site. Council’s DCP for parking only requires that additional parking be provided to cater for additional demands arising from increased in floor space or change of use.  

 

The applicant will only be required to provide parking for the additional 2 bedroom unit.  Therefore, the existing parking deficiency of 5 car parking spaces is acceptable and is considered as a parking credit.

 

Council’s DCP-Parking for multi unit dwellings requires that an additional 1.2 (or 1) spaces be provided for a 2 bedroom dwelling. This is proposed within the new garage which is accessed off Dolphin Street. Complies.

 

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

 

The proposed garage is incorporated within the design of the building and will not dominate the frontage in relation to bulk and scale.

 

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

 

Not required as the development comprises of only five (5) units.

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

No bicycle spaces are currently provided on the site.  Council’s DCP-Parking for multi unit dwellings requires that 1 space per 3 units, plus 1 visitor’s space per 10 units be provided. 

No bicycle spaces are proposed. The proposal is only for one (1) additional unit and therefore, no additional bicycle spaces are required.

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised

 

The areas occupied by the access driveway are considered to be satisfactory and will not result in unacceptable visual impacts.

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

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

 

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

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

Not applicable. 

 

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.

Driveway measures three (3) metres in width. Complies.

 

Driveway is setback 1.5 metres from the western boundary. Complies.

 

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

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

 

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

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

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

 

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

There is adequate area within the unit to provide accessible storage area.  Also a walk-in-wardrobe is included within the dwelling.  Complies

 

 

 

13. 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

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

 

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

Not applicable.

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

 

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Multi-Unit Housing.

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.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development is consistent with the medium density character of the area which includes a mix of residential types including multi-unit housing.

 

Despite the constraints of the site in terms of topography and flooding issues, the proposal sits comfortably in its built form context and is consistent with similar development within the streetscape in terms of its height, bulk and scale.

 

The SEPP No. 1 Objections lodged with respect to non-compliance with the floor space ratio and maximum external wall height standards as stipulated by the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) are considered to be well founded. The proposal will not result in unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, view sharing, solar access and privacy.

 

The development does not comply with the existing FSR control but is compliant with the control under the Draft LEP 2012 which reflects the desired future character of the area.

 

The design carries satisfactory architectural merits and will be sympathetic to the character of the existing streetscape.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20F & 20G of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Floor space ratios & Building heights respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/181/2012 for construction of part 2/part 3 storey detached residential unit with garage to rear of existing building with access from Dolphin Street, at No. 230A Carrington Road, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

A-01 (Issue A)

John Spiteri - Design & Drafting

11/02/2013

12 February 2013

A-02 (Issue A)

John Spiteri - Design & Drafting

11/02/2013

12 February 2013

A-03 (Issue A)

John Spiteri - Design & Drafting

11/02/2013

12 February 2013

A-04 (Issue A)

John Spiteri - Design & Drafting

11/02/2013

12 February 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

417480S_02

20 February 2013

22 February 2013

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.           The following windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.5m above floor level or be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height. Alternatively, external louvers must be provided below this specified height and fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking:

 

East elevation:

The kitchen window opening on the ground floor to the far northern end of the eastern elevation.

 

West elevation:

The two bathroom window openings on the first floor level.

 

3.       The undercroft area on the lower ground floor plan shall not be used for storage below RL 19.7 AHD.

 

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

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

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

5.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

6.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $330,000, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $3300.

       

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

7.       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

8.       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:

 

·           $2000.00    -      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

9.       The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage in Dolphin Street.

 

The design alignment level/s at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

    Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0881.

 

10.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $135.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Driveway Design

11.     The gradient of the internal access driveway and carspace must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

Stormwater Drainage & Flood Management

12.     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.

 

13.     The site stormwater drainage system is to be provided in accordance with the following requirements;

 

a)          The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

 

i.     Directly to the kerb and gutter or drainage system located at the front of the subject site in Dolphin Street; or

 

ii.    Directly into Council’s underground drainage system located in Dolphin Street via a new kerb inlet pit and section of pipe

 

b)          Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, an on-site stormwater detention system must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the site does not exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of one hour duration for existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the street drainage system, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

An overland escape route or overflow system (to Council’s street drainage system) must be provided for storms having an average recurrence interval of 100 years (1 in 100 year storm), or, alternatively the stormwater detention system is to be provided to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm.

 

c)          Determination of the required cumulative storage (in the on-site detention and/or infiltration system) must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible any detention tanks should have an open base to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. Infiltration should not be used if ground water and/or any rock stratum is within 2.0 metres of the base of the tank.

 

d)     If connecting to Council’s underground drainage system, a reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over the pipeline discharging from the site to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

e)     Any new kerb inlet pits (constructed within Council’s road reserve) are to be constructed generally in accordance with Council’s standard detail for the design of kerb inlet pits (drawing number SD6 which is available from Council).

 

f)      Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (i.e. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage (detention/infiltration) system.

 

g)     A sediment/silt arrestor pit must be provided within the site near the street boundary prior to discharge of the stormwater to Council’s drainage system.

 

Sediment/silt arrestor pits are to be constructed generally in accordance with the following requirements:

·         The base of the pit being located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

·         The pit being constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

·         A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (or equivalent) located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

·         A galvanised heavy-duty screen being provided over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

·         The grate being a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

·         A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system being provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

·         Provision of a sign adjacent to the pit stating, “This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned”.

 

Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

h)     The floor level of all habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas located adjacent to any detention and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be provided.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

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

 

j)      Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line.

 

k)     Any onsite detention areas shall be located in areas easily accessible.

 

14.     The proposed development shall be designed to structurally withstand hydrostatic pressure/stormwater inundation from floodwater during the probable maximum flood (PMF) event as defined in the Floodplain Management Manual (New South Wales Government, January 2001). Structural Engineering certification confirming that this condition has been complied with shall be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate.

 

This requirement does not necessitate the development being flood proof/water tight up to the PMF event, rather the requirement is to ensure that the development will not be structurally damaged in manner that could endanger lives during the PMF event.

 

15.     All proposed footings located adjacent to the existing drainage easement shall either be:

 

A.       Founded on rock, or;

B.       Extend below a 30 degrees line taken from the level of the pipe invert at the edge of the drainage easement (angle of repose).

Structural details demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

Street Tree Removal

16.     The applicant shall submit a payment of $350.00 (including GST), being to cover:

 

a.       The cost for Council to remove the existing street tree, Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) from the Dolphin Street verge, being the central tree in the row of three towards the western half of the site, so as to accommodate the new vehicle crossing associated with the proposed granny flat as shown;    

b.       The cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre replacement, Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia), further to the east, an equal distance between the existing most eastern tree and the corner of Carrington Road at the completion of all works.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working weeks notice to arrange for removal of the street tree prior to the commencement of site works, as well as upon completion, to arrange for planting of the replacement street tree.

 

Protection of Street Trees

17.     In order to ensure retention of the two remaining street trees on the Dolphin Street verge, being one Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) to the west of the proposed vehicle crossing, in line with the western site boundary, and then another Brush Box to the east of the proposed vehicle crossing in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of both trees, with the position and diameter of their trunks and canopies to be clearly and accurately shown.

b.       The plans must show that the western edge of the proposed vehicle crossing will be setback a minimum distance of 1.2m off the trunk of the western street tree (measured off its outside edge at ground level), with any other excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar over public property to be located along the eastern edge of the crossing.

c.       Both trees are to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 1 metre to their east and west (measured off the outside edge of its trunks at ground level), matching up with the back of the kerb to their south, and the pedestrian footpath to their north, in order to completely enclose both trees for the duration of works.

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

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

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

g.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card or cheque for an amount of $1,000.00 shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of the trees.

 

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

 

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

 

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

18.     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

19.     Smoke alarms are required to be installed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (volume 2) and smoke alarms must comply with AS3786.  Smoke alarms must be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.  Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

BASIX Requirements

20.     In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

22.     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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

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

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

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

 

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

·            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 Plan

27.     A Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development.

 

The Waste Management Plan must provide details of the type and quantities of demolition and construction waste materials, proposed re-use and recycling of materials, methods of disposal and details of recycling outlets and land fill sites.

 

Where practicable waste materials must be re-used or recycled, rather than disposed and further details of Council's requirements including relevant guidelines and pro-forma WMP forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre or by telephoning Council on 9399 0999.

 

Details and receipts verifying the recycling and disposal of materials must be kept on site at all times and presented to Council officers upon request.

 

Construction Traffic Management

28.     Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, an Application for a ‘Works Zone’ and Construction Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Councils Integrated Transport Department, and approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee, for a ‘Works Zone’ to be provided in Dolphin Street for the duration of the  construction works. 

 

The ‘Works Zone’ must have a minimum length of 12m and extend for a minimum duration of three months.  The suitability of the proposed length and duration is to be demonstrated in the application for the Works Zone.  The application for the Works Zone must be submitted to Council at least six (6) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site to allow for assessment and tabling of agenda for the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

The requirement for a Works Zone may be varied or waived only if it can be demonstrated in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic Engineers) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) can and will be undertaken wholly within the site.  The written approval of Council must be obtained to provide a Works Zone or to waive the requirement to provide a Works Zone prior to the commencement of any site work.

 

29.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to:

 

a)     commencement of any site work [or]

b)     a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must include the following details, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

·       A description of the demolition, excavation and construction works

·       A site plan/s showing the site, roads, footpaths, site access points and vehicular movements

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

·       Size, type and estimated number of vehicular movements (including removal of excavated materials, delivery of materials and concrete to the site)

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

·       Impacts of the work and vehicular movements on the road network, traffic and pedestrians

·       Proposed hours of construction related activities and vehicular movements to and from the site

·       Current/proposed approvals from other Agencies and Authorities (including NSW Roads & Traffic Authority, Police and State Transit Authority)

·       Any activities proposed to be located or impact upon Council’s road, footways or any public place

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience

 

Sydney Water

30.     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

31.     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.

 

32.     The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, 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

33.     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

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

 

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

35.     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

36.     All work and activities must be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·           Work Health and Safety Act 2011

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·           Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·           Relevant Office of Environment & Heritage / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

37.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

A copy of the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

a)     Public access to the building site and materials must be restricted by existing boundary fencing or temporary site fencing having a minimum height of 1.5m, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

b)     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.

 

c)     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.

 

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

 

e)     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.

 

f)      Site fencing, building materials, bulk bins/waste containers and other articles must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building and Regulatory Services department.

 

g)     Adequate provisions must be made to ensure pedestrian safety and traffic flow during the site works and traffic control measures are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Roads and Traffic Manual “Traffic Control at Work Sites” (Version 4), to the satisfaction of Council.

 

h)     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

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

 

40.     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, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

41.     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 (e.g. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

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

 

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

 

Survey Requirements

42.     A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or other suitable documentation must be obtained at the following stage/s of construction to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·            prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of the footings or first completed floor slab,

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

·            as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

The survey documentation must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority for the development.  

 

Building Encroachments

43.     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

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

 

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

 

Site Amenities

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

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

46.     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 Removals

47.     Approval is granted for removal of the stand of Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Trees) located centrally in the rear yard, due to their poor condition, being recognised as environmental weeds, as well as due to their direct conflict with the proposed granny flat as shown.

 

Tree Replacement

48.     The approval described above is subject to the planting of at least 1 x 100 litre (pot/bag size at the time of planting) native tree (not a palm) in the rear yard, which shall be located a minimum distance of 3m from any building, and must be a species which will achieve a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

Landscaping

49.     In order to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity at this site, the existing planter box along the southern site boundary, between the proposed granny flat and existing unit block, shall either be retained in-situ along with the existing Dypsis lutescens (Golden Cane Palms); or; shall be re-constructed, to provide a minimum soil width and depth of 1m, to which, species which will achieve a similar size and function to the existing Palms shall be planted.

 

50.     So as to maximise both the amount and usability of private open space that is available to future occupants, the steep fall of the land to the north shall be addressed through terracing to create a level area in the lower, northern half of the rear yard, with details explaining how this will be achieved to be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

Footings adjacent to easements

51.     Any footings adjacent to the drainage easement/s must be inspected by the applicant's engineer to ensure that these footings are either founded on rock or extend below the "angle of repose”. Documentary evidence of compliance with this condition is to be submitted to certifying authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction.

 

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

52.     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

53.     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

54.     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 (excluding upon any front or street elevation of the building) 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 issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

55.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)       Construct a concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

56.     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.

 

57.     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.

 

58.     That part of the nature-strip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicant’s expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

Sydney Water Requirements

59.     A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. 

 

Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following the application, a “Notice of Requirements” will be provided, detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Compliance Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing of an Occupation Certificate or Strata certificate (whichever the sooner).

 

Stormwater Drainage

60.     Upon completion of the works and prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council. The works-as-executed plan must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·      The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

·      Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·      Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

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

·      The orifice size/s (if applicable);

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

 

61.     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.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION/STRATA CERTIFICATE

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing a ‘Subdivision certificate’ or ‘Strata Certificate’.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

66.     Prior to the issuing of a strata certificate or occupation of the development (whichever the sooner), a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88B or 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

Notes:

a.  The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

b.  The works as executed drainage plan and hydraulic certification must be submitted to Council prior to the “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” being executed by Council.

 

67.     Prior to the issuing of a strata certificate or occupation of the development (whichever the sooner), a "restriction on the use of land”  (under section 88B or 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure the subfloor area below the  new dwelling must not be enclosed or used for the storage of goods. Such restriction shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

a)    The “restriction on the use of land” is to be to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

69.     The conditions of this development consent must be satisfied and all public roads and reserves must be satisfactorily restored prior to endorsement of the strata subdivision plans.

 

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

70.     The premises is to be used as a single residential dwelling only at all times and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

External Lighting

71.     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.

 

Street Numbering

72.     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.

 

Waste Management

73.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Plant & Equipment

74.     The operation of all plant and equipment on the premises 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 Office of Environment & Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

Air Conditioners

75.     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.

 

Rainwater Tanks

76.     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.

 

77.     The site stormwater system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it operates as required by the design.

 

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).

 

A8      The finished ground levels external to the building must be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised, other than for the provision of approved paving or the like on the ground.

 

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     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.

 

A11     The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  9 April 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D23/13

 

 

Subject:                  15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/465/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/465/2012

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Senior Environmental Planner     

1.    Introduction

 

The application details the construction of a deck (11.85m x 14.5m) over the existing swimming pool. The deck is proposed to cover the pool, extending over the watercourse on the northern edge of the site and will also feature a centre void to allow light to the lower levels and staircase which allows access to the foreshore. The level of the new deck is to match the existing deck at the lower ground level of the dwelling. 

 

A new concrete slab is also proposed to bridge the gap between the rear yard of the site and the new deck.

 

The application was reported was recommended for refusal and to Council at its Planning Committee Meeting held on 12 February 2013.  At the meeting, it was resolved:

 

(Andrews/Stavrinos) that the application be deferred to enable the deficiencies in the documentation/plans (particularly with respect to fencing details; RLs indicating appropriate levels in comparison to the height scale of the proposal and similar structures located on the adjoining properties; and also plans to show the location of existing windows, opening decks and outdoor areas on adjacent sites) to be addressed.

 

Subsequently, the following additional/amended documentation was received by Council on 21 February 2013: -

 

·      Statement of environmental effects dated 21 February 2013, reference No. 0041/13, prepared by Planning Ingenuity Consultant Town Planners. 

·      Plan (details of deck over pool and gully) dated 22/2/12, numbered 2012-1 Rev B.

·      Plan (section demonstrating overlooking impacts) dated 22/2/12, numbered 2012-6 Rev A.  

 

Accordingly, additional assessment is carried out below based on the amended plans and supplementary statement.

 

2.    Notification

 

The amended plans and SEE were renotified to the residents who submitted objections to the original plans accompanying the application from 27 February – 13 March 2013 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the renotification period from Asquare Planning and Planet Urban (Planning and Development Consultants) on behalf of the owners of Nos. 19 and 13 Seaside Parade, respectively.

 

The objections raise a number of issues, most which reiterate the concerns raised in the original submissions. Additional matters raised in response to the renotification are addressed below (for the purpose of avoiding repetition, only additional matters have been grouped and addressed).

 

·      The area of the proposed deck would allow for it to be used for entertainment purposes and accommodate many people. This, combined with the levels proposed would result in impacts to acoustic privacy

 

As discussed in the original assessment report in relation to potential noise impacts from use of the proposed deck, it should be noted the size of the proposed deck is not dissimilar to that of the existing deck at No. 19 Seaside. Further, detailed site inspections have revealed that large, open style decks and terraces are features on almost every property along this section of Seaside Parade to talk advantage of the panoramic ocean views to the east.

 

In this respect, the future use of the deck and the potential for disturbance (as is present on all of the surrounding properties) does not in itself warrant refusal of the application. It is further noted that the size and location of the decks at Nos. 19 and 21 Seaside Parade also allow for the accommodation of large number of people and have been constructed for outdoor recreation and entertainment purposes.

 

·      Overlooking into habitable areas of No. 19 Seaside Parade

·      The proposed glass balustrades, whilst allowing for the preservation of views, does not address privacy matters

·      Any privacy screening would exacerbate the bulk and scale of the proposal

 

In relation to potential overlooking from the proposed deck, it must be noted that decks, terraces and balconies are evident to nearly all of the properties located along this side of Seaside Parade. These decks, etc, are generally unscreened and are located to take advantage of panoramic ocean views to the east. In this regard, a certain level of mutual overlooking is evident and expected in the area.  As such, when assessed against the relevant considerations for visual privacy, the proposed development adopts a similar arrangement that already characterises the area. Any requirements for privacy screening would exacerbate potential view loss issues and the appearance of bulk and scale, particularly for properties to the north and south of the site.

 

Nos. 19 and 21 Seaside Parade also feature clear glass balustrades to preserve existing views which do not serve to address any matters of mutual overlooking.  

 

In addition, most of the east facing habitable rooms (primary living areas) of the dwellings along this side of Seaside Parade have been fitted with full height glazing to maximise views to the ocean. As confirmed by detailed site inspections, many of these habitable areas are already visible from existing outdoor spaces (and some windows/openings) of surrounding properties when looking back toward the west or obliquely over the side boundaries. It is unreasonable to expect the same degree of privacy in this area as one would anticipate from an area where ocean views are not available and dwellings have been designed such that living areas/outdoor open space are screened and located away from each other.

 

·      The timber deck would result in noise impact through foot traffic

 

Timber is a standard construction material commonly used for the construction of decks. The use of timber is consistent with most, if not all of the existing decks ancillary to dwellings along this side of Seaside Parade. There is no evidence to suggest that the use of timber results in unacceptable acoustic impacts with ordinary residential use. It is noted that both Nos. 13 and 19 Seaside also have decks constructed of timber.

 

·      The proposed installation of a light pole at the north-eastern corner of the deck has the potential for adverse light impacts to the adjacent master bedroom of No. 13 Seaside Parade. Its height and type/lux have not been provided.

 

The proposed light pole is located at the furthest north eastern corner of the deck. Should lighting form part of any future application for the subject site, an appropriate condition can be imposed to ensure that 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.

 

·      Close range overlooking into windows of No. 13 Seaside Parade

 

The proposed deck has an RL of 19.52, which is consistent with the existing rear yard level of the subject site. The lower ground bedroom windows at No. 13 have sill and head heights of RL 16.33 and RL 18.22, respectively.

 

These windows are located 1.3m below the finished level of the deck. At this level, the deck (which extends to the shared boundary between Nos. 15 and 13) will essentially cover these windows and direct overlooking whilst standing on top of the deck is not possible.

 

At the height of the proposed deck, the southern elevation of the ground floor level of No. 13 is at the same level of the deck and does not have any significant window openings. The existing south facing ground floor window at No. 13 already aligns with the rear yard of the subject site and overlooking into this window is already possible.

 

The first and second floor windows are also visible from the existing first floor timber balcony and rear yard of the subject site.     

 

·      Amended SEE raises a query as to whether the number and treatment of windows to the lower ground floor level southern elevation of No. 13 Seaside Parade have been approved by Council. There are no reasonable grounds for Council to require their deletion or alteration.

 

The question of the validity of any consents granted for, or alleged unauthorised works on other sites do not form a head of consideration under the assessment of the current proposal. Council officers have undertaken detailed site inspections of the subject and surroundings site and have not relied solely upon the information contained in the SEE. 

 

3.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

3.1         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The site is zoned 2A under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the property is within the foreshore scenic protection area, the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. However, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will detract from the aesthetic character and environmental qualities of the locality.

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls:-

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-      Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, as amended.

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection

-      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

-      Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

-      Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

Clause 2    Aims

The aims/objectives of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) are listed under Clause 2 of the LEP. With reference to these general aims, the proposed development will derogate from the stated aims of the LEP in relation to the aesthetic character, sustainability, environmental qualities, and amenity of the locality and will compromise the amenity of the residential area, consistent with the zone objectives.

 

More specifically, the proposal will contravene aim (g) of the Clause 2:

 

·      The aim of Clause 2 (g) is "to promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the City".

 

The proposal, as described and assessed in the relevant sections below, will result in a development that fails to meet this relevant aim of the LEP as the size and location of the deck will not fit into the existing context of development in the locality and will compromise the overall character of the surrounding foreshore area.

 

Clause 9 - Objectives

Clause 9 of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) requires Council to consider the aims of the LEP and Zone objectives prior to determining any DA on land to which the RLEP applies. The purpose of this Clause is “To require the general aims of this plan and the specific objectives of each zone to be taken into account in the assessment and determination of development applications”.

 

An assessment of the proposal against the general aims of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) has been undertaken in the preceding section above under Clause 2 Aims.  

 

The following Clauses of the RLEP are relevant for merit assessment purposes:

 

Clause 10 – Zone 2A (Residential A Zone)

An assessment of relevant objectives of the Residential 2A zone follows in the paragraph below.

 

·      To maintain the character of established residential areas; and

·      To protect the amenity of existing residents

 

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed form and location of the deck will detract from the aesthetic character and environmental qualities of the locality. The proposal will also give rise to additional adverse impacts to the solar access and aesthetic amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties in the context of a highly sensitive foreshore area. As such, the proposal is not considered to demonstrate consistency with the above objectives and is recommended for refusal accordingly.


Clause 29           Foreshore scenic protection area

The main issue relating to the proposed development is ensuring that it is sympathetic and protects the natural coastal features of the site and the coastal foreshore. Relevant instruments providing guidance on the assessment of development along the foreshore include Clause 29 of the RLEP “Foreshore scenic protection Area”.

 

Clause 29 of the RLEP states that Council, as the consent authority may only grant consent to a building within the foreshore scenic protection area after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore. The purpose of the Clause is to protect and improve the visual qualities of visually prominent areas along the coast.

 

Clause 29 also requires development to be contained within a 30m foreshore building line.

 

The proposal achieves numerical compliance at the north-eastern corner of the deck only. Whilst it is acknowledged that the development is generally aligned with the rear setback of adjoining structures, it is considered that the low lying topography (due to the more significant drop of the site toward the rear and the presence of a natural ravine) in comparison to that of the adjoining sites results in a structure that is elevated significantly above and over the majority of the gully and the cliff face, obstructing impressive views of the coastal foreshore.

 

Consequently, the proposal is deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 29 and recommended for refusal.

 

3.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 was gazetted on 15 February 2013. Clause 1.8A (Savings provision relating to development applications) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 requires that a development application lodged but not finally determined prior to the appointed day will continue to be assessed and determined under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) that was in force immediately before the commencement of this plan. That is, if a development application has been made before the commencement of the RLEP 2012 has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if the RLEP 2012 had not commenced.

 

The subject application was lodged on 24 July 2012 and is therefore subject to the savings provision. Notwithstanding this, a brief assessment is carried out below under the relevant provisions of the RLEP 2012.

 

Clause 1.2   Aims of Plan

The aims/objectives of the Randwick LEP 2012 are listed under Clause 1.2 of the LEP. The proposal will contravene the following aims of the Clause 1.2(2):

 

(d)  to achieve a high standard of design in the private and public domain that enhances the quality of life of the community,

(i)  to protect, enhance and promote the environmental qualities of Randwick,

(j)  to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage, aesthetic and coastal character of Randwick,

 

With reference to these general aims, the proposed development will derogate from the stated aims of the LEP in relation to the adverse impact of the proposal on both the private and public domain, visual and environmental qualities, and more significantly, the proposal does not ensure the conservation of the aesthetic and coastal character of Randwick. As such, the proposal is not considered to demonstrate consistency with the relevant aims of the RLEP 2012.

Zone R2 Low Density Residential - 1 Objectives of zone

It is noted that the subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the RLEP 2012 in which the proposal is permissible.

 

The relevant objectives of the zone R2 Low Density Residential are as follows: -

 

•   To recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form or, in precincts undergoing transition, that contribute to the desired future character of the area.

•   To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development remains inconsistent with the relevant objectives for the zone R2 as it fails to adopt a desirable built form, detracts the future character of the area and compromises the amenity of existing residents.

 

3.3      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection

The subject site is identified as being within the Coastal Zone as defined under the Coastal Protection Act 1979. Accordingly, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 applies to the proposed development.

 

The aims of this policy are to protect and manage the natural attributes of the New South Wales coast, ensure the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and protect and preserve rock platforms to ensure that development is of a type, bulk, scale and size that is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area.

 

Part 2 of this policy sets out the matters for consideration of development which in addition to the aims of the policy includes;

 

a)     the suitability of development given it’s type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area,

b)     any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore,

c)     the scenic qualities of the NSW coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities.

 

Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires the Government Coastal Policy to be taken into consideration by a consent authority (in this instance, Council) when determining development applications in the local government areas identified in that clause or on land to which the Policy applies.

 

Part 8 of the SEPP sets out the following relevant matters for consideration:

 

Part 8 - Matters for consideration

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Having regard to the overall aims and subsequent matters for consideration when determining a development application, it is concluded that the proposed elevated deck over the existing swimming pool is unsuitable due to its high degree of visibility within the local area which detract from both the amenity and scenic qualities of the coastal environment.

 

4.    Policy Controls

Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

The DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding Preferred Solutions. Therefore, paragraphs below assess the proposal against the Preferred Solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements. 

 

Height, Form & Materials

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.

 

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 verandahs, eaves and parapets; with respect to additions to semi-detached dwellings they integrate with the attached dwelling; and views are shared.

 

The proposal does not meet the performance requirements of the DCP with regard to height and form. Specifically, the elevated nature of the deck does not relate to similar structures within the surrounding foreshore area and does not respond to the topography of the site. The DCP further stipulates that the height and form of buildings and ancillary structures should be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the area by adopting where relevant, characteristics of mass and proportion and allow for equitable sharing of views.

 

The amended plans indicate a proposed height of RL 19.52, which is suspended approximately 4.47m above the lower rock shelf (which has an approximate RL 15.05 when measured from the deepest section of the existing pool) and 14.214m from the lowest part of the ravine.

 

Nearby sites (as cited in the original assessment repot) feature the following outdoor recreation space arrangement: -

 

·      No. 9 Seaside Parade – deck at RL 15.50 spanning approximately three quarters of the site width. The proposed deck lies 4.02m above this deck.

 

·      No. 13 Seaside Parade – triangular terrace with RL 20.2 which occupies less than half of the width of the site tapering off ass it approached the foreshore building line. This terrace is located upon the roof section of the lower ground floor (master bedroom etc). Despite that height at which this terrace has been constructed, it is noted that the “rear yard” of No. 13 is relatively event and the pool and associated terrace rest upon, or is cut into the existing rock outcrop.

 

·      No. 19 Seaside Parade – existing rear lower ground floor deck at RL 17.07 extending along the entire width of the site. The proposed deck lies 2.45m above this deck.

 

The proposed deck will extend along the entire width of the subject site and be elevated over the rock bed.

 

It detracts from the existing visual qualities of the site, does not adopt a comparable height or built form which is proportionate to similar structures on surrounding properties, and obstructs the unencumbered view of the natural cliff face and gulley. This significantly compromises the integrity of this very sensitive and visually spectacular location. In addition, the proposed height and scale of the deck is significantly higher than that of surrounding decks and will be highly visible from the main internal and alfresco living areas of the adjoining properties. The deck will be visually imposing when viewed from adjacent sites and will create an adverse impact to the outlook currently shared by the dwellings along the foreshore.

 

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.

 

Clause 4.4 of the DCP notes that unroofed terraces may encroach beyond the side, front and rear setbacks stipulated by the DCP (that is, set back less than the preferred solution of be built to the boundary) if it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the streetscape or adjoining development. Further, the proposal is required to demonstrate that the performance requirements in relation to neighbours privacy and access to light, air and views would be met and clearly address these considerations in the SEE.

 

The proposal does meet the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to setbacks and as discussed in the relevant sections of this report, does not demonstrate suitable justification for this departure.

 

Under Clause 4.4 (Building Setbacks) of the DCP, the preferred solution is that no part of the building be closer than 4.5m from rear boundary. Further, built elements are required to be set back 900mm from the side boundaries of the site at ground level.

 

Rear setbacks – for properties along this section of Seaside Parade, rear setbacks are defined in section 4.9.4 of the DCP which stipulate that apart from in-ground swimming pools, buildings on properties shown in figure 4.11 (shown below) do not encroach on the foreshore building line.

 

The amended plans indicate that the proposed deck encroaches 1.6m – 3.845m into the foreshore building line at the north eastern and south eastern corners, respectively. Whilst it is acknowledged that the development is generally aligned with the rear setback of adjoining structures, it is considered that the low lying topography (due to the more significant drop of the site toward the rear and the presence of a natural ravine) in comparison to that of the adjoining sites results in a structure that is elevated significantly above and over the majority of the gully and the cliff face, obstructing impressive views of the coastal foreshore.

 

Side setbacks – the proposed deck has also been given a nil setback to the southern side boundary adjacent to No. 13. At a finished deck level of RL 19.52, the deck will entirely cover the existing south facing windows (which have window and sill heights of RL 18.22 and 16.33, respectively).

 

The elevated nature of the deck will impinge on the outlook and ambient light currently enjoyed by No. 13 Seaside Parade. The south facing lower ground floor bedroom windows of No. 13 currently overlook the side of the existing pool (see photo below) and do not enjoy direct sunlight in mid winter due to their orientation.

 

Whilst the impact to solar access in itself is not a reason to warrant refusal of the application, it is considered that the design and location of the pool increases the impacts to the amenity enjoyed by No. 13 Seaside Parade and is not supported.

 

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, states aims of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the specific objectives of the 2A Residential zone in that the proposed built form will detract from the aesthetic character and environmental qualities of the locality.

 

Having regard to the nature of the site, the proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the intentions and objectives of the foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed position of the deck is unsympathetic to the surrounding foreshore area, obstructing the unencumbered view of the natural cliff face and gulley. This significantly compromises the integrity of this very sensitive and visually spectacular location. Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the recommendation below.

 

Visual & Acoustic 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.

Specifically, Clause 4.5 of the DCP with regard to visual and acoustic privacy has a preferred solution that direct views into the open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle. The proposed deck (as well as decks located on surrounding properties are unscreened and built within close proximity of each other/ windows and other openings). 

It should be noted that, with regard to potential overlooking from the proposed deck that decks, terraces and balconies are evident to nearly all of the properties located along this side of Seaside Parade. These decks, etc, are generally unscreened and are located to take advantage of panoramic ocean views to the east. In this regard, a certain level of mutual overlooking is evident and expected in the area.  As such, when assessed against the relevant considerations for visual privacy, the proposed development adopts a similar arrangement that already characterises the area. Any requirements for privacy screening would exacerbate potential view loss issues, particularly for properties to the north and south of the site

 

Foreshore Development

The objectives of the DCP with respect to foreshore development include that the landscaping and aesthetic qualities of the foreshore areas are protected and that the natural land form and water interface are conserved to maintain the original character of the foreshore. The Randwick LEP also requires in Clause 29, that Council must consider the probable aesthetic appearance of any proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

Clause 4.9 of the DCP sets out a number of performance requirements for development within foreshore areas including: -

 

·      No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

·      Building form, colours, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

·      Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

·      Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

·      Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

 

The foreshore building line as described in Figure 4.1 of the DCP is 30m from the front boundary of the properties in Seaside Parade.

 

The proposed deck is an ancillary structure to the existing dwelling and is elevated above the pool and base of the gulley which constitutes most of the rear yard of the property. The deck will be highly visible within the foreshore because of the elevated nature of the proposal and will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the foreshore. It is noted that there are similar swimming pools etc to the rear of the adjoining properties in Seaside Parade, however those structures are located on land and are not elevated above a natural landform as is the case in this proposal.

 

Following detailed assessment of the nature of the site and the proposed decking it is considered that the proposal does not comply with the intentions and objectives of the foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed position of the deck is unsympathetic to the surrounding foreshore area, obstructing the unencumbered view of the natural cliff face and gulley. This significantly compromises the integrity of this very sensitive and visually spectacular location.

 

Therefore, the proposed development is unsatisfactory as it is inconsistent with the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP and will result in an adverse visual impact of the existing qualities of the foreshore.

 

It is noted that there is an existing swimming pool at the lower level of the property which is in a somewhat dilapidated state and the existence of the swimming pool is noted as being historic. It is not an unreasonable assumption that this swimming pool and access to the swimming pool could be renovated in a sensitive manner which would not only improve the appearance of the swimming pool in this sensitive location, but also improve the amenity of the occupants by enabling this swimming pool to be again used for recreation purposes.

 

5.    Section 79C Environmental Assessment

 

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

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection

The proposed development does not comply with the purpose of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection. Having regard to the overall aims and subsequent matters for consideration when determining a development application, it is concluded that the proposed elevated deck over the existing swimming pool is unsuitable due to its high degree of visibility within the local area which detract from both the amenity and scenic qualities of the coastal environment.

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.

Notwithstanding this, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will detract from the aesthetic character and environmental qualities of the surrounding foreshore scenic protection area.

The provisions of Randwick LEP 2012 have also been considered in the assessment of the application. The application is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

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 comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will result in adverse impacts upon the integrity of the foreshore scenic protection area.

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 deck over the rear pool is not considered to be compatible with the surrounding natural and built environment and would unduly impact upon the amenity presently enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

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. However, the location, bulk and scale of the proposed deck is not suitable for the site as it severely compromises the visual qualities of the foreshore area, as well as creates significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.

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 will detract from the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the surrounding natural and built environment and compromise the amenity of the adjacent dwellings. The proposed works will result in a development which is inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development. Accordingly, 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 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Developments for the purpose of ancillary structures to residential dwellings are permissible with the consent of within Residential 2A Zones. However, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that the development it will detract from the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the area and compromise the amenity of the adjacent dwellings.

 

The coastal topography and features along this portion of the coast comprise a gradual fall in land away from adjoining sites forming a gully that contributes to the visual amenity of the coastal cliff face and the general foreshore.

 

The proposal’s bulk, height and siting will have an adverse impact on the foreshore scenic protection area. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

The proposal does not demonstrate consistency with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and will result in unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the character of the locality.

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the recommendation below.

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/465/2012 for the construction of a deck at the rear of the existing dwelling at No. 15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee for the reasons outlined below:

 

1.       The proposed development does not comply with the purpose of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection as its bulk, scale and high degree of visibility detracts from both the amenity and scenic qualities of the coastal environment.

 

2.       The proposed development does not comply with the purpose of Clause 29 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 by resulting in a detrimental and adverse visual impact upon the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

3.       The proposal encroaches upon the designated Foreshore Building line and is considered to be unacceptable in it’s form and siting as it will create an adverse impact on the existing environmental qualities of the foreshore area

 

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

 

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

(c)  Does not adequately protect the amenity of existing residents

 

5.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements for landscaping and private open space set-out in Clause 4.1 of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

6.       The proposal does not comply with the objectives of clause 4.9.2 of the of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancy development in that the proposal does not conserve the natural form of the land and water interface and the siting and location of the development does not respect the natural characteristics of the cliff and associated coastline.

 

7.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements for height, form and materials set-out in Clause 4.3 of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Report from Planning Committee on 12/02/2013

 

 

 

 


Report from Planning Committee on 12/02/2013

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D12/13

 

 

Subject:                  15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/465/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/465/2012

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of a deck at the rear of the existing dwelling

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Mr A W J Sandilands & Mrs W L Sandilands

Owner:                         Mr A W J Sandilands & Mrs W L Sandilands

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject application proposes the construction of a deck over the existing rear swimming pool to the rear of the subject site. The application is referred to the Planning Committee Meeting for determination at the request of Councillors Nash, Andrews and Stavrinos.

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, between its intersection with Edgecliffe Avenue and Liguria Street. The site has a frontage width of 15.75m, a side boundary depth of up to 43.555m and has an overall site area of 654m², the site falls significantly to the rear of the site which is the cliff face adjoining the Pacific Ocean, with a difference in levels of up to 10m, the rear portion of the site towards the ocean is an open ravine. The rear property boundary is defined by the mean high water mark. The site is adjoined by detached dwelling houses to the north and south. The locality is predominantly characterised by detached style residences.

 

The application was notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 27 July – 10 August 2012 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Three (3) submissions was received at the conclusion of the public consultation process raising issues regarding visual impact, impacts to the natural coastline, loss of privacy, inconsistency with relevant planning controls, excessive height, noise, solar access and potential impacts of flooding/noise during storms.  

 

The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) and a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998. The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that it does not maintain the attributes desirable for residential areas and does not adequately preserve the amenity of existing residents.

 

Further, the proposal is considered to have significant adverse implications for the natural landscape and aesthetic qualities of the foreshore area. Therefore it does not meet the purpose of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area provision of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) which is to protect and improve the visual qualities of visually prominent areas along the coast.

 

The proposed development fails to satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and is accordingly recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

Currently, there is an existing dilapidated swimming pool situated to the rear of the site at the bottom of the cliff face which forms the eastern boundary. Access to the swimming pool is via a very steep set of stairs which are also in an extremely dilapidated state.

 

The application details the construction of a deck (11.85m x 14.5m) over the existing swimming pool. The deck is proposed to cover the pool, extending over the watercourse on the northern edge of the site and will also feature a centre void to allow light to the lower levels and staircase which allows access to the foreshore. The level of the new deck is to match the existing deck at the lower ground level of the dwelling. 

 

A new concrete slab is also proposed to bridge the gap between the rear yard of the site and the new deck.

 


3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is described as Lot 7 in DP 9452, No. 15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee. The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, between its intersection with Edgecliffe Avenue and Liguria Street. The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

40.540m

 

Southern, side boundary

43.596m

 

Western, Seaside Parade boundary

15.655m

 

Eastern, rear boundary (Irregular)

Approx 14.755m

 

Land area

 

Approximately 654m2

 

The site falls significantly from the street to the rear with a cross fall of approximately 10m (from RL24.03 to RL14.14). The rear property boundary is defined by the mean high water mark and the rear portion of the site towards the ocean is an open ravine.

 

The site is identified as being within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) and a Coastal Zone under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection.

 

At present, the site is occupied by a part two/part 3 detached residence of rendered brick and tiled roof construction. Vehicular access is obtained from Seaside Parade via a stone paved driveway. There is a partially constructed concrete pool house within the rear portion of the site, which abuts the southern boundary.

 

Immediately adjoining the site to the north (No. 13 Seaside Parade) is a new part three/part 4 storey detached dwelling featuring rear decks and a swimming pool. The site is adjoined to the south (No. 19 Seaside Parade) by a part three/part 4 storey dwelling with an existing pool and deck to the rear.

 

The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by detached style houses. The locality is currently experiencing gradual transition where the older housing stock is being renovated or redeveloped into modern residences.

 

Photos 1-4 below depict the existing building structures on the subject site.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The existing dilapidated pool to the rear of No. 15 Seaside adjacent to the ravine viewed from No. 13 Seaside Parade 

2. Rear of the existing dwelling viewed from the lower deck of No. 13 Seaside Parade. It is noted the proposed deck will be at the same height as level of the rear yard shown below the wooden deck at the upper floor (approximately where the brickwork is shown in the photo).


 


4. Existing part three part 4 dwelling located at No. 13 Seaside Parade viewed from the subject site.

4. Existing upper floor deck at the subject site viewed from the entry level lounge/dining areas

 

4.    Relevant Site History

 

DA/441/2008 was lodged 23 June 2008 for the construction of a new swimming pool and deck to the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

This development application was recommended for refusal in a delegated report on 12 September 2008. The application was subsequently called up to Council at the written request of three Councillors and ultimately approved contrary to the officer’s recommendation by Council at its meeting on 11 November 2008.

 

Following the approval, a third party appeal was lodged with the Land & Environment Court on 18 May 2011 against the validity of DA/441/2008.

 

The Chief Judge of the Land & Environment Court delivered his decision on this appeal on 14 September 2011. The Chief Judge upheld the appeal and invalidated the consent primarily on the grounds that that Council did not have the power to reconsider an application where the application was originally determined under delegated authority and refused.

 

DA/441/2008/A was lodged on 1 March 2011 for section 96 modifications to the consent by deleting the proposed pool and replacement with a deck. The application was determined to be invalid and withdrawn on 9 February 2012 as the original consent was invalidated.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The application was notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 27 July – 10 August 2012 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Three (3) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process from the residents at Nos. 13, 19 and 21 Seaside Parade raising the following issues (issues have been grouped and addressed to avoid repetition).

 

5.1      Objections

 

·      The proposal should not seek to build over the natural ravine as it is a nature feature of the coastline and should be preserved

·      The overbearing height of the proposal will have an unacceptable visual impact on the coastal environment

·      The deck does not meet planning controls as contained in Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

The objector’s concerns as summarised above regarding overbearing bulk and scale, the proposal’s failure to meet the relevant provisions of the DCP, and adverse visual impacts on the surrounding natural environment are supported. For detailed discussion, refer to the “Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments” and “Policy Controls” sections of this report.

 

·      The deck will result in loss of privacy for the adjoining properties due to its height

·      No screening devices have been implemented to prevent overlooking into adjoining properties

·      Additional noise impacts from use of the deck

The objectors concerns have been summarised above and are addressed in the paragraphs below.

 

It should also be noted that, with regard to potential overlooking from the proposed deck that, decks, terraces and balconies are evident to nearly all of the properties located along this side of Seaside Parade. These decks, etc, are generally unscreened and are located to take advantage of panoramic ocean views to the east. In this regard, a certain level of mutual overlooking is evident and expected in the area.  As such, when assessed against the relevant considerations for visual privacy, the proposed development adopts a similar arrangement that already characterises the area. Any requirements for privacy screening would exacerbate potential view loss issues, particularly for properties to the north and south of the site. (See below for image of current overlooking conditions)

 

In relation to potential noise impacts from use of the proposed deck, it should be noted the size of the proposed deck is not dissimilar to that of the existing deck at No. 19 Seaside. Further, detailed site inspections have revealed that large, open style decks and terraces are features on almost every property along this section of Seaside Parade to talk advantage of the panoramic ocean views to the east. In this respect, the future use of the deck and the potential for disturbance (as is present on all of the surrounding properties) does not in itself warrant refusal of the application.

 

View of the existing pool to the rear of the subject site from the Level 3 rear terrace of No. 19 Seaside Parade.

 

·      No RLs have been provided to allow comparison of the proposed deck and existing structures on adjoining sites 

·      No section have been shown to illustrate the visual impact of the deck from the adjoining site at No. 13 Seaside Parade

·      The SEE is inadequate in addressing the relevant planning controls

·      Existing windows on No. 13 Seaside Parade have not been shown in the submitted plans

·      No fencing details have been  provided

·      The cost of works have been incorrectly estimated

 

The objectors concerns have been summarised above and are addressed in the paragraphs below.

 

Council officers have undertaken their own analysis of the levels of adjoining properties and have not relied solely upon the levels provided by the applicant in the assessment of the current section development application.

 

However, it is acknowledged that the statement of environmental effects and accompanying plans are inadequate to inform a full and proper assessment and design response. Specifically;

 

-   no fencing details provided

-   no RLs indicated on plans for any proposed structures (this is critical to the assessment of the application as it allows for a detailed comparison of the height and scale of the proposed deck and similar structures located on adjoining properties)

-   plans do not contain sufficient detail with regard to the location of existing windows/openings, decks and outdoor areas on adjacent sites

 

The proposal in its current form fails to respond to the topography of the site and severely compromises the visual amenity of the surrounding foreshore area and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

·      Loss of natural light to the south facing windows of No. 13 Seaside Parade

The objectors concerns have been summarised above and are addressed in the paragraphs below.

 

Given the height and location of the proposal, it is not anticipated that the deck will result in any unreasonable overshadowing impacts to the adjoining dwellings. The deck will have no impact to north facing windows of surrounding dwellings and each property will continue to enjoy reasonable levels of solar access to their private open spaces. However, it is acknowledged that the elevated nature of the deck will create some adverse impacts to the outlook of some south facing windows of No. 13 Seaside Parade. These windows currently do not enjoy direct sunlight in mid winter due to their orientation.

 

5.2      Letters of support

The owner and resident of the subject site, Mr Alan Sandilands has provided Council with written and verbal correspondence on a number of occasions in support of the subject proposal. Council’s Assessment Officer has also conducted detailed site inspections of the subject site and adjacent sites. Mr Sandilands has further requested that Council look into the approvals granted for other decks and terraces to nearby properties in order to compare his application with previous consents. Specifically, reference was made to Nos. 9, 19, and 13 Seaside Parade. In response, a brief assessment of these properties has been made below:-

 

·      No. 9 Seaside Parade – DA/456/2008 was approved 25 November 2008 for the demolition of the existing structures on site and construction of a detached dwelling house over 5 levels with double garage, external decks, retaining walls and site landscaping.

 

This application included a rear courtyard incorporating a level timber deck capable of accommodating a square of approximately 14m x 14m in dimension. Although this deck is of a similar size to the proposed deck at the subject site, it can be seen from the plan below (for DA/456/2008) that the deck has been constructed at the lowest level of the site such that it is less elevated and visible than the subject proposal.

 

The entire dwelling, finishing with the level 01 (lowest level) pool and deck has been presented in a stepped form that follows the natural fall and contours of the land. The dwelling and associated decks and terraces are considered to respect the site topography and do not result in adverse visual impacts on the coastal foreshore.

 

Southern elevation of the approved dwelling at No. 9 Seaside Parade with the deck shown at Level 01 

 

·      19 Seaside Parade – DA/517/2012 was approved 28 December 2012 to legitimise the use of the rear lower ground floor deck and construct new glass balustrades and planter boxes along the edge of the deck.

 

The deck at No. 19 Seaside Parade is the subject of extensive and complex history relating to unauthorised works and regulatory action from Council.

 

The deck was constructed without consent over 4 years ago and encroaches significantly upon the Foreshore Building Line. A thick concrete base had been laid upon the natural rock form to provide a base for the deck and Council had been provided with a number of reports confirming that any attempt to remove the deck would result in significant damage to the rock shelf and surrounds to allow the deck to remain.

 

Council advised the owner in writing on 14 November 2011 that a report was to be provided by a Geotechnical Engineer detailing the feasibility, scope and methodology for the removal of the deck and the concrete associated with the rock outcrop located in and beyond the foreshore building line. A surveyors report was also to be provided detailing the setbacks of the subject premises and other structures on site including any encroachment onto the neighbouring properties including the foreshore building line, Crown or Council land, and the height of the deck.

 

The reports were subsequently submitted and it was concluded that whilst it would be feasible to remove the deck, the methodology required would be expensive and it is extremely likely that the existing rock outcrop below the deck will be significantly altered from its natural (pre deck) condition.  The methods recommended to remove the deck include saw cutting of the concrete slab, which may result in overhanging portions of the rock crop falling and damage to the rock beneath the concrete by the saw cutting. Removal of any remaining concrete residue would require hand chipping, chemical treatment and washing and possibly sand blasting. The resultant appearance of the rock would not blend with the remainder of the rock crop and whilst it may weather over time a natural looking rock surface may never be fully achieved.

 

Primary considerations for the assessment of this application were the position of the existing deck within the Foreshore Building Line and the impact that the deck remaining would have upon the aesthetics of the Foreshore area as a whole.

       

It was considered prudent for Council to take a pragmatic approach in the assessment of this application and consider the significant damaging effect that the removal of the deck would have upon the underlying and immediately surrounding rock face. Therefore, a reasonable argument was formed that whilst a deck of this form in this location would not normally be supported, the damage to the surrounding rock by the removal of the deck would result in a greater adverse visual impact upon the foreshore.

 

The salient point to be noted is that had the application proposed the construction of a deck upon the rock face, the application would in all likelihood be recommended for refusal because of the impact upon the aesthetics of the foreshore.

Southern elevation of the approved dwelling and associated structures at No. 19 Seaside Parade with the deck shown at the lowest level (in the location of the planter box shown on right) 

 

·      13 Seaside Parade - DA/1075/2001 was approved on 21 January 2011 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a four storey dwelling house with garage and landscaping works.

 

This application also incorporates several balconies, terraces and a lower level deck toward the foreshore building line.

 

Consistent with No. 9 Seaside Parade, the dwelling also responds reasonably well to the topography and fall of the site toward the east. The deck and terrace areas do not give the appearance of protruding from the mid section of the site.

Southern elevation of the approved dwelling at No. 13 Seaside Parade

 

·      Whilst decks and terraces are evident to all of the properties along this side of Seaside Parade, the proposal in its current form fails to achieve the necessary stepping down effect to minimise the visual impact of the deck and creates an elevated structure over an already bulky pool.

 

The accompanying plans indicate that the elevated timber deck will be located over the existing pool across the full width of the site, at the same level as the existing rear terrace (RL19.50, as shown on the submitted survey).

 

While it is recognised that the adjoining properties to the south (no.19) and north (no.13) already have timber decks off the rear of their dwellings, this structure will finish significantly higher than these (between 2500mm and 3700mm respectively) and some 8-9m above the natural rock/ground level.

 

Further, the proposed location of the deck over the natural ravine to the rear of the site is considered to have a significant adverse impact to both the aesthetic and environmental amenity of the surrounding foreshore area. As such, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

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

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineers for comment. No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval. The following comments were made:

 

An application has been received for the construction of a deck at the rear of the existing dwelling at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by JK dated 22 February 2012;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects dated 24 July 2012

·      Detail & Level Survey by Watson Buchan dated 10 June 2012

 

Drainage/Watercourse Comments

It appears there is a Council stormwater pit and pipe which drains Council footpath area in front of the subject site on the northern side and runs down the northern side boundary and discharges into a watercourse at the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

The applicant proposes to build a deck area over what appears to be a watercourse. Consideration should be given to the structural integrity of the decking and supporting columns to ensure they are not affected by stormwater discharge into the watercourse and wave action from the ocean.

It is thus recommended by Development Engineering that prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant shall submit to the Certifying Authority for approval and have approved (a copy to be forwarded to Council if not Certifying Authority) a Structural Engineers Report which addresses the issue of column supports for the deck. The report shall ensure the structural integrity of the deck and supporting columns and confirm they will not be affected by the stormwater flow/discharge from Council’s pipeline into the watercourse as well as not being affected by wave action from the ocean.

 

Landscape Comments

There are a group of native coastal trees around the front of the site that assist with privacy, as well as offering a food and habitat source for native fauna along this harsh coastal corridor, and appear to have all been planted by the owner (refer pg 3 of SEE).

 

They comprise from north to south, a small Banksia serrata (Saw Toothed Banksia), two 3-4m tall Hibiscus tileaceus (Cottonwoods), a mature, 8m tall Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) which leans to the north, over the pedestrian entry and public footpath, then another 5-6m tall Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia), with a 7m tall Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) growing within the front yard, close to the northern wall of the existing garage.

 

While the works are restricted solely to the rear yard, minor pruning of some lower growing branches from the northern aspect of the mature Banksia may be needed so as to facilitate clear access, with the relevant consent for this included in the report.

 

There is no vegetation within the site that would pose a constraint to the works in anyway, with the existing pool that has been constructed onto the rock-shelf along the southern half of the site no longer in use, with the northern half of this area being completely inaccessible and unusable due to the uneven rocky surface, with what appears to be a remnant watercourse running through the centre of this site, which drains directly into the ocean.

 

The mean high water mark is just metres beyond the eastern boundary, with this site being subject to SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection, which requires that Council carefully consider the aesthetic qualities of a development and its effect on the coastal environment.

 

The plans show that in an attempt to maximise usability of this area, the shell of the pool will remain, and that a new elevated timber deck will be constructed over the top, across the full width of the site, at the same level as the existing rear terrace (19.50, as shown on the survey).

 

While it is recognised that the adjoining properties to the south (no.19) and north (no.13) already have timber decks off the rear of their dwellings, this structure will finish significantly higher than these (between 2500mm and 3700mm respectively) and some 8-9 metres above the natural rock/ground level.

 

For these reasons, it is requested that the assessing officer carefully consider the visual impact of this deck on the natural settings of the area.

 

7.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

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

 

7.1         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The site is zoned 2A under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the property is within the foreshore scenic protection area, the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. However, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will detract from the aesthetic character and environmental qualities of the locality.

 

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

 

Clause 29 Foreshore scenic protection area

The main issue relating to the proposed development is ensuring that it is sympathetic and protects the natural coastal features of the site and the coastal foreshore. Relevant instruments providing guidance on the assessment of development along the foreshore include Clause 29 of the RLEP “Foreshore scenic protection Area”.

 

Clause 29 of the RLEP states that Council, as the consent authority may only grant consent to a building within the foreshore scenic protection area after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore. The purpose of the Clause is to protect and improve the visual qualities of visually prominent areas along the coast.

 

Clause 29 also requires development to be contained within a 30m foreshore building line.

 

The proposal achieves numerical compliance at the north-eastern corner of the deck only. Whilst it is acknowledged that the development is generally aligned with the rear setback of adjoining structures, it is considered that the low lying topography (due to the more significant drop of the site toward the rear and the presence of a natural ravine) in comparison to that of the adjoining sites results in a structure that is elevated significantly above and over the majority of the gully and the cliff face, obstructing impressive views of the coastal foreshore.

 

Consequently, the proposal is deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 29 and recommended for refusal.

 

7.2         State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection

The subject site is identified as being within the Coastal Zone as defined under the Coastal Protection Act 1979. Accordingly, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 applies to the proposed development.

 

The aims of this policy are to protect and manage the natural attributes of the New South Wales coast, ensure the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and protect and preserve rock platforms to ensure that development is of a type, bulk, scale and size that is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area.

 

Part 2 of this policy sets out the matters for consideration of development which in addition to the aims of the policy includes;

 

a)     the suitability of development given it’s type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area,

b)     any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore,

c)     the scenic qualities of the NSW coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities.

 

Having regard to the overall aims of the policy and the relevant matters for consideration it is concluded that the proposed elevated deck over the existing swimming pool is unsuitable due to its high degree of visibility within the local area which detract from both the amenity and scenic qualities of the coastal environment.

 

8.    Policy Controls

 

8.1         Development Control Plans

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Landscaping

The Objectives of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced; dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation space; storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design; and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

 

The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; indigenous species are used and existing vegetation is recycled where possible; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

The proposal seeks to create a more usable area for the purpose of outdoor recreation in the rear of the subject site (the deck is proposed to be elevated above the existing swimming pool, which is currently dilapidated and unusual, and the open ravine leading to the bottom of the cliff).

 

However, the application fails to satisfy the relevant performance requirements of the DCP in that the size and location of the deck do not enhance the appearance of the site and surrounding foreshore area, which is very visually prominent in the area.

 

The ravine to the rear of the site is a natural feature of the rock face and is a significant visual element of the established natural landscape. To cover the entire pool and ravine with an elevated deck is inconsistent with the provisions of the DCP in that it fails to retain or enhance the natural environment.

 

Solar Access & Overshadowing

The overall Objectives of the DCP seek to ensure that development promotes and has regard to the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development. In this respect the objectives promote energy efficiency in design and construction; encourage the use of appropriate resources and passive solar design; and protect solar access enjoyed by the adjoining premises.

 

Given the height and location of the proposal, it is not anticipated that the deck will result in any unreasonable overshadowing impacts to the adjoining dwellings. The deck will have no impact to north facing windows of surrounding dwellings and each property will continue to enjoy reasonable levels of solar access to their private open spaces.

 

The elevated nature of the deck, however, will impinge on the outlook and ambient light currently enjoyed by No. 13 Seaside Parade. The south facing lower ground floor bedroom windows of No. 13 currently overlook the side of the existing pool (see photo below) and do not enjoy direct sunlight in mid winter due to their orientation.

 

Whilst the impact to solar access in itself is not a reason to warrant refusal of the application, it is considered that the design and location of the pool increases the impacts to the amenity enjoyed by No. 13 Seaside Parade and is not supported.

 

Photo taken from the master bedroom of No. 13 Seaside Parade. The proposed deck will extend across the pool and to the shared boundary, creating a canopy over this section of the dwelling. 

 

Height, Form & Materials

The proposal does not meet the performance requirements of the DCP with regard to height and form. Specifically, the elevated nature of the deck does not relate to similar structures within the surrounding foreshore area and does not respond to the topography of the site. The DCP further stipulates that the height and form of buildings and ancillary structures should be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the area by adopting where relevant, characteristics of mass and proportion and allow for equitable sharing of views.

 

The proposed deck is elevated approximately 15m from the bottom of the ravine and does not adequately address the objectives of the DCP in relation height and scale. It detracts from the existing visual qualities of the site, does not adopt a comparable height or built form which is proportionate to similar structures on surrounding properties, and obstructs the unencumbered view of the natural cliff face and gulley. This significantly compromises the integrity of this very sensitive and visually spectacular location. In addition, the proposed height and scale of the deck is significantly higher than that of surrounding decks and will be highly visible from the main internal and alfresco living areas of the adjoining properties. The deck will be visually imposing when viewed from adjacent sites and will create an adverse impact to the outlook currently shared by the dwellings along the foreshore.

 

Setbacks

Rear setbacks – for properties along this section of Seaside Parade, rear setbacks are defined in section 4.9.4 of the DCP which stipulate that apart from in-ground swimming pools, buildings on properties shown in figure 4.11 (shown below) do not encroach on the foreshore building line.

 

The proposal achieves numerical compliance at the north-eastern corner of the deck only and encroaches approximately 3m into the foreshore building line in the north western corner. Whilst it is acknowledged that the development is generally aligned with the rear setback of adjoining structures, it is considered that the low lying topography (due to the more significant drop of the site toward the rear and the presence of a natural ravine) in comparison to that of the adjoining sites results in a structure that is elevated significantly above and over the majority of the gully and the cliff face, obstructing impressive views of the coastal foreshore.

 

Figure 4.11 – Foreshore Building Line, as shown in Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The subject site is identified by the red arrow.

 

Side setbacks – the proposed deck extends across the entire width of the subject site. The side setbacks adopted by the proposal is not dissimilar to that of some existing decks in the immediate area. However, due to its height (15m above the lower rock shelf of the ravine and over the existing pool, which is already significantly elevated in comparison to other ancillary structures in the area), the proximity to the side boundaries further exacerbates the appearance of bulk and scale, achieving an almost canopy like appearance when viewed from the lower levels of adjoining sites. As such, the proposed setbacks in conjunction with the height and coverage of the deck is considered to be detrimental to the appearance of this highly prominent site on the foreshore.

 

Visual & Acoustic 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.

It should also be noted that, with regard to potential overlooking from the proposed deck, that decks, terraces and balconies are evident to nearly all of the properties located along this side of Seaside Parade. These decks, etc, are generally unscreened and are located to take advantage of panoramic ocean views to the east. In this regard, a certain level of mutual overlooking is evident and expected in the area.  As such, when assessed against the relevant considerations for visual privacy, the proposed development adopts a similar arrangement that already characterises the area. Any requirements for privacy screening would exacerbate potential view loss issues, particularly for properties to the north and south of the site

 

Foreshore Development

The objectives of the DCP with respect to foreshore development include that the landscaping and aesthetic qualities of the foreshore areas are protected and that the natural land form and water interface are conserved to maintain the original character of the foreshore. The Randwick LEP also requires in Clause 29, that Council must consider the probable aesthetic appearance of any proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

The foreshore building line as described in Figure 4.1 of the DCP is 30m from the front boundary of the properties in Seaside Parade.

 

The proposed deck is elevated above the pool and base of the gulley which constitutes most of the rear yard of the property. The deck will be highly visible within the foreshore because of the elevated nature of the proposal. It is noted that there are similar swimming pools etc to the rear of the adjoining properties in Seaside Parade, however those structures are located on land and are not elevated above a natural landform as is the case in this proposal.

 

Following detailed assessment of the nature of the site and the proposed decking it is considered that the proposal does not comply with the intentions and objectives of the foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed position of the deck is unsympathetic to the surrounding foreshore area, obstructing the unencumbered view of the natural cliff face and gulley. This significantly compromises the integrity of this very sensitive and visually spectacular location.

 

Therefore, the proposed development is unsatisfactory as it is inconsistent with the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP and will result in an adverse visual impact of the existing qualities of the foreshore.

 

It is noted that there is an existing swimming pool at the lower level of the property which is in a somewhat dilapidated state and the existence of the swimming pool is noted as being historic. It is not an unreasonable assumption that this swimming pool and access to the swimming pool could be renovated in a sensitive manner which would not only improve the appearance of the swimming pool in this sensitive location, but also improve the amenity of the occupants by enabling this swimming pool to be again used for recreation purposes.

 

9.    Section 79C Environmental Assessment

 

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

 


 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

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

Notwithstanding this, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will detract from the aesthetic character and environmental qualities of the surrounding foreshore scenic protection area.

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. The application is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

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

The proposal does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will result in adverse impacts upon the integrity of the foreshore scenic protection area. Refer to the key issues section of this report for detailed discussion.

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 deck over the rear pool is not considered to be compatible with the surrounding natural and built environment and would unduly impact upon the amenity presently enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

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. However, the location, bulk and scale of the proposed deck is not suitable for the site as it severely compromises the visual qualities of the foreshore area, as well as creates significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.

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 will detract from the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the surrounding natural and built environment and compromise the amenity of the adjacent dwellings. The proposed works will result in a development which is inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

9.1    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)

0.6:1

Unchanged

N/A

Height of Building (Max)

9.5m

Unchanged

 

N/A

Lot Size (Min)

No minimum for single dwellings.

654m2

N/A

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Developments for the purpose of ancillary structures to residential dwellings are permissible with the consent of within Residential 2A Zones. However, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that the development it will detract from the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the area and compromise the amenity of the adjacent dwellings.

 

The coastal topography and features along this portion of the coast comprise a gradual fall in land away from adjoining sites forming a gully that contributes to the visual amenity of the coastal cliff face and the general foreshore.

The proposal’s bulk, height and siting will have an adverse impact on the foreshore scenic protection area. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

The proposal does not demonstrate consistency with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and will result in unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the character of the locality.

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the recommendation below.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/465/2012 for the construction of a deck at the rear of the existing dwelling at No. 15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee for the reasons outlined below:

 

1.       The proposed development does not comply with the purpose of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection as its bulk, scale and high degree of visibility detracts from both the amenity and scenic qualities of the coastal environment.

 

2.       The proposed development does not comply with the purpose of Clause 29 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 by resulting in a detrimental and adverse visual impact upon the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

3.       The proposal encroaches upon the designated Foreshore Building line and is considered to be unacceptable in it’s form and siting as it will create an adverse impact on the existing environmental qualities of the foreshore area

 

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

 

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

(c)  Does not adequately protect the amenity of existing residents

 

5.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements for landscaping and private open space set-out in Clause 4.1 of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

6.       The proposal does not comply with the objectives of clause 4.9.2 of the of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancy development in that the proposal does not conserve the natural form of the land and water interface and the siting and location of the development does not respect the natural characteristics of the cliff and associated coastline.

 

7.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements for height, form and materials set-out in Clause 4.3 of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

8.       The plans and accompanying documentation submitted with the application are deficient in allowing for a full and proper assessment of the proposal.  

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  9 April 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D24/13

 

 

Subject:                  150 - 156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington (DA/656/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/656/2012

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                   Demolition of a majority of existing structures, refurbishment of 2 existing terrace dwellings and construction of multi-unit housing across 3 building forms, containing 37 apartments, basement parking for 43 vehicles, along with associated landscaping and site works (Heritage Conservation Area), (SEPP 1 Objections to Floor space ratio, maximum height and wall height controls)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Fox Johnston

Owner:                         Arrowfield Farms Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.        Executive Summary

 

The application is reported to Council on the basis of an overall cost of works in excess of $2 million.  The proposal also seeks variation of the floor space, building height and wall height development standards of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation), of greater than 10%.

 

The site is known as 150- 156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington, located on the eastern side of Doncaster Ave, opposite the intersection with Darling Street. The site and its surrounds are zoned Residential 2C (Medium Density) under RLEP 1998 and R3 (Medium Density) under RLEP 2012. The eastern side of Doncaster Ave exists within the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area.

 

Consent is sought for demolition of a majority of existing structures and construction of multi-unit housing in three (3) building forms. The development comprises 37 apartments, basement parking for 43 vehicles, along with associated landscaping and site works.

 

The application seeks to amalgamate four (4) individual Torrens Title allotments that presently contain a stable complex and two (2) terrace style dwellings.

 

Adjoining the site immediately to the east is Randwick Racecourse. To the north and south of the subject site exists a mixture of single dwelling and stable development, with interspersed multi-unit development. The western side of Doncaster Ave is lined with three (3) and four (4) storey multi-unit flat buildings. Approximately 30 metres to the southwest of the site exists development within the Kensington Town Centre zone.

 

The application was originally notified and advertised between 24 October 2012 and 7 November 2012. A total of 21 submissions were received in response. The primary issues raised involved that of bulk and scale, heritage impact, racecourse views, traffic and parking.

 

In response to issues raised by Council Officers, the application was amended on 15 January 2013. The amended application reduced floor space, reduced the number of apartments, reduced rear setbacks and reduced the number of proposed rooftop terraces.

 

The amended scheme was re-notified between 18 January 2013 and 4 February 2013. A total of 13 submissions were received. Issues raised generally reiterated those raised previously including bulk and scale, heritage impact, racecourse views, traffic and parking.

 

The application introduces an appropriate medium density scale and a considered outcome in relation to adjoining sites, the streetscape and the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area. The proposal provides a satisfactory housing mix in a highly accessible area.

 

 The development is considered to satisfy the relevant heads of consideration of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and is consequently recommended for approval, subject to the conditions recommended within this assessment.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.        Site context

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Doncaster Ave, close to the intersection of Doncaster Ave and Darling Street. The site is presently made up of four (4) Torrens Title allotments described as follows:

 

Address

Lot & DP

150 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

Lot 91, DP 1094670

152 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

Lot 92, DP 2905

154 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

Lot 93, DP 2905

156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

Lot A, DP 108587

 

The northern-most allotment at 150 Doncaster Ave is a slender parcel running east–west that allows vehicular access to the Racecourse from Doncaster Ave. The adjoining lot at 152 Doncaster Ave is made up of a stable complex, used in association with the Racecourse at the rear. This building fronts a single storey brick wall immediately to Doncaster Ave. Occupying the two (2) southern lots 154 and 156 Doncaster Ave, is a two (2) storey semi-detached terrace style building with a dwelling on each lot and party wall on the boundary. Both sites have associated outbuildings at the rear.

 

The amalgamated parcel is of regular shape, with site area of approximately 1969 square metres. The topography of the site rises gradually in an easterly direction, such that the street generally sits one (1) to two (2) metres below the rear boundary. The amalgamated site is of the following dimensions:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern side boundary

40.2m

1969m2

Western, Doncaster Ave boundary

48.9m

Southern side boundary

40.3m

Eastern rear boundary (fronting Randwick Racecourse)

49m

 

The eastern side of Doncaster Ave is zoned Residential 2C under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and R3 – Medium Density Residential under RLEP 2012. This side of Doncaster Ave also exists within the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area. The eastern side of Doncaster Ave contains a mixture of single storey federation style dwellings and stable development, with interspersed multi-unit development. Larger development occurs as Doncaster Ave intersects Anzac Parade, within the Kensington Town Centre zone.

 

Figure 1: Zoning context of the site under RLEP 2012.

Figure 2: Heritage context of the site.

Figure 3: Aerial view of the subject site and surrounds. 

The western side of Doncaster Ave is also zoned 2C- Medium Density Residential. It is characterised by three (3) and four (4) storey multi-unit buildings.

 

Figure 3: The southern aspect of the Doncaster Ave frontage. The terraces to be retained are visible right of frame.

Figure 4: Looking south, the stable building of the subject site, left of frame. The Capella building, right of frame.

Figure 4: Existing Doncaster Ave frontage of the subject site.

Figure 6: The nursery within the Racecourse, beyond the rear boundary of the subject site.

 

Approximately 30 metres to the south-west of the subject site exists the ‘Cappella’ development at 101- 107 Doncaster Ave. This site is subject to the Kensington Town Centre controls. The building form comprises five (5) storey podium of minimal setback to the street, with tower above.

 

To the east of the subject site and immediately beyond the rear boundary is Randwick Racecourse, zoned Special Uses 5. A vehicular access track is located on the rear boundary. Beyond this a nursery operates, providing plants for the use throughout the racecourse site.

 

As outlined above, the eastern side of Doncaster Ave is contained within the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area. The subject site does not have any individual heritage significance within the provisions of RLEP 1998.

 

3.        Proposal

The application, as amended on 15 January 2013, proposes demolition of a majority of existing structures and provision of 37 apartments, with basement parking for 43 vehicles. The development is made up of three (3) separate built form components, separated by an internal courtyard (refer Figure 5, below).

 

Building form detail:

 

Basement:

Parking for 43 vehicles is proposed across one (1) basement level and accessed via a single driveway ramp from Doncaster Avenue. The basement car park also provides 26 bicycle parking spaces, waste area and a general storage area.

 

Building 1: Existing terraces fronting Doncaster Ave:

Refurbish existing two (2) storey built form of two (2) attached terraces with gable roof form, located on the south-west corner of the site and fronting Doncaster Ave. Each terrace is to comprise a two (2) storey, two (2) bedroom dwelling.

 

Building 2: Contemporary terrace building fronting Doncaster Ave:

Continuing the form of Building 1 above, a two (2) storey terrace style building with gable roof form is proposed to the Doncaster Ave frontage. The row comprises ten (10) units spread over ground floor, first floor and loft levels.

 

Building 3: Four (4) storey multi-unit building at the rear of the site:

A four (4) storey multi-unit building is proposed at the rear of the site. The building comprises 25 apartments spanning ground floor up to third floor level. Four (4) apartments proposed at third floor level have access to private rooftop terraces of between 16 and 30 square metres in area.  

 Figure 7: Proposed site layout, each building form component highlighted.

 

Apartment mix:

 

Apartment type

No. of units   

Studio

14

Studio + study

1

One (1) bedroom + study

12

Two (2) bedroom

7

Two (2) bedroom + study

3

 

Total

37 units

 

External works including tree removal and landscaping are proposed across the site.

 

The following assessment is conducted according to the application as lodged and amended on 15 January 2013.

 

Site inspections were carried out on 8 November 2012 and 12 March 2013.

 

4.        History

 

4.1      Site History

 

The sites have been used historically for a mixture of low density residential and horse stabling activity associated with the Racecourse.

 

·      DA/342/2010 -152 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

 

Proposed ‘Demolition of existing horse stable complex and construction of new two storey stable complex containing stalls, washery, storage areas,  feed rooms and associated works (Heritage Conservation Area)’.

 

The application was withdrawn on 31 August 2010 at request of the applicant. 

 

·      DA/503/2000 -156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

 

Proposed to ‘Demolish existing garage and remove a Moreton Bay Fig Tree’. The application was approved on 30 August 2000.

 

 

4.2 Current Development

 

Pre DA 37/2012

 

Demolition of the existing stables building and the northern half of the semi-detached pair and construction of a residential development comprising 50 apartments. Amendments were made during the pre DA process that reduced the whole of the Doncaster Avenue envelope and a reduction in the scale and massing of the northern wing. These changes generally represented an improvement in the overall visual bulk and scale of the proposed development having regard especially to the existing low density and low scale character of development along Doncaster Avenue to the north and south of the subject site.

 


Current application, DA/656/2012:

 

·      6 December 2012: Council requested the applicant amend the proposal in order to respond to issues of built form, landscaping, amenity and heritage.

 

·      15 January 2013: The applicant submitted amended plans, making a number of changes in response to Council’s request of 6 December 2012, including;

 

o Reduce number of apartments from 43 to 37;

o Amend form of building 3, to improve solar access to the internal courtyard;

o Recess third floor level of building 3;

o Amend layout of proposed rooftop terraces;

o Reduce rear setback to the racecourse by one (1) metre;

o Provide loft style bedrooms within the roof form of apartments fronting Doncaster Ave;

o Amend landscape plan to enhance screening;

o Provide pedestrian access from private courtyards to the street;

o Relocate central lift cores;

o Amend cost of works commensurate of the above changes.

 

·      15 March 2013: In relation to the proposed basement construction within the watertable, the applicant submitted legal advice regarding the applicability of Integrated Development provisions of the EP&A Act 1979. Within the advice the applicant indicates desire to obtain approval of the NSW Office of Water following the development assessment process.

 

The legal advice submitted indicates that seeking an integrated approval post planning approval has been endorsed in similar instances by the Land and Environment Court. As such, requirement for additional approval may similarly be applied as a condition of consent in this instance, remaining consistent with Council’s obligations under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979. Council’s Lawyers have confirmed that the advice from the applicant is correct.

 

·      22 March 2013: The applicant submitted a detailed site contamination investigation report in relation to the site and it’s history, at request of Environmental Health.

 

Figure 8: Proposed Doncaster Ave frontage, as amended on 15 January 2013.

Figure 9: Proposed northern aspect of the Doncaster Ave frontage, as amended on 15 January 2013.

 

Figure 10: Proposed southern aspect of the Doncaster Ave frontage, as amended on 15 January 2013.

Figure 11: Proposed south elevation view to internal courtyard, as amended on 15 January 2013.

 

The following assessment is conducted according to the application as lodged and amended on 15 January 2013.

 

5.        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1- Development Standards

 

The application seeks variation of development standards 20F (1) and 20G (2 & 4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). These clauses relate to floor space ratio, building height and wall height, respectively. Detail of each variation is summarised as follows:

 

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Degree of variation

20E Landscaped area

(1) Minimum 50% of the site area

(Min. 984.5m2)

 

(3) Max 50% of landscaped area required is over basement.

(Max. 492.3 m2).

 

52% (1023m2).

 

 

44.6% (439 m2) of landscaped area requirement is provided over basement.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

None.

 

 

 

 

None.

 

20F

Floor space ratio

 

(1) 0.9:1 for sites in 2C zones

(Max 1772.1 m2).

 

1.075:1 (2116.7m2)

Does not comply- SEPP 1 objection submitted.

 

19.45% (344.6m2) variation.

20G

Building height

 

(2) Overall height: 12m

 

 

 

 

(4) External wall height: 10m

 

Maximum height 13.3m

 

 

 

 

Maximum wall height 13.3m.

Does not comply- SEPP 1 objection submitted.

 

 

Does not comply- SEPP 1 objection submitted.

11% (1.3m) variation.

 

 

 

 

33% (3.3m) variation.

 

SEPP 1 Objections have been submitted to each relevant standard and are addressed as follows: 

 

 

Floor space ratio - Clause 20F (1)

 

Clause 20F (1) of RLEP 1998, stipulates the maximum FSR for buildings within the 2C zone, other than for the purpose of a dwelling house, as 0.9:1. Based upon the site area of 1969 square metres, the standard would indicate 1772.1 square metres of gross floor area may be accommodated within the scope of the standard. 

 

The application proposes an FSR of 1.075:1, or approximately 2116.7 square metres. This figure represents a variation of approximately 19.45% of the floor space ratio development standard, of Clause 20F (1).

 

Building Height - Clause 20G (2) and (4)

 

Clause 20G (2) of RLEP 1998, stipulates the maximum height for buildings within the 2C zone, other than for the purpose of a dwelling house, as 12 metres.

 

The application proposes a maximum height of 13.3 metres above existing ground level. This figure represents a variation of approximately 11% of the building height development standard, of Clause 20G (2).

 

Clause 20G (4) of RLEP 1998, stipulates the maximum external wall height for buildings within the 2C zone, other than for the purpose of a dwelling house, as ten (10) metres.

 

The application proposes a maximum external wall height of 13.3 metres above existing ground level. This figure represents a variation of approximately 33% of the wall height development standard, of Clause 20G (4).

 

5.1      SEPP 1 Objection Assessment

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objections, the principles established within 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).

 

o    The stated purpose of the floor space ratio standard of Clause 20F, as outlined in the LEP is:

 

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

 

o    The stated purpose of the building height standard of Clause 20G, as outlined in the LEP is:

 

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

 

The applicant has submitted written SEPP 1 Objections to the above clauses, which outline the following key justifications for the variation to the floor space ratio, building height and wall height standards:

 

5.2      Applicant justifications

 

Justification: Floor space ratio - Clause 20F (1)

 

The applicant has provided the following justification for variation of standard 20F (1):

 

 

 

Justification: Building Height- Clause 20G (2) and (4)

The applicant has provided the following justification for variation of standards 20G (2) and (4):

 

 

·      8- 14 Ascot Street, Kensington

Approved FSR – 1.14:1

Approved height and wall height – 11.73 metres (4 stories)

 

·      66- 70 Boronia Street, Kensington

Approved FSR – 1.22:1

Approved height and wall height – 11.7 metres (4 stories)

 

·      10- 20 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Approved FSR – 1.18:1

Approved height and wall height – 16.72 metres (4 stories)

 

·      9- 15 William Street, Randwick

Approved FSR – 1.24:1

Approved height – 13.3 metres (4 stories)

Approved wall height – 11.9 metres

 

·      10- 14 Duke Street, Kensington

Approved FSR – 1.13:1

Approved height and wall height – 11.9 metres (4 stories)

 

 

5.3      Planning comment:

The stated purposes of each of the three (3) development standards discussed above, specifically interrelate in seeking to limit the size, scale and site coverage of development.

 

It is considered that the proposed development and variation from the maximum floor area, maximum height and wall height standards are satisfactory in this instance. All three (3) submitted SEPP 1 Objections are considered well founded for the following reasons:

 

1.     The circumstances of the site;

·      The site exists within the Residential 2C zone and roughly 30 metres from the interface of the Kensington Town Centre. The proposal provides an effective transition from nearby elements of the Kensington Town Centre and presents an appropriate response to the opportunities and constraints of the site;

·      The site exists in a locality characterised by a mixture of multi-unit and semi-detached residential developments and stable buildings. The design of the proposal remains consistent with the character of development within the visual catchment of the site;

·      The site exists in close proximity to facilities and public transport on Anzac Parade. The high level of accessibility provides merit to the proposed density, representing an orderly and economic use of the land for urban consolidation;

·      The elevation fronting the racecourse is considered to carry positive design merit in employing a strong built form. The expansive site area of the Racecourse indicates ability to support a larger scale of development, without possibility of overwhelming the site or compromising its significance;

·      The site is of substantial size given consolidation of four (4) previous lots. The proposed development seeks an appropriate use of a large amalgamated site, where some numerical departure is considered reasonable.

 

2.     The design of the proposed development;

·      The architectural character and form of the proposal carries considerable design merit, endorsed by Council’s Design Review Panel, noting;

“The Panel is not concerned about the height proposed onto the racecourse frontage, which responds to its spatial expanse and large-scale works currently underway”.

“The intensification of use of the site is considered appropriate, given the excellent location and proposed characteristics of the development”.

·      The proposed site strategy has been appropriately considered, minimising environmental impacts upon surrounds while enhancing amenity through effective distribution of bulk. It is considered the site strategy effectively compensates for numerical departures;

 

·      Regarding streetscape character, the larger building component at the rear of the site is afforded screening from the public domain by the remaining two (2) proposed buildings and contributing to existing and desired future character;

 

·      The scheme is appropriately articulated and modulated. Openings, balconies, material variation and landscaping are all incorporated to minimise apparent external bulk and scale to the streetscape and adjoining sites. These elements also contribute to adjoining privacy and visual interest;

 

·      Regarding precedent, the north-south oriented building forms will initiate an effective form for potential continuation on the southern site, should this neighbour seek to redevelop in a similar manner;

 

·      Regarding setbacks, where numerical departures from the height standards are proposed, increased side setback seeks to avoid impacts of bulk, shadow and privacy;

·      Regarding adjoining residential sites, the scheme minimises impacts through employment of two (2) north-south oriented building forms, a south elevation of appropriate scale and setback and privacy measures. All serve to ensure an acceptable degree of amenity is retained to adjoining sites;

 

·      In relation to the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area:

o   The conservation area is noted to be of importance given a “… straight street frontage of almost a kilometre in length and predominantly Victorian and Federation period character”. The proposal effectively responds to this context through site strategy:

·      A sympathetic two (2) storey building of consistent setback, scale and design fronts the streetscape;

·      Building bulk is redistributed to the rear building form, allowing lesser prominence of this larger element to the street.

o   From the aspect of the racecourse, the rear building will employ a strong built form that will address the expansive site area and positively define the racecourse boundaries, without compromising elements of heritage significance;

o   Council’s Heritage Planner has recommended appropriate conditions to address design detail of the development and ensure consistency with the context of the conservation area.

·      In relation to floor space ratio (Clause 20F):

o   The design incorporates a central courtyard between buildings, rather than a single monolithic mass. This strategy effectively distributes bulk and provides visual relief in avoiding continuous wall planes;

o   Regarding height, all the proposed habitable floor space exists below the 12 metre building height standard;

o   The proposal exceeds both landscaping and soft landscaping standards of Clause 20E; indicating:

·      The proposal is capable of providing sufficient landscaping and screen planting to soften the bulk of the development and contribute to offsetting the numerical departure;

·      The proposed floor space does not necessitate an excessive building footprint as a result of the numerical variation;

·      A sufficient amount of outdoor recreation space is afforded to occupants through a consolidated area of landscaping.

 

·      In relation to wall height and overall height (Clause 20G):

 

Regarding the building height standard of Clause 20G (2), the proposal exceeds the standard by 1300mm. This height occurs predominantly to planter boxes and equipment provided to the roof. All four (4) habitable stories of the rear building component generally sit below this height, with only the third floor eave protruding 12 metres;

 

Regarding the wall height standard of Clause 20G (4), the bulk of the building sits below the 10 metre standard. Wall height is exceeded to the upper floor, where the building is recessed from side boundaries providing substantial relief of bulk, minimising shadow;

 

The proposal will provide an effective transition from high density elements to the south-west of the site,  to lower scale development existing to the north along Doncaster Ave;   

 

The proposed rooftop structures are necessary for plant and equipment and dually, screen the proposed rooftop terraces. Their 1300mm protrusion of the height control is not unreasonable and does not result in any substantial bulk at this level; 

 

When viewed from Doncaster Ave;

·      The development presents to the immediate streetscape as below both height standards through continuation of the existing two (2) storey terrace and gable form;

 

·      The height standards are varied in locations of substantial setback from the street. Approximately 25 metres separates the street and the proposed height variations, minimising apparent bulk and scale upon the streetscape and heritage conservation area.

 

In relation to side boundaries (north and south boundaries);

·      Where wall height variation occurs on the north and south elevations, the built form is recessed a minimum six (6) metres in consideration of adjoining sites, consistent with the intention of the wall height control;

 

·      Shadow impacts to the southern neighbour are inevitable given the subdivision pattern. Regardless, the scheme incorporates the preferred setbacks of the DCP to the south elevation. Where height variation occurs, the design further recesses the upper floor level;

 

·      The height of the development does not initiate unreasonable privacy impacts upon north and south adjoining neighbours, as discussed in the body of this report.

 

Specific to Randwick Racecourse (rear boundary):

 

·     The height of the development will contribute positively in it’s strong built form to the rear, providing definition to the racecourse boundary; 

 

·     The nursery located within the racecourse site is not prevented from achieving three (3) hours solar access as a result of the proposed height.

 

3.       The intensity supported by the proposed development;

·      The proposed building bulk promotes an intensity of use that is reasonable in the context of the site and considers adjoining amenity, given:

 

The proposal supports a residential intensity of 37 apartments of which is considered reasonable with regard to site context and zoning;

 

The proposed number and mix of dwellings remains within the scope of a medium density housing development, contemplated within the planning controls;

 

Amenity impacts upon adjoining sites have been appropriately addressed within the design of the development and recommended conditions of consent;

 

The scheme provides parking in excess of that required by the rates of Randwick Parking DCP. The site is highly also accessible.

 

4.       Consistency with the objectives of current and future zoning:

·      The proposed development promotes the objectives of the 2C zone, given;

 

The proposal is permissible within the present Residential 2C and future R3 zones of RLEP 1998 and RLEP 2012, respectively;

 

The proposal provides for an appropriate medium density housing development, both in the context of this site and as contemplated within the 2C and R3 zones;

 

The proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring sites and the street through effective design measures, as discussed in the body of this report;

 

The proposed built form serves to maintain the desirable attributes of the existing and desired future character of the residential area. The scheme provides an articulated development of appropriate scale, that remains sympathetic to the conservation area and allows for an appropriate economic use of the subject site;

 

The proposal contributes positively to the variety of residential accommodation options in an accessible area.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objections have addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standards, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. Moreover, the applicant has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standards of Clauses 20F (1) and 20G (2 & 4) is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Comment:

The proposed variation of the floor area, building height and wall height standards is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 and will not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, embodied in Section 5(a) (i) and (ii). Specifically, the proposed multi-unit housing development is considered to be consistent with surrounding built form, will promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts on the area.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

Comment:

The proposed development and variation from the floor area, building height and wall height standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or Regional environmental planning.

 

The strict application of the numerical floor space, building height and wall height standards are in this instance not considered necessary given:

 

·      The circumstances of the site provide specific merit to the proposed built form given appropriate zoning, surrounding development context and a high level of accessibility;

·      The proposed floor space has been effectively distributed across the site and appropriately designed to minimise any resulting environmental impacts upon surrounds;

·      The proposed building height and wall height variations are considered to incorporate appropriate design measures to offset any detrimental impacts upon the street or adjoining sites;

·      The proposed building bulk supports an intensity of use that is reasonable in the context of this site and considers adjoining amenity;

·      The proposal is generally consistent with the objectives of the zone.

 

In view of the above, there is no public benefit in maintaining strict compliance with the subject standards in this instance.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

 

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the subject development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposal will achieve the objectives of each development standard.

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objectives or purposes of both standards are relevant to the subject development.

Third

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

 

Comments:

Compliance would, in this case, be unreasonable as the underlying objectives of the standards are 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 development standards defining floor space ratio, building height and wall height, are not considered to have 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 likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the application between 24 October 2012 and 7 November 2012 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, 21 submissions were received indicating objection to the proposal, from the following addresses:

 

·      404E/103–105 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      803E/103-105 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      502E/101-107 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      4/87-91 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      424/14-18 Darling Street, Kensington;

·      602A/264 Anzac Parade, Kensington;

·      408E/101–107 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      208B/260 Anzac Parade, Kensington;

·      803B/260 Anzac Parade, Kensington;

·      7/87- 91 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      501E/101 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      604/14-18 Darling Street, Kensington;

·      101 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      Australian Turf Club – Alison Road, Randwick;

·      503E/101–103 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      101 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      158–162 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      704E/101 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      101 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      166 Doncaster Ave, Kensington.

 

Issue

Comment

Built form:

·    The majority of development in Doncaster Ave is 3 stories;

·    The four (4) storey built form at the rear will be visible from both the streetscape and adjoining neighbours;

·    Retaining the existing terraces contributes to floor space variation and restricts distribution of bulk;

·    Visual impact upon the Racecourse should be considered given heavy attendance by members and the public;

·    Unacceptable impact upon the development potential of the southern neighbouring site.

 

The site exists in a Medium Density zone and achieves four (4) stories to the rear of the site. Two (2) stories are presented to the immediate Doncaster Ave frontage.

The site strategy is appropriately considered in relation surrounding development, initiating an effective precedent should the southern neighbour seek to develop in a similar manner.

The impact upon the racecourse has been considered and is acceptable. 

The proposal will provide a reasonable medium density outcome with minimal environmental impact upon surrounds, subject to conditions 

Setbacks:

·    Side and rear setbacks are insufficient and will unreasonably impact upon the Racecourse;

·    When combined with excessive floor space ratio, height and lack of setbacks eventuate in unreasonable shadow impacts on the racecourse;

 

Setbacks are discussed in detail within Section 9, below.

The proposed setbacks are considered satisfactory in the context of the site and will not to impose any adverse impacts upon adjoining sites.

·    Increased rear setback necessary to provide for screen planting to the racecourse;

·    Built form assessment should anticipate potential for multi-unit on adjoining sites;

·    Request 6 metre southern side setback to ensure development potential of southern neighbour- as recommended in the Residential Flat Design Code.

 

SEPP 1 variations:

·    Proposal conflicts with development standards for height and floor space and provides inadequate setbacks;

·    Variations are not characteristic of existing development;

·    Variation supports a more intensive housing, which is excessive for Doncaster Ave;

·    Insufficient consideration of the racecourse in SEPP 1 Objections- only streetscape is addressed.

 

The proposal is discussed in relation to the SEPP 1 Objections lodged in Section 5, above.

The proposed variations are considered reasonable with regard to the zoning objectives and the stated purpose of each standard. Minimal adverse impacts are considered to be imposed upon adjoining sites and the street as a result of each variation.

Permissibility:

·      Development fails to meet the objectives of the zone;

·      Proposal conflicts with the Multi-Unit Housing DCP as it relates to parking and traffic, streetscape character and views.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the 2C zone and the Multi Unit Housing DCP, as discussed further in Section 8, below.

View loss:

·    View loss is caused by a building that compromises the character of Doncaster Ave;

·    The size, form, floor space and height of the rear building will affect views of the racecourse and heritage listed Members Stand;

·    Views to the Racecourse for residents in the Capella Building will be compromised.

 

The potential for view loss to arise as a result of the proposal is discussed in Section 9, below.

Given the nature of the views and the manner in which they are obtained, it is not considered reasonable to expect these views will remain intact given the density and height standards applicable to the medium density zone.

Privacy:

·    Unacceptable setbacks introduce loss of privacy to the southern neighbour.

·    Suggest Council delete the rooftop terraces to preserve privacy;

·    Residents of Cappella development will see privacy compromised due to roof terraces.

 

Privacy is discussed in Section 9, below.

The applicant amended the proposal on 15 January 2013. Amendments provide an improved response to privacy.

The proposed amendments in conjunction with recommended conditions are considered to sufficiently respond to privacy issues to adjoining sites.

Rooftop terraces:

·    Terraces are not consistent with other buildings in the conservation area.

·    Will promote gatherings and generate acoustic issues, particularly during race day;

·    The terraces will attract visitors and create parking issues.

 

The proposed rooftop terraces were amended on 15 January 2013 and are discussed in Section 9, below.

The rooftop terraces are not immediately visible from the street and consequently, pose no impact to the conservation area.

The proposal complies with the required rate of visitor parking.

Conditions have been recommended reducing the size of the terraces. At a reduced size, the structures will not result in unreasonable visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

Heritage:

·    Proposal fails to ensure development complements the bulk, scale and character of identified items or areas of heritage significance;

·    The four (4) storey building is not consistent with the heritage conservation area streetscape.

 

Heritage considerations are addressed in Sections 7 and 8 of this assessment.

The proposal responds appropriately to the aesthetic, historic and social context of the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area and nearby heritage items.

 

 

Shadow:

·    Unreasonable shadow impact on the Racecourse and it’s nursery adjacent the site;

·    The combination of height and lack of setback will have an unacceptable impact upon the future development of the southern neighbour.

 

The solar access impact of the proposal is discussed in Section 9, below.

An acceptable level of solar access is retained to adjoining sites under the amended scheme.

Traffic and parking:

·    The proposal will contribute to increased traffic volume, street parking, traffic noise, car pollution and general loss of amenity;

·    The Traffic assessment fails to consider variation that is common in the street, particularly around events;

·    Request additional parking be required on site as the DCP rate is insufficient;

·    Additional traffic will put students at Kensington School at risk;

·    The driveway has insufficient southern boundary setback, resulting unacceptable acoustic impacts.

 

The amended application complies numerically with Council’s Parking DCP. Council’s Development Engineers reviewed the proposal and raised no objection in relation to traffic and parking. 

In consideration of acoustic impacts to the southern neighbour, an acoustic fence has been recommended to be required as a condition of consent.

Other:

·    The development will be detrimental to the horse training area;

·    Property value;

·    Garbage collection day will be an issue with additional waste from the development;

·    The submitted montages are misleading;

·    Infrastructure is already strained without an additional 42 residents.

 

The presence of horse racing and training facilities in the vicinity does not prevent reasonable development within a residential zone.

Property value is not a valid planning consideration. 

Waste management has been considered and suitable conditions imposed.

The documentation submitted is considered sufficient for the purpose of assessment.

The site has existing access to adequate services.

 

As a result of the amendments of 15 January 2013, the application was required to be re-notified between 18 January 2013 and 4 February 2013 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, 13 submissions were received from the following addresses:

·      107 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      803E/ 103 – 105 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      101 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      404E/ 103 – 105 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      504E/ 103- 105 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      502E/ 103 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      501E/101 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

·      158 – 162 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

·      805A/ 264 Anzac Parade, Kensington;

·      602A/264 Anzac Parade, Kensington;

·      503E/101 – 103 Doncaster Ave, Kensington.

 


 

Issue

Comment

Built form:

·    The proposal is inconsistent with the character of the area and will be visible from street level;

·    Five (5) usable levels is inconsistent with surrounds;

·    The houses beside the development are single storey;

·    Approval will set a precedent for future high density proposals.

 

The site exists in a Medium Density zone which contemplates development of the nature proposed. The scheme provides a reasonable response to the adjoining and streetscape context of the site.

Subject to conditions, the proposal will provide a reasonable medium density outcome with minimal environmental impact upon surrounds. 

Setbacks:

·    Southern boundary setbacks are still insufficient and do not satisfy the RFDC -6 metres should be provided;

·    Proposal will force a lesser density on the southern neighbouring site in order to obtain reasonable amenity.

 

Setbacks are discussed in Section 9, below.

The proposed southern setbacks meet the preferred solution of the DCP and are not considered to impose adverse impacts upon adjoining sites.

SEPP 1 variations:

·    The proposal still doesn’t comply with the Development Standards of the LEP;

·    Any SEPP 1 Objection to the Development standards need to consider Clause 43 of the LEP in conjunction with clause 20;

·    Locating bulk and scale behind the terraces fronting Doncaster Ave doesn’t give reason for variation.

 

The proposal is discussed in relation to the SEPP 1 Objections lodged in Section 5, above.

The proposed variations are reasonable with regard to the zoning objectives and the stated purpose of each standard. Minimal adverse impacts are considered to be imposed upon adjoining sites and the street as a result of each variation.

Permissibility:

·    The proposal contradicts the objectives of the LEP;

·    The proposal contradicts the Multi- Unit Housing DCP;

·    Demolition of the stables is in conflict with Clause 43 of the LEP.

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant planning controls, as discussed further in Section 8, below.

Views:

·    Racecourse views will be significantly diminished as a result of the proposed SEPP 1 variations;

·    SEPP 1 variations and setback contribute to view loss;

·    Existing buildings in the area have not affected views to the racecourse in this nature;

·    Plantings on the rooftop terrace will grow to further obstruct racecourse views.

 

The potential for view loss to arise as a result of the proposal is discussed in Section 9, below.

Given the nature of the views and the manner in which they are obtained, it is not considered reasonable to expect these views will remain intact given the density and height standards applicable to the medium density zone.

Rooftop plantings have minimal soil depth and will therefore not have ability to achieve substantial height.

Rooftop terraces:

·    The rooftop terraces will;

o   breach the height development standard;

o   introduce acoustic issues at all times given no time restrictions;

o   encourage frequent gatherings with no sound buffering;

o   cause privacy issues to Capella development;

o   encourage visitors, exhausting parking;

o   introduce a new, undesirable precedent to the conservation area.

·    Plantings on the top of the terrace will grow above proposed height;

·    Concern structures will be erected for shading and wind protection.

 

The proposed rooftop terraces were amended on 15 January 2013 and are discussed in Section 9, below.

The rooftop terraces are not immediately visible from the street and consequently, pose no impact to the conservation area.

The proposal complies with the required rate of visitor parking.

Conditions have been recommended reducing the size of the terraces. At a reduced size, the structures will not result in unreasonable visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

The erection of rooftop structures is recommended to be prohibited via condition of consent.

Traffic and parking:

·    Request an acoustic fence be provided adjacent the driveway to prevent noise issues to the south;

·    Parking and traffic are already exhausted in the area.

 

The application complies numerically with Council’s Parking DCP. Council’s Development Engineers reviewed the proposal and raised no objection in relation to traffic and parking. 

In consideration of acoustic impacts to the southern neighbour, an acoustic fence has been recommended to be required as a condition of consent.

Heritage:

·    Proposal fails to respect the natural and built heritage significance of Randwick;

·    The Draft DCP outlines that stables should retained.

 

Heritage considerations are addressed in Sections 7 and 8 of this assessment.

The proposal responds appropriately to the aesthetic, historic and social context of the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area and nearby heritage items.

Overshadowing:

·    Shadow impact upon southern neighbour is unacceptable. Setbacks should be increased.

·    Approval of the application in its current form would require the southern neighbour to incorporate greater setback in future.

·   

 

The solar access impact of the proposal is discussed in Section 9, below.

The proposed southern setbacks meet the preferred solution of the DCP and allow a reasonable level of solar access to be retained to adjoining sites.

Privacy;

·    Privacy issues to southern neighbour due to setbacks;

·    Likelihood of privacy issues for future development on the southern neighbouring site;

·    Privacy devices would assist in protecting privacy to future development on the southern neighbours site;

·    The development will compromise the privacy of immediate neighbours.

 

The issue of privacy is discussed in Section 9, below.

With the imposition of recommended conditions in relation to privacy, the scheme is considered to sufficiently respond to potential privacy issues.

Other:

·    The proposal will contribute to hundreds of garbage bins on the street on collection day;

·    The unit mix is undesirable;

·    Construction activity will disrupt the area for some time;

·    Property value.

 

Waste management has been considered and suitable conditions imposed.

Unit mix is satisfactory and will provide a variation of accommodation type.

Suitable conditions have been recommended to ensure an acceptable level of amenity is maintained during construction.

Property value is not a valid planning consideration. 

 

7.        Technical Officer’s Advice

 

7.1      Development Engineer:

 

Advice of 26 March 2013:

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

·      Flooding Comments

There is a stormwater overland flowpath along Doncaster Avenue during major storm events. Flood planning levels for the site were given to the applicant at various locations along the Doncaster Avenue frontage, (i.e. 1%AEP levels). The levels vary from RL 26.27 meters AHD in front of 150 Doncaster Avenue down to 25.52 metres AHD near the southern edge of the development site. Conditions relating to protection of habitable floor levels, openings, storage areas and the driveway ramp have been included within this report.

 

·      Groundwater Comments

Preliminary geotechnical information has been provided which indicates that sections of the basement level will be constructed within the water table (in the order of 1-2 meters below the watertable). The extent of excavation within the water table for the majority of the basement carpark level is considerably less than a number of other applications within the Kensington area given that the proposed development only has a single level of parking. The applicant proposes to use car stackers within the central portion of the carpark and the lower portion of the stacker will require deeper excavation.

 

Council’s standard conditions of approval relating to groundwater management have recently been reviewed and amended. The amended conditions cover the excavation and dewatering process in detail. In particular they specify that:

 

·       the engineer who designs the basement structure must be suitably qualified and experienced in the design of structures below the water table;

·       an experienced geotechnical and/or hydrogeological engineer must demonstrate that the proposed method of excavation and dewatering will not pose an unacceptable risk of damage; and

·       that site conditions and groundwater levels must be monitored during the excavation/construction process

 

The conditions also require certain reports to be forwarded to Council.

 

All of the recently adopted standard conditions have been included within this report and they should adequately address construction issues in areas with a high water table.

 

Traffic Comments

 

·      Parking provision

 

Council’s DCP Requirements

 

15 * Studio Apartments                      7.5 spaces

12 * 1 Bedroom Apartments               12 spaces

10 * 2 Bedroom Apartments               12 spaces

Visitor parking at 1 space per 4 units    9.25

Total parking Required                41 spaces

 

Parking Provided                                43 spaces

 

The parking provision therefore meets the DCP-Parking requirements.

 

Carpark layout

Standard carpark layout and design conditions have been included in this report.

 

Traffic Generation and Driveway comments

The proposed development will generate approximately 19 vehicles per hour in the peak. This should not have a significant impact on the current traffic conditions within Doncaster Avenue or surrounding streets.

 

The internal driveway has been designed with a passing area near the Doncaster Avenue street alignment and the applicant’s traffic consultant has certified that the design is in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1:2004.

 

7.2      Landscape Officer:

Advice of 26 March 2013:

 

Comments are based on the following:

 

·      Tree Report by Treescan, dated August 2012 and stamped 12 October 2012;

·      Ground Floor + Level Three & Roof Level Landscape Plans by Peter Glass & Associates, dwg no’s 2140-01 - 02, issue D, dated 14/01/13.

 

Conditions require that tree squares and new street trees (Peppercorns) be provided across the width of the site so as to match in with the rest of this streetscape, which will both improve the appearance of the development and assist with its integration into the area, and will need to be cut into the existing concrete footpath; or; allowances will need to be made as part of its complete re-construction.

 

Two small trees of low significance exist beyond the southern site boundary, on no.158-162, near the common boundary, being Tree 3, a 6m tall Persea amercianna (Avocado), and a 5m tall Schefflera actinophylla (Umbrella Tree), with the row of small shrubs also growing beyond the northern site boundary, on no.148 (on the other side of the narrow passageway noted as no.150), which will all remain unaffected given their separation from the works, with conditions not required.

 

Within the front setback of no.154, there is a 10m x 10m Olea europaea subsp. Africanna (Wild Olive, Tree 5 in the ‘Tree Report’) which is exempt from Council’s TPO due to being recognised as an environmental weed species, with the same also applying to the smaller Wild Olive (Tree 1) in the front yard of no.156 to the south, with both able to be removed and replaced with the new plantings that are shown for these same areas of the site.

 

Still within the front yard of no.154, immediately to the northeast of Tree 5, there is a mature Cupressus sempervirens (Italian Cypress, Tree 6) of 12 metres in height, which while being identified as having minor landscape significance, is exempt from the provisions of Council’s TPO due to its location hard up against the existing dwelling (clause 4.b.vii), and as it is also in direct conflict with the proposed works, can be removed and replaced as shown, with the relevant conditions for this included in the report.

 

The 12m tall Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel, Tree 7) in the rear yard of no.154, in the northeast corner, is identified as being in good health but poor condition, as it was heavily topped in the past, with several vertical leaders now emerging from a common point near ground level, and as this species is also recognised as an environmental weed due to the copious amounts of seed it produces, can be removed and replaced with the more desirable species that have been shown.

 

The most established vegetation affected by this proposal is a large and mature Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar, Tree 2) of 12m in height with a spread of 12m, which is growing within the southern side setback of no.156, very close to the southern wall of the terrace house which is to be retained and refurbished.

 

This species is recognised as having an invasive and aggressive root system, and based on previous examples involving this species, due to the size of this tree and its close proximity to the footings, will likely damage footings (if this hasn’t happened already). The Tree Report identifies a poor branching structure, due to either past heavy lopping or storm damage, with the internal swelling on its main trunk an indication of decay, which is a point of weakness that may lead to future failures, with evidence of included junctions, which also carry a higher risk of failure than properly formed and separated branches.  

 

In addition, the excavated basement entry ramp and associated retaining walls would involve significant excavations on the southern side of its root plate, which would require significant design changes to the whole proposal, which are not warranted in this case due to its poor condition described above, with the relevant consent for its removal included in this report.

 

The revised landscape plan (rev D, 14/01/13) only differs slightly from the original (rev C, 10/10/12), with the deciduous trees that were proposed for the internal, central courtyard to now be replaced with evergreen natives, with the previous egress stairs and lift replaced with an increased garden area and new trees, with conditions in this report requiring that this new plan be fully implemented as part of the works.

 

Site Consolidation Comments

The proposed development site will be required to be consolidated into one allotment via a ‘Plan of Consolidation’ which must be registered at the NSW Land Property Information (LPI) prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Car Stacker Comments

The applicant proposes to use car stackers to meet parking requirements. A condition requiring the applicant to submit to Council details of the allocation of spaces has been included within this report.

 

7.3      Environmental Health

Advice of 27 March 2013:

 

A Primary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Environmental Investigations (report no. E1676.1 GA) dated 23 August 2012 was submitted with the development application. It is understood that the development involves demolition of existing stables and residential premises for the erection of a three storey residential premises and excavations of depths up to 4.5 metres for the basement carpark. 

 

The investigation revealed that there is groundwater observed at a depth of about 3 metres at some drilling locations. It is assessed that the basement level will be below the groundwater level.

 

As the proposal partially includes converting stables to residential premises which is a more sensitive use and given that there is groundwater present under the site, an environmental assessment of the development site was requested to assess for potential contamination on the site.

 

Council has received an Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Environmental Investigations (report no. E1676.1 AC) dated 21 March 2013 to assess the suitability of the site for the intended use.

 

Bore holes and ground water monitoring wells were utilized to assess for contaminants in soil and in the groundwater. Following the investigation, the report finds that there are some contaminants identified in the groundwater and soil on the site.

 

The report concludes that in the absence of contaminated fill/soils and all other potential on-site sources of copper and zinc, the identified groundwater concentrations of copper and zinc are not considered to represent a cause for environmental concern and further groundwater investigations for dissolved heavy metals was therefore considered unwarranted.

 

The site assessment considers the site is suitable for the proposed land use provided the following recommendations are carried out:

1.  Preparation of a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) and notification to Council in accordance with the local government guidelines.

2.  Excavation and removal of the PAH-impacted fill/soils from the identified areas.

3.  Excavation and removal of heavy metal impacted fill/soils from the identified areas.

4.  Excavation and removal of asbestos impacted fill/soils from the identified areas.

5.  Classification and off-site disposal of any contaminated soils in accordance with the DECCW (2009) Waste Classification Guidelines.

6.  Confirm that excavated areas are left free of contamination.

7.  Preparation of a final site validation report by a qualified environmental consultant certifying site suitability for the proposed development.

8.  Any soil to be imported onto the site for the purposes of back-filling excavated areas will also require validation testing in accordance with the relevant guidelines to confirm soil suitability for the proposed land use.

 

A remedial action plan and site audit statement will be required to be submitted to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for any building work.

 

7.4      Building Surveyor

No objection generally. It is noted that a BCA report with recommendations accompanies the application and it is apparent that the proposed development will be capable of complying with the BCA

 

7.5      Heritage Planner:

Advice of 30 January 2013:

 

The Site and Surrounding Area

The site is within the Randwick Racecourse heritage conservation area, and includes a one and two storey stables complex at nos.150 -152 Doncaster Avenue, a two storey terraced pair at nos.154-156 Doncaster Avenue, and a two storey stables building to the rear of no.156 Doncaster Avenue.  To the north east of the site within Randwick Racecourse is the Members/Official Stand which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) and Draft Randwick LEP 2012. 

 

In terms of aesthetic significance, the Statement of Significance for the Randwick Racecourse heritage conservation area notes that the most common building types are one storey Federation period detached and semi-detached houses, mostly on narrow lots with consistent setbacks and verandah and roof designs.  There are also a large number of Victorian period one and two storey houses, and two storey terraces.  The SoS notes that the unity of the streetscape is disturbed to some degree by Post-War period three storey flat buildings.

 

In terms of historic significance, the Statement of Significance for the heritage conservation area notes that the racecourse, and the many stables and workers’ cottages in the surrounding area, demonstrate the process of development of the racing industry, and its importance to the commercial life of the district.  This includes housing and stables on some of the properties fronting Doncaster Avenue.  In terms of social significance, the SoS notes that Doncaster Avenue is also appreciated by the community as part of an important local period landscape and streetscape.

 

The stables buildings at nos.150 – 152 Doncaster Avenue are generally of brick construction with metal deck roofing.  A two storey building along the rear (eastern) boundary of the site is flanked by single storey buildings along the northern and southern side boundaries, with a central open space and high brick walls to the street.  The southern half of the terraced pair generally retains its original form and character including timber windows and french doors, decorative ironwork to the front verandah and balcony and palisade fencing.  The northern half of the terraced pair has been extensively remodelled during the Interwar period to convert it to two flats, including enclosure of front verandah and balcony and re-skinning with face brickwork.  The stables building to the rear of no.156 is of predominantly brick construction with a low pitched skillion roof. 

 

To the north of the site between nos.126 and 148 Doncaster Avenue, is a large group of single storey detached and semi-detached cottages, one at no.144 Doncaster Avenue has an upper level addition.  To the south of the site between nos.158 and 178A Doncaster Avenue are single storey detached and semi-detached cottages, some with rear stables complexes (nos.158, 160, 162 and 164).  At no.158A, a stables complex occupies the entire site and no.170 Doncaster Avenue includes a three storey Interwar residential flat building. 

 

Background

A previous development application (DA/342/2010) for demolition of the existing stables and construction of a new one and two storey stables complex was withdrawn in September 2010.  This application was accompanied by Heritage Impact Statement, as well as a Structural Report.  The HIS considered that the proposal for continuation of the stables use on the site would continue a culturally important historic use. 

 

The proposal has been the subject of a formal pre-lodgement meeting (PL/37/2012).  The original proposal which was presented was for retention of the northern half of the terraced pair and a new development comprising a two storey building facing the street, and an L-shaped three and four storey building facing the side and rear boundaries.  Concerns were raised in relation to a number of heritage impacts and design changes were made.  Subsequent design changes included retention of both halves of the terraced pair and changes to the configuration and massing of the proposed front and rear buildings.  The most recent scheme proposed 42 apartments. 

 

Proposal

The current proposal is for demolition of the existing stables buildings, refurbishment of the existing terraced pair and construction of a residential development comprising 37 apartments.  The new development comprises a basement carpark, a two and three storey building facing the street, and a four storey building facing the rear boundary. 

 

Submission

The proposal has been accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Graham Brooks and Associates Pty Ltd which adopts a “whole of site approach” to consider which site components are appropriate for retention and incorporation and which can be demolished.  The SHI includes and Historical Summary, detail of building Integrity and Condition, an Assessment of Heritage Impact and Conclusions and Recommendations. 

 

The SHI considers that the proposal will not impact on the open space of the racecourse or the outlook across it from the higher ground in the vicinity of High Street.  The SHI considers that the height of the proposal will be consistent with the two storey terraces and that the character of the new development will be consistent with the character of existing buildings along Doncaster Avenue, noting that due to limited setbacks, the site is mainly visible from Doncaster Avenue and Darling Street, and from the rear.  In relation to demolition, the SHI notes that considerable change would be required to the stables building at no.150 in order to make necessary repairs and convert it to residential use.  The SHI considers that retention of the rear wings of the terrace and the two storey stables building at the rear of no.156 would impact on the design outcomes of the proposal, but that the retention of the terraced pair will have a more significant streetscape contribution.  The SHI considers that proposed internal changes are acceptable given the retention of exterior features and evidence of internal layout. 

 

Comments

Demolition of existing stables

The SHI notes and important characteristic of the area is the intermingling of equestrian and residential uses, with a number of stables buildings to the street and at the rear of properties.  Both stables building contribute to the heritage values of the conservation area as evidence of the historic importance of the horseracing industry.  The two storey stables building at nos.150 – 152 Doncaster Avenue has been identified in a Structural Engineers Report as being in poor condition, and it is agreed that the extent of repair and conservation works required to convert it to residential use would result in a much altered building.  The two storey stables building to the rear of no.156 does not contribute to the streetscape of the heritage conservation area.  It is noted that there are other examples of stables from the same era along Doncaster Avenue, and that retention of these buildings would unreasonably restrict design options for the site.  A consent condition should be included in relation to archival recording of the stables buildings prior to demolition. 

 

          Internal and external changes to the terraced pair

The SHI considers it likely that the pair of terraces was a result of the more permanent establishment of racing in the area, and that their retention will ensure a physical reminder of this association.  The SHI notes that externally, the northern terrace was subject to considerable change to during the 1920s including enclosure and addition to the front verandah and provision of a staircase to the northern façade, but that the southern terrace is more intact including ironwork verandah and balcony detailing, despite painting of face brickwork and changes to the rear wing.  Internally, the pair originally comprised ground floor living and dining rooms and upper level bedrooms with a two storey rear wing.  The northern terrace has been converted into two flats, while the southern terrace retains some original detailing including staircase, fireplace and decorative plasterwork. 

 

As compared to the pre-lodgement application, the development application will retain both halves of the terraced pair, providing a pair of two storey units instead of separate units at ground and first floor level.  The retention and reinstatement of detail to the northern terrace will complement the more intact southern terrace and contribute to the streetscape of the heritage conservation area.  The proposed demolition of existing rear wings will affect less significant building fabric which does not contribute to the streetscape.  The provision of two storey units utilising the original front door as the entry point will have less impact on remaining original internal fabric including plasterwork, timberwork, stairs and fireplaces. 

 

Scale and bulk of rear building- the Conservation Management Plan for Royal Randwick Racecourse, prepared by Godden Mackay Logan in December 1998 identifies a number of important historical views from within, and external to the Racecourse site.  These views are generally towards the south and south east from the stands and public areas in the north western corner of the site.  The proposed development will not impact on any of these historical views.  The site is well separated from surrounding heritage items including the Members/Official Stand within the Racecourse site and Kensington Public School further to the north on Doncaster Avenue, and will not impact on their heritage values. 

 

The form and massing of the current proposal represents a considerable improvement over the proposed building envelope and façade design of the L-shaped building originally proposed.  The Statement of Significance for the Racecourse heritage conservation area notes the aesthetic value of the predominant one storey Federation period detached and semi-detached houses and community appreciation of local period landscape and streetscape of Doncaster Avenue.  The predominant streetscape scale of the eastern side of Doncaster Avenue is single storey, including the group of cottages to the north.  Higher development within Kensington Town Centre and several residential flat buildings dating from the 1960s and 1970s were approved under different or superseded planning controls, and should not be seen as a providing a precedent for development of the subject site. 

 

The proposed rear building is to have a four storey scale, with the upper level set back, and a flat roofed form.  The rear building will be partially screened from the street by the remaining terraced pair and the two storey building to the Doncaster Avenue frontage.  It will have some streetscape visibility however over the back gardens and roofs of adjacent single storey development along Doncaster Avenue to the north and south.  Concerns were previously raised that the proposed four storey development represented a considerable increase in scale in relation to its single storey neighbours.  The amended drawings have generally responded to the heritage issues raised in relation to the scale and bulk of the rear building.  The proposed reduction in the building footprint at the south western corner and at the top (fourth) floor level of the rear building will reduce its streetscape visibility over the adjacent single storey cottages.  It is considered that the proposed landscaped side setback area (around 4m wide) and the stepping back of the upper level from the front, side and rear boundaries will reduce the visual and amenity impact of the proposed building, giving it a three storey scale with a recessive upper level.  Proposed building articulation will retain the aesthetic values of single storey Federation cottages within the Randwick Racecourse heritage conservation area. 

 

Form and massing of front building- the two storey scale and pitched roof of this building relate to the height and form of the terraced pair and the predominantly single storey streetscape on the eastern side of Doncaster Avenue.  The proposed alternating balcony and dining bays will provide some depth to the front façade depth consistent with that of a traditional front verandah.  The height of the pitched roof has been used to accommodate a partial third level at the rear of the building comprising a mezzanine bedroom and bathroom within the roof volume.  The floor area of the third level has been reduced at the ends of the building to provide a loft area only, so that the two storey scale of the building is maintained to the front and side elevations. 

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

8.1      State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 - Remediation of Land

The applicant has submitted a detailed site investigation statement from an Environmental Consultant. The information outlines possibility of the site being contaminated.

 

It is noted that excavation of the proposed basement structure will necessitate removal of a large amount of any potentially contaminated soil. 

 

Regardless, Council’s Environmental Health Unit has reviewed the proposal and recommended appropriate conditions, inclusive of a Remediation Action Plan, ensuring the site is suitable for residential occupation.

 

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

The development application is accompanied with a BASIX Certificate for each of the dwelling units. The commitments listed on the BASIX Certificates will be imposed by appropriate standard conditions pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. On this basis, Council’s Design Review Panel provided comment on the application, as below.

 

Panel comment

It was noted that this was a Development Application and the second Panel meeting with the Applicant for this project.

 

This proposal is for the demolition of existing stables and semi-detached dwelling to be replaced by a multi-unit development comprising 42 apartments (previously 40 apartments at Pre-DA stage) comprising 24 studio apartments, 8 one bed + study apartments, 10 two bed apartments (two of which are retained terrace houses) and basement parking has been reduced from 46 to 43 vehicles.  The site is within a conservation area.

 

Panel members have visited the site and are familiar with the broader area.

 

Principle 1:         Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

The site is zoned Res 2c and will be R3 in the new draft LEP.  The land is adjacent to and has spectacular views over Randwick Racecourse which is to the east.  The site is separated from the racecourse by a laneway that is within the racecourse site. 

 

The Applicant notes that low-rise semi-detached dwellings to the north and south of the site affect streetscape considerations, although there is a mix of building types and scales along Doncaster Avenue, including a number of 3 - 7 storey apartment buildings.

 

The proposal maintains appropriate side boundary setbacks and the Panel considers that the views from Doncaster Avenue to the racecourse should be maintained through these setbacks for public amenity and not obscured by plantings as they contribute to the quality of the streetscape and support public view sharing.

 

Planning response:

It is considered the design scheme provides an effective balance of planting to screen and soften the built form while allowing view lines to the northern and southern sides of the proposed buildings.

 

Principles 2 & 3:         Scale + Built Form of the Proposal

The proposed apartments are arranged around a central landscaped courtyard that largely separates the front from the rear blocks.  The Panel’s previous recommendations with regard to the scale and built form have generally been addressed.

 

A deep single level basement accommodates standard parking bays on the perimeter and central stacked parking.  The Panel suggests that one and a half standard basements could provide the same amount of parking and a similar amount of excavation without the need for car stacking.

 

Four storeys are proposed for the entire racecourse frontage.  The previously proposed 4 storey portion on the northern boundary has been set back to grid line 3 and is now considered satisfactory.  Roof terraces are proposed above the racecourse-facing wing; six private terraces are now proposed instead of a communal roof terrace.  The Panel questions whether the angling of balconies on the eastern façade is particularly beneficial or necessary, and that a clearer intent would yield greater amenity and a better aesthetic rhythm.

 

The built form facing Doncaster Avenue has now been reduced to a consistent 2 storeys to match the pair of retained terrace houses.  The Panel suggests that the roof profile for the new studio apartments could be altered (and the ceilings raised) to have more generous living rooms on both floors, and provide better natural ventilation and toplight to the top floor.  The upper units could then become proper one bedroom units, rather than needing to rely on the light and air across the living room for amenity. The loftier living rooms would also give a bolder wall and opening scale to the street, which would better relate to the grander scale of the retained terraces.

 

A small portion of deep soil has been provided to the east of the town houses however only shrubs and ground covers are proposed for this area.  Consideration could be given to establishing at least one large open canopy tree in this location.

 

The Panel previously noted that the driveway occupies potential landscaped space and is a paved ramp open to the sky.  It would be preferred if the driveway could be placed within the proposed built form.  This has not been achieved however the solution now proposed is considered reasonable.  The Panel would like to see more of the driveway covered with some low landscape treatment that did not obstruct the views through the site.

 

The Panel is not concerned about the height proposed onto the racecourse frontage, which responds to its spatial expanse and large-scale works currently underway.

 

Planning response:

The amended application has addressed the above issues as necessary.

 

Principle 4:         The Proposed Density

The intensification of use of the site is considered appropriate, given the excellent location and proposed characteristics of the development.

 

Principle 5:         Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The proposed dwellings have the potential for good passive performance and the provision of air-conditioning is not recommended by the Panel.

Ceiling fans should be provide and clearly marked on the plans - the Panel notes that this important issue has not been attended to and reiterates its advice.  Ceiling fans can reduce the tendency for occupants to install air-conditioning that can result in excessive energy use.

Ventilating skylights to the terrace house’ bathrooms and corridors would improve cooling by stack effect and decrease the need for artificial lighting through the day. The windows to the service rooms on the terrace's north facade are not clearly shown.

 

Planning response:

The applicant has indicated intention to provide ceiling fans to bedrooms and study areas. This will be enforced via recommended condition of consent. The amended proposal of 15 January 2013 provided sufficient detail of the north façade and incorporated skylights where possible.

 

Principle 6:         The Proposed Landscape

The deep soil and driveway treatment have been discussed above.

Existing trees on the site have been identified and noted as retained or removed and an arborist’s report provided to Council officers for assessment.

All of the trees in the central courtyard are nominated as deciduous.  Some consideration should be given to the loss of privacy amenity during winter between Blocks A and B, and the possible inclusion of a perennial.

 


Planning response:

The inclusion of Evergreen species was noted within the amended plan of 15 January 2013, alleviating concern of reduced internal privacy in winter.

 

Principle 7:         The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

Satisfactory.

A section was requested at Pre-DA through the unit type that has an internalised bedroom - this has not been provided.

There is the opportunity to further rationalize the common circulation, decreasing the extent of the open walkways keeping the exit stairs open if possible, and thus reducing the protection of openings: restrictions that would limit the ability for natural ventilation to openings facing the paths of travel.

 

Planning response:

The amended proposal of 15 January provided sufficient additional information, including sections. The amendments reduced the extent of internal walkways and provided permeable walls to fire stairs.

 

Principles 8 & 9:         Safety, Social Security

In principle a sound basis to proceed. The common entry between the old and new terraces is well-handled.

The Panel recommends that all the dwellings facing Doncaster Avenue have direct access from the street, as is set out in the RFDC. This would make the building more in character with the remnant narrow-fronted houses adjacent.

 

Planning response:

The amended proposal of 15 January 2013 has provided direct pedestrian access to Doncaster Ave from those terraces with fronting the street.

 

Principle 10:      The Aesthetics of the Proposal

The general massing is now considered to be reasonable.  The drawings however are not clear on many aesthetic details and the Panel requests that photomontages be provided along with the elevations of the courtyard, that the colours and materials be clearly marked on the drawings and that a colours and materials board be included in the drawing set to avoid ambiguity after consent is granted. The Panel has concerns about the potentially drab colours of the buildings facing Doncaster Avenue.

 

The development has the potential to be a positive contribution to the street and racecourse frontages.

 

Planning response:

The amended proposal of 15 January 2013 has provided a number of additional montages and direct pedestrian access to Doncaster Ave from those terraces with fronting the street.

 

A colours and materials sample board accompanies the submission. Feedback form Council’s Heritage Planner indicates the colour scheme is acceptable with regard to the streetscape and the Racecourse Conservation Area.

 

Summary and recommendations

The Panel will not need to review this application again if the issues raised in this report have been further discussed and resolved to the Council’s assessing officers’ satisfaction. 

 

Planning response:

The application is supported in relation to the principles of SEPP 65.

 


8.4      Consideration of transitional planning controls

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) commenced on 15 February 2013. The subject application was lodged on 12 October 2012 and is subject to the savings provisions contained within Clause 1.8A of RLEP 2012.

 

Pursuant to Clause 1.8A, the primary local planning instrument for the subject application remains Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 (RLEP 1998). RLEP 2012 remains a matter of consideration.

 

8.5      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The proposal is consistent with the general 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.

 

8.5.1   Clause 12 – Zone No 2C (Residential 2C Zone)

The objectives of Zone No 2C seek to:

 

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

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

(c)  protect the amenity of existing residents, and

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

(e)  encourage housing affordability, and

(f)  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.

 

Multi-unit housing of the nature proposed is permissible in the 2C zone. The proposal provides for an appropriate medium density housing development, both in the context of this site and as contemplated within the zone.

 

The scheme has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, minimising environmental impacts upon neighbouring sites. The proposal will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area through providing an articulated development of appropriate scale, that:

 

·      remains sympathetic to the amenity of neighbouring sites;

·      remains sympathetic to the streetscape and conservation area;

·      allows for an appropriate economic use of the subject site;

·    contributes positively to the variety of residential accommodation options in an accessible area.

 

Notwithstanding the proposed variations of development standards, discussed above, the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to the relevant zone objectives.

 

8.5.2   Part 2B- Principal Development Standards

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

 


 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

20E Landscaped area

(1) Minimum 50% of the site area

(Min. 984.5m2)

 

(3) Max 50% of landscaped area required is over basement.

(Max 492.3 m2).

 

52% (1023m2).

 

 

44.6% (439 m2) of the landscaped area requirement is provided over basement.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

20F

Floor space ratio

 

(1) Max 0.9:1 (1772.1 m2)

Proposed – 1.075:1 (2116.7m2)

No, SEPP 1 submitted and discussed below.

20G

Building height

 

(2) Overall height: 12m

 

(4) External wall height: 10m

 

Maximum height 13.3m

 

Maximum wall height 13.3m

 

No, SEPP 1’s submitted and discussed above.

22 Services

Adequate facilities for supply of water, disposal of sewage and drainage are required to support a proposed development

 

The site has existing access to adequate utility services.

Complies.

40 Excavation and filling of land

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

The proposal requires excavation to accommodate a basement car park. Suitable conditions are recommended to ensure works will not have any detrimental effect on the soil stability and environmental quality of the subject site and adjoining sites.

Complies, subject to conditions

40A Master Planning requirements.

Sites with area of greater than 10,000 m2 must prepare a Master Plan.

Site area of 1969m2.

Not required. 

43 Heritage

Consideration of the effect on the significance of the Conservation Area.

 

Acceptable- discussion below.

 

8.5.3   Heritage provisions

Clause 43 of the LEP requires development to conserve the significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views.

 

The site is located on the boundary of the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area. The sites proposed for development contain stables and dwellings that have historical association with the operation of the Racecourse, however no individual heritage listing.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for comment, as outlined in Section 7, above.

 

The significance of the subject component of the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area is noted with in the Randwick Draft Heritage DCP as:

 

“The residential properties on the eastern side of Doncaster Avenue form a straight street frontage almost a kilometre in length and predominantly Victorian and Federation period character. This housing is representative of the larger Kensington precinct, on either side of Anzac Parade”.

 

There are a number of single storey dwellings consistent with this stated form existing both to the immediate north of the site and scattered to the south towards Anzac Parade.

 

·      Existing structures on the site

The sites at 150 and 152 Doncaster Ave contain a stable development and vehicular thoroughfare accessing the Racecourse. These sites present a poor streetscape outcome comprising an imposing wall and gate immediately on the Doncaster Ave boundary. Despite this, the historical and cultural contribution of the stables to the conservation area is noted.

 

The submitted Heritage Impact Statement identifies the stables as in poor structural condition and prohibitive in retaining. The absence of any individual heritage listing to the stables prevents any strict requirement for retention and as such, no planning objection is raised in demolition, as reflected by Council’s Heritage Planner.

 

The southern component of the site comprises a pair of terraces of which positively contribute to the streetscape and are proposed to be retained and refurbished.

 

Figure 12: Frontage of 150 & 152 Doncaster Ave, left of frame. Higher density development on the western side of Doncaster Ave , right of frame.

Figure 13: Existing single storey Federation style dwellings at 146 & 148 Doncaster Ave, to the north of the subject site.


 

Figure 14: The existing terrace building on the site, proposed to be refurbished.

Figure 15: Development on the eastern side of Doncaster Ave , to the south of the subject site.

 

·      Proposed structures – Doncaster Ave aspect:

The site strategy employed within the scheme is responsive to the requirements of Clause 43 and specifically, the streetscape and conservation area significance of the site.

 

The development seeks to continue the positive contribution of the existing terraces on the site with the inclusion of a row of contemporary terraces with gable roof, in the present location of the stables. This strategy is considered to provide a preferable streetscape outcome, sympathetic of the Victorian and Federation character of the streetscape and commensurate in scale. 

 

The gabled two (2) storey form fronting Doncaster Ave is substantially lower than the development standards provide for in the 2C/R3 zone, in effort to provide a sympathetic continuation of built form to Doncaster Ave. Building bulk is consequently redistributed in lieu of this, in this case to the rear building form fronting the Racecourse. The two (2) storey gable form provides substantial screening to this larger element from view of Doncaster Ave.

 

It is acknowledged the rear building component will be visible above adjacent single storey development to the north and south along Doncaster Ave. This element is setback over 20 metres from Doncaster Ave. The building is also recessed at upper floor level in order to reduce the prominence and bulk of the development where likely to be visible from the streetscape. Suitable articulating and modulating elements inclusive of openings, balconies, material variation and landscaping are all incorporated to minimise apparent external bulk and scale to the streetscape and adjoining sites.

 

·      Proposed structures – Racecourse aspect;

Regarding visibility from the racecourse aspect of the conservation area, this elevation is considered to carry positive design merit in employment of a strong built form. The expansive site area of the Racecourse indicates ability to support a larger scale of development, without possibility of overwhelming the site or compromising its associated significance. Those heritage items located on the racecourse site are over 600 metres away.

 

The proposed rear building component will positively contribute definition to the boundary of the racecourse. 

 

·      Proposed structures – View loss concerns;

A number of submissions received expressed objection over loss of views to the Members Stand and greater racecourse site. Many noted understanding of the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area as a blanket restriction on development on the eastern side of Doncaster Ave. Views are obtained from elevated positions in the ‘Capella’ development and adjoining medium density flat buildings, over 600 metres away from the stated view elements.

 

The site benefits from a 2C /R3 zoning, with the intention of encouraging sympathetic multi-unit development, that responds to the context of the conservation area.

 

The conservation area attribute requires particular consideration of the built form aesthetic of the area and streetscape. It does not provide a blanket prohibition on redevelopment. Variation of the development standards is possible in the conservation area context, when undertaken in a considered and sympathetic manner. The presence of the conservation area does not provide justification to the comprehensive retention of racecourse views, notably with regard to the nature of the views raised as being obstructed and the manner in which they are achieved above the subject site.

 

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate scale for this site, providing a larger built form at the rear of the site to avoid uncharacteristic dominance of the streetscape. The height standard is only marginally exceeded and compliance would not result in an appreciable difference in the view retained given the sight lines and distance to those heritage items on the racecourse.

 

The proposal is not considered to detrimentally impact upon the aesthetic, historic or social significance of the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area or nearby heritage items. As such, the proposal is considered to be generally acceptable with regard to Clause 43 of RLEP.

 

8.6      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

The application is subject to the savings provisions of Clause 1.8A of RLEP 2012.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 remains a matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application, pursuant to 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 within RLEP 2012, as they relate to the subject development application:

 

 

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

 

Zoning:

 

The site is zoned Medium Density Residential R3.

Yes.

Permissible under the proposed zoning?

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.9:1

1.075:1

 

No, see below.

 

Height of Building (Max)

12m

13.3m

 

No, see below.

 

Heritage:

·    Draft Heritage Conservation Area

·    In vicinity of a heritage item

The site is located within the Racecourse Conservation Area (C13) and is in the vicinity of the Doncaster Hotel and the Masonic Temple (at 268 and 199 - 201 Anzac Parade, respectively). Both are locally listed heritage items.

The proposed development is not considered to pose a significant detrimental impact upon the heritage significance of the conservation area or those items within the vicinity.

 

The objectives of R3 Medium Density Residential zone seek:

 

•   To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

•   To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

•   To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

•   To recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form or, in precincts undergoing transition, that contribute to the desired future character of the area.

•   To protect the amenity of residents.

•   To encourage housing affordability.

•   To enable small-scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.

 

The scheme has been designed to maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area through providing an articulated development of appropriate scale, that:

 

·    Contributes positively to the housing needs of the community and the variety of residential accommodation options available in an accessible area;

·    Remains sympathetic to the streetscape and conservation area;

·    Remains sympathetic to the amenity of neighbouring sites;

·    Allows for an appropriate economic use of the subject site.

 

8.6.1.1      RLEP 2012 - Floor space ratio controls

RLEP 2012 adopts an FSR of 0.9:1 to the subject site. The subject application proposes a floor space of approximately 1.075:1.

 

Despite this variation to the future control, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the current controls. The proposed floor space has been effectively distributed across the site and appropriately designed to be compatible with the streetscape and minimise any resulting environmental impacts upon surrounds. The proposed building bulk supports an intensity of use that is reasonable in the context of this site and considers adjoining amenity.

 

8.6.1.2      RLEP 2012 – Height controls

RLEP 2012 adopts a height of 12 metres to the subject site. The subject application proposes a maximum height of 13.3 metres.

 

Despite this variation to the future control, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the current controls. The bulk of the development exists below the 12 metre height standard, with only the eaves and rooftop structures protruding this height. The maximum height proposed is appropriate in achieving an effective transition from high density elements to the south-west of the site, to lower scale development existing to the north along Doncaster Ave. The proposed height minimises detrimental impacts upon adjoining sites, the streetscape or surrounds.

 

8.7      Randwick Multi-Unit Housing DCP

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

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

The application is accompanied by a suitable site analysis plan reflecting the elements of the proposed development.  

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

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

The site is of regular shape, has a frontage of over 48 metres and is of substantial size. The site allows for an acceptable siting of buildings.

Height

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

 

The wall height and overall height of the development seek to vary the respective development standards of the LEP. Both are discussed in the SEPP 1 discussion, above.

The proposed building height and wall height variations are considered to incorporate appropriate design measures to offset detrimental impacts upon the street or adjoining sites. The height of the development is considered acceptable in the context of the site.

 

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.

 

Building bulk is distributed effectively across the site and is appropriately articulated with staggering wall alignments, a combination of materials, balconies and landscaping all contributing to visual interest.

Building Setbacks                                      

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

Front setbacks to Doncaster Ave are consistent with that established to adjoining development and are sympathetic to the character of the locality.

Complies.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

 

 

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

 

North elevation setbacks:

·    Min 2.5 metres;

·    Max 4 metres.

Does not comply.

Further comment regarding the northern side setback is provided in Section 9, below.

South elevation setbacks:

·    Min 3.5 metres;

·    Max 9 metres

Complies.

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation is approximately 10m. Openings, landscaping and materials have been incorporated for visual interest.  Acceptable.

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ Allows reasonable solar access and minimises overshadowing.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

East elevation setbacks to Racecourse:

·    Min 1.5 metres to balconies;

·    Max 4 metres to building bulk.

Does not comply.

Further comment regarding the rear setback is provided in Section 9, below.

P4  General

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

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

The proposed shading devices and design of the development will not result in significant shadow impacts on the adjoining properties.

Density

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

 

The proposed floor space seeks to vary the development standard of the LEP. The issue is discussed in the SEPP 1 discussion, above.

 

The proposed density has been effectively distributed across the site and designed to minimise resulting environmental impacts upon surrounds, ensuring consistency with the character of the locality.

 

The proposed building bulk supports an intensity of use that is reasonable in the context of this site and considers adjoining amenity.

Fences          

P1  Fences to be/have:       

§ consistent with streetscape;

§ entrances highlighted; and

§ planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

The proposal includes fencing to the Doncaster Ave frontage.

 

Fencing detail includes stepped masonry planter boxes of roughly one (1) metre in height on the front boundary. Additional masonry fencing is provided 1500mm behind the front boundary to a height of roughly 1600mm, topped with 400mm high steel frame balustrade above.

 

The design is considered an effective response to the streetscape. Pedestrian openings provide direct access to courtyards of corresponding dwellings, connecting private space with the streetscape.

 

A condition is recommended requiring further detail be provided for the benefit of compatibility with the Conservation Area.

Landscaping and Private Open Space           

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

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

A sufficient amount of consolidated landscaping is provided across the site.  Complies.

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

 

The central courtyard is communal. Courtyards, terraces and balconies have been dedicated to all units and sufficiently screened to ensure privacy and amenity to future occupants. 

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Each unit is provided with direct access to private outdoor areas.

Complies.

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

 

Areas of private open space have been provided to Doncaster Ave frontage.

The site is bound by appropriate fencing and planting and does not detract from the streetscape.

Complies.

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.

The two (2) terrace style dwellings benefit from courtyards within the front setback. Dimensions vary between 5 x 4 metres and area of roughly 25sqm.

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.

Private balconies and courtyards provide sufficient dimension for use, in conjunction with access to areas of communal open space. 

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.

 

Privacy is discussed within Section 9 of this report.

The amended application has included a number of privacy measures that, in conjunction with the recommendation of additional privacy conditions, are considered satisfactory in maintaining privacy to adjoining spaces.

Satisfactory.

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

The private open space of each dwelling is located away or screened from that of other units. The ground floor open spaces are adequately screened/separated by planter boxes and fencing. Proposed balconies generally encourage view to be directed to the street frontage or the Racecourse.

Satisfactory.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Satisfactory.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Standard condition recommended requiring compliance with the Building Code of Australia. Complies, subject to condition.

View Sharing                      

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

 

View sharing is discussed within Section 9 of this report.

The development is not considered to unnecessarily obstruct views.

Satisfactory.

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

The overall height of the development allows some view corridors over the site to be retained where possible.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

The design responds to the southern neighbour, minimising shadow where possible.

Satisfactory.

Solar access is discussed in Section 9 of this report.

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

 

The proposal will not result in unreasonable overshadowing impacts on solar panels on rooftops of adjoining dwellings.

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.

 

Satisfactory.

Solar access is discussed in Section 9 of this report.

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

 

The neighbour’s rear open space receives less than three (3) hours sunlight in both existing and proposed situations.

Solar access is discussed in Section 9 of this report.

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.

A BASIX certificate will be required as a condition of consent to ensure compliance with the commitments stipulated on the certificate through to the construction phase.

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

The proposed roof design is considered satisfactory in relation to supporting any potential future installation of solar panels.

Safety and Security                      

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Satisfactory.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Satisfactory.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.