Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 28 May 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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 May 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 at 6:00pm.

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 23 April 2013

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council 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.

Mayoral Minutes

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

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

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

 

CP30/13    16 Alison Road, Randwick (DA/11/2013)................................................... 1

CP31/13    8 Simeon Street, Clovelly (DA/794/2011/A) ............................................ 81

CP32/13    8 Nagle Avenue, Maroubra (DA/774/2009/A).......................................... 103

CP33/13    18 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (DA/601/2012)......................................... 121

CP34/13    18 Napper Street, South Coogee (DA/150/2011/A)................................. 213

CP35/13    164-168 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/491/2012)................................... 227

CP36/13    Draft Comprehensive Development Control Plan - Post Exhibition Report (DEFFERED) 293

CP37/13    Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) April, 2013................................................................. 339

General Manager's Reports

GM8/13     Review of the 2012-13 Annual Operational Plan - March Quarterly Report... 343

GM9/13     Continuation of Community Partnership with Randwick District Rugby Football Club     345

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF22/13    Affixing of the Council Seal - Caltex Australia Pty Ltd.............................. 347

GF23/13    Investment Report - April 2013........................................................... 349

GF24/13    Quarterly Budget Review - March 2013................................................. 357

GF25/13    Constitutional Recognition of Local Government - Referendum................... 359  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM34/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Nash - Council policy in relation to the distribution of political material.......................................................................................... 361

NM35/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Kensington and West Kingsford Precinct viewpoints for the proposed Kensington Community Centre.......................................... 363

NM36/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Kingsford Town Centre Parking Needs Assessment   365

NM37/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Child Immunisation.......................... 367

NM38/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Sister City, Hangzhou...................... 369

NM39/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Randwick and Coogee Amateur Swimming Club        371

NM40/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Immunisation of Children................. 373  

Closed Session

GF26/13    Expression of Interest Process - Kensington Bowling Club

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

 

GF27/13    Supply of Electricity for Large Sites,
Street Lighting and Green Power

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

 

CS5/13      Tractor - Open Space and Beach Services

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

 

CS6/13      T07/12 Floodplain Risk Management Studies - Maroubra Bay, Coogee Bay and Kensington Centennial Park

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

 

CS7/13      T04/13 - Tender for Remediation of Chifley Sport Reserve

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

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil. 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Sima Truuvert

ACTING General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 May 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP30/13

 

 

Subject:                  16 Alison Road, Randwick (DA/11/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/11/2013

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing building and construction of a new four storey mixed use development comprising of a motorcycle showroom with workshop and ancillary office space at ground level, boarding house with 22 rooms on floors above, basement carparking for 4 vehicles and rooftop communal area/courtyard

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Cracknell & Lonergan Architects

Owner:                         Sam Petukh

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject application is reported to Council on the basis that the application involves a variation to the building height development standard by more than 10% (being 13.75%) and the estimated development cost is valued over $2 million.

 

Consent is sought for demolition of existing industrial building and construction of a new four storey mixed use development comprising of a motorcycle showroom with workshop and ancillary office space at ground level, boarding house with 22 rooms on floors above, basement carparking for 4 vehicles and rooftop communal area/courtyard.

 

The site is zoned General Business 3A under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The boarding house and motorcycle showroom components of the development are permissible with Council’s consent, whilst the vehicle repair workshop is a non conforming use within the zone. The proposal relies on the ‘existing use’ provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the retention of the vehicle repair workshop area. Existing use rights apply to the site for the workshop portion under Part 4, Division 10 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, and as such provide a basis for the assessment of this application despite the fact that an ‘automotive use’ is prohibited in the 3B Local Business Zone.  

 

The site is located on the north-eastern side of Alison Road, at the intersection of Alison Road and John Street. The local area is high in amenity with Centennial and Moore Parks in close proximity to site and immediately opposite the site to the north of Alison Road is the Randwick Racecourse and to the south of the subject site along King Street is Randwick TAFE.  The area is also well served by public transport and is within a convenient walk to Randwick shopping centre, the Prince of Wales Hospital and UNSW.

 

The application was notified and advertised between 23 January 2013 and 7 February 2013.  Four (4) submissions were received in response to the notification. The primary issues raised related to the automotive and boarding house use and associated management issues, existing use rights, the proposed built form and height, solar access, privacy, view loss, parking and traffic.

 

As this application was lodged with Council on the 9th January 2012, prior to the Randwick Local Environment Plan 2012 commencing, the application has been assessed based on the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). Consideration has also been given to the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 under Section 9(b) of this report.

 

The proposal satisfies the requirements set out by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure within State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposal is satisfactory when assessed against Council’s planning controls contained in RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and relevant considerations of environmental amenity.

 

The overall FSR associated with the proposed development complies with the maximum FSR development standard, inclusive of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 bonus. Under RLEP 1998, the maximum FSR for or the site is 1.5:1. The SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides for a bonus residential FSR of 0.5:1, which increases the total FSR to 2:1. 

 

The proposal does not meet the maximum building height standard as contained in RLEP 1998. The breach in the maximum height standard generally varies from 270mm to 1.65m (or 2.25% to 13.75%, respectively). As such, the applicant has submitted a written objection under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 – Development Standards justifying that the above breach will not result in significant adverse amenity or visual impacts on the area. This non-compliance with the maximum building height standard is deemed to be acceptable as the resultant built form is commensurate in height, bulk and scale with the surrounding development. The SEPP No. 1 Objection has been assessed and is supported.

 

The proposal will provide for increased affordable housing in a highly accessible location. It is considered that potential amenity impacts to adjoining sites can be addressed through recommended conditions, including the required implementation of a Plan of Management. The proposal has the ability to provide a high level of internal amenity to occupants.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application seeks approval for the following works:

 

·      demolition of the existing building; and

·      construction of a new four storey mixed use development with basement level.

 

On each level the work specifically include:

 

Basement:

The basement parking level contains 5 vehicles, bin storage room, 5 bicycle spaces, bathroom facilities and 7 motorcycle spaces.

 

Ground level:

The ground level comprises of a motorcycle showroom, repair workshop areas, office space, storage room and residential lobby.

 

The proposed hours of operation are from:

 

Monday to Friday

8am to 6pm

Saturday

9am to 3pm

Sunday

9am to 3pm

 

First, second and third levels:

The first, second and third levels contain a total of 22 self contained boarding rooms with balconies and on the third level a common area with balcony is proposed.

 

Rooftop:

The rooftop compromises of a concrete roof terrace area, roof awning structure adjacent to the lift and staircase and 2 planter boxes.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 13, Section 1 in DP 902, known as 16 Alison Road , Randwick. The site is a corner allotment and is located south west of Alison Road and south east of John Street. The site is rectangular in shape and has a fall of approximately 1m from north to south of the site.

 

The dimensions and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 


 

Boundary

Length

Land area

North-east, John Lane rear boundary

12.19m

377.8m2

North-west, side boundary

31.115m

South-east, John Street side boundary

30.875m

South-west, Alison Road front boundary

12.19m

 

The site is presently occupied by a single storey brick building with a pitched metal roof and garage at the rear accessed off John Street. The site is zoned 3B Local Business under the Randwick LEP 1998. The building is utilised as a motorcycle showroom and vehicle repair workshop and relies on existing use rights provisions as the auto repair workshop is a non-conforming use.

 

The site is not recognised as being of any heritage significance within the provisions within RLEP 1998, however is within the vicinity of a conservation area and heritage item.

 

3.2      Surrounding Area

The site is located on the north-eastern side of Alison Road, at the intersection of Alison Road and John Street. The local area is high in amenity with Centennial and Moore Parks in close proximity to site and immediately opposite the site to the north of Alison Road is the Randwick Racecourse and to the south of the subject site along King Street is Randwick TAFE.  The area is also well served by public transport and is within a convenient walk to Randwick shopping centre, the Prince of Wales Hospital and UNSW. The site is located approximately 3km south east of the Sydney CBD and is located along an arterial road that connects the eastern suburbs to the inner-city and Sydney CBD.  The road provides key transportation route through the Randwick Local area and supports public transport routs. 

 

The immediate context is characterised by a mixture of uses, which is predominately residential, however, also includes a petrol station, education buildings (TAFE), racecourse and mixture of dwellings and residential flat buildings.

 

4.    Site History

 

4.1      Relevant application history

Pre-lodgement advice, PL/36/2011:

The applicant sought formal preliminary advice from Council in regards to the proposal. Advice was provided within PL/36/2011 on 2 August 2011.

 

The pre-lodgement application proposed demolition of the existing building, retention and reconstruction of repair workshop/showroom with 21 room boarding house above with caretaker's apartment and car parking.

 

The building comprised a floor space of 2.8:1 (1047.5m²)

 

A number of points were raised with the scheme, predominantly in relation to visual bulk and scale of the development, amenity and social impacts, evidence in support of the existing use rights and the effects the development will have on the heritage significance of the Randwick Racecourse and Centennial Park Heritage Conservation Areas.

 

DA/236/2012:

A previous Development Application was lodged for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new four storey mixed use development comprising of a motorcycle showroom with workshop at ground level, and ancillary office space mezzanine level, boarding house with 22 rooms on floors above, basement car parking for 4 vehicles and rooftop communal area/courtyard. 

 

Council provided written comments requesting amendments to the design on two occasions. As a result the application was modified and then withdrawn to address these concerns and comments provided by Council’s Design Review Panel meeting dated August 2012.

 

4.2      Approvals on the site

Council records indicate that the subject site was used as a vehicle repair workshop and for vehicle sales for many years.

 

BA/335/1937: On 15 July 1937, approval was granted for alterations.

 

DA/188/1938: On 5 April 1938, approval was granted for alterations to the existing garage & workshop to provide service station.

 

DA/4/1980: On 14 February 1980, consent was granted to convert the garage component of the service station for the use of hire car storage.

 

DA/134/1995: On 9 June 1995, approval was granted for the use of the handstand area and front office for the purposes of a drive through dry cleaning establishment. It is understood that this use ceased in late 1997.

 

DA/74/1998: On 20 February 1998, Council refused consent for the use of the front office and hardstand area for a car sales yard. The application was refused because the proposal did not comply with Clause 70 of Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance, which required a 40m road frontage, and the proposed car parking arrangement was unsatisfactory. The applicant was proposing to locate 8 vehicles within the designated area, two of which were reserved for customers.

 

DA/822/1998: On 16 November 1998, approval was granted for enclosure of the existing hardstand area for vehicles sales (motor show room).

 

DA/627/2001: On 19 February 2002, approval was granted for alterations and additions to existing car showroom including car wash and detailing area.

 

The proposed café and associated awning seating was not approved as insufficient car parking had been provided on-site to accommodate the potential demand for such an activity. Also, the proposed works to the existing mechanical workshop were not approved, as insufficient information was provided within the application to enable a full and proper evaluation of the potential impact of the works.

 

DA/911/2010: On 20 December 2010, approval was granted for installation of 6 new signs.

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standard contained within Randwick LEP 1998. SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted with the development application. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objection, the following matters are addressed:

 

5.1      Clause 20G: Building Height

20F (3) Maximum height

Proposed

Proposed

Generally the building has a maximum height between 12.27m to 13.65m from the existing ground level (with the exception of the lift overrun being at a maximum height of 14.85m top of lift). 

 

Given that the lift overrun is ancillary to the proposed building and will not result in any adverse amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing and views, the maximum building height is taken from top of the building parapet.

 

LEP development standard

12m

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

The breach in the maximum height varies from 270mm to 1.65m (or 2.25% to 13.75%, respectively).

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

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

 

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

 

As such, the appropriate test in this instance is to establish whether the proposed building height results in a development that is of a size and scale which is compatible with the established character of the locality and does not detract from the amenity of the locality and the objectives of the Local Business 3B Zone.

 

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

This statement has been prepared in objection to height and floor space ratio controls concerning the proposed development, DA/11/2013.

 

The overall bulk and scale of the development have been reduced to fit within the 12 metre height control, following Council’s comments regarding the original submission in 2012, DA/227/2012. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development is comparable in scale to other residential flat buildings in the area which exceed the maximum building height for Zone M of 12 metres; the proposed development would also have no adverse impacts.

 

Furthermore, Clauses 29(1) and (4) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 state that:

 

(1)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than:

 

(a)  the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, or

 

(b)  if the development is on land within a zone in which no residential accommodation is permitted—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of development permitted on the land, or

 

(c)  if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus:

 

(i)     0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less, or

 

(ii)    20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1.

 

(4)  A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).

 

Given that the bulk and scale of the proposed development fits within the 12 metre maximum permissible building height for the Zone it can be concluded that the objection is well founded.  Following is further elaboration of this objection.

 

Principles for SEPP 1 objections

The decision of Justice Lloyd in Winten v North Sydney Council identifies the following principles against which a SEPP 1 objection must be tested:

 

1.     Is the planning control in question a development standard?

2.     What is the underlying object or purpose of the standard?

3.     Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular does compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (i) of the EP&A Act?

4.     Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case? Is a development that complies with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary?

5.     Is the objection well founded?

 

The above principles are addressed in detail below:

 

1 Is the planning control in question a development standard?

The planning controls in question are Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 which states that the maximum allowable floor space ratio permitted for Zone S1 is 1.5:1; and Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 which states the maximum allowable height permitted is 12 metres.

 

The proposal relies on the provisions of the Affordable Housing SEPP for bonus FSR, which results in a total permissible FSR of 2:1.This control is a numerical development standard and therefore is capable of being varied under the provision of State Environmental Planning policy No. 1 – Development Standards. However, the application proposes a floor space ration of 1.99:1 which complies with the requirement.

 

The major bulk of the proposed building comes under the maximum permissible building height of 12 metres, with the exception of the structure housing the lift shaft and stairwell emerging onto the rooftop, which rises to 14 metres. This structure, however, is ancillary to the main bulk of the building, and is not set against any of the main street frontages.

 

2. What is the underlying object or purpose of the standards?

The objective and purpose of the standards in accordance with Clause 4.3 – Building Height and Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio is to ensure that the proposed works are compatible with the surrounding environment in terms of bulk, scale, amenity, streetscape, setting, transport and preserving the character of the building and surrounding conservation area and heritage items.

 

When assessed against the underlying objective, the proposal is considered to result in a development:

 

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a)    to ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

 

(b)    to ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,

 

(c)    to ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

Therefore it is submitted to Council that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

The proposed departure of the FSR control is considered supportable given the proposal will result in a development of high architectural merit and is of a bulk and scale that is consistent with surrounding buildings, including 6 storey residential flat buildings to the east and TAFE building to the north.

 

When viewed from the streetscape, the proposal will result in a compatible front building line that will be consistent with surrounding dwellings and does not have adverse impacts on adjoining receivers in terms of overshadowing, privacy, acoustic or amenity impacts.

 

Furthermore, the proposed bulk and scale is considered appropriate and largely achieves numerical compliance with the controls, and is in compliance with the strategic compliance with the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

3 Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act?

The aims and objectives of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards are:

 

“To provide flexibility in the applications 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 objects set down in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) are:

 

(a)    to encourage:

 

(i)      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;

(ii)      the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

 

The proposed development is a socially responsive design, providing affordable housing opportunities in a locality that has a considerable student population. The proposed development would be a significantly positive contribution to the economic development of the area. Compliance with the standard would not hinder the attainment of the objects of section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act, which are to encourage development that promotes the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment, and to promote and co-ordinate orderly and economic use and development of land.

 

The key objective is to ensure that the proposed development is compliant and compatible with surrounding development in terms of built form, amenity and sustainability. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding development in terms of bulk, scale and height. The proposal is considered to have minimal adverse impacts in terms of amenity, built form or bulk, scale and density as presented to the street. From a streetscape perspective, the proposed development is consistent with the surrounding character and is not out of context. The design outcome for the site will be an architecturally designed development that will provide visual interest and relief for the streetscape.

 

SEPP No. 1 provides a mechanism for development to respond to the context of a site, which is particularly important when dealing with infill proposals in built up and developed areas.

 

Strict compliance with the development standard would not result in discernible benefits to the residential amenity of any future occupants, or the residential amenity for adjoining sites. Further the proposal satisfies the zone and general and specific LEP objectives and therefore strict compliance with the standard is not required in order to achieve compliance with the objectives. It is therefore considered that the proposal is consistent with the primary objective that the density and control seeks to achieve.

 

The development as proposed is consistent with the provisions of orderly and economic development.

 

4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

His Honour Preston CJ set out five alternative ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the preparation of a SEPP 1 objection in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827, albeit only one of these 5 ways needs to apply in order for the objection to be well founded:

 

a.       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.

b.       Establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

c.       Establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

d.       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 unreasonable or unnecessary.

e.       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…”

 

In the circumstances of this case, the provision of a strict numerical compliance would be unnecessary and unreasonable on the basis that:

 

-      The underlying objective of the standard is achieved and largely complies with the building height allowance within the Randwick LEP 2012. The proposed departure is considered acceptable and can be supported.

 

-      The proposed height of the alterations and additions is comparable and consistent with the density of surrounding development in the immediate vicinity. This is consistent with point d (above).

-      The proposal will not impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential properties in terms of overshadowing or privacy.

-      The proposed height is considered to be consistent with the surrounding locality and complies with the objectives of the control, in terms of ensuring an acceptable standard of amenity for adjoining properties, in terms of solar access, private open space and visual and acoustic privacy.

-      The proposal is consistent with the primary objective that the density control aims to achieve given the proposal is compatible with the style, bulk, scale and height of surrounding buildings.

-      The proposed development achieves compliance with the aims and objectives of the LEP.

 

5 Is the objection well founded?

Council has the capacity to approve an application that does not comply with the numerical development standards subject to satisfying the SEPP 1 requirements and ensuring that the proposed development is consistent with the strategic objectives of the relevant development standard. It is submitted to Council that the proposed development is consistent with the strategic objectives of the standard and aims of the LEP and will facilitate a development that has a height that is consistent with the heights of surrounding development. It is therefore established that compliance with the numerical controls for FSR does not compromise compliance with the objectives of the development standards, and therefore it is considered unreasonable to require compliance, in this instance.

 

It is concluded that the objection is well founded, as compliance with the standard is both unnecessary and unreasonable and would tend to hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act. The objection will allow the proposal to comply with the height control under the current Randwick LEP 2012.

 


Assessment Officer Comments:

It is considered that the proposed development and variation from the maximum building height standard is appropriate in the circumstances. The submitted SEPP 1 Objection is well founded for the following reasons:

 

o    The location of the development on Alison Road is appropriate for a higher built form, given its location being directly opposite the Randwick Racecourse and its accessibility of Alison Road.  The building height will therefore contribute to definition of the street, without dominating the streetscape;

o    It is common for corner blocks in the vicinity, with frontage to Alison Road, to support stronger elements of built form and height, presenting landmark buildings. This provides a strengthened built form to enhance definition of the block and the street network. The subject site sees similar circumstances of lot shape and frontage to these existing landmark buildings where building heights are more prominent;

o    Development within the visual catchment of the site consists of a mixture of uses including commercial, residential and education.  The height of these building varies from 1 storey houses to 4 and 6 storey apartments and TAFE buildings. To the east there are 5 to 6 storey residential flat buildings on Alison Road. The height of the development is not inconsistent with the surrounding built form and will not present as a dominant element to the street;

o    Council’s Design Review Panel encourages mixed use development and considered the site highly appropriate for increased density, given the site exists on a major thoroughfare and is in close proximity to public transport and facilities.

 

o    The proposed building height serves to maintain and enhance desirable attributes of the existing residential built form, providing an articulated contemporary building of appropriate scale and height, of which will contribute to defining the corner allotment without causing unreasonable impacts in terms of view loss, privacy or overshadowing. Refer to Sections 10.1, 10.2 & 10.3 for detailed assessment.

 

o    The proposed building is not considered to impose unnecessary or unreasonable levels of overshadowing to neighbouring properties. The additional overshadowing is only in the afternoon and extends to the north-west facing windows on the ground and first floor units at no.18-20 Alison Road. The adjoining buildings will still receive the required solar access requirements. Refer to Section 10.3 for detailed assessment.

 

o    The proposal meets the minimum FSR requirements identified in SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

o    The proposal responds well to the existing context and provides contemporary affordable housing for the community within a highly accessible area.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. Moreover, the applicant has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standards of Clauses 20G (5) is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 


Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The variation from the building height development standard is not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it would not detract from the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts. The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Local Business 3B Zone. The effect of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring sites, as discussed in the following sections of this report, is considered to be acceptable. The proposal will encourage housing affordability within the local 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”.

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not allow the best use of the site and 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 standards is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposal is considered 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 standards is relevant to the subject development.

Third

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standard would not be defeated or thwarted 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 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 Local Business 3B zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

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

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. On this basis, Council’s Design Review Panel have reviewed the application and provided advice in relation to the ten design quality principles and the requirements in the Residential Flat Design Code.  The key issues raised by the DRP are addressed in Sections 7.4 of this report.  

 

Overall, the concerns raised by the DRP have been addressed to the satisfaction of the assessing officer and the proposed development is considered to meet the aims and objectives of SEPP 65.

 


6.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  The application was also advertised in the local newspaper on 23 January 2013 till 7 February 2013.  A total of four (4) submissions were received in response to the notification.

6.1   Objections

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

·      The Owners – Strata Plan No. 10919 at 18 Alison Road, Randwick

·      5/18 Alison Road, Randwick

·      5 King Street, Randwick

·      Apartment 3/9 King Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Roof terrace & common area

§ Objects to the roof terrace as it will create noise and overlooking impacts.

§ A condition should be included limiting the time and restricting the number of people using the common area and roof top terrace.

 

Conditions have been recommended which require the following:

 

§ Planting to be provided around the perimeter of the site. This will slightly reduce the size of the terrace and act as an acoustic buffer and restrict overlooking in a downward direction.

§ The use of the communal courtyards and terraces within the premises has been restricted to a curfew of no later than 10:00pm and no earlier than 7:00am.

 

Subject to the above conditions it is not considered that the proposed terrace area will result in unreasonable visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

 

Proposed use

 

§ There are already large amount of affordable student accommodation and housing within this block.

§ Unsure what type of residents this building would house, i.e. Students, homeless people, recovering alcoholics and drug attics or ex-prisoners. Concerned that a Boarding House will encourage addicts into the area and further compromise the safety of their children and property.

§ Would prefer the developer to create affordable flats for families rather than a Boarding House.

§ Social issues associated with low cost housing, particularly related to the noise pollution and disturbance from the proposed common rooftop terrace. 

§ Concerned that there the operator of a Boarding House has no legal obligation to the safety to its tenants, its facilities, or indeed the number of people it sleeps in each room.

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the 3B Local Business Zone under LEP 1998 (Consolidation) and future B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone under LEP 2012. The proposed mixed use development will provide new affordable housing opportunities within a highly accessible area to existing services, public transport, hospital, TAFE and the Randwick Town Centre. In addition, the proposal has been assessed in relation to potential impacts, as detailed within the body of this report, and is not expected to unreasonably impact on any adjoining or nearby residential properties.

 

In relation to potential noise and antisocial behaviour, appropriate operational management conditions have been recommended to ensure the boarding house will be operated in a proper manner with minimal amenity impacts on the neighbouring residential premises. The proposal does not result in an unreasonable intensity of use for the location. Refer to Section 10.4 Social Impact Assessment for more detailed assessment.

 

Parking & traffic concerns

§ The development does not meet the parking criteria and will have a parking deficiency of 24 parking spaces which will grossly exacerbate the existing lack of on-street parking.

§ Currently on-street residents’ vehicular parking availability is extremely limited. The proposed development will substantial increase in population and traffic densities; and together with an increase in visitor parking requirements will considerably reduce current residents’ parking availability.

§ Due to the limited car parking spaces within the area the parking spaces inside the workshop and motorcycle showroom are illegally parked on the footpath.

§ The proposed development will exacerbate traffic.

§ Due to the current traffic caused by the motorcycle showroom/office, motor vehicle workshop and substantial increase in population and traffic densities as a result of the proposed development, they believe the application should be refereed to the MTA for comment and a Traffic Impact Report be conducted.

§ Additional traffic noise.

 

Parking Provision: The proposal involves the construction of a mixed use building. The residential component of which is a boarding house, has been made in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 parking requirements. 

 

The provision of vehicle/bicycle parking for the boarding house is provided in accordance with this Policy (5.2 car spaces, 4 motorcycle spaces, and 4 bicycle spaces), which, in relation to the subject development, states that a consent authority may not refuse consent to a development on parking grounds if it provides: at least 0.2 parking spaces for each boarding room and 1 parking space for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site. The above parking requirements are based on assumptions that the target demographic for a boarding house has lower levels of car ownership than the general population and is located within an area that is well serviced by public transport.

 

The site is located within 400m of a bus stop which provides services beyond 9pm and with typical frequencies of less than 60mins placing it within the category of “accessible area” as defined in the SEPP (Affordable Housing).

 

Parking required     = 21 x 0.2 + 1(staff) = 5.2 = say 5 spaces

(Boarding House)   

 

Parking Provided     = 4 spaces (1 disabled space which includes the share zone)

Parking Shortfall     = 1 space

 

The Affordable Housing SEPP also states in regulation 30(h) that consent authorities must not consent to development unless at least one parking space is provided for a bicycle and one for a motorcycle for every 5 boarding rooms.

 

As the number of boarding rooms is 21 this will require the provision of 4 bicycle and 4 motorcycle spaces.

 

The Development Engineers have argued that the deficiency of one carspace is acceptable given that the site is highly accessible and close to public transport routes.

Also, the proposed development is over-compliant with the amount of motorcycle and bicycle parking requirements (7 motorcycle spaces and 5 bicycle spaces); and therefore, is not considered to have any unacceptable impacts on on-street parking within the locality.

 

In relation to the parking requirements for the proposed showroom and office space Council’s DCP for Parking indicates a parking rate between 1 space per 30m² and 1 space per 90m² for showrooms or sales rooms and 1 space per 40m² for office. Council’s Development Engineers have argued that the proposed development will not unreasonably impact parking and traffic demand given that the proposed use on the ground floor is not changing, the floor area is not increasing and enjoys existing use right provisions. 

 

Traffic Movements: Given the number of onsite parking spaces provided 4 car spaces including 1 disabled space, 7 motorcycles and 5 bicycle spaces), as required by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and DCP - Parking, the proposed development is not expected to result in a level of vehicle movements that would have unreasonable impacts on John Street, John Lane and associated intersections. The site is located along Alison Road which is a main arterial road, which is expected to absorb additional traffic movements without and noticeable impact on the local road network. 

 

Traffic Noise: The vehicular traffic associated with the proposed development will increase noise generation by a certain extent, however given the relatively high background traffic and environmental noise in the area, the proposed development is not considered to cause significant additional noise impacts to the detriment of the local amenity.

 

Further to the above comments, the proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer in relation to the proposed parking arrangement and vehicle movements. Subject to recommended conditions, Council’s development engineer has raised no objection to this aspect of the proposal. Refer to Development Engineer Comments.

 

Height

The proposed development exceeds the height limit restriction of 12m due to the roof top planter/terrace.  This is unacceptable as the roof top creates significant noise pollution and visual privacy impacts.

 

A streetscape analysis was carried out by the applicant which demonstrates that the height of the proposed development is not dissimilar to that of other adjoining sites. 

 

The height, scale and massing of the proposed development, are considered to be generally consistent with the character of the streetscape and will provide a contemporary, defining element along the busy thoroughfare of Alison Road.

 

The variation to the building height standard is reasonable with regard to the zoning objectives and the stated purpose of the development standard. Minimal adverse impacts are considered to be imposed upon adjoining properties and the street as a result of the variation. Refer to SEPP 1 objection – Building Height.

 

Air pollution

The proposed development will reduce air flow to their buildings due to reduced dissipation of toxic vehicular exhaust gases and carcinogenic particulate emissions from bus and other traffic, causing an increase in health risks to residents in our building.

 

Given the extent to which exhaust fumes and particulate matter are dispersed by prevailing breezes it is unlikely that such an impact would be concentrated in any one particular location.

Views

The proposed development will block out city skyline and Centre Point Tower views from the first and second floor units on the western side of the building at no.18-20 Alison Road.

The potential for view loss that arises as a result of the proposal is discussed in Section 11, below.

Existing use

Concerned that the current use of the motorcycle showroom part of the site does not enjoy existing use right provision.  They do not recall any Council notification to the neighbours about any enlargement, expansion or intensification of the existing use which was approved as a car repair workshop. Therefore, the legitimacy of the recently existing motorcycle showroom is questionable and should be proved to be legal to exist in the zone where this activity is prohibited.

The motor showroom was deemed to be a permissible use in the zone and was approved on 16 November 1998.  The application was notified at the time to adjoining and surrounding properties and submissions were received.

 

 

Operating hours

Strongly object to Racecourse Motors being opened for business on Sunday.  Constant revving of motorcycles on the street outside the business already causes a distribution.  Would like a condition imposed restrictions to prevent revving of motorcycles on the footpath/street outside the premises.

The proposed hours of operation for the ground floor uses are exactly the same hours of the existing vehicle workshop and showroom business, which are Monday through to Friday, from: 8:00am to 6:00pm and Saturday & Sundays, from: 9:00am to 3:00pm.

 

The ground floor plan has been designed so that motorcycle can be displayed within the subject premises.  Also, a condition is included which requires that no automotive parts, motorcycles or associated articles to encroach onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place ant that all motorcycles be displayed wholly within the premises.

 

6.2 Support

There are no supporting letters attached with this application.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

7.1   Development Engineers

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by Cracknel and Lonergan Architects  dated  December 2012;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by NUPD dated December 2012

·      Detail & Level Survey by Denny Linker & Company dated 10th April 2012.

 

Driveway Comments

The proposed driveway design does not comply with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 as the driveway exceeds a grade of 1 in 20 within 6m of the property alignment.

In recognition of  the low volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic in John Lane, Development Engineering indicated in an almost identical proposal under DA/236/2012 that it would accept a driveway grade of 1 in 8 (12.5%) within 4m of the property alignment. This was considered a significant concession in order to make the carpark workable.

 

An analysis of the driveway grades has indicated that enforcing the 4m requirement will not steepen the remaining portion of the driveway beyond the maximum grade of 1 in 4 (25%) and the driveway will be able to function satisfactorily.

 

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

The assessing officer is advised that the subject development site is located adjacent to a localised low point/overland flow path and may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events.

 

In previous correspondence with the applicant, Council’s Drainage Engineer has provided the following flood levels in the vicinity of the site.

 

John Street frontage - 0.2m above gutter levels for 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood.

Alison Road frontage – RL 32.4m AHD for the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood.

 

Council’s Drainage Engineer requires that all new habitable and storage areas are provided with a 0.5m freeboard above the 1% AEP Flood. This translates to a flood planning level on the Alison Road frontage of RL 32.9 AHD associated with an entrapped low point. The proposed motorcycle showroom is now depicted as RL 32.9 (AHD) and therefore demonstrates compliance with this requirement.

 

In John Street an overland flow situation exists and there was initial concern that the level of the proposed car workshop (RL 33.2) is not sufficiently above the adjacent gutter level near the corner of John Lane to provide sufficient flood protection.

 

Floodwaters in John Street have the potential to reach the property alignment but would generally not enter the proposed workshop however as a precaution the floor of the car work shop will be required to be graded with fall to John Street.

 

John Lane Frontage

The vehicle entrance to the carpark is located in close proximity to a crest in the lane with a fall of approximately 0.5m back down to gutter levels in John Street. This is therefore considered to provide an adequate freeboard against any flooding in John Street and is considered the best location for the vehicle entrance on flooding grounds.

 

Parking Comments

Parking has been assessed using the rates provided in Council’s DCP-Parking and the SEPP (Affordable Housing).

 


Parking for Boarding House

The Affordable Housing SEPP states in regulation 29(2)(e) that consent authorities must not refuse consent to development on the grounds if:

(i)       in the case of development in an accessible area-at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(ii)      in the case of development not in an accessible area-at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iii)     in the case of any development-not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development

 

The site is located within 400m of a bus stop which provides services beyond 9pm and with typical frequencies of less than 60 mins placing it within the category of “accessible area” as defined in the SEPP (Affordable Housing).

 

Parking required     = 21 x 0.2 + 1(staff) = 5.2 = say 5 spaces

(Boarding House)   

 

Parking provided     = 4 spaces (including 1 disabled space)

Parking Shortfall     = 1 space

 

The Affordable Housing SEPP also states in regulation 30(h) that consent authorities must not consent to development unless at least one parking space is provided for a bicycle and one for a motorcycle for every 5 boarding rooms.

 

As the number of boarding rooms is 21 this will require the provision of 4 bicycle and 4 motorcycle spaces.

 

The proposed development is over-compliant with these requirements and has provided double the amount of motorcycle and bicycle parking required (7 motorcycle spaces and 5 bicycle spaces). This is over-compliant and is considered satisfactory.

 

GROUND FLOOR

Parking for Showroom and Office space

Council’s DCP-parking indicates a rate between 1 space per 30m2 and 1 space per 90m2 for showrooms or sales rooms and 1 space per 40m2 for office.

The ground floor consists of a Motorcycle Showroom of area 75.85 and office of 13.8sqm

Parking required     = 0.8-2.5 spaces for showroom + 0.35 spaces for office.

                          = 1.15-2.85 = say 1-3 spaces

Workshop

The motorcycle and car workshop area consists of 3 working bays (for vehicles) plus an unknown number of motorcycles and bike bays. Council’s DCP-Parking specifies a rate for automotive uses of 6 spaces per work bay requiring a minimum of 18 spaces.

Parking for workshop = 3 bays x 6 = 18 spaces

 

Total Parking required for ground floor = say 20 spaces

No off-street parking has been provided for the ground floor use of the development. The applicant argues that the ground floor has existing use rights in regards to the parking deficiency and it is unrealistic to be provide the required 20 spaces.

 

Development Engineers comments on Parking Deficiency for ground floor

The site is currently experiencing a high parking deficiency when adopting the rates in Council’s DCP-parking and is located within an area experiencing a high demand for on-street parking due to the proximity of Randwick TAFE and Randwick Racecourse.

 

When sites are being completely redeveloped Development Engineering generally does not give parking credits for existing parking deficiencies when assessing the required number of parking spaces. It is acknowledged however that with this proposal the site represents a special case in that;

§ The use on the ground floor is not changing

§ The ground floor area is decreasing.

§ The site has existing use rights for the ground floor tenancy.

§ The provision of 18 spaces for the 3 work bays in the car workshop is not able to be realistically provided and it likely that any re-development would not be able to comply with this requirement due to site constraints.

§ The site is located on a major public transport route with several bus services passing in close proximity to the site (Routes 372,373,374,376,377 & 339) every few minutes.

§ In terms of existing and proposed parking demand the proposed development will not result in a parking deficiency for the site greater than existing levels. Any additional parking demand generated by the development has been catered for by the provision of the basement level parking.

§ The proposal is over-compliant in the amount of bicycle (by 1 space) and motorcycle parking (by 3 spaces) than required under the SEPP Affordable housing.

In consideration of the above factors although the high demand for on-street parking is recognized Development Engineering will not object to the proposed parking provision on the condition that any received amended plans do not increase the commercial area of the building beyond existing .

 

Waste Management Comments

 

FOR BOARDING HOUSE

Council’s ‘Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Developments’ specify a waste generation rate for boarding houses of 9L/occupant/day for normal garbage and 3L/occupant per day for recycling. This rate is based on the standard traditional model of a boarding house with small individual rooms and a common kitchen and living area. The boarding rooms depicted in the submitted plans more closely resemble studio apartments with each unit being provided with their own kitchen and bathroom. In such circumstances a higher estimate for garbage generation may be appropriate.

 

Using the Standard rate for Boarding houses the waste generation in has been calculated as follows

 

Normal Garbage (weekly collection)

Amount = 9 x 21 x 7 = 1323

Number of bins = 1323/240 (standard MGB) = 5.5 = say 6 bins

 

Recyclables (fortnightly collection)

Amount = 3 x 21 x 14 = 882L

Number of bins = 882/240 = 3.6 = say 4 bins

 

Total Number of Bins required = 10 bins (6 garbage + 4 recycling)

(Standard Model)

 

It should be noted that if the development was assessed as multi-unit housing approximately 20 bins would be required consisting of 10 garbage and 10 recycling.

 

A rate halfway between the above two rates is appropriate when considering the self contained style (including bathroom and kitchen) of the boarding rooms. In addition it is also noted that the boarding rooms depict double beds which indicate additional occupants may be present on site. The increased bin rate above the standard boarding house model is therefore considered appropriate for the development.

 

Adopted Waste Bin Rates

Normal Garbage = (6+10)/2 = 8 x 240L  bins

Recycling           = (10 +4)/2 = 7 x 240L  bins

 

BINS REQUIRED (Boarding House) = 15 x 240L bins

 

The bin room for the boarding house underneath the vehicular ramp has been sized satisfactorily.

 

FOR MOTORCYCLE SHOWROOM & OFFICE

Waste Management for the commercial components on the ground floor will likely continue as per the existing arrangements but at minimum the following shall be provided.

Council’s ‘Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Developments’ specify a waste generation rate for showrooms of 40L/100m2FA/day for normal garbage and 10L/100m2FA/day for recycling. For offices the rate is 5-10L/100m2FA/day for normal garbage and 25L/100m2FA/day for recycling.

 

Normal Garbage (weekly collection)

Amount (Showroom)    = 40 x 0.7586 x 7 = 212

Amount (Office)          = 10 x 0.138 x 7 = 9.6

Total                        = 221.6           

 

Number of bins = 221/240 (standard MGB) = 0.9 = say 1 x 240Lbin.

 

Recyclables (fortnightly collection)

Amount (Showroom)    = 10 x 0.7585 x 14 = 106.24

Amount (Office)          = 25 x 0.138 x 14 = 48.3

Total                        =    

Number of bins = 154.4/240 = 0.64 = say 1 bin (rounded up)

 

Total = 2 x 240L bins

 

WORKSHOP

Council’s ‘Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Developments’ do not specify a  waste generation rate for workshops but the submitted waste management plans has indicated a rate of 30L per week of Liquid Trade waste and 60L per week for recycling. Additional normal waste would also be expected but this has not been specified.

Total = 2 bins (1 garbage + 1 Recycling).

 

Liquid trade waste will be disposed of by private contractor in accordance with Environmental regulations.

 

Service Authority Comments

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, it was resolved on the motion of Councillors Nash and Belelli that:

 

(a)    the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million;

 

(b)    the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site, when the cost of works on the site exceeds $1 million up to $2 million; and

 

(c)    the Director, City Planning investigate the feasibility of funding the undergrounding of existing overhead cables for new development under the new options provided for in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (Developer Contributions) Act 2005.

 

Given that the proposed works will be in excess of $2 million the applicant will be required to meet all costs associated with replacing the overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site.

 

Landscape Comments

There is no vegetation at all within this property, and while there is a semi-established Platanus x hybrida (London Plane Tree) growing within the Alison Road footpath, to the west of this site, in front of 2A-14 Alison Road, it is located some 5 metres away, with its canopy not to be affected by the proposed awning as shown, so conditions to protect and retain this tree will not be required.

 

Despite being a prominent site, there is no justification to provide an ‘upgraded’ treatment to the three frontages (Alison Rd, John St and John Lane) as detailed in Council’s Urban Elements Design Manual, as no other properties in the surrounding area have been subjected to this requirement, primarily as this area is not located within a dedicated and recognised Commercial Centre, with the footpaths to be re-constructed in standard, full width concrete, as is required by the civil conditions.

 

A new street tree to reinforce the avenue planting that exists along Alison Road, as well as to improve the appearance of this development and its integration into the area will not be possible due firstly to the proposed overhead awning, with the need to provide a full width footpath with no obstructions critical at this location given the high quantities of pedestrians, as well as the requirements for line of sight (for both vehicles and pedestrians), so street trees have not been conditioned for this application.

 

While there is no requirement for minimum landscaped area at this site/zone, a concept plan prepared by the Architects shows that the raised planters that were previously shown along the length of both sides of the rooftop terrace have been reduced to small planters in the southwest and southeast corners only, and as this will still encourage its use, and cater to the amenity and passive recreation needs of future occupants, is supported, with relevant conditions requiring the use of appropriate species included in this report.

 

7.2      Environmental Health & Building Services

 

Environmental Health comments

 

Proposed Development:

Application received on 7th March 2013 for comment. Proposal includes:

·      Demolition of existing industrial building;

·      Construction of a four storey mixed use development comprising a ground floor motorcycle showroom and workshop;

·      Construction of a three storey, 22 room boarding house with caretaker/managers apartment and roof top communal area and courtyard;

·      Basement car park and associated landscaping.

 

This application is submitted following the previous submission of DA/236/2012 which was withdrawn and this subsequent redesign has evolved and submitted as DA/11/2013.

 

Comments:

Mechanical workshop: Appropriate environmental conditions to be imposed requiring compliance with relevant guidelines and legislation.

 

Boarding House: Boarding houses continue to play a key role in providing affordable accommodation for many people on lower incomes. Appropriate conditions will be recommended to ensure compliance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and also other relevant and applicable legislation.

 

Land Contamination: The information submitted indicates the land is not contaminated.

 

Appropriate conditions will be recommended to ensure the remaining underground storage tanks and any possible land contamination is appropriately managed and disposed of in accordance with the relevant legislation.

 

7.3      Heritage Planner

The Site

The site is prominently located opposite Randwick Racecourse with street frontages to Alison Road and John Street and a rear frontage to John Lane.  The site is occupied by a former petrol station and motor garage now used as a motorcycle/scooter showroom and vehicle workshop.  To the north of the site, on the opposite side of John Lane is no.3 King Street, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).  To the south of the site on the opposite side of Alison Road is the Randwick Racecourse heritage conservation area, which also contains the Official Stand, listed as a heritage item. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by nino urban planning+development, which does not address heritage issues. 

 

Background

DA/236/2012 for redevelopment of the site was withdrawn in December 2012.  Original plans proposed a 5 storey building comprising underground carparking with ground level motorcycle and car workshops and a motorcycle showroom with mezzanine level offices and three residential levels above and rooftop terraces.  Heritage concerns were raised in relation to the dominance and amenity impact of the proposed five storey building on the one and two storey heritage item in the vicinity, and that the development would be prominent in views from the racecourse.  It was also noted that the existing building on the site is a rare example within Randwick City of an early motor garage, adapted from earlier workshops associated with the nearby Tramways site.  Amended plans proposed a 4 storey building comprising underground carparking with ground level motorcycle and car workshops and a motorcycle showroom, and three residential levels above and rooftop terraces.  Mezzanine level offices which were originally proposed were deleted. 

 

Proposal

The current plans application proposes a 4 storey building comprising underground carparking with ground level motorcycle and car workshops and a motorcycle showroom, and three residential levels above and a partial rooftop terrace.  As compared to the previous plans, the current plans have reduced business and residential floor area.  At ground floor level, business floor area has been reduced by the provision of a colonnade to the Alison road, John Street and part laneway elevations.  At upper floor levels, residential floor area has been reduced by reducing the size of a number of units, and correspondingly increasing the lobby area. 

 

Comments

The reduction in height of the proposed building from five to four stories will reduce its dominance of the one and two storey heritage item in terms of views from its rear garden and views towards it from King Street, and will lessen potential amenity impacts on the adjoining heritage item to the east.  Unfortunately recent reductions in floor space at ground and upper floor levels is not reflected in a reduced building envelope. 

 

The reduction in height will also reduce its prominence in views from the racecourse, in relation to the predominant single storey scale of other development on the block bounded by Alison Road, John Street and John Lane.  The building envelope of the development will be more compatible with the scale and bulk of surrounding development in to the south in Alison Road and to the north in John Street. 

 

Historic aerial photographs indicate the entire block between King Street and John Street occupied by a series of structures occupying the entire area of each of the sites, with gable roofs having ridges perpendicular to the street.  It is unclear what the use of these buildings was, possibly some kind of workshops associated with the nearby Tramways site (which originally extended to the corner of King Street and Darley Road).  It appears that the existing garage and workshop building on the site is the only remnant of this earlier development pattern and has been adapted from these earlier buildings to form a drive through garage.  It appears that this adaptation dates from the 1930s and as such is a rare example within Randwick City of an early motor garage. 

 

Planner’s comments

Whilst the heritage officer has noted that the building is a rare example within Randwick City of an early motor garage dating from the 1930s, this building is not identified as a heritage item under either RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) or Randwick LEP 2012.  The heritage officer has also noted that the building has been reduced in height; however its reduction in floor area at ground and upper floor levels is not reflected in a reduced building envelope. A street analyses has been carried out by the applicant and it has been demonstrated that the height, scale and massing of the proposed development, is generally consistent with the character of the streetscape. Therefore, it is not considered that the development will detrimentally impact upon the aesthetic, historic or social significance of the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area or nearby heritage items.

 

7.4      SEPP 65 - Design Review Panel

The previous DA lodged for the mixed use development comprising workshop/showroom on the ground floor and three levels of boarding house rooms was already considered by the panel on two occasions.  The first occasion was on 8 August 2011 under the Pre-lodgement advice, PL/36/2011 and the second occasion was on 7 May 2012 under Development Application, DA/236/2012. The Panel found the proposal unsatisfactory as the issues raised in the Pre-lodgement advice were not addressed appropriately under DA/236/2012 for the mixed use development. 

 

Whilst it was noted that the Panel required this application to be reviewed again, this application was not referred back to the DPR for consideration as Councils Planning Officer was satisfied that the issues raised by the Panel for the mixed use development have now been appropriately addressed as part of this application. 

 

The table below reflects the Panel’s comments, followed by Council’s comments wherever necessary explaining how the applicant has appropriately addressed the issues raised by the Panel.

 

SEPP65 Design Principle

DRP Comment

Council Comment

1. Context

Some basic contextual information was provided for the Pre-DA and a broader study of building heights in the area would assist in the assessment of this proposal. The site is bounded on three sides by streets and a lane, including the prominent frontage to Alison Road opposite the Racecourse. The surrounding buildings are a mixture of uses including commercial, residential and education. The height varies from 1 storey houses to 4 and 6 storey apartments and TAFE buildings. To the east there are 5/6 storey residential flat buildings on Alison Road. 

 

No new urban analysis drawings have been prepared to support the application.

 

The shadow diagram provided shows shadow impact on the neighbour to the south-east.  It would seem that the neighbour has access to reasonable afternoon winter sun to the John Street elevation before 3:00PM however this elevation is not drawn accurately and the northern verandahs should be included to show that the neighbour has more outdoor private space which will not be effected.

 

More information should be provided regarding the overshadowing of this property. The 3pm mid-winter shadow appears to be severe, however it appears to be unaffected in the middle part of the day.

 

The proposal for mixed use is encouraged by the Panel and this development is an opportunity to set a good precedent for the future development of the adjoining two sites to the north west.

 

The local area is high in amenity with Centennial and Moore Parks almost at the site’s back door and on the opposite side of Alison Road is the Randwick Racecourse. The area is also well served by public transport and is within a convenient walk to Randwick shopping centre, the Hospital and UNSW. Given the area has major civic potential, a fine urban building on this small but prominent site is a high priority.

 

The Panel reiterates that the site is highly appropriate for increased density, and non-residential uses at ground floor.

An aerial site and streetscape analysis plans outlining surrounding development of comparable height and scale have been provided within this application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shadow analysis drawings have been included within this application.  The shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed development will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the neighbouring sites directly opposite the subject site on John street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Design Review Panel encourages mixed use development and considered the site highly appropriate for increased density, given the site exists on a major thoroughfare and is in close proximity to public transport and facilities. Agreed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Scale

The proposed building is considered to be in scale with its context.  Any extra height would have to be reviewed for its merits in relation to any adverse effects on neighbours.  Given the site and the amount of road to the south and east it the opportunity for a fourth level should be investigated.

 

The Panel considers that the scale of 4 storeys with a partial roof terrace is an appropriate scale for this site.

 

A mezzanine has now been added within the Motorcycle Showroom and Workshop. The Panel understands that this may need to be deleted for technical planning reasons; however a generous ground floor volume should still be provided.

The applicant has revised the scheme and has deleted the mezzanine level from the plans. Also, a generous ground floor volume is retained as recommended by the panel.

3. Built Form

The proposed built form is based on the placement of the entry, stair, lift and lobby on the north-west party wall. The Panel considers it is essential that the lobby and the circulation have good access to natural light and ventilation.  It would be highly beneficial if the stair either served one less level or could be engineered to be more open and light - fire engineering advice should be sought. The common circulation could be made as a compact urban courtyard, with a small garden, open stairs and balconies on all levels. All units could have secondary windows to this space to make them cross ventilated, as opposed to their current configuration. The loss of a single module per floor would allow such a configuration.

 

The Panel reiterates its earlier advice. It acknowledges that some light is now admitted to the common corridors. If drenchers and screens were added on the boundary, natural ventilation could also be provided to both lobbies and several bathroom windows.

The elevations need to be carefully considered in relation to natural light, ventilation, road noise, sunshading and weather protection.  Large areas of blank wall are not considered a good response to the street.

 

The large areas of blank wall have generally been moderated with openings; however the Panel remains concerned about the large unprotected banks of louvred loggias on 3 facades.

 

Common outdoor areas should be provided with some weather protection. The provision of a communal roof terrace, preferably to the Alison Road frontage, is highly desirable.

 

A roof has now been added over the communal roof terrace; however its sloped roof is awkward and poorly related to the overall massing.

 

The montages submitted appear to be incorrectly inserted in the photos, and do not appear to fully accord with the elevations.

 

The construction thicknesses of walls and slabs are unrealistic in relation to structure, sound transmission and insulation.  The fine appearance of the building externally is highly desirable however there needs to be detailed sectional drawings showing how they may be achieved.

The plans indicate that both the western side boundary and the John Street façade are screened to provide natural cross-ventilation to the lobby areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A covered roof structure is provided to part of the communal roof terrace area next to the lift and staircase.

 

 

A lesser gradient is provided over the communal roof terrace.

 

 

 

The montages have been corrected and generally accord to the submitted plans and elevations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Density

The Panel considers that the proposed FSR is generally reasonable; however there should be less footprint on the typical floor, as noted above. Economical housing alternatives which are particularly relevant to the proximity of the Hospital, University and TAFE and should be encouraged.

 

The Panel reiterates its comments.

The plans indicate that the footprint of each floor has been reduced, to commensurate with the Panels comments.

5. Resource Energy Use

More opportunities for cross ventilation need to be explored through the possible introduction of a central court, through the roof design and by optimising the window placements.  Single orientation units to Alison Road will be affected by road noise.

 

It is suggested that the following should be included:

 

§  windows to bathrooms where possible – additional windows possible throughout

§  clerestory skylights – these would significantly improve the upper level units

§  ventilating courtyard with stair and lobbies – not done

§  appropriate sunshading and weather protection to all openings – not adequately done

§  Windows (and doors) be designed and specified to permit secure partial opening

§  ceiling fans to all bedrooms

§  cross ventilation to all apartments, directly or through plenums, chimneys or the like

§  potential for significant improvements

 

Consideration should also be given to the passive performance of the ground floor workshop and how this will work with the surrounding residential area.

 

These issues have not been properly addressed – the application is inadequate in terms of SEPP 65 compliance.

These issues have been addressed.  The lobby areas have been increased in width to allow for circulation space, natural ventilation and penetration of light.  Appropriate screening is provided to the proposed balconies. This will also assist in blocking out noise generated by the traffic. Where possible windows have been provided to the bathrooms.

6. Landscape

Street tree contribution should be discussed with Council, given the broad frontages and lack of landscape area on the site. The roof terrace design provides the opportunity for planting which needs to be designed by a landscape architect and detail submitted for DA review.  Rainwater should be collected for plant watering.

 

These issues have not been addressed – the application is inadequate in terms of SEPP 65 compliance.

Conditioned to Comply.

7. Amenity

Amenity in relation to temperature comfort levels is noted above as part of the passive solar design requirements.

 

For example the bedrooms facing King Street have a single glazed walls of louvres, providing inadequate noise and thermal attenuation (and also not complying with BCA spandrel requirements).

 

The two bin stores will both require air locks between them and any other space.  

 

The residential garbage store opens directly off the foyer – not satisfactory.

 

Some of the planning arrangements are not suitable for larger beds and could easily be improved.  Moving the kitchens to the party wall side would make the interiors far more flexible so that occupants can organise their room in varied configurations.

The bin storage area is now located in the basement level and the interior of the units have been modified to address the Panels recommendation.

 

8. Safety

The Panel recommends that BCA advice in relation to the workshop and the circulation, protection of openings, openings to the stair, spandrel requirements and the like.

 

The proposal has the potential to increase security through street activation and passive surveillance.

Standard conditions are proposed in relation to BCA compliance. 

9. Social Issues

The proposal is considered a suitable addition to this highly accessible neighbourhood. Affordable accommodation is more likely in the absence of car parking provision, and due to the high frequency of public transport in this area the Panel supports the proposal for minimal car parking spaces only. Many facilities are within convenient reach on foot and by cycle. Cycle storage is not clearly indicated.

Cycle store is provided on the basement level, and is now clearly indicated on the plans.

10. Aesthetics

The aesthetics need to be developed to incorporate improvements to the environmental performance and amenity as noted in this report.

 

Further detail will need to be supplied regarding the windows and materials selection. Full wall sections at a large scale need to be submitted as part of the DA.

 

None of the above has been provided in satisfactory form for the DA, and therefore the application does not meet SEPP 65 requirements.

 

A finishes schedule is provided and a condition is included which requires further details to be provided before a construction certificate can be issued.

 

The DRP concluded that “this site is highly suited to affordable residential apartments.  The Panel encourages mixed use in this area and considers the retention of the showroom/workshop is desirable.”

 

The Panel is disappointed that the DA has not addressed many of the issues raised in the pre-DA report, and that the SEPP 65 performance is therefore unsatisfactory. The Panel requires to review this application again when all the issues raised have been properly addressed and documented.

 

Those issues raised by the DRP have now been addressed to the satisfaction of the assessing officer and the proposed development is considered to meet the aims and objectives of SEPP 65.

 

8.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning requirements apply to the subject site. The site area is less than 10,000sqm and is not subject to the requirements of Clause 40A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) - Site specific development control plans.

 

9.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 3B (Local Business Zone) under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) and the boarding house and motor showroom portion is permissible with Council's consent.  However, the use of the ground floor a vehicle repair workshop is not permissible and relies on existing use right provisions of the EP&A Act 1979. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause 14 - Zone No 3B (Local Business Zone)

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will:

 

·      Provide opportunities for ongoing local retail and business development in the City of Randwick;

·      Provide opportunities for ongoing associated development such as a service industry and the like;

·      To provide opportunities for residential accommodation in local business centres where it does not interfere with the primary business function of the zone, and

·      Minimise the impact of the proposed development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

The ground floor motor showroom will provide activation to the public domain and reinforce the commercial character of the area. The proposal will also introduce a residential population that contributes to the viability and vibrancy of the business centre and will offer more affordable forms of residential accommodation in the locality.

 

The proposal incorporates a Plan of Management, detailing ongoing commitment to maintain the desirable attributes of the area and amenity of existing residents. The Plan of Management is recommended to be tied to any consent issued by way of appropriate condition.

 

In addition, the proposed development has been assessed in relation to potential impacts, as detailed within the body of this report, and is not expected to unreasonably burden any adjoining or nearby residential site.

 

Existing use rights assessment

Under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), Clause 49 Definitions in this plan for the proposed workshop is defined as an “automotive use”, whilst the proposed motorcycle showroom is defined as a “business premises”.

 

The existing workshop on the subject allotment is a non-conforming use within the 3B Zone, whilst the existing motor showroom was approved under the LEP 1998 as a permissible use.  Section 106 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides a definition for “existing use”. The prerequisite to establishing existing use rights is that the use of the building, work or land was lawfully granted and commenced. Furthermore, under Section 107, the use is presumed to have been abandoned, unless the contrary is established, if the use ceases for a continuous period of 12 months.

 

As defined in the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation), the proposed motor showroom and boarding house sections to this development are permitted within the 3B Local Business Zone. However, the proposed workshop portion on the ground floor level benefits from existing use rights as Council records indicate that the use was approved and was lawfully commenced prior to the gazettal of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).  There is no evidence to indicate that the existing use has ever been abandoned, and the applicant has demonstrated that the vehicle repair workshop on the site has been continuously used as such.

 

Clauses 41, 42 and 43 of the EP&A Regulation 2000 state the following:

 

41   Certain development allowed

(1)  An existing use may, subject to this Division:

(a)  be enlarged, expanded or intensified, or

(b)  be altered or extended, or

(c)  be rebuilt, or

(d)  be changed to another use, but only if that other use is a use that may be carried out with or without development consent under the Act, or

(e)  if it is a commercial use—be changed to another commercial use (including a commercial use that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act), or

(f)  if it is a light industrial use—be changed to another light industrial use or a commercial use (including a light industrial use or commercial use that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act).

 

42   Development consent required for enlargement, expansion and intensification of existing uses

(1)  Development consent is required for any enlargement, expansion or intensification of an existing use.

(2)  The enlargement, expansion or intensification:

(a)  must be for the existing use and for no other use, and

(b)  must be carried out only on the land on which the existing use was carried out immediately before the relevant date.

 

43   Development consent required for alteration or extension of buildings and works

(1) Development consent is required for any alteration or extension of a building or work used for an existing use.

(2) The alteration or extension:

(a) must be for the existing use of the building or work and for no other use, and

(b) must be erected or carried out only on the land on which the building or work was erected or carried out immediately before the relevant date.

 

The NSW Land and Environment Court has established planning principles pertaining to land with existing use rights as derived from the case of Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council, 2005. The principles are addressed as follows:

 

·      How do the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to what is permissible on surrounding sites?

While planning controls, such as height, floor space ratio and setbacks do not apply to sites with existing use rights; they have relevance to the assessment of applications on such sites. This is because the controls apply to surrounding sites and indicate the kind of development that can be expected if and when surrounding sites are redeveloped. The relationship of new development to its existing and likely future context is a matter to be considered in all planning assessment.

 

Comments:

The character, size, bulk, scale and height of the proposed development is consistent with that of 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 on the ground floor level does not involve any expansion to the existing envelope or footprint of the building. The bulk and scale of the existing use on the ground floor level remains unchanged.

 

Any impacts of the proposed breach in wall height standard will be mitigated by the considered design of the proposed development, refer to SEPP 1 Objection.

 

No setbacks are proposed to the development; however, the proposed built form has incorporated staggered wall planes with the inclusion of recessed window openings and balconies, louvre screening devices and a combination of surface finishes. The above design measures will appropriately articulate the building facades and create visual interest and will minimize the visual scale and bulk of the structures. Overall, the architectural character and form of the proposal is considered to carry positive design merits. Also, it is common for corner blocks in the vicinity, with frontage to Alison Road, to support stronger elements of built form, presenting landmark buildings. This provides a strengthened built form to enhance definition of the block and the street network. The subject site sees similar circumstances of lot shape and frontage to these existing landmark buildings.

 

·      What is the relevance of the building in which the existing takes place?

Where the change of use is proposed within an existing building, the bulk and scale of that building are likely to be deemed acceptable, even if the building is out of scale with its surroundings, because it already exists. However, where the existing building is proposed for demolition, while its bulk is clearly an important consideration, there is no automatic entitlement to another building of the same floor space ratio, height or parking provision.

 

Comments:

The proposed area allocated for the workshop portion of the development on the ground floor level will be retained; however it has been slightly reduced in area.  The area allocated for the car workshop is 54.22m² and for the motorcycle workshop is 30.4m².

 

The footprint, proportions, and massing of the proposed ground floor level remain the same and continue to be compatible with the existing use on the site.

 

·      What are the impacts on adjoining land?

The impact on adjoining land should be assessed as it is assessed for all development. It is true that where, for example, a development control plan requires three hours of sunlight to be maintained in adjoining rear yards, the numerical control does not apply. However, the overshadowing impact on adjoining rear yards should be reasonable.

 

Comments:

The proposal will not unreasonably 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.  Also, the proposal will not cause any unreasonable adverse impacts on the local parking condition as the area is highly accessible with frequent public transport and many facilities being within convenient reach on foot and by cycle.

 

·      What is the internal amenity?

Internal amenity must be assessed as it is assessed for all development. Again, numerical requirements for sunlight access or private open space do not apply, but these and other aspects must be judged acceptable as a matter of good planning and design. None of the legal principles discussed above suggests that development on sites with existing use rights may have lower amenity than development generally.

 

Comments:

The proposal will upgrade the functionality of the existing motor vehicles showroom by providing a secured enclosure to the display areas and new flooring and storage space, and enabling extended display of the vehicle merchandise behind the shopfront.

 

In conclusion, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the planning principles relating to existing use rights. The proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the 3B Zone, and will maintain a built form which is compatible with the residential character of the locality.

 

Part 2B: Principle Development Standards

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

20F(3) Floor space ratio

Maximum FSR: 1.5:1

 

*SEPP – Affordable Rental Housing allows for a bonus residential FSR of 0.5:1 for boarding house use, in addition to the LEP control.

 

Total FSR: 1.99:1 (or 752.98m²)

 

 

Yes

 

20G(5) Building height

Maximum building height 12m

Generally the building has a maximum height between 12.27m to 13.65m from the existing ground level (with the exception of the lift overrun being at a maximum height of 14.85m top of lift). 

 

Given that the lift overrun is ancillary to the proposed building and will not result in any adverse amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing and views the maximum building height is taken from top of the building parapet.

Does not comply, see SEPP 1, above.

 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Recent precedents in the Land & Environment Court have established that State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 may not be strictly applicable when being used in conjunction with a pre Standard Instrument LEP, such as RLEP 1998. Clause 26 of the SEPP sets out land to which the Boarding House provisions of the SEPP apply:

 

26        Land to which division applies

This Division applies to land within any of the following land use zones or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones:

 

(a)  Zone R1 General Residential,

(b)  Zone R2 Low Density Residential,

(c)  Zone R3 Medium Density Residential,

(d)  Zone R4 High Density Residential,

(e)  Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre,

(f)  Zone B2 Local Centre,

(g)  Zone B4 Mixed Use.

 

Given the above, the application of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 to the subject application would be dependant upon the current ‘Local Business 3B’ zoning of the site being deemed an ‘equivalent’ to the above zones.

 

Under the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) the 3B Zone lists what is prohibited in the zone while the Standard Instrument lists what is permissible in the zone.

 

The applicant has undertaken a comparison of the uses that are permissible and prohibited in the relevant zones. The assessment demonstrated that a range of uses are permitted in both Zone B1 and 3B, namely boarding houses, business premise and shop top housing all of which are relevant to the development application and the prohibited uses in the zones are also consistent. 

 

Based on the above it is concluded that the 3B zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 is an equivalent zone to the B1 zone under the standard instrument for the purposes of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (“Affordable Housing SEPP”).

 

The subject application is made pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) and requires assessment under Clause 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent, Clause 30 Standards for boarding houses and Clause 30A Character of local area. The following tables outline the assessment:

 

Assessment of Clause 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

Standard

Assessment

The density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than:

 

(c)  if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item – the existing maximum FSR for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus:

 

(i) 0.5:1, if the existing maximum FSR is 2.5:1 or less, or

(ii) 20% of the existing maximum FSR, if the existing maximum FSR is greater than 2.5:1.

 

The existing maximum FSR for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land is 1.5:1 under RLEP 1998. Accordingly, the maximum FSR for the boarding house component, inclusive of the 0.5:1 bonus, is 2:1.

 

The proposal provides an FSR of 1.99:1 (or 752.98m²).

 

 

 

Building height

If all proposed buildings comply with the maximum building height under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land (that is, 12m).

 

Generally the building has a maximum height between 12.27m to 13.65m from the natural ground level (with the exception of the lift overrun being at a maximum height of 14.85m top of lift). 

 

Given that the lift overrun is ancillary to the proposed building and will not result in any adverse amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing and views the maximum building height is taken from top of the building parapet.

 

Refer to SEPP 1 objection, above.

Landscaped area

If the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

The existing development within the subject urban block does not have a front setback to Alison Road at ground level. No ground floor front setback is proposed for this development. The front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located and proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

 

Solar access

Where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

The proposed common room at the first level would receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight on the winter solstice and a number of communal balcony/terrace have been provided that will receive good levels of sunlight. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

 

Private open space

If at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

(i) one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers;

(ii) if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager - one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation.

Private open spaces are provided for each boarding room via the private balcony areas.

 

In addition to the above, a common area of 14.42m² is provided on Level 3 and a communal terrace area of 124.15m² is provided on the roof top.

 

The caretakers unit has a private balcony area of 15.66m².  Complies

Parking

(i) in the case of development in an accessible area – at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iii) in the case of any development – not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site

The proposal includes 21 boarding rooms and a caretakers/managers room. 

 

The site is located within an accessible area.

 

Requirement:

21 boarding rooms x 0.2 plus 1 caretaker’s space 5.2 spaces (or 5 spaces)

 

Proposal:

4 car spaces, 7 motorcycle and 10 bike spaces are allocated to the boarding house. 

 

Refer to Development Control Plan Parking and Development Engineers comments for more detailed assessment.

Accommodation size

If each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

(i) 12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

(ii) 16 square metres in any other case.

 

According to Statement of Environmental Effects (page 33), each boarding room will be occupied by no more than 2 lodgers. An operational condition of consent has been recommended to this effect.

 

All boarding rooms have GFA of more than 16m2, excluding kitchen and bathroom areas. Complies.

A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.

Private kitchen and toilet facilities are provided for each boarding room. Complies.

 


 

Assessment of Clause 30 - Standards for boarding houses

Standard

Assessment

(a) If a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided.

A common area is provided on level 3. Complies.

(b) No boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres.

Complies.

(c) No boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers.

According to page 33 of the Statement of Environmental Effects, each boarding room will be occupied by no more than 2 lodgers.

 

A condition of consent has been recommended to this effect.

(d) Adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger.

All boarding rooms are self-contained with private bathroom and kitchen facilities. Complies.

 

(e) If the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager.

A caretaker’s unit/room is provided at the third floor level. Complies.

(f) Repealed.

N/A

 

(g) If the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use.

No boarding rooms are provided with a street frontage at ground floor level. Complies.

(h) At least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.

Requirement:

21 boarding rooms x 1/5 = 4.2 motorcycle and bicycle parking spaces

 

Proposal:

10 bicycle parking spaces, complies.

7 motorcycle parking spaces are provided. Complies.

 

Parking

The Affordable Housing SEPP states in regulation 29(2)(e) that consent authorities must not refuse consent to development on the grounds if:

(iv)     in the case of development in an accessible area-at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(v)      in the case of development not in an accessible area-at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(vi)     in the case of any development-not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development

 

The site is located within 400m of a bus stop which provides services beyond 9pm and with typical frequencies of less than 60 mins placing it within the category of “accessible area” as defined in the SEPP (Affordable Housing).

 

Parking required

Rate

Required

Proposed

 

Boarding House

21 x 0.2 + 1(staff)

5.2 = say 5 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

4 spaces (including 1 disabled space)

 

Parking Shortfall = 1 space

 

Showroom

1 space per 30m2 and 1 space per 90m²

 

0.8 - 2.5 spaces

 

 

 

 

The ground floor consists of a Motorcycle Showroom of area 75.85m² and office of 13.8sqm.

 

1.15-2.85 = say 1-3 spaces

 

 

Parking Required = 0.8-2.5 spaces for showroom + 0.35 spaces for office.

1.15 - 2.85 = say 1 to 3 spaces

 

Total Parking required for ground floor = say 20 spaces.

 

No off-street parking has been provided for the ground floor use of the development.

 

The applicant argues that the ground floor has existing use rights in regards to the parking deficiency and it is unrealistic to be provide the required 20 spaces.

 

 

 

Office

40m²

 

 

 

Workshop

Council’s DCP-Parking specifies a rate for automotive uses of 6 spaces per work bay.

 

 

 

The motorcycle and car workshop area consists of 3 working bays (for vehicles) plus an unknown number of bike bays

 

3 bays x 6 = 18 spaces

 

 

 

Total spaces

 

25 car parking spaces are required for the proposed development.

 

 

Bicycle spaces

 

1 bicycle space per 5 rooms

 

21 boarding rooms x 1/5 = 4.2 Bicycle

 

Say 4 Bicycle spaces

 

10 bicycle parking spaces. Complies

 

Motorcycle spaces

1 motorcycle space per 5 rooms

21 boarding rooms x 1/5 = 4.2 motorcycle

 

Say 4 motorcycle spaces

 

7 motorcycle parking spaces. Complies

 

 

The total parking demands from the proposed development is approximately 25 car parking spaces. The applicant has shown only four (4) car spaces with the additional space which is required for disable access for the boarding house component and has argued that the ground level component of the proposed development relies on existing use rights provisions.

The DCP also requires motorcycle and bicycle parking spaces to be provided on site. Motorcycle and Bicycle storage areas are shown within the basement plan, capable of accommodating 7 motorcycles and 10 bicycles which meets the requirements.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the application and have argued that the proposed development will not unreasonably impact parking and traffic demand given that the proposed use on the ground floor is not changing, the floor area is not increasing and enjoys existing use right provisions.  Also, the site is well served by public transport and any additional parking demand generated by the development has been catered for by the provision of the basement level parking. Refer to detailed comments made by Development Engineers.

 

Clause 30A Character of local area

The consent authority is required to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

The site is located within the Local Business area, which is characterised by a mixture of uses, which is predominately residential, however, also includes a petrol station, education buildings (TAFE), racecourse and mixture of dwelling houses and medium density residential flat buildings.

 

The surrounding locality appears to be under transition where the older building stock is being replaced by medium density mixed use developments. It is considered that the nature of the proposed land uses and the multi-storey form are compatible with the emerging local character. The development massing and height as currently proposed are not considered to result in detrimental or unreasonable amenity impacts on the surrounding area. 

 

Alison Road is a significantly wide thoroughfare, of which is well serviced by public transport. The largest element in the vicinity, no. 34-52 Alison Road, which is six (6) stories in height with no setback to the street. The building is highly visible in appearance. Also, there are a number of buildings within the immediate locality that are approximately four storeys in height which is consistent with the proposed development. It is considered that the design of the development has an effective balance of density and distribution of built form across the site; that will be consistent with the character of the streetscape.

 

Clause 40 Earthworks

The proposal requires excavation works to accommodate the basement car park and foundations for the building. 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. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

Clause 42B        Contaminated land

Clause 42B contains provisions for remediation of contaminated land to ensure that such land will be suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed. As indicated above, the applicant has submitted environmental site assessment (ESA) prepared by Urban Environmental Services Pty Ltd.  The report recommends the petroleum hydrocarbon to be removed as part of the proposed re-development works post demolition and should excavation and off site removal of soils be required a waste classification will be needed as per the DECCW (2009) – Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1 Classifying Waste. Upon removal of fuel infrastructure and validation of excavation, the site can be made suitable for the proposed development.

 

Provided the above is satisfied, the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

Part 4 – 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 prominently located opposite Randwick Racecourse with street frontages to Alison Road and John Street and a rear frontage to John Lane.  The site is occupied by a motorcycle/scooter showroom and vehicle workshop.  To the north of the site, on the opposite side of John Lane is no.3 King Street, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).  To the south of the site on the opposite side of Alison Road is the Randwick Racecourse heritage conservation area, which also contains the Official Stand, listed as a heritage item. 

 

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate scale for this corner site. 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.

 

(b)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 was gazetted on 1 February 2013 and formally commenced on 15 February 2013, replacing Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

The vehicle sale premises is permissible in the Zone whilst the vehicle repair station remains prohibited in the B1 zones.

 

The development application was lodged before the 15th February 2013 (commencement of Randwick LEP 2012) and is therefore assessed under the previous local planning controls, being Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) and the existing Development Control Plans.

 

Notwithstanding, the proposal is considered against the objectives and controls in LEP 2012 below.

 

The subject site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under RLEP 2012. The objectives of the zone are:

 

§ To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

§ To enable residential development that is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

§ To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining nearby zones.

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the B1 zone under LEP 2012, in that it the proposed mixed use development will provide a small-scale retail business and community use that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood; and new affordable housing opportunities within a highly accessible area to existing services, public transport, hospital, TAFE and the Randwick Town Centre. In addition, the amenity impacts to adjoining properties are considered reasonable.

 

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

 

LEP Clause

LEP Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Floor Space Ratio

Maximum FSR: 1.5:1

 

*SEPP – Affordable Rental Housing allows for a bonus residential FSR of 0.5:1 for boarding house use, in addition to the LEP control.

Total FSR: 1.99:1 (or 752.98m²)

 

Yes

 

Building Height

Maximum building height 12 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

Generally the building has a maximum height between 12.27m to 13.65m from the existing ground level (with the exception of the lift overrun being at a maximum height of 14.85m top of lift). 

 

Given that the lift overrun is ancillary to the proposed building and will not result in any adverse amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing and views, the maximum building height is taken from top of the building parapet.

Does not comply; see comments below and SEPP 1, above.

 

Building Height controls

The LEP 2012 adopts a building height control of 12m to the subject site. The subject application proposes a maximum building height of Height 14.85m.

 

Despite this variation to the LEP 2012 control, the proposal is consistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the LEP 1998 (Consolidation) controls. The development is compatible with surrounding height and built form and will not impose any unreasonable environmental impacts upon adjoining sites, the streetscape or surrounds.

 

10. Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

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

 

 

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

Not applicable.

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

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

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the 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 have been addressed within the body of this report.  See below for further details.

 

The development is not considered to generate any significant amenity impacts on the nearby residential uses in terms of noise, overshadowing and visual amenity. The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable social impacts on the locality.

 

The proposed boarding house and commercial/business use is compatible with the character of local business zone and would contribute to the viability and vibrancy of the local businesses. Accordingly, the proposal would not result in detrimental economic impacts in the locality.

 

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

The subject site is zoned 3B Local Business, and proposed boarding house and showroom is permissible with consent.  However, proposed motor vehicle workshop portion to the rear section on the ground floor level is a prohibited use under the LEP. Notwithstanding, the site enjoys the benefits of existing use rights for such a purpose. Accordingly, the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent.   

 

The site is located within an area characterised by a mixture of commercial, institutional and residential uses. The development scheme will upgrade the visual presentation of the site by providing a new mixed use building which is compatible in bulk, scale and height with the established streetscape.

 

Subject to conditions, the proposal should not create any unreasonable noise emission.

 

The site is highly accessible and 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.

 

Based on the above, the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

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

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

The proposal 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.

 

10.1      View Loss assessment

An objection has been received from the neighbouring property at no. 18-20 Alison Road in relation to loss of views to the city skyline and Sydney Tower.  The views in question are generally obtained from elevated positions in the living room, bedroom and rear balcony off Unit 7 on the third floor level. This unit obtains views above the subject site.  Refer to Figure 1, below indicating the windows in question that receive views.

 

Bedroom

 

Living room

 

Balcony

 

Figure 1: The neighbouring property at no. 18-20 Alison Road , Randwick

 

An assessment of the proposed development and its impact on views is carried out in accordance with the Land and Environment Court planning principle after Roseth SC pp.25-29 in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. This assessment is guided by a four step process identified by the Land and Environment Court.

 

Step 1. “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

Comments:

From No. Unit 7, the key view that will be affected by the proposal is a horizontal band of distant city skyline views & Sydney Centre Point Tower views. The views are significantly obscured by trees. Sydney Tower is an “iconic” item.  Refer to Figure 2 below.

 

Randwick race Course and stand

 

Sydney Tower

 

Distant skyline views of the city

 

Figure 2: Views to the north from the side elevation off the third floor balcony at No. Unit 7/18-20 Alison Road.

 

Sydney Tower

 

Figure 3: Views to the north from the side elevation off the living room windows at No. Unit 7/18-20 Alison Road. The view is obscured by the tree canopy and only part of the top section of the Sydney Tower can be viewed.

 

Sydney Tower

 

Figure 3: Views to the north from the side elevation off the bedroom windows at No. Unit 7/18-20 Alison Road. The view is obscured by the tree canopy and only part of the top section of the Sydney Tower can be viewed.

 

 

Step 2. “The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.”

 

Comments:

No. Unit 7/18-20 Alison Road - the views are currently enjoyed across the northern side boundary of the property from the first floor balcony which is at the rear of the property, living room and bedroom windows. The view obtained is available at significant distance from mainly a standing position.  Refer to Figures 2 to 4 above.

 

Step 3. “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

Comments:

The views are very distant city skyline views and include a very distant view to the top section of 'iconic' building within the Sydney CBD i.e. Sydney Tower.  These views are significantly obscured by heavy vegetation and trees. As a result of the proposed development the entire views to the city skyline and Sydney Tower will be lost from the rear balcony and windows in question. 

 

Step 4. “The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.”

 

Comments:

In evaluating the above impacts it is noted:

 

§ Tenacity recognises a development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. As noted previously, this proposal exceeds the building height control by 270mm to 1.65m (with the exception of the lift overrun being at a maximum height of 14.85m top of lift).

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal will result in the existing views to be completely obscured, this outlook cannot be reasonably maintained given the permissible density and height for developments within the surrounding 3B zone. Notwithstanding the non compliance with the building height standard, if the proposal were to have a complaint height, it would still result with the same view loss impacts.  Further, the manner in which views are obtained across the secondary street frontage indicates that retaining such views is unrealistic.

 

Therefore, the proposed development is acceptable with regard to view loss.

 

10.2      Privacy

The proposed development is not expected to result in unreasonable privacy impacts on any adjoining properties, for the following reasons:

§ The private open space (balconies) of each boarding room is located away and screened from that of other units.

 

§ Communal areas (roof terrace and common area) and access points of the boarding house have been located to front the corner of Alison Road and John Street, distanced from shared boundaries. Conditions have been recommended which requires the following:

a.  Planting to be provided around the perimeter of the site. This will slightly reduce the size of the terrace and act as an acoustical buffer and restrict overlooking in a downward direction.

b.  The use of the communal courtyards and terraces within the premises has been restricted to a curfew of no later than 10:00pm and no earlier than 7:00am.

 

Subject to the above recommendations it is not considered that the proposed terrace area will result in unreasonable visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

 

10.3      Overshadowing

The proposed development will not result in any additional adverse impacts on neighbouring dwellings with regard to overshadowing of private open spaces, north-facing living areas or potential solar collection areas. The show diagrams indicate that the additional overshadowing is only in the afternoon and extends to the north-west facing windows on the ground and first floor units at no.18-20 Alison Road. The adjoining buildings will still receive the required solar access requirements.

Refer to 3D diagrams below.

 

9:00am                                    12:00pm                           3:00pm

 

10.4      Social Impact Assessment

A submission was received during notification objecting to the proposal based upon perceived social impacts associated to the development.

 

The proposed boarding house is for 21 rooms with a caretaker’s room and is only 377.8m² in area.  The proposal will provide for increased affordable housing in a highly accessible location and will provide employment opportunities which will assist in the urban renewal and economic growth and development of the locality promoting the objectives of the zone. The added population will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons which will in turn encourage the location of services and facilities into the area. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of services.

 

It is considered that potential amenity impacts to adjoining properties can be addressed through recommended conditions, including the required implementation of a Plan of Management.

 

10.5      Plan of Management

The proposal is accompanied by a preliminary Plan of Management within the Statement of Environmental Effects detailing provision to ensure safety and mitigate potential amenity impacts to both adjoining properties and occupants of the development.  A condition has been included which requires a comprehensive plan of management to be submitted to Council.

 

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.

 

Outcome 6:   A liveable city;

Direction 6e:  Housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse community is enhanced.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objection provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate the purpose of clause 20G will be achieved and compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.  The proposal remains within the bounds of the objectives of the zone and satisfies the requirements set out by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure within State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the below recommended conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20G of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Building heights, 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/11/2013 for demolition of existing industrial building and construction of a new four storey mixed use development comprising of a motorcycle showroom with workshop and ancillary office space at ground level, boarding house with 22 rooms on floors above, basement carparking for 4 vehicles and rooftop communal area/courtyard, at No. 16 Alison 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 by Council

04 to 08

Cracknell & Lonergan architects

December 2012

9 January 2013

12

Cracknell & Lonergan architects

December 2012

9 January 2013

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

397581M_03

22 December 2012

9 January 2013

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.          The proposed roof awning structure that is attached to the staircase and lift must not be enclosed.

 

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 an Accredited Certifier or Randwick City Council.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be included in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

4.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area and consistent with the architectural style of the building.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development

 

Archival Recording

5.       A brief archival recording of the existing early motor garage on the property (adapted from earlier workshop buildings) shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture.  Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library. 

 

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 $2,110,500, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $21,105.

 

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

 

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

 

Long Service Levy

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

 

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

 

Sydney Water Requirements

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

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water 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 details please refer to the Sydney Water web site at www.sydneywater.com.au for:

 

·           Quick Check agents details -  see Building and Developing then Quick Check and

·           Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Building and Development then Building and Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that a Sydney Water Quick Check Agent has appropriately stamped the plans prior to issuing the construction certificate.

 

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

 

Security Deposit

9.       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:

 

·           $3000.00    -      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.

 

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.

 

Building Code of Australia & Fire Safety

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

 

11.     All new building work (including alterations, additions, fit-out work and fire safety works are to be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

Access & Facilities

12.     Access and/or facilities for people with disabilities must be provided to all new building work in accordance with any relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

Design Alignment levels

13.     The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

 

John Lane Frontage vehicular entrance

·      RL 33.55  AHD

 

Alison Road/ John Street  Frontage

·      140mm above the top of kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway/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.

 

14.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $585 calculated at $48.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Internal Driveway

15.     The internal access driveway from John Lane must be designed and constructed to  match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council) and the driveway must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

§ The driveway must not exceed a grade of 1 in 8 (12.5%) within 4m of the property alignment in John Lane.

§ The driveway may then steepen to a maximum grade of 1 in 4 (25%) after this point.

§ A transition of minimum length 2m at grade of 1 in 8 (12.5%) is to be provided prior to entry onto basement floor and turntable.

 

A longitudinal section of the driveway must be provided with the construction certificate plans, at a scale of 1:20 or 1:50 along the centreline of the driveway. The section shall demonstrate compliance with the Council issued alignment level at the property boundary, together with satisfactory ramp grades (and transitions) in accordance with the above requirements to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

16.     Any transitional grades required within the proposed vehicle workshops to match floor levels with Council’s issued alignment levels shall not exceed a grade of 1 in 8 (12.5%).

 

Flood Management

17.     The floor level of all habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas (excluding those in the basement carpark) shall be at a minimum RL of 32.9 (AHD) or be suitably waterproofed up to this same level. Details demonstrating compliance with this condition are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

18.     Windows, vents and other openings into the basement carpark (excluding the driveway opening) are to be located at least 300 mm above the determined 1 in 100 year flood level. Details demonstrating compliance with this condition are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

19.     The ground floor level located along the Alison Road site frontage 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.

 

20.     The building, including building footings, are to be designed to ensure that they will not be adversely affected by stormwater, floodwater and/or the water table.

 

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

 

21.     The floor of the workshop shall be graded with minimum 1% fall to John Street. 

 

22.     Stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of this development consent. Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be prepared by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer and submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)       A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)       A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system. 

 

c)       The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

e)       Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)       Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)       The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

23.     The written approval of Council is required to be obtained in relation to all drainage and infrastructure works which are located externally from the site within the road reserve/public place, in accordance with the requirements of the Roads Act 1993.  Detailed plans and specifications of the proposed works are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of City Services prior to commencing any works within the road reserve/public place.

 

All works within the road reserve/public place must be carried out to the satisfaction of Council and certification from a professional engineer is to be provided to Council upon completion of the works.

 

Relevant Council Assessment and Inspection fees, as specified in Council's adopted Pricing Policy, are required to be paid to Council prior to commencement of the works.

 

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

 

a)     The stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and the conditions of this consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

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

i.     Directly to the kerb and gutter along the site frontage; or

ii.    Directly to Council’s underground drainage system in Alison Road via a new kerb inlet pit along the site frontage.

 

c)     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.

 

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

 

e)     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.

 

f)      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).

 

g)     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.

 

h)     A sediment/silt arrestor pit must be provided within the site near the street boundary prior to discharge of the stormwater to Council’s drainage system and prior to discharging the stormwater to any absorption/infiltration system.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

i)      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).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Site seepage & Dewatering

25.     A report must be obtained from a qualified, experienced Hydrogeological Engineer, which provides an assessment of the site and the potential impact of groundwater and the water table upon the development, prior to issuing a Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The report must confirm whether or not the site is or may be affected by groundwater or fluctuating water table and the report must include details of the measures to be implemented to effectively manage any groundwater.

 

26.     The following requirements must be satisfied to minimise the impact of any groundwater or site seepage water on the development, Council assets and neighbouring properties.:

 

a)    Groundwater and sub-soil drainage must not be connected or discharged to the stormwater detention tank or to Council’s street gutter or drainage system, unless specific written approval has been obtained from Council beforehand, and

 

b)    Groundwater and sub-soil drainage must be restricted from entering the basement level/s and the stormwater drainage system, by tanking and waterproofing the basement areas of the building, and

 

c)    Adequate provisions must be made for the groundwater to drain around the basement level/s and ensure that the basement will not impede the movement of the ground water through the development site, and

 

d)    Details of the proposed methods of managing groundwater, tanking and waterproofing must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydrogeological Engineer and be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority, prior to issuing the construction certificate.

 

27.     Details of the proposed connection and or disposal of any site seepage, groundwater or construction site stormwater to Council’s stormwater drainage system must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Development Engineering Coordinator, prior to commencing these works, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

Details must include the following information:

 

·       Site plan

·       Hydraulic engineering details of the proposed disposal/connection of groundwater or site stormwater to Council/s drainage system

·       Volume of water to be discharged

·       Location and size of drainage pipes

·       Duration, dates and time/s for the proposed works and disposal

·       Details of water quality and compliance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Act 1997

·       Details of associated plant and equipment, including noise levels from the plant and equipment and compliance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Act 1997 and associated Regulations and Guidelines

·       Copy of any required approvals and licences from other Authorities (e.g.  A water licence from the Department of Planning/Department of Water & Energy).

·       Details of compliance with any relevant approvals and licences

 

Waste Management

28.     The proposed operational Waste Management Plan submitted with the development application (Prepared by Cracknell & Lonergan  and stamped by Council 9th January 2013) shall be amended to include the following corrections , and  is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Services prior to issuing of a construction certificate;

§ A total of 15 x 240L bins will be required for the boarding house component consisting of 8 x garbage + 7 x recycling.

§ Details of waste disposal for the  showroom/office and workshop shall be provided (council, private contactor)

§ A total of 2 x 240L bins will be required for the showroom consisting of 1 x garbage + 1 x recycling.

§ A total of 2 x 240L bins will be required for the workshop consisting of 1 x garbage + 1 x recycling.

§ Liquid trade waste must be disposed of in accordance with environmental regulations. Details shall be provided.

 

Further details of Council's requirements and guidelines, including pro-forma Waste Management plan forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre.

 

Demolition & Construction Waste

29.     A Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan must be developed and implemented for the development, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

The Demolition and Construction 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.

 

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 Regulatory Requirements

30.     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)    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

 

d)    at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing any works; and

 

e)    the relevant requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 (as applicable) must be complied with and details provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Demolition Work & Removal of Asbestos Materials

31.     Demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a)     Demolition work must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard, AS2601 (2001) - The Demolition of Structures and a Demolition Work Plan is required to developed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencing any demolition works.

 

b)     The demolition, removal, storage and disposal of any materials containing asbestos must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, Council’s Asbestos Policy and the following requirements:

 

·         A licence must be obtained from WorkCover NSW for the removal of friable asbestos and or more than 10m2  of bonded asbestos (i.e. fibro)

·         Asbestos waste must be disposed of in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 & relevant Regulations

·         A sign must be provided to the site/building stating “Danger Asbestos Removal In Progress”

·         A Clearance Certificate or Statement must be obtained from a suitably qualified person (i.e. Occupational Hygienist) upon completion of the asbestos removal works, which is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

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.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration

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

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, 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 and Vibration Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the DECC Construction Noise Guideline, by a suitably qualified person is to be developed and implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the plan must be provided to the Council and Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of site works.

 

Construction Traffic Management

33.     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 John Street for the duration of the demolition & construction works. 

 

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

 

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

 

34.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to commencement of any site work.

 

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

 

35.     A Traffic Control Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council and relevant Authorities, prior to carrying out any work which results in the closure or partial closure of a State or Regional Road, as identified by the NSW Roads & Traffic Authority.

 

Sydney Water

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            Public Utilities

37.     A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.  The assessment should include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of services.

 

Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied, must be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works.

 

38.     The owner/builder must make the necessary arrangements and meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, Sydney Water and other authorities to adjust, repair or relocate their services as required.

 

Landscaping

39.     The PCA must ensure that the Landscape Plan prepared by Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan Architects, dwg DA09, dated July 2012, is amended by a professional with formal qualifications in the landscape/horticultural industry to include the following requirements:

 

a)       A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which nominates the exact location and quantity of all proposed species, including their botanic names, pot size at the time of planting and dimensions at maturity;

 

b)       The design must ensure that plants are strategically positioned so as to minimise any visual or acoustic impact on surrounding sites, whilst also maximising screening and privacy for occupants, with ground-cover or ‘spill-over’ type plants to be used to cascade over the edge of the planters to create a softening effect to the edges of the building;

 

c)       Any other details required in order to document the proposed landscape works, such as gravel/pebbles/mulch, lighting, surface finishes, fencing, screens and similar;

 

d)       Consideration should be given to incorporating additional elements that will encourage use of the space, such as fixed bench seating and similar to provide opportunities for passive recreation;

 

e)       The rooftop planter shall extend around the full perimeter of the rooftop terrace (excluding the covered stair, lift and void area), and must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm, and a minimum soil width of 900mm, with the existing planters shown on DA-12 to remain in place. Construction details confirming compliance are to be submitted.

 

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.

 

Building Inspection Requirements

40.     The 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.

 

Excavations & Support of Adjoining Land

41.     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.

 

42.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

Permitted Working Hours

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Internal work only within a commercial or industrial development, located in a commercial or industrial zone, which is not audible within any residential dwelling or commercial or industrial premises

·   Monday to Saturday - No time limits (subject to column 1)

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Additional requirements for all development (except for single residential dwellings)

·   Saturdays and Sundays where the preceding Friday and/or the following Monday is a public holiday - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

Construction Site Management

44.     Public health, safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition and building works and the following requirements must be complied with at all times:

 

a)     A sign must be provided and maintained in a prominent position throughout the works, which contains the following details:

 

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

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

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

 

b)     The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, trip hazards, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

d)     Bulk bins, waste containers or 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 or other articles in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

e)     During demolition and construction, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in the site management plan which must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction.  A copy of the plan is to be maintained on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

f)      Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to any demolition and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted. If necessary, a temporary safety fence or hoarding (having a minimum height of 1.5m) is to be provided to protect the public. Temporary site fences are to be structurally adequate, safe and be constructed in a professional manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible. If necessary, an overhead (B Class type) hoarding may be required to protect the public or occupants of the adjoining premises from falling articles or materials.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or items upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services department beforehand. Details and plans are to be submitted with the application, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted Pricing Policy.

 

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

 

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

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

45.     Any openings within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place (i.e. for proposed drainage works or installation of services), must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

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

 

b)     Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer must be notified at least 48 hours in advance of commencing any excavation works and also immediately upon completing the works (on 9399 0691 or 0409 033 921 during business hours), to enable any necessary inspections or works to be carried out.

 

c)     Relevant Road / Asset Opening Permit fees, construction fees, inspection fees and security deposits, must be paid to Council prior to commencing any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place,

 

d)     The owner/developer must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner).

 

e)     Excavations and trenches must be back-filled and compacted in accordance with AUSPEC standards 306U.

 

f)     Excavations or trenches located upon a road or footpath are required to be provided with 50mm depth of cold-mix bitumen finish, level with the existing road/ground surface, to enable Council to readily complete the finishing works at a future date.

 

g)     Excavations or trenches located upon turfed areas are required to be back-filled, compacted, top-soiled and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf.

 

h)     The work and area must be maintained in a clean, safe and tidy condition at all times and the area must be thoroughly cleaned at the end of each days activities and upon completion.

 

i)      The work can only be carried out in accordance with approved hours of building work as specified in the development consent, unless the express written approval of Council has been obtained beforehand.

 

j)     Sediment control measures must be implemented in accordance with the conditions of development consent and soil, sand or any other material must not be allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system or cause a pollution incident.

 

k)     The owner/developer must have a Public Liability Insurance Policy in force, with a minimum cover of $10 million and a copy of the insurance policy must be provided to Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place.

 

Stormwater Drainage

46.     Adequate provisions must be made to collect and discharge stormwater drainage during construction of the building to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority.

 

The prior written approval of Council must be obtained to connect or discharge site stormwater to Council’s stormwater drainage system or street gutter.

 

47.     Any required dewatering must be monitored by the consulting Engineer/s to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority and documentary evidence of compliance with the relevant conditions of consent and dewatering requirements must be provided to the principal certifying authority and the Council.

 

The site conditions and fluctuations in the water table are to be reviewed by the consulting Engineer prior to and during the excavation/construction process, to ensure the suitability of the excavation and dewatering process and compliance with Council's conditions of consent.

 

48.     A separate written approval from Council is required to be obtained in relation to any proposed discharge of groundwater into Council’s drainage system external to the site, in accordance with the requirements of Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

Service stations, fuel bowsers & vehicle repair workshops etc – UPSS Regulation

49.     The removal of the underground petroleum storage systems must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, (the ‘Act’), Protection of the Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulation 2008 (the ‘UPSS Regulation’), relevant referenced Guidelines, Australian Standards and the following requirements.

 

a)     The decommissioning of underground Petroleum Storage Systems must comply with the relevant requirements of the UPSS Regulation 2008, DECC Guidelines for implementing the UPSS Regulation 2008 and the following requirements (as applicable):

 

Decommissioning and removal of tanks

 

i)     The decommissioning work and removal of tanks must be carried out in accordance with relevant Regulations and Standards including:-

 

·      The UPSS Regulation 2008

·      The Occupation Health & Safety Regulation 2001

·      AS1940 (2004) – Storage and handling of flammable and   combustible liquids

·      AS4976 (2008) – The removal and disposal of underground petroleum storage systems

·      WorkCover NSW requirements and guidelines.

 

ii)     A validation report must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to Council and the DECC, no later than 60 days of the completion of the works.

 

50.     Fill material that is imported to the site must satisfy the requirements of the NSW Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 and the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Waste Classification Guidelines (2008).  Fill material must meet the relevant requirements for Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) or be the subject of a (general or specific) Resource Recovery Exemption from the EPA.

 

Details of the importation of fill and compliance with these requirements must be provided to the satisfaction of a suitably qualified Environmental Consultant or Site Auditor.

 

51.     The works must not cause any environmental pollution, public nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and associated Regulations.

 

52.     Any hazardous and/or intractable wastes arising from the works are to be managed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Office of Environment and Heritage/Environment Protection Authority, including the provisions of:

 

·      Work Health and Safety Act 2011

·      The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

·      Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

·      Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·      NSW DECC/EPA Waste Classification Guidelines 2008

·      Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

 

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’.

 

Notes:  An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the PCA prior to occupation and use of the premises.

 

          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.

 

53.     A Plan of Management (PoM), prepared with the advice of an independent, suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to Council and accepted in writing by the Manager of Health, Building and Regulatory Services, prior to the issue of the OccupationCertificate

 

The Plan of Management shall contain suitable measures and procedures to achieve the following:

 

§ Ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval.

§ Minimise the potential impacts as a result of the operation of the premises upon nearby residents.

§ Effectively minimise and manage anti-social behaviour.

§ Ensure a clean and comfortable living environment for occupants.

 

The Plan of Management shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following information and control measures:

 

§ Details of the role and responsibilities of the on-site management including: daily operation and administration, cleaning, maintenance of garden areas and landscaping, compliance with the Plan of Management and emergency management (e.g. fire evacuation).

§ Information relating to staffing arrangement, including the location and 24-hour contact details of the site manager / caretaker.

§ Measures to ensure proper maintenance and monitoring of cleanliness of all common areas, including the Common Room and outdoor courtyard.

§ Time restrictions on the use of common areas within the development, such as the indoor common Room, roof terrace and outdoor courtyard areas.

§ Details of cleaning and vermin control, including information that indicates how regular the shared facilities (e.g. Common Room and Common Courtyards) are cleaned to a professional standard.

§ Details of house rules, which shall be provided to all residents, including:

 

§ The maximum number of residents per room (2)

§ Measures for ensuring that guests do not stay overnight and exceed an appropriate number

§ Guest behaviour / visitor policy

§ Activities and noise control

§ Operation hours of the communal courtyard and common areas

§ Prohibition of alcohol and drug consumption

§ Permissible use and prohibited use of external balconies (e.g. prohibiting the storage of excessive furniture and late night social gatherings in the balconies, etc.)

 

§ Measures to minimise unreasonable amenity impacts on the living, bedroom and other areas of the adjoining developments. Specifically, the Plan of Management is to specify measures that will minimise noise from the outdoor spaces and balconies of the boarding house.

 

§ Details of internal signage including:

-    Contact details of the on-site manager / caretaker

-    Emergency contact numbers for essential services, such as fire brigade, ambulance, police and utilities (i.e. gas, electricity)

-    Egress routes and any evacuation plan

-    Means of contacting emergency services in the event of emergency (i.e. where landline telephone is provided within the boarding house)

 

§ Waste minimisation and recycling strategies and practices.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

54.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation or use of the development encompassed in this development consent (including alterations, additions and ‘fit-out’ work 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 requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

Fire Safety Certificate Requirements

55.     Prior to issuing an interim or final Occupation Certificate, a single and complete Fire Safety Certificate, encompassing all of the essential fire safety measures contained in the fire safety schedule must be obtained and be submitted to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.  The Fire Safety Certificate must be consistent with the Fire Safety Schedule which forms part of the Construction Certificate.

 

A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate must be displayed in the building entrance/foyer at all times and a copy of the Fire Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Schedule must also be forwarded to Fire & Rescue NSW.

 

High-level Window Openings

56.     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 (except in relation to an opening on the 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 provided prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Noise Emissions - Certification

57.     Where plant and equipment is installed in the premises (e.g. air-conditioners, mechanical ventilation/exhaust systems or refrigeration motors etc), a written report or statement must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics.

 

The report/statement must demonstrate and confirm that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, Council’s conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations), to the satisfaction of Council.  The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources and a copy of the report/statement must be provided to Council prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

58.     Prior to issuing a final occupation certificate for the development, the owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

a)     Construct a concrete vehicular crossing opposite the vehicular entrance to the basement in John Lane.

b)     Construct kerb and gutter for the full site frontage except opposite the vehicular entrance in John Lane.

c)     Carry out a full depth, 1 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage in John Lane.

d)     If required, reconstruct concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks at kerb opposite the vehicular entrances to the work bays in John Street.

e)     Remove any redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

f)     Reconstruct concrete footpath along the full John Street frontage

g)     Install ‘No Stopping’ signage in John Lane as required

 

59.     The owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Service Authorities

Sydney Water Requirements

61.     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.

 

62.     The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines and communication cables located along the Alison Road site frontage to be relocated underground. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be relocated. All cables most be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

Stormwater Drainage

63.     A "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention 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.

 

64.     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).

 

65.     The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer, which confirms that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standard AS3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and conditions of this development consent. 

 

The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the Hydraulic Engineers to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

66.     The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council certification from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer, confirming that the walls of the basement have been fully tanked and waterproofed to prevent the entry of all groundwater in the basement level/s and that any required sub-soil drainage systems have been provided in accordance with the conditions of this consent.

 

Landscaping

67.     Certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming that landscaping at this site has been installed substantially in accordance with the amended landscape plan and relevant conditions of consent, with the owner/s to implement strategies to ensure that it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity.

 

Waste Management

68.     The owner or applicant is required to contact Council’s City Services department, to make the necessary arrangements for the provision of waste services for the premises.

 

69.     The waste storage area in the basement to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

70.     The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

71.     Prior to any occupation certificate being issued for the site or commencing the use of the land as provided in this consent, a Validation Report prepared by a suitably qualified Environmental Consultant must be submitted to the satisfaction of Council.  The report must demonstrate that the relevant land contamination conditions in this consent have been satisfied and that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

72.     A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW EPA/DECC Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, Council’s conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations), to the satisfaction of Council.  The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

 

73.     Places of Shared Accommodation must comply with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and the premises must be registered with the Council, and the approved registration/inspection fee is to be forwarded to Council prior to issuing an occupation certificate.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

74.     There must be no encroachment of any automotive parts, motorcycles or associated articles onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place. All motorcycles that will be on display must be located wholly within the premises.

 

Fire Safety Statements

75.     A single and complete Fire Safety Statement (encompassing all of the fire safety measures upon the premises) must be provided to the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

The Fire Safety Statement must be provided on an annual basis, each year following the issue of the Fire Safety Certificate and other period if any of the fire safety measures are identified as a critical fire safety measure in the Fire Safety Schedule

 

The Fire Safety Statement is required to confirm that all the fire safety measures have been assessed by a properly qualified person and are operating in accordance with the standards of performance specified in the Fire Safety Schedule.

 

A copy of the Fire Safety Statement must be displayed in the building entrance/foyer at all times and a copy must also be forwarded to Fire & Rescue NSW.

 

Environmental Amenity

76.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance, cause a vibration nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

77.     The proposed use and operation of the premises (including all plant and equipment) must 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 premises and plant and equipment shall not give rise to a 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).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

Waste Management

78.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of trade/commercial waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Any trade/commercial waste materials must not be disposed in or through Council’s domestic garbage service.  All trade/commercial waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales and details of the proposed waste collection and disposal service are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencing operation of the business.

 

The operator of the business must also arrange for the recycling of appropriate materials and make the necessary arrangements with an authorised waste services contractor accordingly.

 

Stormwater Detention/Infiltration System

79.     The detention area/infiltration system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure proper operation and management of the subject boarding house:

 

80.     The boarding house premises shall be operated in accordance with the definition of “boarding house” as stipulated in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Accommodation is not to be provided on a temporary basis to persons whose principal place of residence is elsewhere and/or for tourism purposes.

 

81.     Each proposed dwelling unit within the development, with the exception of the manager’s room / caretaker’s flat, shall accommodate a maximum of 2 residents at all times. In addition, the 2 residents shall be related family members or couples. The manager / caretaker shall be responsible for ensuring that this requirement is adhered to by validating relevant personal details before admission. This condition is to ensure that strangers are not sharing the units and potentially altering the approved use of the premises.

 

82.     The manager / caretaker of the boarding house must reside on the premises and must be a person over the age of 18 years.

 

83.     The hours of the operation of the motorcycle showroom and vehicle repair workshop on the ground floor level are restricted to:-

 

Monday through to Friday, inclusive from: 8:00am to .6:00pm.

Saturday & Sundays, from: 9:00am to 3:00pm.

 

84.     The use and occupation of the communal courtyards and terraces within the premises shall be restricted to a curfew of no later than 10:00pm and no earlier than 7:00am.

 

85.     The manager shall ensure that a notice is placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public, advising of the manager’s / caretaker’s name and contact number.

 

86.     Each occupant shall be furnished with a set of house rules (i.e. a Plan of Management as required by this consent) and that no variation shall be permitted without the further approval of Council.

 

87.     The manager / caretaker shall maintain a record of all residents with details of their names, length of stay and number of persons in each room. This information shall be stored for a minimum of 12 months on site and made available to Council’s Officers upon request.

 

88.     All residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or license agreeing to comply with the approved Plan of Management for the boarding house, with the length of the lease to be determined by the management.

 

89.     The individual rooms and common areas of the boarding house, including the Common Room and the outdoor communal courtyards shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition at all times.

 

90.     The following facilities are to be provided for each of the proposed dwelling units within the development:

 

(a)    A washing machine, and

(b)    A refrigerator unit (for example, a bar fridge), and

(c)    A stove-top with two burners, and

(d)    A ceiling fan, and

(e)    All furniture and facilities proposed to be provided to the dwelling units as listed under section 5.4.1, page 44 “Apartment Contents” of the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by Nino Urban Planning and Development, dated April 2012, that accompanies this development application.

 

91.     The boarding house premises shall be operated in accordance with the approved Plan of Management at all times.

 

Environmental Amenity

92.     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.

 

93.     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.

 

In this regard, an Application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of appropriate street and unit numbers for the development.

 

94.     Each boarding room must be occupied by no more than two people at any one time.

 

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

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

96.     The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the premises and plant and equipment shall not give rise to a 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).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

97.     The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.

 

98.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

 

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

 

100.    The design, construction and operation of the vehicle repair workshops or the like must comply with the following requirements (as applicable):

 

a)     A bund wall must be constructed around all work and liquid storage areas to prevent any spillage entering into the stormwater system.  The bunded area must provide for at least a volume equal to 110% of the largest containers stored and graded to a blind sump so as to facilitate cleansing.

 

b)     A trafficable bund, capable of preventing the escape of any pollutant into Council's stormwater drainage system, must be provided to all access ways/exits from the development.

 

c)     Flammable and combustible liquids must be stored in accordance with AS 1940-2004 - The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids and relevant requirements of NSW WorkCover Authority.

 

d)     Prior to the storage of any 'dangerous goods' on the premises, a licence must be obtained from the WorkCover Authority (Chemical Safety Branch) and a copy of the licence must be forwarded to Council.

 

e)     Service and parking areas must be graded and drained to a stormwater treatment device capable of removing litter, oil, grease and sediment prior to discharge to the stormwater system complying with relevant EPA/DECC requirements & guidelines and Council’s conditions of consent.

 

f)      A permanent record of receipts for the removal of both liquid and solid waste from the site shall be kept and maintained up to date at all times.  The records are to be made available to EPA/DECC & Council Officers, upon request.

 

g)     All stormwater drains/pits on the site must be provided and maintained with the message "The drain is just for rain".  Lettering shall be 100mm high block bold yellow lettering, using quality road line marking paint.

 

101.    Servicing, detailing and repairs of vehicles or vehicle parts must be conducted in a covered, bunded area.  Vehicles awaiting repair, under repair or awaiting delivery, shall not be stored, parked, or otherwise permitted to stand in a public street.  All such vehicles must be accommodated within the premises.

 

102.    All automotive parts being stored wholly within the building and no automotive parts shall be stored in the open.

 

103.    Covered, bunded work areas, including workshops and lube bays, being graded into collection sumps and/or grated drains so that surface effluent generated within the workshop area is directed into a dedicated drainage system for treatment, storage and disposal.  If liquid wastes are to be disposed of to the sewer, a Trade Waste Agreement from Sydney Water is to be obtained.  A copy of the licence is to be forwarded to Council as proof of appropriate disposal.  Alternatively, disposal of waste is to be conducted in accordance with the Environmental Protection Authority’s Waste Tracking Guidelines as described in the Environmental Protection Authority’s Waste Regulation under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and details of compliance must be provided to Council.

 

104.    Sufficient supplies of appropriate absorbent materials and/or other appropriate spill clean up equipment shall be kept on site to recover any liquid spillage.  Liquid spills must be cleaned up using dry methods only and shall not give rise to an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

105.    No spray painting being carried out on the premises, unless the prior development consent has been obtained from Council.

 

106.    No panel beating, dismantling or wrecking of vehicles shall be carried out on the premises.

 

GENERAL 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 requirements.  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 legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

A2      The assessment of this development application does not include an assessment of the proposed building work under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010.

 

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

 

A3      In existing buildings, the levels of fire and occupant safety should be upgraded where necessary and details should be incorporated in the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the Certifying authority.

 

Where the levels of accessibility to existing buildings do not meet current standards, if practicable, the level of accessibility should also be upgraded in conjunction with the proposed development (e.g. via the installation of a 1:8 access ramp within the building) and details included in the construction certificate application.

 

Building owners, applicants and builders are advised to liaise with the appointed Certifying Authority prior to lodgement of the Construction Certificate.

 

A4      The applicant is advised that Places of Shared Accommodation (including Boarding / Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast businesses, Backpackers, Residential Hotels or the like must comply with relevant public health and safety legislation and requirements and they must be registered with Council prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued for the development. The relevant registration and inspection fee is also required to be paid to Council in accordance with Council’s adopted Pricing Policy.

 

A5      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.

 

A6      The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 May 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP31/13

 

 

Subject:                  8 Simeon Street, Clovelly (DA/794/2011/A)

Folder No:                   DA/794/2011/A

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Senior Environmental Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of the approved development through internal changes, converting roof space to rumpus room, changes to window openings on elevations, lowering the finished floor levels of the dwelling at ground and first floor levels, reduce the rear yard and deck levels

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Mr N Skagias

Owner:                         Mr N Skagias

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This section 96 modification application is referred to Council for consideration as the original application which detailed the demolition of existing garage and shed, substantial reconstruction of existing dwelling including first floor addition, construction of lower level double garage to front, swimming pool to rear and associated works was approved subject to conditions at the Planning Committee Meeting of 12 June 2012.

 

The proposed modifications involve internal reconfiguration, alteration to the roof form to accommodate a rumpus room at the third floor, modifications to window openings (to comply with conditions of the original consent), lowering the finished floor levels of the dwelling at ground and first floor levels and reduction in the rear yard and deck levels.

It is noted that the application originally included a third floor sitting room to be contained within a pitched roof at the third floor and dormer window and associated deck area. This sitting room was subsequently deleted from the proposal following consultation with Council’s Assessment Officer due to its visual bulk and scale and appearance as a distinct third floor to the dwelling. Further, the original proposal did not meet the objectives for floor space ratio for dwelling houses within Residential 2A zones.

Condition No. 2 of the original consent was applied to the consent requiring the proposed roof to be reduced from RL 78.885 to RL 78.14 (a reduction of 745mm). Assessment of the roof pitch and subsequent application of this condition was largely based on the fact that the roof pitch (which did not contain a sitting room) was, at the time, an unnecessary design element to the dwelling in that a lower pitched roof would have been adequate. The reduced RL of 78.14 was applied as an average of the two adjoining dwellings at Nos 6 and 10 Simeon Street. The proposed ridge height, of RL 78.885 continues to provide a height transition between the two adjoining dwellings, No. 6 Simeon Street with a maximum building height of RL 79.43 and No. 10 Simeon Street at RL 76.85. The height of the development, therefore still responds to the natural landform variation of the site and streetscape of Simeon Street. The dwelling when viewed from the rear, in particular from those dwellings on the western side of Seaview Street, will continue to present as a traditional double storey dwelling.

 

The proposal, as amended has demonstrated that whilst there are some additional impacts resultant from the increase in overall RL and roof pitch, the additional height now serves the function of providing a higher level of internal amenity for the future occupants of the dwelling. The development will incorporate suitable design measures such that the upper floor sitting room is wholly contained within what is essentially an attic area (and does not incorporate any deck/terrace or outdoor areas) which is effective in minimising any visual scale and bulk, especially in the context of the existing and future desired character of the area. The proposed design does not read as an additional floor as it has been reasonably set back from the front of the site, and does not include any outdoor terrace areas or substantial openings. The entire rear section of the dwelling has also been reduced to accommodate the upper floor sitting area comfortably within the roof.

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the originally proposed development from 18 January 2013 – 4 February 2013 in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, a total of three (3) submissions were received from nearby residents raising concerns  relating to the impacts of a third floor, including bulk and scale, view loss and overshadowing. These issues are discussed in further detail within section 5 of this report. 

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed modification is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The dwelling, as modified, will continue to be compatible in height, scale and mass with the adjoining and surrounding development. Additionally, the proposed changes will not result in any detrimental amenity impacts in terms of loss of sunlight, privacy and views. Accordingly, the proposed modification results in a development that will be substantially the same for which the consent was originally granted. 

 

As discussed in the relevant section of this report, the proposed modifications do not give rise to unreasonable amenity impacts as the modifications improve internal amenity and generally maintain the physical massing of the approved development when seen in the context of the local streetscape. The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as was originally approved and satisfies Section 96 of the Act. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The subject application seeks to modify the original development consent in the following manner: 

 

·           Modification of condition 2 of the original consent which currently reads:-

 

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

 

a)     The ridge of the proposed roof form shall be reduced, having a height of no greater than RL 78.14.

 

b)     The two (2) metre shading overhang above the front, first floor balcony, shall be reduced to protrude out from the facade of the building no greater than one (1) metre.

 

c)     The ground floor east elevation shall incorporate two (2) highlight windows, corresponding to the living/ dining and sitting rooms. The windows shall:

 

·           Incorporate sill heights a minimum of 1600mm above ground floor finished floor level;

·           Be designed to be between two (2) and three (3) metres in length;

·           Be fixed and obscured using opaque/ frosted glass.

 

d)     The windows labelled ‘W9’ and ‘W12” on the approved plans shall be obscured up to, or feature minimum sill heights of, 1500mm above finished floor level.

 

The above amendments shall be detailed on the plans to the satisfaction of the Principle Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

The plans accompanying the current section 96 application reflect the following changes to the approved development to demonstrate compliance with parts b, c, and d: -

 

·      The shading device above the first floor balcony had been reduced to 1m

 

·      2 highlight windows (2.55m in length with sill heights of 1.6m from the finished ground floor level) have been provided to the ground floor living/ dining and sitting rooms

 

·      W9 and W12 have been indicated for provision with a skirting window with glass louvers and fixed white glass, respectively.

 

As such, these conditions are made redundant and can be deleted from the consent.

 

The current proposal also seeks to delete part ‘a’ of condition 2 by increasing the approved maximum building RL from RL 78.14 to RL 78.885 (an increase of 745mm). The proposal also provides for the following: -

 

·      Provide a roof pitch of 35 degrees – a change from 25 degrees

·      Introduce a third level sitting room within the roof space

·      Lower ground floor level (in the rear 2/3 of the dwelling) from RL 70.46 to RL 70.16 (400mm reduction)

·      Alter rear yard and deck from RL 70.40/70.30 to RL 70.16

·      Lower the first floor level (in the rear 2/3 of the dwelling) from RL 73.71 to 73.06 (650mm reduction); and

·      Increase gross floor area (GFA) by 23m² from 218m² to 241m² and a corresponding change in FSR from 0.68:1 to 0.75:1.

·      Internal reconfiguration of stairs to achieve access into the new upper floor sitting room

·      No change is proposed to the approved building setbacks or external wall height.

 

The proposed modifications have been subject to a detailed merit based assessment and are considered to be reasonable and will not create any adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

 

The proposal remains substantially the same development and is submitted under Section 96(2) of the EP & A Act, 1979.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located at 8 Simeon, Clovelly and is identified as Lot 4 in DP303981. The site is located on the western side of Simeon Street, south of its intersection with Douglas Street. The site is rectangular in shape and orientated on a northeast-southwest axis. The sites main street frontage to Simeon Street measures 10.375m with a secondary frontage of 10.365m to Seaview Street. The site has depths of 31.43m and 30.505m along the northwest and southeast boundaries respectively, and an overall area of 321.9m².

 

The topography of the site falls in a north easterly direction away from Seaview Street to Simeon Street, with a level change of approximately 5.99m over the length of the site from RL73.26m at Seaview Street to RL67.64m at the Simeon Street frontage. There is also a cross fall from the northeast boundary to the south west boundary ranging from RL67.84 to RL66.64 respectively. The site is currently developed with a single storey dwelling house orientated to Simeon Street. A single car garage is located at the rear of the site with access from Seaview Street.

 

The topography of the locality slopes in a south easterly direction down Simeon Street away from its intersection with Douglas Street. Due to the landform variation, retaining walls have become a characteristic element of residential design along the western side of the street.

 

The immediate streetscape is characterised by a mixture of two (2) storey residential dwellings with high brick front boundary fencing and modified California Bungalows to the lower eastern side of the street.

 

Typically on-site parking is provided to the rear of those dwellings along the western side of Simeon Street. However there is evidence of vehicle access being integrated into the front boundary walls within the vicinity of the site at Nos. 14, 10 and 4 Simeon Street.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The subject site seen from Simeon Street (shown in centre)

2. View of the existing streetscape looking north up Simeon Street (western side of Simeon Street)

3. The subject site seen from Seaview Street (shown in centre)

4. Rear of the subject site (subject site shown on left)

Figure 1: Site and surrounding development

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/794/2011 was approved by the Planning Committee on 12 June 2012 for the demolition of existing garage and shed, substantial reconstruction of existing dwelling including first floor addition, construction of lower level double garage to front, swimming pool to rear and associated works.

 

Significant to the current proposal, condition No. 2 which currently reads:

 

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

 

a)       The ridge of the proposed roof form shall be reduced, having a height of no greater than RL 78.14.

 

was applied to the consent requiring the proposed roof to be reduced from RL 78.885 to RL 78.14. 

 

The application originally included a third floor sitting room to be contained within a pitched roof at the third floor and dormer window (shown in figure 2 below). Following further consultation between the applicants and Council’s Assessment Officer, amended plans were received on 15 March 2012 showing various changes, including omitting reference to the third floor sitting room within an empty roof form, reduction in floor heights, a 500mm reduction in ridge height and decreased width to the garage fronting Simeon Street (shown in figure 3). These plans formed the subject of the final assessment for DA/794/2011 and were approved subject to 60 conditions of consent.

 

Figure 2: Initial scheme including roof deck and distinct upper storey with sitting room and dormer window. .

 

 

 

Figure 3: Approved design without reference to a third floor sitting room. 

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the originally proposed development from 18 January 2013 – 4 February 2013 in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, a total of three (3) submissions were received from the residents of 

 

4 Seaview Street, Clovelly

6 Simeon Street, Clovelly

10 Simeon Street, Clovelly 

 

raising the following issues (the issues have been grouped to avoid repetition):

 

·      The roof will be too reflective and cause glare for surrounding properties

·      The steep pitch is unnecessary and causes additional solar reflectance

This concern has been addressed in the assessment of the original application, with condition 4b and 4c requiring that all materials used within the development shall be treated so as to minimise the impact of reflectivity upon neighbouring sites. This may be achieved through powder coating or anodizing treatments. As suggested by the applicant in correspondence of 23 April 2012, the use of a darker colour to the roof form such as ‘Woodland Grey’ is considered acceptable and will contribute to reducing reflectivity of the structure.

 

·      Front setback should be consistent with that of the surrounding dwellings to maintain privacy, views and amenity for other residents

The approved front setback is not proposed to be altered under the subject section 96 application. 

 

·      No openings should be provided the side of the house so that privacy can be maintained for the front balcony of No. 6 Simeon Street

No new openings have been proposed for the dwelling on the side adjacent to No. 6 Simeon Street. Roof area immediately adjacent to the sitting room will not be trafficable and only one window opening is proposed to face Simeon Street to take advantage of the north easterly views available from the front of the subject site. No roof deck has been proposed. 

 

·      The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site

·      Excessive bulk and scale

·      The proposal does not meet council controls for setbacks, FSR and privacy

Refer to section 7 of this report for detailed assessment.

 

The development application is considered adequate and reasonable in relation to the subject site in that it proposes a dwelling house that does not detract from the existing and future character of the neighbourhood and streetscape.

 

Additionally, the amended proposal complies with the floor space ratio and maximum building height controls as outlined in the RLEP 2012 and responds to the size, shape and topography of the subject site.

 

·      The proposal will set an undesirable precedent for future development in the street

The development will incorporate suitable design measures such that the upper floor sitting room is wholly contained within what is essentially an attic area (and does not incorporate any deck/terrace or outdoor areas) which is effective in minimising any visual scale and bulk, especially in the context of the existing and future desired character of the area.

It is considered that the proposal, as amended, is reasonable in addressing previous s concerns raised by Council in relation to privacy views, height and bulk/scale. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact to the development potential of surrounding sites.

Further, each development application received by Council is considered having regard to its compliance with the relevant planning controls and merits. Approval of the subject application would not establish any undesirable planning precedent in this instance.

 

·      Excavation may result in damage to adjoining sites and flooding issues

Flooding issues within the basement garage have been considered by Council’s Development Engineer in the assessment of the original application. The garage is not considered to pose flooding issues to the neighbouring garage, subject to the application of recommended conditions.

 

Standard conditions are applied to ensure that construction work (in the circumstances of the subject application, lowering the dwelling and ground levels toward the rear of the site) on the subject site will not result in adverse impacts to the health and amenity of residents in the surrounding dwellings. Works are subject to compliance with the Building Code of Australia and other policies with regard to asbestos removal/treatment construction noise, hours, waste management and minimising dust and debris.

 

Further, suitable conditions will be also be included to any consent to address drainage issues and ensure that the proposal does not compromise the amenity of the subject site and surrounding properties/residents. 

 

·      The approved height should be retained to ensure the development maintains visual consistency with that of the surrounding development thereby preserving the visual amenity of the street.

·      No other applications approved in the area have a three storey dwelling over garages.

·      Ridge line of the proposal is excessive compared to adjoining development

·      The roof will be a prominent feature

See section 7.2 of this report for detailed assessment of built form and height.

 

·      Impacts to views to Nos. 4 Seaview Street and 6 and 10 Simeon Street 

·      Loss of solar access for 10 Simeon Street

See section 7.2 of this report for detailed discussion of solar access and view impact assessments.

 

·      The garage/storage area will adversely affect No. 10 by building to the boundary with a nil setback.

The current application does not seek to modify the approved lower ground garage/storage area. Impacts regarding the proposed setbacks of the building were assessed under the original development application and deemed to be acceptable.

It is outside the scope of the current section 96 application to revisit the issues raised in the submissions received in response to the original development application and subsequent approval of the development proposal.

 

The modified development will not result in unreasonable detrimental environmental and amenity impacts on the locality. Therefore, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

·      The 2nd floor rear windows (bedrooms) of the development will look directly across into the deck and pool area of No 4 Seaview and result in loss of amenity

No new openings, or changes to existing openings facing Seaview Street have been proposed. Privacy impacts relating to the rear bedroom windows have been assessed under the original development application and deemed to be acceptable. For detailed discussion relating to potential impacts to visual and acoustic privacy as a result of the current modifications, refer to section 7.2 of this report.

 

·      Levels have not been indicated for No. 4 Seaview St

·      The accompanying shadow diagrams have not been verified as being accurate

·      The accompanying SEE contains misleading information

The detail provided on the shadow diagrams is considered generally accurate. Further, Council officers have undertaken their own analysis of the site and application and have not relied solely upon the information provided by the applicant in the assessment of the application.

 

6.    Section 96 Assessment

 

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

(a)   it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

(b)   it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(c)   it has notified the application

(d)   it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

 

As discussed in the relevant section of this report, the proposed modifications do not give rise to unreasonable amenity impacts and generally maintains the physical massing of the approved development. The modified development will not result in detrimental environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, and is considered to be within the public interest.

 

In accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the proposed modification to the approved development is considered to result in a development that is substantially the same as the originally approved development. As such, it can be assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

 

7.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

7.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 was gazetted on 15 February 2013. The subject application was lodged on 15 January 2013; however, it is not saved by Clause 1.8A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. As such, the subject section 96 application is assessed below against the relevant aims, objectives and development controls as contained in the RLEP 2012.

 

Under the RLEP 2012, the subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in which the proposal is permissible. The controls applicable over the subject site under the RLEP 2012 are:

 

Description

Development Standard

Proposed

Compliance

 

Clause 2.3

Zoning

 

The site is zoned Low Density Residential R2.

Yes.

Permissible under the proposed zoning?

Yes

Clause 4.4(2A)

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.75:1 for sites with areas between 300m2 and 450m2 (the subject area has an overall area of 321.9m²)

0.75:1

Yes

Clause 4.3(2) Height of Building (Max)

9.5m

9.36m

 

Yes.

 

 

The proposal is consistent with the general aims of the RLEP 2012 and the specific zoning objectives, in that the development will deliver a single dwelling, which is compatible with the desired lower density environment of the locality. The application is reasonable in protecting the amenity of surrounding residents and provides a high degree of amenity to future occupants of the site and recognises the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form.

 

7.2      Policy Controls - Draft Comprehensive Development Control Plan

The Draft Comprehensive DCP which was adopted as an interim planning policy to coincide with the commencement of the RLEP 2012 on 15 February 2013. The proposed modifications are assessed against the relevant provisions of the DCP. Particular reference is made to Part C3- Low Density Residential

 

The DCP adopts a performance based approach where control provisions typically consist of three components, being objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions (such as a numerical standard). However, if a proposal does not meet the numerical standard under the preferred solution, it may still be supported in so far as it successfully demonstrates that the performance requirements and objectives are satisfied via an alternative design or arrangement.

 

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

 

Key Issues and Areas of Non Compliance:

 

·      Clause 3.1 – Floor Space Ratio

Floor space ratio (FSR) is a measure that assists in controlling the mass and bulk of a development. FSR operates in conjunction with building height, wall height and setback controls. The maximum permissible FSR for any development is prescribed in the RLEP 2012

 

Pursuant to clause 4.4(2A), the following floor space ratio controls apply to a dwelling house on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential or Zone R3 Medium Density Residential:

 

(a)  if the lot is more than 300sqm but not more than 450sqm —0.75:1

 

The subject site has an area of 321.9sqm and a maximum floor space ratio of 0.75:1 is applicable. The proposal has an FSR of 0.75:1 (241sqm) and complies with this standard.

 

It is noted that the original assessment was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies 2002 as the original DA was lodged prior to the commencement of the RLEP 2012. The DCP is performance based and does not have any specific numerical FSR controls. The proposals are required to respond to the objectives and performance requirement of the DCP.

 

The additional floor space is contained wholly within the roof space and does not result in an unacceptable degree of visual bulk whilst providing a higher degree of internal amenity for the occupants of the subject site.  As such, the proposed modification is considered to be acceptable with respect to additional floor space.

 

·      Clause 3.2 – Building Height

The relevant objectives of this clause include: -

 

·      To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

·      To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

·      To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.

 

The maximum building height control is stipulated in the RLEP 2012 as being 9.5m in the R2 (Low Density Residential) Zone. This maximum building height control is measured to the topmost point of a building. The proposal has a maximum building height of 9.36m (RL 78.885) and complies with this standard.

 

Operating in conjunction with the LEP height control, external wall height provision in the DCP stipulates the maximum height for the external enclosing walls of a building. The DCP stipulates a maximum external wall height of 7m for normal sites and 8m for steeply sloping sites.

 

The development proposed a maximum external wall height of approximately 7.2 metres to the eaves of the side elevations and 8m on the Simeon Street façade. It should be noted that the roof form is not included in external wall height measurements.

 

The current proposal maintains the approved external wall height at RL 76.36, which is considered to be largely responsive to the topography of the site. Due to the additional sitting room area being contained wholly within an albeit higher and marginally steeper roof form, the modified proposal still results in a three (3) storey building to the Simeon Street frontage.

 

Subject to maintaining the approved external wall height, the proposal does not present an out of character or excessively bulky structure to the street or adjoining sites, remaining generally reflective of those dwellings immediately neighbouring and the topography of the site.

 

The proposal seeks to increase the overall height of the building (through modification to the height and pitch of the roof form only) by 745mm from 78.14 to RL 78.885, resulting in a maximum overall building height of 9.36m, and complies with the relevant development standard under the RLEP 2012 and Clause 3.2 of the DCP.

 

The proposed ridge height, of RL 78.885 continues to provide a height transition between the two adjoining dwellings, No. 6 Simeon Street with a maximum building height of RL 79.43 and No. 10 Simeon Street at RL 76.85 that continues the line and height of development and responds to the natural landform variation of the site and Simeon Street.

 

The dwelling when viewed from the rear, in particular from those dwellings on the western side of Seaview Street, will present as a traditional double storey dwelling.

 

The modulated building form, including the 9.7m setback between the front boundary and the third storey elements, ensures that the overall height of the dwelling will be largely unapparent from adjoining streets and for the most part will read as either a two (2) storey or single storey dwelling when viewed from Seaview Street. Where glimpses of the third level are available, the building will not read a single bulk mass but as discreet broken elements reducing potential for the dwelling to appear as dominant or overwhelming.

 

Accordingly, the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of this clause in that:

 

·      The proposed roof pitch and form is reasonably consistent with the prevailing streetscape character.

·      The proposed overall height of the dwelling provides a visual and level transition between the dwellings either side of the site.

·      The proposal meets the objectives and performance requirements with regard to privacy and solar access under the Draft DCP.

·      The proposed roof form integrates with the design of the dwelling.

·      Due to the topography of surrounding streets, the dwelling when viewed from Seaview Street at the rear appears as a single storey dwelling with pitched roof consequently does not present as unduly large or bulk.

 

·      Clause 5.1 – Solar Access and Overshadowing

The relevant objectives for solar access as outlined by the DCP are as follows: 

 

·      To ensure new dwellings and alterations and additions are sited and designed to maximise solar access to the living areas and private open space.

·      Ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

 

The DCP recognises that the required level of solar access may not be fully achievable in certain circumstances due to issues such as subdivision pattern, allotment orientation and site topography. Accordingly, development proposals must be designed to maximise solar access and simultaneously minimise overshadowing upon the neighbours through responsive and skilful solutions.

 

The DCP requires a portion of the north-facing living room windows of neighbouring dwellings to receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. Their private open space must also receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Variations from these requirements are subject to a merit assessment having regard to factors such as degree of compliance with FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls, orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

 

The subject site and those adjoining are generally north-east to south-west running. The proposed dwelling and those adjoining are in approximate alignment of front and rear setback.

 

Assessment of the roof pitch and subsequent application of this condition was largely based on the fact that the roof pitch (which did not contain a sitting room) was, at the time, an unnecessary design element in that a lower pitched roof would have been adequate.

 

The original assessment of the proposal concluded that given the site orientation, solar access is shown to be reduced most significantly to the south-eastern neighbour at No. 10 Simeon Street, between 9am and 3pm, midwinter.

 

The increase in ridge height and pitch of the roof will results in some additional shadowing. Accompanying shadow diagrams indicate that the degree of additional overshadowing occurs partly over the existing roof and at the top of windows (which are already almost entirely overshadowed by the approved development) on the front balcony of No. 10 Simeon Street. As such, reinstating the original RL is not considered to result in any unacceptable additional overshadowing when compared to the degree of overshadowing already created by dwelling as originally approved. 

 

In regards to the above objectives and performance requirements, the neighbouring site at 10 Simeon Street sees its primary aspect of solar exposure to its north-eastern (front) elevation. The openings to the north-west side elevation are not the primary source of solar access to the dwelling and are partially overshadowed in the existing situation. It is noted the above balcony to the front, north-west elevation retains three (3) hours of solar access under the proposed modification.

 

The proposal will increase existing overshadowing to the north-west side elevation of this site, which features two (2) windows at ground floor level and a highlight window at first floor level. These three (3) openings will be largely obstructed from solar access throughout the day during midwinter.

 

Solar access to the rear principal open space and a north-west elevation balcony will be reduced. Notwithstanding this, the development, as approved, will not prevent these areas of No. 10 Simeon Street from achieving less than the required three (3) hours of the DCP.

 

As a result of the subdivision pattern, any double storey development on the subject site is considered to impose some solar access reduction to 10 Simeon Street, particularly given shadowing occurs in the existing single storey situation. The proposal, as amended, readily complies with wall height and FSR requirements, resulting in a building envelope which is commensurate with that of the surrounding development. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to this section of the DCP.

 

·      Clause 5.3  - Visual Privacy

The objective of this clause is to ensure that development minimises overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

The proposal incorporates modifications relating to a number of windows to achieve compliance with condition 2 of the original consent. The visual impacts of these windows have been assessed as being reasonable in maintaining privacy to adjoining sites.

 

The new sitting room within the roof to be introduces as part of the current section 96 modification includes one window (W14) facing Simeon Street and 2 skylights. The staircase from the first floor for access into this new area is fully enclosed within the roof space and has not been

 

The street facing window proposed under the subject application has a sill height of 650mm above the finished sitting room floor level and does not feature an associated outdoor area/terrace. The window is located directly adjacent to the roof and will not be able to overlook the adjoining sites as the window sits directly into a cut out portion of the pitched roof. The sides of the roof will obscure any view to the north east and south west, therefore maintaining privacy to the front windows and balconies of the adjoining sites and satisfies the requirements of this clause.

 

·      Clause 5.6 - View Sharing

The relevant objectives of the DCP with regard to view loss are outlined as follows: 

 

·      To acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements, such as ocean, bays, coastlines, watercourses, bushland and parks; as well as recognised icons, such as city skylines, landmark buildings / structures and special natural features.

·      To protect and enhance views from the public domain, including streets, parks and reserves.

·      To ensure development is sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

In response to the public notification period, three (3) submissions were objections were received in relation to view loss, as illustrated in the diagram below. These concerns originated from both immediate neighbours at 6 and 10 Simeon Street, and 4 Seaview street to the rear (west of the subject site) The nature of the views obtained to these dwellings varies, with some achieving district or ocean and horizon views. 

 

 

Figure 4: Site map and direction of views

 

The concept of view loss has been defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004). The view loss assessment is to be informed by the following four step assessment:-

 

 1) The value of the subject view ie water views are more valued than land views with iconic view such as the Opera House of North Head being more valued than views without icons and whole views are more valuable than partial views.

 

2) From what part of the property are views obtained, for example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult to maintain than views from front and rear boundaries, and in addition whether or not the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position is also relevant, with sitting views being more difficult to protect. The expectation to retain side and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

North-western neighbour (6 Simeon Street)

Views are obtained over the front of the subject site from the north-western neighbour at 6 Simeon Street, from front balconies at ground and first floor level. Views affected include that of a land/sea interface and some ocean views. Views are obtained at both standing and sitting position. The views are achieved over the side boundary of 8 Simeon Street and are such that the front setback of 8 Simeon Street acts as a view corridor.

 

South-eastern neighbour (10 Simeon Street)

The submission received from 10 Simeon Street notes a view obtained from a first floor front balcony, up Simeon Street to the north.  The views in question are of the street and neighbouring development and are not considered to be of any scenic quality, nor contain any notable elements of the district or ocean (refer to photo below) . Further to this, the proposal does not seek to modify any approved front or side setbacks. The ground floor front setbacks of the ground floor have been maintained under the original approval with the first floor additions setback an additional 2m. The design is such that the view raised by this neighbour is not substantially affected by the proposal. Despite this, the views obtained are not considered valuable pursuant to the principle and have not been addressed further in the following assessment.

 

Description: Description: IMG_2486 copy

Figure 5: View from first floor north facing lounge area of No. 10 toward the north up Simeon Street.

 

Rear of the site, across Seaview Street (4 Seaview Street)

The affected sites to the west across Seaview Street achieve district and horizon views to the east across Clovelly and to Waverly Cemetery, above the existing dwelling at 8 Simeon Street. No significant ocean views are obtained above 8 Simeon to these sites. The district views are achieved from the ground and first floor balcony and living areas from both standing and sitting positions. The views affected are primarily from the ground floor level balcony/terrace and living area. The ground floor entry/sunroom area of No. 4 Seaview does not have any south easterly outlook to the ocean due to vegetation to the front of the site.

 

3) Assess the extent of the impact from the property as a whole rather than just for the view affected, the impact on views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas, then it is useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 


6 Simeon Street, Clovelly: Moderate view loss

Figures 6 and 7: Ground floor balcony view looking roughly east: Standing position.

Figures 8 and 9: First floor balcony view looking roughly east: Standing position.

 

It is noted that the following assessment reiterates the view impact assessment carried out for the original development application and all approved wall heights and setbacks (front and side) are maintained.

 

The site at 8 Simeon Street is identified in the photographs above. The ground floor balcony will not experience any significant increase in view obstruction from the proposed development, given the existing front setback of the dwelling is maintained.

 

With respect to the first floor balcony, the front section of the approved dwelling will obstruct a small component of the view shown in Figure 8, directly above the existing roof form. The proposed upper floor balcony awning has been reduced by 1m (as per condition 2 and as shown on the section 96 plans) and now allows for some views to be obtained in this direction.

 

The proposed pitched roof to be modified, while achieving a greater height, is setback to the rear and will not obstruct the above views. As such, the extent of view loss resultant from the modified roof pitch is not discussed further in the following section.

 


4 Seaview Street, Clovelly: Minor view loss

Figures 10 and 11:  Ground floor outdoor area (left), first floor balcony (right) the subject site is shown on the middle with terracotta pitched roof. Standing position.

 

Figure 12: South easterly view from 4 Seaview Street which remains unaffected as a result of the proposal and modifications. From first floor balcony

 

Figure 12: South easterly view from ground floor lounge room window at No. 4 Seaview Street which remains unaffected as a result of the proposal and modifications.

 

The site at 8 Simeon Street is identified in the photographs above. The proposed roof form will achieve a maximum height of 3400mm above that of the existing ridge and 580mm below the ridge to 6 Simeon Street, seen to the left of the subject site.

 

As proposed, the modified roof will obstruct an additional portion of the views of the district and horizon from ground floor living and balcony areas of 4 Seaview Street. Portions of the district view seen at first floor level above the existing roof form, will also be obstructed by the proposed roof form.

 

4) The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact and compliance with planning controls, with a development which satisfies planning controls being considered more reasonable than one that does not. With a complying proposal the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact upon the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.  

 

The subject site currently contains a single storey dwelling, with large two (2) storey dwellings to each side. In this regard the proposed dwelling will read as an infill of the site however, appropriate design response to the falling topography is necessary in achieving this. The modifications sought are considered reasonable in response to view sharing to adjoining neighbours and results in a development which continues to fit in within the context of the site.

 

Rear of the site, across Seaview Street (4 Seaview Street)

No. 4 Seaview Street sits on higher ground and obtains district views over Seaview Street and the existing single storey development at 8 Simeon Street. These sites are most significantly affected by the overall height and pitched roof form of the proposed development. It is reasonable to consider that a two (2) storey development on the subject site would obstruct neighbouring views to some degree.

 

This view is not considered to be iconic as defined by the planning principle and all ocean views to the south east remain completely unobstructed by the proposed roof. As such, the extent of impact to these views resultant from the increase in roof height is considered to be minor and acceptable. 

 

The proposal is considered to provide for a reasonable degree of view sharing to the west and north-west neighbouring sites.

 

Conclusion

The original assessment concluded that any reduction to the height of the pitch roof (which did not serve a design purpose) would improve outlooks from surrounding dwellings (mainly those along Seaview Street).

 

The proposal, as amended maintains outlooks to more scenic views and marginally obscures some district views. Overall, the proposed modification results in a negligible additional impact to the views obtained from surrounding dwellings (in addition to the anticipated views resultant from the original development approval). Some degree of view loss is considered inevitable with the redevelopment of the existing single storey dwelling on the subject site.

 

The proposed modifications present a reasonable outcome in the context of the site and constitute a building that remains within reason when assessed against the Planning Principle and Council’s Planning Controls.

 

8.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will not compromise the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

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

Not applicable

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

Refer to the DCP section of this report for details.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the 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 proposal maintains a development which 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.

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

The relationship to 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 modifications including the provision of an upper floor sitting room subsequent deletion of condition No. 2 of the original consent is considered to be acceptable in that they will not result in unreasonable and unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of the adjoining development or the streetscape.

The proposed increased in roof height is not considered to be excessive and the proposal complies with the relevant development standards with regard to floor space ratio and overall building height as stipulated in the RLEP 2012.

 

The amended proposal is considered to preserve the visual integrity of the surrounding area in that it will maintain a consistent “stepping down” effect down Simeon Street and is also commensurate with the bulk and massing of adjoining development.

 

The proposed modification to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development. The proposed modifications will not result in any unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the streetscape and is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/794/2011 by carrying out internal changes, converting roof space to rumpus room, changes to window openings on elevations, lowering the finished floor levels of the dwelling at ground and first floor levels and reducing the rear yard and deck levels at 8 Simeon Street, Clovelly following manner: 

 

A       Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA01C- Site Plan

In + Out Pty Ltd

14 January 2013

15 January 2013

DA03C- Ground Floor Plan

DA04B- First floor Plan

DA05B – Upper sitting area

DA06C- Roof Plan

DA07C- Section S1

DA08B- Section S2

DA09D- East and West Elevations

DA10C-North Elevation

DA11C-South Elevation

 

B       Delete Condition No. 2

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 May 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP32/13

 

 

Subject:                  8 Nagle Avenue, Maroubra (DA/774/2009/A)

Folder No:                   DA/774/2009/A

Author:                   GAT & Associates , Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development by increase in length of carport, alteration to front of dwelling, internal reconfiguration and alteration to location and size of some windows

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr C A Andrews

Owner:                         Mr C A Andrews

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

The application is referred to Council as the owner of the subject site is a Councillor of Randwick City Council.

 

The proposal involves modifications to the previously approved development application which involved alterations and additions to an existing semi detached dwelling house to provide for a new second storey level.

 

The modification application proposal incorporates alterations to the first floor layout to reduce the number of bedrooms from three to two bedrooms, including provision of an ensuite and a study. Minor changes are also proposed to the ground floor to include a revised kitchen layout for inclusion of a small internal laundry. The car port at the front has also been slightly increased in length, resulting in the reconfiguration of the front bedroom. Due to the modifications sought to both the ground and first floors minor changes to window sizes and locations are proposed to the front (ground floor) and southern side (first floor) elevations.

 

The adjoining semi detached dwelling currently has a second level. This proposal will provide a balance in the overall building form to these semi detached dwellings as viewed from Nagle Street.

 

The Development Application was publicly notified between 11 April to 26 April 2013. No objections were received.

 

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). The proposed development is permissible subject to Council consent.

 

The proposal is satisfactory and creates no unreasonable impacts. The original conditions of consent are retained, except for Condition No.1 which is required to be amended to reflect the new plans.

 

Accordingly, the development application is recommended for approval

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The original proposal approved by Council involved alterations and additions to an existing semi detached dwelling at No.8 Nagle Avenue, Maroubra.

 

The current proposal involves minor amendments to the previously approved development application to include the following:

 

-      Change the first floor external building material from brickwork to timber cladding;

-      Increase in length to the carport to 5.6m, resulting in the reconfiguration in both shape and size to the front bedroom;

-      Alterations to the kitchen layout to include a small laundry;

-      Reduce the number of first floor bedrooms from three to two bedrooms, bringing the total of bedrooms for the dwelling to three bedrooms;

-      Provision of an ensuite to the main bedroom on the first floor;

-      Provision of a study on the first floor; and

-      Changes to windows resultant from the above internal modifications.

 

The proposed changes noted above have resulted in minor reduction in floor area, due to the reconfiguration of the ground floor front bedroom. This reduction equates to 2.4 square metres.

 

The changes to the internal layout at the ground level result in one new window to the ground floor front bedroom, with the remaining ground floor windows unchanged. On the first floor new windows are proposed to the ensuite, bathroom and study. It is noted that all first floor windows along the southern, bar the study are highlight windows.

 

The extension to the length of the existing carport located within the front building alignment retains the approved roof hip roof structure.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Nagle Avenue between Chichester Street and O’Sullivan Avenue, Maroubra and is presently occupied by an existing single storey semi detached dwelling.

 

The site has a frontage width of 6.295 m, a side boundary depth of 37.185 m and a rear boundary of 6.26 m. The site has an overall site area of 233.4m².

 

The adjoining semi detached dwelling contains a two storey first floor addition. Development to the north, south and west consist of a series of semi detached buildings. These buildings are in part single storey and in part, double storey.

 

Development to the east, being on the eastern side of Nagle Avenue consists of detached dwellings as well as semi detached buildings that are both single and double storeys in construction.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of a varied architectural form.

 

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/774/2009:           Approved for alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including a new first floor level with balcony at rear, and construction of a new hipped roof over the existing carport to the front of the site on 24-Nov-2009.

 

BA/210/1979:           Approved for carport on 01-Jan-1979

 

BA/238/1994:              Approved for alterations to dwelling from Liskowow Ski Associations on 22-Apr-1994

 

SC/90/1960:                Approved for land subdivision into 2 lots on 19-Jul-1960

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The application was notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 11 April to 26 April 2013 in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

5.1 Support

No letters of support were received.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

No referrals were required for the assessment of this application.

 

7.    Master Planning / Design Excellence Requirements

 

The subject site has a site area less than 10,000sqm and is not subject to the requirements of Clause 6.11 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 – Design Excellence.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

In order to have the ability to modify a development consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘EP&A Act’), Council must be satisfied that the development as modified would be substantially the same as the development for which the development consent was originally granted.

 

The planning merits of the modification are not relevant to the determination of the threshold question of whether the development to which the consent as relates would be substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.

 

In this regard, Council must apply the “substantially the same development test” to any Section 96 Application lodged.  Case law in Vacik Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council (Stein J, 10242 of 1991, 24 February 1992) stated this test in the following terms:

 

“... ‘substantially’ when used in the section means essentially or materially or having the same essence”.

 

In relation to determining whether the proposed modified development is “essentially or materially” the same as the approved development. Justice Bignold in Moto Projects No. 2 Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298 at 309, states:

 

“The relevant satisfaction required by s 96(2)(a) to be found to exist in order that the modification power be available involves an ultimate finding of fact based upon the primary facts found. I must be satisfied that the modified development is substantially the same as the originally approved development.

 

The requisite factual finding obviously requires a comparison between the development, as currently approved, and the development as proposed to be modified. The result of the comparison must be a finding that the modified development is “essentially or materially” the same as the (currently) approved development.

 

The comparative task does not merely involve a comparison of the physical features or components of the development as currently approved and modified where that comparative exercise is undertaken in some type of sterile vacuum. Rather, the comparison involves an appreciation, qualitative, as well as quantitative, of the developments being compared…..”.

 

In light of the above, the Section 96 proposal is “essentially or materially” the same as the development that was initially approved by Council. The physical features of the development remain unchanged. In terms of comparing the qualitative and quantitative comparative aspects of the development, the development proposes to:

 

-         Slightly increase the length of the carport by one (1) metre to 5.6m;

-         Marginally reduce the floor area of the building by some 2.4m2;

-         Minor changes to window sizes and locations are proposed on first floor; and

-         Reduce the number of first floor bedrooms from three to two bedrooms and include provision for a study and ensuite on this floor.

 

Notwithstanding the above quantitative comparisons, the characteristics of the development when taking into the consideration the qualitative aspects are essentially considered the same. The reason for this is that the proposal:

 

-    Does not alter the fabric of the development.  As such, the proposal is still a two storey dwelling development with the same components as that initially approved, and

 

-    Essentially maintains the same setbacks, separation distances and appearance as approved by the initial development, except for the garage as noted above.

 

In consideration of the above, it is concluded that the proposal is substantially the same development that was approved by Council initially, and therefore satisfies the ‘substantially the same development test’ under Section 96 of the EP & A Act.

 

(b)    SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

The proposal is for alterations and additions and the applicant has provided a revised BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development.

 


(c)       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential«Zone» under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 2012 apply to the proposal:-

 

Zone objectives:

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Zone are:

 

•    To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low 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.

 

In relation to the first objective, the proposed alterations and additions will maintain housing of a low density nature which will serve the needs of the community.

 

Once constructed, the alterations and additions will allow residents of the dwelling to work from home, which may provide a service to meet the day to day needs of the residents. This would be subject to a separate development application to be lodged with and considered by Council.

 

The development as submitted responds to the elements within the streetscape, as well as contributing to the desired future character as prescribed by Randwick LEP 2012 and the draft DCP.

 

The proposed alterations and additions have been designed to protect the amenity currently enjoyed by residents in the local area. Conditions are maintained as per the original approval to protect adjoining neighbours amenity.

 

The last objective is not applicable as the development is not of a commercial nature.

 

The proposal therefore satisfies the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings

Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 states that the height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

 

Reference to the height map for the site indicates a maximum height of 9.5 metres.

 

The overall height is approximately 7.85 metres, which is below the maximum height requirements. The proposal therefore complies.

 

Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio

Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 requires the maximum floor space ratio of a building to not exceed the floor space ratio shown on Council’s map.

 

Reference to the floor space ratio map shows that the site can have a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1.

 

Despite the map showing a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1, subclause 2A of the LEP allows a maximum floor space ratio of 0.75:1 for a dwelling house or semi-detached dwelling on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential or Zone R3 Medium Density Residential for allotments of 300 square metres but not more than 450 square metres.

 

The site area is 233.4m2. The proposed gross floor area of the building is 173.1m2. The floor space ratio is therefore 0.74:1.

 

The proposed alterations and additions therefore comply with the maximum floor space ratio allowed.

 

Clause 5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation

The objective of this clause is to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. This clause applies to species or kinds of trees or other vegetation that are prescribed for the purposes of this clause by a development control plan made by the Council.

 

There are no trees which are proposed to be removed as part of this development application. On this basis this clause is not applicable.

 

Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation

The site is not a heritage item, nor is it located within a conservation area or within the vicinity of a heritage item.

 

Clause 6.1 Acid Sulfate soils

The subject site has not been identified as containing Acid Sulfate Soils. On this basis this clause of the LEP is not applicable.

 

Clause 6.2 Earthworks

Before granting development consent for earthworks, the consent authority must consider the following matters:

 

a)  the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality,

 

b)  the effect of the proposed development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land,

 

c)  the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both,

 

d)  the effect of the proposed development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties,

 

e)  the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material,

 

f)   the likelihood of disturbing relics,

 

g)  proximity to and potential for adverse impacts on any watercourse, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area.

 

h)  any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

 

The plans submitted for the alterations and additions to No.8 Nagle Avenue, Maroubra do not show any earthworks as part of the modification application.

 

Clause 6.3 Flood planning

The subject site is not identified as land identified as “Flood planning area” on the Flood Planning Map. Therefore this clause is not applicable.

 

Clause 6.4 Stormwater management

Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

 

a)  is designed to maximise the use of water permeable surfaces on the land having regard to the soil characteristics affecting on-site infiltration of water, and

 

b)  includes, if practicable, on-site stormwater retention for use as an alternative supply to mains water, groundwater or river water, and

 

c)    avoids any significant adverse impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties, native bushland and receiving waters, or if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided, minimises and mitigates the impact.

 

The proposed works will not increase the amount of water captured by the roof area of the development. As per the original proposal, the development therefore proposes to connect this area to the existing downpipes, with any new downpipes connected to the existing stormwater system. This is considered acceptable and satisfactorily addresses this clause of the LEP.

 

Clause 6.5 Terrestrial biodiversity

The subject site is not mapped as containing terrestrial biodiversity; therefore this clause is not applicable.

 

Clause 6.6 Foreshore building line

The subject site is not identified to be within the foreshore building line; therefore this clause is not applicable.

 

Clause 6.7 Foreshore scenic protection area

The site is not mapped as within a foreshore scenic protection area. On this basis Clause 6.7 of Randwick LEP does not apply.

 

Clause 6.8 Airspace operations

Clause 6.8 of Randwick LEP aims to provide for the effective and ongoing operation of the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport by ensuring that such operation is not compromised by proposed development that penetrates the Limitation or Operations Surface for that airport.

 

The proposed modifications to the previously approved alterations and additions will not penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface of the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. Therefore this clause is not applicable.

 

Clause 6.9 Development in areas subject to aircraft noise

Clause 6.9 relates to development in areas subject to aircraft noise. The site is not identified as being within an area subject to aircraft noise. On this basis Clause 6.9 of Randwick LEP does not apply.

 

Clause 6.10 Essential services

This clause of the LEP stipulates that development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

 

(a)     the supply of water,

(b)     the supply of electricity,

(c)     the disposal and management of sewage,

(d)     stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e)     suitable vehicular access.

 

The subject dwelling on the site is currently serviced by water, electricity and a sewerage disposal system. As noted in this report a stormwater system has been provided and considered satisfactory for the proposed development.

 

In terms of vehicular access, the proposed arrangements remain unchanged. On this basis, the above services are available for the proposed development.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

At the time of writing this report, Randwick Draft DCP 2012 had been exhibited and Council is in the process of considering submissions. On this basis, an assessment of the development has been undertaken against both the current applicable DCP's and draft Randwick DCP 2012, noting that the draft DCP is more in line with the new Randwick LEP 2012 and therefore has been given more weight and precedence in the assessment of the proposed development.

 

Current Development Control Plans

 

8.3.1 Parking DCP

The existing dwelling has only 1 car space in the form of a car port. Although Council’s controls states dwellings with more than two bedrooms must provide two spaces, it is not physically possible to provide a second space. There is ample on street parking within the immediate and surrounding area and thus there is no concern to the non compliance.

 

8.3.2 DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing:

The proposal does cast additional shadows to northern windows to the adjoining property. Currently, these windows would not comply. These windows are along the side boundary and given the narrowness of the lots, it would be in unrealistic to expect these northern windows to achieve solar access that is compliant with Council’s standards.  It is noted that these windows under the current arrangements still don’t comply.

 

An inspection of the site and surrounds notes that there are also many examples of other two storey dwellings in the street that has the same consequence.

 

Solar access to the rear yard is compliant and therefore the adjoining property will obtain an acceptable level of amenity.

 

The proposed modification does not create any unreasonable overshadowing. The adjoining rear yards will receive almost the same amount of sunlight as the additional shadows cast general fall onto roofs of adjoining buildings and over the front building alignment.

 


Height Form and 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 height of the development relates to those in the existing streetscape and the topography. With the development designed to enhance the existing characteristics of the streetscape.

The proposal complies with Council’s height requirements as noted in this report and the design respects the adjoining semi detached dwelling in its form and appearance, especially to the street. 

The building in terms of its finishes, roof form and window proportions are all in keeping with the character of the area.

Solar access and privacy are all considered to be acceptable subject to the retention of conditions relating to screening for privacy purposes to the first floor balcony.

The southern elevation maintains a setback of 1.565metres and thus complies. The length of extension/wall is 17 metres. Although the proposal doesn’t comply, in terms of its context, the narrowness of the site and the fact that all other second storeys built in this area are also non compliant, having lengths greater than 12 metres.

The proposal does not create any unreasonable impacts in terms of overshadowing or privacy. The second storey has a setback from the main street elevation of approximately 4.8 metres. This aligns with the adjoining semi detached dwelling.

 

Building Setbacks:

The existing dwelling has a minimum set back of 4.5 metres from the front boundary and remains unchanged under this application.

 

The first floor is a further 4.8 metres which is unchanged from the approved alterations and additions. The setback of the second storey is also consistent with the second storey setback of the neighbouring semi detached dwelling. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the setbacks of adjoining dwellings.

 

The proposed building works are compliant with the setback controls. The first floor balcony is located on the northern side boundary however given its location; the structure will not overshadow the rear yard of that property. The proposed privacy screens will overcome any privacy concerns created by this element, noting the proposed balcony is off a bedroom.

Overall the development maintains the same building setbacks as originally approved by Council.

 

Visual and 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 proposed positioning of the windows will not have an impact to neigbours in terms of privacy. It is noted that the majority of first floor windows along the southern elevation are highlight windows.

 

It is noted that the study window to the first floor is not a highlight window, and that this window overlooks directly onto the roof of the adjoining neighbour. Furthermore, the original approval by Council provided for bedroom windows with similar sill heights, albeit in the form of a larger window, located further along the boundary towards the rear of the site.

 

The study is not considered a high trafficable area and on this basis overlooking is not a concern. In the event that the adjoining neighbour proposes a first floor extension similar to the subject development, any windows would need to be offset.

 

The proposed first floor balcony is off a bedroom and thus has a lesser impact than if off a living area. Notwithstanding, the original condition which required the provision of screens to be extended to the western elevation will be retained. There are no views available and thus the balcony provides for a cover over the pergola below and also improves the amenity of the bedroom given the confined spaces. The proposed screen as detailed above will overcome any privacy concerns.

 

Fences:

No changes proposed and therefore not applicable.

 

Draft Randwick DCP 2012

As noted earlier in this report, draft Randwick DCP 2012 was recently exhibited. The draft DCP is more in line with the new Randwick LEP 2012 and therefore with the public interest in mind, the draft DCP has been given more weight and precedence in the assessment of the proposed development. An assessment against the provisions of the DCP is provided below:

 

 

Requirement

Proposed

Complies?

Site Planning

 

Site coverage for lots up to 300m2 shall not exceed 60%

 

For sites up to 300m2 a minimum deep soil zone of 20% is required.

 

 

 

One canopy tree per allotment required capable of reaching a height of 8m.

 

One contiguous area of private open space at ground level is required for each dwelling, measuring 5m by 5m.

 

The overall site coverage proposed by the development is approximately 51% and thus complies

A deep soil zone of approximately 21% is provided which includes the rear yard and front courtyard between the dwellings and front boundary

 

No changes proposed to landscaping resultant from the modifications sought under this application.

 

No changes proposed to the private open space area resultant from the modifications sought under this application. Noting an area of 5m by 5m is provided.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Building Envelope

Maximum floor space ratio to not exceed that prescribed by the RLEP which is 0.75:1 for the subject site

 

Maximum building height of 9.5m

 

Maximum external wall height of 7m

 

Front setbacks to be consistent with adjoining dwellings.

 

 

Side setbacks of 0.9m required for ground floor and first storey

 

Rear setback to be a minimum of 25% of the allotment depth (9.3m) or 8m – whichever is the greater

 

The floor space ratio of the proposed alterations and additions development is 0.74:1 and therefore compliant

 

The overall building height is 7.85m and compliant.

 

The maximum external wall height is approximately 6.4m.

 

The front setback is consistent with adjoining dwellings, and remains unaltered.

 

A side setback 1.565m is maintained and complies.

 

 

A rear setback of approximately 10m is provided to the dining room wall and is therefore compliant.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

Building Design

Building form must respect the topography of the site

 

Articulate external facades to reduce mass and present human scale

 

 

Balconies, terraces and decks to be of a size and configuration appropriate to the proportions of the building.

 

Driveway width to be minimised.

 

 

Schedule of finishes required with the DA submission.

 

Use of a combination of materials and finishes to articulate walls and create visual interest.

 

Any excavation and backfilling limited to building footprint and maximum of 1m at any point.

 

Where retaining walls are necessary they must be constructed to follow topography of the land.

Not applicable as the development mainly consists of first floor additions.

 

The external facades have been articulated by staggering planes and providing a combination of materials and finishes.

 

The rear balcony is of a size and configuration which is appropriate and proportionate to the development.

 

 

 

The driveway width is not excessive and considered suitable.

 

Schedule of finishes submitted with the original DA remains unchanged.

 

The materials and finishes are adequate and provide for a combination of finishes.

 

 

No excavation proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

No retaining walls proposed

Not applicable

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

Amenity

A portion of north facing windows are to receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm

 

The private open space shall receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm

 

A portion of north facing windows of neighbouring dwellings windows are to receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm

 

 

The private open space of neighbouring dwellings  are to receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm

 

All habitable rooms are to be provided with window openings to outdoor areas.

 

All habitable windows are to be located to minimise any direct overlooking of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings.

 

 

 

The main entry of the dwelling must be orientated towards the street and be readily identifiable.

 

Dwellings must provide at least one habitable room with a glazed area overlooking the street or a public place.

Due to the location and orientation of the site, and the development being an attached semi, there is no north facing windows.

 

Given the orientation of the private open space, at least 3hrs of sunlight is achieved.

 

 

 

Due to the location and orientation of the site, the existing north facing windows of neighbouring dwellings do not receive more than 3 hours of sunlight between 8am and 4pm. No changes to originally approved application.

 

A minimum of 3 hours of the solar access is received to the private open space neighbouring dwellings.

 

 

 

All habitable rooms are provided with window openings to an outdoor area.

 

 

A study window is located facing the side boundary. As noted in this report the study is not considered a high trafficable area and on this basis overlooking is not a concern as at present it looks onto the roof of the adjoining dwelling.

 

The main entry of the dwelling is orientated towards the street and easily identifiable.

 

 

A habitable room with a glazed window overlooking the street is not provided. This aspect of the development remains unaltered from what was originally approved by Council.

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Considered acceptable in its context – see discussion below

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

Car Parking and Access

Provide a maximum of one vehicular access per property.

 

No alterations to the existing vehicular access provided.

Yes

 

Fencing and Ancillary Development

Maximum height of a front fence is 1.2m, with solid portion not exceeding 600mm.

 

Non-solid portion of the front fence to be constructed with light weight materials (such as timbers panels).

 

Maximum height of a side and rear fence to be 1.8m.

 

Any air conditioning equipment to be located to minimise visibility from the street.

 

Maximum of one communication dish and antenna per dwelling.

 

Clothes drying facilities to be located behind the building line.

No changes to fencing proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

None proposed.

 

 

 

 

Clothes drying area provided in the rear courtyard and therefore screened from public view.

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Additional provisions for semi-detached dwellings

Development must respect and enhance the architectural character of the pair of semi-detached dwellings as a coherent entity. The design of the works must be based on a detailed site and contextual analysis.

 

The bulk of any first floor addition should be setback from the principal street frontage

 

Development to a semi-detached dwelling may be constructed to the common boundary with the adjoining dwelling.

 

Avoid the exposure of existing blank party walls of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling to the public domain

 

New development must seek to minimise creation of exposed party walls at the common boundary. Where this is not feasible, the party walls must be appropriately finished

 

The selection of materials used for alterations and additions must enhance the character of the pair of semi-detached dwellings.

The proposed alterations and additions respect and enhance the semi detached pairs to present a coherent entity.

 

It is noted that the visual appearance of the development provides for a balanced form.

 

The first floor addition is setback from the principal street frontage and existing front setback of the dwelling.

 

No changes proposed as the development maintains is construction to the common boundary.

 

 

No exposure of existing blank party walls proposed resultant from the alterations and additions.

 

 

No creation of blank party walls proposed resultant from the alterations and additions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed materials, being light weight timber cladding will enhance the character of the pair of semi-detached dwellings.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Discussion of non-compliances

The proposal does not cast additional shadows to northern windows to the adjoining property as a result of the proposed modification. Currently, these windows would not comply. These windows are along the side boundary and given the narrowness of the lots, it would be unrealistic to expect these northern windows to achieve solar access that is compliant with Council’s standards.

 

In fact, these windows under the current arrangements still don’t comply. There are also many examples of other two storey dwellings in the street that has the same consequence. Furthermore, solar access to the rear yard is compliant and therefore the adjoining property will obtain a satisfactory level of amenity.

 

Although the approved in part does not comply with the numerical controls, when one compares the existing shadows to that proposed, the additional overshadowing has little impact onto the rear yards of the neighbours. The provision of solar access to the northern windows of the neighbour is unrealistic for the reasons stated above.

 

Notwithstanding the above non-compliance, the setbacks and shadows cast by the development remains unaltered from what was originally approved by Council.

 

8.2 Council Policies

No Council policies are relevant to the proposal.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

The development also complies with the floor space ratio and height controls as noted in this report.

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

The proposed development generally aligns with draft Randwick DCP 2012 as canvassed in this report.

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

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

 

An assessment has also been carried out against the provisions of the draft Randwick DCP 2012 and found to be compliant.

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

 

No submissions have been received.

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:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4B:        New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the requirements of Randwick LEP 2012, objectives and performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP and the controls of draft Randwick DCP 2012.  Approval of the proposed development would not result in any unreasonable or significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/774/2009/A for permission to modify the approved development by increasing the length of carport, alteration to front of dwelling, internal reconfiguration and alteration to location and size of some windows at No.8 Nagle Avenue, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

·              Amend Condition No 1 to read:

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 51/09 dated 12 October 2009 and received by Council on 22 October 2009, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans 51/09A, dated 25 February 2013  and received by Council on 8 April 2013 only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 May 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP33/13

 

 

Subject:                  18 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (DA/601/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/601/2012

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building, including construction of a 3rd level; installation of front balconies; construction of a rear extension with 2 car spaces, access stairs, lift and terraces; and landscaping

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                R Gadd

Owner:                         R Gadd & C Elliott

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


 1.     Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to Council as it contains variations to the landscaped area, FSR, building height and external wall height development standards by more than 10%.

 

The application was notified from 24 September to 9 October 2012 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of eight (8) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised are primarily related to streetscape, floor area, height, bulk and scale, setbacks, view loss, overshadowing, privacy, traffic generation, parking shortfall, construction related impacts, undesirable planning precedent and property devaluation.

 

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

 

The proposal has an FSR of 1.20:1 and exceeds the LEP standard by 0.55:1. The overall building height and external wall height amount to a maximum of 12.5m. The proposal will exceed the LEP standards for building and external wall heights by 0.5m and 2.5m respectively.

 

The proposed development will provide a new loft (3rd) level and rear additions containing car parking, vertical circulation spaces and waste storage facilities. There is no increase to the number of dwellings, being 3 in total. As is discussed within the body of this report, the extra height proposed is suitable to the locality and will not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts in terms of view loss, overshadowing or privacy intrusion.

 

The existing residential flat building was constructed in the 1930’s and has little architectural merit with no private open space for the individual units. The design scheme will significantly improve the façade articulation through various architectural elements that divide the wall planes and building mass, while providing for adequate outdoor living space for the dwellings. The loft addition is appropriately setback from the front wall below and incorporates a flat roof. When viewed in perspective, the loft level will not dominate the streetscape. Given the careful configuration of the new structures, the bulk and scale of the development are considered to be satisfactory.

 

The proposal only reserves 31.5% of the site as landscaped area and does not meet the LEP development standard of 50%. At present, the existing development contains various unbuilt upon areas in the northern and southern sections of the site. However, these areas only accommodate low quality landscaping and do not offer high amenity to the residents. The proposal will create a private courtyard in front of the building facing the ocean. The above private open space primarily comprises deep soil garden areas, and will improve the visual presentation of the site to the coastal walkway. The proposal will also convert the currently under-utilised space at the rear into car parking and rooftop terraces for the future occupants.

 

The development incorporates 2 new car spaces but would still involve a shortfall of 2 spaces when assessed against the DCP – Parking. Given the constraints of the existing building structures, the proposal is considered to have provided adequate on-site parking to support the intensified use.

 

The proposal will rehabilitate and reuse an existing residential building and contribute to the sustainable utilisation of resources. The development will significantly improve the liveability and environmental performance of the existing dwelling units and upgrade the streetscape, and is consistent with Council’s development policy.

Therefore, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.      The Proposal

 

The proposed development is for alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building and includes the following components:

 

·      Reconfiguration of the internal floor layout, including partial demolition of partition walls.

·      Demolition of the rear stairs and storage areas, and concrete stairs in the western side path.

·      Construction of a loft (3rd) floor level containing a 2-bedroom unit.

·      Installation of decks on the southern elevation of the building.

·      Construction of a rear extension incorporating 2 car spaces, access stairs, lift, waste storage facility and terraces.

·      General landscape works.

 

Dwelling mix:

 

Unit number

Floor

Type

1

G/F and 1/F

3 bedrooms

2

2/F

2 bedrooms + study

3

3/F

2 bedrooms

 

3.      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards

 

3.1    Proposed variations to the development standards

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

 

Landscaped area

Clause 20E(2) stipulates that a minimum of 50% of the site (being 164.9m2) is to be reserved as landscaped area.

 

The proposed landscaped area amounts to 103.9m2, which equates to 31.5% of the site. The proposal entails a shortfall of 61m2 or 18.5% of site area. This represents a variation to the development standard of 37.0%.

 

Floor space ratios

Pursuant to Clause 20F(2), the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within 2C Zone is 0.65:1 or 214.4m2 gross floor area (GFA). The proposal has an FSR of 1.20:1 and exceeds the development standard by 0.55:1. This represents a variation to the development standard of 84.4%.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio (FSR)

Gross floor area (GFA)

Existing building

Approx. 0.82:1

Approx. 272m2

Proposed development

1.20:1

395.4m2

Permissible FSR / GFA

0.65:1

214.4m2

FSR / GFA in excess of LEP standard

0.55:1

181m2

 

Building heights

Clause 20G(2) specifies a maximum building height of 12m in Residential 2C Zone. The proposed overall height amounts to a maximum of 12.5m (eastern elevation), and exceeds the LEP standard by 0.5m. This represents a variation to the development standard of 4.2%.

 

Clause 20G(4) specifies a maximum external wall height of 10m in Residential 2C Zone. The proposed external wall height amounts to a maximum of 12.5m (eastern elevation). This exceeds the LEP standard by 2.5m and represents a variation to the development standard of 25.0%.

 

3.2    Assessment against SEPP 1 Objections

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

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

 

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

 

The stated purpose of the floor space ratio standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant has submitted written SEPP 1 Objections, which outline the following key justifications for the variation to the development standards:

 

Landscaped areas:

 

 

It is considered that the proposed landscaped area provision is satisfactory and strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·      On a numerical basis, the existing development incorporates a total of 183.8m2 of landscaped areas, which equate to 55.7% of the site. Notwithstanding, the front and rear portions of the site are occupied by low quality lawn and paved surfaces that offer limited amenity to the occupants.

 

The proposal includes a rear extension comprising 2 parking bays, vertical circulation spaces, storage rooms and waste bin areas. A new laundry addition is also provided for Unit 1. These elements account for a significant increase in the building footprints as compared to the status quo. However, these facilities will substantially upgrade the amenity of the existing dwellings to a level which is suitable for modern living. Furthermore, the provision of off-street car spaces would reduce reliance on kerb side parking in the locality.

 

·      The design scheme will create a private courtyard for Unit 1 in front of the building facing the ocean. The above private open space primarily comprises deep soil garden areas, which will improve the visual presentation of the site to the coastal walkway.

 

·      Two north-facing rooftop terraces with planter boxes and privacy screens will be provided above the car park and storage facilities for use by Units 2 and 3. The proposal will convert the currently under-utilised space at the rear into functional elevated private terraces, which will offer high amenity for the future occupants and improve the visual character of the development as viewed from the neighbouring properties and the right of way.

 

·      The submitted landscape plan shows the provision of a variety of shrubs, ground covers and cascading plants. However, the documentation does not provide details on the planting layout, surface finishes and planter box construction. A specific condition is recommended to require a detailed landscape plan to be submitted prior to the issuing of any construction certificate. The landscape improvements delivered by the development will enhance a sense of ownership and territorial reinforcement of the immediate surroundings, and contribute to crime prevention and safety.

 

·      The site has a restricted land area of only 329.8m2 and is already occupied by an inter-war residential flat building. The proposal is considered to have maximised landscaped area provision in the light of the constrained site dimensions and the need to upgrade the ancillary facilities for the dwelling units.

 

FSR:

 

 

Building heights:

It is considered that the proposed FSR and building heights are satisfactory and strict compliance with the development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·      The subject locality is characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential developments. The buildings within the subject urban block that front onto Cliffbrook Parade are predominantly 3-storey high with pitched roofing. The proposal will create a new 3rd level, where the topmost point will reach an RL of 42.09, and will be taller than the immediate adjoining neighbours by 1.06m to 1.72m (the ridge heights of No. 16 and No. 20 are RL 41.03 and RL 40.37 respectively).

The new loft (3rd) level adopts a flat roof configuration. The loft addition is setback from the front wall alignment below by 2.1m to 2.8m. The setback area will be used as an open terrace. When viewed in perspective (refer to the photomontages below), the loft level will have a recessed appearance and will not dominate the adjoining buildings despite the presence of an additional storey and the increase in building and wall heights.

Proposed development

 

Photomontage of the proposed development as viewed from the southern side of Gordon Bay

Proposed development

 

Photomontage of the proposed development as viewed from the coastal walkway looking towards north-west

 

·      The existing residential flat building has little architectural appeal and does not provide private open space for the individual units. The design scheme incorporates steel-framed balconies attached to the southern elevation facing the ocean. The balconies will visually soften the blank facades and provide private outdoor living space for the apartments.

 

The proposal will significantly improve the façade articulation through the use of a combination of materials, including timber claddings and metal screens. The existing masonry walling will be rendered and painted in light, neutral colours. The deteriorated windows and doors will be fully replaced.

 

Overall, the proposal demonstrates a carefully composed contemporary design, and will significantly improve the streetscape presentation of an aged residential flat building and contribute to enhancing the urban environment.

 

·      The proposal will allow orderly and economic use of the land for urban consolidation, and represents a suitable infill development within an established residential neighbourhood. The proposed housing density and resultant height are justified by the site’s proximity to public open space and recreation facilities and public transport services along Clovelly Road.

 

·      As will be discussed in the following sections, the proposal does not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy or view loss, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

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

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

The proposed development and variations from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or Regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical development standards will not allow the best economic use of the site and provision of appropriate upgrade to an existing multi-unit development in an established residential precinct.

 

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 landscaped area, FSR and building heights development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary as the design scheme will achieve the underlying purposes of the standards.

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the landscaped area, FSR and building heights standards is relevant to the subject proposal. As discussed above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the underlying purposes of the standards in question.  

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 development standards in question would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is unreasonable.

 

The design scheme has incorporated appropriate built form, façade articulations, exterior finishes and landscaping, and will significantly improve the streetscape character. The proposal will rejuvenate an existing, aged residential building and deliver material benefits for the dwelling units in terms of living amenity and environmental performance. The building structures and associated works are considered to satisfy the purposes of the development standards in question.

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 in question have not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council. There has been no precedent established by Council’s assessment decisions, which in effect would abandon the development standards prescribed in the LEP.

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

The existing Residential C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality. The RLEP 2012 has translated the zoning for the site to R3 Medium Density Residential, which carries a similar planning intent to the current Residential C zoning.

 

4.      Design Ideas for Rejuvenating Residential Flat Buildings

 

The Design Ideas for Rejuvenating Residential Flat Buildings guideline, dated November 2006, showcases a number of refurbishment concepts using real flat buildings in the Randwick Local Government Area. It aims to encourage refurbishment proposals that improve:

 

·      The liveability of the units to meet current lifestyle needs;

·      The environmental performance and sustainability of the building; and

·      The appearance of buildings within the streetscape.

 

The proposed development has been designed with regard to the principles in this guideline. The proposal is consistent with the recommended design ideas in the following manner:

 

·      Retention of the existing residential flat building rather than complete demolition.

·      Appropriate integration of the old and new built elements.

·      Improvements of environmental performance.

·      Creation of useable private open space.

·      Improvements of the relationship between indoor and outdoor living.

·      Installation of high quality finishing materials to deliver an upgraded architectural character.

 

The proposal will rehabilitate and reuse an existing residential building and will contribute to the sustainable utilisation of resources, which is consistent with Council’s development policy.

 

5.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 3 in DP 18601, No. 18 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly. The site is located in between Thorpe and Oak Streets, and fronts onto the Bondi to Coogee coastal walkway. The dimensions and land area of the site are summarized in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land Area

Northern, rear boundary

10.48m

329.8m2 (by survey)

 

316.2m2 (by title diagram)

Southern, Cliffbrook Parade boundary

10.515m

Eastern, side boundary

32.0m

Western, side boundary

31.165m

 

At present, the site accommodates a 3-storey residential flat building of brick and tiled roof construction. The rear of the site is occupied by a 3.05m wide right of way. No off-street car parking is currently available.

 

The site is adjoined to the east and west by 3-storey dwelling houses (Nos. 16-16A and 18 Cliffbrook Parade). To the rear of the site are a detached dwelling (No. 17 Melrose Parade) and a residential flat building (No. 19 Melrose Parade). The locality is characterized by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential developments.

 

Cliffbrook Parade elevation of the existing residential flat building on the subject site (middle); the adjoining building at No. 16 is seen to the left

Rear elevation of the existing building on the site

Adjoining building at No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade (middle)

The pedestrian coastal walkway along Cliffbrook Parade

 

The subject site and surrounding environment

 

6.      Site History

 

6.1    Previous development consents relating to the site

BA/656/1938

Residential flat building with 3 dwellings.

Approved by Council on 26 October 1938.

BA/989/1969

Additions.

Approved by Council on 1 January 1969.

DA/210/1981

Construction of a detached garage.

Refused by Council on 22 September 1981.

 

6.2    Plan amendments

22 April 2013

At Council’s request, revised drawings incorporating the following changes were submitted to Council:

 

·      Increase in the front setback to the top (loft) floor level by 1200mm.

·      Deletion of the originally proposed 550mm wide cantilevered extension on the eastern elevation of the 2nd level. 

·      Reconfiguration of the car park, including reduction in the number of car spaces from 3 to 2, in order to improve vehicle turning paths from the right of way.

·      Provision of clear access to the waste storage area.

·      Increased provision of deep soil planting areas. 

·      Inclusion of window operation details on the drawings.

 

Draft Strata subdivision plans and elevational shadow diagrams were also provided.

 


7.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was notified from 24 September to 9 October 2012 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

·      Unit 13, 10-12 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly / Suite 905, 3 Waverley Street, Bondi Junction

·      14 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly / Unit 7, 5-15 Dunning Avenue, Rosebery

·      16 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

·      20 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

·      11 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      Unit 1, 19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly / 156 Head Street, Brighton VIC 3186

·      Anonymous unit at 19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      21 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The proposed development will be higher than the adjoining buildings by one whole storey. The flat roof form is not consistent with the character of the adjoining buildings and the streetscape. The impact will be exacerbated by the site’s visibility in the Bondi to Coogee coastal walkway.

The proposed loft level has been appropriately setback from the front wall alignment below. When viewed in perspective, the top floor additions would not detract from the streetscape. Refer to the “SEPP 1” section of this report for details.

The proposed works have an excessive visual bulk and mass.

The scale, massing and proportions of the proposed development are considered to be satisfactory. Refer to the “SEPP 1” section of this report for details.

The proposal does not comply with Council’s planning controls, including building and external wall heights, FSR, side setbacks and rear setbacks.

The application has included SEPP 1 Objections relating to the non-compliance with the building and external wall heights, FSR and landscaped area standards. The justifications presented in the Objections have been reviewed and are considered to be well founded. Refer to the “SEPP 1” section of this report for details.

 

The proposed setbacks are considered to be acceptable. Refer to the “DCP” section for details.

The proposal will cause unreasonable view loss impacts on the adjoining and nearby properties, including Nos. 11, 19 and 21 Melrose Parade, and Nos. 10-12, 16 and 20 Cliffbrook Parade.

The proposal will not create unreasonable view loss impacts on the adjoining and nearby properties. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The proposed development will overshadow the adjoining and nearby properties.

The expected overshadowing impacts are considered to be reasonable and are not a result of poor design. Refer to the “DCP” section for details.

The rear decks will cause privacy and noise impacts on the adjoining and nearby properties.

The rear decks are appropriately screened and separated from the adjoining properties and will not cause unreasonable amenity impacts. Refer to the “DCP” section for details.

The proposal has not included sufficient off-street car parking.

The proposed parking provision is considered to be acceptable. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The proposal contains 3 car spaces, which will increase traffic in the narrow rear lane and cause safety problems.

The revised proposal has reduced the number of car spaces from 3 to 2, in order to improve vehicular movements.

 

The traffic generation from 2 cars associated with a residential use is not considered to overwhelm the capacity of the right of way. The revised scheme has increased the setback of the car spaces from the right of way so that improved vehicular movements into and out of the parking area can be achieved. Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objections, subject to a special condition that requires creation of a splay at the garbage area to further improve vehicular movements.

The proposal seeks approval for Strata subdivision. However, no Strata plans have been submitted.

The applicant has subsequently submitted draft Strata plans for Council’s assessment.

The proposal has only reserved narrow side setbacks and would exacerbate high velocity wind through the gaps between buildings.

The proposed development is constrained by the existing structures and the side setbacks are considered to be acceptable. There is no evidence to suggest that any potential wind tunnel effects associated with the proposal would be significantly over and above any established residential areas along the foreshore.

The rear lane is not suitable for heavy vehicles associated with the construction works. 

It is noted that the right of way to the rear of the subject and adjoining sites is the only possible access for construction vehicles.

 

To minimise adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties, a specific condition is recommended to require a traffic management plan to be prepared. Standard construction management conditions are also recommended to ensure proper execution of works during the construction phase.

The construction traffic is likely to cause damage to the properties (including walls and fences) fronting the rear lane.

 

The proposal should indemnify the laneway surface as well as the properties fronting the lane against potential damages.

A specific condition is recommended to require the preparation of a dilapidation report prior to the commencement of construction work, which documents the existing conditions of the adjoining neighbours as well as those properties flanking the right of way. This report would form a basis for monitoring any construction related damage caused by the proposal.

Debris may fall upon the adjoining properties during construction activities on the site.

Standard conditions are recommended to ensure proper site management and execution of works during the construction phase, including the provision of appropriate temporary fencing and dust control devices. It is acknowledged that a degree of amenity impacts would be experienced by the neighbours during construction activities on the site; however, subject to compliance with the above conditions, the degree of impacts would be minimized.

The installation of the lift will adversely affect the foundation of the adjoining property at No. 16 Cliffbrook Parade. 

The proposed passenger lift is setback approximately 2.8m from the common boundary with No. 16 Cliffbrook Parade.

 

A standard condition is recommended to ensure suitable retaining walls are installed during excavation works. Subject to the above condition, the lift component is not considered to adversely affect the structural stability of the adjoining dwelling.

 

The proposed development will result in “financial downfall” to the surrounding property owners.

Variations in property values are not considered to be a valid objection on town planning grounds.

 

The approval of the subject proposal will establish an undesirable precedent for similar developments in the street.

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of relevant planning controls. The approval of the subject application would not establish any undesirable precedent for the locality.

 

8.      Technical Officers Comments

 

8.1    Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

Parking Comments

Parking Provision

The site currently contains a 3 level residential building comprising 3 apartments and does not provide any off-street parking. The proposed development will not alter the number of apartments but will increase the number of bedrooms. The resulting unit mix will be 2 x 3 bedroom apartments plus 1 x 2 bedroom.

 

When adopting the rates provided in Council’s DCP-Parking and new comprehensive DCP

 

Parking Required = 2 x 1.5 + 1 x 1.2

                        = 4.2 spaces (no visitor parking required)

 

Parking Provided = 2 spaces

 

When considering the existing parking deficiency of around 3 spaces the parking provision is acceptable as it reduces the parking deficiency currently being experienced by the site. It is recommended however that the 2 parking spaces be allocated to the 3 bedroom units.

 

Parking Layout

The assessing officer is advised that the issues raised in previous memo dated 2nd November have only been partially addressed and that the amended parking layout still presents problems with vehicle access & manoeuvrability

 

Specifically the issues are;

 

·      Carspace for Unit 1 will be difficult to enter

·      Carspace for Unit 3 will be difficult to exit

·      The requested sweeping paths have not been submitted.

 

On further assessment of the amended layout it is noted that the situation can be improved significantly by the provision of a 2m x 2m splay at the intersection of the southern Right of Way boundary and the prolongation of the western internal garage wall. This will allow vehicles to enter the carspace for Unit 1 in one manoeuvre and allow additional room for a vehicle to exit the carspace for Unit 3. Exiting the carspace for Unit 3 will still likely require a 3 point turn to accomplish which is not ideal but given the site constraints is acceptable in this instance. A condition requiring the 2m x 2m splay has been included in this report.

 

Assessment Officer’s comments:

The proposal contains 1 x 3-bedroom unit, 1 x 2-bedroom plus study unit and 1 x 2-bedroom unit. The development does not contain 2 x 3-bedroom units as such. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to impose a condition relating to parking space allocation.

 

Drainage Comments

The application has not commented on the existing means of stormwater disposal for the site and as the proposal will increase the amount of impervious area on the site, and in consideration of SEPP 71 an upgrade of the stormwater drainage system may be required.

 

Detailed Drainage Plans shall be submitted demonstrating 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. Run-off shall generally be piped to a sediment/silt arrestor pit located within the site that then drains directly to Gordon’s Bay reserve via a suitable headwall outlet. The point of discharge to Gordons Bay will be subject to the approval of Council’s Development Engineer and Natural Resources Coordinator.

 

SEPP71 Comments

In addition to the above drainage comments it is noted that the site is subject to the requirements of SEPP 71-Coastal Protection which states;

The consent authority must not grant consent to a development application to carry out development on land subject to SEPP 71 if the consent authority is of the opinion that the development will, or is likely to, discharge untreated stormwater into the sea, a beach, or an estuary, a coastal lake, a coastal creek or other similar body of water, or onto a rock platform”.

 

Council must therefore ensure that stormwater runoff from the property is effectively managed and appropriate conditions have been attached to this report.

 

Waste management Comments

The number of units is not changing and hence no change in the number of waste bins is required. The waste bin storage area will need to be reconfigured to permit a splay which is required for vehicular access (see parking comments).

 

Landscape Comments

Site and aerial photos were used to prepare this report rather than an inspection given the urgency required, as well as an absence of any significant vegetation that would be affected.

 

Those various shrubs on either side of the Right of Way, which is accessed off Oak Street, and are growing within properties in both Melrose & Cliffbrook Parades may need to be pruned in order to accommodate vehicle/machinery access and deliveries during the course of works, and as they are either weeds or not covered by the TPO due to their small size, a general condition allowing this has been provided.

 

While a Concept Landscape Plan by Alice Laurie Landscapes was stamped by Council back on 19 September 2012, it appears that numerous minor adjustments/amendments have been made to the proposal since that time, and as this appears to have resulted in the creation of new or increased planted areas, including the courtyard fronting the coastal walk and along the western and eastern edges of Unit 1, as well as around the rear of Unit 2, conditions require this plan to be revised/updated to reflect the changes that have been made.

 

Implementing this plan will result in a major increase in the amount of planted material at the site, which should have a corresponding positive impact on its presentation to the adjoining public domain and Gordons Bay, and while 46.6% of the site will be maintained as landscaped area (50% required), the submitted SEPP 1 Objection states that this minor deficiency should be deemed reasonable as the amount, size and orientation of landscape areas will be comparable to adjoining properties, with the connection between living areas and private open spaces having been improved through the re-designs.

 

It is also considered that the Landscape Plan addresses the requirements of SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection, through its exclusive use of native groundcovers, plants and shrubs.

 

Access along/via the coastal walk or Gordons Bay Reserve should not be required for these works given the Right of Way and parking area that is provided off Oak Street at the rear of the site, as well as the internal pathway/steps along the western boundary.

 

8.2    Building Surveyor

Council’s Building Surveyor has reviewed the application and raised no objections, subject to standard conditions.

 

9.      Master Planning Requirements

 

A master plan is not required for this proposal.

 

10.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

10.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 has been gazetted and came into effect on 15 February 2013. Clause 1.8A provides that a development application lodged but not finally determined prior to the commencement of the Plan must be determined as if it had not commenced.

 

The subject application was lodged on 19 September 2012, and is subject to the savings provision. When determining an application to which Clause 1.8A applies, the consent authority must have regard to the provisions of the new Plan as if it had been exhibited under the Act but had not been made.

 

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

 

Description

Standard

Proposal

Compliance

Zoning:

R3 Medium Density Residential

Is development permitted under zoning?

 

Land use classified as “residential flat building”

Yes

Floor space ratio (maximum)

0.9:1

1.11:1 (367.7m2)*

No

Height of building (maximum)

12m

12.5m

No

Lot size (minimum)

325m2

Existing building, 329.8m2

Yes

Foreshore scenic protection area

Council to ascertain that the development is located and designed to minimize its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, and contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore

Satisfactory

(refer to the “SEPP 1” and “RLEP 1998” sections of this report for details

Yes

*Note: the GFA has been measured in accordance with the definition of RLEP 2012

 

10.2  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

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

 

The following clauses of the LEP apply to the proposed development:

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

20E Landscaped area

(2) Minimum 50% of site area (164.9m2)

31.5% (103.9m2)

Does not comply, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

(3) Landscaped areas over podium or basement not to exceed 50% of required provision

The landscaped area is provided on deep soil.

Complies

20F Floor space ratio

(2) Maximum 0.65:1 (214.4m2) for 2C zoned sites with less than 700m2 land area

1.20:1 (395.4m2)

Does not comply, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

20G Building heights

(2) Maximum building height 12m

12.5m

(eastern elevation)

Does not comply, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

(4) Maximum external wall height 10m

12.5m

(eastern elevation)

Does not comply, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

29 Foreshore scenic protection area

Council to consider the probable aesthetic appearance of the building in relation to the foreshore

The design scheme adopts a contemporary architectural expression with upgraded finishing materials, which will significantly improve the physical appearance of the existing building. The colour palette utilizes a range of light, neutral hues with timber claddings and metal screens that articulate the facades. The exterior colours and finishes scheme reinforces the character of the building and is suitable to the coastal location. The proposal is considered to satisfy the provisions of Clause 29.

Complies

40 Earthworks

Council to consider the likely impact on the 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 minor excavation for the foundation footings and lift installation at the rear of the site.

 

Specific conditions are recommended to ensure that suitable retaining walls and protection measures are installed during the construction phase. The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the recommended construction management and engineering conditions.

 

Complies, subject to conditions

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

SEPP: BASIX applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied with a BASIX Certificate 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.

 

10.4  State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Pursuant to Clause 50(1) of the SEPP, Part 3 (Retention of existing affordable rental housing) applies to alterations and additions to low-rental residential building, and Strata subdivision of low-rental residential flat building.

 

The existing residential flat building is currently under one title. The building presently contains 1 x 1-bedroom (Unit 1) and 2 x 2-bedroom units (units 2 and 3).

 

Clause 47 defines a low-rental dwelling as “a dwelling that (at any time in the 24 month period prior to the lodgement of a development application to which this Part applies) was let at a rental not exceeding the median rental level for that time (as specified in the Rent and Sales Report) in relation to a dwelling of the same type, having the same number of bedrooms and located in the same local government area”.

 

A comparison of the weekly rental charged for the existing dwelling units and the median rental for flats within the Randwick LGA is provided below:

 

Quarter

Weekly median rental for 1-bedroom units in Randwick LGA*

Weekly median rental for 2-bedroom units in Randwick LGA*

Rental charged

December 2010

$400

$500

Unit 1: $413

Unit 2: $605***

Unit 3: $505***

March 2011

$420

$520

Unit 1: $413

Unit 2: $605***

Unit 3: $505***

June 2011

$420

$520

Unit 1: $413

Unit 2: $605***

Unit 3: $505***

September 2011

$420

$525

Unit 1: $413

Unit 2: $600

Unit 3: $550

December 2011

$430

$540

Unit 1: $413**

Unit 2: $600

Unit 3: $550

March 2012

$450

$550

Unit 1: $413**

Unit 2: $600

Unit 3: $550

June 2012

$440

$550

Unit 1: $413**

Unit 2: $600

Unit 3: $550

September 2012

$430

$550

Unit 1: N/A (became owner occupied after June 2012)

Unit 2: $600

Unit 3: $550

 

Notes:

*      Data extracted from the Department of Housing’s Rental and Sales Reports.  

**    Data based on Statutory Declaration and lease.

*** Data based on Statutory Declaration only. 

 

Bolded figures represent rentals that were lower than or equal to the median rentals for the respective quarters.

 

Based on the above, it is established that both Units 1 and 3 are low rental dwellings as defined in the SEPP. The existing development is therefore a low-rental residential building. The proposed development will result in the loss of 2 low-rental dwellings with a combined total of 3 bedrooms.   

 

(ii) Matters for consideration

In determining a development application for alterations and additions (as well as Strata subdivision) of a low-rental residential building, Council is to take into account the guidelines stated under Clause 50(2), which are addressed as follows:

 

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

 

Comments:

The lower rentals of the existing dwelling units are a result of the age and relative poor condition of the building, and should not be construed as a true reflection of the real market rental values that would normally be expected for the Clovelly areas.

 

The loss of 2 dwellings is not considered to result in a major reduction in the availability of low cost accommodation in the Clovelly locality as a whole.

 

(b)    Whether there is available sufficient comparable accommodation to satisfy the demand for such accommodation.

 

Comments:

Based on the data given in the Rental and Sales Reports (Department of Housing), it is observed that the rental prices in the Randwick LGA have steadily increased over the past 2 years.

 

The above phenomenon can be partly attributed to a perceivable overall increase in demand for housing in the Sydney metropolitan area. Whilst the proposal will entail the loss of low cost rental accommodation, the degree of the impact is considered to be minor given the relatively small number of dwelling units involved. As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, the provision of a monetary contribution will assist in the delivery of alternate affordable housing by the State Government.  

 

(c)    Whether the development is likely to cause adverse social and economic effects on the general community.

 

Comments:

The loss of 2 low-cost rental dwellings is not considered to result in an overwhelming social or economic impact on the Randwick LGA.

 

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

 

Comments:

No assistance to the existing residents is proposed. However, the imposition of a condition requiring monetary contribution (under Clause 51 of the SEPP) would assist the NSW Department of Housing in providing alternate low cost rental accommodation to the community in future.

 

(e)    The extent to which the development contributes to any cumulative loss of affordable housing in the local government area.

 

Comments:

It is considered that the loss of 2 dwellings as low cost rental accommodation (as defined in the SEPP) will not create a significant cumulative impact upon the Randwick Local Government Area as a whole.

 

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

 

Comments:

The existing building has deteriorated with age and requires significant fire safety upgrade and refurbishment to meet the current BCA standards. Given the significant cost of essential works required to provide a satisfactory level of safety and amenity for residents, it would not be economically feasible to retain the current low rental returns on the dwelling units.

 

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

 

Comments:

The imposition of a condition requiring monetary contribution (under Clause 51 of the SEPP) would assist the NSW Department of Housing in providing alternate low cost rental accommodation to the community.

 

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

 

Comments:

Not applicable.

 

(iii) Monetary contribution calculations

Pursuant to Clause 51 of the SEPP, the following monetary contribution is payable to Council:

C = L x R x 0.05

Where:

 

C =   contribution payable

L =   total number of bedrooms in a low rental dwelling and boarding rooms that will be lost by the proposed development

R =   replacement cost calculated as the average value of the first quartile of sales of strata properties in the local government area in which the development is to take place, as specified in the 4 most recent editions of the Rent and Sales Report

 

Calculations:     

 

Number of bedrooms lost L

3 bedrooms

 

 

Replacement cost R

Sales price (1st quartile): Strata – Sept Quarter 2012 - Randwick

$530000

Sales price (1st quartile): Strata – Jun Quarter 2012 - Randwick

$520000

Sales price (1st quartile): Strata – Mar Quarter 2012 - Randwick

$524000

Sales price (1st quartile): Strata – Dec Quarter 2011 - Randwick

$521000

Replacement cost R

$523,750

 

Contribution payable C

3 X 523750 X 0.05 = $78,562.5

 

The above contribution will be required by a special condition of consent.

 

10.5  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, SEPP No. 71 applies to the proposed development.

 

Clause 8 of the SEPP specifies matters that Council must take into account when determining a development application, which are addressed as follows:

 

Requirements

Comments

(a) Aims of the Policy in Clause 2.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the aims of the SEPP in that the nature, bulk and scale of the building structures will not diminish the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore. The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the stability and visual quality of the rock cliff. Suitable landscaping has been included in the design scheme to offer a potential habitat for native flora and fauna.

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

The proposal will not affect the existing coastal walkway on Cliffbrook Parade.

 

 

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

The subject allotment is privately owned and has a restricted land size. It is not appropriate to create any through-site link between the coastal walkway and the right of way to the rear.

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

 

The proposal will significantly improve the architectural character of the existing building and its presentation to the street. The new loft (3rd) level is appropriately setback from the front wall alignment below and will not visually dominate other buildings in the 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.

The proposal will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing on the adjoining properties (refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details).

 

The coastal walkway is located to the south of the buildings along Cliffbrook Parade and is already overshadowed. The proposal is not considered to create any additional perceivable impacts.

 

The proposed front decks are appropriately setback from the Cliffbrook Parade boundary, and will not result in any significant loss of views from a public place.

(f) The scenic qualities of the NSW coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities.

The application has included a photomontage indicating the proposed building as viewed from the southern side of Gordon Bay. The image demonstrates that distant views will consist of a development embedded within the existing built environment and natural setting.

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

 

There is no known threatened animal or plant species within the subject and adjoining sites.

 

A specific condition is recommended to require a detailed landscape plan to be prepared prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate. The plan is to contain plant species that are suitable to the coastal location.

(h) Measures to conserve fish and marine vegetation (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994).

The proposed building works will not extend to, or in close proximity to, the mean high water mark. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to impact on the marine species.

(i) Existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors.

There is no known existing wildlife corridor across the subject site.

 

(j) The likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards.

The existing building and proposed additions are setback from the mean high water mark. The current development only includes balcony, deck and retaining wall structures in the front portion of the site. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to be significantly affected by, or contribute to, adverse coastal hazards.

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

The proposal is not considered to contribute to conflicts between land-based and water-based coastal activities.

(l) Measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aborigines.

There are no known Aboriginal sites or relics within the subject allotment.

 

(m) Likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal water bodies.

Adequate drainage conditions are recommended to ensure that any stormwater runoff from the site will not adversely impact on the water quality of the ocean.

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

There are no known heritage items or relics within the subject allotment. The site is not located within any Heritage Conservation Area.

(o) [Provisions relating to preparation of LEP’s]

N/A

 

(p) The cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment.

Measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is efficient.

Specific conditions are recommended to ensure that the commitments listed on the BASIX Certificate are implemented during the construction phase of the development.

 

The proposal is not considered to contribute significantly and unreasonably to any cumulative environmental impacts on the coastal foreshore.

 

11.    Policy Controls

 

11.1  Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

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

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Adequate site analysis information has been submitted with the application.

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

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

The subject site has a frontage width of 10.515m to Cliffbrook Parade, which incorporates a pedestrian walkway. It does not have direct access to a public road. Notwithstanding, there is a 3.05m wide right of way to the rear of the site that enables vehicular access from Oak Street. The allotment has a regular configuration and an existing residential flat building already occupies the site.

 

Based on the above characteristics, it is considered that the site and the existing structures are capable of supporting an additional storey and car parking and ancillary facilities.

P3 Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

Not applicable.

Height

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

 

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

P2 Variations in massing and height create visual interest, distribute the bulk of the building and minimise amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

The building bulk is suitably distributed over an architectural form that incorporates appropriate articulation and façade treatment. The proposal is considered to have minimised streetscape and amenity impacts.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

G/F

5m – 5.5m, no change

1/F and 2/F

Front decks 2.9m – 3.5m

3/F

Front deck 3.8m – 4.4m

Wall 7.5m – 8.1m

 

The front decks of the adjoining dwelling at No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade are setback 2.8m – 3.4m from the boundary. The residential flat building at No. 22 has a minimum front setback of 2.3m only.

 

It is considered that the proposed setbacks to the decks are consistent with the adjoining buildings to the east and will not detract from the streetscape character.

 

At Council’s request, the applicant has amended the design to increase the front setback to the loft storey by 1.2m (i.e. a total of 7.5m – 8.1m from the boundary). The loft level is now appropriately recessed from the front wall alignment below. When viewed in perspective, this additional level would not detract from the existing streetscape character despite its flat roof configuration. 

 

The proposed front setbacks are considered to be satisfactory.

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 proposal generally maintains the existing side setbacks except for the following:

 

Eastern boundary

G/F laundry: 0m

1/F car park: 0m

3/F: 1051mm

 

Western boundary

1/F storage and access areas: 1543mm

2/F wall claddings: 1200mm

3/F: 1243mm

 

 

 

Comments:

Eastern boundary:

The external laundry to Unit 1 occupies a limited footprint and will not cause any perceivable overshadowing impact.

 

The enclosing wall to the car park will abut the common boundary. The reservation of zero setback is considered to be acceptable as adequate width is required to enable efficient vehicle movements into and out of the car spaces.

 

The external wall to the loft overhangs the storey below by 400mm. This element contributes to the façade articulation and will not result in any significant amenity impacts on No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade.

 

Western boundary:

The proposed works generally maintain the existing side setback, being approximately 1.5m. The wall cladding to the first level will only result in a minor reduction in the existing side setback by approximately 300mm. This element will contribute to the façade articulation and is not considered to create any significant amenity impacts on the neighbours.

 

Overall, the proposal is constrained by the layout of the existing building and the restricted dimensions of the site. The design is considered to have maximised spatial separation from the adjoining properties. As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, the proposal will not cause any unreasonable overshadowing or privacy impacts on the neighbours.

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.

Proposed rear setback: 3.05m

 

The proposal will maintain a clear setback of 3.05m at the rear for the purposes of the right of way.

 

The rear car park, storage facilities, circulation spaces and rooftop terraces are adequately setback from the common boundary with the Melrose Parade property. As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts on the neighbours.

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 proposal includes a 1.2m (W) x 12.1m (L) canopy over the first level that extends to the common boundary with No. 16 Cliffbrook Parade.

 

This feature will reduce a sense of openness between the subject and adjoining buildings. A special condition is recommended to require the deletion of this canopy device. However, the condition would allow a small awning with maximum dimensions of 1200mm (L) x 900mm (W) over the doorway to Unit 1 (on level 1) for appropriate weather protection. 

Density

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

 

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

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:       

§ consistent with streetscape;

§ Entrances highlighted; and

§ Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

 

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

 

The proposal involves the replacement of the existing brick retaining wall at the front boundary adjacent to the coastal walkway.

 

The plans show that a portion of the new wall will reach a height of 2.2m, presumably to provide privacy to the spa. The spa has since been deleted from the revised development scheme.

 

In order to maintain streetscape amenity, a standard condition is recommended to restrict the height of the solid portion of front fence / wall to a maximum of 1200mm.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

The landscaped garden at the front of the site has sufficient areas for planting and recreational activities. 

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

 

The constrained dimensions of the site do not allow the provision of communal open space around the building.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

The proposal has included a private balcony for each of the dwelling units, which are directly accessible from the main living areas.

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

 

The balconies and ground floor terrace on the southern elevation of the building are oriented towards the coastal walkway and the ocean. The location of the private open space utilises the advantage of the site and is appropriate.

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.

G/F terrace:

Complies.

 

1/F & 2/F balconies:

1.8m – 2.5m wide, 13m2 in area

The dimensions and size of these balconies will enable outdoor living activities for the future occupants.

 

3/F balcony:

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.

Refer to comments below.

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

The proposal has included privacy screens and planter boxes to provide a degree of privacy protection for the balconies.

 

It is considered that the extent of privacy protection is adequate in this instance as excessive screening devices or mass planting would compromise view sharing.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Refer to comments below.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

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

View Sharing

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

 

Refer to comments below.

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

 

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

Refer to comments below.

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

 

A portion of the roofs on the adjoining properties will retain direct access on 21 June. The proposal will not negate the installation of roof-mounted solar panels on the adjoining properties in the future.

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

 

Refer to comments below.

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

 

Refer to comments below.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

§ Living areas are orientated to the north.

§ Larger windows are located on the north.

§

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

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

Refer to “SEPP: BASIX”.

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

The proposed roof design will not preclude the installation of solar collectors in the future.

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Satisfactory.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

The main entries to the site are clearly visible and identifiable.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

Satisfactory.

 

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

To be required by condition.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

Not applicable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

To be required by condition.

P7 Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

To be required by condition.

P8 External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

To be required by condition.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

Refer to the “Parking DCP” section for detailed comments.

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

 

The car parking facility is located at the rear of the site facing a right of way.

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

 

Not applicable.

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

To be required by condition.

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Acceptable. Refer to Engineer’s comments.

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Due to the existing site constraints, this is not achievable. However, given the relatively small number of car spaces involved, the proposed access arrangement is considered to be acceptable. A specific condition is recommended to create a wider splay at the bin storage area to improve vehicular movements. Refer to Engineer’s comments.

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.

The proposed car spaces have direct access to the right of way at the rear of the site. No long driveways are required.

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

The parking facility and hardstand areas are located at the rear of the site and are not readily visible from the public domain. Satisfactory. 

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

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

Satisfactory.

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

Adequate storage areas have been provided for the dwelling units.

Barrier-Free Access

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

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

A standard condition is recommended to require compliance with the BCA. 

P2  Dwelling requirements:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 so on…

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

 

Not applicable.

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

 

Not applicable.

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

 

The proposal incorporates a passenger lift, which provides access to Units 2 and 3.

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

Satisfactory.

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

 

Satisfactory.

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

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

Satisfactory.

 

Overshadowing

The relevant performance requirements relating to solar access are extracted below:

 

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

 

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

 

 

The following provides an analysis of the expected shadow impacts on 21 June based on the submitted shadow diagrams:

 

16 Cliffbrook Parade

Backyard:

The proposal will not create any material additional overshadowing on the north-facing backyard of No. 16 on 21 June.

 

Northern windows:

The north-facing windows of No. 16 will receive more than 3 hours of direct sunlight on 21 June.

 

Eastern side windows:

The expected impacts are described in the diagrams below. (Note: dark grey denotes existing shadows, medium grey represents the proposed additional shadows)

 

Sunroom

 

9am

 

10am

 

11am

 

The expected impacts on the eastern windows are considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The principal living room windows are located on the southern elevation to capture the ocean views. The proposal will have no impacts on these windows (their southern orientation do not allow adequate direct sunlight in any case).

 

·      There is a sunroom on the top floor level at the rear of the dwelling. It has north-facing glazed doors which will not be affected by the proposal. As are demonstrated in the above diagrams, the eastern window to the sunroom will receive direct sunlight to 100% and approximately 50% of the glazed area at 10am and 11am respectively.

 

·      No. 16 has an elongated site configuration and the side windows are situated deep within the allotment. The retention of sunlight to these windows is highly difficult if not impossible in the context of the 2C zone, which permits a range of medium density residential developments.

 

·      As discussed, sunlight to the backyard of this property will not be materially affected by the proposal.

 

 


 

20 Cliffbrook Parade

Backyard:

The proposal will cast additional shadows on the backyard from 1pm onwards on 21 June. The expected impacts are described in the following diagrams. (Note: dark grey denotes existing shadows, medium grey represents the proposed additional shadows)

 

9am

10am

11am

12noon

1pm

2pm

 

3pm

 


 

Northern windows:

There are 2 ground floor windows and 1 first floor window on the northern elevation. Based on the shadow diagrams, the proposal will not cast any additional shadows on these windows.

Western side windows:

The expected impacts are described in the diagrams below. (Note: dark grey denotes existing shadows, medium grey represents the proposed additional shadows)

 

12 noon

 

1pm

2pm

3pm

 

Planning principle relating to solar access:

An assessment has been made against the planning principle established in the Land and Environment Court case, The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010], NSWLEC 1082 in relation to the expected impact on No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade:

 

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

 

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

 


Comments:

The subject site and the adjoining properties (including No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade) that will be affected by overshadowing from the proposed development are zoned Residential 2C under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The objective of the 2C zone aims at enabling residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms. As is discussed under the “SEPP 1” section of this report, the proposed building height and density are considered to be compatible with the surrounding environment.

 

Given that the zoning and development standards contained in the LEP envisage a medium density housing form, it is much more difficult to achieve strict compliance with the performance requirements in the DCP, as compared to the scenario of a lower density residential zone.

 

It should be noted that the total shadows on the backyard of No. 20 is, to a large extent, created by the property’s own garage and the existing building at No. 19 Melrose Parade. The proposal will only affect the western portion of the backyard in the afternoon period.

 

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

 

Comments:

According to the shadow diagrams, the eastern part of the backyard will continue to receive direct sunlight at 9am and 10am.

 

The west-facing balcony on the first floor at the rear of the dwelling will receive full sun from noon to 2pm. Approximately half of this balcony will still enjoy sunlight at 3pm. 

 

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

 

Comments:

The subject proposal will improve the building’s presentation to Cliffbrook Parade, and a suitable roof form, façade modulation and setbacks have been incorporated into the design. The development will enhance the character of the existing building and will contribute to a positive streetscape outcome.

 

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

 

Comments:

The expected impacts on the western façade of the dwelling are clearly described in the shadow diagrams above.

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed, the first floor western balcony will receive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight on 21 June. The eastern part of the backyard will also receive at least 1 hour’s sunlight. The areas that will continue to enjoy direct sunlight have adequate dimensions to enable clothes drying and passive recreational activities.

 

·        Overshadowing by fences, roof overhangs and changes in level should be taken into consideration. Overshadowing by vegetation should be ignored, except that vegetation may be taken into account in a qualitative way, in particular dense hedges that appear like a solid fence.

 

Comments:

The submitted shadow diagrams do not take into consideration impacts generated by vegetation.

 

·        In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites should be considered as well as the existing development.

 

Comments:

It is likely that the existing buildings along Cliffbrook Parade between Oak and Thorpe Streets would be subject to major upgrade or redevelopment in the foreseeable future, due to their relative old age and physical condition, and the fact that they are located within the foreshore areas. Nos. 14 and 24 Cliffbrook Parade have already been refurbished in the 1990’s and 2000’s respectively.

 

Privacy

The relevant performance requirements relating to privacy are extracted below:

 

P1      

Visual Privacy

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

P3

Acoustic Privacy

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

 

The potential privacy impacts of various elements of the proposal are addressed as follows:

 

Elevation

Element

Comments

North

Rooftop terraces

Visual privacy

The rooftop terraces will not overlook the northern neighbours as they are situated at lower levels and are provided with privacy screens.

 

A privacy screen is installed on the eastern elevation of the Unit 2 terrace, which will minimize overlooking into the backyard of No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade.

 

The western elevation of the Unit 3 terrace has no privacy screen. However, it would only overlook the existing hardstand parking areas of No. 16 Cliffbrook Parade. Accordingly, no screening device is deemed necessary.

 

Acoustic privacy

The rooftop terrace of Unit 2 is attached to the bedroom area. The terrace of Unit 3 is detached from the dwelling. The location and configuration of these terraces are designed to offer additional private open space with better solar access for the future occupants. They are allocated as private open space and do not enable communal congregation. Based on the above, these terraces are not considered to create unacceptable noise impacts.

 

South

Decks

The decks on the southern elevation are oriented towards the ocean and would not create unacceptable privacy impacts.

 

East

1/F ensuite window

This window is oriented towards a side window of No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade. A specific condition is recommended to require this window to be constructed with obscured glazing.

 

2/F kitchen and dining room windows

These windows are oriented towards three side windows of No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade. A specific condition is recommended to require these windows to be constructed with obscured glazing.

 

West

1/F bathroom window

This window is oriented towards the bedroom window of No. 16 Cliffbrook Parade. A specific condition is recommended to require this window to be constructed with obscured glazing.

 

2/F ensuite and bathroom windows

These windows are oriented towards the bedroom and bathroom windows of No. 16 Cliffbrook Parade. A specific condition is recommended to require these windows to be constructed with obscured glazing.

 

2/F landing

The landing area is likely to cross view the sunroom window of No. 16 Cliffbrook Parade. A specific condition is recommended to require fixed obscured glazing to be installed.

 

3/F study alcove window

The window to the study alcove has a length of 3.6m. Notwithstanding, the sill height of this window is set at 1500mm above the floor level, and will not enable excessive overlooking.

 

Stairwell

The stairwell at the rear of the site is enclosed by full-height vertical slatted screens, which will minimize overlooking into the adjoining dwellings. A specific condition is recommended to ensure the configuration of the screens is effective in minimizing cross viewing.

 

 

View loss

The proposal involves the removal of the existing pitched roof and provision of a new loft (3rd) level. The ridge level of the existing building is RL40.73. The topmost points of the proposed clerestory window and the rest of the roof are at RL42.09 and RL41.44 respectively. Accordingly, the proposal will raise the roof levels by 0.71m (top of parapet) to 1.36m (top of clerestory).

 

The proposal also includes a rear extension including car parking and circulation areas.

 

The proposal has implications on the views currently obtained from the adjoining and nearby properties. The following paragraphs provide a four-step analysis of view loss established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

Step 1: The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

11 Melrose Parade, Clovelly 

Note:

(i)  The red lines were drawn by the owner and it has been noted that they DO NOT accurately represent the proposed additions.

(ii)  Council’s assessment officer has requested inspection of the property by email dated 13 March 2013. No response has been received.

(iii) The following analysis is based on the submitted photographs as access to the property has not been given. The approximate building envelope as estimated by the assessment officer is shown in green.

 

Top floor balcony

Resident’s estimation of the impact

 

Assessment Officer’s estimation (in green)

 

Current view:

·      Panoramic view of the sky-water interface and horizon.

·      Whole view of Wedding Cake Island.

·      Distant view of Malabar headland.

·      General view of the ocean.

 

Anticipated view loss:

·      A small portion of the general water element will be obscured.

 

 

Mid floor balcony

Resident’s estimation of the impact

 

Assessment Officer’s estimation (in green)