Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 10 September 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                       10 September 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, 30 Frances Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

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

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

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

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 13 August 2013

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application 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.

D65/13      1-1A Major Street, Coogee (DA/617/2012) - DEFERRED............................. 1

D66/13      169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee (DA/181/2013)...................................... 69

D67/13      18 Snape Street, Kingsford (DA/774/2011/A)......................................... 167

D68/13      58 Victoria Street, Malabar (DA/849/2012)............................................ 181

D69/13      2 St Marks Road, Randwick (DA/98/2010/D).......................................... 237

D70/13      417-445R Bunnerong Road, Maroubra (DA/435/2013).............................. 251

D71/13      246 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee (DA/442/2013)....................................... 281

Miscellaneous Report (record of voting required)

M15/13     5 Bellevue Street, Maroubra (DA/621/2012) - DEFERRED........................ 299    

Notice of Rescission Motion (record of voting required)

NR3/13      Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Matson, Neilson and Smith - 18 Frenchmans Road, Randwick (DA/178/2013)................................................................... 387  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                       10 September 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D65/13

 

 

Subject:                  1-1A Major Street, Coogee (DA/617/2012) - DEFERRED

Folder No:                   DA/617/2012

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The development application involves the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new part 2 and part 3 level dwelling with garage, swimming pool and associated works.

 

The application was recommended for refusal and reported to Council at its meeting held on 26 February 2013. At the meeting it was resolved:

 

‘(Andrews/Seng) that the application be deferred to allow the submission of amended plans and to allow mediation between the applicant and objectors.’

 

A mediation process was held between the applicant and objectors on 4 April 2013 in an attempt to resolve issues as raised in objections to the DA. The agreement arising from the mediation was as follows:

 

i.   The applicant will consider re-designing a section of the roof terrace, being that area closest to No. 3 Major Street, so as to be non-trafficable, and will prepare amended plans to reflect any change.

 

ii.   The applicant will consider lowering the height of the building by way of further excavation into the site, and will prepare amended plans to reflect any change.

 

iii.  The applicant will consider planting around/over the existing street wall at the north-western end of the site so as to add more “greenery” in the location, and will prepare amended landscape plans to reflect any change.

 

iv.  The applicant will review the development consent (but not yet constructed) for No. 26-28 Moore Street to determine if this alters the existing views enjoyed from No. 22-24 Moore Street towards the subject site and beyond to the interface of waves and the point at “Harry’s”.

 

v.  The applicant’s architect will undertake a site inspection from the rear deck at No. 24 Moore Street to determine the extent of potential view loss and the implications if there were to be any redesign of the dwelling house.

 

vi   Any amended plans that may result from actions i) to v) above will be submitted to the Council’s planning officer for distribution to objectors for their further consideration and comment to both the applicant and to the Council.

 

Amended plans and additional information were lodged on 21 May 2013 which address the mediation outcomes and the reasons for refusal. The amendments incorporate the following key changes:

 

·      Reduction in gross floor area by 54 sqm resulting in a reduction in FSR from the original 0.61:1 (451 sqm) to 0.53:1 (397 sqm)

 

·      Reduction in building height by 800mm

 

·      Increase in northern side setback to provide a maximum 3m setback from the northern boundary compliant with the Randwick DCP minimum side setback control of 1.8m and the preferred solution under the previous DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

·      Increase in southern side setback to provide a minimum 1.5m and max 6.33m side setback from southern boundary consistent with the Randwick DCP minimum side setback control of 1.5m and the preferred solution under the previous DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

The amended proposal was notified from 12 June 2013 to 26 June 2012 and objections were received from neighbouring properties. The matters raised in these objections have been addressed within the body of this report. The amended proposal is generally considered to have addressed adequately the issues raised in neighbouring residents’ objections and in the original assessment by Council. 

 

The amended proposal complies with the objectives and relevant provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998. As the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies has now been repealed, the Randwick DCP 2013 is applicable to the proposal but only where it is not inconsistent with the RLEP 1998.

 

The amended proposal therefore is subject to the relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP – Part C1 Low Density Residential. The proposal complies with all the controls in Part C1 of the DCP with the exception of the external wall height control. The proposal has a maximum wall height of 9.4m which exceeds the 8m maximum external wall height control of the DCP. However, the proposal will meet the objectives of the wall height control primarily in that:

 

·      The proposed building primarily exceeds the 8m external wall height control in confined sections of 2m length on the north elevation of the second and third floor 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 breach in wall height occurs in the section of the building affected by the steep topography of the site especially as it falls from west to east rendering compliance with the control difficult.

·      The proposal has been reduced in FSR such that the proposed bulk and scale will not be inconsistent with the existing built form of adjoining and surrounding properties. The bulk of the proposed building is 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.

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.      Issues

 

2.1    Amended plans and additional information

The amended plans and additional information lodged on 21 May 2013 to address the mediation outcomes and the reasons for refusal incorporate the following changes:

Lower Ground Floor (containing 3 bedrooms each with en-suite bathrooms, a rumpus room, laundry, store room and water tank & plant room)

 

·      Reduction in GFA from 142 sqm to 96 sqm (reduced by 46 sqm) by deleting rumpus room and making bedrooms smaller)

 

Middle Ground Floor (containing main internal living and dining rooms, two additional and separate partially enclosed living rooms, a family room, kitchen, meal room, bathroom and northern terrace with a pool

 

·      Reduction in GFA from 158 sqm to 150 sqm (reduced by 8 sqm) by making sitting room smaller)

 

Ground Floor (Entry) (containing double garage, teenager retreat with en-suite, study and large void space overlooking main living area below

 

·      Provide glazing to entry opening to give additional surveillance

 

Upper first floor (containing master bedroom with ensuite and large associated paved balcony)

 

·      Provide planted green roof section to give greater distance between trafficable area and neighbours to limit overlooking

 

·      Provide new trellis over side terrace to allow reciprocal privacy from neighbours.

 

Overall building

·      Reduce building height by 800mm

·      Provide maximum 3m setback from northern boundary consistent with the minimum side setback control of 1.8m under the Randwick DCP

·      Provide minimum 1.5m and max 6.33m side setback from southern boundary consistent with the minimum setback control of 1.8m under the Randwick DCP

 

The applicant has also provided the following additional information to address reasons for refusal:

 

§ An addendum to the SEE dated June 2013 addressing each reason for refusal in the original DA assessment; the merits of the amendments in addressing these reasons for refusal; and response to residents objections.

§ Amended view loss analysis showing digitised montages of the amended proposal in affected view corridors.

§ Amended shadow diagrams for the amended proposal.

 

2.2    Response to reasons for refusal

In conjunction with the amended plans, the applicant has responded to each reason for refusal as follows:

 

1.  The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone as outlined within Clause 10(1)(a) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) as it fails to provide a low density residential environment.

 

Applicant’s response: The land is zoned Residential 2A wherein single dwellings are the predominant land use.  The proposal is also for a single dwelling, therefore being consistent with the density of development allowed in the zone.  Notwithstanding, the site is surrounded by higher density development including two dwellings on the adjoining allotment with two residential flat buildings being the next two closest developments.  The proposed floor space in the development has been further reduced, along with the height, to ensure consistency with the form of building foreshadowed by the planning controls.

 

2.  The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone as outlined within Clause 10(1)(b) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) as it fails to maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas.

 

Applicant’s response: The development has been reduced in scale, both in terms of height and floor space.  Clause 10 also provides that Dwelling Houses are permissible in the subject zone, with consent.  The proposal is for a single dwelling on the site, which, along with the amendments made, adopts a more modest form than the built form of the surrounding and nearby buildings.

 

3.  The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone as outlined within the Clause 10(1)(c) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) as it fails to protect the amenity of existing residents.

 

Applicant’s response: The material submitted with the amended plans demonstrates that impacts to neighbours have been minimised.  The building has also been lowered in height, reduced in floor space and side setbacks increased.  The removal of existing structures on the site has improved solar access. The proposed scheme is setback further from the side boundary to maintain the improved solar access.  The amenity of the neighbours has been improved.

 

4.  The proposed development does not comply with the aims and purpose of Clause 29 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 by resulting in a detrimental and adverse visual impact upon the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

Applicant’s response: The amended scheme reduces the overall height, and therefore wall height, of the proposed development.  The reduction of floor space ratio and increased setbacks have also reduced the scale of the building when viewed from locations around the site.  An assessment of the amended scheme from various locations around the foreshore demonstrates that the proposed dwelling sits well below the height and scale of the residential flat buildings in Major Street.

 

5.  The proposed development does not comply with the aims and purpose of Clause 40 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as the proposal involves significant site excavation and would warrant consideration of the existing drainage and soil stability in the locality in relation to the adjoining foreshore scenic protection area. In this regard, no geotechnical report has been provided with the DA.

 

Applicant’s response: The reduction in floor space has allowed for some reduction in the excavation associated with the development.  The reduced excavation has been balanced with expectations of lowering the building for view retention from properties behind the site which have enjoyed views over an “underdeveloped site” for many years.  The balance of a reasonable development outcome with minimised impacts to neighbours has been achieved.

 

6.  The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant matters for consideration to protect the natural and environmental qualities and visual amenity of the NSW coast as set-out in State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection including, but not limited to, the following considerations under Clause 8:

        

(c)            opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability,

 

Applicant’s response: The amended scheme provides no impediment to accessing the Gordon’s Bay walk across the front of the site.  The reduction of height and scale reduces any visual presence and demolition of the existing garage opens up views that previously did not exist.

 

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

 

Applicant’s response: The scheme has been adjusted to ensure that the development sits well within the visual backdrop created by the surrounding higher density development.  The reduction in height, increased roof top planting and increased setbacks provide an appropriate relationship for the development with the surrounding area.

 

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

 

Applicant’s response: The amended scheme improves some improved views from public spaces and does not have a significant impact on other views.  The increased setbacks and lower height in the amended scheme further improve these outcomes.  There is no significant overshadowing of public spaces although overshadowing is also reduced with the amended scheme.

 

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

 

Applicant’s response: As mentioned above, the design outcomes reflected in the amended plans, including the use of foreshore appropriate materials and reduced built form, ensure the development makes a contribution to the foreshore location.

 

(p) (i)      the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment

 

Applicant’s response: The development, as demonstrated above, makes a positive contribution to development outcomes for the area.  In contrast to the surrounding higher density development, the amended plans for the single dwelling provide a sound planning outcome.

 

7.  The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan as they relate to solar access; floor area and density; height, form and materials; building setbacks; visual and acoustic privacy; safety and security and foreshore development.

 

Applicant’s response: The package of material with the amended pans demonstrates the low impact that the dwelling has on surrounding development.  The height, setbacks and floor space have all been amended to accommodate the issues raised by Council and residents.  This has been achieved by the applicant’s willingness to accommodate change and participate in the mediation process with several nearby property owners. It has been demonstrated that solar access to the southern neighbour is improved, that reasonable views retention has been achieved and that the relationships between the proposed dwelling and existing development is a reasonable planning outcome.

 

8.  The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of clause 4.9.2 of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the proposal does protect the landscape qualities and aesthetic appearance of the ocean foreshore and does not conserve the natural form of the land and water interface nor reinforce the original character of the foreshore.

 

Applicant’s response: The amended plans have reduced the height of the building so that the presence of the dwelling from the surrounding foreshore area is reduced.  The design treatment also includes the use of natural tones and colours that assist in blending the development with the foreshore location.  This is further supplemented by landscaping both around the dwelling and also in the form of roof top planting.  The result is a dwelling design that respects the foreshore location through the use of design outcomes and materials.

 

9.  The proposed development does not satisfy the performance requirements relating to foreshore development under clause 4.9.4 of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

Applicant’s response: The amended material has adequately responded to the criteria in the DCP by further reducing the overall form of the building and through careful design considerations.  The amended design draws on the design of existing prominent buildings being the very large RFB that dominates the local context and the brick RFB opposite the subject site.  Bricks are a strong element in the design of some surrounding development.  At the same time, the emerging character of buildings fronting Gordon’s Bay is predominantly painted concrete finishes of varying character.  Natural environmental impacts are within typical expectations for a single detached dwelling and the proposed landscaping will improve a site that currently lacks any native or established landscaping. 

 

10 The proposal is considered to be unacceptable in its form, design and siting as it will create an adverse impact on the existing environmental qualities of the foreshore area.

 

Applicant’s response: The amended plans have reduced the height of the building so that the presence of the dwelling from the surrounding foreshore area is reduced.  The design treatment also includes the use of natural tones and colours that assist in blending the development with the foreshore location.  This is further supplemented by landscaping both around the dwelling and also in the form of roof top planting.  The result is a dwelling design that respects the foreshore location through the use of design outcomes and materials.

 

11 The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that the proposed height, bulk, scale, built form and design will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of loss of iconic and valuable views contrary to the Planning Principles established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 in relation to the assessment of view loss.

 

Applicant’s response: The mediation process undertaken between various parties enabled a clear capturing of the existing views.  The result of this process included increasing setbacks to the northern boundary to improve views corridors and reducing the height of the building so that it is now below the existing ridgeline of the current house.  The outcome exceeds what might otherwise be required when the rule and principles of Tenacity V Warringah are strictly applied in that the upper section of the development will protect views that the Tenacity process would otherwise discount (such as view across side boundaries over a height compliant section of building).

 

12 The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that the proposed height, bulk, scale, built form and design will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms loss of visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, and overbearing height, bulk and scale, and in that regard is not compatible with the scale of residential development in the locality.

 

Applicant’s response: The amended plan package demonstrates that the potential impacts to neighbours have been reduced and are that the proposal provides an acceptable planning outcome.

 

13 The shadow diagrams submitted with the development application are deficient as it is not possible to verify the accuracy of the details shown in the diagram, including, but not limited to, the position and level of buildings relative to the proposed building and level of adjoining lands relative to the subject site, and, therefore, also the accuracy of the overshadowing impacts detailed in the diagrams. The shadow diagrams also fail to accurately show the impact of existing shadows which are critical in determining, amongst other things whether or not adjoining properties will be overshadow to less than the minimum 3 hours winter solar access required under the DCP – Multi-unit Housing.

 

Applicant’s response: The amended plan package has provided shadow diagrams and assessment to demonstrate that there is an overall improvement in the solar access to the southern neighbour.

 

14 The proposed development does not promote the objectives of the zone and will result in adverse impacts on adjoining sites, the streetscape and the foreshore scenic protection area and as such would not be in the public interest.

 

Applicant’s response: The scheme achieves high levels of compliance with the performance criteria for development of this nature.  The dwelling is a much reduced scale when compared with surrounding development, has been amended to further reduce view loss including increased setbacks and reduced heights.

 

2.3    Consideration of resident submissions

The amended plans were notified from 12 June to 26 June 2013. Objections were received from the following addresses:

 

1/3 Major Street, Coogee

2/3 Major Street, Coogee

7/5-7 Major Street, Coogee

 

11 Moore St, Coogee

19 Moore St Coogee

22 Moore Street Coogee

24 Moore Street Coogee

1/30 Moore St Coogee

3/30 Moore Street, Coogee
87 Beach Street, Coogee

 

The following concerns have been raised by the objectors:

 

Failure to address Randwick LEP 2012

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 is not a matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended). In the NSWLEC Proceedings for Wang and Anor v Canterbury City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1098, a DA that is saved by Clause 1.8A of the new LEP requires no consideration of the new LEP in the assessment of the saved DA. Notwithstanding this, a comparison of the proposal has been made in Section 2.4 below against the relevant provisions of the RLEP 2012 with the emphasis that this is only for comparative purposes and that no weight is to be given to the comparisons.

 

Loss of sunlight

An objection to loss of sunlight was received from owner residents in No. 3 Major Street. The applicant has provided amended shadow diagrams for the amended proposal and the shadow analysis indicates that there will be an improvement to the solar access to this adjoining southern under the amended proposal as discussed in Section 2.6 below.

 

Loss of privacy

The amended plans have now addressed concerns regarding loss of privacy to adjoining properties and these are discussed in the relevant assessment Section below. 

 

Loss of views

Residents in Major Street and Moore Street who objected to the original proposal because of loss of views have raised these concerns with the applicant at the mediation session. The outcome of the mediation, among other things, was for amendments to the proposed development to allow for better view sharing. Accordingly, the proposal has been amended with a reduced height, lower FSR and increased side setbacks. The applicant has digitised the amended proposal into relevant view corridors from the objectors’ properties. The applicant has provided verification that the modelling has been undertaken accurately to survey. In general, the amended proposal has improved the view sharing impact on adjoining and surrounding properties as detailed in the following reassessment of the view loss from affected properties using the planning principles of Tenacity v Warringah:

 

3 Major 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 panoramic view of the northern section of Gordons Bay inclusive of the tip of the northern headland. Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, the existing available subject view is considered highly valuable and almost iconic given that it is a whole view in which the interface between land and water on the northern section of Gordons Bay is visible. The pitched roof of the existing building on the subject site is visible in this vista and has a minor impact on this view.  Specifically, the panoramic view contains the existing boat ramp and shed on the eastern end of Gordons Bay extending as an almost complete land and water interface. 

 

Photo A: View from north-facing balcony of the upper level dual occupancy of No. 3 Major Street with the pitch roof of the existing subject property in the left foreground.

 

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 a panoramic vista beginning from the western front boundary and extending across the northern side boundary and ending across the rear eastern boundary of No. 3A Major Street. The views are enjoyed largely because of the existing high level position of the dual occupancy on the top floor of No 3 Major Street which is itself an elevated site relative to the subject site. Minimisation of any loss to this view should be considered and given significant weight. 

 

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 amended building envelope into the views from the top balcony area of No. 3A Major Street as shown in Photo B below. The applicant has provided verification that the modelling has been undertaken accurately to survey. Compared with the photomontage of the original (pre-mediation) building envelope (Photo C), the amended proposal results in additional foreshore views being retained including partial views of the boat shed and ramp at the western end of Gordons Bay and more land-water interface along the northern section of Gordons Bay.

 

Photo B: View loss impact of amended DA proposal.

 

 

Photo C: View loss impact of original DA proposal

 

As such, qualitatively, the view loss under the amended proposal is considered moderate especially having regard to the retention of the view of the north-eastern section of the bay and headland as detailed in Step 4 below. Additionally, an equally significant view of the Pacific Ocean and the horizon to the east is obtained from the same balcony which will not be affected at all by the proposed development. In this context, the objectors’ claim of view loss under the amended proposal is considered unwarranted and not supported.

 

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 noncompliance 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.”

 

In terms of built form, the proposal does not comply with external wall height control of the Randwick DCP. The question therefore arises as to whether there are any view loss impacts arising from the non-compliance and whether the impacts are reasonable.

 

The third storey section of the proposed building that previously obstructed the view under the original proposal (Photo C) has now been reduced in height by 800mm and has been setback further from the northern boundary well in excess of the minimum 1.8m side setback control of the Randwick DCP. The amended proposal predominantly complies with the 8m wall height control of the DCP except for isolated sections of 2m length in the second and third storeys. The section of the third storey that does not comply with the wall height control is localised, extending for a length of 2m along the north elevation, that is, away from objector’s property. It results in a minor loss of a limited section of land and water interface which is considered acceptable compared with the longer view of the bay and northern headland that will be retained. The section of the second storey that does not comply with the wall height control is also localised, extending for a length of 2m along the north elevation, away and from objector’s property but more significantly, well below the view of the land and water interface of the northern side of Gordons Bay. Accordingly, overall, the resultant view loss is reasonable.

 

The amended proposal has reduced the floor area of the building and, in effect, the proposed building has been made more compact in height, bulk and scale. It also has been setback significantly from the northern boundary (max 3m) well in excess of the minimum 1.8m minimum setback requirement under the Randwick DCP. The effect is to increase the retention of views of Gordon Bay compared to the original proposal in that, overall, the loss is minimised towards the western end of the Bay but with the boat shed and boat ramp retained and the significant extensive land and sea interface of the Bay to the north-east, as well as, the wider ocean views to the east still retained and untouched by the proposed development (see Photo F).

 

In summary, the expectation of a full retention of the northern headland is considered unreasonable primarily given the reduction in height of the proposal; the reduction in FSR, and the increase in setback from the northern boundary.

 

22 and 24 Moore 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 from No. 22 & 24 Moore Street comprises a filtered panoramic view of the northern section of Gordons Bay inclusive of the tip of the northern headland that can be seen from the ground floor deck (Photo D) and first floor balcony (Photo E) of No. 24 Moore Street. These views from No 24 Moore Street are also representative of the view from 22 Moore Street, which is the adjoining semi on the western side both of which share the first floor terrace. Generally, the views are partially filtered by the existing buildings and foreshore vegetation. Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, the existing available subject views are considered highly valuable in nature given that the interface between land and water is quite discernible. 

 

Photo D: Existing view from north and east-facing rear elevated ground floor deck of No. 24 Moore Street showing a filtered view of Gordons Bay including northern headland tip currently obstructed by existing buildings and foreshore vegetation. A similar view is also available from the adjoining semi at No 22 Moore Street.

 

Photo E: Existing view from north and east-facing rear elevated terrace of No. 24 Moore Street showing almost complete view of Gordons Bay including northern headland tip. A similar view is also available from the adjoining semi at No 22 Moore Street which share a common rear elevated terrace.

 

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 views in Photos D and E are obtained from the north and east facing ground level deck and first floor balcony of No 24 Moore Street. The views comprise a panoramic vista beginning from the rear boundary and extending across to the eastern side boundaries of the affected properties such that retention of the view should be valued and given significant weight.

 

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 from the balcony areas of the affected properties on Moore Street as shown in Photo F & G below. The proposed development will not result in the loss of view of the northern headland of Gordons Bay as seen from the ground level deck (Photo F). From the first floor elevated terrace, there will be a minor partial impact on the northern headland tip (Photo G) but this impact is considered negligible as the overall form of the Gordons Bay is still distinctly discernible. Compared with the photomontage of the original (pre-mediation) building envelope (Photos H & I), the amended proposal results in additional foreshore views being retained including partial views of Gordon Bay. As such, qualitatively, the view loss under the amended proposal is considered moderate especially having regard to the retention of the north-eastern section of the bay and headland as detailed in Step 4 below. Additionally, an equally significant view of the “Harry’s Break” and the Pacific Ocean and horizon beyond will still be available from the northern end of the rear yard of both No. 22 and 24 Moore Street as detailed in Section 2.3 above. In this context, the objectors’ claim of view loss under the amended proposal is considered unwarranted and not supported.

 

Photo F: View loss impact of amended DA proposal from

the ground floor deck No 24 Moore Street.

 

 

Photo G: View loss impact of amended DA proposal from

the elevated terrace of No 24 Moore Street.

 

 

 

Photo H: View loss impact of original DA proposal from the ground floor deck of No 24 Moore Street.

 

 

Photo I: View loss impact of original DA proposal from the first floor elevated terrace of No 24 Moore Street.

 

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 noncompliance 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.”

 

In terms of built form, the proposal does not comply with the external wall height control of the Randwick DCP. The question therefore arises as to whether there are any view loss impacts arising from the non-compliance and whether the impacts are reasonable.

 

The built form that previously obstructed the views under the original proposal (Photos H & I) has now been reduced in height by 800mm and has been setback further from the northern boundary well in excess of the minimum 1.8m side setback control of the Randwick DCP. The proposal is now fully compliant with the FSR standard under the Randwick LEP 2012 and setback controls under the Randwick DCP 2012. This has significantly improved the retention of views for both No 22 and No 24 Moore Street (as shown in Photos F and G).

 

The amended proposal predominantly complies with the 8m wall height control of the DCP except for isolated sections on the second and third storeys. The section of the third storey that does not comply with the wall height control is localised, extending for a length of 2m along the north elevation hidden by the front section of the proposed building as it faces the objectors’ properties at No 22 and 24 Moore Street, and located well away from the affected view corridors in Photos F and G. Accordingly, It results in a negligible loss of a limited section of land and water interface which is considered acceptable compared with the longer view of the bay and northern headland that will be retained. The section of the second storey that does not comply with the wall height control is also localised, extending for a length of 2m along the north elevation, completely hidden from the objector’s properties at No 22 and 24 Moore Street due to the steep fall of the subject site away from Major Street. Accordingly, overall, the resultant view loss from the non-compliant sections of the proposal relating to wall height is considered negligible.

 

The amended proposal has reduced the floor area of the building and, in effect, the proposed building has been made more compact in height, bulk and scale. As indicated above, it has been setback significantly from the northern boundary (max 3m) well in excess of the minimum 1.8m requirement under the Randwick DCP. The effect is to increase the retention of views of Gordon Bay compared to the original proposal in that, overall, the loss is isolated to the northern headland tip when viewed from the elevated first floor terrace of No 22 and 24 Moore Street while still maintaining a significant and extensive land and sea interface of the Bay to the north-east, as well as, the wider ocean views to the east beyond the headland tip (Photo F). Accordingly, the view loss impacts in relation to 22 and 24 Moore Street are considered reasonable and acceptable.

 

32 Moore 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 from No. 32 Moore Street (a residential flat building on the opposite side of Major Street but having frontage to Moore Street) comprises a filtered panoramic view of the northern section of Gordons Bay inclusive of the tip of the northern headland that can be seen from the rear ground floor elevated deck (Photo J and K). Generally, the views are partially filtered by the existing buildings and foreshore vegetation. Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, the existing available subject views are considered highly valuable in nature given that the interface between land and water is quite discernible. 

 

Photo J: Existing view from the far eastern end of the rear elevated ground floor deck of No. 32 Moore Street showing a filtered view of Gordons Bay including northern headland tip currently partially by existing buildings and foreshore vegetation.

 

Photo K: Existing view from the western end of the rear elevated ground floor deck of No. 32 Moore Street showing a filtered view of Gordons Bay including northern headland tip currently partially by existing buildings and foreshore vegetation.

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 views in Photos J and K are obtained from the north and east-facing elevated ground level deck of No 32 Moore Street. The views comprise a panoramic vista beginning from the rear boundary and extending across to the eastern side boundaries of the affected properties such that retention of the view should be valued and given significant weight.

 

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 from the balcony areas of the affected property at 32 Moore Street as shown in Photos L and M below. The proposed development will result in the loss of view of the northern headland tip of Gordons Bay as seen from the elevated ground level deck (Photos L & M). This impact is considered negligible as the overall form of the Gordons Bay is still distinctly discernible. Compared with the photomontage of the original (pre-mediation) building envelope (Photos N & O), the amended proposal results in additional foreshore views being retained including partial views of Gordon Bay. As such, qualitatively, the view loss under the amended proposal is considered moderate especially having regard to the retention of the north-eastern section of the bay and headland as detailed in Step 4 below. In this context, the objectors’ claim of view loss under the amended proposal is considered unwarranted and not supported.

Photo L: View loss impact of amended DA proposal viewed from

the far eastern end of the elevated ground floor deck No 32 Moore Street.

Photo M: View loss impact of amended DA proposal viewed from

the western end the elevated ground floor deck No 32 Moore Street.

Photo N: View loss impact of original DA proposal viewed from the far eastern end of the elevated ground floor deck of No 32 Moore Street.

 

Photo O: View loss impact of original DA proposal viewed from the western end of the elevated ground floor deck of No 32 Moore Street.

 

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 noncompliance 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.”

 

In terms of built form, the proposal does not comply with the external wall height control of the Randwick DCP. The question therefore arises as to whether there are any view loss impacts arising from the non-compliance and whether the impacts are reasonable.

 

The built form that previously obstructed the views under the original proposal (Photos L & M) has now been reduced in height by 800mm and has been setback further from the northern boundary well in excess of the minimum 1.8m side setback control of the Randwick DCP. The proposal is now fully compliant with the FSR standard under the Randwick LEP 2012 and setback controls under the Randwick DCP 2012. This has improved the retention of views for No 32 Moore Street (as shown in Photos L and M).

 

The amended proposal predominantly complies with the 8m wall height control of the DCP except for isolated sections on the second and third storeys. The section of the third storey that does not comply with the wall height control is localised, extending for a length of 2m along the north elevation hidden by the front section of the proposed building as it faces the objectors’ property at No 32 Moore Street, and located well away from the affected view corridors in Photos L and M. Accordingly, It results in a negligible loss of a limited section of land and water interface which is considered acceptable compared with the longer view of the bay and northern headland that will be retained. The section of the second storey that does not comply with the wall height control is also localised, extending for a length of 2m along the north elevation, completely hidden from the objector’s property at No 32 Moore Street due to the steep fall of the subject site away from Major Street. Accordingly, overall, the resultant view loss from the non-compliant sections of the proposal relating to wall height is considered negligible.

 

The amended proposal has reduced the floor area of the building and, in effect, the proposed building has been made more compact in height, bulk and scale. As indicated above, it has been setback significantly from the northern boundary (max 3m) well in excess of the minimum 1.8m requirement under the Randwick DCP. The effect is to increase the retention of views of Gordon Bay compared to the original proposal in that, overall, the loss is isolated to the northern headland tip when viewed from the elevated ground floor deck of No 32 Moore Street while still maintaining a significant and extensive land and sea interface of the Bay to the north-east, as well as, the wider ocean views to the east beyond the headland (Photo L and M). Accordingly, the view loss impacts in relation to 32 Moore Street are considered reasonable and acceptable.

 

Additional view loss concerns

Some additional view loss concerns have been raised during the notification process and these are now addressed as follows:

 

§ 3 Major Street

Notwithstanding a significant improved retention of the view of Gordons Bay and unaffected view of the Pacific Ocean from their property, the owners/residents at No. 3 Major Street maintain objections to the amended proposal. In particular, they dispute the accuracy of the applicant’s view loss photomontage in Photo B in Section 2.6 below and provide the following alternative photomontage:

 

Photo1: Objectors alternative view loss analysis at 3 Major Street

 

The objector’s view impact photo appears to be taken from a different location to the applicant’s in that it corresponds with a much more recessed camera position on the upper floor dual occupancy balcony thus resulting in a greater view loss of Gordons Bay and further exacerbated by a particular depiction of the proposed solar panels. The position of a camera in relation to the particular view corridor will result in differing view loss impacts. Accordingly, the applicant’s architect (e-mail submission dated 26 July 2013 makes the following assessment of the objectors’ view loss assessment:

 

“We have received the neighbours’ letters of objection from Council.

 

We are concerned with inaccuracies contained in the objections from 3 Major Street.  In particular their photomontage view point is taken further back into the apartment  than Council’s sanctioned viewpoints.

 

We used Councils authorised camera view points to prepare our photomontages, therefore the photomontage image of view loss prepared by the owners of 3 Major Street is not an accurate representation.

 

Furthermore, the objector’s photomontage is … cropped and does not take in the panoramic view afforded from 2/3 Major street,  (upper apartment).  Our photomontages acknowledge the panoramic views.”

 

This advice is supported further by the applicant’s consultant planner’s assessment of the objectors’ photomontage in the addendum statement dated June 2013 as follows:

 

“The view loss material provided by the owners of No. 3 Major Street provide a view point much further back into the apartment compared to the applicant’s view point.  Photos taken by the applicant when on site with the council officer demonstrate that significant views of Gordon’s Bay from the balustrade area are retained. The applicant has also demonstrated that there are significant panoramic views that are retained for this apartment.  Both 1/3 and 2/3 major street have significant views to the east and south east of the ocean that are unaffected by this proposal.  Each of the two dwellings on the adjoining land have living space locations where views are significant.

 

Assumptions have also been made about the solar panels being used by the applicant.  Solar panels are also a form of development that does not require consent but notwithstanding, the applicant is intending using are a new generation of flat panels which will not rise above the parapet height and will not contribute to any significant view loss.

 

The objectors view material demonstrates that the view they are seeking to retain can only be kept in place if the proposed development is limited to a modest single storey frontage.  The views are across the side boundary, of views that are also obtained from other locations, and are over sections of the building that meet Council’s height controls. 

 

In contrast, the amended application material demonstrates that there are reasonable retention of views, including views from the room that the neighbour says is affected even though these are views across a side boundary over a compliant building envelope.  The views to the boats and boat racks at Gordon’s Bay have been retained from some locations within the room in question.  The part of the north wall of the proposal that provides view to the boats and boat racks from 2/3 Major Street is a compliant height of 7 metres.  The section of northern wall height that exceeds the wall height control does not contribute to any significant view loss of the boatshed area.

 

The applicant’s professional advice in response to the objector’s view loss assessment is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The applicant has provided independent verification that the view loss photomontage modelling has been undertaken accurately to survey.

 

·      The applicant’s view loss analysis have been based on photographs of the affected view that have been taken in accordance with the analysis outlined in view loss planning principles established in Tenacity v Warringah Council. In this regard, the photo of the affected view comprises a panoramic photo of Gordons Bay taken in a seated position on the top floor balcony of the associated dual occupancy at No 3 Major Street. Additionally, the position of the applicant’s camera is considered appropriate in terms of the function of the balcony and having regard to the view loss planning principles.

 

·      The applicant’s view loss assessment has been analysed above which essentially finds that adequate regard has been made in the design of the amended proposal to retain as much of the existing view of Gordons Bay for the objector including the boat shed and boar ramp at the western end. Additionally, the view of the Pacific Ocean at the entrance of the bay looking east remains untouched by the proposal. 

 

·      More significantly, the applicant’s photomontage assessment of view loss shown in Photo B in Section below is considered accurate and depict a reasonable degree of view sharing with the objectors as the latter still retains existing view of Gordons Bay for the objectors including the boat shed and boar ramp at the western end from the balcony. The applicant has advised that new generation solar panels that lie flat can be installed on the proposed roof so as to reduce ant view loss impact.  A condition requiring the applicant to use flat solar panels can be applied should approval be granted.

 

§ Unit 7, 5-7 Major Street

An objector in Unit 7 at 5-7 Major Street, a large residential flat building to the south, has raised concerns regarding view loss. An inspection of the objector’s property indicates that the proposal will have no impact on the primary views currently enjoyed by this unit comprising views of Gordon Bay and the Pacific Ocean (Photo 2 below). Accordingly, a view sharing analysis under Tenacity v Randwick City Council is not required.

Photo 2: Views currently enjoyed by Unit 7 and other similar units at 5-7 Major Street.

 

§ 22 and 24 Moore Street

The residents/owners of No 22 and No 24 Moore Street have raised concerns that the view of the interface of waves and “Harry’s Break” (being the interface of waves and point at the tip of the headland and entrance to Gordons Bay looking north-east from the existing balcony of No 22 and No.24 Moore Street) will be obstructed by the amended proposal. The objectors’ outright stake and claim of a particular visual feature (such as “Harry’s Break”) does not accord with the view sharing principles in Tenacity v Warringah Council which requires an assessment of the value of overall views and the capacity for such views to be shared. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has undertaken an inspection of the particular from the rear yard of No 22 Moore Street and provided the following view analysis of “Harry’s Break”:

 

130415 014

Photo 3: Viewpoint 1 looking east towards Harry’s Break

from the side of the existing deck of No. 22 Moore Street.

130415 016

Photo 4: Viewpoint 2 looking east towards Harry’s Break

from the northern end of the rear yard of No. 22 Moore Street.

 

 

Figure 1: Camera positions for viewpoints 1 and 2 in Photos 3 and 4 respectively above.

 

The applicant’s architect has provided the following advice (e-mail to Council dated 19 July 2013) in relation to these details:

 

“Please find attached two images showing views from the back yard of 22 Moore Street and a site plan of 22 Moore Street showing the position of where  the images were taken from. Image 014 is taken from viewpoint 1 and 016 is taken from viewpoint 2. As demonstrated from the two attached images views of Harry’s Break can be seen from various location from the rear garden of 22 Moore Street. It is worth noting that 22 Moore Street have a current DA approval to extend their residence and deck, this I believe will allow the owners of 22 Moore Street to maintain their view of Harry’s break from their new deck.”

 

This advice and the accompanying view analysis of Harry’s Break indicates that the proposal will not affect the view of Harry’s Break when viewed from the rear yard of No. 22 Moore Street and will become even more visible the further one moves to the northern edge of the rear yard of No. 22 Moore Street. This view analysis of Harry’s Break is considered to be similar from the rear yard of the adjoining semi at No 24 Moore Street which adjoins No. 22 on the eastern side (see Figure 1 above). This analysis and advice adequately addresses outcome No. 4 of the mediation session which reads as follows:

 

iv.  The applicant will review the development consent (but not yet constructed) for No. 26-28 Moore Street to determine if this alters the existing views enjoyed from No. 22-24 Moore Street towards the subject site and beyond to the interface of waves and the point at “Harry’s”.

 

Incompatible and overbearing height, bulk and scale

The amended proposal has reduced the width of the building which has in turn reduced the overall massing, bulk and scale of the proposed building when viewed from critical points in the local area. In particular, the reduction in floor area in the parts of the building that originally protruded into the northern setback effectively pulls the proposed building closer to the location of the existing building envelope. The reduction in height by 800mm makes the proposed building lower than the existing building as well as immediate adjoining properties on Major Street. Accordingly, from surrounding streets and properties, the amended proposal will now appear compact and sympathetic in visual bulk and scale compared with the existing residential flat buildings, large dwelling houses and dual occupancies in the local area.

 

Substantial departures from height, floor space ratio, setback and other regulatory requirements

 

Non-compliance with planning controls effectively disrespects the character of the locality and amenity of neighbours.

The reduction in floor area has now resulted in a reduced FSR of 0.53:1 compared with the original 061:1 and physically results in a reduction in the mass, bulk and scale of the proposed development. While no weight can be given to the Randwick LEP 2012 (given the savings provisions in Clause 1.8A) the amended reduced FSR would comply with the 0.6:1 FSR control under the Randwick LEP 2012. Additionally, the proposal has been reduced in building height from max 10.2m under the original proposal to 9.4m under the current amended proposal resulting in an overall reduction of 800mm.

 

In its amended form, the proposed building will have a less intrusive and dominant built form and will now be more compatible with adjoining existing development in the locality and the foreshore. It will also have reduced amenity impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy, views and overbearing visual bulk and scale.

 

Increased on street car parking

The proposal provides a double garage which meets the car parking requirements of 2 car spaces per dwelling house with 3 or more bedrooms.

 

Proposal is substantially larger and inconsistent with the Height, Bulk and Scale of the area

 

Proposal is overdevelopment of the subject site

The amended proposal essentially has reduced the GFA and FSR of the proposed development compared with the original proposal to the extent that the proposal will be brought physically closer, and in alignment with, the existing development in the immediate vicinity. The amended proposal will occur as a short stepped built form with low profile flat roof over a sloping site that falls significantly below the street level. In this amended form and site context, the proposal, visually, will be smaller in height, bulk and scale than, the buildings immediately adjoining the subject site. A number of dwelling houses and dual occupancies, and many residential flat buildings, on Major Street and nearby streets in the locality have significantly larger building bulk and built form than that proposed, including that of the objectors’ properties at No 3 and 5-7 Major Street, and, that it is these developments that contribute to the dominant character in terms of bulk and scale in the street

 

The amended proposal also has impacts that are reasonable and acceptable to the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of loss of sunlight, privacy and views as discussed in relevant sections of this report. 

 

The retention of wall on Council’s land

The applicant plans appear to show the retention and rendering of an existing wall that extends northwards from the existing detached garage abutting the northern bushland and sits on Council’s land. A condition will be included requiring the deletion of this encroachment.

 

Construction Impacts

Appropriate conditions requiring excavation works to be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property and buildings will be applied should approval be granted. Additionally, a condition requiring dilapidation reports to be prepared for adjoining properties will be applied should approval be granted. Standard conditions for managing noise, dust and emissions during construction will apply. Moreover, silt fencing and sediment control measures as required by condition of consent will be applied.

 

Loss of property value

Property valuation is not a matter for consideration in DA assessments under Section 799(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

2.4    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 was gazetted on 15 February 2013. Clause 1.8A of the RLEP 2012 requires that a development application lodged but not finally determined prior to the appointed day will continue to be assessed and determined under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) that was in force immediately before the commencement of this plan.

 

The subject application was lodged in September 2012, and is therefore subject to the savings provision. Further, when determining an application to which this clause applies, the consent authority must have regard to the provisions of this plan as if it had been exhibited under the Act but had not been made.

 

It should be further noted that in the NSWLEC Proceedings for Wang and Anor v Canterbury City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1098, a DA that is saved by Clause 1.8A of the new LEP requires no consideration of the new LEP in the assessment of the saved DA. Notwithstanding this, this assessment has assessed the amended proposal against the provisions of the Randwick LEP 2012 below. 

The following clauses of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Clause 9: Objectives

Clause 9 of RLEP 1998 requires Council to consider the aims of the LEP and Zone objectives prior to determining any DA on land to which the RLEP applies. The purpose of this Clause is “To require the general aims of this plan and the specific objectives of each zone to be taken into account in the assessment and determination of development applications”. With reference to the general aims, the proposed development will not compromise the aims of the LEP in relation to aesthetic character, sustainability, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality and contribute to the variety of housing types that does not compromise the amenity of the residential area, consistent with the zone objectives as detailed under the assessment of Clause 10 below.

 

Clause 10: Residential A Zone Objectives

The site is located within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed development is permissible in the zone subject to Council’s consent. 

 

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. While the proposed new dwelling house will not be atypical of previously approved new dwelling house developments in the locality in terms of height, bulk and scale, it will have a distinct architectural style and external finish scheme that complements its foreshore setting. In this regard, the proposal will utilise appropriate materials and finishes that would be sympathetic to the foreshore including retention of existing rock retaining walls at the lower levels, and use of recycle brick pavers, recycled timber, non-reflective glass, masonry blocks and anodised window frames.  

 

Clause 40: Earthworks

Under Clause 40, Council must consider the likely effect of a proposal in terms of  disruption to, 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.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 is not a matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended). Notwithstanding this, a comparison of the proposal has been made below against the relevant provisions of the RLEP 2012 with the emphasis that this is only for comparative purposes and that no weight is to be given to this comparison.

 

Description

Standard

Proposal

Compliance

Zoning:

R2 Low Density Residential

Is development permitted under zoning?

 

Land use classified as “dwelling house” and is a permissible use

Yes

Floor space ratio (maximum)

0.6:1

0.53:1

Yes

Height of building (maximum)

9.5m

9.4m

Yes

Lot size (minimum)

Nil

N/A

N/A

Heritage

N/A

N/A

N/A

Foreshore Scenic Protection

Yes

Proposal has been designed in accordance with foreshore scenic / coastal qualities.

Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.71 – Coastal Protection

The subject site is located within the Metropolitan Coastal Zone upon which the provisions of SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection apply.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Having regard to the overall aims of the policy and the relevant matters for consideration, it is concluded that the amended proposal has now resulted in a lower and more compact built form that will be less intrusive and bulky within the foreshore and therefore, it will not detract from both the amenity and scenic qualities of the coastal environment.

 

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing mixed use development and the applicant has provided a BASIX certificate (certificate number 441815S dated 25 September 2012) in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development. The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction. The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX have been included in the recommendation section of this report.

 

2.5    Policy Controls

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2012

The DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies has been repealed and the Randwick comprehensive DCP has been adopted. No saving provisions have been applied for development lodged prior to the adoption. As such, the provisions of the Randwick DCP apply to the proposal.

 

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.)

 

Table:  Low Density Residential

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2 Low Density Residential

Dwelling House

Yes

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·    R2 = 400sqm

·    R3 = 325sqm

Existing = 739.8 sqm

N.A.

 

Minimum frontage

 

 

 

i)  Min frontage R2 = 12m

ii)  Min frontage R3 = 9m

iii) No battle-axe or hatchet in R2 or R3

iv) Minimum frontage for attached dual occupancy in R2 = 15m

v) Minimum frontage for detached dual occupancy in R2 = 18m

Existing =17.6m

Yes

2.3

Site coverage

 

Up to 300 sqm = 60%

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

451 to 600 sqm = 50%

601 sqm or above = 45%

Site = 739.8 sqm

Existing = approx. 23%

Proposed = 29% (213.8 sqm)

Yes

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)     Up to 300 sqm = 20%

ii)    301 to 450 sqm = 25%

iii)   451 to 600 sqm = 30%

iv)   601 sqm or above = 35%

v)    Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

 

 

vi)   Maximise permeable surfaces to front

 

 

vii)  Retain existing or replace mature native trees

 

 

 

 

viii)  Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply.

 

 

ix)   Locating paved areas, underground services away from root zones.

Site = 739.8 sqm

Existing = approx. 74%

Proposed = 71% (526 sqm)

Deep soil minimum width = 5m.

 

Permeable surfaces to maximised at streetfront

 

A number of existing mature native trees retained and replacement trees provided

 

Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply.

 

Paved areas and underground services located away from root zones.

 

Yes

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

Up to 300 sqm = 5m x 5m

301 to 450 sqm = 6m x 6m

451 to 600 sqm = 7m x 7m

601 sqm or above = 8m x 8m

Site = 739.8 sqm

 

Existing = max 12m x max 16m

Proposed:

Back yard = max 12m x max 16m

Central courtyard = 6m x 11m

Front yard =6m x 4m

 

 

 

Yes

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.6:1

Site area = 739.8 sqm

Existing FSR = 0.49:1

Proposed FSR = 0.53:1

Yes

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012  = 9.5m

Existing = 7.7m

Proposed = 9.4m

Yes

 

i) Maximum external wall height = 7m (Minimum floor to ceiling height = 2.7m)

ii) Sloping sites = 8m

iii) Merit assessment if exceeded

Existing = 5.7m

Proposed = 9.4m

No (see assessment below)

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.1

Front setbacks

i) Average setbacks of adjoining (if none then no less than 6m) Transition area then merit assessment.

ii) Corner allotments: Secondary street frontage:

- 900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m

- 1500mm for all other sites

iii) do not locate swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings in front

Minimum = 4.5m

Existing = 2.5m

Proposed = Consistent with front setback of adjoining property at 4.5m

Yes

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Semi-Detached Dwellings:

Frontage less than 6m = merit

Frontage b/w 6m and 8m = 900mm for all levels

Dwellings:

Frontage less than 9m = 900mm

Frontage b/w 9m and 12m = 900mm (Gnd & 1st floor) 1500mm above

Frontage over 12m = 1200mm (Gnd & 1st floor), 1800mm above.

 

Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings

Existing =

Northern side = min 5.7m

Southern side = min 1m

 

Proposed =

Northern side = min 3m

Southern side = min 1.5m

 

The demolition of the existing house will remove a front portion that currently encroaches into the front setback. The new dwelling will respect this setback by pulling the proposed front building line away from the street in line with the setback of No 3 Major Street maintaining a consistent building line in Major Street.

 

 

 

Yes

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

i) Minimum 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever greater. Note: control does not apply to corner allotments.

ii) Provide greater than aforementioned or demonstrate not required, having regard to:

-Existing predominant rear setback line - reasonable view sharing (public and private)

- protect the privacy and solar access

iii) Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions of this DCP.

iv) For irregularly shaped lots = merit assessment on basis of:-

- Compatibility

- POS dimensions comply

- minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts

 

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

Minimum = 12m

 

Existing = min 18m and max 25m

 

Proposed = min 12m and max 25m

Yes

4

Building design

4.1

General

 

Respond specifically to the site characteristics and the surrounding natural and built context  -

·    articulated to enhance streetscape

·    stepping building on sloping site,

·    no side elevation greater than 12m

·    encourage innovative design

The proposal has an aesthetic appearance that contains a series of articulated elements including balconies, elevated terraces, mesh screens with future planted vines and

The building will also be appropriately stepped down the steep sloping site.

There will be no side elevation greater than 12m.

The proposal will have an innovative design including the use of a range of materials and finishes that would be sympathetic to the foreshore and a unique architectural style for a dwelling house in such a prominent location.

 

Yes

4.2

Additional Provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings

 

i) Enhance the pair as coherent entity:

behind apex of roof; low profile or consistent with existing roof

new character that is first floor at front after analysis streetscape outcome

ii) Constructed to common boundary of adjoining semi

iii & iv) avoid exposure of blank party walls to adjoining semi and public domain

 

N.A.

N.A.

4.3

Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Present similar bulk as single dwellings and street;

i) Parking single garage width

ii) Articulate and soften garage entry

iii) Minimise driveway width

iv) Maximum 2m setback of front entry from front façade

v) Maximise landscape planting at front

N.A.

N.A.

4.4

Roof Design and Features

 

 

 

i) Rooftop terraces on dwelling (not roof)

ii) Roof terraces above garages (low side)

Dormers

iii) Dormer windows don’t dominate

iv) Maximum 1500mm height, top is below roof ridge; 500mm setback from side of roof, face behind side elevation, above gutter of roof.

v) Multiple dormers consistent

vI) Suitable for existing

Celestial windows and skylights

vii) Sympathetic to design of dwelling

Mechanical equipment

viii) Contained within roof form and not visible from street and surrounding properties.

 

Roof top terrace is accessed via a habitable room in a proposed stepped building over a sloping site in line with the DCP requirement.

No roof terrace over garage.

No dormer windows proposed.

No mechanical equipment on roof.

Yes

4.5

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

i) Schedule of materials and finishes

ii) Finishing is durable and non-reflective.

iii) Minimise expanses of rendered masonry at street frontages (except due to heritage consideration)

iv) Articulate and create visual interest by using combination of materials and finishes.

v) Suitable for the local climatic to withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration.

vi) recycled and re-use sandstone

See also section 8.3 foreshore area.

Schedule of materials and finishes incudes use of masonry elements, recycled timber decking, recycled brick paving, blockwork screening over living room void, steel mesh screens for planting vines, and green landscaped roof.

Yes

4.6

Earthworks

 

i) excavation and backfilling limited to 1m, unless gradient too steep

ii) minimum 900mm side and rear setback

iii) Step retaining walls

iv) site conditions allow for side or rear setback less than 900mm (max 2.2m)

v) sloping sites down to street level must minimise blank retaining walls (use combination of materials, and landscaping)

vi) cut and fill for POS is terraced

where site has significant slope:

vii) adopt a split-level design

viii) Minimise height and extent of any exposed under-croft areas.

Existing = approx. 0.5m

Proposed = max 2m due to steep gradient in centre of site.

No excavation within 900mm of side boundaries

No dominant blank retaining walls down the sloping site

No cut and fill for POS

Proposal has a semi-split level design.

Exposed undercroft areas are minimized.

Yes

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

i) Portion of north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hrs direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June

ii) POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

North-facing living room windows receive a minimum of 3 hrs direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June

POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

Yes

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

 

 

iii) Portion of the north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

iv) POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

v) Existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. If no panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes (not <6m above ground) of neighbouring dwellings.

vi) Variations may acceptable be subject to:

- Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls.

- Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision pattern of the urban block.

- Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

- Location and level of the windows in question.

- Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

Shadow diagrams indicate that adjoining southern property will maintain access to northern sun with living room openings receiving in total in excess of 3 hours access to sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

POS (passive recreational activities) of adjoining southern property (including its existing rear yard) will not be overshadowed by less than the minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Yes

5.2

Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation

 

i) Provide day light to internalised areas within the dwelling (for example, hallway, stairwell, walk-in-wardrobe and the like) and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as:

- Skylights (ventilated)

- Clerestory windows

- Fanlights above doorways

- Highlight windows in internal partition walls

- living rooms contain windows and doors opening to outdoor areas

Note: The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory window for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable

Proposal will have a predominant open plan design with internal areas  including hallway, stairwell and the like receiving adequate exposure to daylight.

Living rooms will contain windows and doors opening to balconies and outdoor areas.

 

Yes

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

i) minimise any direct viewing habitable of proposed and neighbours habitable room windows by one or more of the following measures:

- windows are offset or staggered

- minimum 1600mm window sills

- Install fixed and translucent glazing up 1600mm minimum effective sill.

- Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

- Creating a recessed courtyard (minimum 3m x 2m).

ii) orientate living and dining windows away from similar opposite (that is front or rear or side courtyard

The proposal achieves the privacy objectives of the DCP in that it will have:

 

A central recessed courtyard (minimum 6m x 5m) which also serves as a separation area to the adjoining southern property.

Living and dining room windows are orientated to the south and east, away from similar opposite uses in adjoining properties to the south and west.

No window openings facing south towards the adjoining southern property.

A non-trafficable planting buffer abutting the southern side of the third floor  roof top terrace (in addition to the 6m separation distance provided by the central courtyard) to minimize loss of privacy to the adjoining southern property.

 

Yes

 

Balcony

 

 

 

iii) Upper floor balconies to street or rear yard of the site. (wrap around balcony to have a narrow width at side)

Privacy screens

iv) minimise overlooking of POS via privacy screens (fixed, minimum of 1600mm high and achieve  minimum of 70% opaqueness (glass, timber or metal slats and louvers)

v) Supplementary privacy devices:  Screen planting and planter boxes Not sole privacy protection measure)

vi) For sloping sites, step down and avoid large areas of ground floor decks or terraces.

No upper floor balcony to street.

A non-trafficable planting buffer abutting the southern side of the third floor  roof top terrace (in addition to the 6m separation distance provided by the central courtyard) will minimise loss of privacy to the adjoining southern property.

Balconies linked to living and dining rooms are orientated to the south and east, away from similar opposite uses in adjoining properties to the south and west.

 

Yes

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

i) noise sources not located adjacent to adjoining dwellings bedroom windows

Attached dual occupancies

ii) Reduce noise transmission between dwellings by:

- Locate noise-generating areas and quiet areas adjacent to each other.

- Locate less sensitive areas adjacent to the party wall to serve as noise buffer.

There will be no window openings in the south elevation so that acoustic privacy will be maintained to the adjoining southern property.

 

There will be a separation distance of approximately

 

There will be a small terrace and small upper floor balcony facing the street so that acoustic privacy will be maintained to the surrounding western properties.

These west-facing openings are linked to bedrooms, which are not considered to be conducive to, nor significant sources of, overlooking. These openings will be located in excess of 20m from the property on the opposite side of Major Street being No. 30-32 Moore Street.

 

 

Yes

5.5

Safety and Security

 

i) dwellings main entry on front elevation (unless narrow site)

ii) Street numbering at front near entry.

iii) 1 habitable room window (glazed area min 2 square metres) overlooking the street or a public place.

iv) Front fences, parking facilities and landscaping does not to obstruct casual surveillance (maintain safe access)

Proposed dwelling’s main entry will be from the front elevation

 

Street numbering will be conditioned to be at front near entry.

 

1 habitable room opening to a balcony will overlook the street front. A roof top terrace to the 3rd floor master bedroom will overlook the adjoining northern public bushland.

 

Front fence (comprising 1m high block work), parking facilities and landscaping will not obstruct casual surveillance (thus maintaining safe access).

Yes

5.6

View Sharing

 

i) Reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

ii) retaining existing views from the living areas are a priority over low use rooms

iii) retaining views for the public domain takes priority over views for the private properties

iv) fence design and plant selection must minimise obstruction of views

v) Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing

vi) Demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the DA.

(certified height poles used)

 

Proposal will reasonably maintain existing view corridors and vistas from neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open spaces as assessed in Section 2.3 below in accordance with the view sharing principles established in Tenacity v Warringah Council.

Yes

6

Car Parking and Access

6.1

Location of Parking Facilities:

 

 

 

i) Maximum 1 vehicular access

ii) Locate off rear lanes, or secondary street or

iii) Locate behind front façade, within the dwelling or positioned to the side of the dwelling.

Note: See 6.2 parking facilities forward of the front façade alignment may be considered.

iv) Single width garage/carport if frontage <12m;

Double width if:

- Frontage >12m,

- Consistent with pattern in the street;

- Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v) Minimise excavation for basement garages and scale of the front elevation

vi) Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

Max 1 vehicular access located off  Major Street

 

The proposal will have a double garage  structure integrated into, and located behind, the front building line.

 

Proposed garage will be double width relative to the 17.6m frontage and consistent with pattern in the street;

 

A condition will be applied requiring more landscaping provision in the front yard.

 

Proposed garage will be at street ground level with no excavation required.

 

Proposed driveway will be reasonably short at 4m long.

Yes

6.3

Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

i) Garages and carports comply with Sub-Section 3.3 Setbacks.

ii) 1m rear lane setback

iii) Nil side setback where:

- nil side setback on adjoining property;

- streetscape compatibility;

- safe for drivers and pedestrians; and

- Amalgamated driveway crossing

 

Proposed garage is integrated into the main building and will have a side setback of 1.5m from the southern boundary.

 

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.

 

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

- Single driveway – 3m

- Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

 

Condition will be applied to limit the width of the driveway to 5m in conjunction with a requirement for more landscaped treatment in the adjoining front yard.

 

6.5

Garage Configuration

 

i) recessed behind front of dwelling

ii) The maximum garage width (door and piers or columns):

- Single garage – 3m

- Double garage – 6m

iii) 5.4m minimum length of a garage

iv) 2.6m max wall height of detached garages

v) recess garage door 200mm to 300mm behind walls (articulation)

vi) 600mm max. parapet wall or bulkhead

vii) minimum clearance 2.2m AS2890.1

The proposal will have a double garage integrated into, and located behind, the front building line with a maximum internal width of 6m and min 5.5m internal length.

Minimum clearance of 2.4m accords with AS2890.1.

Yes

6.6

Carport Configuration

 

i) Simple post-support design (max. semi-enclosure using timber or metal slats minimum 30% open).

ii) Roof: Flat, lean-to, gable or hipped with pitch relates to dwelling

iii) 3m maximum width.

iv) 5.4m minimum length

v) 2.6m maximum height with flat roof or 3.0m max. height for pitched roof.

vi) No solid panel or roller shutter door.

vii) front gate allowed (minimum 30% open)

viii) Gate does not open to public land

N.A.

N.A.

6.7

Hardstand Car Space Configuration

 

i) Prefer permeable materials in between concrete wheel strips.

ii) 2.4m x 5.4m minimum dimensions

 

N.A.

N.A.

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

General - Fencing

 

i) Use durable materials

ii) sandstone not rendered or painted

iii) don’t use steel post and chain wire, barbed wire or dangerous materials

iv) Avoid expansive surfaces of blank rendered masonry to street

 

All fencing will be durable comprising of masonry

Yes

7.2

Front Fencing

 

i) 1200mm max. (Solid portion not exceeding 600mm), except for piers.

1800mm max. provided upper two-thirds partially open (30% min), except for piers.

ii) light weight materials used for open design and evenly distributed

iii) 1800mm max solid front fence permitted in the following scenarios:

- Site faces arterial road

- Secondary street frontage (corner allotments) and fence is behind the alignment of the primary street façade (tapered down to fence height at front alignment).

- avoid continuous blank walls (using a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping (such as cascading plants))

iv) 150mm allowance (above 1800mm) for stepped sites

v) Natural stone, face bricks and timber are preferred. Cast or wrought iron pickets may be used if compatible

vi) Avoid roofed entry portal, unless complementary to established fencing pattern in heritage streetscapes.

vii) Gates must not open over public land.

viii) The fence must align with the front property boundary or the predominant fence setback line along the street.

ix) Splay fence adjacent to the driveway to improve driver and pedestrian sightlines.

Street front fence at ground entry level will be max 1m high masonry blockwork with regular perforation. Front fence will align with the front property boundary.

Yes

7.3

Side and rear fencing

 

i) 1800mm maximum height (from existing ground level). Sloping sites step fence down (max. 2.2m).

ii) Fence may exceed max. if  level difference between sites

iii) Tapper down to front fence height once past the front façade alignment.

iv) Both sides treated and finished.

 

 

 

 

7.4

Outbuildings

 

i) Locate behind the front building line.

ii) Locate to optimise backyard space and not over required permeable areas.

iii) Except for laneway development, only single storey (3.6m max. height and 2.4m max. wall height)

iv) Nil side and rear setbacks where:

- finished external walls (not requiring maintenance;

- no openings facing neighbours lots and

- maintain adequate solar access to the neighbours dwelling

v) First floor addition to existing may be considered subject to:

- Containing it within the roof form (attic) - Articulate the facades;

- Use screen planting landscaping to visually soften the outbuilding;

- Not be obtrusive when viewed from the adjoining properties;

- Maintain adequate solar access to the adjoining dwellings; and

- Maintain adequate privacy to the adjoining dwellings.

vi) Must not be used as a separate business premises.

No outbuilding proposed as main building ends at the Foreshore Building Line.

N.A.

7.5

Swimming pools and Spas

 

i) Locate behind the front building line

ii) Minimise damage to existing tree root systems on subject site and adjoining.

iii) Located to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

iv) Pool and coping related to site topography (max 1m over lower side of site).

v) 900mm minimum coping from rear and side boundaries.

vi) Incorporate screen planting (min. 3m mature height unless view corridors affected) between setbacks.

vii) Position decking to minimise privacy impacts.

viii) Pool pump and filter contained in acoustic enclosure and away from the neighbouring dwellings.

Swimming pool will be along northern side boundary which will face bushland and have minimal impact on adjoining dwellings to the west and south. Pool and coping relate to lower ground level. Pool pump and filter located in undercroft area.

Yes

7.6

Air conditioning equipment

 

i) Minimise visibility from street.

ii) Avoid locating on the street or laneway elevation of buildings.

iii) Screen roof mounted A/C from view by parapet walls, or within the roof form.

iv) Locate to minimise noise impacts on bedroom areas of adjoining dwellings.

No air conditioning equipment on street front.

A standard condition to address any potential noise impacts from plant and equipment including air-conditioning.

Yes

7.7

Communications Dishes and Aerial Antennae

 

i) Max. 1 communications dish and 1 antenna per dwelling.

ii) Positioned to minimise visibility from the adjoining dwellings and the public domain, and must be:

- Located behind the front and below roof ridge;

- minimum 900mm side and rear setback and

- avoid loss of views or outlook amenity

iii) Max. 2.7m high freestanding dishes (existing).

No antennae proposed.

N.A.

7.8

Clothes Drying Facilities

 

i) Located behind the front alignment and not be prominently visible from the street

Located in rear yard and not be prominently visible from the street

Yes

8

Area Specific Controls

8.3

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

i) Consider visual presentation to the surrounding public domain, including streets, lanes, parks, reserves, foreshore walkways and coastal areas. All elevations visible from the public domain must be articulated.

ii) Integrated outbuildings and ancillary structures with the dwelling design (coherent architecture).

iii) Colour scheme complement natural elements in the coastal areas (light toned neutral hues).

iv) Must not use high reflective glass

v) Use durable materials suited to coast

vi) Use appropriate plant species

vii) Provide deep soil areas around buildings

viii) Screen coping, swimming and spa pools from view from the public domain.

ix) Integrate rock outcrops, shelves and large boulders into the landscape design

x) Any retaining walls within the foreshore area (that is, encroaching upon the Foreshore Building Line) must be constructed or clad with sandstone.

Use of recycled pavers and recycled timber as well as minimal reflective glass in the façade will uphold the foreshore scenic qualities of the area. No structures are proposed beyond the Foreshore Building Line. The aesthetic and urban design qualities of the proposal are satisfactory in its foreshore setting.

 

 

Maximum external wall height

The proposal has a maximum wall height of 9.4m which varies from the DCP control of 8m (for steeply sloping sites).

The objectives of the wall height control 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 proposal will meet these objectives variation is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

·      The steep topography of the site especially as it falls from west to east renders achievement of the DCP control difficult. The proposed building is presented in a stepped form with the western side 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 8m external wall height control primarily along the north elevation over a shorter distance of approximately 1.5m on the ground floor (entry level) and 2m on the first floor (top) level. As such, the minor extent and northern orientation of these breaches minimises any potential visual bulk and scale, overshadowing and view loss impacts the proposal would have on adjoining properties to the south and west.

·      The difference in wall height occurs in localised section of the northern elevation towards the rear, setback significantly from the Major Street frontage, and facing the adjoining public bushland. Accordingly, viewed from properties in Major Street and Moore Street, the front street of the proposal will result in minimal visual bulk and scale and view loss impacts.

·      As indicated above, the amended proposal has a ridge height of RL31.20,   4.4m lower than the adjoining southern property at No. 3 Major Street (RL5.6) and even significantly lower than the part4, part 5 storey residential flat building at No. 5-7 Major Street. As such the proposal will sit comfortably in relation to these properties in the street, presenting as a significantly lower, non-intrusive built form.

 

·      As discussed in relevant section of this report, the proposal will not result in unreasonable overshadowing, view loss or privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 17 July 2012, is applicable to the proposal. In accordance with the Plan, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost more than $200,000

$ 2,853,532

1%

$28,535.32

 


3.      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.

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

 

 

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

Not applicable.

 

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

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

 

 

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

Clause 7 of the EP&A Regulation 2000 requires the consent authority to consider the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Accordingly, appropriate conditions of consent are recommended for imposition should this application be considered suitable for approval.

 

Clause 92 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider relevant Australian Standards relating to demolition of structures. Accordingly, a specific condition is recommended for imposition to require compliance with Australian Standard 2601.

 

Clause 93 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider the structural capacity and fire safety aspects of a building. Accordingly, appropriate conditions are recommended to address the above matters.

 

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

The proposal will have minimal environmental impacts on the natural and built environment as the subject site and its surrounds are built up and do not contain any natural habitat for flora or fauna.

 

The proposal does not give rise to unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, view loss, solar access and privacy.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the predominant residential land uses 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 subject site is zoned Residential 2A under the Randwick LEP 2008 (Consolidation). The subject site is therefore suitable for the subject site whilst retaining the existing and desired future character of the locality. The site is well located in relation to the Coogee, Bondi Junction, Randwick and the CBD with public bus services available in nearby Arden Street. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land uses and structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

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

 

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

The proposal is not considered to result in significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered satisfactory in public interest terms.

 

3.1         Likely impact of the development - S79C(1)(b)

 

3.1.1          Natural Environmental Impacts

The subject site contains an existing residential building and associated external outbuilding and paved/slab areas within an existing built-up area in Coogee. As such, there are no threatened species, populations or ecological communities or habitats that would be affected by the proposed development either within, or in the vicinity of, the development site.

 

3.1.2     Built Environmental Impacts

 

Visual Bulk and Scale

The proposed bulk and scale will not be inconsistent with the existing built form of adjoining properties especially at Nos. 3 and 5-7 Major Street. The amended proposal will have a ridge height of RL31.20, 400mm lower than the existing dwelling house (RL31.6) and 800mm lower than the original proposal (RL32.00). The amended proposal will also be 4.4m lower than the adjoining southern property at No. 3 Major Street (RL5.6), and even significantly lower than the part4, part 5 storey residential flat building at No. 5-7 Major Street.   

 

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 an increased setback of minimum 3m from the northern boundary to achieve the side setback preferred solution (for buildings 3 storeys and higher) under the previous DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and the requirement under the current Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.  This will have the effect of reducing any perception of visual bulk and scale of the proposed building to the foreshore and neighbouring properties as well as to the street. Additionally, the increased setback will minimise view loss impacts for 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.

 


Sunlight

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. 3 Major Street are already overshadowed by the existing dwelling house. As the amended proposal has been lowered by 800mm to a max RL 31.20, it will be lower in height than the existing dwelling house (with pitched roof at max RL 31.60). In effect, the proposed development will result in reduced overshadowing impact on the northern wall of No. 3 Major Street, with the primary benefit being that:

 

·      At 9:00 am, the whole of the third floor elongated north-facing window, and part of the second floor living room north-facing window, will receive direct northern sun of the adjoining southern property at No. 3 Major Street (currently both windows are overshadowed by the existing dwelling house at 9:00am).

 

·      At 12 noon, the whole of the third floor elongated north-facing window will continue to be free of overshadowing from the proposed development whereas currently this window is overshadowed by the existing dwelling house)

 

·      At 3:00pm, the whole of the third floor elongated north-facing window will continue to be free of overshadowing from the proposed development whereas currently this window is overshadowed by the existing dwelling house)

 

In terms of overshadowing of adjoining open spaces, the proposal will result in additional overshadowing of the far eastern portion of the large rear yard of No 3 Major Street at 3:00pm. This impact is considered reasonable as there will be almost no overshadowing of this adjoining rear yard by the proposal in the winter morning and midday.

 

Additionally, the amended proposal will be setback by a minimum 12m and maximum 25m from the rear eastern boundary. Accordingly, the proposed development significantly exceeds the minimum 25% of allotment depth (12m) rear setback requirement of the DCP. As such, the proposal will have minor and acceptable overshadowing impacts on the building and open spaces of No 3 Major Street.

 

Privacy

As with the original proposal, the amended proposal will not contain any window openings on the southern side elevations except for a window to the study on the ground entry level which will be an angular bay window and a sliding door on the lower ground floor well setback from the southern boundary. Apart from this, all other openings have been orientated north and east towards the bushland and water.

 

There will be no direct view into the open spaces of No. 3 Major Street as most openings and balconies are orientated north and east towards the bushland and sea. Furthermore, the amended proposal provides for the installation of a planted green roof buffer along the southern edge of the balcony making any view into the adjoining rear yard available only in an oblique direction. Additionally, the provision of the green planting buffer effectively increases the separation distance between the trafficable area of the balcony and the neighbouring rear yard to a minimum 12m well in excess of the 9m preferred separation distance.

 

 

 

 

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

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution at the Council Meeting held on 26 February 2013, the application has been deferred for the applicant to allow for the submission of amended plans and for mediation between the applicant and objectors. The proposal has been amended significantly following a mediation process and assessment by Council officers. In addition to the amendments, the applicant has provided additional information and details to address the earlier recommended reasons for refusal.

 

Overall, as detailed above, the amended plans and additional information have resulted in the following positive responses:

 

§ adequately and reasonably addressed each recommended reason for refusal in the original DA assessment report to Council such that the amended proposal is now satisfactory and supportable

 

§ adequately and reasonable addressed the agreed outcomes from the mediation session held on 4 April 2013 such that the amended proposal is now satisfactory and supportable

 

§ adequately and reasonably addressed each objection raised in the resident submission to the amended DA proposal such that the amended proposal is now satisfactory and supportable

 

§ adequately reduced the building footprints, proportions, and massing and  considered to be compatible with the existing development pattern in the area; will not overwhelm the scale of adjoining residential dwellings; will have a built form, design and siting that will complement the existing environmental qualities of the foreshore area and results in acceptable amenity impacts.

 

The proposal generally complies with the objectives and relevant provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 2012 and meets the relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP 2012 under Part C1 – Low Density Residential. 

 

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.

 

The recommendation is for approval of the application subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 617/2012 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new part 2 and part 3 level dwelling with garage, swimming pool and associated works at No. 1-1A Major Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA 05 Rev C

Renato D’Ettore Architects

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 06 Rev B

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 07 Rev C

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 08 Rev D

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 09 Rev C

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 10 Rev D

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 11 Rev D

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 12 Rev D

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 13 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 14 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 15 Rev E

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 15A Rev E

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 16 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 16A Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 17 Rev D

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 18 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 19 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Single dwelling

441815S

25 Sept 2012

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)   The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the proposed development are to be compatible with adjacent developments to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building; the streetscape and the foreshore. All materials used within the development shall be treated so as to minimise the impact of reflectivity upon neighbouring sites prior to installation. This may be achieved through powder coating or anodizing treatments. Comprehensive details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board linked to elevations) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

b)   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. Details of compliance shall be submitted for the approval of Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

c)   Solar panels to the roof shall be installed in a flat position. Details of compliance shall be submitted for the approval of Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

4.  In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 17 July 2012, based on the development cost of $2,853,532 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $28,535.32

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

 

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

 

Security Deposit

5.  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:

 

·           $3000.00    -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Design Alignment levels

6.  Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant is to obtain in writing Council’s issued levels for Council’s footpath along the full site frontage.

 

It should be noted that the applicant’s proposed steps on Council footpath are not acceptable and thus Council’s footpath levels will have to be redesigned with appropriate gradients

 

The redesign of Council’s footpath levels will affect internal driveway gradients, the side gate entry level and the proposal to have a flat driveway entrance at the front boundary.

 

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

 

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

 

7.  The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of 880.00 calculated at $50.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Driveway Design

8.  The internal access driveway must be designed and constructed to  match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council).

 

Sydney Water

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

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For details please refer to the Sydney Water web site at www.sydneywater.com.au for:

 

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

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

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that a Sydney Water Quick Check Agent has appropriately stamped the plans.

 

Stormwater Drainage

10. A site stormwater drainage system is to be provided in accordance with the following requirements (as applicable):

 

a)     The stormwater drainage system must be designed and constructed to satisfy the relevant requirements in the Building Code of Australia,

b)     Roof stormwater must be directed to a suitably designed and constructed rainwater tank, as required in the relevant BASIX Certificate for the dwelling,

c)     The overflow from the rainwater tank and other surface stormwater must be directed to a suitably designed sediment/silt arrestor pit,

d)     Details of the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system, sediment site arrestor pit/s must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate and all works are to be carried to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

11. Should the proposed discharge point for the sites stormwater be over Council’s Nature Reserve then the applicant is to submit details to Council’s Development Engineers, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, that shall include a designed headwall and appropriate scour protection that is to be provided around the outlet pipe.

 

Note: Council’s Development Engineers are to approve the plans showing stormwater discharge over Council’s Nature Reserve prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

Site seepage & Dewatering

12. Site seepage and sub-soil drainage (from planter boxes etc) must comply with the following requirements:

 

a)    Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement level of the development (to ensure the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

b)    The walls of the basement level/s of the building are to be waterproofed/tanked to restrict the entry of any seepage water and subsoil drainage into the basement level/s of the building and the stormwater drainage system for the development.

               

c)    Details of the proposed stormwater drainage system including methods of tanking/waterproofing the basement level/s and any sub-soil drainage systems (as applicable) must be prepared or approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Professional Engineer to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

Major Street verge

13. In order to accommodate the external civil works, the applicant must cover the cost for Council to remove, stump-grind and dispose of those existing shrubs/small trees from the Major Street verge, being from south to north, a Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia), an Acacia sophorae (Wattle), an Acalypha wilkesiana (Fijian Fire Plant) as well as all other lower growing plant material, with the low rockery around the northern end of the verge also to be removed as part of the external Civil Works.

 

A fee of $500.00 (including GST) must 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 these removals prior to the commencement of site works.

       

            New Street Tree

14. The applicant must also submit a payment of $107.25 (including GST), being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre replacement Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) back on the Major Street verge, an equal distance between the northern edge of the crossing and northern site boundary at the completion of all works.

 

This fee must 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), giving at least four working weeks notice to arrange for planting of this replacement after the completion of all site works.

 

Protection of Gordons Bay Reserve

15. In order to protect Gordons Bay Reserve which directly adjoins the northern boundary of this site during the course of the works, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a)       Any trenches to be dug within Gordon’s Bay Reserve for the laying of stormwater pipes shall be hand dug so as to minimise any disturbance to existing vegetation within the reserve;

 

b)       With the exception of the stormwater works described above, access through Council’s coastal walk or Gordons Bay Reserve to the site is prohibited, with all construction certificate plans needing to acknowledge that access must be gained solely from within the property.

 

c)       No temporary or permanent placement or storage of any items of plant, materials, tools, equipment, vehicles or similar shall occur within the Gordons Bay Reserve, with the only exception being the installation of silt fencing, protection signage, and erosion, siltation and run-off controls;

 

d)       No foreign matter such as litter, cement wash, concrete, fill, soils, mulch, building materials, chemicals, petroleum-based products, paint etc, shall be disposed of, placed in, or be allowed to enter Gordon’s Bay Reserve;

 

e)       Where any breaches of these conditions occur, the applicant must remediate, restore, reinstate the reserve, to the satisfaction of Council’s Natural Systems Coordinator, wholly at their cost, and prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate;

 

Protection of neighbours trees

16. In order to ensure retention of the two Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s) located beyond the southeast corner of the existing/proposed dwelling, wholly on the neighbouring property at no.3, close to the common boundary in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show retention of these two neighbouring street trees, with the position and diameter of both their trunks and canopies to be clearly and accurately shown in relation to the proposed works.

 

b.       The Construction Certificate plans must also show that the eastern most section of the masonry wall along the southern site boundary shown on the Main Living (DA10), Lower Ground (DA11) and South Elevation (DA15) plans will be either deleted or amended so as to avoid the need for a continuous strip footing within a distance of 2.5 metres of either of their trunks.

 

c.       An alternative material that requires only localized pad footings shall be used for the section described in point ‘b’ above; or; construction details must be provided showing that a pier and beam/cantilevered section will be provided so that excavations for footings will not be required within a radius of 2.5 metres, measured off the outside edge of their trunks at ground level.

 

d.       The PCA must ensure that these requirements are complied with on-site during construction, and prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate.

 

e.       Any excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar in the rear yard must be setback a minimum distance of 2.5 metres from the southern site boundary.

 

f.        There shall 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 within a 2.5 metre radius, measured off the southern site boundary, adjacent the centreline of their trunks, with all Site Management Plans needing to acknowledge these requirements.

 

g.       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.

 

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

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

 

Smoke Alarms

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

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

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

 

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

 

Dilapidation Reports

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Demolition & Construction Waste

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Public Utilities

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

 

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

 

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

 

Landscaping

26. The Landscape Plan by Hortus, dwg L01 of 1, issue A, dated 12/09/12 must be amended to comply with the following requirements:

 

f)       This plan must be reviewed and amended where necessary to reflect any of the changes that have been made to the architectural plans since September 2012;

 

g)       The vast expanses of hard concrete surfacing throughout the front entry courtyard must be reduced through the inclusion of paving/banding, as well as additional garden areas and feature planting against both the front fence and new dwelling;

 

h)       The existing painted brick wall that encroaches beyond the northern wall of the existing garage and northern site boundary, partially into Gordons Bay Reserve, must be completely demolished and removed, and is also to be deleted from the plans;

 

i)        Ground-cover species shall be used in those raised planters and rooftop gardens to cascade over the edge of these walls and the building so as to soften their appearance when viewed from the north and east, and also assist with integration of the development into the natural settings of the area;

 

j)        Council does not require that the existing Frangipani in the front yard be transplanted to the rear setback as shown, with a 1 x 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) replacement evergreen feature tree which will achieve a minimum height of 4 metres at maturity will be provided in its place instead;  

 

k)       A construction note must be included stating that no access over Gordons Bay Reserve is permitted throughout the course of the works, with no materials to be stored, and no run-off allowed to enter the reserve;

 

l)        All planting must be contained wholly within the subject site;

 

m)      Should the applicant wish to re-plant or upgrade the Major Street verge upon the completion of works, they must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 to obtain Council’s requirements for species selection and any other items.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

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

 

Inspections During Construction

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

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

 

·           Work Health and Safety Act 2011

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·           Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

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

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

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

31. 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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

34. 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.

 

35. 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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Survey Requirements

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

 

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

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

·            as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

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

 

Building Encroachments

38. 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

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

 

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

 

·           The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management

40. No objections are raised to the removal of any existing vegetation within the area of the proposed works where necessary, including the Frangipani in the front setback, which Council does not require be transplanted as has been shown, with the dense area of vegetation growing on the steep embankment between the existing stone retaining wall and eastern site boundary to remain undisturbed so as to prevent soil erosion.

 

            Pruning of neighbours trees

41. Permission is granted for the minimal and selective pruning of only those lower growing, lower order branches from the northern aspects of the two Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s) located beyond the southeast corner of the existing/proposed dwelling, wholly on the adjoining property at no.3, against the common boundary, only where needed so as to avoid damage to the trees or interference with the approved works.

 

42. This approval does not imply any right of entry onto a neighbouring property nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary; however, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, and ultimately, the ongoing health of these trees, the applicant must negotiate with the neighbour/tree owner for access to perform this work.

 

43. All pruning must be undertaken by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level III in Arboriculture, and to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-2007 'Pruning of Amenity Trees,’ and NSW Work Cover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry (1998).

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

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

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements

45. In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue an Occupation Certificate for this development, unless it is satisfied that each of the required BASIX commitments have been fulfilled.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Council upon issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

Occupant Safety

46. Openable windows to a room, corridor, stairway or the like with a floor level more than 4m above the external ground/surface level, must be designed and constructed to reduce the likelihood of a child accessing and falling through the window opening.

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

 

·           The window having a minimum sill height of 1.5m above the internal floor level,

·           Providing a window locking device at least 1.5m above the internal floor level,

·           Fixing or securing the window (e.g. by screws or a window locking device) to restrict or to be able to secure the extent of the opening to a maximum width of 125mm,

·           Installing a fixed heavy-duty gauge metal screen over the opening (excluding upon any front or street elevation of the building) e.g. A metal security screen or metal security mesh and frame system, but not standard fly-screen material,

·           Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

The relevant measures must be implemented prior to issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Swimming Pool Safety

47. Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926.1 - 2007.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Swimming Pool & Spa Pool Requirements

48. Swimming pools (and spa pools) are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

 

a.     Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

b.     All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and

c.     Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2010:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

d.     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

Notification of Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

49. Written notification must be provided to Council advising of the installation and completion of the Swimming Pool (or Spa Pool), to satisfy the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992.

 

Council’s “Notification & Registration of a Swimming Pool” (which can be found on Council’s website under ‘Find a Form’) form must be completed and forwarded to Council prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued for the pool.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

50. The owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

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

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

c)  Reconstruct Council’s kerb and gutter between the redundant vehicular crossing and the proposed new vehicular crossing.

d)  Reconstruct Council’s concrete footpath along the full site frontage, to match Council’s issued alignment levels.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

51. 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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Stormwater Drainage

53. The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with Australian Standard 3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and the conditions of this development consent.

 

The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

Landscaping

54. Upon completion of all site works, but prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of AILDM or AILA), which shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming the date of the inspection, as well as that the landscaping at this site has been completed in accordance with the Landscape Plan by Hortus, dwg L01 of 1, issue A, dated 12/09/12, and relevant conditions of consent, with the owner/s to ensure it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity.

 

55. The nature strip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

56. If the Major Street verge is re-planted/landscaped as part of this application, Council’s Landscape Development Officer must provide written confirmation to the PCA that these works have been completed to Council’s satisfaction, prior to issuing a Final 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.

 

Use of premises

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

 

External Lighting

55.     External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

Street Numbering

56.     Street numbering must be provided to the front of the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Waste Management

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

 

Plant & Equipment

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

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

Swimming/Spa Pools

59.     The pool plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

Air Conditioners

60.     Air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

·       before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

Rainwater Tanks

61.     The operation of plant and equipment associated with rainwater tanks are to be restricted to the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises:

·       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on weekends or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

A7      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

A9      Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A10     Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A11     Underground assets (eg pipes, cables etc) may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial before you dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial before you dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

 

A12     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.

 

A13     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.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                       10 September 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D66/13

 

 

Subject:                  169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee (DA/181/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/181/2013

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to the existing Beach Palace Hotel, including construction of a new 3rd floor level and a glazed dome on the rooftop, removal of the access ramp and substation within the Beach Street road reserve, landscaping, and adaptive re-use to provide a restaurant / wine bar and car parking for 25 vehicles on the ground level, and 19 apartments on the upper storeys. (Heritage Item)  

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Rudolfsson Alliker Associates Architects

Owner:                         Jomaring Pty. Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


1.         Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to the Planning Committee as it has an estimated development cost of more than $2 million, and contains variations to the building height and FSR development standards by more than 10%.

 

The application has been advertised and notified in accordance with the requirements of the Randwick DCP. A total of fourteen (14) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation processes. The issues raised in the submissions are primarily related to height, bulk and scale, streetscape, heritage conservation, car parking, vehicular access, waste management, overshadowing, privacy, noise, safety and security, anti-social behaviour, property devaluation and construction related impacts.

 

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre under RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with consent. 

 

The proposal has an FSR of 2.04:1 and exceeds the LEP standard by 0.54:1. The existing FSR is 2.03:1 and already breaches the current LEP control. The proposal will only marginally increase the existing FSR.

 

The existing maximum building height is 12.57m (top of parapet) to 20.4m (top of dome). The proposal has maximum building heights of 14.37m and 21.836m as measured to the 3rd floor parapet and the topmost point of the dome respectively. The maximum height occurs on the southern elevation due to the topography of the site. The parapet level exceeds the LEP height standard by 2.37m.

 

The Coogee Palace is listed as a heritage item under the LEP. The proposal is an adaptive reuse of the existing heritage building, and the retention of the significant structural fabrics imposes considerably constraints in the development scheme.

 

The design retains the existing masonry base with the upper floor additions setback from the external wall alignments below. The upper storeys are enclosed with glazing and present as a light-weight, semi-transparent structure, which in conjunction with their setback from the perimeter of the building, will remain visually subservient to the heritage facades. Therefore, despite the non-compliance with the building height and FSR standards, the new 3rd storey and works above the existing masonry parapet will not be visually dominant or detract from the heritage character of the building.

 

The proposal also involves the demolition of the existing metal-clad dome. A new replacement dome of steel frame and glass construction will be provided. The glazed dome will inevitably exceed the building height standard, however, it satisfies the requirements of the LEP for architectural roof features due to its value in the interpretation of the historic form of the complex.

 

The proposal incorporates a central atrium underneath the dome and a substantial void in the northern portion of the building. The proposed void spaces function to admit natural light and ventilation to the interior of the building. As a result, all apartment units have dual aspects, are cross ventilated and enjoy appropriate day light access. The atrium and voids also allow opportunities for landscaping and communal and private open space deep within the floor plates. 

 

As will be discussed in the body of this report, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing, privacy or view loss impacts despite its departure from the LEP standards.

 

The development scheme does not provide any off-street car parking for the ground floor Restaurant / Wine Bar. Mechanically stacked parking spaces fully satisfying the requirements for the apartments, except for visitor parking, will be accommodated in the reconfigured ground level. The existing building contains over 3000m2 of licensed premises over 3 levels and no on-site parking is provided. The current proposal entails a substantial decrease in parking demand and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Vehicular access to the car park will be obtained via the Beach Street road closure. Adequate design measures, such as barriers, markings and a traffic signal system, have been included to minimise potential conflicts between vehicular traffic, pedestrian movements and the adjoining footpath dining areas.

 

The application does not provide any design and operational details relating to the proposed ground floor Restaurant / Wine Bar, including floor layout, seating number, staff number, nature and frequency of any life entertainment, deliveries and management policies. Therefore, a special condition is recommended to exclude the proposed Restaurant / Wine Bar from any approval granted for the development, and to require a separate approval for the use and occupation of the ground floor suite.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.         The Proposal

 

The proposed development is for alterations and additions to the existing Beach Palace Hotel and adaptive re-use to provide a restaurant / wine bar on the ground level and 19 apartments on the upper storeys. The proposal includes the following elements:

 

·      Partial demolition of the existing building, including the dome on the roof.

 

·      Retention of the existing masonry facades on the ground and first levels.

 

·      Reconfiguration of the northern portion of the ground level to accommodate a car park with 25 spaces. A new ramp will be constructed to enable vehicular access from Beach Street.

 

·      Provision of a restaurant / wine bar on the ground level fronting both Dolphin and Beach Streets. The above premises feature the following:

-    Floor area of 537.7m2

-    To be traded under an existing hotelier’s license with a maximum patronage capacity of 525 persons

-    Opening hours from 7am to 12 midnight, 7 days a week

 

·      Reconfiguration of the first and second levels and construction of an additional storey (3rd floor) to accommodate a total of 19 apartments.

 

·      Construction of a new glazed dome on the roof of the building.

 

·      Creation of an atrium directly underneath the new dome and a void in the northern portion of the building.

 

·      Installation of private rooftop terraces for the top floor apartments.

 

·      Demolition of the existing ramp within the Beach Street road reserve, with the substation relocated within the building.

 

·      Relocation of the public stairs within the Beach Street road reserve 2.5m towards the north.

·      General landscape works.

 

The subject proposal does not seek approval for any subdivision.

 

The dwelling mix is summarized in the table below:

 

Unit Number

Level

Type

1

Level 1

2 bedrooms plus media (adaptable unit)

2

Level 1

2 bedrooms

3

Level 1

2 bedrooms

4

Level 1

2 bedrooms

5

Level 1

2 bedrooms

6

Level 1

2 bedrooms

7

Level 1

2 bedrooms

8

Level 1

1 bedroom

9

Level 1

1 bedroom

10

Level 2

2 bedrooms plus media (adaptable unit) 

11

Level 2 & 3

3 bedrooms plus media and guest / study

12

Level 2 & 3

2 bedrooms plus media and guest / study

13

Level 2 & 3

3 bedrooms plus media

14

Level 2 & 3

2 bedrooms

15

Level 2 & 3

2 bedrooms

16

Level 2 & 3

2 bedrooms

17

Level 2

2 bedrooms (adaptable unit)

18

Level 3

2 bedrooms

19

Level 3

2 bedrooms

 

Existing building as viewed from the public plaza on Beach Street looking north-west

 

Photomontage showing the proposed development as viewed from the public plaza at the Beach Street / Dolphin Street intersection, looking north-west (Source: Rudolfsson Alliker Associates Architects)

 

Photomontage showing the proposed development as viewed from the public plaza on Beach Street looking north-west (Source: Rudolfsson Alliker Associates Architects)

 

Existing building as viewed from Dunningham Reserve looking south-west

 

Photomontage showing the proposed development as viewed from Dunningham Reserve looking south-west (Source: Rudolfsson Alliker Associates Architects)

 

3.         Exceptions to Development Standards

 

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

 

(i) Building height

Clause 4.3 and the map of the LEP specify a maximum building height of 12m for the subject site. The proposed maximum building heights are:

 

 

Top of dome

Top of parapet

Existing building

20.4m

(south elevation, RL27.65)

12.57m

(south elevation, RL19.82)

Proposed development

21.836m

(south elevation, RL29.086)

14.37m top of parapet to level 3 (south elevation, RL21.62)

 

 

Clause 5.6(2) of the LEP allows the inclusion of architectural roof features that exceed the building height limit. As will be discussed in this report, the proposed glazed dome qualifies as an architectural roof feature and satisfies the matters for consideration under Clause 5.6(3). Therefore, the applicant’s Exceptions to Development Standards will only need to justify the non-compliance in height caused by the main body of the building.

 

The parapet on the southern elevation will exceed the height standard by 2.37m. The departure is equivalent to 20%. 

 

(ii) Floor space ratio

Clause 4.4 and the map of the LEP specify a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 or 2381.1m2 GFA for the subject site. The proposal has an FSR of 2.04:1 and exceeds the development standard by 0.54:1. This represents a variation to the development standard of 36%.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Gross Floor Area (GFA)

Existing building

2.03:1

3225.6m2

Proposed development

2.04:1

3241.7m2

Permissible FSR / GFA

1.50:1

2381.1m2

FSR / GFA in excess of LEP standard –

Existing development

0.53:1

844.5m2

FSR / GFA in excess of LEP standard – Proposed development

0.54:1

860.6m2

 

The proposed gross floor area will only exceed that of the existing building by 16.1m2, despite the fact that an additional storey (3rd level) will be created. This is attributed to the fact that the proposed car park and internal voids will not be counted towards GFA calculation as per the definition of the LEP.

 

(iii) Assessment against the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the development standards

In assessing the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the building height and FSR standards, 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 standards 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 objectives of the FSR 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 buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

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

(d)  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 standards:

 

Comments relating to building height:

 

Comments relating to FSR:

 

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and strict compliance with the building height and FSR standards is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

-        The existing building already exceeds the LEP height control. The current maximum height as measured to the parapet above the 2nd floor level amounts to 12.57m (RL19.82, south elevation). The proposal will raise the parapet height to 14.37m (RL21.62), being an increase of 1.8m. The typical height of a standard residential floor is 3m. In this case, despite the provision of an additional storey (the new 3rd level), the numerical increase in the parapet height of the building is only moderate. As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, the raised parapet height will not create any detrimental visual, heritage or amenity impacts.

 

The existing maximum height to the topmost point of the dome is 20.4m (RL27.65, south elevation). The proposed maximum height of the new glazed dome is 21.836m (RL29.086, south elevation), being an increase of 1.436m. The glazed dome qualifies as an “architectural roof feature” and satisfies the matters for consideration under Clause 5.6(3) of the LEP. The breach against the height control associated with the dome does not technically require an Exception to Development Standard. However, it is worth mentioning that the glazed dome feature will not result in any detrimental impacts on the surrounding areas.

 

-        The subject site is listed as a heritage item under the LEP. Although the existing building is a more recent reconstruction following the demolition of the fire damaged original, it has associational values with the earlier forms of the complex. The existing centrally placed, ribbed dome has landmark quality and is visible from multiple vantage points in the area, including the beach, coastal promenade and Dunningham Reserve. The masonry facades extend over two storeys and have subtle fenestration pattern characterized by rhythmic bays of pilasters and elliptical arched openings of differing widths set over by horizontal cornice trims.

 

In order to conserve the heritage and landmark values of the building, as well as to maintain its importance in shaping the character of the local environment, it is imperative that any alterations and additions reinforce the visual prominence of the dome feature and the architectural detailing of the masonry external walls.

 

The design scheme retains the existing masonry base with the building mass above (being the altered 2nd level and the newly created 3rd storey) setback 3.852m and 2.845m from the Dolphin and Beach Street frontages respectively. The upper levels are enclosed with glazing and presents as a light-weight, semi-transparent structure, which in conjunction with their recession from the perimeter of the building, will remain visually subservient to the heritage facades. The external curved louvre screens also serve to soften the rectilinear form of the upper levels, and their horizontal alignment echoes the cornice trims of the retained facades below. Overall, the linear emphasis of the light-weight additions provides a suitable contrast to the solid, segmented character of the retained external walls.

 

Therefore, despite the non-compliance with the building height standard, the new additional storey and the structures above the masonry parapet will not be visually dominant or detract from the heritage character of the building.

 

The proposal also involves the demolition of the existing metal-clad dome, which dates from the 1960’s. A new replacement dome of steel frame and glass construction will be provided at the same position when viewed in plan. The dome will inevitably exceed the building height standard. As previously discussed, the glazed dome qualifies as an architectural roof feature and satisfies the matters for consideration under Clause 5.6(3) of the LEP. Given its value in the interpretation of the historic form of the complex, the new glass dome is a suitable architectural feature and will enhance the contemporary character of the development.

 

Overall, the development scheme is considered to deliver a good urban design outcome via its interpretation and emphasis of the heritage fabrics, use of high quality contemporary materials and reinforcement of the site’s landmark character. The departure from the building height standard is justified on the above basis.

 

-        The site is adjoined to the west by a 6-storey serviced apartment building (Coogee Sands Apartments) at No. 161-167 Dolphin Street. The 4th level of this building is recessed from the Dolphin Street frontage, whereas the topmost storey is well setback from the front. The parapet height above the 4th level is RL23.80.

 

To the north of the site is a 4-storey mixed residential and commercial building at No. 128-130 Beach Street. This neighbouring building has a parapet height reaching RL23.25.

 

The proposed parapet height above the 3rd level is RL21.62, which is already below the wall heights of the adjoining properties. In the light of the height and scale of the adjoining buildings and the corner location of the site, it is considered that the parapet height of the additions is appropriate and the departure from the LEP control will not detract from the existing development pattern in the subject urban block. The proposed height and landscape devices in the upper floor additions also serve to screen the exposed blank walls of the adjoining buildings. Refer to drawings below.

 

Dolphin Street elevations of the proposed development and the adjoining serviced apartment building at 161-167 Dolphin Street

 

Beach Street elevations of the proposed development and the adjoining mixed residential and commercial building at 128-130 Beach Street

 

-        The existing FSR of the Coogee Palace already exceeds the LEP standard. The proposed development will further increase the gross floor area by 16.1m2, and will marginally exacerbate the existing FSR non-compliance by 0.01:1.

 

The proposed density is not achieved at the expense of the living amenity and environmental performance of the apartments. All dwelling units have adequate, if not generous, dimensions, are provided with at least one private terrace / balcony, and are cross-ventilated with good daylight access. The development scheme represents a significant improvement to the existing structural configuration and provides high quality residential accommodation, which will extend the life of the complex through economically viable use.

 

It should also be noted that the common hallway and private terraces in the northern section of level 1 are technically included in GFA calculations as these areas are internalized within the building, despite the fact that they are open to the sky. Where these spaces (totaling 112.7m2) are excluded from the GFA, the resultant FSR would be reduced to 1.97:1, being 0.06:1 lower than the status quo.

 

-        The key design features of the proposal are the central atrium underneath the dome and the substantial void in the northern portion of the building. The existing Beach Palace covers the entire site and has deep floor plates, which together limit solar access to the perimeter of the building only, and as a consequence contribute to poor environmental performance.

 

The proposed void spaces function to admit natural light and ventilation to the interior of the building. As a result, all apartment units have dual aspects, are cross ventilated, and enjoy appropriate day light. The atrium and voids also allow opportunities for landscaping and communal and private open space deep within the building envelope.

 

Although it is theoretically possible to re-distribute the floor space from the new 3rd storey to the existing envelope and hence reduce the overall building height to the current level, such an arrangement will detrimentally affect the internal amenity and sustainability performance of the apartments and is highly undesirable.

 

-        The additions and departure from the building height standard will not result in unreasonable overshadowing on the surrounding areas.

 

At 9am, 21 June, the extent of overshadowing on Dolphin Street will be increased (refer to the “DCP” section for extracts of the shadow diagrams). However, such additional impacts would not be readily perceivable by the general public. The anticipated shadows on the public domain at 12 noon and 3pm on 21 June will be commensurate with the existing scenario.

 

The proposal will result in a minor to moderate increase in shadow impacts on the adjoining serviced apartment building (Coogee Sands Apartments) at No. 161-167 Dolphin Street. The proposal will increase overshadowing to 5 x windows on level 1, 7 x windows on level 2 and 6 x windows on level 3 at specific hours. All other windows will not be affected.

 

The windows that will be subject to additional overshadowing are situated deep within the allotment and are oriented towards the Beach Palace site. It is highly difficult to protect solar access to these windows by virtue of their location and aspect. The affected property is a serviced apartment building, which in most cases cater for transient guests. This is in contrast to a residential flat building where the occupants reside in the premises on a long term basis. In this regard, a lower level of solar access is acceptable. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

 

-        As will be discussed in the “DCP” section of this report, the proposed additions will not cause any unreasonable view loss impacts on the surrounding properties.

 

Submissions have been received from 5 properties in the surrounding streets raising view loss concerns. The views that will be materially affected by the proposal are already highly restricted and are obtained across the northern side boundary of the subject site. By virtue of the planning principle, the full retention of these views is highly difficult if not impossible to achieve. Notwithstanding, the semi-transparent quality of the new glazed dome would compensate for the expected impacts. 

 

-        As will be discussed in the “DCP” section of this report, the proposed additions will not cause any unreasonable privacy impacts on the adjoining residences, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s submission has convincingly and successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standards in question is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the standards.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the upholding of the building height and FSR standards would not enable a viable and appropriate adaptive re-use of the heritage building. The massing, form, scale and materials of the additions will maintain and reinforce the landmark quality of the building, and contribute to the character of the streetscape and foreshore areas. The proposal will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts upon the adjoining properties and is within the public interest.

 

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 standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standards will not be conducive to the orderly and economic 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 standards in question is unreasonable and unnecessary. The design scheme will achieve the purposes of the height and FSR standards.

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards in question is relevant to the subject development. As discussed, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the building height and FSR standards.

Third

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

 

Comments:

The objectives of the height and FSR standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is unreasonable and unnecessary. The proposal will be compatible with the desired future character for the locality and will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbours. The resultant built form, height and scale 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 B2 Local Centre, where the key objectives are to provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses, and to enable residential development that is well-integrated with the primary business function of the zone. The current zoning has a sound basis and is not considered to be unreasonable and inappropriate.

 

The proposed development satisfies the provisions of Clauses 4.6(3) and (4) of the LEP. The applicant’s written justifications for contravening the height and FSR standards are considered to be well founded and are supported.

4.         The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 1 in DP 792311, No. 169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee. The site is located at the corner of Beach and Dolphin Streets and is adjacent to the Coogee Beach Reserve. At present, the site accommodates a 3-storey commercial development known as the Beach Palace Hotel that contains licensed premises on the ground and first floors and an approved restaurant on the top storey.

 

The site is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, although the building is a recent reconstruction dating back to the 1980s. The original building was completed in December 1887 as a seaside entertainment complex. The building had deteriorated throughout the twentieth century which eventually led to its substantial demolition.

 

The site is adjoined to the west by a 6-storey serviced apartment building (No. 161-167 Dolphin Street – “Coogee Sands Apartments”). Further to the west is a 4-storey building with retail uses on ground level and residential apartments above (No. 155-159 Dolphin Street), and a group of older style 3-storey mixed commercial and shop top housing buildings.

 

Immediately to the north of the site is a 4-storey building with retail uses on ground level and residential apartments above (No. 128-130 Beach Street). Further to the north is a 3-storey mixed commercial and shop top housing building (No. 126A Beach Street). A 4-storey residential flat building with a retail unit on ground level is located at the corner of Beach and Bream Streets (88 Bream Street). 

 

To the east are a paved public plaza and promenade and Coogee Beach.

 

To the south are a paved public plaza and a Council car park.

 

The locality is characterised by a mixture of retail, commercial, shop top housing and apartment developments.

 

 

Dolphin Street elevation of the Beach Palace Hotel building

Beach Street elevation of the Beach Palace Hotel

Adjoining developments to the west of the site on Dolphin Street, including a 6-storey serviced apartment building

Adjoining mixed retail and residential developments to the north on Beach Street

 

Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding environment

 

5.         Site History

 

5.1    Previous applications relating to the site

The original building on the site was opened in 1887. Its condition had deteriorated throughout the twentieth century and the old dome collapsed prior to the building’s demolition in the mid 1980s. The building presently on the site is largely a reconstruction of the original.

 

The following is a summary of applications relating to the site:

 

Parts of building

Application number

Details

Whole building

DA/73/1985

To make extensive alterations and additions and restore the existing building known as the Coogee Palace Aquarium and use for commercial purposes.

Approved by Council on 28 May 1985.

Ground floor

DA/503/1992

Permission to use shops Nos. 8, 9 and 11 as a bar and bistro.

Approved by Council on 4 December 1992.

DA/503/1992

Modification of Development Consent to amend Condition No. 1 and delete Condition No. 7.

Approved by Council on 13 October 1998.

DA/552/1997

Alterations to convert existing café to accommodate 30 gaming machines in conjunction with existing bar.

Approved by Council on 17 February 1997.

DA/554/1997

Convert the existing shop premises and portion of an adjoining tenancy for use as a licensed café.

Approved by Council on 21 November 1997.

DA/1140/2003

Alterations to ground floor of existing hotel including new entry lobby and closure of existing entry, relocation of gaming room, new internal toilets and new folding doors to Dolphin Street and Beach Street.

Approved by Council on 9 July 2004.

DA/552/1997

Section 96 application seeking retrospective approval for a new sports bar to the rear of the ground floor of Coogee Palace Hotel.

Refused by Council on 24 April 2007.

The Council’s decision was the subject of an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

First floor

DA/134/1990

Permission to make alterations to the existing Coogee Palace and to use part as a tavern.

Approved by Council on 21 August 1990.

Note:

This consent relates to the use of level 1 as a bar, bistro, disco and coffee lounge.

DA/225/1996

On 18 July 1997, the Land and Environment Court granted consent (Appeal No. 10580 of 1996) for the provision of live entertainment and extension of trading hours at the premises. This consent relates to the southern section of level 1 of the premises.

 

At the same time, the Land and Environment Court upheld an appeal against the “deemed refusal” of the “Public Entertainment Application” (Appeal No. 20196 of 1996) for the same activity, which permits 425 patrons in the southern section of level 1.

DA/427/1997

To make alterations to the rear section of the 1st floor level of the existing commercial building.

Approved by Council on 12 December 1997.

LA/21/1998

On 27 February 1998, pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993, Council granted Local Approval for the premises to operate as a place of public entertainment.

LA/153/2000

On 12 July 2001, Council granted Local Approval for operation of the first floor level of the premises as a place of public entertainment.

 

The determination of this approval resulted in the combination of two previous places of public entertainment approvals (being the Court approved POPE and POPE Approval No. LA/21/1998) to permit a combined capacity totally 852 persons on level 1 of the premises.

DA/648/2010

Alterations and additions to the first (mid) level of the Beach Palace Hotel to create an open balcony and conversion to a bar /restaurant in the southern section and a night club in the northern section. This application was refused by the Council and subsequently approved by the Land and Environment Court (Proceeding No. 10575 of 2011).

Second floor

DA/73/1985

Alterations and additions and restore the existing building known as the Coogee Palace Aquarium and use for commercial purposes.

Approved by Council on 28 May 1985.

Note:

On 5 September 1988, building approval (BA/987/1988) was granted for alterations and additions to the subject premises to “equip the 3rd level (top floor) with the necessary fixtures and fittings to establish a restaurant.” It appears that the above development consent and building approval establish the restaurant use on the second floor level (Aquarium level) of the premises.

 

Based on Council’s property files, it appears that from the late 1980’s to late 1997, the second level had been operated as the “China Bowl Restaurant”.

DA/785/1998

Erect 2.4m high glass windbreak and replace existing windows with glazed bi-fold doors at the 2nd floor level.

Approved by Council on 28 January 1999.

LA/205/2001

On 28 December 2001, a Local Approval was granted by Council to operate the second floor level of the premises as a place of public entertainment. This approval permits a maximum number of persons of 820.

DA/649/2010

Change of use of the Aquarium (top) level of the Beach Palace Hotel from a restaurant to a hotel. This proposal was refused by the Council and subsequently approved by the Land and Environment Court (Proceeding No. 10929 of 2010).

 

5.2    Plan amendments

18 July 2013

At Council’s request, the applicant submitted amended drawings incorporating the following changes:

·      Conversion of the recessed balcony to Bedroom 1 of Unit 5 to interior floor space, so that the rhythmic bays on the Beach Street façade would not be compromised.

·      Extension of the glass awning to the Beach Street elevation to assist in noise attenuation in the future when the restaurant / wine bar is in operation.

·      Reconfiguration of the entry foyer and planter layout.

·      Provision of landscaping on the top floor to screen the exposed side walls of the adjoining buildings.

·      Inclusion of indicative planting quantities and planter box construction details on the landscape plans.

·      Reduction in the height of the retaining walls within the Beach Street road reserve.

·      Relocation of the public stairs within the Beach Street reserve slightly to the south so that the top step does not directly abut the vehicle entry / exit paths.

·      Adjustment to the location and size of the rooftop terraces to minimise privacy impacts.

 

The following additional information was also submitted:

·      Traffic and parking report.

·      Revised BASIX Certificate.

·      Revised floor space calculations.

·      Demolition plans.

·      1:20 section illustrating the construction details of the awning, windows, shutters and curved louvre screens attached to the upper levels.

·      Perspective showing the configuration of the curved louvre screens.

·      Shadow diagrams demonstrating the expected impacts on the eastern windows of No. 161-167 Dolphin Street.

·      3-dimensional solar study relating to the atrium of the proposed development.

·      Photomontages demonstrating the expected view loss impacts on the affected properties.

·      Additional photomontage demonstrating the proposed additions as viewed from the public plaza.

 

6.         Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 17 April to 2 May 2013 in accordance with the Randwick DCP. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

·      5/169 Arden Street, Coogee

·      2/112-114 Beach Street, Coogee

·      116-118 Beach Street, Coogee

·      11/120 Beach Street, Coogee

·      15/120 Beach Street, Coogee

·      4/128-130 Beach Street, Coogee

·      9/84-86 Bream Street, Coogee

·      21/84-86 Bream Street, Coogee

·      7/88 Bream Street, Coogee

·      93-93A Bream Street, Coogee

·      58 Helena Street, Randwick

·      127 Sutherland Street, Mascot

·      Coogee Precinct Committee

·      Strata managing agent for 128-130 Beach Street, Coogee

 

The application was re-notified from 24 July to 7 August 2013 following the receipt of revised drawings and additional information. The following submission was received:

 

·      15/120 Beach Street, Coogee

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The proposed development has an excessive bulk and scale and is not compatible with the desired future character for the locality.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the B2 Local Centre Zone under the LEP.

The height, scale and proportions of the proposed additions will not form a dominant feature that detracts from the heritage significance of the Beach Palace and the desired character for the surrounding areas.

 

The proposal satisfies the objectives of the B2 Local Centre Zone.

 

Refer to the body of this report for details.

The additional building height will adversely affect the scenic quality of the foreshore areas.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area clause in the LEP.

The height, scale and proportions of the proposed additions will not form a dominant feature that detracts from the scenic quality of the foreshore areas.

 

The proposal satisfies the provisions of the LEP relating to foreshore scenic protection areas. Refer to the “LEP” section of this report for details.

The change of use to residential apartments and car parking would not respect the cultural and social significance of the site. The proposal would not conserve the heritage significance of the building.

Council’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections on heritage grounds, subject to a special condition that requires amendment to the external colour scheme. Refer to the “LEP” section of this report for details.

The drawings do not contain details relating to the dome and windows of the building, and the “fate” of the heritage elements.

The applicant has submitted a demolition plan differentiating between the structural fabrics that will be demolished and retained. The architectural drawings contain high level of details relating to the proposed works to the existing masonry façades on the lower levels.

The existing dome is a local landmark. The height and diameter of the dome should remain unchanged.

The new glazed dome adopts the diameter of the existing structure.

 

The height of the existing dome, as measured from its base to the topmost point is 7.83m. The height of the new glazed dome is 7.46m.

 

The height and scale of the replacement dome are similar to the existing structure. Council’s Heritage Planner has raised no objections to the dimensions, configuration and materials of the glazed dome.

The additional storey on top of the building will increase population density.

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

The proposal does not satisfy the car parking controls in the DCP.

 

The parking assessment has not taken into account the media rooms in the apartment units.

 

The assumption of the parking assessment is problematic, as the current patronage of the Beach Palace Hotel is far less than 2500 persons. The surrounding public parking has a high in-take and the proposed car park needs to cater for the bar / restaurant customers.

 

The parking provision is inadequate to satisfy the combined demands of the patrons to the licensed premises, residents and visitors.

In the planning officer’s assessment, the ‘media’ rooms have been taken into account in calculating the parking requirements.

 

The proposed car parking provision is considered to be acceptable in the light of the structural and heritage constraints.

 

The existing Beach Palace Hotel has substantial floor space for licensed premises and restaurant uses, and no on-site parking is currently provided. The proposal fully meets the resident parking requirements of the DCP and represents a significant improvement to the existing parking situation.

 

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

Car stackers are difficult to operate and require waiting times for the entry and exit of vehicles, which would discourage usage.

 

The use of car stackers is a sign of over-development.

Due to the site and heritage constraints, the use of car stackers is considered to be acceptable. The submitted manufacturer’s specification indicates that the operation of the car stackers takes less than 60 seconds, and hence would not cause excessive delay in traffic movements within the car park.

The proposed parking provision is excessive as public transport services are readily available in the area.

The proposed parking provision is considered to be acceptable. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The proposed entry and exit of the car park are in conflict with pedestrian activities in the Beach Street road closure and will cause significant safety impacts.

 

The vehicular access will directly affect the operation of the footpath dining immediately to the north of the site.

 

The access over the road closure will detract from the amenity of the beach front and cause noise and air pollution. The access design is unsympathetic to the heritage character of the building and the streetscape.

 

Vehicular access should be obtained via the right of way to the rear of the site off Bream Street. The access arrangement does not satisfy the requirements of the DCP.

Due to the existing site and heritage constraints, vehicular access via the Beach Street road closure is the most suitable option. The existing right of way off Bream Street is not suitable for regular vehicular access due to its narrow width and restricted sightlines.

 

A range of measures, including a traffic signal system, a physical barrier and changes in paving treatment within the vehicle swept paths, will be undertaken to minimise conflicts with pedestrian movements and the operation of the outdoor dining area immediately to the north of the site.

 

The proposal will generate a maximum of 10 vehicle trips per hour, which equates to 1 movement per 6 minutes. The amount of traffic is not considered to overwhelm the capacity of the surrounding streets or result in excessive noise and fume emission.

 

The car park entry / exit will retain the existing rhythmic bays of regularly spaced pilasters and openings on the masonry façade.

 

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

The application contains no details relating to the loading facilities for the wine bar / restaurant.

No on-site loading facilities are proposed.

 

There is an existing loading zone on Dolphin Street, which could be utilized for deliveries for the ground floor Restaurant / Wine Bar. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The provision of 9 garbage bins is not sufficient for the number of apartment units proposed.

 

The garbage bins should be presented at the right of way for collection.

 

The presentation of bins on Beach Street will be indiscreet, unhygienic for the adjoining café and outdoor dining areas, and generate intrusive noise during collection by trucks.

The revised drawings provide for a total of 18 x 240-L garbage bins for the residential apartments.

 

The plans also show a separate commercial waste storage room containing 4 bins. As will be discussed in this report, a special condition is recommended to require the use, occupation and fit-out of the ground floor suite to be the subject of a separate approval. Accordingly, the adequacy of the waste management arrangement for the commercial component will be considered at that stage.

 

The applicant has submitted indicative bin presentation plans to Council’s City Services Department for comments. The plans demonstrate that it is possible to present the bins on the eastern end of Dolphin Street or on the southern side of Bream Street. The documents also show that the bin presentation areas could be reduced if larger sized 660-L bins are used.

 

A specific condition is recommended to require the submission of a detailed waste management plan to Council’s City Services Department for approval, prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate. The waste management plan must address Council’s waste management guidelines.

 

Based on the submitted information, it is considered that the waste storage and collection arrangement can be appropriately managed, subject to the above condition. 

The proposal will create significant impacts during the construction phase, including traffic, noise, waste generation and air pollution.

 

The application does not identify the access points for construction vehicles.

Construction management conditions are recommended to ensure proper execution of works and to minimise amenity impacts on the surrounding properties.

 

A condition is recommended to require the preparation of a construction traffic management plan prior to the commencement of works.

A dilapidation report should be prepared for No. 128-130 Beach Street, prior to the commencement of construction works.

A condition is recommended to require the preparation of a dilapidation report for the immediate adjoining properties, prior to the commencement of construction works.

The shadow diagrams do not show the impacts on the northern end of Coogee Beach and Giles Baths.

 

The proposed development will overshadow the properties to the west. A significant setback to the new upper floor should be made to minimize the impact.

 

The proposed additional floor should be deleted to avoid overshadowing on the western neighbours.

The proposed development will generate the following additional overshadowing on 21 June:

 

Dolphin Street plaza areas:

At 9am, the overshadowing on the public plaza areas at the eastern end of Dolphin Street will be lengthened by approximately 7m.

 

By 12 noon, the additional overshadowing on the plaza areas will be reduced to 2m.

 

By 3pm, there will be negligible additional overshadowing.

 

The plaza areas in question will receive similar levels of sunlight in the afternoon period on 21 June, as compared to the status quo. It is not considered that the impact will be readily detectable by passers by.

 

Beach Street promenade and beach areas:

The coastal promenade and beach areas immediately to the east of the site will receive at least 3 hours of direct, unobstructed sunlight in the morning period on 21 June.

 

At 3pm, the development will lengthen the shadows in the order of approximately 5m. The overwhelming majority of the beach areas to the east of the site will remain unaffected.

 

The proposal will not unreasonably overshadow the surrounding public domain and open space reserve.

 

The proposed additions will generate additional overshadowing on a number of windows in the adjoining serviced apartment building at 161-167 Dolphin Street. However, the degree of impact is considered to be reasonable. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The proposed development will intrude into the privacy of the adjoining properties.

The proposed development will not result in detrimental privacy impacts on the adjoining properties. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The additional floor and increased height to the dome will obstruct ocean and beach views from the following properties:

·      11/120 Beach Street

·      15/120 Beach Street

·      93-93A Bream Street

·      A dwelling unit in Baden Street

The proposal will not result in unreasonable view loss from the surrounding properties. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

 

 

 

Consent conditions should be imposed to restrict noise emission from the apartments.

Conditions are recommended to ensure that any noise emission from the mechanical plant and equipment will be within the industry standards.

 

The proposed apartments are for domestic use (as compared to licensed premises which are more likely to generate high level of noise). It is not appropriate to stipulate noise restriction conditions for the use of the dwelling units. 

The rooftop decks will emit noise and adversely affect the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings to the north and west.

 

The rooftop decks to Units 11, 18 and 19 should be removed.

The rooftop terraces are not considered to create unreasonable noise impacts on the surrounding properties. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The application contains no details relating to the air-conditioning condenser units and kitchen exhaust on the rooftop of the building. The plant and equipment would emit significant noise.

 

The condenser units should be relocated to the eastern side of the roof to reduce impacts on the neighbours.

The plans show that the air-conditioning condenser units will be installed on the south-western part of the roof. It is not desirable to relocate them to the eastern side as this would increase their visibility from the public domain.

 

Conditions are recommended to ensure that any noise emission from the mechanical plant and equipment will be within the industry standards and will not unreasonably affect the amenity of the surrounding residences.

The kitchen exhaust on the roof will affect the air quality.

A condition is recommended to ensure that any exhaust vents will comply with the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standard.

The proposed development will reduce the value of the surrounding residential properties.

Variations in property values are not considered to be a valid objection on town planning grounds.

The proposed apartments should be Strata subdivided, so that there would be more limitations on the use of the ground floor licensed premises. 

The subject application does not seek approval for Strata subdivision.

 

However, the applicant has indicated that it is the owner’s intention to Strata subdivide the building (refer to the architect’s letter received by Council on 18 July 2013).

The restaurant / wine bar on the ground floor would generate excessive noise.

 

There should be a limit on the patron numbers for the licensed area, say 150 persons.

 

The proposed trading hours to 12 midnight are not suitable for weekdays. Due to the presence of residential uses above the ground level of the building, the closing times for the licensed premises should be no later than 10pm.

 

The application should provide a plan of management addressing issues such as the serving of alcohol, drug use, noise abatement and security patrols.

 

The proposed restaurant / wine bar will eventuate in safety and security problems and anti-social behaviour in the area.

The application has not included sufficient details relating to the layout and operational characteristics of the restaurant / wine bar on the ground floor level.

 

A condition is therefore recommended to exclude the restaurant / wine bar from the approval of the proposed development works, and to require the use and occupation of the ground floor suite to be the subject of a separate application. A detailed assessment on different aspects of the restaurant / wine bar use, including noise, security and amenity impacts, will be undertaken at that stage.

The proposed restaurant / wine bar will contribute to cumulative amenity impacts due to the concentration of various licensed premises in the area.

The Beach Palace Hotel presently contains 3 levels of pub uses. The proposal to reduce the extent of the licensed premises to 537m2 on the ground floor level represents a substantial reduction in such uses and would reduce amenity impacts on the surrounding residences.

Council has not adequately notified the surrounding neighbours about the application.

The application has been advertised and notified in accordance with the requirements of the DCP.

 

7.         Technical Officers Comments

 

7.1    Building Surveyor

Council’s Building Surveyor has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections, subject to standard conditions.

 

7.2    Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is not required for this development.

 

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

 

Traffic Comments

Parking Requirements for the development have been assessed as per the rates specified in Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 Part B7.

 

Vehicle Parking

Vehicle Parking for multi-unit housing is to be provided at the following rates;

1 space per 2 studio units (<40m2)

1 space per 1 bedroom unit (over 40m2)

1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 units (but none where development is less than 4 dwellings)

Motorbike Parking

Motorbike Parking is to be provided at 5% of the vehicle parking requirement.

 

Bicycle Parking

For Flats/multi dwelling bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 2 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

 

Calculations:

2 x 1-bedroom units @ 1 space each

= 2 spaces

12 x 2-bedroom units @ 1.2 space each

= 14.4 spaces

5 x 3-bedroom / 3+bedroom units @ 1.5 space each

= 7.5 spaces

Visitor  units 19/4

= 4.75 spaces

 

Required residential parking:

23.9 resident spaces + 4.75 visitor spaces

= 28.65 or 29 spaces

 

A total of 25 car spaces are provided, of which 20 are contained in car stackers. All car spaces will be allocated to the residents (i.e. no visitor parking).

 

No parking is provided for the reduced restaurant / bar area. Given that the bar area is reducing from 3240.7m2 to 537.7m2 the absence of parking provision is considered to be supportable. The current site benefits from a parking credit in the order of 160 spaces and the reduced floor space is likely to see a significant reduction in pressure on public parking in the vicinity of the site.

 

The site is reasonably well served by public transport and the parking provision for the residential component is supportable.

 

The parking provision includes 2 motor cycle parking spaces and compliant bicycle parking.

 

Carpark Layout

The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

Civil Works Comments

Council was concerned about the proposed vehicular crossing and the potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflict and conflict between the drivers of vehicles entering / exiting the development site and the diners of the adjoining café (with its approved outdoor seating area).

 

Council requested an updated Traffic Impact Assessment and this was lodged on 18 July 2013. The TIA is generally satisfactory and conditions of consent relating to traffic management have been included in this report. The development site is benefitted by Right of Way accessed from Bream Street however this ROW is unsuitable to serve the vehicular needs of the development site.

 

Service Authority Comments

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Landscape

Assessment Officer’s comments:

Council’s Landscape Development Officer has reviewed the proposal.

 

There are no objections to the interior planting and the general concept of the retaining walls and landscaping within the road reserve.

 

In terms of the public domain works, a condition is recommended to require full details to be submitted to Council’s City Services Department, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The detailed design is required to be consistent with Council’s Urban Design Manual.

 

It is recommended that the dense shrub, Heath Banksia, be removed from the public domain planting schedule, as this type of plants is not suitable for a highly trafficable environment and is not consistent with the planting theme for Coogee foreshore. Additionally, Fountain Grass is not deemed suitable due to their properties and alternative plants have been suggested. The above issues will be addressed by a condition.

 

Conditions relating to street tree pruning and protection have also been recommended.

 

7.3    Environmental Health Officer

The comments provided by the Environmental Health Officer are extracted below:

 

Acoustics:

Additional information was requested in relation to acoustics and was provided in acoustic report titled “169 Dolphin Street Coogee DA Assessment for Mixed Use Development” prepared by Renzo Tonin dated April 2013.

 

Acoustic advice provided following conclusive comments:

·      Proposed restaurant/wine bar could operate till midnight with recommendations provided;

·      Further acoustic assessment required during design development stage;

·      Detailed mechanical plant selection and assessment is required prior to construction certificate.

 

It is advised that in principle acoustic advice has been provided based on acoustic noise criteria including OLGR noise criteria.

 

Mechanical plant for the residential component would be required to be compliant with EPA Industrial Noise Policy.

 

It should be noted the proposed development will see a reduction in size of the licenced premises currently operating at the site and therefore should be resultant in a noise reduction impact on nearby residents.

 

The acoustic report from Renzo Tonin provides in principal support.

 

Appropriate conditions have been included in this report. 

 

Prior to committing to operating hours of the proposed wine bar the planner should consider the current operating times and similar operating times of like businesses.

 

7.4    Heritage Planner

Council’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposal. The comments provided are extracted under the “RLEP” section of this report. 

 

7.5    Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd. (SACL) / Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

Under the provisions of the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulation, the concurrence of the Sydney Airport Corporation / Civil Aviation Safety Authority is required as the proposed building has a maximum height in excess of 15.24m above existing ground level and may fall within the Conical Surface of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for Sydney Airport.

 

The requirements of SACL / CASA in relation to height restrictions, crane installation and construction management are imposed as a condition of consent.

 

8.         Master Planning Requirements

 

The subject site has a land area of less than 10,000m2. A site-specific development control plan is not required under Clause 6.12 of the LEP.

 

9.         Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

9.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre under RLEP 2012. The proposed land uses are defined as shop top housing and commercial premises (which include restaurants, cafés and pubs) and are permissible with development consent. The objectives of the zone are addressed 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.

The development scheme incorporates a Restaurant / Wine Bar on the ground level addressing both the Dolphin and Beach Street frontages. The proposed commercial use will provide services to the local residents, visitors and employees.

 

·      To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

The proposed Restaurant / Wine Bar will generate employment opportunities.

 

·      To maximize public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

The site is located within walking distance from public bus services. The proposal will create a resident population, commercial patronage and employees that maximize usage of public transport. The development scheme has included adequate bicycle parking facilities to encourage sustainable modes of transport.

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

The proposal will introduce a residential population that contributes to the demand and economic viability of the local services and businesses.

 

·      To facilitate a high standard of urban design and pedestrian amenity that contributes to achieving a sense of place for the local community.

The proposal will remove the existing ramp and substation on the Beach Street road reserve and extend the public plaza areas. The ground floor suite will activate the Dolphin and Beach Street frontages and the residential apartments above will offer casual surveillance of the surrounding public domain. The development will improve the pedestrian amenity, community safety and sense of place of the coastal precinct. 

 

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

The proposal will substantially decrease the amount of licensed premises floor space as compared to the status quo. The replacement of the pub use with dwelling units on the upper levels of the building will significantly reduce noise emission and amenity impacts on the surrounding residences.

 

·      To facilitate a safe public domain.

The ground floor suite will activate the Dolphin and Beach Street frontages and the residential apartments above will offer casual surveillance of the surrounding public domain.

 

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

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

4.3 Height of buildings

Maximum 12m

Top of dome:

21.836m

(south elevation, RL29.086)

 

Top of 3rd level:

14.37m

(south elevation, RL21.62)

No,

Exceptions to Development Standards submitted

4.4 Floor space ratio

Maximum 1.5:1

2.04:1

(3241.7m2 GFA)

No,

Exceptions to Development Standards submitted

 

5.6 Architectural roof features

Clause 5.6(2) of the LEP allows the carrying out of architectural roof features that exceed the height limit set by Clause 4.3. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing steel-clad dome and its replacement with a glazed structure. The criteria outlined in sub-clause (3) are addressed as follows:

 

(i)   Comprises a decorative element on the uppermost portion of a building

The existing dome on the heritage building carries landmark value and is readily identifiable from multiple vantage points. The proposed steel frame and glass structures reinterpret the historic dome as a decorative element, and are sympathetic both in form and proportions to the original.

 

(ii)  Is not an advertising structure

The proposed glass dome is not an advertising structure.

 

(iii) Does not include floor space area and is not reasonably capable of modification to include floor space area

The glazed dome functions to allow natural light and ventilation to the internal atrium and is not readily convertible to floor space.

 

(iv) Will cause minimal overshadowing

The glazed dome will cause minimal overshadowing.

 

5.10 Heritage conservation

The subject site is listed as a heritage item under the LEP [Item No. I87: Coogee Palace, replica of original building]. Council’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposal and the key comments are extracted below:

 

The Site

The subject site is listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998, although the original building on the site has been largely rebuilt.  The original building was opened in 1887, but its condition deteriorated throughout the twentieth century and the old dome had collapsed prior to demolition in the mid 1980s. 

 

Proposal

As compared to the original drawings, the current drawings have revised balcony, wall, column and mullion locations, and revised detail of window and shutter divisions.  Further detail has been submitted on façade detailing as well as additional photomontages. 

 

Submission

The original application was accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by NBRS + Partners.  The SHI noted that the original building included a concert room, swimming baths, aquarium and pleasure grounds.  The SHI considered the building to be a late 20th century reconstruction of a 19th century structure, altered on many occasions and considered that the building is a ‘memory’ of its former self providing some continuity with earlier incarnations and representing a landmark with the Coogee beachfront. 

 

In relation to heritage impact, the SHI notes that the proposal maintains the masonry base, adding lightweight structures above and a new glazed dome.  The SHI argues that the proposal will improve the urban design outcomes for surrounding streets, and will recover internal spatial character in a contemporary way that respects historic, social and cultural values.  The SHI notes the demolition works affect non-original late twentieth century fabric which does not have heritage value.  The SHI notes that the current uses in the building will be retained and supplemented by the proposed residential use, and that the current uses are not historically associated with the original use, except in that they allow public access in and around the site.  The SHI notes that the proposal involves the provision of an additional level which is set back from the raised parapet with louvred screening and that views from the street will not be substantially affected, and in longer views the prominence of the domed form will be retained.  The SHI concludes that the proposed works do not adversely affect the identified heritage significance of the property or its contributory role on Coogee Beach.  The SHI considers that the planning of the proposal is an improvement on the existing configuration and will provide well designed residential accommodation that will extend the life of the complex.  

 

A supplementary submission on heritage impacts has now been received, which provides further support for the design proposal.  In particular, the submission argues that the curved cornice-like elements to the roof tip element partially obscures, and does not increase the prominence of the addition. 

 

Comments

1890s Waterboard diagrams indicate the Coogee Aquarium building occupying the south eastern corner of the block bounded by Dolphin Street, Beach Street, Bream Street and Arden Street, with open space (lawns and pleasure grounds) to the north and west.  The Waterboard diagrams and early aerial and street view photographs indicate that the original building occupied a smaller, squarish site, with current larger, rectangular site created by the acquisition of an adjacent building to the north. 

 

It is noted that the silhouette of the Coogee Palace has been part of the Coogee Beach waterfront for over 120 years, featured in countless historic photographs and postcards.  While the footprint of the building has been enlarged and detailing has changed, the current building retains the blocky masonry base, rhythmic bays with regularly spaced pilasters and openings, parapeted roof and characteristic dome of the original building.  This suggests the importance of retaining a robust building form in this location which is able to accommodate changing uses.  The original building was altered and adapted over a period of 97 years, while the current building is to be significantly changed less than 30 years after its construction.  It is unclear whether the design quality and robustness of the current proposal will be sufficient to provide longevity comparable with the original building. 

 

Level 1 façade treatment - Modifications to the original building resulted in alternating bay windows and recessed balconies (some infilled) in an ordered arrangement at the upper level.  The proportions of the window and door openings in the new building are generally consistent with the proportions of original façade treatment.  The proposal will retain existing upper level openings infilled with “shutters/screens to detail”.  Some concerns were raised in relation to the lack of order in the arrangement of balconies.  Some changes to balcony locations have been made and further detail provided of the proposed shutters/screens.  The proposed level 1 façade treatment will produce a more solid appearance than that of the recessed balconies of the earlier building, but will assist in screening the distribution of balconies and rooms behind, and provide some depth to the façade. 

 

Dome and rooftop additions - the original Coogee Palace building comprised only two storeys, while the replacement building included a rooftop level set back from the main southern and eastern elevations, with the dome on top.  The proposed two storey addition will apparently have a similar footprint to the existing single storey rooftop structure.  The proposed roof top changes include an increase in balustrade height, and an increase in height of the existing roof top structure to accommodate an additional level. 

 

Concerns were raised that the proposal to increase the bulk of the roof top element will dominate the masonry base as well as the dome, and further reduce the former streetscape dominance of the dome which was arguably the most characteristic element of the original building.  Suggestions were made in relation to increasing the setbacks of the roof top structure and deleting the cornice like element to improve the visibility of the dome and reduce the visibility of the roof top element. 

 

The current submission has provided several photomontages one from Dunningham Reserve directly to the east of the site (existing and proposed dome) and one from the edge of the seawall to the south east of the site.  The photomontages demonstrate that the new dome will retain reasonable visibility above the roof top element and will remain a characteristic element on the Coogee beachfront. 

 

The proposal will replace the existing metal sheeted dome (which replaced the earlier corrugated iron sheeted structure) with a glass dome featuring panels of fixed glass and operable louvres.  As the proposal appears to retain the proportions and ribbed structure of the existing dome, there are no heritage objections to the proposed change in materials. 

 

Beach Street ramp/stair structure

Consideration has been given to the detailed design the proposed external stairs and other elements along the Beach Street frontage to unify the open space treatment and improve public security, including minimising height of the proposed wall to the eastern edge of the stair. 

 

Materials and finishes

The details of materials and finishes included in the submission are generally considered satisfactory, although the use of less contrasting colours for the painted street façade would be preferred- either a slightly darker colour for the horizontal and vertical elements or a slightly lighter colour for the background surfaces. 

 

Assessment Officer’s comments:

The existing building was reconstructed less than 30 years ago and has already been subjected to numerous alterations and additions. The Heritage Planner has raised concerns about the robustness of the current proposal in accommodating changes in users’ demand over time without resorting to further substantial alterations.

 

The proposed apartment units have spacious dimensions and the room layouts offer good living amenity. The drawings demonstrate that sufficient thought has been given to the design detailing and visual outcome of the works. Provided the project is realized in accordance with the plans, it is considered that the development would contribute to the character of the locality for a prolonged period of time, as compared to the various ad hoc changes that have been made to date.

 

The Heritage Planner recommends that the colour scheme for the historic masonry façades to incorporate less tonal contrast. Accordingly, a special condition is recommended to require the submission and approval of an amended material / colour scheme prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

6.1 Acid sulfate soils

The site is affected by acid sulfate soils type 5. The proposal does not involve any significant excavation and is unlikely to lower the water table. Therefore, an acid sulfate soils management plan is not required.

 

6.2 Earthworks

The proposed car park will be accommodated within the existing ground level. No significant excavation is involved.

 

6.7 Foreshore scenic protection area

The requirements outlined in sub-clause (3) are addressed as follows:

 

(a)  is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas, and

(b)  contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

The existing Beach Palace Hotel is listed as a local heritage item. The development scheme re-interprets the earlier building form in a contemporary fashion, which maintains the existing masonry base and introduces the new additions in light weight materials setback from the raised parapet.

 

The development works will not be visually dominant, or detract from the heritage character that the existing building displays. The proposal will substantially upgrade the appearance of the existing building which has been subject to numerous ad hoc changes over the years, and will contribute to the scenic quality of the adjoining foreshore areas and public reserves.

 

The additions will not obstruct public views to the coastal areas.

 

6.11 Design excellence

The proposal has a height of more than 15m and the Design Excellence clause applies. The criteria for determining whether a development exhibits design excellence as outlined in sub-clause (4) are addressed as follows:

 

(a)  whether a high standard of architectural design, materials and detailing appropriate to the building type and location will be achieved,

The proposal satisfies the Design Quality Principles under SEPP 65. The drawings and the accompanying virtual models and photomontages demonstrate a skilful design incorporating high quality materials and fine detailing.

 

(b)  whether the form and external appearance of the development will improve the quality and amenity of the public domain,

The proposal will remove the existing ramp and substation on the Beach Street road reserve and extend the public plaza areas. A continuous awning will be installed along the Dolphin and Beach Street elevations. The development is considered to improve the quality and amenity of the public domain.

 

(c)  how the proposed development responds to the environmental and built characteristics of the site and whether it achieves an acceptable relationship with other buildings on the same site and on neighbouring sites,

The proposal is sympathetic to the heritage values of the existing building and will positively contribute to the character of the foreshore precinct.

 

(d)  whether the building meets sustainable design principles in terms of sunlight, natural ventilation, wind, reflectivity, visual and acoustic privacy, safety and security and resource, energy and water efficiency,

The existing building has a substantial footprint covering the entire site with deep floor plates. The development scheme has innovatively addressed the site constraints by incorporating an atrium that extends across all floor levels and various void spaces, so that each and every apartment will be cross ventilated with appropriate daylight access. As is discussed under the “SEPP 65” and “DCP” sections of this report, the proposed works will perform satisfactorily in terms of internal amenity and energy efficiency.

 

(e)  whether the proposed development detrimentally impacts on view corridors and landmarks.

As is discussed under the “DCP” section of this report, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable view loss impacts.

 

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

SEPP 65 applies to the residential portion of the development. The application was referred to the Design Review Panel for advice in April 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

·      It is commendable that the proposal is now for the removal of the current access ramp and the introduction of landscape and stairs with inboard substation. This is considered to be of substantial benefit to the public.

 

Comments:

The development scheme involves the removal of the existing access ramp and substation in the Beach Street road reserve. The area in question will be replaced with an extension to the public plaza with stairs access. Due to the level difference, a 15.7m long retaining wall will be constructed. The revised design has lowered the height of the retaining wall and incorporated landscaping to improve the usability and safety of this area. This element of the proposal will positively contribute to the amenity of the public domain.

 

Former access ramp and substation areas

 

New plaza extension and retaining wall within the Beach Street road reserve

 

Principle 2: Scale

·      The Applicant claims that this proposed increase in height would not seriously affect private views from surrounding buildings; however this needs to be demonstrated. The increase in height also needs to be assessed from the public domain along the beachfront, the parks on the northern headland, and from Beach and Dolphin streets.

 

Comments:

The applicant has prepared photomontages to demonstrate the expected view loss impacts on the nearby properties. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

 

The applicant has also submitted photomontages to illustrate the appearance of the development as viewed from Dunningham Reserve and the public plaza areas at the junction of Beach and Dolphin Streets. These digital images have already been attached to this report.

 

·      The Panel is of the opinion that the dome could be smaller in scale and a proportion (at the top) could be solid to reduce direct midday summer sun.

 

Comments:

Council’s Heritage Planner has advised against the reduction of the dome as this would erode the landmark quality of the building. The glazed dome retains the diameter of the existing structures and is a suitable modern interpretation of the distinctive architectural element.

 

The proposal fully meets the requirements of SEPP: BASIX. The applicant has obtained preliminary advice from an environmental design consultant (Windtech, letter dated 26 March 2013), which states that the dome configuration and apartment layouts will enable adequate cross ventilation. Hot air could be chanelled out of the dome louvres through convective currents. It should also be noted that the northern void has a clear dimension of 16.2m x 6.7m, which will greatly facilitate natural ventilation to the interior space of the building.

 

In order to deliver a light-weight, semi-transparent quality to the rooftop structures and to maximize view sharing, it is more desirable to minimize solid elements within the dome. The design in its current form is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Diagram demonstrating cross ventilation and air flow of the building (Source: Windtech)

 

Principle 3: Built form

·      The proposed two upper floor levels, although clearly distinguishing between the existing and the new parts of the building are awkwardly placed and relate poorly to the adjoining buildings. It is suggested that supporting verandas to level 3 and roof on columns aligned with the façade of the building should be investigated.

 

Comments:

Council’s Heritage Planner has advised against the Panel’s suggestion. The setback of the 2nd and 3rd levels will minimise the visual dominance of the new structures and emphasise the fenestration pattern of the historic facades. The revised design has included landscaping at the interface with the adjoining buildings (No. 161-167 Dolphin Street and No. 128-130 Beach Street) to screen their exposed side walls.

 

·      The random external blinds curving to a cornice like element at the top of the building is still considered inappropriate and an unnecessarily complicated way of adding to the building. A more simple approach using columns (which could be more slender than that of the existing building) in proportions to complement the lower floors with sunshading appropriate to orientation would be preferred.

 

Comments:

The curving louvre screens are an important design feature in the development. The setbacks to the upper levels and the strong horizontal emphasis of the screens serve to reduce the visual scale of the new additions, and allow the heritage facades below to remain dominant. The screens assist in softening the rectilinear form and edges of the additions and provide a transition from the existing masonry base to the glazed elevations above.

 

The design intent of the curved screens is explained in the letter prepared by the applicant’s heritage consultant (NBRS + Partners, dated 3 July 2013):

 

The curved cornice like elements which act to not only provide solar screening but to reflect the original richly ornamented Victorian design in a contemporary fashion, is in my professional opinion entirely appropriate, providing a suitable transition from the masonry base and supporting the form of the new dome structure.” 

 

3-dimensional virtual model of the louvre screen configuration (Source: Rudolfsson Alliker Associates Architects)

 

·      The central ‘circular’ courtyard at Level 0 could be less regular and curve away from the car park intrusion and would therefore look more complete. Similarly Level 1 does not need to be strictly circular and centrally placed under the dome. A much larger opening at this level is preferred and the connection of the landscaping through to the west boundary would make a huge improvement to this space.

 

Comments:

The amended design has reconfigured the atrium courtyard on the ground level, so that the intrusion into the car park is now removed. The shape of the planter and the voids above has been adjusted accordingly.

 

The extension of the atrium to the western property boundary is not supported. The design concept aims to visually engage the lift lobbies and stairs landings with the atrium and feature planting therein. The Panel’s suggestion would nullify this design intent.

Principle 4: Density

Comments:

The proposed housing density is considered to be satisfactory. Refer to the “Exceptions to Development Standards” section for details.

 

The substantial reduction in the size of the licensed premises will significantly improve the acoustic amenity of the surrounding residences.

 

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

·      The effectiveness of the proposed sunscreens is unclear. The Panel does not support the design of the sunscreens in their current form.

 

Comments:

The curved sun screens to the upper levels would provide a degree of mitigation against the low angle morning sun. Although full-height louvre screens are more effective in ameliorating summer heat gain, their installation is not supported in this instance as they would compromise the light-weight, semi-transparent quality of the additions, overly complicate the façade composition and visually compete with the masonry base of the heritage building. Nevertheless, the proposal fully achieves the thermal comfort target of SEPP: BASIX.

 

·      A new ventilated glass dome will create an unwanted heat load in summer that will adversely affect the amenity for the building occupants. Integrated environmental design strategies need to be incorporated and fully documented as part of the proposal.

 

Comments:

Refer to comments above.

 

·      External sun shading blinds have been indicated on detail sections - these details need to form part of any consent to ensure their inclusion.

 

Comments:

The applicant has submitted a 1:20 section detailing the construction of the curved sun shades to the upper levels and the shutters to the first floor windows.

 

·      Window operation should be clearly nominated on the elevations.

 

Comments:

The revised drawings have comprehensively shown window operations.

 

·      Natural ventilation should be able to be maintained without loss of security.

 

Comments:

Given that all apartment units have dual aspects, natural ventilation could still be obtained from the bedroom windows when the sliding doors to the balconies are closed.

 

Principle 6: Landscape

·      The landscape design is generally acceptable and with improvements to the areas as noted above should provide a very positive environment.

 

Comments:

The landscape plans have adequately described the public domain works and planting within the atrium and rooftop. The landscape scheme will enhance the amenity of the apartment units and the adjoining public domain.

Principle 7: Amenity

·      The central courtyard should extend to the west boundary. This will require the stairs to be relocated (possibly instead of the study and oversized wardrobe/en-suite areas to Unit 11). A view of the central space could still be achieved from an entry stair in this location.

 

Comments:
The Panel’s suggestion is not supported. Refer to comments above.

 

Principle 8: Safety and security

·      The dome poses problems for cleaning particularly due to the salt air environment. The design will need to incorporate appropriate cleaning and safety measures.

 

Comments:

A movable ladder mounted on track will be installed to enable cleaning and maintenance.

 

Principle 9: Social dimensions

·      The improved public domain is very positive. 

 

Comments:

Noted.

 

Principle 10: Aesthetics

·      This is a challenging project and a strong clear idea driving the planning and treatment of the proposal as a whole and its internal spaces is not yet evident.  It is unclear for example how:

 

the wall separating the car park and the lobby on the ground floor is related to the access stair it appears to cut across

the shape of the ground floor lobby relates to the dome above it

the dome sits upon the various square shapes below it

the design of the proposed sun control devices

 

Comments:

The amended drawings have reconfigured the atrium, so that the planter on the ground floor and the voids above align with the glazed dome.

 

Overall, the design scheme presents a skilful contemporary solution to the alteration and addition works. The design detailing has been appropriately described in the revised drawings. The architectural expression and aesthetics are considered to satisfy the Design Quality Principle.

 

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

SEPP: BASIX applies to the residential portion of the development. A BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the application. The commitments listed in the above certificate will 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.)

 

B2 Heritage

Refer to comments under the “RLEP” section of this report.

 

B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

Control

Proposal / Comments

3 Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

Residential car parking requirements:

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

 

 

 

Calculations:

2 x 1-bedroom units @ 1 space each

= 2 spaces

12 x 2-bedroom units @ 1.2 space each

= 14.4 spaces

5 x 3-bedroom / 3+bedroom units @ 1.5 space each

= 7.5 spaces

Visitor  units 19/4

= 4.75 spaces

 

Required residential parking:

23.9 resident spaces + 4.75 visitor spaces

= 28.65 or 29 spaces

 

A total of 25 car spaces are provided, of which 20 are contained in car stackers. All car spaces will be allocated to the residents (i.e. no visitor parking).

Restaurant / wine bar car parking requirements:

The DCP stipulates different parking rates for ‘pubs’ and ‘restaurants’.

 

The application does not include any detailed floor plans for the ground floor premises, and the proportion of floor space used for restaurant and wine bar.

 

In this instance, the parking rate for ‘restaurant / café’ is used as a proxy to estimate the parking demand generated by the commercial tenancy:

 

1 space per 40m2 GFA for the first 80m2 GFA, then 1 space per 20m2 GFA thereafter

Required restaurant / wine bar parking:

1/40 x 80 + 1/20 x (537.7-80)

= 24.9 or 25 spaces

 

No car parking is provided for the ground floor tenancy.

 

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

Residential motorcycle requirement:

1.45 or 1 space

 

2 motorcycle spaces are provided and comply with the DCP.

 

Commercial motorcycle requirement:

Not required.

4 Bicycles

Residential requirement:

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

 

Restaurant / wine bar requirement:

1 bike space per 10 car parking spaces

1 shower per 0-12 bike spaces (accessible shower 1 in 10 bike spaces)

Calculations:

Residential

19 units / 2 for residents +

19 units / 10 for visitors

= 11.4 or 11 spaces

 

A total of 16 bicycle spaces are provided and comply with the DCP.

 

Commercial

25 required car spaces / 10

= 2.5 bike spaces, plus 1 accessible shower

 

The current drawings do not show any shower facility for the restaurant / wine bar.

 

Note: In calculating the parking demand, the media and guest/study rooms are counted as bedrooms as they are capable of being used for such a purpose.

 

The proposed parking provision is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing heritage building. The scope of works is constrained as the external enclosing walls are to be retained. The provision of a car park within the existing ground level is a logical design solution and would minimise disturbance to the structural fabrics. It is not considered feasible to expand the ground floor car park further as this would adversely affect the circulation planning, and reduce the amount of functional commercial floor space which is essential to activate the streets.

 

The existing building has a total GFA of 3225.6m2 containing 3 levels of licensed premises and restaurant uses, and no off-street car parking is provided. The submitted Traffic Impact Assessment (page 12) estimates that the existing Beach Palace Hotel would generate a parking requirement of approximately 160 spaces when applying the DCP parking rate for restaurants / cafes. Although the proposal does not reserve any car parking for the ground floor Restaurant / Wine Bar, which entails a parking requirement of 25 spaces based on a floor area of 537.7m2, the development scheme represents a substantial decrease in parking demand as compared to the status quo. Overall, the significant reduction in the floor space of the licensed premises would reduce the amount of vehicle trips to the site and nearby areas.

 

It is expected that a portion of the patrons to the Restaurant / Wine Bar would not drive to the site due to their intention of alcohol consumption.

 

It is also anticipated that a portion of the patrons who visit the premises by car would engage in a car pool arrangement. To cater for driving patrons, there are two Council car parks located at the southern corners of the Arden Street and Dolphin Street intersection. Time-restricted kerb side parking is also available in the nearby local streets.

 

·      The combined bicycle parking requirements for the residential and commercial components are 14 spaces (11 residential + 3 commercial). A total of 16 bicycle spaces are provided within the car park.

 

Under the DCP, the Restaurant / Wine Bar is also required to provide an accessible shower.

 

Given that the proposal does not include adequate details relating to the layout and operational characteristics of the premises, a special condition is recommended to require a separate development approval for the use and occupation of the ground floor suite. The shower requirement could be assessed in detail at that stage.

 

·      The apartment units generate a resident parking demand of 24 spaces. The proposal includes 25 spaces for the residents and fully meets the DCP requirement.

 

The DCP also requires a total of 5 visitor parking spaces for the development. The design scheme does not reserve any visitor parking. Due to the constraints of the existing structural fabrics and heritage listing, the proposal is considered to have maximized on-site parking provision.

 

Visitors to the residential apartments could utilize the public car park or public transport services.

 

·      The site has convenient access to public transport services. Various bus stops and terminals are located within 250m from the site. These regular bus services include the following:

 

M50 – Metrobus Coogee to Drummoyne via Surry Hills

313 – Coogee to Bondi Junction

353 – Bondi Junction to Eastgardens via Maroubra

370 – Coogee to Leichhardt via Newtown

372 – Coogee to Railway Square

373 – Coogee to City

374 – Coogee to City

X73 – Coogee to City peak express service

X74 – Coogee to City peak express service

 

The proposed parking and access design is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

Loading and deliveries:

·      No on-site loading / unloading facilities will be accommodated in the car park. There is a loading zone on the northern side of Dolphin Street approximately 16m to the west of the site (6am to 12:30pm, 7 days a week). Future deliveries for the Restaurant / Wine Bar could utilize this loading zone. Delivery trucks could also exit Dolphin Street in a forward direction by manoeuvring around the turning head on the eastern end of Dolphin Street.

 

The existing practice involves delivery trucks accessing the Beach Street road reserve and temporarily parking on the ramp attached to the building. The trucks require reversing movements when exiting the ramp, which is unsafe. Therefore, the use of the Dolphin Street loading zone would be an improved solution. The Beach Street road reserve should be utilized for resident car access to the site only due to safety considerations.

 

Vehicular access arrangement:

The development scheme includes a combined entry-exit on the Beach Street frontage of 3.31m in width. Vehicles accessing and leaving the site will need to cross over part of the Beach Street road closure. The proposed access arrangement is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The site is served by an existing right of way off Bream Street. However, this right of way has insufficient width to provide any visual splay in accordance with the Australian Standard and hence is unsafe and inappropriate for regular vehicular access.

 

Potential access from Dolphin Street has been considered. However, this option would also require vehicles to cross over the Dolphin Street road closure. As the Dolphin Street frontage currently has continuous commercial frontage that activates the street, such an access arrangement would detrimentally affects the streetscape character and is not supported. A long driveway inside the building would also have been needed, which would unnecessarily reduce useable ground level floor space.

 

Therefore, the utilization of the existing loading dock on the Beach Street elevation is considered the most suitable option and is supported.

 

·      Based on the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, the proposed apartments will generate up to 10 vehicle trips per hour during peak periods. This equates to 1 vehicle movement every 6 minutes.

 

There are implications on the safety of pedestrians using the Beach Street road closure as well as the existing outdoor dining areas outside the adjoining building at No. 128-130 Beach Street. The proposal has addressed the above issues as follows:

 

-    An analysis of the swept path templates reveals that vehicular movements to and from the car park entry are satisfactory. Refer to the diagram below. There is sufficient waiting space for another vehicle when a car is leaving the site simultaneously.

 

Extract of plan showing turning circles of vehicles entering and leaving the car park.

 

-    A traffic signal system is proposed. The submitted Traffic Impact Assessment report (pages 15-16) provides the following information:

 

The proposed development will operate using a traffic signal system whereby all entering traffic will be faced with a green signal in ‘passive’ mode. When a vehicle is required to exit the development, the exiting vehicle will activate a detector / remote controller which will then allow a sufficient safe clearance time for the vehicle to exit the development. It is noted that the signal system will be detailed and designed by a signal consultant and this can be provided at CC stage in response to a suitable condition of consent. The traffic signal is provided adjacent the site access and will be fully visible for all entering vehicles. Should the low probability event occur whereby a vehicle is required to wait on Beach Street, there is sufficient area for two vehicles to pass as demonstrated in the swept path analysis. It is also highly relevant that this section of Beach Street has low traffic volumes and forms a cul-de-sac with the pedestrianised section of Beach Street.”

 

A special condition is recommended to require the details of the signals system to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate. 

 

-    There are existing bollards within the Beach Street road reserve, which will protect pedestrians to the south of the car park entry and vehicle access paths.

 

-    The design scheme proposes a 900mm (height) x 2000mm (length) physical barrier along the northern side of the access path to the car park entry. The resultant swept paths will not encroach upon the adjoining outdoor dining areas. A special condition is recommended to require the details of the physical barrier to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. 

 

-    The swept paths of vehicles over the road reserve will be marked by special paving. A special condition is recommended to require the details of the surface treatment to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

Subject to the above mitigation measures, the proposal is considered to have minimized undue safety risks on the road closure areas.

 

Car stackers:

Due to the constraints of the site and in order to cater for the residential parking demand, the provision of car stackers to the extent as proposed is acceptable.

 

The applicant has submitted manufacturer’s specifications of the car stackers, which indicate the following:

 

·      The stackers can be fully raised or lowered within 60 seconds. Accordingly, the operation of the stackers would not cause any significant delay in vehicular movements within the car park.

 

·      The parking platforms require a clearance of 2600mm to 2700mm in width, which is 200mm to 300mm wider than a standard car space. The design scheme has reserved 2900mm width clearance for the stackers, which would still be compliant with Australian Standard 2890.1.

 

F2 Outdoor Advertising and Signage

The section numbered EW05 (on drawing numbered 1230-115) shows the installation of a business identification sign for the Beach Palace, which is attached to the new retaining wall within the Beach Street road closure.

 

The installation of the business identification sign within the public domain is not appropriate, as it would create an impression that the plaza area in question is part of a private property. A special condition is therefore recommended to require the deletion of this sign.

 

11.      Council Policies

 

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

$10,948,190

 

1.0%

$109,481.90

 

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 “Randwick 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 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 are addressed by the recommended standard conditions.

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

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

 

The proposed development will introduce a residential population that contributes to the economic viability of the Coogee town centre. The retention of a commercial component on the ground floor level will continue to activate the public domain. The substantial reduction in the floor area for licensed premises will significantly improve the living amenity of the adjoining and nearby residences.

 

Based on the above, the proposal is considered to deliver positive social and economic impacts to the locality.

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

The site is located within a mixed use precinct and the proposed land uses are considered to be compatible with the character of the locality.

 

The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land uses and structures.

 

Therefore, the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

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

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

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

The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to the recommended conditions. Therefore, the development is considered to be within the public interest.

 

12.1  Solar access

 

Solar access to the proposed apartments

East-facing units:

All of the east-facing units will receive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight to their living room windows and balconies on 21 June. They include Units 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15 and 16, which account for 42% of all proposed apartments.

 

North-facing units:

Based on the submitted solar study, Units 17 and 19 will receive 3 hours of direct sunlight to their living room windows and balconies. These account for 11% of all proposed apartments.

 

Whilst not strictly meeting the DCP requirement, Unit 9 will receive approximately 2.5 hours of direct sunlight to its living room windows and balconies.

 

South-facing units:

All of the south-facing units will not receive direct sunlight to their principal living rooms and balconies on the winter solstice. However, the design scheme is considered to have maximized solar access to these apartments within the constraints of the site via the following measures:

 

-   Provision of secondary windows facing the atrium to capture additional oblique sunlight and ambient light.

-   For Units 1, 2 and 3 on level 1, additional garden areas facing the atrium or void are provided.

-   For Units 10 and 18 on levels 2 and 3 respectively, an additional bedroom balcony facing the void is provided. Furthermore, a rooftop terrace is available for Unit 18.

-   For the split-level Units 11 and 12, skylights and internal voids are provided to improve daylight access to the interior space. Rooftop terraces are also available to these apartments.

 

Retention of solar access to the adjoining development

The expected shadow impacts on the surrounding areas are described in the shadow diagrams below:

 

Proposed shadows 9am, 21 June

Proposed shadows 12 noon, 21 June

 

 

Proposed shadows 3pm, 21 June

 

Dolphin Street plaza areas:

At 9am, the overshadowing on the public plaza areas at the eastern end of Dolphin Street will be lengthened by approximately 7m.

 

By 12 noon, the additional overshadowing on the plaza areas will be reduced to 2m.

 

By 3pm, there will be negligible additional overshadowing.

 

The plaza areas in question will receive similar levels of sunlight in the afternoon period on 21 June, as compared to the status quo. It is not considered that the impact will be readily detectable by passers by.

 

Beach Street promenade and beach areas:

The coastal promenade and beach areas immediately to the east of the site will receive at least 3 hours of direct, unobstructed sunlight in the morning period on 21 June.

 

At 3pm, the development will lengthen the shadows in the order of approximately 5m. The overwhelming majority of the beach areas to the east of the site will remain unaffected.

 

The proposal will not unreasonably overshadow the surrounding public domain and open space reserve.

 

161-167 Dolphin Street

The expected impacts on the adjoining serviced apartment building (Coogee Sands Apartments) at 161-167 Dolphin Street are described in the following axonometric diagrams:

 

 

The expected impacts on the eastern elevation of the serviced apartment building are summarized below:

 

Areas

Existing solar access

Proposed impacts

Level 1

Terrace

Receives sunlight to the majority of the terrace from 9:30am to 11:30am.

No additional impacts.

Level 1

Windows A to E

Receives sunlight at 10am.

Existing sunlight will be lost.

Level 2

Windows A to G

Receives sunlight from 9am to 10:30am.

At 9am, half of window G will be overshadowed; the uppermost strip of glazing of windows A to F will be overshadowed.

 

At 9:30am, the strip of glazing above the sills of windows A to F will be overshadowed.

Level 3

Windows A to F

Receives sunlight from 8am to 10:30am.

At 8am and 8:30am, the lower portion of the windows will be overshadowed.

 

Planning principle relating to solar access:

An assessment has been made against the planning principle established in the Land and Environment Court case, The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010], NSWLEC 1082 in relation to the expected impact on 161-167 Dolphin Street:

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

The subject site and the adjoining properties within the urban block are zoned B2 Local Centre under the LEP. The primary zoning objective is to provide for a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses and to enable residential development that supports the employment function of the zone. Given that the zoning and development standards contained in the LEP envisage a medium to high density building form, it is much more difficult to achieve strict compliance with the performance requirements of the DCP, as compared to the scenario of a lower density residential zone.

 

The windows that will be subject to additional overshadowing are situated deep within the allotment and are oriented towards the Beach Palace site. It is highly difficult to protect solar access to these windows by virtue of their location and aspect. It is also emphasized that the affected windows on levels 2 and 3 will only have additional overshadowing over part of their glazed areas at specific hours. The proposal does not completely overshadow the above windows during those hours.

 

The affected property is a serviced apartment building, which in most cases cater for transient guests. This is in contrast to a residential flat building where the occupants reside in the premises on a long term basis. In this regard, a lower level of solar access is acceptable.

 

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

 

Comments:

Despite the increase in building height by 1.8m (from RL19.82 to RL21.62), the degree of the impact is relatively moderate. The semi-transparent nature of the glazed dome also assists in minimizing overshadowing on the adjoining properties.

 

As can be seen in the above table, the affected windows on levels 2 and 3 will only have a portion of their glazed areas overshadowed. The overwhelming majority of the east-facing windows will not be affected by the development. The windows on the upper most floors on levels 4 and 5 will continue to receive at least 3 hours of sunlight on the winter solstice.

 

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

 

Comments:

As is discussed under the “Exceptions to Development Standards” section of this report, the proposed building height and density are considered to be compatible with the surrounding environment. The semi-transparent nature of the glazed dome also assists in minimizing overshadowing on the adjoining properties. The proposal will improve the building’s presentation to the streets and the right of way at the rear, and suitable façade modulation and setbacks have been incorporated into the design. The development will enhance the character of the heritage building and contribute to a positive streetscape outcome.

 

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

 

Comments:

The expected impacts on the eastern façade of the serviced apartment building are clearly described in the shadow diagrams above.

 

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

 

Comments:

There is a terrace area on level 1 of the building. The existing solar access to the terrace will not be affected by the development.

 

·        Overshadowing by fences, roof overhangs and changes in level should be taken into consideration. Overshadowing by vegetation should be ignored, except that vegetation may be taken into account in a qualitative way, in particular dense hedges that appear like a solid fence.

 

Comments:

The submitted shadow diagrams do not take into consideration impacts generated by vegetation.

 

·        In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites should be considered as well as the existing development.

 

Comments:

The surrounding urban blocks are currently under transition where the older building stock is being replaced by new developments. Due to the proximity to the foreshore areas and the relative old age and physical conditions of a number of properties in the locality, it is expected that major upgrade or redevelopment would continue to occur in the foreseeable future.

 

12.2  Visual privacy

The potential privacy impacts of various elements of the proposal are addressed as follows:

 

Level

Element

Comments

1

Units 1, 8 & 9 –

Western gardens

These units have garden areas which directly abut the western property boundary, and have cross viewing potential to the east-facing windows of the adjoining serviced apartment building.

 

The design scheme will create vertical slot openings in the existing western enclosing walls. The slots will be shaped at an angle so that direct cross viewing will be minimized. The landscape plan also shows the planting of a feature tree in each of the gardens with mature height of 3 to 4m.

 

The above measures will minimise adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring property.

2 & 3

Units 17 & 19 –

Northern terrace and living room windows

The northern terraces of Units 17 and 19 have the potential to overlook the west-facing bedroom balconies of the mixed use building at 128-130 Beach Street.

 

The design scheme has included vertical blade screens along the northern edge of the terraces. Additionally, part of the existing northern walls of the Beach Palace that are nearest to the neighbours’ balconies will be retained.

 

A special condition is recommended to ensure the design of the vertical blade screens to the aforementioned terraces is effective in restricting view angles to the adjoining building.

 

The above devices will minimise cross viewing to the neighbours’ balconies and bedroom windows, subject to the recommended condition.

Roof

Rooftop terraces

The rooftop terraces to Units 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 are oriented towards the streets and will not overlook any adjoining buildings.

 

The rooftop terrace to Unit 19 is well setback from the western and northern boundaries and will not overlook the adjoining buildings.

 

The rooftop terrace to Unit 16 has the potential to overlook the top floor balconies of 128-130 Beach Street. A special condition is recommended to require the terrace to be relocated to the east of the skylight / hatch door, so that no overlooking will occur.

 

12.3  View sharing

The proposal has implications on the views currently obtained from the adjoining and nearby properties and several submissions have been received. The following paragraphs provide a four-step analysis of view loss established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

Baden Street property:

A submission is received raising concerns about view loss impact on an apartment unit in Baden Street. The submission does not specify the exact property address. The objector has been contacted and refuses to allow inspection by the assessment officer. Baden Street is located to the north-east of the site. The properties along the northern side of Baden Street have view cones towards the south. In this respect, it is highly unlikely that the development would have any material impacts on the aforementioned properties and no further investigation is warranted.

 

93 Bream 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 (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

Existing view from the top floor terrace attached to the bedroom

 

Post-development view 

 

The view in question is obtained from the top floor terrace attached to the bedroom of the dwelling. The current view constitutes highly restricted, distant water elements framed by buildings within Dolphin and Beach Streets, including the Beach Palace Hotel. The view is captured obliquely from the terrace and is not iconic in nature.

 

Following the development, it is expected that a very minor portion of the water elements will be obscured.

 

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

 

The view is obtained at a standing position from the top floor terrace which is attached to the bedroom. The view is obtained obliquely across the rear boundary of 128-130 Beach Street and the northern side boundary of the subject site.

 

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

 

The photomontage demonstrates that there would be very minor loss of water elements. The degree of impact is therefore rated as minor. 

 

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

 

The proposal will maintain the majority of the distant water elements in the view, despite the fact that they are highly restricted by existing buildings in the area. The semi-transparent quality of the glazed dome would also allow a degree of filtered distant view to the water. In this respect, the design scheme is considered to be skilful and the extent of view loss is considered to be reasonable.

 

93A Bream 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 (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

Existing view from the top floor terrace attached to the bedroom

(note: this photograph is taken with the camera projected outside of the terrace in question)

 

Post-development view

 

The view in question is obtained from the top floor terrace attached to the bedroom of the dwelling. The current view constitutes highly restricted, distant water elements framed by buildings within Dolphin and Beach Streets, including the Beach Palace Hotel. The view is captured obliquely from the terrace and is not iconic in nature.

 

Following the development, it is expected that a minor portion of the distant water elements will be obscured. However, a small amount of filtered water views would be gained through the new glazed dome.

 

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

 

The view is obtained obliquely at a standing position from the top floor terrace which is attached to the bedroom (note that the photograph and photomontage above show the view captured by a camera projected outside of the terrace). The view is obtained across the rear boundary of 128-130 Beach Street and the northern side boundary of the subject site.

 

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

 

The photomontage demonstrates that there would be minor loss of water elements. A small amount of filtered water views would be gained through the new glazed dome. The degree of impact is therefore rated as minor only, if not negligible. 

 

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

 

The proposal will maintain the majority of the distant water elements in the view, despite the fact that they are highly restricted by existing buildings in the area, and are obtained obliquely across the side boundary of the subject site. Additionally, the glazed dome would enable a small amount of filtered water elements to be gained. Therefore, the development scheme is considered to be skilful and will achieve reasonable view sharing.

 

11/120 Beach 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 (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

Existing and post-development views from the kitchen window

 

The south-facing kitchen window has a highly restricted, distant and filtered view of Coogee Bay, which is framed by existing buildings and partially obscured by vegetation.

 

Following the development, approximately half of the filtered water elements will be obscured. However, the filtered land-water interface will still be visible.

 

Existing and post-development views from the laundry

The south-facing laundry window presently captures a small amount of restricted, distant and filtered views of Coogee Bay. The water elements are partially obscured by existing vegetation.

 

Following the development, approximately half of the existing filtered water views will be obscured. However, a small amount of additional filtered water elements would be gained through the glazed dome.

 

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

 

The views are obtained across the rear boundary of 161-167 Dolphin Street and the northern side boundary of the subject site. The views are captured at a standing position only.

 

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

 

The views are obtained from the kitchen and laundry windows. They are not obtained from the living room windows or balconies.

 

The existing views from the kitchen window contain water elements that are highly restricted in extent and content. The degree of impact is therefore considered to be moderate only.

 

The existing views from the laundry window contain more water elements, but they are still highly restricted and filtered by buildings and vegetation. The degree of impact is considered to be moderate only.

 

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

 

The view from the kitchen window is obtained across the northern side boundary of the subject site and the rear boundary of the adjoining serviced apartments at 161-167 Dolphin Street. The water elements are restricted, distant and punctuated by buildings and vegetation, and are by no means panoramic or expansive. Having regard to the planning principle, the retention of this view is highly difficult as it crosses the side boundary of the subject site. However, the proposed development will still retain the existing filtered land-water interface and the framed district views towards South Coogee.

The expected impact on the laundry window should be given a lesser weight by virtue of the room’s purpose. Notwithstanding, the photomontage demonstrates that the loss of the restricted water elements will be compensated by new filtered views towards the bay through the glazed dome. The design scheme involves the replacement of the existing opaque, steel clad dome with a glazed structure, which carries a semi-transparent quality and allows a degree of distant, filtered views. Despite the increase in building height, the proposal has appropriately compensated for the resultant view loss, albeit the impact is only moderate in nature due to the restrictiveness of the views in question.

 

Based on the above, it is considered that the intrusion to the views in question is reasonable.

 

15/120 Beach 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 (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

Note: The topmost point of the new dome and the outlines of the new 3rd level are estimated by the assessment officer and are shown in red lines.

 

Living room:

Existing views from the south-facing sliding doors attached to the living room

Existing views from the eastern window and southern sliding doors of the living room

 

The full-height south-facing glazed doors capture panoramic views of Coogee Bay, the beach, the headland on the southern side of the bay and Coogee Valley. The eastern window captures whole view of Wedding Cake Island and Dunningham Reserve. Following the proposed development, it is anticipated that only a small portion of the existing trees along the foreshore promenade will be obscured. None of the iconic and scenic elements will be affected.

 

Balcony:

Existing view from the balcony

 

The balcony presently captures panoramic views of Coogee Bay, Wedding Cake Island, the beach, the headland on the southern side of the bay and Coogee Valley. Following the proposed development, it is anticipated that only a small portion of the existing trees along the foreshore promenade will be obscured. None of the iconic and scenic elements will be affected.

 

Dining room:

 

Existing view from the dining room

 

The south-facing dining room window presently captures wide views of Coogee Bay, the beach, the headland on the southern side of the bay and Coogee Valley. Following the proposed development, it is anticipated that a very small portion of the beach will be obscured.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kitchen:

Existing view from the kitchen

 

The south-facing kitchen window presently captures wide views of Coogee Bay, the beach, the headland on the southern side of the bay and Coogee Valley. Following the proposed development, it is anticipated that a very small portion of the beach will be obscured.

 

Laundry:

Existing view from the laundry

 

The south-facing laundry window presently captures wide views of Coogee Bay, the beach, the headland on the southern side of the bay and Coogee Valley. Following the proposed development, it is anticipated that a very small portion of the beach will be obscured. There is a fly mesh screen installed for this laundry window.

 

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

 

Sliding doors to the balcony

The southerly views through the sliding doors are obtained across the side boundaries of 88 Bream Street, 126A Beach Street, 128-130 Beach Street, as well as the Beach Palace site.

 

The views are obtained at both standing and sitting positions.

Balcony

The southerly views from the balcony are obtained across the side boundaries of 88 Bream Street, 126A Beach Street, 128-130 Beach Street, as well as the Beach Palace site.

 

The views are obtained at both standing and sitting positions.

Dining room window

The southerly views are obtained across the side boundaries of 88 Bream Street, 126A Beach Street, 128-130 Beach Street, as well as the Beach Palace site.

 

The views are obtained at both standing and sitting positions.

Kitchen window

The southerly views are obtained across the side boundaries of 88 Bream Street, 126A Beach Street, 128-130 Beach Street, as well as the Beach Palace site.

 

The views are obtained at a standing position only.

Laundry window

The southerly views are obtained across the side boundaries of 88 Bream Street, 126A Beach Street, 128-130 Beach Street, as well as the Beach Palace site.

 

The views are obtained at a standing position only.

 

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

 

As stated above, there will be minimal impacts on all of the views from the balcony and windows in question. None of the iconic, scenic and water elements will be affected. The only impacts are the loss of a very small portion of existing street trees and the beach. On this basis, the degree of the impact is rated as negligible.

 

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

 

The proposal will result in minimal impacts on all of the views from the balcony and the living room, dining room and kitchen windows. The replacement of the existing opaque, steel-clad dome with a glazed structure will also open up new filtered views towards the beach areas through the glass. In this respect, the design scheme is considered to be skilful and would improve, rather than degrade, existing views from this property.

 

12.4  Ground Floor Restaurant / Wine Bar

The application does not provide any design and operational details relating to the ground floor Restaurant / Wine Bar, including floor layout, seating number, staff number, nature and frequency of any life entertainment, deliveries and management policies.

 

In particular, the current level of information does not enable a full and proper assessment of the noise implications of the premises, especially the adequacy of the acoustic attenuation measures and acoustic performance of the building. 

 

Therefore, a special condition is recommended to exclude the proposed Restaurant / Wine Bar from any approval granted for the development, and to require a separate approval for the use and occupation of the ground floor suite.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development 

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The Exceptions to Development Standards submitted by the applicant with respect to the non-compliance with the building height and floor space ratio standards are considered to be well founded. The development scheme will not generate unreasonable adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and view sharing, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

The design scheme will significantly enhance the visual presentation of the heritage building to the public domain. The development will reinterpret the heritage item in a contemporary form, and the new glazed dome will retain and reinforce the landmark quality of the Beach Palace. The proportions, massing and setback of the new 3rd level will not form a dominant feature that detracts from the historic character of the building.

The proposal will rehabilitate and adaptively reuse a heritage listed entertainment complex and is conducive to the sustainable utilization of resources. The development will also reduce noise emission and amenity impacts upon the surrounding residences.

 

The application does not provide any design and operational details relating to the ground floor Restaurant / Wine Bar, including floor layout, seating number, staff number, nature and frequency of any life entertainment, deliveries and management policies. Therefore, a special condition is recommended to exclude the proposed Restaurant / Wine Bar from any approval granted for the development, and to require a separate approval for the use and occupation of the ground floor suite.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council supports the exceptions to Development Standards pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012, in respect to the non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of the same LEP relating to building height and floor space ratio respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not unreasonably affect the amenity of the adjoining premises and the locality, and that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 181/2013 for alterations and additions to the existing Beach Palace Hotel, including construction of a new 3rd level and a glazed dome on the rooftop, removal of the access ramp and substation within the Beach Street road reserve, landscaping, and adaptive re-use to provide a restaurant / wine bar and car parking for 25 vehicles on the ground level, and 19 apartments on the upper storeys, at No. 169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee, subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan Number / Title

Dated

Received

Prepared By

1230-101(E)

Level 0 – Ground Floor Plan

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

Rudolfsson Alliker Associates Architects

1230-102(E)

Level 1 Floor Plan

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-103(E)

Level 2 Floor Plan

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-104(E)

Level 3 Floor Plan

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-105(E)

Roof and Site Plan

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-106(E)

Elevations East and South

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-107(E)

Elevations West and North

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-108(E)

Sections

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-109(F)

Sections

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-115(A)

Beach Street Public Domain

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-116(A)

Car Park Entry Detail

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-121(A)

Demolition Plan

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

1230-351(B)

Detailed Section – Façade Study

16 July 2013

18 July 2013

13013-DA01(B)

July 2013

18 July 2013

Aspect Studios

13013-DA02(B)

July 2013

18 July 2013

13013-DA03(B)

July 2013

18 July 2013

13013-DA04(B)

July 2013

18 July 2013

13013-DA05(B)

July 2013

18 July 2013

 

BASIX Certificate Number

Dated

Received

474129M_02

17 July 2013

18 July 2013

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The proposed Restaurant / Wine Bar on the ground floor level of the building DOES NOT form part of this Consent.

 

A separate Development Application is required to be submitted to, and approved by Council for the use, occupation and fit-out of the ground floor, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

3.       All previous Development Consents for the use and occupation of the site as a pub and any associated fit-out works, must be surrendered in accordance with Section 104A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and Clause 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, prior to the issuing of any Interim or Final Occupation Certificate.    

 

4.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

(i)       The roof top terrace to Unit 16 must be relocated to the east of the hatch door and skylight, so that it is setback at least 5m from the northern property boundary and 2m from the eastern edge of the roof.

(ii)      The proposed “Beach Palace Sign” to be attached to the southern side of the retaining wall within the Beach Street road reserve (as shown in Section EW05, drawing numbered 1230-115, Issue A) must be DELETED.

(iii)     All roof mounted plant and equipment, including air conditioning condenser units and exhaust vents, must be screened from view from Dolphin and Beach Streets and the adjoining public open space areas. A detailed roof plan showing all roof-mounted plant and equipment, vents, lift overruns, screening devices and relevant reference levels to AHD, must be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of City Planning, prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate.

(iv)     The privacy screens attached to the north-facing terraces to Units 17 and 19 must have a height of not less than 1600mm, as measured from the finished floor level, and occupy not less than 70% of the length of the terrace when fully extended. The screens must be constructed with 35mm wide slats, vertically positioned, and spaced at a maximum of 30mm; or another appropriate design that minimizes cross viewing to the west-facing balconies of the adjoining building at No. 128-130 Beach Street.

(v)      The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façades of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  

 

Colours, Materials and Finishes

5.       The paint scheme to the retained masonry facades of the building on the Dolphin and Beach Street elevations must be amended so that the colours are less contrasting in tone. This may be achieved by using a slightly darker colour for the horizontal and vertical frame elements, and a slightly lighter colour for the infill wall surfaces.

 

A revised schedule or sample board detailing the proposed colours, materials and textures are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

Protection of Airspace

6.       The following requirements are imposed by the Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd. / Civil Aviation Safety Authority pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulation:

 

 

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

8.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $10,948,190, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $109,481.90.

 

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

 

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

 

Long Service Levy Payments

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

 

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

 

Security Deposits

10.     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:

 

·           $20,000.00 -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment, or by bank guarantee, 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.

 

Electricity Substation

11.     The applicant must liaise with Ausgrid prior to obtaining a construction certificate (for any above ground works), to determine whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development. Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on relevant construction certificate and landscape plans.

 

Sydney Water Requirements

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

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For details please refer to the Sydney Water web site at www.sydneywater.com.au for:

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

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

 

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

 

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 & Relevant Standards

13.     In accordance with section 80A (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).

 

Access & Facilities

14.     Access and facilities for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia, Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, relevant Australian Standards and conditions of consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

Building & Design

16.     External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

17.     The installation of roller shutters or security grilles to the shopfront is not permitted, unless a specific development consent has been obtained from Council.

 

18.     In accordance with the provisions of clauses 143A and 154A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a ‘Design Verification Certificate’ must be provided to the Certifying Authority and the Council, prior to issuing a construction certificate and an occupation certificate, respectively.

 

Environmental Amenity

19.       A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual, Industrial Noise Policy, and conditions of approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services.

 

 This report should include but not be limited to:

 

·      The cumulative effects of all plant and equipment (existing and proposed) on all adjoining residential premises.

 

Any additional proposed acoustic mitigation measures are to be detailed and included in this report and the construction certificate.

 

The written concurrence from Council’s Manager for Health, Building and Regulatory Services is to be obtained prior to a construction certificate being issued or prior to these works being undertaken (which ever is the earlier).

 

20.       Details of proposed mechanical ventilation systems, detailing compliance with the relevant requirements of Clause F4.12 of the BCA and Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2 (including exhaust air quantities and discharge location points) are to be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority with the construction certificate and a copy of relevant documentation is to be provided to Council.

 

21.       Emission control equipment shall be provided in the mechanical exhaust system serving any cooking appliances associated with the ground floor suite, to effectively minimise the emission of odours, vapours and oils. 

 

Details of the proposed emission control equipment must be provided in the documentation for the construction certificate and be approved by:

 

a)     the certifying authority.

b)     Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, prior to issuing the construction certificate.

 

Traffic and Vehicular Access

22.     Adequate provisions are to be made to provide pedestrian visibility and safety. Prior to lodging a construction certificate the applicant must submit to Council for approval, and have approved, a detailed pedestrian visibility and safety strategy.

 

The strategy / safety measures shall include, but not be limited to, measures for clearly delineating the vehicular crossing from the surrounding landscape treatment and measures for ensuring that pedestrians cannot walk in close proximity to the northern edge of the driveway opening. The strategy and safety measures must clearly identify the existing footpath dining lease area in Beach Street, to the north of the development site, and the structures proposed on Council’s footpath immediately north of the driveway opening.

 

The applicant must meet all costs associated with implementation of the Council approved pedestrian visibility / safety strategy. Details of compliance, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

23.     The following details are to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Director City Planning prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate for the development:    

 

(i)       The location and design specifications of the traffic signal system for the car park as stated in Section 7.2 of the Traffic Impact Assessment report, reference number 13.233r01v1, prepared by Traffix Traffic & Transport Planners.

 

(ii)      The dimensions, configuration and materials of the physical barrier to be installed to the north of the car park entry (as shown on drawing number 1230-116, Issue A).

 

(iii)     The location, design and materials of the “flush contrasting concrete kerb” (as shown on drawing number 1230-116, Issue A) for delineating the vehicle circulation paths to and from the car park.

 

24.     The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004. The Construction Certificate plans must demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

Design Alignment levels

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

 

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.

 

1.        Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0924.

 

26.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $2,318.00 calculated at $50.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

27.     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 & Flood Management

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

29.     All stormwater runoff being discharged from the site shall be directed to Council’s underground drainage system in Beach Street and / or Dolphin Street. Prior to lodging a construction certificate the applicant must obtain from Council full details of Council’s underground stormwater drainage network and Council’s preferred point of connection. The construction certificate application must demonstrate compliance with council’s requirements.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

31.     The proposal must be designed and constructed to ensure that no stormwater flows from the right of way off Bream Street can enter the development site.

 

Internal Drainage

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

 

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

 

b)     The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) to the Council’s underground drainage system located in Beach Street and/or Dolphin Street via a new and/or existing kerb inlet pit.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Site seepage & Dewatering

33.     Site seepage and sub-soil drainage (from planter boxes etc) must comply with the following requirements:

 

a)    Seepage/ground water and subsoil drainage (from planter boxes etc) must not be collected & discharged directly or indirectly to  Council’s street gutter or underground drainage system

 

b)    Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

c)    The walls of the basement level/s of the building are to be waterproofed/tanked to restrict the entry of any seepage water and subsoil drainage into the basement level/s of the building and the stormwater drainage system for the development.

 

d)    Sub-soil drainage systems may discharge via infiltration subject to the hydraulic consultant/engineer being satisfied that the site and soil conditions are suitable and the seepage is able to be fully managed within the site, without causing a nuisance to any premises and ensuring that it does not drain or discharge (directly or indirectly) to the street gutter.

               

e)    Details of the proposed stormwater drainage system including methods of tanking/waterproofing the basement level/s and any sub-soil drainage systems (as applicable) must be prepared or approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Professional Engineer to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

Waste  Management

34.     A Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development, is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Services.

 

The Waste Management plan is required to be prepared in accordance with Council's Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Development and must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·       The use of the premises and the number and size of occupancies.

·       The type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development.

·       Demolition and construction waste, including materials to be re-used or recycled.

·       Details of the proposed recycling and waste disposal contractors.

·       Waste storage facilities and equipment.

·       Access and traffic arrangements.

·       The procedures and arrangements for on-going waste management including collection, storage and removal of waste and recycling of materials.

 

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

       

35.     The garbage rooms shall be sized to contain bins in the number and sizes approved by Council as part of the assessment of the Waste Management Plan. Adequate provisions for access to all bins must be provided.  Details showing compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

36.     The waste storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

Landscaping & Environmental Amenity

37.     Landscaping is to be provided to the site in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Detailed landscape drawings and specifications are to be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority with the construction certificate and the landscaping is required to be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). If Council is not the certifying authority for the development, a copy of the approved plans and specifications are to be forwarded to Council with the construction certificate.

 

The landscaping plans/specifications are required to include the following components:

 

a)     A site plan at an appropriate scale showing: existing site boundaries; existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed); existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed); features on adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary (buildings, trees, other structures etc); council’s footway; existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the tree/s to be retained; proposed building envelope; proposed areas of pavement; and proposed landscaped areas.

 

b)     A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size with a dense planting of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved. Plant spacings are to be clearly indicated for all accent and groundcovers.

 

c)     A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings for groundcovers and accent planting, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

d)     Details of planter boxes, garden beds, soil and mulch, irrigation, landscape lighting, edging, paving, fencing, surface finishes, retaining walls, site composting, vehicle wheel-stops and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

Planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm.

 

e)     Details of Tree Protection measures, including details of compliance with relevant conditions of consent.

 

f)      Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater and any easements etc.

 

Any required substation shall be suitably screened from view. Details of the proposed location of any substation/s including plans, elevations and proposed screening methods are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to issuing a construction certificate.

 

g)     Elevations and sections through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

h)     An automatic irrigation system throughout all planted areas to ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaping. The system shall provide full coverage to all the planted areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements.

 

38.     Site landscaping shall respect the prevailing coastal influences and the coast's special design considerations and requirements, and be designed accordingly. Generally, species selection are to be restricted to local indigenous coastal species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

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

 

Certification and Building Inspection Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dilapidation Reports

40.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings and ancillary structures located upon all of the premises adjoining the subject site.

 

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

 

Construction Site Management Plan

41.     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 site fencing / hoardings;

·          location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·          location of building materials for construction;

·          provisions for public safety;

·          dust control measures;

·          details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·          site access location and construction;

·          details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·          protective measures for tree preservation;

·          location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details;

·          provisions for temporary sanitary facilities.

 

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

 

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

 

Demolition Work Plan

42.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures and relevant environmental/occupational health and safety requirements.

 

The Demolition Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

 

·     The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·     Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·     Method/s of demolition (including removal of any asbestos)

·     Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·     Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne dust and asbestos

·     Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·     Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

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

·     Date the demolition works will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition work.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be provided to Council not less than 2 days before commencing those works.

 

Notes

§        It is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

§        Refer to the conditions within the “Requirements During Construction & Site Work”, for further details and requirements relating to demolition work, removal of any asbestos and public safety.

 

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

43.     A Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the Department of Climate Change Guidelines for Construction Noise and Assessing Vibration, by a suitably qualified person, is to be developed and implemented prior to commencing site work and throughout the course of construction.

 

a)     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents. 

 

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

 

b)     The Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan must include details of measurements, analysis and relevant criteria and demonstrate that the noise and vibration emissions from the work satisfy the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, current DECC Guidelines for Construction Noise and Assessing Vibration and Councils conditions of consent.

 

c)     A further report/correspondence must be obtained from the consultant as soon as practicable upon the commencement of works, which reviews and confirms the implementation and suitability of the noise and vibration strategies in the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and which demonstrates compliance with relevant criteria.

 

d)     Any recommendations and requirements contained in the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and associated reports are to be implemented accordingly and should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to Council and the PCA.

 

A copy of the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and associated acoustic/vibration report/s must be maintained on-site and a copy must be provided to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority accordingly.

 

Public Liability

44.     The owner/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $10 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Sydney Water

45.     All plumbing and drainage work must comply with the requirements of Sydney Water. Liquid trade waste materials are to be disposed of to the sewer (via a suitable grease trap). Details of compliance are to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any works.

 

Construction Traffic Management

46.     An application for a ‘Works Zone’ and Construction Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Councils Integrated Transport Department, and approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee, for a ‘Works Zone’ to be provided in Beach Street and / or Dolphin Street for the duration of the demolition & construction works. 

 

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

 

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

 

47.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

·       A description of the demolition, excavation and construction works

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

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

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

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

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

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

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

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

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience

 

48.     Any necessary approvals must be obtained from NSW Police, Roads & Maritime Services, Transport, and relevant Service Authorities, prior to commencing work upon or within the road, footway or nature strip.

 

Civil Works

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

 

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

 

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

 

50.     The applicant is advised that all works carried out on Council’s roadway / pathway along both the Beach Street and Dolphin Street frontages that are deemed necessary by Council as a result of the proposed development are to be totally at the applicant’s / owner’s expense.

 

Public Utilities

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

 

52.     Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming they have agreed to the proposed works and that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works.

 

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

 

Landscaping of Street Frontage

53.     The applicant shall meet all costs associated with restoring/upgrading the public promenade in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Elements Manual. All works carried out on Council property shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property.

 

A detailed streetscape plan for all affected public areas showing proposed planting, paving design, street furniture, grades, finished levels, extent and location of awnings, doors/entranceways, signage and any other details required by Council’s Landscape Architect shall be submitted to, and approved by, Council’s Director of City Services, prior to commencement of the streetscape works.

 

Following approval of the streetscape plan, and prior to commencement of any external works on Council property, the applicant must liaise with Council’s Pre-paid Works Designer on 9399-0922, regarding scheduling of work including inspections, supervision fees and compliance with Council’s requirements for public liability insurance.

 

The approved streetscape works shall be completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Landscape Architect and Pre-paid Works Designer, prior to the issuing of any Interim or Final Occupation Certificate.

 

Note:

-    All street furniture is required to be purchased through Council. Due to supply constraints, the applicant is required to place an order and pay for the required furniture three months prior to the estimated date for the completion of street frontage works.

 

-    For planting within the public domain, delete all Banksia ericifolia, and replace all Pennisetum alopecuroides (Fountain Grass) with Lomandra longifolia or Lomandra Tanika. 

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

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

 

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

 

Inspections during Construction

54.     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.

 

Building & Demolition Work Requirements

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

 

·           Work Health and Safety Act 2011 & Regulations

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

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

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·           Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

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

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

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

 

·                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.

 

Excavations, Back-filling & Retaining Walls

57.     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.

 

Support of Adjoining Land

58.     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.

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dust Control

60.     During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

·      Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·      Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·      Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·      Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·      Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·      Landscaping and revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

61.     Temporary site safety fencing or site hoarding must be provided to the perimeter of the site throughout demolition, excavation and construction works, to the satisfaction of Council, in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a)     Temporary site fences or hoardings must have a height of 1.8 metres and be a cyclone wire fence (with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control), or heavy-duty plywood sheeting (painted white), or other material approved by Council.

 

b)     Hoardings and site fencing must be designed to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises and if necessary, be provided with artificial lighting.

 

c)     All site fencing and hoardings must be structurally adequate, safe and be constructed in a professional manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

d)     An overhead (‘B’ Class) type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public (unless otherwise approved by Council) if:

 

·     materials are to be hoisted (i.e. via a crane or hoist) over a public footway;

·       building or demolition works are to be carried out on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6m of the street alignment;

·       it is necessary to prevent articles or materials from falling and causing a potential danger or hazard to the public or occupants upon adjoining land;

·       as may otherwise be required by WorkCover, Council or the PCA.

 

Notes:

·       Temporary site fencing may not be necessary if there is an existing adequate fence in place having a minimum height of 1.5m.

 

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

62.     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)     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.

 

b)     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.

 

c)     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.

 

d)     Access gates and doorways within site fencing, hoardings and temporary site buildings or amenities must not open outwards into the road or footway.

 

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

 

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

 

Site Signage

63.     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

64.     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 1.00pm only

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Additional requirements for all development

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

 

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

 

Survey Requirements

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

 

·          prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of footings and boundary retaining structures,

·          prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of each floor slab,

·          upon completion of the building, prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate,

·          as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

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

 

Building Encroachments

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

 

Environmental Amenity and Public Health

67.     Any hazardous and/or intractable wastes arising from any demolition, excavation, building and remediation works are to be managed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Department of Environment and Climate Change (formerly EPA), including the provisions of:

 

·     New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000

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

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

·      Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

·      Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·      NSW DECC Waste Classification Guidelines 2008

·      Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

 

68.     Any fill that is to be imported to the site is to be monitored, classified and documented by a suitably qualified Environmental Consultant. Only ‘Virgin Excavated Natural Material’ (VENM) is to be imported to the site, as defined with the NSW DECC Waste Classification Guidelines 2008.

 

69.     Any new information which is identified during demolition or construction works that has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination or the remediation strategy shall be notified to Council immediately in writing.

 

The written concurrence of the Council must be obtained prior to implementing any changes to the remediation action plan or strategies.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Roadway

71.     If it is necessary to excavate below the level of the base of the footings of the adjoining roadways, the person acting on the consent shall ensure that the owner/s of the roadway is/are given at least seven (7) days notice of the intention to excavate below the base of the footings. The notice is to include complete details of the work.

 

Traffic Management

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

 

73.     All work, including the provision of barricades, fencing, lighting, signage and traffic control, must be carried out in accordance with the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority publication - ‘Traffic Control at Work Sites’ and Australian Standard AS 1742.3 – Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads, at all times.

 

74.     All conditions and requirements of the NSW Police, Roads & Maritime Services, Transport and Council must be complied with at all times.

 

Stormwater Drainage

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Protection

78.     The applicant is not authorised to perform any works to the promenade/park trees, and shall contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should pruning or any similar such work appear necessary (giving at least 4 weeks notice), with the applicant required to cover all associated costs with such work, to Council’s satisfaction, prior to the issuing of any Interim or Final Occupation Certificate.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

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

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

79.     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.

 

Fire Safety Certificates

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

 

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

 

Structural Certification

81.     A Certificate must be obtained from a professional engineer, which certifies that the building works satisfy the relevant structural requirements of the Building Code of Australia and approved design documentation, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. A copy of which is to be provided to Council.

 

Sydney Water Certification

82.     A section 73 Compliance Certificate, under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  For details, please refer to the Sydney Water web site www.sydneywater.com.au > Building and developing > Developing your Land > Water Servicing Coordinator or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions may take some time and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate, whichever the sooner.

 

BASIX Requirements & Certification

83.     In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue an Occupation Certificate for this development, unless it is satisfied that any relevant BASIX commitments and requirements have been satisfied.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council upon issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

Noise Control Requirements & Certification

84.     The operation of plant and equipment must not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

85.     A detailed report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from all plant and equipment (e.g. mechanical ventilation systems and air-conditioners) satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Manual, Industrial Noise Policy and Council’s development consent.

 

A copy of the report must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued.

 

Street Numbering

86.     Street and unit numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

         

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

 

Environmental Amenity and Public Health

87.     A comprehensive cleaning and maintenance program must be implemented for the operation of the mechanical ventilation exhaust system, to ensure that the system (including emission control devices and fillers) are maintained and operate efficiently and effectively in an environmentally satisfactory manner at all times and the emissions do not cause a nuisance to nearby residents.

 

The program shall include a cleaning and maintenance schedule, prepared by the designing engineer/manufacturer or other suitably qualified person.  This schedule is to detail the inspections and maintenance works to be undertaken and their timeframes, so as to ensure the mechanical ventilation system (including emission control device and filters) operates efficiently, effectively and in an environmentally satisfactory manner at all times.

 

A copy of the schedule is to be kept onsite at all times and a copy provided to Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the premises.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

88.     The owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

a)     Reconstruct a full width heavy duty vehicular crossing to serve the vehicular entry / exit point and carpark area/s. All works on the vehicular crossing are to be to Council’s satisfaction and shall be in accordance with plans approved by Council prior to the construction certificate being issued.

b)     Construct pedestrian safety measures immediately north of the vehicular entry/exit point. All works on the vehicular crossing are to be to Council’s satisfaction and shall be in accordance with plans approved by Council prior to the construction certificate being issued.

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

d)     Reconstruct sections of the Beach Street footpath in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for the Coogee Commercial Centre.

 

The landscape design may include pavements, seat and bin installations, trees, tree guards and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0911.

 

The applicant/owner is requested to contact Council’s City Services department on 9399 0537 to arrange for the required works on Council property to be carried out.

 

89.     Prior to issuing a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner), the owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, 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.

 

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

 

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

 

b)     Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Civil Works Application Form, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

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

 

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

 

Service Authorities

 

Sydney Water Requirements

91.     A section 73 Compliance Certificate, under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  For details, please refer to the Sydney Water web site www.sydneywater.com.au > Building and developing > Developing your Land > Water Servicing Coordinator or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions may take some time and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate, whichever the sooner.

 

92.     The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines (and/or telecommunication cables - include whatever is appropriate) located along the the Beach Street and/or Dolphin Street site frontage to be relocated underground. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be relocated. All cables most be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

Stormwater Drainage

93.     A works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council. The works-as-executed plan must include the following details (as applicable):

 

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

·      Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·      Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

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

·      The orifice size/s (if applicable);

·      Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Landscaping

96.     The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications prior to occupation of the development and the landscaping must be maintained in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

 

Certification is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) prior to the occupation of the developmen