Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 25 June 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                                                                                                     25 June 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, 25 June 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 - 28 May 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.

 

CP38/13    1420 Anzac Parade, Little Bay (DA/547/2011/C)........................................ 1

CP39/13    3 Hamilton Street, Coogee (DA/266/2013).............................................. 17

CP40/13    301 Alison Road, Coogee (DA/101/2013)................................................ 47

CP41/13    495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/67/2009/E).............................. 107

CP42/13    6 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/400/2012).............................................. 123

CP43/13    8 Chapel Street, Randwick (DA/5/2013)................................................ 183

CP44/13    Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the period 1-31 May 2013........................................ 223

CP45/13    Randwick Environment Park: Plan of Management Review and Public Exhibition 229

CP46/13    Draft Randwick Community Centre Plan of Management........................... 237

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP47/13    Proposed activities for 2013 Local Government Week.............................. 241

General Manager's Reports

GM11/13    Community Banner Campaign.............................................................. 245

GM12/13    Local Government NSW - Annual Conference......................................... 249

GM13/13    Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2013-14..................................... 251

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF28/13    Investment Report - May 2013........................................................... 263

GF29/13    Review of Rating Residential Land........................................................ 271

GF30/13    Independent Local Government Review Panel - Future Directions for NSW Local Government.................................................................................... 299

GF31/13    A new Local Government Act for NSW - Discussion Paper........................ 301

GF32/13    Model Privacy Management Plan for Local Government............................ 303

GF33/13    Annual Review of Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy......................... 305  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM40/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Light rail affecting Wansey Road........... 307

NM41/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Request for increased police presence in Kingsford/Kensington........................................................................ 309

NM42/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Support for Moore Park Tunnel Option for CBD and South East light rail.......................................................................... 311

NM43/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Discounted access to Aquatic and Fitness Centre for Seniors and  low income families..................................................... 313

NM44/13    Notice of Motion from Crs Andrews and Stavrinos - Proposed amendment to Abandoned Vehicle Registration.......................................................................... 315

NM45/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to Kingsford South 10 April 2013 Minutes concerning Urban Activation areas...................................................... 317

NM46/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Smith - Proposed new Economic Development Target 319

NM47/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to the Leader of the Opposition's refusal to commit to funding the completion of the Maldon Dombarton rail link........... 321

NM48/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Smith - Sydney 2030 Strategy.......................... 323

NM49/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Smith - Proposed change to Council's Committee structure   325

NM50/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Smith - Proposed Independent Whistleblower Service 327

NM51/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Smith - Structure of City Planning Reports........... 329  

Closed Session

Director City Planning Report (record of voting required)

CP48/13    158 Moverly Road, South Coogee (DA/584/2012)

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(e) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

 

Director  Governance & Financial Services report (record of voting NOT required)

GF34/13    Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2013-14: Confidential Fees and Charges

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.

 

Director  Governance & Financial Services report (record of voting required)

GF35/13    T03/13 - Tender for Audit and Related Financial 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.

Notice of Rescission Motions

NR2/13      Notice of Rescission Motion submitted by Crs Smith, Andrews and Roberts - 2-6 Goodwood Street, Kensington (DA/195/2012/A)..................................... 331  

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     25 June 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP38/13

 

 

Subject:                  1420 Anzac Parade, Little Bay (DA/547/2011/C)

Folder No:                   DA/547/2011/C

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development by addition of bedroom to Brodie Avenue wing and alteration to support facilities, construction of gazebo and shade structure, new door to northern end of Anzac Parade wing, two additional carpark spaces in Brodie Avenue car park

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Thinc Projects Australia Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Norwent Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application has been assessed by an external consultant and is referred to Council as a Randwick City Council employee’s own a property that adjoins the subject site and the original application was determined by Council.

 

The application seeks to modify Development Consent DA547/2011/C for an existing Aged Care Facility.  The modification involves minor internal and external alterations to the existing building, two (2) pergolas within the common outdoor recreational areas and relocation of two (2) car parking spaces.

 

The modifications are designed to create a more efficient use of existing floor space and improved facilities for residents, visitors and staff.  There will be no detrimental impacts to the heritage context and setting of the site and nearby heritage items.  Similarly there will be no impact to neighbouring properties or to the environment.  The relocation of parking spaces does not result in a net loss of spaces.

 

It is recommended Development Consent DA547/2011/C be modified to acknowledge the amended plans, Condition No.87 be altered accordingly and a new Condition 15B added to clearly identify visitor and staff parking.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is an application to modify Development Consent DA/547/2011 in accordance with Section 96(2) to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act, 1979).  The application applies to the site at No.1420 Anzac Parade, Little Bay.

 

The proposed modifications are explained below.

 

2.1   Reconfiguration of internal walls and fit-out to the internal space of Level 1 to the Brodie Avenue Wing as detailed in Drawing No.DA04 Issue G – First Floor Plan (Attachment 1).

 

The works will result in a new Nurses Station and relocated clinical utility room, a more efficient layout of the common lounge area and the creation of one (1) additional bedroom.  The new bedroom will be within the total capacity of 170 beds approved in accordance with Development Consent DA547/2011.

 

The applicant states that this modification is required to rationalize service areas and give residents direct access from the common dining area to the balcony on the eastern façade.  The floor area made available from a more efficient internal layout is to be converted to an additional bedroom.

 

2.2   Ground Floor Coffee Bar Expansion as detailed in Drawing No.DA03 Issue I – Ground Floor Plan as included (Attachment 2)

 

New external walls, windows and doors are to be installed to enclose part of the existing central courtyard space to extend the coffee bar area (attached to a kitchenette).  The area to be enclosed is 6.55 metres x 6.055 metres.  The additional floor space has no significant impact on the overall existing Floor Space Ratio of 0.82:1 (refer to the numerical breakdown provided in Table 1).

 

Reasons for the modification as presented by the applicant are:

(i)     This area is a key focus for social activities and resident wellbeing and should be afforded a larger area to accommodate for the intensity of use; and

(ii)    The area has potential to encourage ancillary indoor and outdoor seating integrated with the central courtyard

 

2.3   Two (2) new pergolas as shown in Drawing No.DA01  Issue G – Site Plan (Attachment 3)

 

Two (2) new pergolas are proposed to be installed. One (1) within the central courtyard and the other within the garden ancillary to the Dementia/Behaviour Management unit.  The design details are shown in Attachment 4.  The structures are accessible from common landscaped areas.

 

The applicant notes the modifications are sought to improve facilities available for use by residents and visitors.

 

2.4   Relocation of two (2) on-site car parking spaces from the Anzac Parade Car Park to the Brodie Avenue Car Park – see Drawing No.DA01 Issue G – Site Plan (Attachment 3)

 

The application proposes two (2) visitor spaces be relocated from the Anzac Parade parking area to the basement car park by converting two (2) existing staff spaces to visitor spaces. The two (2) staff spaces displaced from the basement are to be replaced with two (2) new spaces constructed in the at-grade Brodie Avenue car park.

 

There will be no change in overall parking space numbers nor in the number of spaces allocated between staff and visitors.

 

Current approved plans show:

 

-    a visitor car park accessible via Anzac Parade with capacity for twelve (12) cars. This car parking area includes five (5) spaces of accessible dimensions; and

-    a staff car park accessible via Brodie Avenue with capacity for eighteen (18) cars; and

-    a basement with parking for thirty (30) cars.

 

This application seeks to relocate two (2) visitor spaces from the Anzac Parade car park to the basement car park.  This displaces two (2) staff parking spaces from the basement which are proposed to be constructed in the Brodie Avenue car park.

 

The applicant states that this modification is required to increase the capacity of the Brodie Avenue staff car park to reflect staff demand.

 

2.5   Modification of screen walls for air conditioning unit (Brodie Avenue wing) – see Drawing DA22 Issue F Section A-A (Attachment 5)

 

It is proposed to extend the approved solid screen to the roof-mounted air conditioning plant atop the Brodie Wing.  These works will more effectively screen the plant and equipment, reduce the visual impact and noise transmission.

 

2.6   Modification of Existing Condition 87

 

The applicant seeks to modify Condition 87 of Development Consent DA/547/2011 as shown below with original wording struck out and proposed wording in bold text:

 

“87.  The proprietor shall establish and maintain a formal and documented system for the recording and resolution of complaints made to the premises by nearby residents.  All complaints are to be attended to in a courteous and efficient manner and referred promptly to the Operations Manager.  The appropriate remedial action, where possible, is to be implemented as soon as possible and the Operations Manager is to contact the complainant within 48 hours to confirm the manner in which the issue is to be addressed and the proposed time frame for implementation.

 

Upon reasonable prior notice, the Operations Manager must make available the incident book to authorized Council officers.”

 

The applicant states that this modification is sought because the current condition places an unreasonable time frame for the Operations Manager to action a complaint and that the proposed wording provides clarification that action will be taken within a practical time frame.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is Lot 48 DP 1064600 (No.1420) Anzac Parade, Little Bay as shown in Figure 1.  The site is an irregular shape with a frontage to Anzac Parade of 109 metres and a frontage to Brodie Avenue of 72.8 metres.  The total site area is 10,350 square metres.

 

The site features an aged care facility with:

-      a basement level containing car parking, storage and maintenance rooms, a laundry, a hydrotherapy pool and ancillary amenities;

-      three and four (4) storeys of aged care facilities including bedrooms with ensuites, common rooms for dining, lounges and recreation, a commercial kitchen (ground floor level), nursing and medical rooms; and

-      common recreational and landscaped areas.

 

The site is within the Heritage Conservation Area listed as C6 Prince Henry Hospital Site as identified in Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 2012.  There are two Heritage Items within the site being entrance gates to the former CEO’s residence (Item I178 in Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 2012) in the south west portion of the site and a sandstone shelf and cutting near the south east corner of the site (Item A6 in Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 2012).

 

Figure 1 – Aerial photo with the subject site No.1420 Anzac Parade highlighted

 

Adjoining the site to the north is a four (4) storey mixed use development featuring ground floor commercial premise and residential flats above.  Immediately north east of the site fronting Brodie Avenue is the heritage item known as Henrys Trading Post and a public walkway which links Brodie Avenue to Anzac parade.

 

To the east of the site (on the opposite side of Brodie Avenue) are the heritage listed ‘Flower Wards’ which were part of the Prince Henry hospital when in operation.  These buildings are being converted into residential accommodation.

 

South east of the site there is a large multi-dwelling development featuring two (2) storey townhouses.

 

To the south west of the site is Jarrah House, a counselling and mental health facility.

 

Brodie Avenue has two trafficable lanes and unrestricted kerb side parking to both sides.  Both sides of Brodie Avenue have paved footpaths.

 

The section of Anzac Parade fronting the site has a paved footpath and four (4) trafficable lanes plus a kerb-side parking lane.  The carriageway is divided by a landscaped medium strip.  The section of Anzac Parade which fronts the site features a bus zone and a 10-minute time-limited parking between 7am and 8pm.

 

On the opposite side of Anzac Parade are single detached dwellings.

 

4.    Site History

 

Due to the heritage significance of the site and surrounds, a site specific Master Plan was adopted by Council for the locality in December 2001.  The Master Plan was revised until an amendment to Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 (Amendment No.28) rezoned land in the locality to Zone 2D Residential (Comprehensive Development), Zone 6 Special Uses and Zone 7 Environmental Protection.  Following this rezoning, the site specific Prince Henry Development Control Plan (DCP) came into force from December 2004.

 

As part of the Prince Henry DCP the following documents apply to the land:

-    Conservation Management Plan (CMP)

-    Archaeological Management Plan (AMP)

-    Heritage Impact Statement.

 

More recently the zoning of the subject site has been changed in accordance with Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 2012.  The subject site is now within Zone R1 General Residential.  A comprehensive DCP was adopted by Council on 28 May, 2013 and will become effective from 14 June, 2013.  The comprehensive DCP incorporates the site-specific Prince Henry DCP with some minor modifications.

 

The original aged care facility was approved in June 2005 with Development Consent DA43/2005 as a two (2) to four (4) storey development with 124 beds and parking for 43 cars.  There were several modifications to this consent.

 

On 8 November 2011 approval was granted for alterations and additions to the existing aged care facility including construction of a new three (3) storey addition to the northern side of the existing building, an increase in the total number of beds to 170, reconfiguration of the internal layout, new signage and associated landscape and site works.

 

A subsequent Section 96 application was approved on 12 June 2012 for the conversion of a meeting room into a bedroom and to convert a couples room into a single bedroom and office. 

 

A further Section 96 application was approved on 12 March 2013 for minor internal and external alterations to the approved aged care facility.  A number of additional conditions were included with the modified Notice of Determination of Consent.

 

5.      Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been completed. 

 

(a)    Council is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all).

 

The development, as modified, is considered to be substantially the same development as granted consent in accordance with Development Consent DA/547/2011 as the land use, intensity of development and relationship to surrounding properties remains unchanged.

 

(b)    Council has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent

 

The NSW Heritage Office has been consulted.  No objection has been raised to the modification.  The response from the NSW Heritage Office is included in Attachment 6 and recommends modification to the General Terms of Approval for additional details of shade structures and air conditioning roof top screens to be submitted for further approval with a Section 60 application and protection of any rock outcrops should they be exposed during excavations.

 

 (c)   Council has notified the application

 

Council has notified the application.  The closing date for submissions was 31 May, 2013.  No submissions were received.

 

(d)    Council has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification

 

No submissions were received.

 

(e)    Council has taken into consideration the matters referred to in Section 79C(1) to the EP&A Act, 1979 as are of relevance to the development

 

An assessment of relevant matters in accordance with Section 79C(1) is provided in Sections 9 and 10 of this report.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of surrounding properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals from 1 May, 2013 to 31 May 2013.  No submissions were received during the notification period.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers and the following comments have been provided:-

 

Heritage Planner

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the proposal and concluded that it will not physically impact on the sandstone outcrop, or the entrance gates to the former CEO’s residence which are listed Heritage Items and within the subject site.  The objectives and controls of the DCP related to heritage matters recommend that new buildings maintain an appropriate setting for the Historic Precinct and significant buildings and landscape elements in the vicinity.  The proposed external changes are limited to minor works and ancillary landscape structures.  It is considered that the proposal will not impact on the setting of the heritage items in the vicinity of the site. 

 

Development Engineer

 

There are no objections from Development Engineering. There is to be no change in overall parking space numbers.  Two (2) visitor spaces previously approved within the car park off Anzac Parade are to be relocated to the basement car park. This will maintain the 17 visitor spaces required overall by Council’s DCP-Parking and the SEPP (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004.

 

Overall onsite parking will be adequate to serve the development.

 

To ensure the visitor spaces are allocated as required, Development Engineering recommends a condition be included in any modified consent requiring 17 carspaces be allocated as visitor parking.

 

In regards to the amended parking layout, a condition requiring the parking layout to comply with AS 2890.1:2004 has already been included in the original consent. Further conditions are not required.

 

Should the Section 96 application be approved Development Engineering recommends the following additional engineering condition/s be included in any consent.

 

“A total of 17 car-spaces within the development shall be allocated as visitor parking with associated signage/marking clearly indicating as such to be installed prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.”

 

8.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The Prince Henry DCP was originally a Master Plan.  It identifies road and subdivision layouts and minimum standards for the development of the site into an aged car facility.

 

The relevant controls are summarized in Table 1 along with the details of the existing development.

 

Table 1 – Controls from the Master Plan / Prince Henry DCP for the subject site

Control

Master Plan Requirement

Approved to date

Proposed with Section 96(2)

Number of beds

100

Up to a maximum of 170

One (1) additional bed (the facility contains less than the maximum 170 beds)

Number of storeys

2 to 4

2 to 4

No change

Car parking spaces required

10

60

No change

Car parking spaces underground

10

30

No change

Ambulance Bay

1

1

No change

Disabled parking spaces

4

3 in basement

5 off Anzac Parade

No change

Building footprint

3,379

2,689

Additional 60 square metres (coffee bar extension)

Gross Floor Area (square metres)

11,277

8,847

Additional 60 square metres (coffee bar extension)

 

* While there is to be no net change to the number of car parking spaces on site, the modification seeks reallocation of spaces.  This is discussed in more detail in Sections 9 and 10 of this report.

 

9.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000

State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 2012

Randwick Development Control Plan, 2013

 

(a) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000

The relevant provisions of the EP&A Act, 1979 and Regulations, 2000 have been examined in Sections 5 and 10 to this report.

 

(b) State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

The proposed modifications to the residential care facility do not change the compliance with the relevant provisions of the SEPP.  With respect to on-site car parking, Clause 48 to the SEPP lists the minimum development standards which can not be used for refusing consent for a residential care facility as follows:

 

48.  Standards that cannot be used to refuse development consent for residential care facilities

A consent authority must not refuse consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter for the carrying out of development for the purpose of a residential care facility on any of the following grounds: ….

(d)    parking for residents and visitors: if at least the following is provided:

(i)   1 parking space for each 10 beds in the residential care facility (or 1 parking space for each 15 beds if the facility provides care only for persons with dementia), and

(ii)  1 parking space for each 2 persons to be employed in connection with the development and on duty at any one time, and

(iii)   1 parking space suitable for an ambulance.”

 

The SEPP requires the following on-site parking controls for the development as originally approved:

 

-    seventeen (17) spaces based on a maximum of 170 beds; plus

-    thirty-six (36) spaces based on a peak staff of seventy-one (71); and

-    one (1) ambulance space.

This is a total of fifty-four (54) spaces.

 

Development Consent DA/547/2011 as amended to date provides sixty (60) car parking spaces and one (1) ambulance bay.  This exceeds the standards of the SEPP.

 

This Section 96(2) modification proposes the relocation of two (2) car parking spaces and no net change to the total number of visitor and staff parking spaces.  Information submitted with the application for modification indicates the peak staff numbers are 58 (reduced from the 71 originally proposed).  The modified development maintains the car parking provisions of the original development with a total of 60 spaces and therefore exceeds the minimum standards for car parking in the SEPP.

 

(c)    State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

The SEPP requires any contaminated land to be suitably remediated for its proposed use.  The site was subject to two (2) Remediation Plans.  Site Audit Statements confirm that the land has been remediated to suitable standards prior to the commencement of construction of the residential care facility.

 

(d)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 was effective from 15 February, 2013 and applies to the assessment of the application.

 

The subject land is within Zone R1 General Residential in accordance with Randwick LEP 2012.  Seniors Housing (which includes residential care facilities) is permissible with consent in this zone.

 

The objectives of Zone R1 General Residential that are relevant to the modification of consent are listed in Randwick LEP 2012 as follows:

 

“•    To provide for the housing needs of the community.

•     To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

•     To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

•     To allow the comprehensive redevelopment of land for primarily residential and open space purposes.

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

•     To encourage housing affordability.

•     To enable small-scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.´

 

The modification of Development Consent DA547/2011 is consistent with the abovementioned objectives.  The proposed modifications will not change the nature, character and scale of the development and use of the site which adds to the variety of local residential accommodation and shall not be detrimental to the amenity of the locality and its residents.

 

The modifications comply with the principle development standards of Randwick LEP 2012.

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

There is to be no change to the building height which currently complies with the 15 metre height limit.

 

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

The floor space is to be increased by 60 square metres.  This does not change the overall floor space ratio of 0.82:1.  The maximum floor space ratio for the site is 0.9:1.

 

Clause 5.10 Heritage

In accordance with Clause 5.10(2) (iii) this application seeks consent to alter the exterior of a building within a heritage conservation area.  The effect of the modifications have been determined to be minor and are supported by Council’s Heritage Planner and the NSW Heritage Council as well as being consistent with the approved Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Graham Brooks and Associates Pty Limited and dated July 2011 which forms part of the supporting documentation referenced in Condition 1 to Development Consent DA/547/2011.  A separate Statement of Heritage Impact is not necessary.

 

9.1 Policy Controls

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

The Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan (Prince Henry DCP) was effective from 8 December 2004 and applied to the assessment of the original development application DA43/2005 and the subsequent additions and alterations DA547/2011.  This site specific development control plan has now been included in the Comprehensive DCP adopted by Council on 28 May, 2013 and to become effective from 14 June, 2013.

 

The objectives of the DCP that are relevant to the assessment of the subject application are:

 

“(a    ) to create a sustainable neighbourhood that integrates new and existing development

b)     to ensure design reflects the site’s unique location and characteristics

c)     to conserve the heritage significance of the Prince Henry site and the natural and cultural elements that contribute to the significance of the site and its setting.

e)     to ensure development reflects the principles of the adopted master plan for the site.

f)     to ensure development within the DCP area demonstrates architectural merit and incorporates high quality materials and finishes.

g)     to ensure development within the DCP area promotes and incorporates the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD).”

 

The proposed modifications are minor and are consistent with the objectives and controls of Randwick DCP 2013.  Both Development Consents DA43/2005 and DA547/2011 were complaint with the relevant controls and guidelines of the relevant DCP.  This modification is also compliant in full with the Randwick DCP 2013 inclusing the Site Specific Provisions in Section E4 – Prince Henry Site.  The site is within Precinct P3 to the Prince Henry Site and the modifications comply in full with the relevant provisions.  As the proposal is fully compliant, the individual controls and guidelines are not listed separately in this report.

 

9.2 Council Policies

There are no Council policies that apply to the assessment of the application.

 

 

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.  A summary of the matters for consideration listed in Section 79C(1) is presented in Table 2 below along with comments as to how these matters relate to the proposed amendment.

 

Table 2: Matters for Consideration under Section 79C to the EP&A Act, 1979 and their relevance to the application

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

See Section 9(b) to this report.  Complies.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

See Section 9(c) to this report.  Complies.

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

See Section 9(d) to this report.  Complies.

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

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

Not applicable

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

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

See Section 9.1 to this report. Complies.

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 proposed modification is consistent with the works and land uses granted Development Consent in accordance with DA43/2005 and DA547/2011.  There will be no detrimental impacts to:

-       the natural features of the environment,

-       heritage items within the site and in close proximity;

-       the heritage conservation area within which the site is located.

The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts.

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 proposed modifications make minor changes to the existing buildings and to the function of floor space.

 

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

 

There were no submissions.

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

The modifications will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts.

 

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

 

The modifications are improvements to the function and utility of the approved building and the common recreational spaces available to residents, visitors and staff.

 

Outcome 7:       Heritage that is protected and celebrated

Direction 7a:      Our heritage is recognised, protected and celebrated

 

The modifications are consistent with the Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Graham Brooks and Associates Pty limited and dated July 2011 which forms part of the supporting documentation referenced in Condition 1 to Development Consent DA/547/2011.  There will be no detrimental impacts to heritage items nor the broader conservation area.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The modifications are:

 

-      minor changes to the interior and exterior of the approved buildings with the potential to improve the utility and functionality of the facility for staff, residents and visitors;

-      enhancements to the common recreational space for the use and enjoyment of residents and visitors; and

-      reallocation of staff and visitor car parking spaces with overall on-site parking in excess of the minimum standards;

-      extensions to roof top screens for air conditioning units; and

-      minor adjustments to Condition No.87 to achieve a more practical response to incidents.

 

There will be no detrimental environmental, social, cultural or economic impacts and the resultant development will be consistent with all relevant environmental planning instruments, guidelines and policies.

 

There were no submissions in response to notification of the modifications.

 

The reasons given by the applicant in support of the modifications are considered reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

 

The modifications are in the public interest in that they are consistent with the applicable planning instruments and shall not be detrimental to the natural, social, economic and cultural environment.

 

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/547/2011/C for addition of bedroom to Brodie Avenue wing and alteration to support facilities, construction of gazebo and shade structure, new door to northern end of Anzac Parade wing, two additional carpark spaces in Brodie Avenue car park at 1420 Anzac Parade, Little Bay in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

DA.01 Issue B,  DA.02 Issue B, DA.03 Issue B, DA.04 Issue B dated 11/7/11, DA.05 Issue C dated 18/7/11, DA.06 Issue B, DA.07 Issue B, DA.08 Issue B dated 18/7/11, DA.09 Issue A, DA.10 Issue A dated 15/7/11, DA.19 Issue B, DA.20 Issue B, DA.21 Issue B, DA.22 Issue B dated 15/7/11 dated 18/7/11, DA.25 Issue A dated 18/7/11 as amended by detail plan DA.23 Issue A dated 13/10/11.

Eeles Trelease Pty Ltd Architects

Various.

Refer to plan nos.

Landscape Drawing Nos. 11016-DA01 Rev A, 110016-DA02 Rev A, 11016-DA03 Rev A, 11016-DA07 Rev A, 11016-DA08 Rev A

Aspect Studios

All dated 15 July 2011

Equinox: Shadow study isometric, Shadow study in Plan; Winter Solstice; Shadow Study in Isometric; Winter solstice Shadow Study

in Plan; Summer Solstice Shadow Study in Isometric; Summer solstice shadow Study in Plan.

 

 

Statement of Heritage Impact (SHI)

prepared by Graham Brooks and Associates Pty Ltd

dated July 2011.

Statement of Environmental Effect (SEE) Planning

prepared by HMUP Urban

 

dated 18 July 2011.

Visual Impact Study: Setting of Henry’s Trading Post

 Eeles Trelease Pty Ltd.

 

Traffic and Parking Report

Halcrow.

dated 15/07/2011

Storm Water Concept Plan No. 16740 Issue 1 by

Wallis & Spratt.

 

BCA Compliance Report

Blackett Maguire +

Goldsmith.

dated 14/07/2011

 

 

As amended by the Section 96’A’ plan numbered DA.03 Issue C, dated 1 June 2012 and received by Council on 4 June 2012, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application. 

 

As amended by the Section 96 ‘B’ plans numbered DA 00, DA01, DA02, DA03, DA04, DA05, DA19, DA20, DA22, issue E, dated 22 February 2013 and received by Council on 25 February 2013, including all accompanying documentation which forms part of this consent, in particular the letter and attachments dated 23 February 2013 from Thinc Projects, the Acoustic Report by Marshall Day Acoustics, dated 23 February 2013 and the Plan of Management for Onsite Waste Storage and Handling by Thinc Projects, endorsed by Council’s approval stamp.  The plans associated with the S96B application shall prevail over the plans for the previous Section 96 A application and the original development application in the case of any inconsistency, and

 

As amended by the Section 96 ‘C’ plans numbered DA01 Issue G – Site Plan, DA03 Issue I – Ground Floor Plan, DA04 Issue G – First Floor Plan, DA20 Issue G East and North Elevation, DA22 Issue G Section A-A, LPDA 13 Pergola Details 2: stage 3 dated June 2013 and received by Council on 7 June, 2013, , including all accompanying documentation which forms part of this consent, in particular the letters dated 22 April 2013 and 4 June 2012 from Helen Mucahy Urban Planning, endorsed by Council’s approval stamp.  The plans associated with the S96(C) application shall prevail over the plans for the previous Section 96 A and B application and the original development application in the case of any inconsistency.

 

And that Condition 87 be modified to state:

 

87.   The proprietor shall establish and maintain a formal and documented system for the recording and resolution of complaints made to the premises by nearby residents.  All complaints are to be attended to in a courteous and efficient manner and referred promptly to the Operations Manager.  The appropriate remedial action, where possible, is to be implemented as soon as possible and the Operations Manager is to contact the complainant within 48 hours to confirm the manner in which the issue is to be addressed and the proposed time frame for implementation.

 

Upon reasonable prior notice, the Operations Manager must make available the incident book to authorized Council officers.”

 

And Add New Condition 15B to state:

 

15B.  A total of 17 car-spaces within the development shall be allocated as visitor parking with associated signage/marking clearly indicating as such to be installed prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

NSW Heritage Council comments re S96 - 1420 Anzac Parade, Little Bay DA/547/2011/C

 

  


NSW Heritage Council comments re S96 - 1420 Anzac Parade, Little Bay DA/547/2011/C

Attachment 1

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                     25 June 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP39/13

 

 

Subject:                  3 Hamilton Street, Coogee (DA/266/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/266/2013

Author:                   GAT & Associates , Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of hard stand car park space to front of existing dwelling, including new retaining walls and steps and alteration to front fence

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Mr J A Thomas

Owner:                         Mr J A Thomas

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application has been assessed by an external consultant and referred to Council as the applicant is a relative of a Randwick City Council’s employee.

 

The application proposes to demolish a portion of the existing front boundary fence to create a hardstand car parking space within the front setback of the property.

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Hamilton Street between Division Street to the north and Alison Road to the south. The site contains a detached single dwelling that is elevated above street level. There is no off street parking currently associated with the dwelling.

 

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal seeks to demolish a portion of the existing part sandstone, part picket fence to Hamilton Street and construct a new vehicular crossing and hardstand car parking space.

 

The proposed parking space is to have dimensions of 5.1m x 3.0 metres.

 

The proposed space will be setback 1.4 metres off the southern side boundary. A planter box is proposed along this boundary.

 

Due to the siting of the proposed vehicular crossing/car space, an existing street tree will need to be removed.

 

The hardstand space is to be of brick paving with a sandstone retaining wall to either side of the car space. 

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is located on the western side of Hamilton Street, Coogee and comprises of a single detached dwelling. The property is legally referred to as Lot 2, Section 2, Deposited Plan 1637.

 

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential and is sited amongst a mix of one and two storey dwellings.

 

The site is rectangular in its shape with a frontage of 12.19 metres to Hamilton Street and a depth of 36.57 metres. The total site area is 445.7m².

 

A part sandstone, part picket fence runs the length of the front boundary.

 

Along the Council verge, there are two street trees located in front of the property. Of the two trees, the southern tree will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed space.

 

The dwelling does not provide for any off street car parking in its current form.

 

Adjoining the subject site to the north is No.1 Hamilton Street, a two storey brick dwelling with tiled roof, which like the subject site is elevated above street level.

 

To the south of the subject site is No. 5 Hamilton Street, a single storey brick dwelling which provides for a vehicular crossing and garage. It is noted however that No. 5 Hamilton Street is located a lower level than the subject property.

 

 

4.    Site History

 

Property Applications:

 

BA/430/1980,     Approved   ALTS & ADDS

DA/44/1999,      Approved   In ground pool to the rear of existing dwelling –

DA/992/2005,     Approved   Alterations and additions to dwelling.

 

5.    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 placed on notification for a period of 14 days from the 9th of May 2013 to the 23rd of May 2013.

 

5.1 Objections

No submissions were received.

 

5.2 Support

No submissions were received.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

Development Engineer:

An application has been received for a hardstand car space at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

·      Architectural Plans by P Banfield and dated 17/4/13;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by P Banfield.

 

Landscape Comments

On Council’s Hamilton Street verge, to the north of the existing pedestrian stairs and handrail, there are two Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box’s), with the southern tree being the smallest of the two, at about 4-5m in height, and is roughly halfway across the width of this site, with the larger, more northern tree towards the northern site boundary being about 6-7 metres in height.

 

Both appeared in good health and condition, are covered by the TPO due to their location on public property, and along with other established street trees to the south, were seen to make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

It would not be possible to retain the smaller, southern most tree and proceed with the new vehicle crossing and internal hardstand as has been shown the plans given that it is in direct conflict with tree, with the power pole towards the southern boundary, and then the larger tree to the north both being constraints that will not allow the crossing to be relocated elsewhere.

 

As the southern street tree is not significant in anyway, and as the northern street tree will remain, so as to minimise any visual impact or loss of amenity in the street, conditions in this report allow it to be removed by Council, at the applicant’s cost. 

 

As the verge is raised up above road level, excavations/battering will be required in the area between the northern edge of the proposed crossing and northern street tree upon completion, with protection measures needing to be included for this component to ensure it is not compromised.

 

While there are some shrubs within the front yard, none are significant enough to pose a constraint to the works in anyway, so can be removed where necessary to accommodate the proposed hardstand and associated retaining walls as shown, with new landscaping proposed within a planter box along the southern boundary, which will assist with presentation of the works to the street.

 

Car Space Comments

The submitted plans show a car space depth of 5.10m which exceeds the minimum requirements of 5.0m minimum for an application to be called to Council, and thus Council’s Development Engineering does not object to the length of the proposed car space of 5.10m, however, the plans show proposed stacked gates which will reduce the length of the off street car space when closed to less than the minimum 5.0m required.

 

Development Engineering recommends that the proposed stacked gates be deleted from the proposed plans and thus has included a condition in this report requiring the deletion of the stacked gates for the car space.

 

Footpath Comments

The subject site has a high level Council footpath which will have to be lowered so as to provide satisfactory vehicular access to the site, this appears to have previously been done at the adjoining property and thus there is no objection from Council’s Development Engineering regarding this. It should be noted that the owner shall meet all costs associated with reconstructing Council’s footpath to meet the new driveway levels.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning requirements apply to the subject site.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Given the scope of the proposed works, the following provides a summary of the controls relevant to the proposed works:

 

Clause 2.2 – Zoning of Land

The site is zoned R2 – Residential Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal seeks to create a vehicular crossing and hardstand carspace to the existing dwelling. The proposed works are permissible with the consent of Council.

 

The objectives of the zone are as follows:

 

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

·      To enable small-scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.

 

The proposal will retain the low density character of the area. The proposal will not alter the existing single dwelling and seeks only to provide a single hardstand car space.

 

No other land uses are proposed.

 

Along Hamilton Street, there are a number of dwelling houses that currently provide for off street car parking spaces including the adjoining property No. 5 Hamilton Street. In this regard, the proposal is not considered to be uncharacteristic of development in the street.

 

The proposed hardstand space is to be located within the front setback of the property and has been setback 1.4 metres from the southern side boundary. The garage of No. 5 Hamilton Street is also sited along this section of the boundary and as such it is unlikely that the siting of the space will pose any adverse impact to the amenity of the neighbouring property.

 

The proposal does not involve any works to the dwelling. The proposal does not seek any other land uses.

 

Clause 4.1 – Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Council requires a minimum lot size of 400m². The existing lot is 445.7m² in its area. The proposal will not alter the existing lot size.

Clause 5.9 – Preservation of Trees and Vegetation

There are two street trees located along the Council verge directly in front of the subject property. Of these trees, the southern tree will need to be removed to allow for the proposed vehicular crossing and hard stand space.


The presence of street trees along the footpath is characteristic along Hamilton Street and contributes towards a positive streetscape aesthetic.

 

An assessment has been made by Council’s Development Engineer and has made the following comments:

 

“On Council’s Hamilton Street verge, to the north of the existing pedestrian stairs and handrail, there are two Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box’s), with the southern tree being the smallest of the two, at about 4-5m in height, and is roughly halfway across the width of this site, with the larger, more northern tree towards the northern site boundary being about 607 metres in height….

 

As the southern street tree is not significant in any way, and as the northern street tree will remain, so as to minimise any visual impact or loss of amenity on the street, conditions in this report allow it to be removed by Council, at the applicant’s cost”.

 

Based on these comments, the removal of the tree is considered acceptable subject to new landscaping works being undertaken by the applicant including the proposed planter box along the southern side boundary.

 

A condition has also been included as part of this report which requires that 1 x 25 litre street tree of the same species is to be supplied and installed back on the verge in front of No. 5 so as to maintain the avenue planting along Hamilton Street.

 

Clause 6.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils

The site is not affected by acid sulfate soils.

 

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.

 

Cut and fill works are required to allow appropriate vehicular access to the site. This aspect has been discussed in detail by Council’s Development Engineer:

 

“The subject site has a high level Council footpath which will have to be lowered so as to provide satisfactory vehicular access to the site, this appears to have previously been done at the adjoining property and this there is no objection from Council’s Development Engineering regarding this. It should be noted that the owner shall meet all costs associated with reconstructing Council’s footpath to meet the new driveway levels”.

 

Conditions pertaining to the design alignment levels have also been included as part of this report and are to be reflected on the building plans submitted as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

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 submitted Statement of Environmental Effects notes that surface waters are to be collected and conveyed to Council’s stormwater drainage system. In line with these comments, the vehicular crossing and car space are to be designed as per the design alignment levels included as Condition 4 of this report. To ensure appropriate drainage is provided, it is also recommended that all surface water from the hard stand space must not be directed to adjoining properties but rather drain to the street

 

Clause 6.6 Foreshore Building Line

The site is not within the foreshore building line.

 

Clause 6.7 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The site is not within the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

Note all DAs lodged on or after the 15 February 2013 (the date of commencement of Randwick LEP 2012) will be assessed under Randwick LEP 2012 and draft Randwick Comprehensive DCP.

 

8.1.1          Randwick Comprehensive DCP

 

General Controls

 

Requirement

Proposed

Complies?

Landscaping and Biodiversity

Prepare a landscaped plan.

 

 

 

Given the scale of the proposed works, a detailed landscape plan is not required. Landscaping details have been shown on the submitted site plan.

Yes

 

 

 

Transport, Traffic, Parking & Access

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Car park location and design, streetscape and heritage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parking layout, configuration & dimensions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Access to Dwellings Elevated Above Retaining Walls

in Public Domain

 

 

 

 

1 space per dwelling house with up to 2

bedrooms

2 spaces per dwelling house with 3 or

more bedrooms

Note: Tandem parking for 2 vehicles is allowed.

 

Minimise loss of existing on street parking supply by:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ensure pedestrian and cycling safety is maintained or

improved.

 

 

An off street car space must be a minimum of 2.4m by

5.4m long and comply with AS 2890.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any provision of vehicular access to dwellings must

minimise demolition, modification and damage to existing

retaining walls within the public domain.

 

 

Double width driveway and entry to onsite parking

involving full or part removal of retaining walls in the public

domain must not be provided.

 

Development must not involve any significant change to

the existing gradients of public footpaths above the

retaining walls, except to facilitate equitable access.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The creation of an access driveway must not jeopardise

the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.

 

 

 

Works that require alteration or replacement of landscape

elements and structures (such as handrails) adjacent to

the public footpaths situated above retaining walls must be compatible with the streetscape character.

Proposal seeks a single car space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed vehicular crossing is only of a single car width. Given that the owners of the dwelling would have likely used the on street space, the status quo is retained given that the proposal seeks to provide a single off street parking space.

 

The proposed hard stand space is of an open design and will not impede sight lines.

 

 

The submitted plans show a car space depth of 5.10 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excavation works are required due to the slope of the land. However given that similar works have been undertaken to the adjoining southern property, the proposal is supported.

 

Single width driveway proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Development Engineer acknowledges that the subject site has a high level Council footpath that will need to be lowered so as to allow vehicular access to the site. There is no objection from Council’s Engineer in view of the similar works carried out at No. 5 Hamilton Street. A condition of consent has been included which requires detailed plans to be submitted prior to any construction certificate which demonstrates the proposed levels along the car space, driveway and grass verge.

 

The proposed driveway will not pose any safety issues. A condition of consent has been included which requires the existing power pole to be retained in its current location.

 

The submitted plan demonstrates that the footpath will be lowered to accommodate the proposed vehicular crossing. The proposed gradient will improve the pedestrian footpath.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Although non-compliant with the standard, it is considered that the proposed depth will adequately accommodate an average sized car. Council’s Development Engineer does not object to the variation, however a condition of consent has been included to delete the proposed stacked gates which when closed reduce the depth of the car parking space to less than 5.0 metres.  

 

yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Part C – Residential Development

 

Requirement

Proposed

Complies?

Site Coverage

301 to 450 sqm: 55%

Proposed site coverage is 173m² or 39%.

Yes

Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

301 to 450 sqm: 25%

 

Deep soil permeable surfaces must have a width of not less than 900mm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximise the amount of permeable surfaces in the front yards of new development.

 

Existing mature native trees on the site must be retained and incorporated in the landscape design whenever possible. Where a development involves removal of such existing trees, suitable replacement planting of equivalent or larger size must be provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed and existing retained trees must be protected by

locating paved areas, underground services (including

rainwater tanks) and building structures away from their root zones.

Proposed 49m² or 11%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Refer to comments above.

 

 

 

Although an existing street tree will be removed, this tree is not considered to be of any significance and its removal is supported. The northern street tree is however to be retained and protected through the course of the proposed works.  A condition of consent has also been included which requires the planting of a new tree along the grass verge to replace the tree that has been lost and to maintain consistency with the landscaped quality of Hamilton Street.

 

The existing northern street tree is to be retained as part of the proposed works.

It is noted that the site does not provide for any permeable landscaping within the rear yard at present.

 

In terms of the front setback, dwellings along Hamilton Street are typically provided with rather small front yards that are predominantly hard paved. Landscaped front gardens are therefore not characteristic of the street.

 

The subject site is also sited at a higher level than the adjoining southern properties and so the front yard is not a prominent feature to the street.

 

The provision of a planter box along the southern side boundary will assist in the presentation of the dwelling to the street. Also the use of gravel or grass-crete to the hard stand space would be a positive outcome/balance by increasing permeable surfaces. Given that there is no built structure proposed over the car space, the built form as viewed from the street is retained.

 

The proposed variation is therefore supported.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earthworks

Setback the outer edge of any excavation, piling or sub-surface walls a minimum of 900mm from the side and rear

boundaries

 

Step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures, particularly where visible from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

Complies. A 1.4 metre setback is maintained to the southern boundary.

 

 

 

 

A new sandstone retaining wall is proposed along the front boundary and to either side of the proposed car space. Details of this retaining wall are to be provided to Council as part of a Construction Certificate.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Safety and Security

Front fences, parking facilities and landscaping must be designed so as not to obstruct casual surveillance to and from the dwelling and permit safe access by residents and visitors.

As per the Development Engineer’s comments, the stacked gate is to be deleted from the plans. The open design of the hard stand space will not pose any impact to sight lines to and from the property.

Yes

Car Parking and Access

 

Location of Parking Facilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parking Facilities Forward of Front Facade Alignment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Driveway Configuration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hardstand Car Space Configuration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provide a maximum of 1 vehicular access per property.

 

Locate parking facilities off rear lanes, or secondary street frontages in the case of corner allotments, where available.

 

Where rear lane or secondary street access is not available, parking facilities must be located behind the front facade alignment, either integrated within the dwelling or positioned to the side of the dwelling.

 

 

 

 

Avoid long driveways that occupy large expanses of impermeable surfaces.

Where the provision of parking facilities behind the front facade alignment is not feasible (due to absence of rear

lane or secondary street access, narrow site width, irregular allotment configuration, or retention of an existing dwelling), parking facilities may be provided within the front setback.

 

 

The maximum width of driveway is as follows:

Single driveway – 3m

 

In addition, the width of driveway must be tapered towards the street boundary and preferably form a single width at that boundary.

 

Hardstand car spaces should include permeable materials, such as porous paving units. Gravels over deep soil may

be provided in between concrete wheel strips.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A hardstand car space must have minimum dimensions of

2.4m x 5.4m.

 

 

 

Only one vehicular crossing is proposed.

 

 

Not applicable. There is no rear lane or secondary frontage available.

 

 

 

Proposal seeks to provide a hardstand car space forward of the building line.

Complies. The proposed hard stand space adjoins the front boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal seeks to provide a parking space forward of the front facade alignment. The proposed space has been designed as an uncovered single car space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum driveway width of 3.0 metres proposed.

 

Single width driveway proposed. Car space adjoins the front boundary of the property.

 

 

Selected paving. adjoining pedestrian path from the entry gate to the verandah may be hard paved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal seeks a hard stand space of 3.0m x 5.1m.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

Given the siting of the existing dwelling, no other practical position exists. The open nature of the space will not alter the presentation of the dwelling to the street or sight lines to and from the property.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Due to the non-compliance with landscaping, a condition of consent has been included to amend the driveway material from brick paving to a permeable material. Such details are to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The area of permeable material applies to the area of the car space only, while the

 

Although the proposed depth falls short of the requirement, it is considered that an average sized car can be accommodated within these dimensions. The proposed car space dimensions have also been supported by Council’s Development Engineer, with a condition included that requires the proposed stacked gates to be deleted from the plans. The inclusion of the stacked gates would mean the car space is reduced to a depth of less than 5.0 metres and would restrict any vehicle parking.

 

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 1998 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 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 proposal will be in keeping with the aesthetic character of the locality.

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

Not applicable

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

The proposal generally satisfies the controls contained within the Randwick Comprehensive DCP except where discussed in this report.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The 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 proposal is considered to be consistent with the scale and form of similar parking arrangements along Hamilton Street. The open nature of the car parking space will not give rise to any adverse impact to adjoining properties.

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

There were no submissions received as part of this proposal.

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

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in Urban Design and Development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed works have been assessed against Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is considered satisfactory.

 

The proposed works are considered appropriate within the context of the site. The application is recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

 

Recommendation

 

       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 266/13 for Construction of hard stand car park space to front of existing dwelling, including new retaining walls and steps and alteration to front fence at No. 3 Hamilton Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DWG No 16/13 Proposed Hard Stand Car Space

Peter Banfield

17/4/13

3 May 2013

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

The following conditions of consent must be complied with before a ‘Construction Certificate’ is issued by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be included in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

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

Consent Requirements

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

 

Security Deposit

3.       The following damage / civil works security deposit requirement must be complied with 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:

 

·           $600.00     -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the civil works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's infrastructure.

 

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

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Director of City Services upon issuing of an occupation certificate or completion of the civil works.

 

Design Alignment levels

4.       The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for the driveway and pedestrian entrance, shall be:

 

·        RL 49.35  (Refer to Survey Mark shown on plans)

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

The amended plans must also detail the levels across the Council verge to ensure that that the grass verge/pedestrian path is not adversely affected.

 

To ensure appropriate drainage is provided, all surface water from the hard stand space must not be directed to adjoining properties but should drain directly to Hamilton Street.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0923.

 

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

 

Space Gates

6.       Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the approved plans are to be amended showing the deletion of the proposed timber picket stacking gates.

 

Note: This is so as to provide a minimum 5.00m length for the car space at all times.

 

Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

7.       Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, amended plans are to be submitted which detail the proposed plants to be used within the proposed planter box. Permeable materials such as porous paving units or gravel or deep soil may be provided in between concrete wheel strips. Use of grass-crete is also an acceptable outcome. The area of permeable material is restricted to the area of the car space only, while the adjoining pedestrian path from the entry gate to the verandah may be hard paved.

 

Street Tree Management

8.       The applicant shall submit a total payment of $415.25 (including GST), to cover the following costs:

 

a.       For Council to remove, stump-grind and dispose of the most southern street tree, Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) from the Hamilton Street verge, prior to the commencement of any site works, so as to accommodate the proposed crossing in this same area as shown; and;

 

b.       Being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre street tree of the same species back on the verge in front of no.5 so as to maintain the avenue planting in this street.

 

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

 

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

 

Street Tree Protection

9.       In order to ensure retention of the most northern street tree on Council’s Hamilton Street verge, towards the northern site boundary, and to the north of the proposed vehicle crossing, being a Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show its retention, with the position and diameter of both its trunk and canopy to be clearly and accurately shown in relation to the proposed works.

 

b.       All plans must show that the northern edge of the proposed crossing will be offset a minimum distance of 5 metres, measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level, with the ground level between the tree and the crossing and kerb to be graded smoothly and evenly upon completion so as to match in with surrounding/existing levels.

 

c.       Any excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar over public property must be located either along the southern site boundary, or, along either side of the proposed crossing.

 

d.       This tree must be physically protected by installing evenly spaced star pickets at a setback of 2 metres to its south, west and north (measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level), as well as against the footpath to its east, to which, safety tape/para-webbing/shade cloth or similar shall be permanently attached so as to completely enclose this tree for the duration of works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

h.       Any roots encountered during the course of the approved works must be cut cleanly by hand, and the affected area backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

i.        A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card or cheque for an amount of $500.00 shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of the tree.

 

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

 

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

 

Long Service Levy Payments

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The requirements contained in the following conditions of consent must be complied with and details of compliance must be included in the construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

 

Design Alignment levels

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

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0923.

 

Driveway Design

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

 

Stormwater Drainage

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

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

 

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

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

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

 

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

 

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

Construction Site Management Plan

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

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

·           location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·           location of building materials for construction;

·           provisions for public safety;

·           dust control measures;

·           site access location and construction

·           details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·           protective measures for tree preservation;

·           provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·           location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·           details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·           provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·           construction noise and vibration management;

·           construction traffic management details.

 

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

 

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

 

Public Utilities

19.     A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

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

 

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

 

Tree Management

20.     No objections are raised to the removal of any existing vegetation throughout the front setback where necessary in order to accommodate the proposed works and landscaping as shown.

 

Landscaping

21.     Landscaping within the raised planter proposed along the southern side of the internal hardstand must use a high quality selection and arrangement of decorative species so as to assist with presentation of the development to the streetscape.

 

Inspections During Construction

22.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority, in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Site Signage

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

·           name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

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

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

 

Restriction on Working Hours

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, vibratory rollers/compactors or the like

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

·  

 

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

 

Demolition Work Requirements

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

·           Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and Regulations

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

·           WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations

·           Relevant DECCW/EPA Guidelines

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

·               Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

·               Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

g)     Temporary safety fencing is to be provided to any swimming pools under construction, pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

29.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Building Encroachments

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

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

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

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

34.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

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

 

a.       Reconstruct the Council footpath to suit the new vehicular entrance and pedestrian gate entrance. This may require the construction of steps north of the new pedestrian entrance.

 

35.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

36.     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.

 

a)     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 an occupation certificate being issued for the development, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

b)     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.

 

c)     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.

 

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

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

38.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

 

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.

 

None.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

·          Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

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

·          Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.

 

A1      The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

A2      Demolition, building or excavation work must not be commenced until;

 

§  A Construction Certificate has been obtained from Council or an Accredited Certifier

§  Council or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority for the development

§  Council and the Principal Certifying Authority have been given at least 2 days notice (in writing) prior to commencing any works.

 

A3      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A4      Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team can issue Construction Certificates and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

A5      A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

§  Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

§  Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

§  Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

A6      Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

A7      Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A8      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

§  the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

§  an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

§  an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

§  an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     25 June 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP40/13

 

 

Subject:                  301 Alison Road, Coogee (DA/101/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/101/2013

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of a 3-storey residential flat building comprising two blocks with a total of 8 units, basement car parking for 12 vehicles, landscaping and associated stormwater management works

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Sebaro Investment Corporation

Owner:                         David Adler Pty. Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.      Executive Summary

 

The development application is referred to Council as it involves variation to the building height standard by more than 10%.

 

The applicant has lodged a Class 1 Appeal with the Land and Environment Court for deemed refusal of the proposal. 

 

The application was advertised and notified from 6 to 20 March 2013 in accordance with the Randwick DCP. A total of four (4) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised are primarily related to building height, wall height, streetscape, rear setback, overshadowing, privacy, view loss, stormwater management and planning precedent.

 

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposed development is permissible with consent.

 

Clause 4.3 and the map of the LEP specify a maximum building height of 9.5m for the subject site. The proposed maximum building heights amount to 12.5m for Block A and 12.1m for Block B, and exceed the standard by 3m and 2.6m respectively.

 

The site has complex contours with a deep depression across the middle portion. The allotment width is only 15.5m. The massing, form and height of the proposed development have not incorporated appropriate stepping to respect the sloping topography. The resultant structures have an overwhelming scale and bulk which are visually intrusive to the adjoining residences and the street. The proposal has not demonstrated a skilful design that fits into the local character. In this case, in order to present a suitably scaled infill development, it is imperative that the maximum height standard be complied with.

 

The site analysis that supports the design fails to consider the desirable architectural and urban design outcomes from possible redevelopment of the surrounding land, which would be achieved by complying with the development standards in the new LEP and the control provisions in the Comprehensive DCP. Instead, the proposal has chosen to rely on the precedent of a number of existing taller buildings scattered in the surrounding areas, which were developed in the 1960’s and inter war period. The proposed building height resembles developments envisaged in those R3 Zones that are subject to a 12m height limit, and is one that is incompatible with the subject locality.

 

The proposal has correctly envisaged that the adjoining properties at No. 297 and 303 Alison Road are likely to be further developed or redeveloped in the foreseeable future. However, the shadow diagrams only indicate the expected overshadowing on the existing dwellings, and do not attempt to establish the potential impacts on plausible development scenarios, in particular the additional impacts associated with the non-compliant building height. Furthermore, the application has not included reliable shadow diagrams to describe the impacts on the adjoining residential flat building to the rear at No. 16-18 Abbott Street.

 

The development scheme overwhelmingly relies on mechanical stackers for the parking of vehicles. The application does not contain the necessary information for assessing the suitability of this arrangement and the implications on traffic safety.

 

The proposal has not appropriately formulated the design detailing of the building, resulting in poor waste management, landscape treatment, internal amenity, safety and security and privacy intrusion to the neighbours.

 

For the above reasons, the proposal is recommended for REFUSAL.

 

2.      The Proposal

 

The proposal is for the construction of a 3-storey residential flat building comprising two blocks with a total of 8 units, basement car parking for 12 vehicles, landscaping and associated stormwater management works.

 

Dwelling mix:

Block

Floor Level

Unit Number

Type

Block A

Ground level

A.01

1-bedroom

First level

A.02

3-bedroom

Second level

A.03

3-bedroom

Block B

Ground level

B.01

1-bedroom

B.02

2-bedroom

First level

B.03

1-bedroom

B.04

2-bedroom

Second level

B.05

2-bedroom

 

Photomontage of the proposed development as viewed from Alison Road

(Source: Jackson Teece Architecture)

 

3.      Exceptions to Development Standards

 

The proposal contravenes the building height development standard contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

 

(i) Building height

Clause 4.3 and the height map of the LEP specify a maximum building height of 9.5m for the subject site. The proposed maximum building heights amount to 12.5m (east elevation) for Block A and 12.1m (east elevation) for Block B, and exceed the standard by 3m and 2.6m respectively. The above departure is equivalent to 31.6% and 27.4% for Blocks A and B respectively. The non-compliance is illustrated in the diagrams below.

 

 

 

Source: GSA Planning

 

(ii) Assessment against the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the development standard

In assessing the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the building height standard, the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 are relevant to the subject proposal. The above case specifically relates to objections to development standards pursuant to the then State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards, which has already been superseded by the provisions of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards of RLEP 2012. Notwithstanding, the key matters for consideration are still applicable to the proposed variation to the development standard under the new LEP. The relevant matters are addressed as follows:

 

The Court must be satisfied that “the objection is well founded”. 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”.

 

Comments:

The objectives of the building height standard 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.

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

 

 

It is considered that the proposal is unsatisfactory and strict compliance with the height standard is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

·      The primary argument presented in the applicant’s written justifications is that the locality already contains 3 and 4 storeys high residential buildings, and that strict compliance with the standard will result in “built form and scale that is [are] out of character with the surrounding and adjoining developments”. The document has included the following diagram to support the above claim.

 

Source: Page 5 Exceptions to Development Standards, GSA Planning

 

In assessing the physical character of the proposal, it is appropriate to examine a study area in which there is visual connection between the subject development and the surrounding buildings (that is, a visual catchment), and one within which the proposed structures would be viewed and compared. In this context, the locality should be defined as the immediate urban block within which the subject site is located, in particular the streetscape on the southern side of Alison Road. The northern side of Alison Road is significantly elevated and the true scale and bulk of buildings are partially obscured due to perspective effects. Accordingly, the buildings on the northern side of Alison Road only have little visual connection to the subject development.

 

The height of the existing buildings on the southern side of Alison Road, and those located to the rear of the site are summarised in the table below. Whilst Council’s planning controls are not structured in terms of the number of storeys, in the absence of accurate survey data, the following utilises storey height as a basis for comparison. 

 

Address

Storeys above street level

Building type

285-291 Alison Road

4

1960’s residential flat buildings

293

3

Inter-war residential flat building

295

1

Detached dwelling

297

1

Detached dwelling

303

1.5

(3 storeys in total)

Inter-war residential flat building

305

1

(2 storeys in total)

Detached dwelling

307

2

(3 storeys in total)

Detached dwelling

309

2

Detached dwelling

311

2

Detached dwelling converted to flats

32 Mount Street

2

(3 storeys in total)

1960’s residential flat building

16-18 Abbott Street

4

1960’s residential flat building

20 Abbott Street

3

1960’s residential flat building

 

The above demonstrates that the visual catchment to the site contains a mixture of detached and multi-unit residential developments with varying building heights. Some of these sites are likely to be redeveloped or further developed in the foreseeable future due to the relative low scale of the existing buildings compared to the land sizes.


All of the 3- and 4-storey buildings in the immediate locality were developed in the 1960’s and inter-war period pursuant to very different planning and building control regimes. Moreover, the residential flat buildings at No. 285-291 Alison Road, No. 16-18 Abbott Street and No. 20 Abbott Street are situated on considerably larger and wider allotments than the subject site. It should be noted that the buildings at No. 285-291 Alison Road are elevated from the street and are significantly screened by dense vegetation. Whilst the apartment buildings in Abbott Street are discernible and visible to a degree from Alison Road, they are separated substantially from the subject site frontage which would reduce their visual relevance to the proposal. The 3-storey inter-war flat building at No. 293 is setback approximately 17m from the Alison Road boundary, its height and scale are mitigated by the degree of the existing front setback.

 

The site analysis fails to consider the desirable architectural and urban design outcomes from possible redevelopment of the surrounding land, which would be achieved by complying with the development standards in the new LEP and the control provisions in the DCP. Instead, the proposal has chosen to rely on these historical precedents for supporting the excessive scale of the development being sought. The analysis fails to critically examine the desirable character for the visual catchment in question. In this respect, the exercise that compares the proposed development against taller existing buildings scattered over the surrounding blocks is erroneous and expedient. The proposed building height resembles the scale and bulk of developments envisaged in those R3 zones that are subject to a 12m height limit, and is one that is incompatible with the subject locality.

 

·      The site has complex contours with a deep depression across the middle portion. The allotment width is only 15.5m. The massing and height of the proposed development do not respect the sloping topography and narrowness of the allotment. Despite the compliant side setbacks (with the DCP), the excessive scale and bulk would be visually overwhelming and intrusive to the street and the adjoining residences.

 

More specifically, Block A has a tower form without adequate stepping in respect to the site contours. The top storey substantially breaches the building height standard. The applicant’s submission (page 6) claims that Block A complies with the 9.5m height limit at the street frontage. An examination of the elevation drawings indicates that this is incorrect. The roof structures at the street frontage clearly exceed the 9.5m height line. In the scenario where the design strictly complies with the standard, a more harmonious built form compatible with the character of the adjoining properties would have been created.

 

Block B has incorporated a step in the northern section by setting back the top storey (second floor). Notwithstanding, both the ground and first levels have a deep length of approximately 25m, which in conjunction with the top storey, will create overwhelming visual bulk. Full compliance with the height standard would have resulted in a much reduced top floor footprint and hence ameliorate the scale of the building. 

 

Instead of appropriately addressing the site conditions, the proposal has indeed chosen to re-interpret the LEP control by arguing that an assumed ground line excluding the central depression should have been adopted in the measurement of building height (see diagram below). This planning approach is flawed, is inconsistent with the provisions of the LEP, and represents an ignorance of the topographical constraints. In this case, in order to present a suitably scaled infill development, it is imperative that the maximum height standard be complied with.

 

 

Source: Page 3 of “Exceptions to Development Standard”, GSA Planning

 

·      The proposal has correctly envisaged that the adjoining properties at Nos. 297 and 303 are likely to be further developed or redeveloped in the foreseeable future, as the existing structures are below the FSR and building height standards allowable under the LEP. The application has included a site analysis plan that attempts to demonstrate indicative building footprints for these properties (refer to drawing DA003 Concept Master Plan).

 

However, the submitted shadow diagrams only indicate the expected overshadowing on the existing dwellings, and do not attempt to establish the potential impacts on plausible development scenarios, in particular the additional impacts that would be caused by the non-compliant building height. The analysis is selective and biased, and has not thoroughly examined the full amenity impacts flowing from the massing and scale of the non-compliant portions of the development scheme.

 

The application has not included reliable shadow diagrams to describe the potential impacts on the adjoining residential flat building at No. 16-18 Abbott Street. Although indicative diagrams have been given during a meeting between Council and the applicant, there is no evidence that they are based on accurate spot levels and reference levels determined in a proper survey plan. The accurate extent of overshadowing, and the impacts associated with the non-compliant building height, cannot be ascertained based on the current information.

 

·      The applicant’s key reasoning for the proposed building height (Statement of Environmental Effects pages 9 and 16) is to elevate the buildings to accommodate the overland stormwater flow. According to the submitted Flood Risk Management Plan, the designated flood level (100-year ARI) beneath the building footprints is RL 15.90 AHD.

 

The finished ground floor levels for Blocks A and B have been raised to RL 18.85 and RL 17.20 respectively. Accordingly, the ground levels for Blocks A and B are 2.95m and 1.3m above the designated flood level respectively. However, the building height for Block B exceeds the LEP limit by up to 2.6m. For Block B, the proposed building height is well over the required height necessary to overcome the flood level. The argument for the degree of building height proposed due to flood management is unconvincing.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s submission has not convincingly and successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. There are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the standard.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the upholding of the height standard would result in more appropriate built form, scale and mass that are compatible with the streetscape, and would avoid unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties. The proposal in its current form will not be in the public interest as it is not consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the zoning objectives.

 

Whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.

 

Comments:

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical height standard will be more conducive to the orderly use of the site and contribute to the public benefit.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

Preston C J expressed the view that a variation to a development standard may be well founded in a variety of ways:

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard in question is reasonable and necessary. The design scheme will not achieve the purposes of the height standard.

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is relevant to the subject development. As discussed, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the building height standard.

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 objective of the height standard would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is reasonable and necessary. The proposed building height will not be compatible with the desired future character for the locality and will result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbours. The resultant built form and scale do not represent a suitable infill development.

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The development standards contained in RLEP 2012 have not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council. RLEP 2012 was recently gazetted on 15 February 2013 and the control provisions of the LEP are the result of comprehensive analysis of the development patterns in the Randwick LGA. 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:

RLEP 2012 was recently gazetted on 15 February 2013 and the zoning provisions of the LEP are the result of comprehensive analysis of the development patterns in the Randwick LGA. RLEP 2012 has zoned the site to R3 Medium Density Residential, where the key objective is to “provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment”. The current zoning has a sound basis and is not considered to be unreasonable and inappropriate.

 

The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Clauses 4.6(3) and (4) of the LEP. Therefore, the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the height standard are not considered to be well founded and are not supported.

 

4.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot A in DP 311459, No. 301 Alison Road. The site is located on the southern side of Alison Road between Melody and Mount Streets. The land area and dimensions of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land Area

Northern, Alison Road boundary

15.545m

938.8m2

Southern, rear boundary

15.545m

Eastern, side boundary

60.39m

Western, side boundary

60.40m

 

The land falls approximately 4m from the street frontage (RL19.16) towards the bottom of an embankment at the rear portion of the allotment (RL15.05). The site levels then rise again by 1.77mm to the top of the embankment (RL16.82). Thereafter, the land gradually slopes upwards by 1.1m towards the base of the retaining wall along the rear property boundary (RL17.92).

 

There is also a cross fall along the street boundary from east to west of 2.22m. 

 

Due to the topographical depression, a flood path traverses the site. There is a Council stormwater pipeline and a Sydney Water sewer main running diagonally across the front and middle portions of the site respectively.

 

The site is presently vacant. To the east is a part 2- and part 3-storey residential flat building (No. 303 Alison Road). To the west is a single storey detached dwelling with an access handle from Abbott Street (No. 297 Alison Road). To the south is a 4-storey residential flat building (No. 16-18 Abbott Street). The subject urban block is characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi unit residential developments. 

 

Subject site

 

Panoramic view of the southern side of Alison Road

 

The subject site, as viewed from the top of the embankment looking north towards Alison Road

Side elevation of the existing residential flat building at No. 303 Alison Road, as viewed from the subject site

Side elevation of the existing dwelling at No. 297 Alison Road, as viewed from the subject site

The adjoining residential flat building to the rear of the site at No. 16-18 Abbott Street

(Source of photographs: Jackson Teece Architecture)

 

Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding built environment

 

5.      Site History

 

5.1    Land and Environment Court proceedings

A Class 1 Appeal for deemed refusal of the subject application was lodged with the Land and Environment Court on 29 May 2013.

 

5.2    Previous applications relating to the site

DA/239/2009

Demolition of the existing fire damaged house and tree removal.

Approved by Council on 21 May 2009.

DA/19/2010

Construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising 5 townhouses and associated car parking and Strata subdivision.

Refused by Council on 21 September 2010.

DA/69/2011

Construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising 3 dwellings, car parking and associated works.

Approved by Council on 14 June 2011.

 

The key characteristics of this approved proposal are as follows:

·      Landscaped area: 47% of site area (RLEP 1998 standard: 50%)

·      FSR: 0.615:1 (RLEP 1998 standard: 0.65:1)

·      Building height: 9.3m (RLEP 1998 standard 9.5m)

·      External wall height: 9.155m (RLEP 1998 standard 7m)

 

It should be noted that this proposal complies with the overall building height requirement of the LEP applicable at the time. It does not comply with the external wall height standard. There is a marginal breach of the landscaped area standard.

 

6.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 6 to 20 March 2013 in accordance with the requirements of the then Draft Randwick DCP. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

·      12 Abbott Street, Coogee

·      Body Corporate for 16-18 Abbott Street, Coogee

·      Planning consultant on behalf of the owner of 297 Alison Road, Coogee

·      Owners of 303 Alison Road, Coogee

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The proposed rear setback does not comply with the DCP controls.

Noted. The application does not provide adequate information relating to potential shadow impacts on the rear adjoining properties. Based on the current level of information, the departure from the rear setback control in the DCP cannot be supported. Refer to the “Policy Control” section of this report for details. 

The building height and wall height are excessive and represent a substantial departure from the current planning controls contained in RLEP 2012 and DCP.

Agreed. The proposed building height and external wall height are not supported. Refer to the “Exceptions to Development Standards” and “Policy Control” sections of this report for details.

Although the proposal complies with the FSR control, the inadequate distribution of floor space results in an excessive height.

The proposed building and external wall heights are not supported.

The insertion of a 3-storey building will dominate the streetscape and will be contrary to the zoning objectives for the area.

Council’s planning controls are not structured in terms of the number of storeys. Nevertheless, the proposed building and external wall heights are considered to be excessive and are not supported.

The proposal should be designed to conform to the constraints of the site. On a sloping site, stepping of the development is anticipated so that the overall height relates as much as possible to the natural topography.

Agreed. The proposed built form and massing do not respect the natural topography of the site and are not supported.

The proposed development will unreasonably overshadow the adjoining properties at 16-18 Abbott Street and 303 Alison Road.

 

The submitted shadow diagrams do not demonstrate the expected impacts on the rear adjoining properties.

The application does not contain sufficient and adequate information to enable assessment of the potential overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties to the south.

 

The diagrams have not described the potential impacts on any possible redevelopment or further development of 303 Alison Road.

 

Based on the current information, the height and rear setbacks of the development cannot be supported.

The proposed development will cause detrimental privacy impacts on the neighbours. 

The location and configuration of the windows and balconies are not considered to result in detrimental privacy impacts on the neighbours.

 

However, the terrace to the top floor unit of Block B (Unit B.05) would overlook the adjoining properties. It also has an excessive size that enables congregation and significant noise emission. This element of the proposal is considered to result in unreasonable privacy impacts.

The dwelling at 12 Abbott Street has a view over the subject site. The variation from the height controls will have an impact on this view.

A submission has been received from No. 12 Abbott Street raising issues relating to view loss. The submission claims that the property has a view over the subject site. However, it has also acknowledged that “it is not an ocean view or spectacular scenery”.

 

Due to the location and topography of the subject site and adjoining properties, and their distance from the waterfront, it is not considered that the proposal will result in unreasonable view loss impacts.

The proposal will result in stormwater overland flow into the adjoining properties.

Refer to the “Technical Officers Comments” section of this report for detailed comments on stormwater management issues.

The proposed building and excavation works, in conjunction with the re-routing of the underground stormwater pipe, will adversely affect the structural integrity of the adjoining property at 303 Alison Road.

A standard condition could be imposed to require the preparation of a dilapidation report prior to the commencement of any works on the site. The report would serve as written evidence for monitoring any construction related damage.

The proposal incorporates a floodway of 11m in width. No information has been presented to justify the above component.

Refer to the “Technical Officers Comments” section of this report for detailed comments on stormwater management issues.

The approval of the subject application will establish an undesirable precedent that enables other non-compliant development schemes.

The development standards of RLEP 2012 have been formulated following a comprehensive analysis of the emerging and desirable development patterns within the Randwick LGA.

 

The proposed variation from the building height standard is excessive and inconsistent with the planning intent for the area.

 

The proposal would be the first development within the subject section of Alison Road that falls under RLEP 2012. The approval of this inappropriate scheme would establish an undesirable planning precedent.

 

7.      Technical Officers Comments

 

7.1    Building Surveyor

Council’s Building Surveyor raises no objections to the proposal, subject to standard conditions.

 

7.2    Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

 

General Comments

The Assessment Planner for this application has advised the Development Engineer that the application is unlikely to be supported due to a raft of planning related non-compliances. This report has been prepared on the basis of a recommendation for refusal of the application. Accordingly no recommended engineering conditions of development consent have been provided. Comments relating to what issues could have been conditioned are still included within this report.

 

Traffic / Parking Comments

 

·      General Comments

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 8 residential units will be in the range of 32 to 40 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 5 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Alison Road as a result of this development.

 

·      Car Parking Comments

Car parking requirements:

1 space per 2 studios

1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2)

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

Calculations:

3 x 1-bedroom units @ 1 space each

= 3 spaces

3 x 2-bedroom units @ 1.2 space each

= 3.6 spaces

2 x 3-bedroom units @ 1.5 space each

= 3 spaces

Visitor 8 units / 4 = 2 spaces

 

Total car parking requirement:

9.6 resident spaces + 2 visitor spaces

= 11.6 or 12 spaces

 

The proposal contains 12 car spaces, of which 10 spaces are in mechanical stackers. The Assessment Planner has provided detailed comments on the car parking arrangement and these comments are supported. The application fails to provide details/specifications on the mechanical stackers and elements of the carpark appear to be non-compliant with the relevant provisions of AS 2890.1-2004.

 

·      Vehicular Crossing / Internal Driveway Comments

The drivers of vehicles exiting the site and of eastbound vehicles turning right into the site have limited sight distance to the east. A condition/s of consent requiring all vehicles to make left in / left out movements would have been included within this report.

 

The applicant’s traffic consultant has stated that the sight distance for drivers exiting the site meets the relevant standard. This sight distance is considered to be at the very lowest end of the standard and conditions of consent requiring pruning of trees, left out movements and the applicant meeting the cost for possible signage / linemarking would need to be included within any consent. The driveway location is positive with respect to future access to the proposed relocated pipeline however location of the driveway on the western side of the property would have been preferred with respect to sight distance. This element of the design is something that ideally would have been analysed in more detail before issuing development consent.

 

The driveway opening at the Alison Road frontage has been shown at 5.5 metres. This width could be reduced to 3.6 metres wide providing the eastern edge of the driveway is located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

Landscape Comments

On Council’s Alison Road nature strip, around the eastern site boundary, there is a row of three, 3m tall Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush’s). To facilitate construction of the vehicular crossing, and to improve the site distance to the east for exiting  drivers, the western most tree would require removal and the other trees would need under-pruning.

 

Within the front yard, about halfway across the width of the front boundary, there is an 8 metre tall Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus), which while appearing in fair health and condition, is regarded as an undesirable species as after flowering, the seed pods release fibres that are highly irritable to both humans and animals. This alone is enough to justify its removal, and as there are also significant works proposed for this same area of the site, approval would be granted for its removal.

 

To the southeast of the tree described above, along the eastern site boundary, there is a 7 metre tall Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) which appeared in good health and fair condition, is covered by the TPO, and was observed to perform a screening and privacy function between this site and the adjoining two storey building to the east, 303 Alison Road.

 

However, major excavation and construction works associated with a new concrete stormwater pipe will be undertaken in this same area of the site, and as the positioning of this pipe is critical to the development given the need to connect to existing infrastructure, an alternative design to ensure its preservation will not be possible.  As such, approval would have been granted for its removal. Suitable replacement planting, as close as possible to the location of the tree to be removed, would have been conditioned.

 

The most established trees at this property are along the western boundary, where there is from north to south, a row of three Populus nigra ‘Italica’ (Lombardy Poplars) of between 12-15 metres in height, and a 9 metre tall Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box), which are all covered by Council’s TPO, are semi-mature to mature examples of their respective species, and are part of this area’s leafy character, being a remnant gully.

 

The Brush Box is in poor condition due to an included branch junction between its two main vertical leaders and a sparse canopy cover, with Poplars notorious for their structural deficiencies due to the incidence of internal decay, and are prone to failure, which poses a safety risk to both person and property.

 

Further, due to the size and height of the Poplars, the setback or exclusion zone required off their trunks to avoid damage to their root systems would be substantial, and would have a significant impact on the layout of the entire proposal.

 

Separate approval was granted to remove the Poplars for exactly the reasons described above as part of TA/254/2005. No objections are raised to their removal.

 

While the eastern aspect of the large Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel) growing in the front yard of the adjoining property to the west, 297 Alison Road, overhangs above the subject site, it should not be affected by the proposed works. Similarly there should be no adverse impact on the 5m x 5m Leptospermum patersonii (Lemon Scented Tea Tree) in the rear yard of 303 Alison Road, close to the common boundary.

 

Beyond the southeast corner of the site, in the rear yard of the adjoining property to the east, 303 Alison Road, there is a Eucalyptus punctata (Grey Gum), of approximately 10 metres in height, which appears in poor condition as its trunk is leaning acutely to the west, and while its canopy has self-corrected this over time, there is a minor amount of overhang into the subject site. Conditions allowing the selective pruning of those lower order branches (not than the main structural leader), so as to avoid damage to the tree and/or conflict with the works, could be included if consent was to be issued.

 

The Brush Box beyond the southwest corner of the site should not be affected given a combination of its setback from the works and the presence of an existing brick retaining wall on the common boundary, as this would have prevented the growth of roots into the area of the proposed works.

 

Additional street tree plantings would not be required due to the limited sight distance available to the drivers of vehicles exiting the site.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The development proposal requires realignment of the council controlled stormwater pipeline that runs through the development site. Council’s Drainage Engineer (both at a pre-submission meeting with the applicant’s hydraulic consultant and since receipt of the application), has given in principle support to the location of the realigned pipeline. Conditions would have been required, however, to modify aspects of the concept design for the pipeline, (including a possible increase in the diameter of the pipeline). Note: changes to the design of the realigned pipeline would require modifications to the concept internal stormwater design submitted with the development application.

 

Detailed conditions relating to council’s requirements for gaining future access to the pipeline would have been included within any consent. The applicant would be responsible for relocation of / modification to any services likely to be impacted by construction of the realigned pipeline. The general requirements of the various service authorities should have been obtained before lodgement of the development application.

 

The development proposal makes provision for stormwater overland flow across the site in the general location of the existing overland stormwater flowpath, (albeit with some sections constricted / narrowed below the existing flowpath widths). To ensure that the integrity of the overland flowpath is maintained creation of a suitably worded restriction on use and positive covenant would have been conditioned within this report.

 

The proposal “cuts” into the existing overland flowpath through the site, (both Block A and Block B). The constriction of the overland flowpath leads to an increase in velocity adjacent to the common boundary with 297 Alison Road and through the development site. The applicant would have been conditioned to examine further options for minimising the increase in velocity through the site and to have those options considered by Council prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

The operation of the overland flowpath relies on water from upstream of the site (i.e. from 297 Alison Road) entering the development site across the western boundary (common boundary with 297 Alison Road), passing through the site and then being directed into 303 Alison Road. Conditions of consent requiring the applicant to provide full details on how water enters the development site from the west would have been conditioned within this report. Primarily, these conditions would have considered the operation of the flap timber fencing and the design of the western boundary retaining wall.

 

The design of the buildings and structures above/near the overland flowpath appears satisfactory with respect to protection of openings and habitable floor levels. The applicant was given detailed flood levels / flows based on the draft Coogee Beach flood study and Council’s Drainage Engineer has not raised any issues with the design of the building from a flood planning level perspective. The applicant’s hydraulic engineer has certified that flood levels both upstream and downstream of the development site would not be raised as a result of this development. This certification would have been formally requested through a condition of development consent.

 

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 value of the proposed works is over 2 million the applicant would be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site.  A site inspection revealed that no wires run east – west along the frontage of the site and therefore no condition of consent relating to undergrounding of cables would have been required.

 

8.      Master Planning Requirements

 

A master plan is not required for this development.

 

9.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

9.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under RLEP 2012. The proposed development is defined as a residential flat building and is permissible under the R3 zoning. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

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

The proposed development significantly breaches the building height standard and has an excessive mass and scale. The proposal does not respect the natural topography of the site and will be visually intrusive and overwhelming to the street and the adjoining residences. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be compatible with the intended medium density residential environment.

 

·      To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

The proposal contains a range of 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom apartments, which would suit the needs of different households.

 

·      To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

Not applicable.

 

·      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.

The proposed development does not respect the natural topography of the site and is monolithic in form. The site analysis supporting the design scheme has not properly examined the existing desirable attributes of the locality. Furthermore, it has not investigated the desirable future character for the area having regard to the planning controls of the LEP and DCP. The proposal will be visually intrusive and overwhelming to the street and the adjoining residences.

 

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

The proposed development has a dominant visual bulk and scale that overwhelm the street and the adjoining residences. A compliant and more skilful design respecting the site topography and the surrounding context would have brought the visual mass of the development to a suitable level. The application has not included adequate information to ascertain the potential shadow impacts on the existing and likely future development on the adjoining sites. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to protect the amenity of the existing residents.

 

·      To encourage housing affordability.

The proposed development contains apartment units of various sizes, which will broaden housing choice for different households.

 

·      To enable small-scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.

Not applicable.

 

The following clauses of the LEP apply to the proposed development:

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

4.3 Height of buildings

Maximum 9.5m

Block A:

12.5m (East Elevation)

Block B:

12.1m (East Elevation)

Does not comply, exceptions to development standard submitted

4.4 Floor space ratio

Maximum 0.75:1 (704.1m2 GFA)

0.75:1

(704m2 GFA)

Complies

 

Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation

The subject site is not listed as a heritage item or within a conservation area. The property at No. 296 Alison Road is listed as a heritage item under the LEP (Item Number I36, Bungalow). This dwelling is elevated above the road level. The proposed development is well separated from the above item by Alison Road, and is not within its immediate curtilage. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to result in any material impacts on the heritage significance of the item, and a heritage management document is not required.

 

Clause 6.1 Acid sulphate soils

According to the LEP map, the rear portion of the site is affected by acid sulphate soils type 5. The proposed works are not considered to be capable of lowering the water table and an acid sulphate soils management plan is not required.

 

Clause 6.2 Earthworks

The proposal requires excavation of up to approximately 5.5m in depth (excluding foundation footings) to accommodate a basement car park.

 

Clause 6.2(3) stipulates a range of matters the consent authority is required to consider prior to the granting of any consent for earthworks. They are addressed as follows:

(a)  the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development,

Comments:

The proposed excavation is not considered to detrimentally affect the drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, subject to standard construction management and engineering conditions.

 

(b)  the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land,

Comments:

The proposed excavation will facilitate the use of the site as a residential flat building.

 

(c)  the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both,

Comments:

The site had been used for residential purposes for a prolonged period and is not considered to carry contamination potential. Consequently, the excavated soil would not contain contaminants that require special management and disposal.

 

(d)  the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties,

Comments:

The proposal will not create any exposed retaining walls that are highly visible from the public domain and the adjoining properties. Standard construction management conditions could be imposed to ensure suitable protection measures are installed during the construction phase to support the adjoining land.

 

However, the enclosing walls to the basement car park will be positioned close to the side boundaries and will cause adverse visual impacts on the neighbours. This matter is discussed in detail under the “Policy Control” section of this report.

 

(e)  the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material,

Comments:

Not applicable.

 

(f)  the likelihood of disturbing relics,

Comments:

The site is unlikely to contain any heritage relics.

 

(g)  the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area,

Comments:

The proposal would not affect any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area.

 

(h)  any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

Comments:

Standard conditions could be imposed to ensure proper construction site management to minimise the impacts of the development during the construction phase.

 

Clause 6.4 Stormwater management

Refer to the “Technical Officers Comments” section of this report for details.

 

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

SEPP 65 applies to the proposed development. The application was referred to the Design Review Panel for advice in March 2013. The Design Quality Principles stipulated in the SEPP and the key comments provided by the Panel (in italic) are addressed as follows:

 

Principle 1: Context

·      The architect has provided thorough urban and site analyses that provide a solid foundation for the site planning and distribution of building volumes and garden spaces.

 

·      The Panel considers that the proposal is in principle a good response to this difficult site. The architect has demonstrated as part of their analysis that both neighbours could redevelop along similar, complementary principles.

 

Comments:

The subject site and the immediate adjoining allotments have complex topographical contours with a depression and overland flow path traversing the middle portion of the land. In the wider context, the locality is subject to transition due to its relative accessibility and R3 zoning, which would encourage further developments in the foreseeable future. The proposal requires careful analysis and evaluation of the site and the surrounding environment, including identification of the desirable and undesirable elements in the existing and recent developments, to inform a good design.

 

The site analysis information contained in the application does not properly acknowledge the development constraints of the site, in particular the topography and narrowness of the allotment. The resultant built form does not incorporate suitable stepping and is overwhelming in height and mass. 

 

The site analysis also fails to consider the desirable architectural and urban design outcomes from possible redevelopment of the surrounding land, which would be achieved by complying with the development standards in the new LEP and the control provisions in the DCP. Instead, the analysis has focused on the existing taller buildings scattered over the surrounding blocks, many of which were developed in the 1960’s or earlier under substantially different planning regimes. The proposed building height resembles the scale and bulk of developments envisaged in those R3 zones that are subject to a 12m height limit, and is one that is incompatible with the subject locality.

 

The site analysis is considered to be inadequate and biased and has not guided the development scheme in a suitable direction.

 

Principle 2: Scale

·      The proposal complies with floor space controls, but mostly exceeds the strict reading of the overall height control. The Panel supports the applicant’s position that the non-compliance is largely due to the significant dip at the centre of the site (the architect has shown a uniform height datum in purple on their drawings. The Panel further considers that a better interpretation would be to calculate the high [height] limit from the imposed free board level, rather than natural ground, on such flood affected sites.

 

Comments:

According to the definition of the LEP, the height limit is measured from the existing ground line to the topmost point of a building. The use of an imaginary assumed ground line to measure building height is inadequate and will undermine the credibility and consistency of the LEP numerical standard. The proposed built form and massing do not respect the topography of the site and are not supported.

 

·      The front building does not have a recessive top floor and therefore departs from the DCP wall height control. The Panel believes that the approach taken here is justified, as this is a very small footprint building, and there are many buildings of larger scale in the immediate vicinity.

 

Comments:

Proposed Block A does not comply with the LEP building height limit. As discussed, full compliance with the height standard will result in a built form that is more suitable to the site and the context.

 

The external wall height control of the DCP is very clear and specific in terms of the built form outcome it seeks to achieve. Based on the control provisions, the floor space above the wall height line should be contained within the roof form.

 

The design scheme is not considered to deliver a suitable architectural and urban design outcome and is not supported.

 

·      The entry structure to the street presents well, and each building has a covered porch.

 

Comments:

The entry porch has an excessive visual bulk and is not consistent with the streetscape on the southern side of Alison Road, which is predominantly charactered by open gardens and low fencing.

 

·      It is unfortunate that so much site area is taken up by driveway ramp, and alternatives should be considered.  The Panel suggests that a narrower driveway at the street or the use of a car lift should be investigated in such situations. The balance between safety /sightlines and the very small number of car movements that will be generated from this development needs to be carefully studied.

 

Comments:

The driveway is approximately 5.5m wide at the property boundary. This includes a passing bay immediately adjacent to the property boundary.

 

However, this passing bay does not serve any practical benefits in resolving potential conflicts when two vehicles are travelling in different direction (entering and exiting the car park simultaneously) within the driveway ramp.

 

Where the proposal could demonstrate that satisfactory sightlines would be available from the road to the driveway, this passing bay could be deleted with the width of the driveway reduced. However, the submitted traffic and parking report does not contain clear and elaborated comments on this issue.

 

The proposal in its current form is not considered to have minimised the visual impacts associated with the access facilities.

 

·      The entry walkway seems too overbuilt, and could be better integrated with landscape.

 

Comments:

The pedestrian walkway along the western boundary of the site is defined by a 2.4m high framed structure that creates visual bulk and reduces a sense of openness within the setback areas. This element of the proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the DCP in terms of ensuring separation between buildings and creating open space.

 

Principle 3: Built form

Refer to comments above.

 

Principle 4: Density

·      The Panel notes that the proposal’s floor space is consistent with the new LEP controls, and is a reasonable form and good fit for the site.

 

Comments:

Although the proposal complies with the FSR standard in the LEP, it breaches the building height control significantly. The proposal fails to make a case for the density being sought on the basis of good design quality and reasonable impacts on the neighbours.

 

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

·      Ceiling fans should be provided for each bedroom and clearly shown on the plans.

 

Comments:

The floor to ceiling height (excluding the gap in the false ceiling) is only approximately 2.55m. The installation of ceiling fan will further reduce height clearance and amenity for the occupants.

 

·      Window operation should be clearly marked on all windows on the elevations. All units should have balcony doors and windows that can be secure, open-able and weather-sheltered to allow cross ventilation at night or when the apartment is not occupied.

 

Comments:

With the exception of Units A.02, A.03 and B.05, the living areas of all other apartments are ventilated only by full-height sliding doors to the balconies / terraces. The design should have included secondary windows to allow the doors to be locked whilst still enabling natural ventilation. Unsatisfactory.

 

·      The opportunity for added light, ventilation and winter sun through the roof by utilising clerestory windows should be considered.  Light and air can be achieved in this way without the problems of noise and privacy issues.

 

Comments:

The proposal has not appropriately utilised the roof design to improve natural lighting and ventilation to the interior space of the building via measures such as ventilated skylights or clerestory windows. Unsatisfactory.

 

Principle 6: Landscape

·      The landscape plan should show the trees being removed from the site. All the trees shown to be ‘retained and protected’ are on adjoining sites. The Panel considers that more substantial tree planting could be provided at the rear and on the side boundaries, to maintain the valley’s tree canopy when seen from the upper slopes of the Coogee valley.

 

·      The Panel noted above that the area of driveway should be more covered over. This would provide opportunity for increased landscape. Otherwise the landscape intent appears to be sensible, and reasonable amenity and character for the future residents.

 

Comments:

The site adjoins a 4-storey residential flat building at the rear. The landscape plan only provides for 4m high shrubs within the rear setback areas. It is considered that more substantial planting in the form of canopy trees reaching at least 8m in height at maturity will offer more appropriate visual screening and mutual privacy protection between the subject development and the adjoining property.

 

The Alison Road frontage is dominated by waste storage and access facilities with insufficient planting. More substantial and continuous shrub and tree planting should be provided to contribute to the streetscape. The current landscape treatment in the front setback areas is considered inadequate.

 

Principle 7: Amenity

·      Consideration should be given to adding openable kitchen windows wherever possible.

 

Comments:

The proposal does not include any operable windows adjacent to the kitchen areas to facilitate natural lighting and ventilation to the units. Unsatisfactory.

 

·      The Panel suggest that the rear stair would benefit from a ventilating skylight to provide natural light and air.

 

Comments:

This has not been achieved.

 

Principle 8: Safety and security

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

 

Principle 9: Social dimensions

·      The intensification of well-placed sites is socially beneficial. The provision of a range of units, including whole floor and smaller units, is strongly supported.

 

Comments:

The proposal has not addressed in detail the overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties attributed to the non-compliance with the building height. The degree of intensification of the site use should be moderated by the site constraints and should not unduly affect the amenity of the neighbouring residences. The proposal is not considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

 

Principle 10: Aesthetics

·      The proposal is well scaled and articulated, creating a variety of elements that form well-related parts. The architectural character is straightforward and highly appropriate both to the location and building type. While the montages are good, 1:50 part elevations / sections and showing colours and materials should be part of the DA drawing set.

 

Comments:

The development scheme proposes a hipped roof with concealed guttering for both Blocks A and B. The hipped roof form appears to be awkward in this instance as it compromises the intended contemporary architectural expression of the building, which is otherwise characterised by asymmetrical rectilinear forms. Additionally, the façade articulations are ineffective in mitigating the excessive height and scale of the development. The proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory in this regard.

 

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

SEPP: BASIX applies to the proposed development. A BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the application. The commitments listed in the above certificate could be imposed by a standard condition pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

10.    Policy Controls

 

Randwick Development Control Plan

The Randwick DCP was adopted by Council on 28 May 2013. The DCP became effective on 14 June 2013.

 

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed in the table below. (Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

B6 Recycling and Waste Management

Control

Proposal / Comments

4 On-Going Operation

(iv) Locate and design the waste storage facilities to visually and physically complement the design of the development. Avoid locating waste storage facilities between the front alignment of a building and the street where possible.

The proposed waste storage facility is located immediately adjacent to the street frontage, and is directly facing the terrace of the ground floor unit A.01 with a separation distance of only 900mm. The facility is only defined by a low fence at the street frontage with minimal landscaping.

 

The location of the waste storage compound would create significant odour and visual impacts on the private open space of A.01 and the public domain.

 

This element of the proposal represents poor waste management practice and does not satisfy the objectives of the DCP.

(v) Locate the waste storage facilities to minimise odour and acoustic impacts on the habitable rooms of the proposed development, adjoining and neighbouring properties.

(vi) Screen the waste storage facilities through fencing and/or landscaping where possible to minimise visual impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain.

(vii) Ensure the waste storage facilities are easily accessible for all users and waste collection personnel and have step-free and unobstructed access to the collection point(s).

Complies. 

(viii) Provide sufficient storage space within each dwelling / unit to hold a single day’s waste and to enable source separation.

Complies. 

(ix) Bin enclosures / rooms must be ventilated, fire protected, drained to the sewerage system and have lighting and water supply.

The waste storage compound is unroofed and is naturally ventilated.

 

B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

Control

Proposal / Comments

3 Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

Car parking requirements:

1 space per 2 studios

1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2)

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

Calculations:

3 x 1-bedroom units @ 1 space each

= 3 spaces

3 x 2-bedroom units @ 1.2 space each

= 3.6 spaces

2 x 3-bedroom units @ 1.5 space each

= 3 spaces

Visitor 8 units / 4 = 2 spaces

 

Total car parking requirement:

9.6 resident spaces + 2 visitor spaces

= 11.6 or 12 spaces

 

The proposal contains 12 car spaces, of which 10 spaces are in mechanical stackers.

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

A total of 0.6 or 1 motorcycle space is required. This has not been shown in the drawings. The proposal does not comply with this requirement.

4 Bicycles

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

Calculations:

8 units / 2 for residents +

8 units / 10 for visitors

= 4.8 or 5 spaces

 

The drawings do not show any bicycle parking facility. The proposal does not comply with this requirement.

 

The proposed parking provision and design are not supported for the following reasons:

 

·      Control (iv) under Section 3.2 Vehicle Parking Rates states the following:

Minimise the use of mechanical parking devices particularly on difficult sites and where queuing may result or safety is jeopardised.

 

The development scheme overwhelmingly relies on mechanical stackers for the parking of vehicles (10 spaces or 83% of all car spaces). The application does not contain the necessary information for assessing the suitability of this arrangement, including:

-     Manufacturer’s specifications and instructions for operation;

-     Details of manual operation in the event of power or mechanical failure;

-     Maintenance schedules;

-     Waiting and working times for the stackers; and

-     Safety and training requirements.

 

Given that the site is located in a dip on Alison Road, any queuing of vehicles awaiting access to the basement car park would have significant implications on road safety. The use of mechanical stackers to such an extent could result in delay in vehicle access to the basement. The information presented in the application does not enable detailed assessment on this important issue.

 

·      The proposal does not contain any bicycle and motorcycle parking, and fails to satisfy the objectives of the DCP in terms of the promotion of sustainable transport options for development.

 

·      The floor plan for the basement car park does not contain detailed dimensions for each of the cars spaces for full assessment against Australian Standard 2890.1: Off-Street Car Parking. It has been noted that the following areas do not comply with the Standard:

-     Car spaces 1/2 and 11/12 are located adjacent to wall obstructions and no additional width allowance (300mm) has been reserved.

-     No blind aisle extension (1000mm) has been created at the western end of the car park.

 

It is also unclear as to whether the car stacker frames would reduce the clear dimensions of the car spaces.

 

C4 Medium Density Residential

Control

Proposal / Comments

2 Site Planning

2.1 Site Layout Options

Site layout and location of buildings must be based on a detailed site analysis and have regard to the site planning guidelines for:

·      Two block / courtyard example

·      T-shape example

·      U-shape example

·      Conventional example

The subject allotment has an elongated configuration with a depth of approximately 60m. The distribution of the floor space into two distinctive building blocks and the provision of a central courtyard are suitable planning response to the site characteristics.

2.2 Landscaped open space and deep soil area

 

2.2.1 Landscaped open space

 

A minimum of 50% of the site area (469.4m2) is to be landscaped open space.

The proposal has reserved 474.3m2 of the site as landscaped areas and meets the DCP control. (The applicant’s landscaped area calculation is not considered to be accurate.)

2.2.2 Deep soil area

 

(i) A minimum of 25% of the site area (234.7m2) should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

236m2, complies.

(ii) Deep soil areas must be located at ground level, be permeable, capable for the growth of vegetation and large trees and must not be built upon, occupied by spa or swimming pools or covered by impervious surfaces such as concrete, decks, terraces, outbuildings or other structures.

Complies.

(iii) Deep soil areas are to have soft landscaping comprising a variety of trees, shrubs and understorey planting.

The site adjoins a 4-storey residential flat building at the rear. The landscape plan only provides for 4m high shrubs within the rear setback areas. It is considered that more substantial planting in the form of canopy trees reaching at least 8m in height at maturity will offer more appropriate visual screening and mutual privacy protection between the subject development and the adjoining property. The landscape treatment for the rear setback areas is not considered to be satisfactory.

 

The Alison Road frontage is dominated by waste storage and access facilities with insufficient planting. More substantial and continuous shrub and tree planting should be provided to contribute to the streetscape. The current landscape treatment in the front setback areas is considered inadequate. 

(iv) Deep soil areas cannot be located on structures or facilities such as basements, retaining walls, floor slabs, rainwater tanks or in planter boxes.

Complies.

(v) Deep soil zones shall be contiguous with the deep soil zones of adjacent properties.

The deep soil zones are primarily located along the side and rear boundaries and are adjacent to those of the adjoining properties. Complies.

2.3 Private and communal open space

 

2.3.1 Private open space

Private open space is to be:

(i) Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling.

(ii) Open to a northerly aspect where possible so as to maximise solar access.

(iii) Be designed to provide adequate privacy for residents and where possible can also contribute to passive surveillance of common areas.

Each of the dwelling units has a balcony or terrace attached to the living areas. These balconies and terraces are oriented towards the north.

 

The balconies and terraces enable casual surveillance of the common areas and the street.

 

The balustrades to the front balconies of Block A (facing Alison Road) are constructed with metal railing and do not provide adequate level of privacy for Units A.02 and A.03. These balustrades should be constructed with opaque materials in order to protect the privacy of the apartments in question. The balustrade design in its current form is not considered to satisfy the DCP objective in terms of enhancing the quality of life for the residents.

For residential flat buildings:

(vi) Each dwelling has access to an area of private open space in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden, accessible from with the dwelling.

(vii) Private open space for apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m.

Each of the dwellings has a balcony or terrace that complies with the dimensional and size requirements of the DCP.

 

 

 

 

2.3.2 Communal open space

Communal open space for residential flat building is to be:

(a) Of a sufficient contiguous area, and not divided up for allocation to individual units.

(b) Designed for passive surveillance.

(c) Well oriented with a preferred northerly aspect to maximise solar access.

(d) Adequately landscaped for privacy screening and visual amenity.

(e) Designed for a variety of recreation uses and incorporate recreation facilities such as playground equipment, seating and shade structures.

The landscaped areas in the central portion of the site and along the side and rear boundaries are reserved for communal use.

 

The communal open space is generally under casual surveillance from the terraces, balconies and windows of the development, except for the sunken areas adjacent to the flood path. Refer to the “Safety and Security” section for further comments on this matter.

 

The communal open space has been designed to maximise solar access within the constraints of the elongated site configuration and the building footprints.

 

The privacy of the communal open space is protected by the boundary fencing.

 

The landscape plan includes seatings for use by the residents. The design scheme enables passive recreational activities within the communal areas.

3 Building Envelope

3.1 Floor space ratio

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

3.2 Building height

Refer to the “Exceptions to Development Standards” section of this report for details.

3.3 Building depth

For residential flat buildings, the preferred maximum building depth (from window to window line) is between 10m and 14m.

Any greater depth must demonstrate that the design solution provides good internal amenity such as via cross-over, double-height or corner dwellings / units.

The building depths of Units B.02 and B.04 are over 21m. The depth of Unit B.05 is over 16m. The building depths are measured between the glazing lines on the front and rear elevations of the units. Notwithstanding, the side elevations of these units contain operable windows and will allow cross ventilation.

3.4 Setbacks

 

3.4.1 Front setback

(i) The front setback on the primary and secondary property frontages must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street.

Notwithstanding the above, the front setback generally must be no less than 3m in all circumstances to allow for suitable landscaped areas to building entries.

(ii) Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.

(iii) The front setback areas must be free of structures, such as swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings.

(iv) The entire front setback must incorporate landscape planting, with the exception of driveways and pathways.

The properties to the west of the site feature wide setbacks from the Alison Road boundary. Notwithstanding, properties such as Nos. 295 and 297 have the potential for further development in the foreseeable future, which would more than likely utilise the available space in the front portions of the allotments.

 

The properties to the east from Nos. 303 to 311 Alison Road demonstrate a more consistent front setback pattern:

 

·    No. 303: approx. 4.2m (survey plan)

·    No. 305: approx. 4m (GIS system)

·    No. 307: approx. 5.2m (GIS system)

·    No. 309: approx. 0.8m to garage (GIS system)

·    No. 311: approx. 4.5m (GIS system)

 

The front setback to Block A is 3.8m (to balconies) to 6.2m (to walls) and is considered to be compatible with the adjoining properties to the east. It is also considered to be appropriate for this section of Alison Road as a whole, taking into account possible development or redevelopment of the adjoining properties to the west.

 

However, the site frontage is dominated by a double width driveway and a garbage compound at approximately 400mm from the Alison Road boundary. The design scheme fails to satisfy controls (i) and (iv) of the DCP in that the street frontage would be dominated by access and site facilities and not landscaping. The garbage compound in particular will lead to very poor amenity on the street in terms of its visual and odour impacts.

3.4.2 Side setback

Residential flat building

(i) Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below:

14m≤site frontage width<16m: 2.5m

(ii) Incorporate additional side setbacks to the building over and above the above minimum standards, in order to:

-   Create articulations to the building facades.

-   Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

-   Provide building separation.

-   Improve visual amenity and outlook from the development and adjoining residences.

-   Provide visual and acoustic privacy for the development and the adjoining residences.

-   Ensure solar access and natural ventilation for the development and the adjoining residences.

(iii) A fire protection statement must be submitted where windows are proposed on the external walls of a residential flat building within 3m of the common boundaries. The statement must outline design and construction measures that will enable operation of the windows (where required) whilst still being capable of complying with the relevant provisions of the BCA.

Western boundary (superstructures):

Minimum side setback:

3250mm

Maximum side setback:

4200mm

 

Eastern boundary (superstructures):

Minimum side setback:

3000mm

Maximum side setback:

4200mm

 

Basement:

The basement enclosing walls are setback 300mm and 1200mm from the eastern and western boundaries respectively.

 

Section 01 (which ‘cuts’ across the site at 21m from the front boundary) shows that the basement walls will project approximately 2.5m and 1.6m above the existing ground lines on the eastern and western elevations respectively.

 

Section 02 (which ‘cuts’ across the site at 13.3m from the front boundary) shows that the basement walls will project approximately 1.2m and 2.8m above the existing ground lines on the eastern and western elevations respectively.

 

These exposed blank walls will be highly visible from the adjoining properties at Nos. 297 and 303 Alison Road. Given their close proximity to the common boundaries and the lack of landscape buffer, these structures will result in adverse visual impacts on the neighbouring properties and are not considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP in terms of ensuring adequate spatial separation and creating open space areas.

 

Apart from the above, the superstructures sitting above the basement satisfy the minimum side setback requirement of the DCP, being 2.5m. In this respect, the design scheme has reserved additional side setbacks over and above the minimum requirement that contributes to the façade articulation and open space provision. 

 

However, the pedestrian walkway along the western boundary of the site is defined by a 2.4m high framed structure that creates visual bulk and reduces a sense of openness within the setback areas. This element of the proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the DCP in terms of ensuring separation between buildings and creating open space.

 

All proposed windows are situated more than 3m from the common boundaries. A fire protection statement is not required in this instance.

3.4.3 Rear setback

For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (9.06m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

The proposed rear setback is 6m. The required rear setback is 9.06m.

 

The shortfall in rear setback is attributed to the site planning arrangement that incorporates a courtyard in the middle of the site.

 

Notwithstanding, the application has not included appropriate shadow diagrams relating to the expected impacts on the adjoining properties, especially those fronting Abbott Street. It is not possible to assess whether unreasonable shadow impacts would result from the departure from the rear setback requirement. Therefore, based on the current information, the proposed rear setback cannot be supported.

4 Building Design

4.1 Building façade

(i) Buildings must be designed to address all street and laneway frontages.

(ii) Buildings must be oriented so that the front wall alignments are parallel with the street property boundary or the street layout.

(iii) Articulate facades to reflect the function of the building, present a human scale, and contribute to the proportions and visual character of the street.

(iv) Avoid massive or continuous unrelieved blank walls. This may be achieved by dividing building elevations into sections, bays or modules of not more than 10m in length, and stagger the wall planes.

(vi) Conceal building services and pipes within the balcony slabs.

The front façade is parallel to the street boundary and incorporates balconies that address the public domain.

 

Due to the non-compliant building and external wall heights, the side facades present a monolithic mass, which in conjunction with the considerable amount of blank walling, do not present a suitable scale and proportion to the street and the adjoining properties.  

 

In particular, the eastern elevation of the ground level of Block A is characterised by a continuous blank wall of over 11m in length. This would create a ‘gun-barrel’ visual effect to the driveway areas with no articulation and casual surveillance.

4.2 Roof design

(i) Design the roof form, in terms of massing, pitch, profile and silhouette to relate to the three dimensional form (size and scale) and façade composition of the building.

(ii) Design the roof form to respond to the orientation of the site, such as eaves and skillion roofs to respond to sun access.

(iii) Use a similar roof pitch to adjacent buildings, particularly if there is consistency of roof forms across the streetscape.

(iv) Articulate or divide the mass of the roof structures on larger buildings into distinctive sections to minimise the visual bulk and relate to any context of similar building forms.

(v) Use clerestory windows and skylights to improve natural lighting and ventilation of internalised space on the top floor of a building where feasible. The location, layout, size and configuration of clerestory windows and skylights must be sympathetic to the overall design of the building and the streetscape.

(vi) Any services and equipment, such as plant, machinery, ventilation stacks, exhaust ducts, lift overrun and the like, must be contained within the roof form or screened behind parapet walls so that they are not readily visible from the public domain.

(vii) Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered only if:

-   There are no direct sightlines to the habitable room windows and private and communal open space of the adjoining residences.

-   The size and location of terrace or deck will not result in unreasonable noise impacts on the adjoining residences.

-   Any stairway and associated roof do not detract from the architectural character of the building, and are positioned to minimise direct and oblique views from the street.

-   Any shading devices, privacy screens and planters do not adversely increase the visual bulk of the building.

(viii) The provision of landscape planting on the roof (that is, “green roof”) is encouraged. Any green roof must be designed by a qualified landscape architect or designer with details shown on a landscape plan.

The development scheme proposes a hipped roof with concealed guttering for both Blocks A and B. Notwithstanding the low profile of the roofs, they fail to ameliorate the substantial bulk and mass of the building due to the significant departure from the building and external wall height controls.

 

The hipped roof has also compromised the intended contemporary architectural expression of the building, which is otherwise characterised by asymmetrical rectilinear forms.

 

The roof design has not taken into account requirements for building services. It is highly likely that the lift overrun would protrude above the roof form and detract from the silhouette of the building.

 

The proposal has not appropriately utilised the roof design to improve natural lighting and ventilation to the interior space of the building via measures such as ventilated skylights or clerestory windows.

 

 

 

4.3 Habitable roof space

Habitable roof space may be considered, provided it meets the following:

-   Optimises dwelling mix and layout, and assists to achieve dual aspect or cross over units with good natural ventilation.

-   Has a maximum floor space of 65% of the storey immediately below.

-   Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space.

-   When viewed from the surrounding public and private domain, the roof form has the appearance of a roof. A continuous flat roof with habitable space within it will not satisfy this requirement.

-   Design windows to habitable roof space as an integrated element of the roof.

-   Submit computer generated perspectives or photomontages showing the front and rear elevations of the development.

Not applicable.

4.4 External wall height and ceiling height

 

(ii) Where the site is subject to a 9.5m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 8m applies.

Block A: 11.6m (east elevation)

Block B: 11.1m (east elevation)

 

Refer to comments following this table.

(iii) The minimum ceiling height is to be 2.7m for all habitable rooms.

The submitted drawings do not clearly show the height clearance of the habitable rooms as measured from the floor surface to the underside of the false ceiling. By scaling off the drawings, the floor to ceiling height is approximately 2.55m only and does not meet the DCP requirement.

 

Given that the proposal is a complete new development and is not an alterations and additions to an existing building, the departure from the control is not considered to be reasonable and will reduce the amenity of the dwellings.

4.5 Pedestrian Entry

(i) Separate and clearly distinguish between pedestrian pathways and vehicular access. 

The proposal provides separate access for pedestrians and vehicles.

 

 

(ii) Present new development to the street in the following manner:

-   Locate building entries so that they relate to the pedestrian access network and desired lines.

-   Design the entry as a clearly identifiable element in the façade composition.

-   Integrate pedestrian access ramps into the overall building and landscape design.

-   For residential flat buildings, provide direct entries to the individual dwellings within a development from the street where possible.

-   Design mailboxes so that they are convenient to residents, do not clutter the appearance of the development at street frontage and are preferably integrated into a wall adjacent to the primary entry (and at 90 degrees to the street rather than along the front boundary).

-   Provide weather protection for building entries.

 

Postal services and mailboxes

(i) Mailboxes are provided in accordance with the delivery requirements of Australia Post.

(ii) A mailbox must clearly mark the street number of the dwelling that it serves.

(iii) Design mail boxes to be convenient for residents and not to clutter the appearance of the development from the street.

The main entries to Blocks A and B are located on the western elevation. Notwithstanding, a clearly identifiable pathway has been included in the development.

 

An awning is provided over the pedestrian entries to Blocks A and B for weather protection.

 

Mail boxes are conveniently located for access by postal services.

 

For comments on the entry portal structure, refer to the paragraphs on “Fencing”. 

4.6 Internal circulation

(i) Enhance the amenity and safety of circulation spaces by:

- Providing natural lighting and ventilation where possible.

- Providing generous corridor widths at lobbies, foyers, lift doors and apartment entry doors.

- Allowing adequate space for the movement of furniture.

- Minimising corridor lengths to give short, clear sightlines.

- Avoiding tight corners.

- Articulating long corridors with a series of foyer areas, and/or providing windows along or at the end of the corridor.

The stairwell and foyer of Block B are internalised within the building. The proposal has not incorporated suitable design measures to naturally lit and ventilate the above common circulation areas.

(ii) Use multiple access cores to:

-   Maximise the number of pedestrian entries along a street for sites with wide frontages or corner sites.

-   Articulate the building façade.

-   Limit the number of dwelling units accessible off a single circulation core on a single level to 6 units.

Each access core only services a maximum of two units per floor. The proposed circulation arrangement is considered to be satisfactory. 

(iii) Where apartments are arranged off a double-loaded corridor, limit the number of units accessible from a single core or to 8 units.

Not applicable.

4.7 Apartment layout

(i) Maximise opportunities for natural lighting and ventilation through the following measures:

- Providing corner, cross-over, cross-through and double-height maisonette / loft apartments.

- Limiting the depth of single aspect apartments to a maximum of 6m.

- Providing windows or skylights to kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas where possible.

Providing at least 1 openable window (excluding skylight) opening to outdoor areas for all habitable rooms and limiting the use of borrowed light and ventilation.

All dwelling units have dual aspects and north-facing living areas.

 

The proposal does not include any operable windows adjacent to the kitchen areas to facilitate natural lighting and ventilation to the units. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the DCP requirement in this regard.

 

(ii) Design apartment layouts to accommodate flexible use of rooms and a variety of furniture arrangements.

Complies. 

(iii) Provide private open space in the form of a balcony, terrace or courtyard for each and every apartment unit in a development.

Complies.

(iv) Avoid locating the kitchen within the main circulation space of an apartment, such as hallway or entry.

Complies. 

4.8 Balconies

(i) Provide a primary balcony and/or private courtyard for all apartments with a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m and consider secondary balconies or terraces in larger apartments.

The proposed balconies and terraces satisfy the dimensional and size requirements of the DCP.

 

Given the relatively constrained dimensions of the site, secondary service balconies are not deemed necessary in this instance.

(ii) Provide a primary terrace for all ground floor apartments with a minimum depth of 4m and minimum area of 12m2. All ground floor apartments are to have direct access to a terrace.

The terrace to Unit A.01 on the ground floor of Block A has a size of 11.52m2 (2.4m x 4.8m) and marginally departs from the DCP requirement. The configuration of the above terrace is considered to be satisfactory.

4.9 Colours, materials and finishes

(i) Provide a schedule detailing the materials and finishes in the development application documentation and plans.

(ii) The selection of colour and material palette must complement the character and style of the building.

(iv) Use the following measures to complement façade articulation:

-   Changes of colours and surface texture

-   Inclusion of light weight materials to contrast with solid masonry surfaces

-   The use of natural stones is encouraged.

(v) Avoid the following materials or treatment:

- Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting

- High reflective or mirror glass

- Large expanses of glass or curtain wall that is not protected by sun shade devices

- Large expanses of rendered masonry

- Light colours or finishes where they may cause adverse glare or reflectivity impacts

(vi) Use materials and details that are suitable for the local climatic conditions to properly withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration.

(vii) Sandstone blocks in existing buildings or fences on the site must be recycled and re-used.

The submitted materials and finishes schedule carries the following issues:

 

·      There is no information on the roofing materials and sliding gate to the car park.

·      Material “FBK” that occurs on the front elevation of Block A has no corresponding legend or photograph.

·      The colours of the timber panelling (TP) have not been clearly identified.

 

The eastern elevation of the ground level of Block A is characterised by a continuous blank wall of over 11m in length. This would create a ‘gun-barrel’ visual effect to the driveway areas with no articulation and casual surveillance.

 

Overall, the use of surface finishes and materials is not considered to be effective in mitigating the excessive scale and bulk of the building due to the significant departure from the building height and external wall height controls.

4.12 Earthworks

Excavation and backfilling

(i) Any excavation and backfilling within the building footprints must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a building within this extent of site modification.

(ii) Any cut and fill outside the building footprints must take the form of terracing following the natural landform, in order to minimise the height or depth of earthworks at any point on the site.

(iii) For sites with a significant slope, adopt a split-level design for buildings to minimise excavation and backfilling.

 

The proposal requires excavation of up to approximately 5.5m in depth (excluding foundation footings) to accommodate a basement car park. The extent of site modification is not considered to be unreasonable given the topography of the allotment.

 

 

 

 

Retaining walls

(iv) Setback the outer edge of any excavation, piling or sub-surface walls a minimum of 900mm from the side and rear boundaries.

(v) Step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures visible from the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

(vi) Where it is necessary to construct retaining walls at less than 900mm from the side or rear boundary due to site conditions, retaining walls must be stepped with each section not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm, as measured from the ground level (existing).

 

The basement enclosing walls are setback 300mm and 1200mm from the eastern and western boundaries respectively. These walls project significantly above the existing ground levels and will be highly visible from the adjoining properties at Nos. 297 and 303 Alison Road. Given their close proximity to the common boundaries and the lack of landscape buffer, these structures will result in adverse visual impacts on the neighbouring properties and are not considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP.

 

5 Amenity

5.1 Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

(i) Dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in living areas and to at least 50% of the private open space between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

Block B is anticipated to be overshadowed by Block A within the subject development on the winter solstice. The application has not included any detailed 3-dimensional shadow diagrams to fully describe the above impact.

 

Based on the altitude and azimuth angles, it is expected that Units A.01, A.02, A.03 and B.05 will receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight to the living areas and to 50% of the balconies / terraces.

 

The units on the lower floors of Block B (B.01, B.02, B.03 and B.04) will receive a degree of oblique sunlight to the living room windows and terraces / balconies, although this will be much less than the DCP requirement. The accurate extent of sunlight to these units cannot be ascertained based on the current information.

 

Where the proposal achieves full compliance with the building height standard of the LEP, additional sunlight will reach the first level of Block B. The energy efficiency and amenity of Units B.03 and B.04 could have been significantly improved. In the light of the non-compliance with the building height limit, the proposed extent of solar access is not considered to be reasonable.

(ii) Living areas and private open spaces for at least 70% of dwellings within a residential flat building must provide direct sunlight for at least 3 hours between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

Only 50% of the eight proposed apartments (Units A.01, A.02, A.03 and B.05) will meet this requirement.

 

As discussed, where the proposal achieves full compliance with the building height standard of the LEP, additional sunlight will reach the first level of Block B. In the light of the non-compliance with the building height limit, the proposed extent of solar access is not considered to be reasonable.

(iii) Limit the number of single-aspect apartments with a southerly aspect to a maximum of 10 percent of the total units within a residential flat building.

All apartments have dual aspects.

(iv) Any variations from the minimum standard due to site constraints and orientation must demonstrate how solar access and energy efficiency is maximised.

Solar access and energy efficiency have not been maximised as the proposal significantly breaches the building height standard in the LEP.

Solar access for surrounding development

 

(i) Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

(ii) At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

(iii) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.

Refer to comments below.

 

 

5.2 Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

(i) Provide daylight to internalised areas within each dwelling and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as ventilated skylights, clerestory windows, fanlights above doorways and highlight windows in internal partition walls.

There are no design measures (e.g. skylights) to provide daylight to the common stairwell and foyer areas of Block B.

 

The drawings contain no details to demonstrate natural lighting and ventilation to the Study room within Units B.02 and B.04.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP in terms of achieving natural ventilation and energy efficiency. 

(ii) Sun shading devices appropriate to the orientation should be provided for the windows and glazed doors of the building.

Sunhoods and shutters are provided for the east- and west-facing windows. Balconies are provided on the northern elevation to ameliorate sunlight to the living areas. Satisfactory.

(iii) All habitable rooms must incorporate windows opening to outdoor areas. The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory windows for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable.

Complies.

(iv) All new residential units must be designed to provide natural ventilation to all habitable rooms. Mechanical ventilation must not be the sole means of ventilation to habitable rooms.

The drawings contain no details to demonstrate natural ventilation to the Study room within Units B.02 and B.04. Unsatisfactory.

 

(v) A minimum of 90% of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated. In cases where residential units are not naturally cross ventilated, such as single aspect apartments, the installation of ceiling fans may be required.

All apartments are naturally cross ventilated.

(vi) A minimum of 25% of kitchens within a development should have access to natural ventilation and be adjacent to openable windows.

 

The proposal does not include any operable windows adjacent to the kitchen areas to facilitate natural lighting and ventilation to the units. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the DCP requirement in this regard.

(vii) Developments, which seek to vary from the minimum standards, must demonstrate how natural ventilation can be satisfactorily achieved, particularly in relation to habitable rooms.

Refer to comments in the above paragraphs. 

5.3 Visual privacy

(i) Locate windows and balconies of habitable rooms to minimise overlooking of windows or glassed doors in adjoining dwellings.

(ii) Orient balconies to front and rear boundaries or courtyards as much as possible. Avoid orienting balconies to any habitable room windows on the side elevations of the adjoining residences.

(iii) Orient buildings on narrow sites to the front and rear of the lot, utilising the street width and rear garden depth to increase the separation distance.

(iv) Locate and design areas of private open space to ensure a high level of user privacy. Landscaping, screen planting, fences, shading devices and screens are used to prevent overlooking and improve privacy.

(v) Incorporate materials and design of privacy screens including:

- Translucent glazing

- Fixed timber or metal slats

- Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings

- Screen planting and planter boxes as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection

 

Refer to comments below.

 

5.4 Acoustic privacy

(i) Design the building and layout to minimise transmission of noise between buildings and dwellings.

(ii) Separate “quiet areas” such as bedrooms from common recreation areas, parking areas, vehicle access ways and other noise generating activities.

(iii) Utilise appropriate measures to maximise acoustic privacy such as:

-   Double glazing

-   Operable screened balconies

-   Walls to courtyards

-   Sealing of entry doors

 

The terrace to Unit B.05 has a dimension of 4.3m x 7.5m and is capable of supporting large congregations. This element of the proposal is capable of generating significant noise that detrimentally affects the amenity of the adjoining dwellings. This element of the proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP.

5.5 View sharing

(i) The location and design of buildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors and vistas to significant elements from the streets, public open spaces and neighbouring dwellings.

(ii) In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non-habitable rooms.

(iii) Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain.

(iv) The design of fences and selection of plant species must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring residences and the public domain.  

(v) Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

(vi) Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the development application.

A submission has been received from No. 12 Abbott Street raising issues relating to view loss. The submission claims that the property has a view over the subject site. However, it has also acknowledged that “it is not an ocean view or spectacular scenery”.

 

Due to the location and topography of the subject site and adjoining properties, and their distance from the waterfront, it is not considered that the proposal will result in unreasonable view loss impacts.

5.6 Safety and security

 

(i) Design buildings and spaces for safe and secure access to and within the development.

Due to the presence of a flood path across the middle portion of the site, a part of Block B and the decking for Units B.01 and B.02 have been raised. This arrangement has created an undercroft area beneath the building. For stormwater management reasons, the undercroft flood path needs to remain unobstructed.

 

However, the design scheme does not include any measures (such as open style fencing or the like) to restrict access to the undercroft. No lighting plan has been prepared for the communal areas around the undercroft. This undercroft area is under lit and may create an entrapment point that causes safety and security problems for the residents.

 

This element of the proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP having regard to safety and security.

(iii) For residential flat buildings, provide direct, secure access between the parking levels and the main lobby on the ground floor.

The proposal provides direct access between the basement car park and the main common walkway along the western side of the site. Satisfactory.

(iv) Design window and door placement and operation to enable ventilation throughout the day and night without compromising security. The provision of natural ventilation to the interior space via balcony doors only, is deemed insufficient.

With the exception of Units A.02, A.03 and B.05, the living areas of all other apartments are ventilated only by full-height sliding doors to the balconies / terraces. The design should have included secondary windows to allow the doors to be locked whilst still enabling natural ventilation. Unsatisfactory.

(v) Avoid high walls and parking structures around buildings and open space areas which obstruct views into the development.

The driveway to the basement car park is flanked by an 11m long blank wall on the eastern elevation with no windows for casual surveillance. Unsatisfactory.

(vi) Resident car parking areas must be equipped with security grilles or doors.

Complies.

(vii) Control visitor entry to all units and internal common areas by intercom and remote locking systems.

This could be required by a condition of consent.

(viii) Provide adequate lighting for personal safety in common and access areas of the development.

No lighting plan has been included in the application. This is an important piece of information given the presence of an undercroft flood path in the middle of the site. Unsatisfactory.

(ix) Improve opportunities for casual surveillance without compromising dwelling privacy by designing living areas with views over public spaces and communal areas, using bay windows which provide oblique views and casual views of common areas, lobbies / foyers, hallways, open space and car parks.

The balconies, terraces and windows of the apartments allow casual surveillance to the street and the communal open space.

(x) External lighting must be neither intrusive nor create a nuisance for nearby residents.

This could be required by a condition of consent.

(xi) Provide illumination for all building entries, pedestrian paths and communal open space within the development.

No lighting plan has been included in the application. This is an important piece of information given the presence of an undercroft flood path in the middle of the site. Unsatisfactory.

6 Car Parking and Access

6.1 Location

 

(i) Car parking facilities must be accessed off rear lanes or secondary street frontages where available.

Not applicable.

(ii) The location of car parking and access facilities must minimise the length of driveways and extent of impermeable surfaces within the site.

The design is considered to have minimised the length of the driveway in the light of the site topography.

(iii) Setback driveways a minimum of 1m from the side boundary. Provide landscape planting within the setback areas.

The driveway is only setback 300mm from the eastern side boundary. The landscape strip adjacent to the driveway would only support minimal planting and would not provide sufficient visual softening. Unsatisfactory.

(iv) Entry to parking facilities off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary.

Not applicable.

(v) For residential flat buildings, comply with the following:

(a) Car parking must be provided underground in a basement or semi-basement for new development.

(b) On grade car park may be considered for sites potentially affected by flooding. In this scenario, the car park must be located on the side or rear of the allotment away from the primary street frontage.

(c) Where rear lane or secondary street access is not available, the car park entry must be recessed behind the front façade alignment. In addition, the entry and driveway must be located towards the side and not centrally positioned across the street frontage.

The car park is located within the basement.

6.2 Configuration

 

(i) With the exception of hardstand car spaces and garages, all car parks must be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction.

The proposed car park does not strictly meet the Australian Standard 2890.1 requirements. Vehicle movements could be made more efficient and safe with full compliance with the standard. The parking design is not supported. Refer to previous comments above.

(ii) For residential flat buildings, the maximum width of driveway is 6m. In addition, the width of driveway must be tapered towards the street boundary as much as possible.

The driveway is approximately 5.5m wide at the property boundary. This includes a passing bay immediately adjacent to the property boundary.

 

However, this passing bay does not serve any practical benefits in resolving potential conflicts when two vehicles are travelling in different direction (entering and exiting the car park simultaneously) within the driveway ramp.

 

Where the proposal could demonstrate that satisfactory sightlines would be available from the road to the driveway, this passing bay could be deleted with the width of the driveway reduced. However, the submitted traffic and parking report does not contain clear and elaborated comments on this issue.

 

The proposal in its current form is not considered to have minimised the visual impacts associated with the access facilities.

(iv) Provide basement or semi-basement car parking consistent with the following requirements:

(a) Provide natural ventilation. 

(b) Integrate ventilation grills into the façade composition and landscape design.

(c) The external enclosing walls of car park must not protrude above ground level (existing) by more than 1.2m. This control does not apply to sites affected by potential flooding.

(d) Use landscaping to soften or screen any car park enclosing walls.

(e) Provide safe and secure access for building users, including direct access to dwellings where possible.

(f) Improve the appearance of car park entries and avoid a ‘back-of-house’ appearance by measures such as:

- Installing security doors to avoid ‘black holes’ in the facades.

- Returning the façade finishing materials into the car park entry recess to the extent visible from the street as a minimum.

- Concealing service pipes and ducts within those areas of the car park that are visible from the public domain. 

 

The basement car park will be naturally ventilated. The provision of ventilation grilles in this instance is not suitable as solid walls are required to insulate noise generation from the car stackers.

 

The basement enclosing walls are setback 300mm and 1200mm from the eastern and western boundaries respectively.

 

Section 01 (which ‘cuts’ across the site at 21m from the front boundary) shows that the basement walls will project approximately 2.5m and 1.6m above the existing ground lines on the eastern and western elevations respectively.

 

Section 02 (which ‘cuts’ across the site at 13.3m from the front boundary) shows that the basement walls will project approximately 1.2m and 2.8m above the existing ground lines on the eastern and western elevations respectively.

 

These exposed blank walls will be highly visible from the adjoining properties at Nos. 297 and 303 Alison Road. Given their close proximity to the common boundaries and the lack of landscape buffer, these structures will result in adverse visual impacts on the neighbouring properties and are not considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP in terms of integrating car parking with the building design.

7 Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1 Fencing

(i) Fences are constructed with durable materials that are suitable for their purpose and can properly withstand wear and tear and natural weathering.

(ii) Sandstone fencing must not be rendered and painted.

(iii) The following materials must not be used in fences:

-   Steel post and chain wire

-   Barbed wire or other dangerous materials

(iv) Expansive surfaces of blank rendered masonry to street frontages must be avoided.

The drawings do not clearly show the height, profile and materials of the boundary fencing. The level of information currently presented does not enable full assessment against the general fencing controls of the DCP.

 

 

7.2 Front Fencing

 

(i) The fence must align with the front property boundary or the predominant fence setback line along the street.

The fence is aligned with the street boundary. Satisfactory.

(ii) The maximum height of front fencing is limited to 1200mm, as measured from the footpath level, with the solid portion not exceeding 600mm, except for piers. The maximum height of front fencing may be increased to 1800mm, provided the upper two-thirds are partially open, except for piers.

The entry portal at the street boundary has a height of up to 2.7m and is constructed with solid concrete blocks. Based on the drawings and the photomontage, this structure has an excessive mass and bulk, and is inconsistent with the frontage treatment of other properties along the southern side of Alison Road.

 

Due to the location of the garbage compound, the remaining front fencing would need to be solid in configuration and hence would not satisfy the control of the DCP.

 

The proposal is unsatisfactory in this regard.

(iii) Construct the non-solid portion of the fence with light weight materials that are at least 30% open and evenly distributed along the full length of the fence.

Refer to comments above.

(iv) Solid front fence of up to 1800mm in height may be permitted in the following scenarios:

-   Front fence for sites facing arterial roads.

-   Fence on the secondary street frontage of corner allotments, which is behind the alignment of the primary street façade.

Such solid fences must be articulated through a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping, so as to avoid continuous blank walls.

Not applicable.

(v) The fence must incorporate stepping to follow any change in level along the street boundary. The height of the fence may exceed the aforementioned numerical requirement by a maximum of 150mm adjacent to any stepping.

As discussed, the proposed entry portal has an excessive height and does not contribute to the streetscape amenity.

(vi) The preferred materials for front fences are natural stone, face bricks and timber.

Despite the use of timber and masonry materials, the fencing design in its current form is considered to be unsatisfactory.

(vii) Gates must not open over public land.

This could be required by a condition of consent.

(viii) The fence adjacent to the driveway may be required to be splayed to ensure adequate sightlines for drivers and pedestrians.

This could be required by a condition of consent.

7.3 Side and Rear Fencing

(i) The maximum height of side, rear or common boundary fences is limited to 1800mm, as measured from the ground level (existing). For sloping sites, the fence must be stepped to follow the topography of the land, with each step not exceeding 2200mm above ground level (existing).

(ii) In the scenario where there is significant level difference between the subject and adjoining allotments, the fencing height will be considered on merits.

(iii) The side fence must be tapered down to match the height of the front fence once pasts the front façade alignment.

(iv) Side or common boundary fences must be finished or treated on both sides.

The drawings do not clearly show the height, profile, configuration and materials of the side and rear boundary fencing. The level of information currently presented does not enable full assessment against the controls of the DCP.

 

7.6 Storage

(i) The design of development must provide for readily accessible and separately contained storage areas for each dwelling.

(ii) Storage facilities may be provided in basement or sub floor areas, or attached to garages. Where basement storage is provided, it should not compromise any natural ventilation in the car park, reduce sight lines or obstruct pedestrian access to the parked vehicles.

(iii) In addition to kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes, provide accessible storage facilities at the following rates:

(a) Studio apartments – 6m3

(b) 1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(c) 2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(d) 3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

The proposal does not provide any storage units outside the apartment units. No information has been provided relating to the volume of storage space for each apartment. Unsatisfactory.

7.7 Laundry facilities

(i) Provide a retractable or demountable clothes line in the courtyard of each dwelling unit.

A permanent clothes line is not considered necessary in this instance as the courtyards and balconies have sufficient areas for clothes drying activities.

(ii) Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

Satisfactory.

(iii) Provide a separate service balcony for clothes drying for dwelling units where possible. Where this is not feasible, reserve a space for clothes drying within the sole balcony and use suitable balustrades to screen it to avoid visual clutter.

At least part of the balustrades to the balconies of the apartments should have been constructed with opaque materials, in order to screen the clothes drying areas. The balustrade design in its current form is not considered to be satisfactory.

Air conditioning units:

·      Avoid installing within window frames. If installed in balconies, screen by suitable balustrades.

·      Air conditioning units must not be installed within window frames.

The BASIX Certificate indicates that air-conditioning units will be installed for each apartment. However, the drawings do not show any details on the location of air conditioning condenser units. The application does not contain sufficient information to enable proper assessment of this matter.

 

External wall height

The Objectives of the DCP for external wall height are as follows:

 

·      To ensure that the building form provides for interesting roof forms and is compatible with the streetscape.

·      To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces.

·      To control the bulk and scale of development and minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity.

 

The proposed maximum external wall heights are:

Block A: 11.6m (east elevation)

Block B: 11.1m (east elevation)

 

The proposal will exceed the external wall height limit (being 8m) by 3.6m and 3.1m for Blocks A and B respectively.

 

The extent of deviation is considered to be unsatisfactory and is not supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The DCP is very clear and specific in terms of the built form outcome it seeks to achieve. Based on the control provisions, the floor space above the 8m external wall height line should be contained wholly within the roof form. The roof structures would need to be appropriately designed to enhance the architectural character of the building whilst still being compliant with the 9.5m building height standard in the LEP.

 

The proposal breaches the external wall height control by providing a full standard storey under a continuous roof with nil setbacks from the external wall alignments below. The resultant built form will have a mass, scale and height that detract from the predominant character of existing residential developments on the southern side of Alison Road, and the future character of any new developments designed in accordance with the parameters of the DCP.

 

The development scheme detrimentally compromises the intent and vision of the DCP in terms of the built form outcomes for the locality and is not supported.

 

·      The built form and external wall height of Block A do not respect the natural topography of the site. It towers above the existing ground line within the central portion of the site by up to 11.6m without stepping. The surface articulations, including the windows, hoods, change in materials and minor indentations in the wall planes, are not sufficient to ameliorate the overwhelming scale and bulk of the building but only perform as superficial dressing for a dominant structure.

 

The form of Block B attempts to address the slope of the site by incorporating a step in the top storey. However, based on the current information, it cannot be established that the wall and overall heights of Block B will retain satisfactory solar access to the rear adjoining properties. The proposal fails to appropriately consider the potential impacts on the neighbours’ amenity and does not meet the key objective of the DCP.

 

Overall, the development scheme will create visual impacts that will be overwhelming and overbearing on the adjoining residences due to the massive scale, height and bulk.

 

·      The applicant’s key reasoning for the proposed building height (Statement of Environmental Effects pages 9 and 16) is to elevate the buildings to accommodate the overland stormwater flow. According to the submitted Flood Risk Management Plan, the designated flood level (100-year ARI) beneath the building footprints is RL 15.90 AHD.

 

The finished ground floor levels for Blocks A and B have been raised to RL 18.85 and RL 17.20 respectively. Accordingly, the ground levels for Blocks A and B are 2.95m and 1.3m above the designated flood level respectively. However, the external wall heights for Blocks A and B exceed the DCP limit by up to 3.6m and 3.1m respectively, which are well over the required height necessary to overcome the flood level. The argument for the degree of external wall height proposed due to flood management is unconvincing.

 

Retention of solar access to the adjoining dwellings

The Objectives and Controls of the DCP relating to solar access to the adjoining properties are extracted below:

 

Objectives

·      To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

·      To provide adequate ambient lighting and minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

 

Controls

(i)   Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

(ii)  At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

(iii) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

The submitted shadow diagrams are schematic and rudimentary and entail the following problems:

 

·      The diagrams are not prepared to scale and it is not possible to verify the accurate extent of the overshadow impacts.

·      There is no north point on the plan-view diagrams.

·      The diagrams do not show the accurate property boundaries.

·      The plan-view diagrams only show the impacts at 9am, 12noon and 3pm, 21 June; whereas the DCP controls require examination over the period from 8am to 4pm on the winter solstice. 

 

The expected shadow impacts are described below based on the available information. The shadow diagrams are submitted by the applicant.

 

No. 297 Alison Road:

9am, 21 June

(plan-view)

 

9am, 21 June

(north elevation view)

 

By 12 noon, the shadows would have shifted away from No. 297, resulting in no further impact.

 

No. 303 Alison Road:

12noon, 21 June (plan view)

3pm, 21 June (plan view)

 

12noon, 21 June (north elevation view)

3pm, 21 June (north elevation view)

 

Nos. 16-18 Abbott Street:

Supplementary shadow diagrams have been forwarded to Council during a meeting between the applicant and the assessment officer. They are extracted below:

 

8am, 21 June

9am, 21 June

10am, 21 June

11am, 21 June

12noon, 21 June

1pm, 21 June

2pm, 21 June

3pm, 21 June

4pm, 21 June

 

Having regard to retention of solar access to the neighbouring properties, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·      No. 297 Alison Road

The proposed development will retain at least 3 hours of sunlight to the existing northern windows, as well as a minimum of 50% of the existing private open space of No. 297. The proposal will meet the requirements of the DCP having regard to solar access to the existing dwelling on the neighbouring site.

 

Notwithstanding, the proposal has correctly envisaged that the adjoining property at No. 297 is likely to be further developed or redeveloped in the foreseeable future, as the existing structures are below the FSR and building height standards allowable under the LEP. The application has included a site analysis plan that attempts to demonstrate an indicative building footprint for this property (refer to drawing DA003 Concept Master Plan). It is considered possible for the existing dwelling to be extended to the north or be added on top; a new small dwelling could also be accommodated in the northern portion of the site (to the north of the flood path).

 

Notwithstanding, the submitted shadow diagrams only indicate the expected overshadowing on the existing dwelling, and do not attempt to establish the potential impacts on a plausible development scenario, in particular the additional impacts that would be caused by the non-compliant building height.

 

·      No. 303 Alison Road

The proposal will retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to the existing northern windows and at least 50% of the existing private open space of No. 303.

 

The allotment at No. 303 has an elongated configuration with a length of approximately 60m. The existing development only occupies the first 18m of the allotment. It is likely that further development or redevelopment would occur on this neighbouring property.

 

Again, the shadow analysis fails to indicate the potential impacts on a plausible development on this adjoining property, in particular the additional impacts that would be caused by the non-compliant building height.

 

·      No. 16-18 Abbott Street

Supplementary 3-D (isometric) shadow diagrams have been provided to Council. These diagrams show that the northern elevation of the residential flat building at No. 16-18 would not be materially affected by the proposed development. The majority of the rear (northern) communal open space would receive sunlight at 9am and 10am. By 11am, approximately half of the open space would be overshadowed. At 12noon and 1pm, the majority of the open space will be overshadowed. By 2pm and 3pm, the majority of the open space would regain sunlight.

 

The reliability of these shadow diagrams is highly questionable as the survey plan does not include the spot levels for the outdoor areas and reference levels for various parts of the flat building at No. 16-18. There is no evidence that new survey data determined by a qualified surveyor have been obtained for the purpose of these diagrams. The accurate property boundaries also have not been plotted. Accordingly, the accurate extent of overshadowing, and the impacts associated with the non-compliant building height cannot be ascertained based on the current information.

 

·      Nos. 12-14 and 20 Abbott Street

These properties are unlikely to be materially affected by the proposed development given their distance from the subject site.

 

Based on the available evidence, it is considered that a design scheme with compliant building height achieved by a stepped built form would reduce the absolute amount of shadows on the adjoining properties. The proposal fails to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that a reasonable level of sunlight will be retained for any plausible future developments on the adjoining properties. The non-compliant height and excessive building mass are likely to unreasonably constraint future developments on the adjoining sites. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory in this regard.

 

Visual privacy

The Objectives of the DCP relating to visual privacy are:

 

·      To ensure a high level of amenity by providing for reasonable level of visual privacy for dwellings and neighbouring properties.

·      To ensure new development is designed so that its occupants enjoy visual and acoustic privacy, whilst maintaining the existing level of privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

 

The potential privacy impacts of various elements of the proposal are addressed as follows:

 

Elevation

Element

Comments

North

Balconies

The side elevations to the north-facing balconies of both Blocks A and B incorporate solid blade walls, which will minimise cross viewing to the adjoining properties.

 

The terrace to Unit B.05 is elevated and is capable of overlooking the windows and private open space of Nos. 297 and 303 Alison Road. No mitigation measures have been included in the proposal to address this issue. Accordingly, this element of the proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of the DCP.

East and west elevations

Windows

The side elevations of both Blocks A and B do not contain excessive window openings. The windows provided are attached to bedroom, amenities and hallway areas. All of the living room windows / sliding doors are oriented to the street or to the central courtyard to minimise privacy intrusion to the adjoining properties.

 

The side windows generally have a width of 900mm only, except for the hallway windows of Units B.02, B.04 and B.05. Notwithstanding, these hallway windows are installed with timber shutters, which will appropriately mitigate potential privacy impacts.

West elevation

Stairwells

The common stairwell of Block A is open-air and is enclosed with full height privacy screens. The drawings do not contain any details relating to the configuration of the above privacy screens (such as dimensions, spacing and tilt angle of the louvre blades), and it is not possible to ascertain their effectiveness in mitigating potential impact on the private open space of No. 297 Alison Road. Based on the current information, this particular element is not considered to have minimised privacy impacts.

South elevation

Windows

The south elevation of Block B contains glazed windows that extend across the width of the building. Notwithstanding, these windows are attached to the bedroom areas, which are low intensity use space with the apartments, and are separated approximately 18m from the north elevation of No. 16-18 Abbott Street. Accordingly, these windows are not considered to create detrimental privacy impacts.

 

11.    Council Policies

 

11.1  Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan and the submitted quantity surveyor’s report, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$3,011,800

 

1.0%

$30,118.00

 

The above levy could be imposed as a condition of consent.

 

12.    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 matters prescribed in the Regulation could be addressed by Council’s standard conditions.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment are addressed within the body of this report.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the predominant residential land use in the locality and is not considered to result in adverse economic impacts.

 

The proposal has not addressed in detail the potential overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties attributed to the non-compliance with the building height. The degree of intensification of the land use has not been moderated by the site constraints, and the proposal has not successfully demonstrated that a reasonable level of amenity for the neighbouring residences will be retained. In this regard, the proposal is not considered to be satisfactory from a social impact perspective.

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

The site is constrained by its narrow width and complex landform with a significant stormwater flow path, which together make the design of any proposal a particular difficult task.

 

To realise the maximum FSR allowable under the LEP in the form as proposed, the design scheme has substantially breached the building height standard and various control provisions in the DCP in an unacceptable manner.

 

The height, bulk and scale of the proposed development will result in a development that is intrusive and overbearing. The application has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a reasonable level of amenity, in particular solar access, will be retained for the adjoining residences.

 

The scale and massing of the proposal resemble those that would occur in a R3 zone with 12m height limit, and are unsuitable to the subject locality. To respect the desired character for the area, there is a great impetus for the proposed building height to be reduced to a fully compliant level.

 

In the light of the unsatisfactory architectural and amenity outcomes expected of the proposal, it is not considered that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

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

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

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

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is constrained by its narrow width and complex landform with a significant stormwater flow path, which together make the design of any proposal a particular difficult task.

 

The design scheme has not been formulated within the constraints of the site. It substantially breaches the building height standard in the LEP. The height, form, massing and proportions of the development are not considered to contribute to an appropriate architectural outcome and would detrimentally impact on the visual and general amenity of the neighbouring residences. The development scheme has not properly examined the relationship of the building with the surrounding context, and does not demonstrate a skilful design that fits into the local character. It is considered that a compliant and more skilful proposal would be able to reduce the overshadowing, privacy and visual impacts on the neighbours and the streetscape.

 

The applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the building height standard is not considered to be well founded and is not supported.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 101/2013 for construction of a 3-storey residential flat building comprising two blocks with a total of 8 units, basement car parking for 12 vehicles, landscaping and associated stormwater management works, at No. 301 Alison Road, Coogee, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives for Zone R3 Medium Density Residential stipulated under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, in that the development has an excessive mass and scale, and will result in detrimental visual and amenity impacts on the adjoining properties and the street.

 

2.       The proposal does not satisfy the building height standard stipulated under Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the standard are not well founded and fail to satisfy the provisions of Clauses 4.3(3) and (4) of the LEP.

 

3.       The proposal does not satisfy the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

4.       The location and design of the waste storage facility will create significant visual and odour impacts on the proposed ground floor unit within Block A and the public domain. The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives and controls under Section B6 Recycling and Waste Management of Randwick Development Control Plan.

 

5.       The proposed car parking design does not comply with the Australian Standard 2890.1 – Off Street Car Parking. The proposal does not contain any bicycle and motorcycle parking. Additionally, the parking design relies overwhelmingly on mechanical stackers and no information has been submitted to demonstrate the suitability of this arrangement. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives and controls under Section B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access of Randwick Development Control Plan.

 

6.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls under C4 Medium Density Residential of Randwick Development Control Plan relating to landscaped open space and deep soil area, rear setback, building façade, roof design, external wall height and ceiling height, materials and finishes, solar access, natural ventilation and energy efficiency, privacy, safety and security, parking and access, fencing, storage and air-conditioning facilities.

 

7.       The height, form and massing of the development are not considered to contribute to an appropriate architectural and urban design outcome, and will detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the neighbouring residences and the streetscape. The development scheme has not properly examined the relationship between the building and the site conditions and the surrounding context and does not demonstrate a skilful design. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

8.       The proposal has not addressed in adequate detail the potential overshadowing and privacy impacts on the adjoining residences. The proposal has not successfully demonstrated that a reasonable level of amenity for the neighbouring properties will be retained. In this regard, the proposal is not considered to be satisfactory from a social impact perspective and fails to satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

9.       The application does not demonstrate a sound and comprehensive analysis of the site conditions and context, and potential amenity impacts on the adjoining residents. The proposal is considered to be an expedient development without properly considering its relationship with the site and the adjoining residential uses. In the light of the unsatisfactory architectural and amenity outcomes expected of the proposal, the site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposal fails to satisfy Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     25 June 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP41/13

 

 

Subject:                  495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/67/2009/E)

Folder No:                   DA/67/2009/E

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Senior Environmental Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification of approved development by internal alterations to create 6 additional studio apartments and conversion of a south facing full length door to a smaller window at level one podium floor

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                La Chapelle Pty Ltd

Owner:                         La Chapelle Pty Ltd

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 buildings and construction of part 4 to part 7 storey mixed use development comprising a commercial/retail component at ground and mezzanine floor levels with 13 retail tenancies and a supermarket; a residential component on floors above with 108 dwellings including adaptable and affordable housing; 3 levels of basement car parking for 304 vehicles; associated landscaping and upgrade of adjoining public reserve was approved subject to conditions at the Planning Committee Meeting on  10 November 2009.

 

The proposed modifications involve amendments to the approved development by carrying out various alterations to modify 6 of the 3 bedroom apartments to provide 6 dual key apartments (2 bedroom + studio apartments). The amendment also involves conversion of a south facing full length door to a smaller window at level one podium floor. The unit mix will essentially remain as previously approved, with 6 of the 21 x 3 bedroom apartments to become split level units featuring a studio component and a 2 bedroom component. 

 

The current Section 96 application was notified and advertised from 24 April – 9 May 2013 in accordance with Part A3 of the Comprehensive DCP - Public Notification, and the EPA Act 1979. No submissions were received in response to the notification and advertising period.

 

External referrals were sent to the NSW Police Service - Crime and safety prevention protocol and the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. The proposal has also been referred internally to Council’s development engineering department for comment. No objections were raised in the referral comments and suitable conditions have been provided for inclusion as part of any approval.

 

The proposed modifications will improve the overall amenity for future occupants of the development whilst maintaining 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.

 

Accordingly, the proposed modification results in a development that will be substantially the same for which the consent was originally granted.

 

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 through changes to 6 approved units (C8, C9, C10, C11, C12 and C13) in the following manner: - 

 

·      Unit C8 - The entry door has been relocated to facilitate the changes to Unit C9. No other changes are proposed to Unit C8.

 

·      Unit C9 - Relocation of the entry door with the instillation of an internal airlock separating the entry level, and level one of the unit layout. Reconfiguration of the entry level portion of the unit from its original master bedroom with ensuite and study arrangement to be a self contained studio. Both portions of the unit will remain on the same title with the strata laws to allow each portion to be let separately or together.

 

·      Units C10, C11, C12 and C13 - Instillation of an internal airlock separating the entry level, and level one of the unit layouts. Modification of the existing stair design resulting in minor changes on the upper level of the unit. Reconfiguration of the entry level portion of the unit from its original master bedroom with ensuite and study arrangement to be a self contained studio. Both portions of the unit will remain on the same title with the strata laws to allow each portion to be let separately or together.

 

·      Reduction in size of an approved sliding door on the southern façade to unit C6, bedroom 1 at level one podium. A new, reduced window opening is proposed to replace a full length sliding door accessing the podium level terrace to a 1.66m high window (sill height of 1.015m).

 

The applicant has indicated that the rational behind creation of the new studio areas stems from changes in the current market demand resulting in the availability of more affordable housing options (when compared to a 3 bedroom unit) and more flexible living arrangements. Both parts are proposed to remain on the same title and specific strata laws will be drafted to prevent these units from being split into separate titles.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the south-eastern corner of Daunt Avenue & Bunnerong Road, and has a total area of 5,663sqm.

 

The surrounding area comprises predominantly retail/commercial uses within the Matraville Town Centre. To the west on the opposite side of Bunnerong Road is an existing shopping strip comprising predominantly two-storey shops and residential dwellings above. To the north on the opposite side of Daunt Avenue are predominantly residential flat buildings. Adjoining the site to the east is a mix of one or two storey dwelling houses fronting Daunt Avenue & Pillars Place and a public park. To the south, is a four storey mixed use building and further south is a church.

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/67/2009

A development application was approved at the Planning Committee Meeting on the 10 November 2009 for demolition of the existing buildings and construction of part 4 to part 7 storey mixed use development comprising a commercial/retail component at ground and mezzanine floor levels with 13 retail tenancies and a supermarket; a residential component on floors above with 108 dwellings including adaptable and affordable housing; 3 levels of basement car parking for 304 vehicles; associated landscaping and upgrade of adjoining public reserve.

 

DA/67/2009/A

A section 96 modification was approved by Ordinary Council Meeting on the 24 August 2010 for a Section 96 modification to correct the description of work; and modify deferred commencement Condition No. 2 to allow work to start prior to registration of the VPA on the title.

 

DA/67/2009/B

A section 96 modification was approved under delegation on the 10 February 2011 for a Section 96 modification to correct the description of work; and modify distribution of car parking.

 

DA/67/2009/C

A section 96 modification was approved under delegation on the 19 April 2011 of the approved development to comply with BCA, including new fire egress stairs, relocation of storm water detention tank, changes to the internal ramp from retail car park to main retail level and minor building setback changes

 

DA/67/2009/D

A section 96 modification was approved under delegation on 19 December 2012 for Section 96 modification to alter the external finishes of the building, change the roof form of building 3, install new smoke exhaust shafts and raise the roof height of the BBQ area on the roof

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The current Section 96 application was notified and advertised from 24 April – 9 May 2013 in accordance with Part A3 of the Comprehensive DCP – Public Notification and the EPA Act 1979. No submissions were received in response to the notification and advertising period.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

6.1      Development Engineers

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineers for comment. No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval. The following comments were made:

 

A Section 96(2) application of the approved development has been received which seeks to modify the approved development by internal alterations to create 6 additional studio apartments and reduction in size of one window on southern elevation.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by Opra Architects stamped by Council 9th April 2013

·      Architectural Plans stamped by Opra Architects stamped by Council 9th April 2013

 

Parking Comments

The basement plans for the development approved under Section 96 application DA/67/2009/B indicated a total of 177 residential spaces (including 28 visitor spaces) on basement levels 1 & 2. This was over-compliant with the required number of residential spaces required under Council’s DCP-Parking which required approximately 163 spaces. It was also noted that approximately 16 of the car spaces were stacked in a tandem arrangement.

 

The proposed amendments will permit the 3 bedroom units C9, C10, C11, C12 and C13 to be split so as to contain a studio unit and a two bedroom unit however these will remain on the same title.

 

If considering the split studio units as separate dwellings they will generate a parking demand of 2.5 spaces which will be partially offset by the reduction of the total number of 3 bedroom units.

 

The resultant net increase in parking demand of the whole development generated by the proposed S96 amendments will only be approximately 2 spaces. This can easily be accommodated within the excess parking provision on basement levels 1 & 2 however Development Engineering requires that none of the amended units be allocated a stacked space to avoid any potential parking management issues in the operation of the stacked parking spaces for the potentially split units.

 

Should the subject application be approved, it is recommended that the following condition be included in any consent: -

 

Carspace Allocation

Units C9, C10, C11, C12 and C13 on the approved plans shall be dedicated a minimum of 2 carspaces each which must not include any of the proposed stacked carspaces.

 

There are no further amendments, additions or deletion of engineering conditions required by Development Engineering.

 

7.    External Referrals

 

The application was refereed to the following external referral agencies: 

 

·      NSW Police Service - Crime and safety prevention protocol

·      Design Review Panel - SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

7.1      NSW Police Service - Crime and Safety Prevention Protocol

The application was referred to NSW Police on 11 April 2013 in relation to Crime Risk Assessment and measures to achieve Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).

 

Written correspondence was received by Council from the Crime Prevention Officer -
Eastern Beaches Local Area Command on 21 May 2013 indicating that no objections are raised to the proposal and no further comment is necessary.

 

7.2      Design Review Panel - SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) convened under SEPP 65. The DRP recommendations in relation to the design quality principles for residential flat buildings, as set out in Part 2 of SEPP 65, from its meeting on 13 May 2013, are set out below (in italics), followed by Council’s comments to conclude: -

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is a Section 96 application for changes to a consent achieved in 2009.  The Panel is familiar with the proposal and its context.

 

The Applicant is seeking to modify 6 apartments “to address changes in the market place” since the proposal was approved in 2009.  The changes will transform the 6 apartments each into two-key apartments.  The Applicant notes that both portions of the apartments will remain on the same title with strata laws to allow each portion to be let separately of together and specifically prevent the two-key apartments being split into two separate titles. 

 

The information provided to the Panel is not clear.  Approved layouts should have been provided for comparison.  Also, it is presumed that a second kitchen has been added to the plans.

 

Council comment: The approved apartment layouts are available for reference as part of the previous development application plans and supporting documentation and are considered to be sufficient in allowing Council to carry out a full and proper assessment of the proposed changes. 

 

The Panel considers that the provision of two-key apartments is a reasonable change to the current planning as it provides a broader range of apartment types. The disadvantage is that the access to natural light and cross ventilation (via stack effect) is reduced with the inclusion of new walls and doors.  At the very least it is important that the Applicant provides the highlight louvres noted in their covering letter dated 9th April 2013. How these louvres work will require more information for the Council’s consideration as they would be cause for potential conflict with regard to noise and airborne cooking smells.  Other methods of reducing dark areas within the smaller apartment would be to introduce glazing to the upper portion of the bathroom walls and perhaps an obscured glass entry door to allow light to the stairwell.  This would make the deep-plan areas more light during the day.

 

Council comment: A condition has been imposed within the recommendation section to this effect

 

A minor change to a window on Level 1 is also being sought however no Level 1 plan has been submitted. The Panel has requested more information about this modification including a plan and a section as well as the current plan and section for comparison. It appears, from the one elevation provided, that this window is in a single storey portion of the building.  Clarification is required.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Generally the benefit of creating the two-key apartments is supported.

 

Information about the change of window should be provided to the Panel through Council by email

 

Council comment: Additional information regarding the proposed window modification was supplied by the applicant on 20 May 2013. The additional sectional plan is sufficient is addressing this recommendation by the Panel.

 

8.    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.

 

The proposed modifications involve amendments to the approved development by carrying out various alterations to create 6 additional studio apartments and reduction in the size of one opening on the southern elevation of the building.

 

As discussed in the relevant sections of this report, the proposed modifications do not give rise to unreasonable adverse impacts to the amenity enjoyed by surrounding residential development in terms of visual/acoustic privacy, parking, visual bulk and scale and overshadowing. Further, the proposed modifications improve the overall amenity for future occupants of the development whilst maintaining 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.

 

No submissions were received in response to the public notification and advertising period.

 

9.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

·      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

·      Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, as amended

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

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

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

·      Comprehensive Development Control Plan –

-  Part B7: General Controls, Transport, Traffic, parking and access

- Part D14: Commercial and Industrial Uses (Local Centres), Matraville Centre

·      Building Code of Australia

 

9.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Under the RLEP 2012, the subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre. The approved mixed use development (mixed use development is defined by the RLEP 2012 as a building or place comprising 2 or more different land uses) is permissible with development consent. The following clauses of the Randwick LEP 2012 are of relevance to the current proposal:

 

·      Clause 2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table (B2 Local Centre)

Clause 2.3 of the RLEP 2012 provides objectives for the B2 Local Centre. Under the Land Use Table section of the RLEP, the relevant objectives of the zone B2 are as follows:

 

·      To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

·      To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

·      To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

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

·      To facilitate a high standard of urban design and pedestrian amenity that contributes to achieving a sense of place for the local community.

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

·      To facilitate a safe public domain.

 

The application, as modified, will not result in any perceptible changes to the approved design or massing of the building and will result in a residential development which remains well integrated with, and supports the primary business function of surrounding B2 zone. The impacts of the proposed modifications upon the amenity of adjoining residents and public space have been addressed within this report and are considered to be acceptable. The retail components of the proposal will be retained and serve to provide opportunities for business, entertainment or community uses to serve the needs of residents and visitors. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives of the zone and recommended for approval accordingly.

 

·      Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

The relevant objectives of this clause include:

 

(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.

 

Pursuant to clause 4.3A(3), the maximum height of a building in the Matraville Commercial Centre on land identified as “Area 2” is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the corresponding Heights of Buildings Map. The maximum building height control for the subject site as stipulated in the RLEP 2012 is 22m (refer to figure below). The subject site is denoted in beige as N1, Area 2, which has a corresponding height limit of 22m. 

 

 

The RLEP 2012 height standard for the subject site is read in conjunction with the Comprehensive DCP (Part D14 – Matraville Centre), which allows for up to 6 storeys (if a supermarket is provided within the specifically identified Opportunity Locations in the Matraville Town Centre).

 

The proposed section 96 application seeks to carry out mostly internal modifications to selected units with the only external change being the reduction in size to an approved south facing bedroom door. The proposal maintains the approved 4-7 storey building at a maximum height of up to 24.2m to the underside of the ceiling of the 7th storey fronting Bunnerong Road (it is noted that the maximum building height control under the RLEP is measured to the topmost point of a building).

 

10. Policy Controls - Comprehensive Development Control Plan

 

The 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  D14 Commercial and Industrial Uses – Matraville Centre

·      Part B7 General Controls - Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

10.1    Part D14 – Matraville Centre

The proposal has been assessed in relation to this section of the DCP which guides future development in the Matraville Centre. The DCP applies to all development within the Matraville Centre zoned B2 Local Centre as identified in RLEP 2012.

 

The DCP establishes planning and design objectives and controls Performance Criteria to guide and prescribe the built form and environmental amenity standards and requirements for the Matraville Centre.

 

Section 3– Development Controls

The proposed modifications have been assessed against section 3 of the DCP and are considered to satisfy the objectives of all the relevant development and design controls that are applicable to the site. Where necessary, justification has been provided below.

 

5

Access

 

5.1

Parking

 

 

New development within the town centre must provide adequate on-site parking.

 

- Incorporate parking within and/or beneath the building.

 

Carparking areas may be designed as ground level parking provided that:

• The roof is landscaped as a Courtyard Garden; and

• The design results in building frontages level with the street.

 

ii. Parking provisions for cars and bicycles shall be in accordance with the Parking Section in PART B of the DCP.

 

iii. Tandem parking may be considered where these spaces are attached to the same strata title comprising a single apartment, subject to consideration of the maximum parking limit.

 

iv. Include natural ventilation to basement and semi -basement carparking. Integrate ventilation design into the façade of the building, or parking structure, treating it with appropriate features such as louvres, well-designed grilles, planting or other landscaping elements.

The existing parking spaces are located within the basement levels.

 

Refer to sections 6.1 and 10.2 of this report for detailed discussion regarding the parking provision.

 

 

6

Dwelling Design

 

 

6.1 Apartment mix

- Provide a mix of studios, 1, 2 and 3 or more bedroom apartments in varying layouts. On some smaller sites it may be appropriate to limit the mix to studio and/or 1 bedroom apartments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Consider the design needs of those who work from home.

The approved apartment mix is as follows:

- 23 x 1 bedroom;

- 67 x 2 bedroom; and

- 21 x 3 bedroom

The unit mix will essentially remain as previously approved, with 6 of the 21 x 3 bedroom units to feature a studio component and a 2 bedroom component, but to function as a 3 bedroom unit and remain on the same title.

 

The proposal introduces an appropriate mixture of studio, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments, which will cater for different household needs in the area.

 

Satisfactory.

 

6.4 Internal Circulation

- Maximise the amenity of circulation spaces by providing generous spaces e.g. high ceilings, wide corridors.

- Optimise the number of vertical circulation points and minimise the number of apartments per corridor.

- Provide clear sightlines by ensuring that no apartment is more than 12m away from a lift.

- Ensure that corridors are wide enough to allow 2 people walking in opposite directions, each carrying luggage or shopping parcels, to comfortably pass each other without disturbance.

- Optimise security by grouping apartments to a maximum of 10 around a common lobby. Council may consider a variation in the maximum number of units per floor where the applicant can demonstrate that a high level of amenity of the common lobby, corridors and units is achieved.

 - Provide natural daylight to circulation spaces wherever possible.

The staircase has a width of 1.2m, and is considered acceptable. The circulation area does not contain any blind spot or hidden area, and will not create safety issues for the occupants. Satisfactory.

 

 

7

Amenity

 

 

7.4 Privacy – Visual

- Separating communal open space, common areas and access routes from windows of rooms (particularly habitable rooms)

- Changing the level between ground floor apartments and the public domain or communal open space.

- Maximise visual privacy by providing the following minimum separation between buildings:

Between habitable rooms 12m

Between habitat room and balconies / non-habitable rooms 9m

Between non-habitable rooms 6m

- offsetting windows of apartments in new development to windows in adjacent development;

- recessing balconies and/or providing vertical fins between adjacent balconies;

- using solid or semi/solid balustrades to balconies;

- using louvres or screen panels to windows and/or balconies;

- providing landscape screening;

- incorporating planter boxes into walls or balustrades to increase the visual separation between areas; and/or

- utilising pergolas or shading devices to limit overlooking of lower apartments or private open space

The approved development has already been indicated for provision with suitable privacy measures to minimise direct overlooking into the internal living areas and private open spaces of the adjoining properties.

 

Further, a deferred commencement condition (deferred commencement condition 4) requiring the provision of additional details and privacy measures was imposed on the original development approval to minimise the potential impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. This condition has subsequently been complied with.

 

The existing western façade and east facing terrace of unit C08 has already been provided with appropriate louvers/screens for privacy. As such, privacy considerations will remain largely as previously approved.

 

The proposed replacement of the approved south facing sliding doors at the podium level with a more modest window will limit access to the terrace from the bedroom which the window services. As such, potential for overlooking will be slightly reduced. 

 

 

10.2    Part B7 - Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

The relevant objectives of the DCP in relation to parking and access include: 

 

·      To promote sustainable transport options for development, particularly along transport corridors, in commercial centres and strategic/key sites.

·      To manage the provision of car parking within the broader transport network.

·      To support integrated transport and land use options which can demonstrate shared and effective car parking provision with car share facilities, motorbikes/scooters, bikes and links to public transport.

·      To ensure car parking facilities, service and delivery areas and access are designed to enhance streetscape character and protect pedestrian amenity and safety.

 

Section 3.2 of Part B7 of the DCP requires, amongst other things, car parking to be provided at the following rate for dwellings: 

 

·      1 space per two studio dwelling;

·      1 space per 1 bedroom dwelling or bedsit unit over 40m2;

·      1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling;

·      1.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom dwelling.

·      Visitor parking: 1 space per 4 dwellings or part thereof, but shall not be required for a development containing less then 4 dwellings.

·      Bicycle parking: 1 space per 3 units, plus 1 visitor space per 10 units.

·      Business premises 1 space per 40sqm GFA

 

The following parking provision was approved in the original assessment of the application which included:

 

·       a commercial/retail component at ground and mezzanine floor levels with 13 retail tenancies ranging from 40sqm to 165sqm and a supermarket with a total area of 3,153sqm;

·       a residential component on floors above with a total of 111 dwellings including adaptable and affordable housing (i.e. 23 x 1 bedroom, 67 x 2 bedroom and 21 x 3 bedroom);

·       three levels of basement car parking for 288 vehicles (i.e. 119 spaces for retail component and 169 spaces for residential component);

·       three car share spaces (i.e. 2 spaces at basement level 1 and 1 space on the northern side of Daunt Avenue).

 

Rate

Requirement

Proposed

Business Premises

1 space per 40sqm GFA

4035/40=100.9(101)

119

Studio

1 per two dwellings

N/A

N/A

1 Bedroom

1 per 1 bed or bedsit over 40m2

Total requirement = 163 spaces (i.e. 23 spaces for 1 bedroom, 80 spaces for 2 bedroom, 32 spaces for 3 bedroom and 28 spaces for visitors)

Total of 169 spaces (i.e. 141 spaces for residential dwellings and 28 spaces for visitors)

2 Bedroom

1.2 per dwelling

3 + Bedroom

1.5 per dwelling

Visitor

1 per 4 dwellings

TOTAL

264

288

Bicycle

1 per 3 dwellings and 1 visitor per 10 dwellings

111/3=37(Resident)

111/10=11(visitor)

A bicycle parking area provided at basement level 3.

Carwash bay

1 per 12 dwellings

111/12=9.3(9)

9 spaces provided (sharing with visitor parking).

 

Subsequently, parking allocation approved under DA/67/2009/B provided for a total of 177 residential spaces (including 28 visitor spaces) on basement levels 1 & 2. This was in excess of the required number of residential spaces under Council’s DCP-Parking which required approximately 163 spaces.

 

The proposed amendments will permit the 3 bedroom units C9, C10, C11, C12 and C13 to be split so as to contain a studio unit and a two bedroom unit which will remain on the same title.

 

Considered as new and separate dwellings, the proposed split studio units would generate a parking demand of 2.5 additional spaces, a demand which is partially absorbed by the corresponding reduction of the total number of 3 bedroom units.

 

The resultant net increase in parking demand within the development generated by the subject section 96 application will only be approximately 2 spaces, which can be accommodated within the excess parking provision on basement levels 1 & 2. The current proposal has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineers and no objections have been raised subject to the imposition of the following condition of consent:

 

Carspace Allocation

Units C9, C10, C11, C12 and C13 on the approved plans shall be dedicated a minimum of 2 carspaces each which must not include any of the proposed stacked carspaces.

 

Subject to compliance with the recommended condition, the modified proposal is considered to adequately meet the relevant objectives of the Comprehensive DCP with regard to parking.

 

11. Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre 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 built form, as amended 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

No submissions were 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 12:     Excellence in urban design and development – The proposal has a good architectural quality in that it maximises the potential of the subject site whilst minimising impacts on adjoining and nearby residential properties.

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development – The proposal will achieve a good design in conjunction with a significant sustainable outcome for the proposed development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications involve amendments to the approved development by carrying out various alterations to create 6 two-key apartments (through the introduction of studio apartments within the approved 3 bedroom units) and reduction in the size of a set of sliding doors on the southern elevation of the building at podium level (level 1) to create a smaller window.

 

These modifications to the approved development have been considered in the assessment above as being acceptable in that they will not result in unreasonable and unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of the adjoining development or the streetscape.

 

Subject to compliance with the conditions applied to the original approval and new conditions included within the recommendations section of this report, the proposed modifications are not anticipated to result in any perceptible changes to the approved built form in terms of height, massing, parking impacts, or privacy impacts.

 

The proposal does not represent any significant external changes and provides an improved internal layout to facilitate superior living options to future occupants

 

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/67/2009 by carrying out various internal alterations to create 6 additional studio apartments and reduction in size of one window on the southern elevation of the building at 495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville in the following  manner:

 

A       Amend Condition 1 to read: 

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

Plan Number

Revision

Prepared by

Plot Date

Received on

01

G

OPRA Architects

12/10/09

12/10/09

02

C

07/09/09

07/09/09

03

D

07/09/09

07/09/09

04

D

12/10/09

12/10/09

05

D

07/09/09

07/09/09

06

A

07/09/09

07/09/09

07

C

07/09/09

07/09/09

08

C

07/09/09

07/09/09

09

C

07/09/09

07/09/09

10

C

07/09/09

07/09/09

11

C

07/09/09

07/09/09

12

B

07/09/09

07/09/09

13

A

07/09/09

07/09/09

14

A

07/09/09

07/09/09

A-15

D

12/01/09

07/09/09

A-16

D

12/01/09

07/09/09

A-17

D

12/01/09

07/09/09

21

-

07/09/09

07/09/09

22

A

07/09/09

07/09/09

23

-

07/09/09

07/09/09

24

-

07/09/09

07/09/09

25

-

07/09/09

07/09/09

26

1

07/09/09

07/09/09

       

the application form and any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the following: -

 

·      Section 96 “B” plans numbered A02 and A03, dated 12/01/2011 and received by Council on 13 January 2011;

·      Section 96 “C” plans numbered A01, A02, A03, A04, A06, A07, A08, A09, dated 12/01/2011 and received by Council on 13 January 2011;

·      Section 96 “D” plans numbered A05, issue G, dated 1 November 2012 and received by Council on 23 November 2012, plans numbered A07-A11, all issue D, dated 16 November 2012 and received by Council on the 23 November 2012 and plans numbered A06-A11, all issue A, dated 16 November 2012 and received by Council on 23 November 2012, and;

·      Section 96’E’ plans A06 Rev C, A07Rev E and A08 Rev B,  all dated 4 April 2013 and received by Council on 9 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 and except as may be amended by the following conditions:

 

B       Add the following conditions: 

Carspace Allocation

132.    Units C9, C10, C11, C12 and C13 on the approved plans shall be dedicated a minimum of 2 carspaces each which must not include any of the proposed stacked carspaces.

 

133.    The new studio components of units C8, C9, C10, C11, C12 and C13 shall be provided with obscured glass entry doors. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     25 June 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP42/13

 

 

Subject:                  6 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/400/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/400/2012

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new roof, new pool at basement level, associated site and landscaping works

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Mr C Koudounaris

Owner:                         Mr C Koudounaris

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.      Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal was been called up to Council at the request of Councillors Nash, Andrews and Matthews on 30 June 2012.

 

The proposal involves substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including a new roof, new pool at basement level, associated site and landscaping works.

 

The proposal was notified from 29 June 2012 to 13 July 2012 and objections were received from neighbouring properties raising issues mainly relating to view loss, overshadowing, bulk and scale and landscaping.

 

A mediation process was held between the applicant and objectors on 6 February 2013 and 27 March 2013 to resolve issues as raised in objections to the DA. Although no full agreement was reached, the applicant has made a number of amendments to the proposal. The amended plans were received on 8 May 2013. The amended plans incorporate the following changes:

 

·      Changes in the location of building elements

·      Reduction in size and reconfiguration of clerestory window system

·      Deletion of bathroom and store room from basement level

·      Removal of cantilevered area from facade on the ground floor

·      Removal of screens along eastern facade on the ground floor

·      Removal of front section of balcony on the first floor

·      Removal of section of floor area at rear on first floor level

·      Addition of landscaping at first floor level

·      Relocation of balcony to the south

·      Lowering of overall building height by max 590mm

 

The amended proposal was notified from 16 May 2013 to 30 May 2013 and objections were received from neighbouring properties. The matters raised in these objections have been addressed within the body of this report and, where appropriate, design modifications have been recommended. In the process of assessing these objections further amended proposal was received on 12 June 2012 incorporating an increase in the rear western setback of the proposed development from a maximum 6.8m to 8m to retain views from the adjoining southern property and reduce visual bulk and scale. 

 

The amended proposal is generally considered to have addressed adequately the issues raised in neighbouring residents’ objections. It also generally complies with the objectives and relevant provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998. The amended proposal also meets the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposal has not adopted the preferred solutions in relation floor space ratio (FSR), external wall height and landscaped area which have been assessed and found reasonable and acceptable as follows:

 

·      The proposal has an FSR of is 0.69:1, which has not adopted the DCP preferred solution of maximum 0.56:1 FSR. Assessment of the proposal indicates that the relevant objective and performance requirement of the standard have been achieved in that the proposed bulk and scale will not be inconsistent with the existing built form of adjoining and surrounding properties with the bulk of the building distributed appropriately in a stepped format down the slope of the subject site to respect the outlook of adjoining properties and preserve the privacy, solar access and view sharing for neighbouring residents. It should be noted that when the GFA and FSR are calculated in accordance with the definitions in the Randwick LEP 2012, the proposal will have an FSR of 0.65:1 (323.4m2) which will be compliant with the maximum FSR standard of 0.65:1 applicable under the Randwick LEP 2012.

·      The external wall height of the proposed development is 9.2m and does not meet the DCP preferred solution. The height difference occurs over the steep topography of the site especially as it falls from south to north renders achievement of the DCP preferred solution difficult. The proposed building exceeds the preferred 7m external wall height towards the north elevation and therefore away from the adjoining residential properties to the south and west. Accordingly, the increase in wall height will have minimal impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy, view loss and visual bulk and scale as assessed in relevant sections of this report. 

·      While the proposed development does not adopted the preferred solutions of the DCP as they relate to landscape area in that 119 sqm (23%) of landscape area will be provided instead of the required 40% (198 sqm), the proposal will achieve the objectives and performance requirements oft the control in that it will increase the provision of landscape area by 10 sqm compared with the existing dwelling through a slight contraction in the footprint of the proposed building such that overall landscaping is retained and enhanced to improve the presentation of the proposed development to the street and locality. Additionally, the landscape area is configured such that adequate area will be available for passive recreational purposes.

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

 

2.      The Proposal

 

The amended proposal results in a dwelling hosue with the folllowing features:

 

Sub-Basement Floor

 

Garage and driveway for 3 cars

Swimming pool

lift lobby and staircase

Rainwater tank and plant areas

 

Ground floor

 

Master bedroom with en suite and walk in robe

3 bedrooms

WC and bathroom

 

First Floor

 

Living room, Dining room, kitchen, wc and wash room 

 

Following a mediation process was held between the applicant and objectors on 6 February 2012 and 27 March 2012 primarily to resolve issues of view loss, bulk and scale and landscaping, following which amended plans were received on 8 May 2013 to address the issues raised. The amended plans incorporate the following changes:

·      Changes in the location of building elements

·      Reduction in size and reconfiguration of clerestory window system

·      Deletion of bathroom and store room from basement level

·      Removal of cantilevered area from facade on the ground floor

·      Removal of screens along eastern facade on the ground floor

·      Removal of front section of balcony on the first floor

·      Removal of section of floor area at rear on first floor level

·      Addition of landscaping at first floor level

·      Relocation of balcony to the south

·      Lowering of overall building height by max 590mm

 

To further mitigate the view loss impacts on the adjoining southern property, and reduce visual bulk and scale, additional amendments were received from the applicant on 12 June 2012 comprising an increase in the rear western setback of the proposed development  from a maximum 6.8m to 8m.

 

4.         The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Dundas Street, at the south-eastern corner of the intersection of Dundas Street and Oberon Street. The subject site is rectangular in shape with a total site area of 497.04 sqm and a frontage to Dundas Street of 15.24m and a frontage to Oberon Street of 32.615m. The rear boundary of the subject site is elevated from street level by approximately 1.5m to 2m. The site slopes up towards the rear boundary relatively steeply. The rear of the site is terraced with a swimming pool located at the western section of the site. The site has a northern aspect. 

 

The subject site is bounded by residential uses and the design and age of dwellings in the area are varied and no predominant architectural character is exhibited. Immediately to the south is a two storey residential flat building at No. 8 Dundas Street; to the west is a 2 storey residential flat building at No. 242 Oberon Street; to the south on the opposite side of Oberon Street are a mix of residential flat buildings and dwelling houses and, similarly, to the east on the opposite side of Dundas Street.

 

5          Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 29 June 2012 to 13 July 2012 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Objections were received from neighbouring properties raising the key issues of loss of views, visual bulk and scale, overshadowing and inappropriate landscaping. Consequently, two mediation sessions were held between the applicant and objectors on 6 February 2012 and 27 March 2013. The mediation sessions essentially resulted in the following agreement:

 

§ The applicant undertake a view analysis from objectors’ properties at Nos. 8, 10 and 12 Dundas Street and 242 Oberon Street visiting each property to take photographs.

§ The applicant place the proposed development within the view area from these properties to assess the resultant impact and consider any possible amendments to the design.

 

§ The applicant consider alternatives for planting in front of the site so as to limit the height of any plants to a maximum 1.2m in consultation with the applicant’s landscape architect.

 

§ The applicant to provide greater detail of the design of the relocated footpath and associated landscaping works on the corner of Dundas Street and Oberon Street including the provision of perspective drawings.

 

§ The applicant to amend the design so as to reduce the length of the single storey blade wall proposed at the front of the site facing Dundas Street.

 

§ The applicant provide the property owners with the completed view analysis information.

 

Following the mediation, amended plans were lodged on 8 May 2013 and the application was re-notified from 16 May 2013 to 30 May 2013. The amendments included view analysis from Nos. 8, 10 and 12 Dundas Street and 242 Oberon Street comprising primarily a digitised superimposition of the proposed building outline in the relevant view corridors from these objectors’ properties (and verified by a digital photo expert, Digitaline Pty Limited).

 

After the notification of the amended proposal, submissions were received from the following objectors’:

 

·      1/242 Oberon St, Coogee

·      1/8 Dundas Street, Coogee

·      3/8 Dundas Street, Coogee

·      10 Dundas Street Coogee     

·      242 Oberon St, Coogee (3 submissions one from the owner and two from the owner’s consultant)

 

The issues raised in submissions to the amended proposal as well as the earlier original proposal are addressed against the amended proposal as detailed below:

 

Loss of views

 

Loss of view issues have been raised by residents at Nos. 8, 10 and 12 Dundas Street, and No. 242 Oberon Street. Essentially, the amended proposal satisfies the view sharing planning principles established in Tenacity vs Warringah Council as detailed below:

 

1/8 Dundas Street

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

The affected view comprises a distant, obstructed and partial view of Coogee headland and beach available through the north-facing living room window. This view is already heavily obscured by an existing lattice screen on the subject site (Photo A). Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, this view does not qualify as iconic but can be rated as moderately significant given its distant and heavily obscured quality. Furthermore, this view is secondary to a larger water view that will be retained and remain unaffected by the proposed development which is obtained from an adjoining east-facing balcony to the living room (see Photo B & C below).

 

 

 

Photo A: Distant obscured view of Coogee Bay from the north facing dining room window of No. 10 Dundas Street. with the existing property at No 8 Dundas Street to the right of the view corridor.

 

Photo B

 

Photo C

 

Photos B and C: Views that will not be affected obtained from the adjoining balcony to the attached living room (in Photo A) of Unit 1 / 8 Dundas Street comprising unobstructed expansive ocean views and Coogee headland.

 

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.”

 

The view in Photo A is obtained in an oblique view line across the common northern side boundary such that retention of the view is considered of moderate importance.

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… 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)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

The applicant has digitised the envelope of the proposed building into the view corridor from the affected living room window as shown in Photo D. The proposed development will result in minimal loss of the existing view as the east elevation of the proposed building (shown in green outline) will not exceed that of the existing building. Rather, as advised by the applicant, it is proposed to remove the existing obstructing lattice screen which will result in an improved view of Coogee beach and headland. In view of this, qualitatively, the view loss is considered minor especially given that the wider view of Coogee Beach and Coogee Bay will still be retained (Photos B and C). In this context, the objector’s concerns are adequately addressed and any claim of view loss is considered unjustified.

 

Photo D: Minimal View loss as the proposed eastern building line (green outline) generally will not exceed the eastern building line of the existing dwelling house. Rather an improved view will be obtained as an existing lattice screen (centre) will be removed.

 

 

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 on-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.”

 

While the proposal has an FSR that exceeds the preferred solution of 0.56:1 and a wall height in one section that exceeds the max 7m preferred solution, these differences do not generate any view loss to unit 1 / 8 Dundas Street as the east elevation of the proposal will not exceed the eastern building line of the existing dwelling house and will be setback consistent with the front setback preferred solution of the DCP – Dwelling House and Attached dual Occupancies.  Thus the view impact remains similar to that currently generated by the existing dwelling house except that the applicant has now offered to also remove an existing obstructing lattice screen which will result in more view sharing. Accordingly, any requirement to lower the non-complying wall height will have no value in terms of improving view loss such that the building is considered to be skilfully designed in relation to sharing views with adjoining properties.

 

3/8 Dundas Street

 

Both the owner and tenant of Unit 3/8 Dundas Street, in the adjoining RFB to the south have objected to the loss of views as a result of the proposed development.

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

The affected view comprises an expansive distant view of the ocean and Wedding Cake Island available through wide north and east facing windows of the top floor living room (Photo E). Another affected view is obtained from the north-facing ground floor living room of Unit 3 (Photo G) which comprises a distant filtered view of Coogee Beach. Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, the view in Photo E does not qualify as iconic but can be rated as highly significant given its distant ocean panorama with Wedding Cake Island. Furthermore, this view forms a larger district water view available in a “wrap around” manner looking directly north from the same top floor living room (see Photo F below) that will be largely retained and remain unaffected by the proposed development. In relation to the view of Coogee Beach in Photo G, while this view is not iconic, it is considered significant in the context of the overall district view in which it is contained.

 

 

 

Photo E: View from the north facing dining room window of No. 10 Dundas Street. with the existing property at No 8 Dundas Street to the right of the photo.

 

 

Photo F: View that will be minimally affected obtained from the north-facing window in the same top floor living room of Unit 3 / 8 Dundas Street looking directly north comprising expansive district and Coogee Bay water and beach views.

 

 

Photo G: Distant filtered view of Coogee Beach obtained from the ground floor north-facing living room of Unit 3/ 8 Dundas Street.

 

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.”

 

While the view in Photo E is obtained in an oblique angle across the northern common side boundary, its content comprising a wide ocean vista and Wedding Cake Island warrants significant attention. Similarly, while the view in Photo G is obtained across the common northern boundary, its retention as part of an overall district view is considered warranted.

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… 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)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

The applicant has digitised the roof envelope of the proposed building into the view from the top floor living room and of the objectors’ property as shown in Photo H. The proposed development will result in minimal loss of water views as the proposed roof line will be located largely within the footprint of the roof of the existing dwelling such that the view of Wedding Cake Island will be retained. Some loss in water view will occur along the lower edges of the panorama due to the new clerestory roof structure but these are considered to be minor and do not affect the overall expansive quality of the vista in any significant way. In view of this, qualitatively, the view loss is considered moderate. In this context, any claim to view loss in this top floor living room is considered unwarranted and unjustified, and not supported.

 

The applicant has not provided a digitised outline of the building in the view corridor in Photo G as seen from the ground floor living room because the proposed first floor addition will obstruct this view completely. Following discussions with the applicant, an amended plan has been provided indicating a further increase in the setback of the rear western wall to a maximum 8m to allow for views of Coogee Beach to be retained (see Plan 1 below).

 

Photo H: Minor view loss along the lower edges of the wider panoramic ocean view will occur due to the new clerestory roof structure (outlined in green) but the overall expansive vista including Wedding Cake Island will remain intact.

 

 

 

 

Plan 1: Amended plan showing increase in setback of the rear western wall of the first floor to retained views of Coogee Beach (red arrow) currently available from the north facing living room window of Unit 3, 8 Dundas Street. 

 

 

 

Photo I: The amended proposal will result in retention of the views to Coogee Beach with a condition to be applied requiring the proposed western wall of the first floor to be consistent with, and no greater than, the western alignment of the roof of the ground floor of the existing dwelling house (as depicted in red lines).

 

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 ofon-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.”

 

While the proposal has an FSR that exceeds the preferred solution of 0.56:1 and a wall height in one section that exceeds the maximum 7m preferred solution, these differences are not considered to be the main elements of the proposed built form that would generate the loss of views to both the top floor and ground floor living room windows. More significantly, the specific wall that obstructs the view of Coogee Beach from the ground floor living room will be setback to a maximum 8m under the amended proposal and will have a height that lies below the maximum 7m control all in accordance with the relevant preferred solution of the DCP. Accordingly, the proposed building is considered to be skilfully designed in relation to view sharing with adjoining properties.

 

10 Dundas Street

 

The owners of No. 10 Dundas Street a dwelling house two properties away to the south have objected to the loss of views as a result of the proposed development.

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

The affected view comprises a distant, filtered and partial view of Coogee Beach available through a narrow view corridor with the roof top of No. 8 Dundas Street on the eastern side (right) and high mature trees on the western side (left) framing the water view (Photo J). Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, this view does not qualify as iconic but can be rated as moderately significant given its distant and filtered quality. Furthermore, this view is secondary to a larger water view that will be retained and remain unaffected by the proposed development which is obtained from an east-facing enclosed balcony to the living room (see Photo K below).

Photo J: View from the north facing dining room window of No. 10 Dundas Street. with the existing property at No 8 Dundas Street to the right of the photo.

 

 

Photo K: View that will not be affected obtained from east facing living room window and balcony to the living room of No. 10 Dundas Street comprising filtered water views and Wedding Cake Island.

 

 

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.”

 

The view in Photo J is obtained in a straight line across the northern side boundary of the objectors’ property as well as the side boundaries of No. 8 Dundas Street and the subject site beyond such that retention of the view would be difficult

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… 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)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

The applicant has digitised the envelope of the proposed building into the view corridor from the dining room area and north-facing opening of the objectors’ property as shown in Photo L. The proposed development will result in a loss of the eastern portion of Coogee Beach. The view loss largely comprises the beach existing building on the subject site and the existing dwelling at No 78 Denning Street with almost no loss of water views. In view of this, qualitatively, the view loss is considered moderate especially given that a view of Coogee Beach and Coogee Bay will still be retained. In this context, the objectors’ claim of view loss is considered unwarranted and unjustified, and not supported.

 

Photo L: View loss will occur where the proposed building has been digitally superimposed (green outline) comprising a distant and filtered view of a section of Coogee Beach and Coogee Bay towards the east. A distant albeit direct view of Coogee Beach and Coogee Bay, as obtained directly across the side boundary, remains intact.

 

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 on-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.”

 

While the proposal has an FSR that exceeds the preferred solution of 0.56:1 and a wall height in one section that that exceeds max 7m preferred solution, these breaches are not considered to be the main elements of the proposed built form that would generate the loss of view primarily as the specific wall that obstructs the view has a height that lies below the preferred maximum 7m and is setback 8m from the rear (under the amended proposal) and 2.5m from the side boundaries in accordance with max 4.5m rear and max 1.5m side boundary setback preferred solutions. Accordingly, any requirement to lower the wall height will have no value in terms of improving view loss such that the building is considered to be skilfully designed in relation to sharing views with adjoining properties.

 

12 Dundas Street

 

The owners of No. 12 Dundas Street a dwelling house three properties away to the south have objected to the loss of views as a result of the proposed development.

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

The affected view comprises a distant, filtered and partial view of Coogee Beach available from the north facing living room window of No. 12 Dundas Street with the roof top of No. 8 Dundas Street on the eastern side (right) and a high mature trees on the western side (left) framing the water view (Photo M). Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding iconic views”, this view does not qualify as iconic but can be rated as moderately significant given its distant yet intact quality.

 

Photo M: Distant View of Coogee Bay from the north facing living room window of No. 12 Dundas Street with the existing property at No 6 Dundas Street completely hidden behind the roof line of No 8 Dundas Street.

 

 

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.”

 

The view in Photo M is obtained in an oblique line across the northern side boundary of the objectors’ property as well as the side boundaries of Nos. 8 and 10 Dundas Street and the subject site beyond such that retention of the view is of moderate priority. 

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… 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)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

The applicant has digitised the envelope of the proposed building into the view corridor from the dining room area and north-facing opening of the objectors’ property as shown in Photo N. The proposed development will not result in any loss of the existing view of Coogee Bay. In this context, the objectors’ claim of view loss is considered unwarranted and unjustified, and not supported.

 

Photo N: The proposed building has been digitally superimposed (green outline) into the view corridor of No 12 Dundas Street. No view loss will occur as the proposed building will be nestled within the roof lines of existing surrounding properties and largely hidden down hill of the objector’s property.

 

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 on-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.”

 

While the proposal has an FSR that exceeds the preferred solution of 0.56:1 and a wall height in one section that that exceeds max 7m preferred solution, these differences do not generate any view loss to the objectors at No 12 Dundas Street. Accordingly, any requirement to lower the wall height will have no value in terms of improving view loss such that the building is considered to be skilfully designed in relation to sharing views with adjoining properties.

 

242 Oberon Street

 

The owner of No. 242 Oberon Street, a residential flat building, on the adjoining western property has objected to the loss of views as a result of the proposed development. Assessment of the view loss having regard to the planning principles of Tenacity vs Warringah are as follows:

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

The affected view comprises a distant, filtered and partial view of the ocean with Wedding Cake Island available from an east facing living room window and comprising a view corridor looking north-east with the roof top of No. 8 Dundas Street on the southern side (right) and high mature tree in the line of sight. Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, this view does not qualify as iconic but can be rated as significant given its distant and filtered quality containing Wedding Cake Island (Photo O).

 

Photo O: Distant views of the ocean with Wedding Cake Island and the roof line of No 8 Dundas Street to the right.

 

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.”

 

The view in Photo O  is obtained in an oblique line across the common eastern boundary such that retention of the view is difficult and of moderate priority. 

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… 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)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

The applicant has digitised the envelope of the proposed building into the view corridor from the dining room area and north-facing opening of the objectors’ property as shown in Photo P. The proposed development will result in some view loss of the ocean where an existing mature tree exists. However, the view of Wedding Cake Island will be largely retained. In this context, the objectors’ claim of view loss is considered unwarranted and unjustified, and not supported.

 

Photo P: The proposed building has been digitally superimposed (green outline) into the view corridor of from the living room of elevated unit in No 242 Oberon Street. The proposed development will result in some view loss of the ocean where an existing mature tree exists. However, the view of Wedding Cake Island will be largely retained.

 

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 on-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.”

 

While the proposal has an FSR that exceeds the preferred solution of 0.56:1 and a wall height in one section that exceeds max 7m preferred solution, these differences do not generate any unreasonable view loss to the objectors at No 242 Oberon Street. Accordingly, any requirement to lower the non-complying wall height will have no value in terms of improving view loss such that the building is considered to be skilfully designed in relation to sharing views with adjoining properties.

 

Loss of “iconic” view of Wedding Cake Island to No 242 Oberon Street

 

The specific view loss to No 242 Oberon Street has been assessed in accordance with the planning principles for view sharing as established in Tenacity vs Warringah Council in the preceding section above. Having regard to Step 1 of the planning principles, the view of Wedding Cake Island and its surrounding ocean context does not constitute an iconic view. It is a significant view but only moderately especially having regard to Step 2 of the planning principles where it is noted that the view of Wedding Cake Island is obtained across a side boundary looking north-east and therefore, as affirmed in Tenacity vs Warringah Council, is more difficult to retain than if the view were across a front or rear boundary. Accordingly, the view of Wedding Cake Island and its ocean context from No 242 Oberon Street is considered to be moderately significant, such that full retention of the view would be unwarranted. Another consideration is that there are expansive views of Coogee Beach across the front boundary of 242 Oberon Street that will remain intact and will not be affected by the proposed development (Photo 1). Accordingly, in view of proposal’s  the objector’s expectation that all of the view of Wedding Cake Island and its ocean context to remain, and be retained, intact is considered unreasonable and unacceptable. 

 

Photo 1: View of Coogee Beach / Bay (centre of photograph) remaining intact for the objector at No 242 Oberon Street.

 

Erroneous neighbour view analysis

 

The consultant acting on behalf of the owner of 242 Oberon Street makes the assertion that the applicant’s drawing relating to neighbour view analysis (DA70 Rev A) is erroneous. However, this assertion has not been supported by any sound technical evidence. For example, in support of this assertion, the submission states that “(the) western clerestory component extends further south (to only 4.0m from the southern property boundary) than the eastern one, thus this combination of height and southerly extent maximises view loss to our client’s property”. The western clerestory element, in fact, is setback approximately 2.4m from the southern property boundary and any southerly extension of the eastern clerestory will have no bearing on the ocean views available to the objector’s property. The submission continually refers to the detrimental effect of a reduced setback from the “southern boundary”. However, the relevance of any building setback from the southern boundary to loss of views to No 242 Oberon Street is doubtful and questionable. As such, compared to the objector’s assertions, the view analysis contained in DA70 Rev A is considered to be superior, credible and sound particularly given the fact that the montages in this analysis have been prepared and analysed by qualified architects and verified by 3-D modelling and digital experts using survey data. Accordingly, it is considered reasonable to accept the accuracy of the view analysis contained in DA 70 Rev A.

 

 

“Breach” of setback “control”

 

The submission of the owner of 242 Oberon Street asserts that the “The RL of the proposal’s main roof is 51.91, ie only 0.64 below the external eave of our client’s building. With its roof slab protruding southwards (sic) to a minimum of 2.0m from southern property boundary (breaching Council’s side setback control along the entire southern frontage)…”. In continually referring to “breaches” in the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies controls the objector has failed to understand the distinction between a “preferred solution” and a development standard or DCP control.

 

Section 1.5 of Council’s DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies clearly states that the DCP uses a “performance” approach to design guidance and development control. Each topic in Parts 2-5 of the DCP includes “objectives”, “performance requirements” and “preferred solutions”.

 

The DCP states that in order to gain Council approval, proposed developments must demonstrate that they have satisfied the relevant “objectives” for each development topic. The “performance requirements” provide the means by which a development will achieve the objectives for each topic. These are design based measures that the development is expected to achieve. The manner in which proposals meet the “performance requirements” is left to the applicant. The performance-based approach allows greater innovation in design while ensuring objectives are achieved. “Preferred solutions” in the DCP are deemed to comply standards which are not compulsory standards, but merely illustrate how the performance requirements may be achieved in the design of developments. The objector’s failure to understand the important distinction between “preferred solutions” and development standards or  DCP controls leads to a misunderstanding of the importance placed by Council in its assessment of development applications of departures from the numeric figures contained within the “preferred solutions”. It is important to recognise that the front rear and side setback figures in the DCP as well as the 7m building height and FSR, are a preferred solutions and not development standards or DCP controls.

 

Therefore in relation to setback, the “objectives” are stated in the DCP as follows:

 

 

§ To integrate new development with the established setbacks of the street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 

§ To ensure dwellings have adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

 

§ To maintain and enhance established trees and vegetation

 

The performance requirements for side setback are stated as follows:

 

P3       Building forms and setbacks allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air. Side setbacks adjoining a street frontage, regarding corner allotments, must integrate with the established setbacks of the side street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 

It should be noted that there is no aim for protection of views in the setback objectives and side setback performance requirement. Council’s assessment of the side setbacks of the proposal against the objectives and performance requirements for side setbacks in Section 7.1 below indicates that the proposal will achieved the objectives relating to setback and will perform adequately in relation to the performance requirements. In particular, the proposal will allow the residents in No 242 Oberon Street adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air especially given the generous proposed setback of maximum 8m from the common western boundary. Additionally the proposal will have a side setback that respects and integrates with the established setbacks along Oberon Street and Dundas Street.

 

Angled wall design of first floor results in greater view loss.

 

The submission from No. 242 Oberon Street asserts that “…the proposed First Floor external wall – leading edge of the ‘angled’ element - only 3.2m from the southern boundary (sic)…” maximises view loss to No 242 Oberon Street. The amended plans lodged by the applicant on 12 June 2013 shows that this double-serrated angled wall on the First Floor north elevation has been deleted and replaced with a single angled wall which will extend further towards the northern boundary. A condition will be applied requiring this angled wall to be setback by 1m from the northern boundary to minimise view loss impacts to No 242 Oberon Street.  

 

Erroneous GFA calculation

 

The submission from No. 242 Oberon Street asserts that the applicant’s calculation of gross floor area is erroneous primarily as “the Applicant has simply excluded from the total GFA any of the basement level”. The applicant’s exclusion of the basement level from the GFA calculation is considered correct as the definition of “gross floor area” in the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies states that gross floor area excludes, among other things:

 

b)       lift towers, cooling  towers, machinery and plant rooms and air-conditioning ducts 

 

c)       associated carparking less than 40 m2  in area and any internal vehicular or pedestrian access to that parking

 

Calculations on plan indicate that the three car parking bays amount to 39.75 m2 (5.3m x 7.5m) which is less than 40 sqm and therefore is excluded. The remaining area of the basement is dedicated to a combination of internal vehicular or pedestrian access to the car parking, lift tower and plant and utility rooms which are therefore excluded. As such, no area in the proposed basement level, technically, is gross floor area. Furthermore, in terms of performance, the majority of the floor area in the basement level is excavated area and sunken into the existing slope of the site so that these areas do not contribute significantly to visual bulk and scale of the development.

 

It should be noted that under the Randwick LEP 2008 definition, all associated car parking areas are excluded from the calculation of GFA, as well as any internal vehicular or pedestrian access to that parking.

.

Accordingly, the objector’s claim of erroneous GFA calculation is considered inaccurate and unreasonable.

 

FSR grossly non compliant

 

The submission from No. 242 Oberon Street asserts that the FSR of the proposed development inclusive of the basement level is “grossly non-compliant” with the DCP. The floor space ratio of 0.56:1 is a preferred solution and, as indicated above, is not a compulsory standard or control. Rather, the DCP aims that proposed developments demonstrate that they have satisfied the relevant “objectives” for floor area and that the “performance requirements” for floor area are achieved.

 

The objective of floor area in the DCP is as follows:

 

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

 

The performance requirement for floor area is as follows:

 

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

 

There is no aim for protection of views in the floor area objective and performance requirement.

 

Council’s assessment of the density of the proposal against the objectives and performance requirements for density in Section 7.1 below indicates that the proposal will achieved the objective relating to density and will perform adequately in relation to the associated performance requirement. In particular, the proposal will have a building bulk that is compatible with surrounding built forms (in fact, the proposal will have a ridge height of RL53.17, 3m lower than the objectors property at No 242 Oberon Street (RL56.18), and between 1.42m and 3.33m lower than the adjoining RFB at No. 8 Dundas Street (max RL56.50)). Additionally, the proposal, as indicated in relevant sections of this report, will minimise any adverse effects of bulk on neighbours, streets and public open space.

 

Applicant cannot rely on new definition of FSR under Randwick LEP 2012

 

The submission from No. 242 Oberon Street asserts that the applicant is not entitled to rely on the new definition of FSR under Randwick LEP 2012. As a measure of assessing the reasonableness of the floor area proposed, Council considers it relevant to consider the proposal against the FSR/GFA standard in the Randwick LEP 2012. Accordingly, consideration of the FSR standard contained in the Randwick LEP 2012 is also a relevant consideration and given that the LEP has been gazetted and is in force, the controls in it should have significant weight.  In this regard, it is important to note that the measurement of “gross floor area” that applies now and to future development in the locality as a consequence of the Randwick LEP 2012 differs significantly from the control under Council’s DCP - Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies. The control in the Randwick LEP 2012 is a development standard rather than a “preferred solution” and specifies a maximum FSR for this site of 0.65:1. The FSR of the proposal when measured under the definition applicable in the new LEP is approximately 0.65:1 (323.4m2). and therefore the proposal, when assessed under that new control, complies.  

 

Council has not provided objector with internal floor plans

 

The objector from No. 242 Oberon Street asserts that Council has not provided his consultant with internal floor plans. All drawings for the amended proposal were notified from 16 May 2013 to 30 May 2013 and were placed on public display in Council’s customer service centre. The onus is on the objector and the objector’s consultant to attend Council’s customer service centre to avail themselves of this information during the notification process.

 

Applicant’s drawings contain misleading information

 

The objector from 242 Oberon Street states that the applicants drawings contain misleading information including that :

 

§ “…the proposal’s south (sic) walls (are) sited further south (sic) than No 242’s on both the Ground Floor and Basement Floor …” such that the drawings misrepresent the objector’s true building line.    

 

§ the pitch of the roof of the objector’s property at No 242 Oberon Street “…appears to be  more steeply angled than a visual inspection would suggest” 

 

The objector’s assertions are not considered warranted and the amended drawings lodged with the DA are considered reasonable and adequate particularly when correctly assessed against all other technical data including survey details.

 

Inadequate information about adjoining landscaping

 

The objector from 242 Oberon Street states that “an alarming wall proposed landscaping along the shared boundary” that would impact upon views, outlook and eastern sun. The applicant has provided landscape plans which indicate the type of vegetation that will be provided along the common western boundary with No 242 Oberon Street. Council’s Landscape Officer raises no objections to the plan. The height of any future planting along the common boundary is a matter between the private parties and can be addressed under separate legislation governing tree disputes between neighbours. 

 

Overshadowing

 

Objectors in the adjoining property at No 8 Dundas Street have raised objections to loss of sunlight. The proposed overshadowing impacts are assessed in Section 7.1 below and essentially indicates that No 8 Dundas will continue to receive sunlight to a part of the glazed area of all upper level north-facing windows between 9:00am to 3:00pm such that the degree of solar access retained to these windows accord with the planning principle established in the case of The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082/  In that case, adequate solar access is considered to be achieved in the built space behind the exposed glazed area by the sun falling on the comparatively modest portion of the glazed area of the subject window. Additionally, the proposal will be setback significantly from the western boundary with the southern wall immediately adjoining No. 8 having a wall height that satisfies the max 7m wall height preferred solution. Accordingly, the overshadowing impacts on the rear yard of  No 8 Dundas Street will be minor.

 

Loss of Privacy:

As assessed in Section 7.1 below, subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP as they relate to privacy. In particular, adequate screening will be provided between the first floor terrace of the proposed dwelling and the private open space of dwellings to the south and west. All proposed balconies are orientated towards the street frontages and distant views to the north and east and therefore away from the immediate adjoining properties to the south and west.

 

Inappropriate landscape treatment along Council’s footpath on Dundas Street.

 

The applicant proposes to reconstruct the footpath along Oberon Street and in effect relocate/delete the footpath fronting the subject site while seeking a landscape treatment that varies from Council’s standard street master plan design. A condition will be applied requiring deletion of the proposed landscape treatment along Council’s land fronting Oberon Street and appropriate reinstatement works to be carried out along Council’s footpath the maintain the existing verge and pedestrian access arrangement.

 

Excessive Bulk, Inappropriate Scale, and Excessive Excavation:

Objections have been raised in relation to the bulk and scale of the proposal and excessive excavation.

 

The overall height of the proposed dwelling (to the highest front of front roof pitch) has been reduced by max 590mm in the amended proposal. Accordingly, the proposed dwelling has a roof ridge height of RL53.17, 3m lower than the existing RFB on the adjoining western property at No 242 Oberon Street (RL56.18), and between 1.42m and 3.33m lower than the adjoining RFB at No. 8 Dundas Street (max RL56.50). Additionally, the rear western building line on the first floor will be setback by a maximum 8m, well in excess of the rear setback preferred solution of Council’s DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

While the maximum external wall height of the amended development would be 9.2m, this will occur in relation to the front roof portion of the north and east elevations which will be setback from the Dundas Street and Oberon Street so that the building will be not be visually intrusive when viewed from the street. Although the floor space associated with the proposed dwelling is spread out over three levels, the dwelling generally follows the topography of the site such that the proposed dwelling is considered to be comparable in height and bulk to 2 and 3 storey dwellings in the surrounding area.

 

The extent of excavation proposed is partly necessitated by the sloping topography of the site and the need to create level and usable floor plates. The majority of excavation carried out within the site will be confined within the envelope of the proposed dwelling (i.e. basement and sub-floor areas).

 

Reduction in safety due to inappropriate landscaping treatment along south-east corner

 

The owner of the adjoining dwelling unit within No. 8 Dundas Street has raised concerns that the proposed planting along the south-east corner of the proposed development would compromise surveillance and security at the entry passage to the objector’s unit. A condition will be applied requiring the height of any solid front fence along Dundas Street to be max 1.2m in height with any additional height to max 1.8m to be of open fence design (ie., non-solid).

 

Construction noise and damage 

 

Standard construction management conditions are recommended to minimise any impacts from construction works including hours of construction and to require an appropriate traffic management plan is prepared prior to the commencement of works on the site.

 

Standard conditions requiring a dilapidation report for adjoining properties will be applied and appropriate protection and structural integrity of adjoining properties. Specifically, recommended conditions will require all excavations to be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations must be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings. Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings where necessary.

 

Noise from proposed pool pump

 

The proposed swimming pool will be located on the exposed basement level at the front north-eastern corner of the proposed development away from adjoining properties on the southern and western sides. Accordingly, any pool pump will be located in the adjoining sub-basement plant room away from these adjoining residential properties. Notwithstanding this, standard conditions to mitigate noise from pool pumps will be applied should approval be granted.

 

5.      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:-

 

5.1    Development Engineering

 

Council’s Development Engineer advises as follows:

 

“An amended application has been received for major alterations and additions at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by MD+A Architects stamped by Council 8/5/13;

·      Letter to Council from Willana Assoc regarding design amendments;

 

Oberon Street Frontage Issues

Landscaping

Landscape Plans were submitted with the original development application (stamped received by Council 26/6/2012) the landscape plan showed removal of the existing Council footpath along the Oberon Street frontage and a new path entry thru the landscaped area servicing the pedestrian entrance to the site.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has had discussions with Council’s Coordinator of City Services on site regarding the applicant’s landscape plans for the Oberon Street frontage and advise that the proposed works were not supported and thus conditions have been included seeking the deletion of the proposed landscape works with any development consent issued.

 

Footpath Levels

The applicant also seeks to lower the Council footpath at their new pedestrian entrance in Oberon Street. Council’s Development Engineer has included conditions which require the applicant to provide details for the redesigned section of the Council footpath and have them approved by Council’s Coordinator City Services prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

Council would consider allowing the new pedestrian entrance in Oberon Street being lowered to RL 42.50 which would require the steps currently located between the pedestrian entrance and the garage entrance being relocated to east of the new pedestrian entrance in Oberon Street.

 

Landscape Comments

There are no existing trees located within the site, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:”

 

5.2    Building Control and Environmental Health

 

The DA was not required to be referred for building and environmental Health comments. Standard building and environmental health conditions will be applied.

 

6.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

6.1    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 in June 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 the new LEP that are of relevance to the subject application:

 

1.     Description

2.     Standard

3.     Proposal

4.     Compliance

5.      Zoning:

6.      R2 Low Density Residential

7.      Is development permitted under zoning?

8.       

9.      Land use classified as “dwelling house” and is a permissible use

10.  Yes

11.  Floor space ratio (maximum)

12.  0.65:1

13.  0.65:1 (323.4m2)

14.  Yes

15.  Height of building (maximum)

16.  9.5m

17.  9.2m

18.  Yes

19.  Lot size (minimum)

20.  400m2

21.  No new sub-division

22.  N/A

23.  Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

24.  Applies

25.  Consistent with the visual qualities of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

26.   

27.  Yes

*Note: the GFA has been measured in accordance with the definition of RLEP 2012.

 

6.2    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the RLEP. Particular consideration has been given to the clauses listed, which have been discussed in further detail, below:

 

·      Clause 10: Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) Objectives

·      Clause 22: Services

·      Clause 29: Foreshore Scenic Protection

·      Clause 40: Earthworks

 

Clause 10: Residential A Zone Objectives

The objectives of the Residential A Zone that relate to the proposed development seek to provide a low density residential environment; maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area; and to protect the amenity of existing residents.

 

The proposal is considered to generally satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone in that it involves the replacement of the existing double storey detached dwelling house with a new detached dwelling of contemporary design. The amendments to the original design following mediation will deliver a development that will be compatible with the predominant and desired character of the locality. Additionally, 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.

 

Clause 22: Services

Clause 22 requires that adequate facilities for supply of water, disposal of sewage and drainage are required to support a proposed development. The proposal is located in an urban area with service utilities readily available. Notwithstanding, the provision of utility and civil services will be required by appropriate conditions of consent.

 

Clause 29: Foreshore Scenic Protection

Under Clause 29, Council is to consider the aesthetic appearance and visual amenity impact of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore. The proposal has an aesthetic appearance that will not be detrimental to the visual qualities and amenity of the foreshore. In particular, the new detached dwelling is not atypical of previously approved new dwelling house developments in the locality in terms of architectural style, bulk and scale and external finish. In this regard, the proposal will utilise appropriate materials and finishes that would be sympathetic to the foreshore including sand stone cladded facades to retaining walls, sandstone rockface cladding to dwelling walls, anodised window frames and eco-pavers. 

 

Clause 40: Earthworks

Under Clause 40: Earthworks Council must consider the likely effect of a proposal on: disruption of, or detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability; the future use or redevelopment of the land.

 

The proposal requires significant excavation to accommodate functional floor plates for the extended sections of the garage. The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineer for assessment. It is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on the drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the recommended engineering conditions.

 

Standard conditions are also recommended to ensure that suitable soil retention and erosion control measures are undertaken during works on the site.

 

7.      Policy Controls

 

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

 

The DCP uses a “performance” approach to guide and control the design of dwelling houses and dual occupancies. The performance approach ensures that developments meet important design and site planning objectives. Accordingly, DCP controls are expressed as “Performance Requirements” and provide the means by which a development will achieve the objectives or each development criteria.

 

The DCP also includes “Preferred Solutions” which are “deemed to comply” alternative, but not compulsory, standards for achieving performance requirements in design of developments. 

 

The proposal has been assessed against the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP as detailed in the table below:

 

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area (198 sqm).

119 sqm or 23% as per Applicant’s SEE.

S1

A minimum of 25m² of useable private open space is to be provided.

Satisfactory.

S1

Each dwelling must provide an area of private open space capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

4m x 10m. Satisfactory.

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The above-mentioned private open space is located in the rear portion of the site. Satisfactory.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

The proposed soft landscaped or permeable surfaces amount to 115m2 or 96% of the site. Satisfactory.

 

The objectives of the DCP in relation to landscaping is to retain and enhance existing significant landscaping; to provide useful outdoor recreational surface; improve stormwater management, aesthetics, amenity and energy efficiency of housing; and to preserve native wildlife. 

 

While the proposed development does not adopt the preferred solutions of the DCP as they relate to landscape area in that 119 sqm (23%) of landscape area will be provided instead of the required 40% (198 sqm), the proposal will achieve the objectives and performance requirements oft the control in that it will increase the provision of landscape area by 10 sqm compared with the existing dwelling through a slight contraction in the footprint of the proposed building such that overall landscaping is retained and enhanced to improve the presentation of the proposed development to the street and locality. Additionally, the landscape area is configured such that adequate area will be available for passive recreational purposes.

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of 497m2 is a maximum floor space ratio of 0.56:1 (278.32 m2 GFA). 

0.69:1 (347.39 sqm). See discussion below.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

9.2m. See discussion below.

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Max 4m. See discussion below.

 

 

 

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Satisfactory. Appropriate conditions have been recommended to ensure the stability of adjoining sites.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Satisfactory.

S4

The length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

Satisfactory.

S5

The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

Not applicable.

 

The objectives of the DCP in relation to density, building height and form aim to ensure development relates to the topography of the site and is not excessive in bulk or scale, compatible with the existing character of the locality, and ensures that new development preserves reasonable levels of privacy and natural light access to neighbouring sites. Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in height, bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The proposal has an FSR of 0.69:1 (347.39 sqm) which does not adopt the preferred solution of 0.56:1(278.32 m2 GFA). The proposed development also has a building height and cut and fill is proposed that varies form the preferred solution having a maximum external wall height of 9.2m and excavation depth of 4m in some parts at less than 900mm from the adjoining southern side boundary. Notwithstanding these differences, the proposal is expected to generally satisfy the objectives of the DCP as it relates to the following criteria:

 

Density

 

·      the proposed bulk and scale will not be inconsistent with the existing built form of adjoining properties especially at No. 8 Dundas Street and No 242 Oberon Street. The amended proposal will have a ridge height of RL53.17,   3m lower than the existing RFB on the adjoining western property at No 242 Oberon Street (RL56.18), and between 1.42m and 3.33m lower than the adjoining RFB at No. 8 Dundas Street (max RL56.50).

·      the bulk of the building has been distributed appropriately in a stepped format down the slope of the subject site to respect the outlook of adjoining properties with the building bulk set well back from the street corresponding with that of the immediate adjoining properties. This will have the effect of reducing any perception of visual bulk and scale of the proposed building to adjoining properties as well as to the street. Additionally, there will be minimal impact on the views of adjoining and surrounding properties.

·      the proposal will have reasonable impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties in that it will preserve the privacy and solar light access for neighbouring residents and allow sharing of views as indicated in relevant sections below.

 

External wall height

 

·      the steep topography of the site especially as it falls from south to north renders achievement of the DCP preferred solution difficult to achieve. The proposed building is presented in a stepped form with the southern side and eastern rear of the building being sunk into the fall and contour of the land. The proposal is considered to satisfactorily address the landform of the site and will not result in significant adverse visual impacts.

·      The proposed building exceeds the preferred 7m external wall height over a distance of approximately 15m on the north elevation and therefore away from the adjoining residential properties to the south and west. Accordingly, the increase in wall height will have minimal impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy, view loss and visual bulk and scale as assessed in relevant sections of this report.  

·      The difference in wall height from the preferred solutions occurs along a northern roof-line that is setback significant from the Oberon Street and Dundas Street frontages. Accordingly, the building bulk will be set well back from the street corresponding with that of the immediate adjoining properties which are higher than that of the proposed development such that this building location will minimise impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties. Due to the localised nature of the breach, the proposal will not result in any dominant visual bulk and scale.

·      As indicated above, the proposed dwelling has a ridge height of RL53.17,   3m lower than the existing RFB on the adjoining western property at No 242 Oberon Street (RL56.18), and between 1.42m and 3.33m lower than the adjoining RFB at No. 8 Dundas Street.

 

·      Combined with the proposal’s stepped built form down the subject site, consistent with the slope of the land, and given the elevated topography of adjoining and surrounding properties, there will be minimal impact on the views of adjoining and surrounding properties.

·      As will be discussed in the following sections, the proposal will not result in unreasonable overshadowing or privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Excavation

 

·      The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the extent and depth of excavation due to the steep topography of the site. The extent of excavation is necessary to accommodate functional floor plates for the proposal. The proposed excavation and provision of floor space under the existing ground line will not increase the visual bulk and scale of the development as viewed from the surrounding public and private domain.

 

·      The extent of excavation proposed is partly necessitated by the sloping topography of the site and the need to create level and usable floor plates.

 

·      The majority of excavation carried out within the site will be confined within the envelope of the proposed dwelling (i.e. basement and sub-floor areas).

 

·      None of the excavation associated with the proposed development is expected to result in the disruption of drainage patterns. The site is not known to be located within an area that is prone to flooding or subject to overland flow paths. A drainage channel will be constructed across the proposed vehicle crossing to direct stormwater past that section of the sandstone wall that is to be removed.

 

·      Although the floor space associated with the proposed dwelling is spread out over three levels, the dwelling generally follows the topography of the site and is considered to be similar in height and bulk to development in the surrounding area.

 

·      Specific conditions have been recommended to require adequate soil retention measures to be undertaken during works on the site.

 

 

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The front setback to Dundas Street will remain the same as that of the existing dwelling at 4.7m except at one minor localised spot where the front setback will be 4m. Notwithstanding this, the front setback will be greater than the front setback of the adjoining southern property at No 8 Dundas Street. Accordingly, the front setback is considered to achieve the preferred solution of the DCP.

S2

No part of the building is closer than 4.5m from rear boundary.

The proposal will have an above ground  minimum rear setback of 5.5m on the ground floor which is considered satisfactory. More significantly, the proposal has been amended for a third time resulting in an increased rear setback on the first floor to a maximum 8which is almost double the preferred solution. Satisfactory overall.

S3

Side setbacks should be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

The ground level of the proposed development considered to be the level defined as “Ground Floor” at RL45.88 and not the level marked even though this basement level is exposed at grade to Oberon Street and Dundas Street . The Ground Floor will have a minimum 900mm setback from the side boundaries and accordingly satisfies the preferred solution. Satisfactory.

S3

Side setbacks should be 1.5m at second floor level.

“First Floor Level” :

Northern boundary: Min 2.7m. Satisfactory.

Southern boundary: Min 900mm (see assessment below)

 

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Satisfactory, see above.

 

 

Side setback

The side setback controls aim to allow occupants and neighbours adequate natural lighting and ventilation.

 

The First Floor Level will be setback by a minimum 900mm from the common southern boundary, and therefore does not adopt the 1.5m preferred solution. However, the proposal is considered satisfactory based on the following reasons:

 

·      The development scheme has incorporated adequate measures to protect the privacy of neighbouring southern properties including the introduction of a north-facing courtyards and balconies. Consequently, there are no window openings on the southern side elevations except to a washroom/toilet which is not considered to generate any intensive overlooking of the adjoining southern property.

 

·      As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, the proposal will retain satisfactory solar access to the adjoining properties.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

Satisfactory. The proposal does not contain any window openings on the southern  side elevations except to a washroom/toilet which is not considered to generate any intensive overlooking. Apart from this, all other openings have been orientated east towards Dundas Street and the ocean beyond, and to Oberon Street and Coogee Bay beyond.

S1

Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle.

Satisfactory. No direct view into the open spaces of adjoining properties as most openings and balconies are orientated north and east towards Coogee Bay and the ocean.

A condition will be applied to reinforce the non-trafficable qualities of the eastern ledge adjoining the living room on the first floor. Therefore, this overhanging portion of the ledge is not considered to result in unacceptable privacy impacts on the adjoining property.

S1

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more or fixed obscure glazing below that height.

Satisfactory.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

The proposal will incorporate appropriate materials to minimize adverse acoustic impacts on the adjoining properties. Appropriate conditions will be recommended where relevant.

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

Satisfactory.

S1,3

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

Satisfactory.

S2

A Council-approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence.

Appropriate conditions are recommended.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Council’s Parking DCP requires 1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

Satisfactory.

S1

Car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

Satisfactory.

S1

Driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary.

Satisfactory.

S1

Driveways have a maximum width of 3m at the property boundary.

The proposed garage has a zero setback from the front boundary of the site and is 5m in width. See assessment below.

S1

Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 thereafter.

Satisfactory

S1

With respect to garages and carports to rear lanes these should be set back 1m to improve pedestrian visibility.

Not applicable.

S2

Parking and access is provided from the rear of the allotment where possible.

Not applicable.

S2

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

See below.

S2

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

The proposed garage is 5.2m wide and will occupy 45% of the site width, see below.

 

Design of parking facility

The Objectives of the DCP are to ensure on-site parking and driveway facilities are not visually intrusive and do not detract from the local streetscape.

 

The parking design does not comply with the preferred solution in terms of maximum width and location in front of the building line. Notwithstanding this, the development scheme is considered satisfactory based on the following reasons:

·      The front elevation of the nearby dwelling houses in Dundas Street is characterised by garage and driveway facilities that extend across a substantial proportion of the allotment width. The provision of garages in front of the building line is not an atypical feature of the local streetscape. 

·      The existing property has a separate garage-cum-storage structure (on the northern side) that is already at nil setback to the northern street boundary The consolidation of the garage into one structure integrated with the proposed dwelling is considered an improvement over the existing situation. The building, in effect, is considered to be suitably articulated and is compatible with the streetscape

·      Given the steep gradient in the front section of the site, the provision of a garage behind the front building line will involve significant excavation and engineering complications.

·      The proposal has been designed in accordance with comments received from Council’s Development Engineer and is considered to provide adequate levels of safety and convenience.

 

Although the proposed garage varies from the preferred solution, the proposal is considered justifiable under the circumstances described above and, furthermore, approval of the proposed works is unlikely to set a precedent for similar proposals on adjoining sites as the difference in height between the road level and the raised footpath decreases to the west of the subject site where there is only one adjoining residential flat building at No 242 Oberon Street and open space beyond.

 

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

N.A. However, sandstone cladded retaining walls are proposed on street frontages.

S1

Solid front fences or on street frontages in front of the building line are no higher than 1.2m.

A solid fence is proposed along the front boundary with varying height reaching a maximum of approximately 1.6m. A condition will be applied requiring fences in front of the building line or on street frontages may be up to 1.8m provided that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

S1

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages may be up to 1.8m provided that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

See row above.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

BASIX certificate provided.

S2

Private open space receives at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

Satisfactory.

S2,8

North-facing windows to living areas receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

Satisfactory.

S9

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each throughout the year.

Satisfactory.

S9

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

The proposal will overshadow the existing north facing windows of No. 8 Dundas Street generally consistent with existing impacts. Refer to comments below. 

S9

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

Satisfactory

 

Solar access to north-facing windows of adjoining property

The objective of the DCP aims to protect solar access enjoyed by neighbours.

 

According to the submitted shadow diagrams, the north-facing windows of the existing southern property at No. 8 Dundas Street are already overshadowed