Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 8 October 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                                                                                             8 October 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, 8 October 2013 at 6:00pm

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor (S Nash), Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, D’Souza, Garcia, Matson, Moore (Chairperson), Neilson, Roberts, Seng (Deputy Chairperson), Shurey, Smith, Stavrinos and Stevenson

 

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 - 10 September 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.

D72/13      169-171 Maroubra Road & 1-3 Robey Street, Maroubra (DA/84/2013) ........... 1

D73/13      9 Hume Street, Chifley (DA/457/2013)................................................... 27

D74/13      147-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/298/2013)................................... 31

D75/13      7 Darley Road, Randwick (DA/632/2010/A).............................................. 71

D76/13      53 Rainbow Street, Kingsford (DA/43/2012/A)......................................... 79

D77/13      2-6 Goodwood Street, Kensington (DA/195/2012/B) ................................ 91

D78/13      49- 59 Boronia Street, Kensington (DA/673/2012/A)................................. 97

D79/13      49-59 Boronia Street, Kensington (DA/673/2012/C)................................ 109

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil   

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 October 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D72/13

 

 

Subject:                  169-171 Maroubra Road & 1-3 Robey Street, Maroubra 2035 (DA/84/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/84/2013

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Senior Environmental Planner     

 

Proposal:                             Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 7/part 6 storey mixed use development in two building forms comprising 1 retail tenancy fronting Maroubra Road, 67 residential units, 3 levels of basement parking for 72 vehicles, consolidation of lots and associated works.

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

 

Applicant:                Fox Johnston Architects

 

Owner:                         J & D Properties Pty Limited

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


 Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as it is valued at $15,009,825.00

 

1.         Proposal

 

The development proposes to demolish the existing structures on the sites including 2 x single storey dwelling houses at 1 (Lot 3 in DP 100489) and 3 Robey Street (Lot 4 in DP 100489) and the 2 storey retail/commercial buildings at 169-171 Maroubra Road (Lots A and B in DP 437087)

 

The proposal also seeks consent for construction of a part 7/part 6 storey mixed use development comprising of 2 separate and distinct blocks which will be internally connected by 3 basement levels as indicated in Figure 1 below. The application also proposes consolidation of lots and associated site works.

 

Figure 1- Site plan of the proposed development.

 

The development scheme incorporates the following elements:

 

·      Demolition of the 2 storey retail/commercial buildings at 169-171 Maroubra Road

·      Demolition of the 2 single storey dwelling houses at 1-3 Robey Street

·      Construction of a mixed use development at 169-171 Maroubra Road containing:

1 retail shop (80sqm) facing Maroubra Road and entry lobby to units above

21 studios and 7 x 2-bedroom units (28 in total)

 

·      Construction of a residential flat building at 1-3 Robey Street containing:

17 studios, 6 x 1-bedroom units,  13 x 2-bedroom units and 3 x 3-bedroom units  (39 in total)

 

The proposed 6 storey street wall aligns with the street wall of the adjoining building whilst the upper level recessed units are also compatible with the recessed level on top of the corner building

·      The proposal provides for a single (2 way) driveway entry at the southern end of the site at 3 Robey Street. The driveway accesses 3 basement levels which are proposed below the entire consolidated site

·      Communal open space provided between the 2 properties and along the eastern side of 1-3 Robey Street

·      Deep soil and above ground landscaping in between the two built forms and along the perimeter of the Robey Street properties

·      Consolidation of allotments

 

Figure 2 – Photomontage provided by the applicant of the proposed building viewed from Maroubra Road with the existing building at No. 165 Maroubra Road shown on the right.

Figure 3 – Photomontage provided by the applicant of the proposed building viewed from Robey Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.         The site

 

Figure 4 - The subject site(s) – outlined in red

 

The site is generally level in topography and is absent of any significant vegetation with a frontage of 13m to Maroubra Road and 27.43m to Robey Street. The properties have a combined site area of 1270.3m² and form an L shape with frontages to Maroubra Road to the north and Robey Street to the west.

 

The Maroubra Road sites are presently occupied by an existing double-storey retail and office building of brick construction (Nos. 169 and 171 Maroubra Road). The Robey Street sites are occupied by two single-storey detached dwellings of fibro and tiled roof construction (Nos. 1 and 3 Robey Street).

 

The property located on the corner of Maroubra Road and Robey Street (to the north of the proposed Robey Street building) is presently occupied by a mixed use development containing 4 ground level commercial tenancies with 22 residential apartments above and 3 levels of basement car parking (at No. 165 Maroubra Road).

 

Further north, there is a mixture of single and double storey commercial buildings and large scale mixed use developments up to 10 storeys in height (Pacific Square).

 

The subject site is adjoined to the east by a row of retail outlets at ground level with parking behind accessed from Ferguson Street (No. 181-191 Maroubra Road).  To the south is an Ausgrid sub-station (No. 5-17S Robey Street). At the south-western corner of the Robey Street and Maroubra Road junction is a single storey detached dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction (No. 2 Robey Street), which is classified as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Inventory No. 1227 – post-war style house). To the south of the above property is a double-storey attached dual occupancy of rendered brick and tiled roof construction (Nos. 4 and 4A Robey Street).

 

The subject site is located within close proximity to the intersection of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road which is 300m to the east and forms part of the wider Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre. Maroubra Road contains a mixture of retail, commercial and multi-unit residential developments. Areas to the east and south of the site on the southern side of Maroubra Road are predominantly characterised by lower density detached and semi-detached dwelling houses. The locality is currently under transition where the older building stock along Maroubra Road is being replaced by high-rise mixed use developments.

 

Photo1 : Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. Maroubra Road frontage which includes the existing building at 169-171 Maroubra Rd (shown on left).

2. Robey Street properties which includes the 2 single dwellings at 1 and 3 Robey Street

 

DSC_0048.jpg

DSC_0029.jpg

3. Existing Ausgrid substation and landscaped setback from Robey Street immediately to the south of the subject site.

4. View of the western side of Robey Street showing the Church to the south-west

 

5. Existing development to the north of the Robey Street properties comprising of a part 6, part 7 storey mixed use development at 165 Maroubra Road. 

6. Rear of the Maroubra Road retail strip to the east of the Maroubra Rd component of the subject site (carpark shown).

 

DSC_0042.jpg

DSC_0053.jpg

3.         Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The proposal was also advertised as nominated integrated development from 6 March 2013 – 9 April 2013. In response, five submissions were received from the owners/residents of the following properties: -

 

·      103/165-167 Maroubra Road, Maroubra 

·      808/165-167 Maroubra Road, Maroubra 

·      818/165-167 Maroubra Road, Maroubra 

·      5 Walsh Avenue, Maroubra 

·      36 Chichester Street, Maroubra

 

The submissions raise the following issues: -

 

Issues

Comments

All the objectors noted above (with the exception of No. 5 Walsh Avenue).

 

The proposal will further exacerbate parking and traffic congestion in the area

 

The surrounding streets are already hazardous for motorists and pedestrians and the application does not consider the cumulative impacts to traffic and safety or the existing high density development in the vicinity

 

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the application and no objections have been raised on safety, parking or traffic grounds. The proposed parking provision achieves compliance with the relevant requirements (72 spaces required, 72 spaces provided) under Council’s Comprehensive DCP 2013 – Part B7, Transport, Traffic, parking and access. Refer to section 4.7 of this report for further detailed discussion.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has not identified any significant impact on service levels in the surrounding street network that would arise from the anticipated trip generation rate of the development.

Units 103, 808 and 818 of No. 165-167 Maroubra Road

 

Loss of privacy and solar access

It is considered that the proposal has incorporated suitable design measures to minimise privacy and solar access impacts on the surrounding properties. Refer to the key issues section (below) of this report for details discussion of impacts.

Units 808 and 818 at 165-167 Maroubra Road

The proposed development will block district views from 165-167 Maroubra Road

 

 

 

 

Units 808 and 818 at 165-167 Maroubra Road are the two top floor penthouse units at 165-167 Maroubra Road. These units currently enjoy 360 degree views around the building as the adjoining development comprises of single to double storey scale buildings. The proposal will obstruct the easterly views from these apartments. Existing southerly views will remain largely unaffected as the Robey Street component of the proposed development is lower in height than the existing building at No. 165 Maroubra Road. 

 

There are district views across the site from the surrounding residential flat buildings. These views, as defined in the planning principle for view loss assessment are not considered to be scenic in nature or highly significant. Therefore, it does not warrant any detailed view loss assessment and will not be unreasonably impacted upon by the proposed dwelling (refer to figures below for photos of views obtained from the units in question).

 

Although the proposed development will result in some impact the outlook currently enjoyed by the top floor penthouse units of at No. 165 Maroubra Road, it must be noted that the proposed development at part six part seven storeys satisfies the relevant development standard at 23.4m to Maroubra Road and 19.8m to Robey Street, readily achieves compliance with the RLEP development standard for maximum building height of 25m to Maroubra Road and 22m to Robey Street.

Despite not strictly meeting the DCP control for the maximum number of storeys, the proposal meets the maximum building height  control of the RLEP, rather than the number of storeys capable of being accommodated within the prescribed height limit. Although not meeting the maximum number of storeys identified in the DCP, the penthouse units will retain undisturbed views to the north, west and partial district views to the south.

 

The proposal will meet the relevant objectives of RDCP 2013 and have acceptable impacts in terms of views.

Units 808 and 818 at 165-167 Maroubra Road

 

The proposal will increase noise and disturbance to the surrounding area

 

The proposal will promote the objectives of the Zone B2 by introducing suitable infill mixed use (low scale commercial and residential) development within the area and assist with the promotion of a variety of housing types as well as the viability of the Maroubra Junction Centre. The level of additional noise associated with the proposed development is expected to be fairly typical of mixed use developments of a similar scale (noting that the surrounding area is characterised by such developments) and not considered to be unreasonable in this location/zone. Noise impacts from this standard residential use are consistent with the zoning and not unreasonable.

 

Notwithstanding this, a standard condition of consent is imposed to ensure an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant legislation and will not give rise to a public nuisance.

Units 808 and 818 at 165-167 Maroubra Road

 

The proposal will generate additional rubbish and littering in the area

 

A suitable condition of consent has been included within the recommendation requiring the submission of a detailed Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of Council’s Coordinator – Waste Management prior to the issue of a construction certificate for the development to ensure that the proposal will reserve adequate areas for disposal and storage of rubbish generated by future residents

Units 808 and 818 at 165-167 Maroubra Road

 

The proposal will diminish the value of other properties

 

 

Property valuation is a matter that goes beyond the scope of matters of consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act as any claim that the subject proposal would affect the value of adjoining and surrounding properties will be tenuous and a matter of speculation.

5 Walsh Avenue, Maroubra

 

The proposed development should be fitted with dryers for each unit with glass balustrades to deter occupants from hanging their washing on the balcony, which is an eyesore

 

Installation of dryers is not a mandatory planning requirement and details of washers/dryers are not required to be submitted at DA stage. Regulation of clothes drying on balconies is to be addressed by the future body corporate by way of by laws. Some balconies have been indicated for provision with solid rendered balustrades and others with clear glass handrails. A condition has been imposed to ensure that all glass handrails are to be fitted with translucent glazing. Direct view into the balconies of the proposed development will be sufficiently obscured/screened by the above measures.

103/165-167 Maroubra Road

 

More pressure will be placed on existing infrastructure (e.g. retail, public transport, essential services etc) 

 

High quality medium density residential development with associated retail uses is consistent with the direction of the DCP – Maroubra Junction Centre in that it will contribute to public improvements and a vibrant commercial centre, where walking, cycling and public transport use are promoted, and where a mix of retail, commercial, higher density residential and leisure uses caters primarily for the needs of the local community. In this sense, existing infrastructure will in fact be improved to accommodate new residents and over time and serve to promote a positive cycle of service provision and increase in population.

 

Photos depicting existing view obtained from top floor penthouse units (808 and 818) at No. 165 Maroubra Road:

1. Southerly view with Robey Street shown on right and substation building in the foreground. This outlook is anticipated to be obscured by the proposed Robey Street building. Some south easterly views down Ferguson Street will also be impacted.

2. Westerly view toward Walsh Avenue (Beaurepairs building) and Robey Street (Robey Street dwellings shown in foreground). Further to the west, very distant views toward Port Botany can be obtained. This view will remain unaffected by the proposal.

3. Northerly outlook toward Pacific Square. This view will remain unaffected by the proposal. Northerly views toward the city are already obscured by this 10 storey mixed use development.

4. Easterly view toward the intersection of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road. This outlook will be obscured by the top floor of the proposed Maroubra Road building. 

 

Renotification

 

Following the receipt of amended plans and supporting documentation on 18 June 2013, the application was renotified to surrounding residents from 24 June 2013 – 8 July 2013. In response to the second notification, 2 submissions were received from the owners of 103/165-167 Maroubra Road and 5 Walsh Avenue reiterating their previous concerns. The concerns have been addressed in the section above to avoid repetition.

 

4.         Assessment against key criteria in Randwick LEP 2012 (RLEP) and Randwick DCP 2013 (RDCP)

The proposal has been assessed in relation to Part D4 of the RDCP – Maroubra Junction Centre. Part D4 of the DCP provides a framework for the redevelopment of the wider Maroubra Junction Centre. The DCP contains both primary development controls and block by block controls designed to guide and control development on all sites in the Maroubra Junction centre.

 

The issues elaborated upon below address aspects of the proposal which deviate from relevant applicable block-specific controls of the DCP.

 

The building envelopes shown in the Block-by-Block controls vary throughout the centre and have been designed in response to the context of each site.

 

4.1      Height

 

The relevant objectives in relation to maximum building height are as follows: -

·      To ensure future development within the centre responds to the desired scale and character of the street and the centre.

·      To ensure development at the edges of the centre responds to the scale and character of development and the streets surrounding the centre.

·      To allow reasonable daylight and solar access to all developments and the public domain.

 

The RLEP applies maximum height controls to Maroubra Junction. Pursuant to clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of the building on the subject site is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the corresponding Heights of Buildings Map. The maximum building height control for the subject site as stipulated in the RLEP 2012 is 25m to Maroubra Road and 22m to Robey Street (refer to figure below). The subject site is denoted in pink and brown as T1 and R2, respectively.  

 

Subject site

 
 

 

 

The RLEP 2012 height standard for the subject site is read in conjunction with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 (Part D4 – Maroubra Junction Centre), which allows for a block-perimeter envelope with a maximum height of 6 storeys along Maroubra Road and 5 storeys along Robey Street.

 

The DCP controls stipulate that for the subject site, which forms part of Block 9 as identified in Section 3.2.9, the maximum height control applicable to buildings along Maroubra Road and Robey/Ferguson Streets are 21m and 18m, respectively.

 

The proposed development has 7 storeys to Maroubra Road and 6 storeys to Robey Street with a height of 23.4m to Maroubra Road and 19.8m to Robey Street to the underside of the ceiling of the topmost floors. The proposal will exceed the DCP height control by 1 storey (on each building) and 3.4m and 1.8m, respectively. The development does however; readily achieve compliance with the relevant RLEP development standard as discussed above, despite not strictly meeting the DCP building height and envelope controls.

 

The RLEP, however, defines maximum building height as “the vertical distance between ground level (existing) and the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like”.

 

The relationship between these two height measurements is explained in the diagram below:

 

The development scheme adopts a height and scale which is compatible with the emerging character of the Maroubra Junction Centre. The proposed design has adequately addressed the lower building scale of the residential dwellings to the south and east of the site and will not significantly impact upon the amenity of surrounding neighbours in relation to privacy, view loss and solar access and is considered to satisfy the development standard under this clause, as well as the relevant objectives of the DCP with regard to building height.

 

The proposed buildings heights are considered to meet the numerical provisions of the RLEP and the relevant objectives of the DCP for building height in that:-

 

·      At present, the streetscape of Maroubra Road and surrounding streets is under transition where the older building stock is being replaced by higher mixed use developments. In particular, the western-most block of the development at the corner of Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade, known as “Pacific Square”, at No. 142 Maroubra Road, is 10 storeys in height.

 

The subject site is located at the south-western periphery of the Maroubra Junction Centre, and is envisaged in the DCP to contain developments with a transitional scale to the nearby low-rise dwelling houses. The proposal is 6-7 storeys in height, where the topmost floors are stepped in from the external wall alignments below. The top floors of both buildings would have a mass not dissimilar to the area of a roof volume and present a clear contrast from the hard edged block form of the levels below.

 

It is considered that the development scheme adopts a height and scale which is compatible with the emerging character of the Maroubra Junction Centre. The proposed design has adequately addressed the lower building scale of the residential dwellings to the south and east of the site.

 

·      The upper two levels of the Robey Street Building are recessed (to a greater degree than envisaged by the DCP) to minimise their visual prominence, affording a suitable degree of transition toward the lower density residential development south of the site.

 

·         Development within the visual catchment of the site is in transition, where large scale mixed use developments exist along Anzac Parade (10 storeys), adopting a slightly lower scale along some sections of Maroubra Road (7 – 8 storeys) and gradually lower again to 5-6 storeys and lower density commercial and residential development on secondary streets, away from the main intersections of the Centre. As such the subject development will maintain a compatible scale with that of the varying surrounding built form.

 

·      Council’s Design Review Panel endorses the proposal and provided the following comment (specifically with regard to the built form of the development):-

 

“The two buildings proposed: one of 7 floors, the other of 6 floors, in the opinion of the Panel is in scale with the existing and emerging scale of their surroundings”

·      The proposal responds well to the existing context and provides contemporary housing for the community.

 

4.2      Building Envelope

The relevant objectives in relation to building envelope controls are as follows: -

·      To define the bulk, height and scale of development throughout the centre.

·      To create a transition between the centre and the surrounding residential area.

 

Part D4 of the RDCP 2013 - Maroubra Junction Centre specifies detailed built form, setbacks, landscaping, privacy and solar access controls for developments within the Town Centre precinct.

 

The proposal does not comply with the maximum building envelope prescribed in the DCP. However, the development scheme has a height and scale, which are compatible with the established and emerging character of the Town Centre. The design has also incorporated appropriate measures to minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, despite the deviations from the required building envelope.

 

Building depth

The DCP also prescribes a maximum building depth of 18m (and 15m glass line to glass line) along Robey and Ferguson Streets.

The proposed building depths at levels 2 – 5 do not meet the DCP controls, adopting the following depths.

Levels 2 and 3

·      Overall building depth maximum 17m - 23.9m

·      Glass line to glass line 17m – 22.3m

 

Level 4

·      Overall building depth maximum 17m - 23.9m

·      Glass line to glass line 18m

 

Level 5

·      Overall building depth maximum 18.5m - 23.9m

·      Glass line to glass line 15.9m

 

Although the proposal does not comply with the building depth numerical provisions, the proposed building depth does not result in any additional adverse impacts to the solar access and amenity of surrounding properties.

 

Furthermore, the proposal incorporates a combination of angled balconies, recessed areas and a central courtyard / light well to maximise solar access and natural ventilation for the units, as a measure to overcome the elongated configuration of the site. A number of apartments within the building have dual aspects for optimum solar access and cross ventilation.

 

As such, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

 

Setbacks

The DCP controls stipulate the following setbacks within the prescribed building envelope:

 

Front setback - Robey & Ferguson Streets Min 3m

 

Side setback - Maroubra Rd 0m, Robey & Ferguson Streets Min 1.5m

 

Rear setback - Maroubra Rd Min 10m, Robey & Ferguson Streets Min 6m

 

The proposed ground floor setback of the Robey Street building complies at 3m, however, the upper floors, at 0m setbacks, encroach into the 3m front setback required under the DCP.

 

Notwithstanding this, the proposed front setback of the Robey Street building aligns with the nil side setback of the existing building at No. 165 Maroubra Road. The Robey Street building façade has also been provided with suitable indentations, angled walls, balconies and recessed upper floors to provide visual interest, break up building bulk and achieve a better visual transition from the higher density built forms on Maroubra Road toward lower density development on the periphery of the block.

 

In addition, as will be discussed in the following sections of this report, the proposal will not result in unacceptable shadow impacts on the surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed front setback is considered acceptable.

 

Rear setback:

Maroubra Road

·      Ground floor: 13.28m from external wall to rear boundary. 

·      Residential floors above: 7.7m to 9.1m

Robey Street

·      Ground floor: 4.2m – 5.7m. 

·      Floors above: 3m – 5m.

 

Although the proposed rear setbacks do not strictly achieve numerical compliance with the DCP control, the proposed distances are considered to be acceptable given the context of the site.

 

The setbacks of the Maroubra Road building align with the existing building at No. 165 Maroubra Road and provide a cohesive built form when seen in conjunction with existing development.

 

Further, quality landscaped areas have been provided result in satisfactory screening and visual softening of the lower levels of the building. The southern windows and balconies are provided with sliding screens, which will minimise visual privacy impacts on the Robey Street building. In addition, as discussed in the attached executive summary report, the proposal will not result in unacceptable shadow impacts on the surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed rear setback is considered acceptable.

 

Maximum number of storeys

The DCP controls stipulate that for the subject site, which forms part of Block 9 as identified in Section 3.2.9, the maximum number of storeys permissible for building fronting Maroubra Road and Robey/Ferguson Streets are 7 and 6 respectively.  The application proposes 7 storeys to Maroubra Road and 6 storeys to Robey Street, which does not meet the DCP control. 

 

The non-compliance with the building envelope layout and other relevant numerical provisions of the DCP (as discussed in further detail under “Block 9 acceptable based on the following reasons:

 

·      The resultant amenity impact of the additional storeys to the adjoining and neighbouring dwellings is considered to be comparable to that of a compliant building envelope in that by virtue of the orientation of the site and ample separation distances from the nearest residential properties.

 

In relation to the Robey Street building, the closest residential property to the south is separated by the adjacent substation site and located approximately 70m away. The adjoining site to the east is occupied by commercial uses and associated parking area, which if redeveloped into mixed use or residential development, is envisaged to have a 5 storey envelope and substantially set back from the shared boundary with the Robey Street component of the subject site.

 

The Robey Street building is also separated from the low density residential development to the east by Robey Street (approximately 20m) and generally overlooks their front yards. It is also noted that across Robey Street, there are a mixture of uses, some which are not residential (such as the church and scout hall). Some of these developments also have generous front setbacks, which provide even greater separation distance from the Robey Street development. 

 

General amenity impacts are expanded upon in further detail in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of this report.

 

·      The design scheme has incorporated appropriate measures to minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, despite non-compliance with building envelope controls. The facades are appropriately articulated with angled balconies and walls, screening devices and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which serve to create visual interest. The ground floor awnings extend across both street frontages, which in conjunction with the horizontal emphasis of the window configuration; promote a sense human scale for the building.

 

The Robey Street building facade (shown below) is broken up through use of framed screens, corner balconies and a recessed and slightly more vertical element at the upper floors. Although the proposed front setback encroaches into the 3m setback control of the DCP from the first floor onwards, the above design treatment will minimise the scale of the structure when viewed from the secondary street frontage.

Figure 5 – Robey Street building, west (street) elevation.

 

Overall, the architectural expression of the proposal is considered to carry satisfactory design merits and should be supported.

 

·      The proposed street wall of the Robey Street building will align with the street wall of the adjoining building (165 Maroubra Road) whilst the upper level recessed units achieve visual compatibility with the recessed level on top of the corner building.

·      Although the Maroubra Junction Centre DCP does not include a provision for the inclusion of habitable roof spaces, the proposed Robey Street building provides for a 6th floor that integrates with the recessed floor below (5th floor) such that it does not present as an extension of the external vertical façade. Further as the RLEP and DCP contemplates the provision of a roof form, which would result in the perception of mass at the upper level of any building, the incorporation of a sensitively designed upper level would not be dissimilar to the bulk associated with a roof form. The top floors contain a mixture of single level studio apartments and split level units which connect to the remaining section of the apartment below. These upper levels will also for the design of larger and well ventilated units at the upper floors of buildings. 

·      The DCP notes that roof design is also an important architectural element for the overall composition of a building. Generally, design should consider the context of surrounding development and should add interest to the building.

In this respect, the proposed upper floor(s) (5 and 6) of the Robey Street building adopts a recessive form that would otherwise be occupied by the volume of a contemporary roof design and still effectively articulates the roof and breaks down its massing. This serves to minimise the apparent bulk of the building’s upper floors and provides for an improved visual relationship with the lower scale development to the east and west.

 

·      It is considered that the Maroubra Road building has a suitable relationship with the completed development at 165 Maroubra Road and does not hinder future redevelopment potential of the sites to the east (see figure 6 below). 

Figure 5 – Maroubra Road building, north (street) elevation, subject site shown on left.

4.3      Building Use

The DCP stipulates the following building uses for the proposed development: -

- Along Maroubra Road: 2 floors of commercial with residential above

- Along Robey Street: 1 floor of commercial with residential above

The proposal includes a ground floor retail tenancy to the Maroubra Road building only. No retail/commercial use is proposed to the Robey Street building, which is comprised of only residential units. This does not comply with the DCP provision.

 

The applicant has provided suitable justification for the proposal’s departure from the building use control and it is considered that the configuration and size of the retail suite to the main Maroubra Road frontage is suitable for a retail or office use.

 

The provision of commercial space along the Maroubra Road frontage is consistent with the completed building on the corner of Maroubra Rd and Robey Street.

 

The applicant has indicated that some to years after completion, the approved commercial tenancies at the adjoining building at No. 165 Maroubra remain unoccupied and given the more residential nature of Robey Street, additional commercial development would not be economically feasible.

 

The subject site is on the periphery of the Town Centre and is therefore considered to be suitable in providing residential uses at ground and first floors (Robey Street building).

The ground floor residential use in this instance would also alleviate any potential impacts associated with non-residential uses as one moves away from the missed commercial/residential nature of Maroubra Road and transitions into low intensity residential uses.

 

This has not been done for the Maroubra Road building as the proposed built form currently matches the height of the existing development at 165 Maroubra Road and provides a more visually cohesive building envelope. In addition, the ground floor commercial premise of the Maroubra Road building has been provided with a floor to ceiling height of 3.5m (measured from the finished floor level to the underside of the slab above), which is sufficient in addressing the purpose of this clause. Any increase in height to the Maroubra Road building would result in the overall height of the proposal exceeding that of the existing corner development. Further, there is a commercial tenancy proposed to the Maroubra Road building to provide continuity in the retail uses along Maroubra Road and minor deviation from DCP controls can be justified in this instance.

 

4.4      Solar access and overshadowing

By virtue of the orientation of the subject site in relation to the adjoining allotments, as well as the adjoining land use to the south (Ausgrid substation and associated generous landscaped setback), the proposed development will not result in any degree of additional overshadowing to the north facing windows and balconies of the adjoining and surrounding residential buildings during winter solstice.

 

It should be noted that directly to the north of the proposed Maroubra Road building (and adjoining) sites, across Maroubra Road, is Pacific Square, a ten (10) storey mixed use development. The existing buildings across Maroubra Road already substantially overshadow the subject and surrounding sites, including residential development to the west of the Robey Street sites at Nos. 2 through to 26 Robey Street (see diagram below with subject site denoted in pink)

 

For the purpose of clarifying the implications of the proposed development, assessments of overshadowing impacts relate only to the additional overshading caused by the proposed development.

 

The application has included shadow diagrams to indicate the expected shadow impacts on the surrounding properties:

 

9:00 am, 21 June

At 9:00am, the following properties are already overshadowed by Pacific Square:

 

·      The subject site(s)

·      The adjoining sites at Nos. 165 and 181-191 Maroubra Road

·      Nos. 2 through to 8-16 Robey Street

·      The footpaths and carriageway of Robey Street.

 

Additional overshadowing caused by the proposed development will fall onto the southern half of the church building at No. 8-16 Robey Street and the eastern elevation and front yard of the Maroubra Scout Hall at No. 18 Robey Street.

 

12:00 noon, 21 June

All Robey Street properties will be completely free from overshadowing by 12:00 noon

 

At 12:00 noon, the proposed Maroubra Road building will partially overshadow the northern elevation of the proposed Robey Street building whilst the remaining section of the Robey Street development is overshadowed by the existing building at No. 165 Maroubra Road. The northern elevation of the proposed Maroubra Road building will be overshadowed by Pacific Square to the north.

 

Remaining shadows will be cast over the adjoining Ausgrid substation to the south.

 

3:00 pm, 21 June

At 3:00pm, the existing building at No. 165 Maroubra Road already overshadows the following areas: -

 

·      The majority of the northern façade and the entire rear garden area of No. 1 Robey Street

·      The entire rear private open space of No. 3 Robey Street

·      The roof areas of the commercial property at No. 169 Maroubra Road

·      The western portion of the commercial property at No. 181-191 Maroubra Road.

·      The northern portion of the Ausgrid substation.

 

Proposed additional shadows will fall onto the adjoining commercial properties and associated carpark at No. 181-191 Maroubra Road to the east, part of Ferguson Street further to the east and the south eastern section of the adjoining Ausgrid substation to the south.

 

Units 103, 808 and 818 of No. 165-167 Maroubra Road have raised concerns regarding overshadowing impacts from the proposed development.

 

Unit 103 is located at the first floor facing the south (i.e. the rear driveway of No. 165-167 Maroubra Road). This unit presently obtains sunlight from the eastern lightwell adjacent to the proposed Maroubra Road building, which is recessed into the eastern side of the building. The lightwell to the western side of the Maroubra Road building is proposed to align with this area to create a more generous combined courtyard/lightwell area and will ensure that reasonable levels of ambient light can infiltrate into the units facing this courtyard. The south facing section (living area and a bedroom) currently does not receive direct sunlight due to its orientation.

 

Units 808 and 818 at 165-167 Maroubra Road are the two top floor penthouse units at 165-167 Maroubra Road. These units remain largely unaffected by the proposed development as the height of the proposed Maroubra Road building is commensurate with that of No. 165-167 Maroubra Road. No additional overshadowing impacts are caused to the northern or western sides of these units. The Robey Street building will not result in any overshadowing to these units as due to its orientation, the shadows created by the building will fall to the south onto the adjoining Ausgrid substation.

 

Although the proposed 6th and 7th storeys of the Robey Street and Maroubra Road buildings exceed the maximum height and storey controls outlined by the DCP, it is noted that the proposed building height readily achieves compliance with the maximum building height development standard prescribed by the RLEP 2012.

 

The closest residential property to the south of the Robey Street building is approximately 70m away, at No. 19 Robey Street, which, even on winter solstice remains unaffected by the proposal.

 

Given the close proximity of the Maroubra Road and Robey Street buildings, even if a compliant number of storeys were to be provided to the Maroubra Road building, there would still be a significant degree of overshadowing to the Robey Street component of the development, which is also currently overshadowed by the existing development at No. 165 Maroubra Road.

 

The accompanying shadow diagrams also indicate that additional overshadowing to surrounding properties as a result of the proposal is restricted to winter mornings and to the front yard and front facades of the church and scout hall.

By virtue of the orientation of the site in relation to the adjoining development, it’s surrounding land uses (in particular the adjoining southern site being an electricity substation, which is a use which is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future), the recessed nature of the top two floors of the Robey Street building, and it’s ample separation distances from adjoining residential development, the anticipated shadow impacts of the proposal are considered to be within a reasonable level.

 

4.5      Privacy Impacts

The proposed layout for the Maroubra Road building ensures that living areas are concentrated toward the north and south to Maroubra Road and the internal courtyard, respectively. A number of bedroom windows are proposed to face the internal lightwell adjacent to the existing lightwell at No. 165 Maroubra Road

 

The eastern elevation of the Maroubra Road building has been provided with a number of fire rated glass blocks to allow light into the eastern bedrooms of the building. These openings will not be operable given their proximity to the shared boundary of the subject site and No. 181-191 Maroubra Road, which is also envisaged to be redeveloped in the future to a similar height to that of the subject proposal. 6 windows have been indicated for provision in this lightwell servicing the entry hall areas of apartments 102, 202, 302, 402, 502 and 601. These windows are not anticipated to result in any privacy loss to the potential development on the adjoining site as they are not located adjacent to a main living area or an area of high intensity usage.

 

A lightwell with bedroom windows and various highlight windows to bathrooms has also been provided in the eastern side of the building to lend a higher degree of amenity to these units. The bedroom windows in this area have been screened by blade walls to prevent overlooking to the units at No. 165 Maroubra Road.

 

Proposed balconies facing toward the central courtyard and rear of No. 165 Maroubra Road have been provided with solid balustrades and appropriate screening devices to minimise mutual overlooking into the other apartments within the complex, as well as to the southern elevation of the existing building at No. 165 Maroubra Road. These balconies have also been angled such that their main outlook is directed toward the west to Robey Street, which is consistent with the approved balcony arrangement of No. 165 Maroubra Road.

The proposed Robey Street building features various window openings and balconies toward the east, south and west which overlook the commercial buildings and associated carpark at No. 171-191 Maroubra Road, adjoining substation and Robey Street, respectively. These openings area not anticipated to create any overlooking implications for surrounding properties given their ample separation distance from nearby residential uses.  

 

A suitable distance of separation is provided between the north facing Robey Street apartments and the openings on the southern side of the development to the north (165 Maroubra Road), which features existing and suitable screening devices along its south facing windows to prevent overlooking to and from the Robey Street sites. 

4.6      Waste management

Council Officers have raised concerns to the applicant regarding the proposed waste management facilities and submitted Waste Management Plan (WMP) on a number of occasions and in various email correspondence dated between March and September 2013.

 

Following preliminary assessment of the application, the applicant was requested in an email dated 13 March 2013 to submit an amended WMP as the WMP accompanying the DA was considered to inadequate in that is did not address the following aspects:-

 

·      construction and demolition phase of the development

·      concerns regarding the feasibility of the proposed compacter for a residential development

·      number of garbage and recycling bins proposed not adequate - 1x240L garbage and 1x240L recycling bins shared between two units required (it is noted that if an automatic compactor is used, the number of bins required may be reduced to half)

Total number of bins required:

 

Maroubra Rd:

Garbage: 14 x 240L bins

Recycling: 14 x 240L bins

 

Robey Street

Garbage: 20 x 240L bins

Recycling: 20 x 240L bins

 

The proposal will generate the requirement for 53 bins (with compaction), but provides only 27 bins

 

Even allowing for a compaction ratio of 2:1, the proposed number of bins is inadequate and will not be able to cope with the amount of waste generated by the proposed development. The waste bin storage facilities on the basement 1 level will also need to be enlarged to accommodate the required number of bins.

 

On 29 May 2013, Council Officers again provided written feedback to the applicant advising of the following: -

 

·      Council has a number of concerns relating to the manual handling of rubbish for the compactor. Compactors are best suited where there are garbage chutes above and bins are provided on a carousel or similar underneath. The bins can then be compacted in an efficient manner with minimum manual handling of rubbish. In the context of the current proposal, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed compaction method will be suitable/feasible.

 

The submitted plans do not clearly indicate whether a compactor is proposed for each of the bins rooms or just one for the development. The submitted plans only refer to a bin room in the Maroubra Road building as containing a compactor and the WMP also refers only one compactor.

 

Further, once a bin is compacted, no details have been provided with regard to how the rubbish will be shifted (i.e. manually by a caretaker or mechanically) to the compacted bins or to the kerb for collection.

 

Even allowing for a compaction ratio of 2:1 the proposed number of bins is inadequate and will not be able to cope with the amount of waste generated by the proposed development. The waste bin storage facilities on the basement 1 level will also need to be enlarged to accommodate the required number of bins.

·      Amended drawings and WMP are required to be submitted demonstrating adequate waste storage facilities.

·      The applicant was subsequently provided with Council’s Waste Management Guidelines and WMP templates to assist with the preparation of an amended WMP.

·      For buildings greater than 6 stories, Council prefers the use of garbage chutes and a separate service lift. Recyclables are also recommended to be stored on each floor within the service compartments.

·      The applicant was advised to liaise with Council's Manager of Waste to formulate an acceptable solution to Council.

 

A final set of amended plans and WMP was received in response to the above advice on 18 June 2013. These plans were referred to Council’s Coordinator of Waste Management.

 

It was again identified that the amended plans and information only partially address previous concerns raised by Council. Although the plans indicate the provision for 58 x 240L bins, issues relating to the use of the compactor have not been addressed. Further, the length of the bin presentation area shown on Robey Street is also, at only 14m, insufficient for the location and collection of bins.

 

Accordingly, an appropriate condition of consent has been included within the recommendations section of this report requiring the submission of an amended WMP detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development to the satisfaction of Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

The WMP is required to be prepared in accordance with Council's Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Development and if necessary, amended plans may be required to demonstrate that the proposed garbage rooms, presentation areas and compactor use are sufficient 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.

 

4.7      Part B7 - Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

The relevant objectives of the DCP in relation to parking and access include: 

 

·      To promote sustainable transport options for development, particularly along transport corridors, in commercial centres and strategic/key sites.

·      To manage the provision of car parking within the broader transport network.

·      To support integrated transport and land use options which can demonstrate shared and effective car parking provision with car share facilities, motorbikes/scooters, bikes and links to public transport.

·      To ensure car parking facilities, service and delivery areas and access are designed to enhance streetscape character and protect pedestrian amenity and safety.

 

The DCP specifies the following parking rates for the proposed development:

 

Residential component

·      Studio Unit (<40m2) = 0.5 spaces

·      1 bedroom unit = 1 space

·      2 bedroom unit = 1.2 spaces

·      3 bedroom units = 1.5 spaces

·      Visitor parking to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 4 units

·      Bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 3 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

·      1 car wash bay to be provided per 12 units (visitor spaces may be used as car wash bays)

 

Commercial component

·      1 space per 40sqm of retail/business premises.

 

 

Rate

Required

Proposal

Business Premises

1 per 40sqm 

80/40 = 2

2 spaces

Studio

1 space per 2 studio units

38 x 0.5 = 19

70 spaces provided. 

1 Bedroom

1 spaces per unit 

6 x 1 = 6

2 Bedroom

1.2 spaces per unit

20 x 1.2 = 24

3 Bedroom

1.5 spaces per unit

3 x 1.5 = 4.5

Visitor

1 per 4 units

67 units =  16.75 spaces

Total car spaces

 

72 spaces

72 spaces

 

The proposal complies with the total car parking requirements under the DCP and is considered satisfactory in this regard, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development, integrated transport and land use.

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development, integrating transport and pedestrian links between town centres and key locations.

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 


Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the standards, aims and objectives contained in the RLEP 2012. The development proposes a building envelope, height and façade treatment that generally meets the relevant criteria and fulfils these objectives.

 

The proposal adequately addresses the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone and objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP 2013 – Part D4 Maroubra Junction Centre and Part B7 Parking and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

The scale and design of the proposed development is considered to be suitable for the site and in the context of the surrounding Maroubra Junction Centre. Overall, the development is considered to be consistent with the character of desired future development as envisaged in the Randwick DCP 2013; and the proposed density and height will not give rise to any detrimental impacts to surrounding residential/commercial properties. The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding development in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.

 

The proportions, massing, colours, materials and finishes proposed are considered to be satisfactory. The amended design carries positive architectural merits and will be sympathetic to the characteristics of the existing Maroubra Junction Centre and surrounding streetscape.  The proposed development is not considered to give rise to detrimental impacts on surrounding developments. Visually, the proposal will have a design that contributes to the existing streetscape whilst being consistent with the desired future character of the area having regard to the transitional nature of development in the area.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/84/2013 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 7/part 6 storey mixed use development in two building forms comprising 1 retail tenancy fronting Maroubra Road, 67 residential units, 3 levels of basement parking for 72 vehicles, consolidation of lots and associated works at 169-171 Maroubra Road & 1-3 Robey Street, Maroubra, subject to the following non-standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the Development Application Compliance Report.

 

Non Standard Conditions

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

 

a)   All proposed building structures, including balconies, external walls, floor slabs, sun control devices, privacy screens, planter boxes and etc, with the exception of the awning structures above the ground floor level, shall be contained wholly within all boundaries of the subject site.

 

All Construction Certificate documentation shall reflect compliance with this condition to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

b)   The glass handrail (GHR) balustrades for the balconies on the eastern and southern elevations of the Robey Street building shall be constructed with obscured / frosted / translucent glazing, in order to protect the privacy of the occupants. Details of compliance shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

c)   Ceiling fans must be provided in all habitable rooms and indicated on construction certificate drawings/documentation to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

d)   No air conditioning condenser units are permitted to be installed on the roof, or in any areas of the buildings where the units will be visible from the street.

 

3.       Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed building, a amended Waste Management Plan (WMP) 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.

 

The amended plans/documentation shall demonstrate that bin areas are adequate to accommodate bins in the number and sizes approved by Council as part of the assessment of the Waste Management Plan. The WMP must also address compactor details, associated access/bin removal for kerbside collection to demonstrate adequate provisions for access to all bins has been provided. 

 

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

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report  169 - 171 Maroubra Road & 1 - 3 Robey Street, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 October 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D73/13

 

 

Subject:                  9 Hume Street, Chifley (DA/457/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/457/2013

Author:                   GAT & Associates , Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new garage, entry patio, extension to rear ground floor deck and new pergola structure along the rear boundary

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Mr W D'Avolio

Owner:                         Mr W D'Avolio & Mrs A D'Avolio

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the owner of the subject site is an employee of Randwick City Council.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is seeking alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new garage, entry patio, extension to rear ground floor deck and new pergola structure along the rear boundary.

 

Site

 

The site is commonly known as 9 Hume Street, Chifley. The site is located on the northern side of Chifley Street between Mitchell Street to the west and Bligh Street to the east.

 

The site contains an existing two storey dwelling. An existing detached garage is located along the eastern side boundary. A swimming pool is located to the rear of the site. The site has a moderate slope from the front boundary to the rear.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No submissions were received in the response to the public exhibition.

 

Key Issues

 

Side setbacks

The existing garage has a 100mm setback to the eastern side boundary. This is maintained under the proposed arrangement, acknowledging that the garage has been increased in its depth to 7.8 metres. The proposed garage will also be extended in its width, to adjoin the external wall of the dwelling.

 

The above arrangement is considered to be satisfactory, acknowledging that the site adjoins the driveway of No. 11A Hume Street, which provides for hedge planting along the length of its boundary. The windows to the subject site will be relocated in response to the increased garage width.

 

Visual privacy

The proposal includes four new windows. To the eastern side boundary, a new highlight window is proposed due to the siting of the garage. A similar highlight window is also proposed to the western side boundary. In view of the proposed sill heights and adequate side setbacks, these windows are considered appropriate.

 

To the rear elevation, the proposed sliding door is well setback from the rear boundary and given its northern orientation will allow for good levels of natural light into the dwelling.

 

Open pergola

The proposed open pergola to the rear of the site is considered to be appropriate within the context of the site. The open design of the structure will not cause any adverse impact to adjoining properties, despite is siting along the rear boundary.

 

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 457/13 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including rear garage, entry patio, extension to rear ground floor deck and new pergola structure along the rear boundary, at No. 9 Hume Street, Chifley, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Compliance Report - DA/457/2013, 9 Hume Street , Chifley

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 October 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D74/13

 

 

Subject:                  147-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/298/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/298/2013

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to an existing hotel, including construction of an 8-storey extension at the front and reconfiguration of the internal floor layout, and provision of a total of 88 guest rooms, 44 car parking spaces, 3 retail units, 1 commercial suite, 1 conference room and ancillary facilities

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Addison Development Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Owner:                         The owner Strata Plan No. 48068

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

1.      Proposal

 

The proposed development is for alterations and additions to the existing Addison Hotel to increase the number of guest rooms from 42 to 88. The proposal includes the following components:

 

·      Demolition of the existing top level and rooftop service structures.

 

·      Reconfiguration of the internal floor layout of the existing building. The retained building will have a capacity of 27 rooms.

 

·      Reconfiguration and extension of the lower ground level of the existing building to provide 26 car spaces.

 

·      Construction of an 8-storey extension at the front addressing Anzac Parade. The new additions will have a capacity of 61 rooms.

 

·      Construction of a floor slab over the lower ground car park and the southern driveway to create a new car park at the rear of the ground level with 18 additional vehicle spaces. These car spaces will be accessible via a car lift that connects with the existing lower ground level.

 

·      Provision of 3 x retail units, 1 x commercial suite, a conference room, and hotel administration and lobby spaces on the ground floor level.

 

·      Provision of a rooftop garden on level 4 of the building.

 

·      Installation of 2 passenger lifts.

 

The hotel will operate on a 24 hours / 7 days basis. The number of employees will be 12. (Note: the above operational information is based on the Development Application Form)

 

The floor by floor elements are summarized below:

Levels

Elements

Lower ground (basement)

·      26 car parking spaces (including 2 accessible bays)

·      1 x loading dock

·      Garbage room

Ground level

·      3 x retail units

·      1 x commercial suite

·      1 x conference room

·      Hotel administration

·      Lobby

·      Driveway and porte cochere

·      18 car parking spaces

Level 1

·      16 guest rooms (including 2 accessible rooms)

Level 2

·      16 guest rooms (including 2 accessible rooms)

Level 3

·      16 guest rooms (including 2 accessible rooms)

Level 4

·      10 guest rooms

·      Rooftop garden with pond and decking

Level 5

·      11 guest rooms

Level 6

·      11 guest rooms

Level 7

·      8 guest rooms

·      Gymnasium

·      Plant room

 

Eastern (Anzac Parade) Elevation

Note: the red lines depict the outline of the existing building.

 

Western (rear) Elevation

Note: the red lines depict the outline of the existing building.

 

Northern (side) Elevation

Note: the red lines depict the outline of the existing building, and the blue lines describe the DCP Building Envelope control. The areas coloured red-brown may denote a change in finishes; however the drawings do not contain any explanation.

 

Southern (side) Elevation

Note: the red lines depict the outline of the existing building, and the blue lines describe the DCP Building Envelope control. The areas coloured red-brown may denote a change in finishes; however the drawings do not contain any explanation.

 

Refused development scheme

On 18 October 2011, Council refused development aplication number DA/1115/2010 for alterations and additions to the existing motel / restaurant, including a total of 67 rooms and 29 car parking spaces. The application was refused for its non-compliance with the building envelope prescribed in the DCP, poor architectural character, inadequate parking provision and design, and adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Proposed front (Anzac Parade) elevation – refused scheme DA/1115/2010

 

Section – refused scheme DA/1115/2010

 

The applicant also submitted a pre-lodgement application to Council in April 2012 with a design scheme which is essentially identical to the aforementioned refused proposal. Council has provided detailed written advice and feedbacks highlighting the critical issues, including the building envelope breaches, amenity impacts, car parking problems and ground water disturbance.

 

2.      Site

 

The site is described as SP 48068, No. 147-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington. The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade between Todman Avenue and Addison Street. The site has a total frontage width to Anzac Parade of 28.04m (excluding substation) and a land area of 1384m2. The site is generally trapezium in shape with the exception of an isolated land parcel (Lot 1 in DP 573636, No. 147S Anzac Parade) in the north-eastern section fronting Anzac Parade, which is occupied by an electricity substation. The substation allotment does not form part of the site and any future development for the hotel needs to address this indentation in the site geometry and its consequential urban design implications.

 

At present, the site accommodates a part 5- and part 6-storey mixed-use building containing a basement level, a restaurant on ground floor, 3 levels of hotel accommodation with 42 rooms, plus a service storey on top. The restaurant has recently ceased operation. The building is setback from all boundaries with an open deck at the front, which had been used as an outdoor dining area for the restaurant. There are two driveways along the northern and southern property boundaries providing access from Anzac Parade that lead to a sunken car park at the rear. The car park is partly open-air and partly situated in the undercroft of the building on the lower ground level. As the site is land-locked, the only feasible vehicular access is from the arterial road of Anzac Parade.

 

The existing building has a significant presence to the street due to its height, scale and relatively wide frontage. It has poor architectural merits and the rooftop service structures form a highly distracting and undesirable element in the streetscape.

 

The existing Addison Hotel building (middle) as viewed from the upper level of the residential development on the opposite side of Anzac Parade.

The existing Addison Hotel and front deck as viewed from the footpath outside the site.

 

Immediately to the north of the site is a 2-storey mixed-use building containing a shop on ground floor and residential units above (No. 145A Anzac Parade). Further to the north is a mixture of retail, shop top housing and residential flat developments ranging from single to 3 storeys in height. A service station is situated at the corner of Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue.

 

Directly to the south is a 3-storey residential flat building addressing Anzac Parade (No. 153-155 Anzac Parade). The building is setback approximately 900mm to 1800mm from the common boundary and has north-facing windows oriented towards the site. Adjoining the rear portion of the southern boundary is a 3-storey residential flat building addressing Addison Street (No. 7 Addison Street). A detached garage forms part of this property and is located adjacent to the common boundary.

 

The adjoining residential flat building to the south at No. 153-155 Anzac Parade.

The adjoining residential flat building and detached garage at No. 7 Addison Street (background), as viewed from the sunken car park of the site (foreground).

 

At the corner of Addison Street and Anzac Parade is a single-storey commercial building (No. 157-157A Anzac Parade). A public car park with 9 spaces with access from Addison Street is situated within the road reserve. To the south of Addison Street is a 6-storey student accommodation development with ground floor retail uses (No. 159-171 Anzac Parade).

 

Directly to the west of the site is a 3-storey residential flat building fronting Villiers Street (No. 17-21A Villiers Street). The eastern side of Villiers Street contains a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential developments.

 

The adjoining residential flat building at No. 17-21A Villiers Street as viewed from the sunken car park of the site.

The student accommodation building to the south of Addison Street (No. 159-171 Anzac Parade).

 

To the east on the opposite side of the street is a 7-storey mixed residential and commercial building occupying the corner of Darling Street and Anzac Parade (No. 14-18 Darling Street). The high density development form continues southwards towards the intersection between Doncaster Avenue and Anzac Parade.

 

The 7-storey mixed residential and commercial development at the corner of Darling Street and Anzac Parade (No. 14-18 Darling Street).

 

The visual catchment of the site on either sides of Anzac Parade is characterized by a mixture of commercial premises, shop top housing and multi-unit residential developments. Anzac Parade is currently under transition where the older, low rise building stock is being re-developed into high density, multi-storey mixed-use developments. Nevertheless, the site is directly adjoined by medium density residential buildings to the south and west, which have been Strata subdivided and are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The potential amenity impacts on these properties would form a critical consideration in any development proposal for the hotel site.

 

3.      Submissions

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 26 June to 10 July 2013 in accordance with the requirements of the Randwick DCP. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

·      Kensington Precinct Committee

·      2/7 Addison Street, Kensington

·      3/7 Addison Street, Kensington

·      4/7 Addison Street, Kensington

·      1/153-155 Anzac Parade, Kensington

·      604/14-18 Darling Street, Kensington

·      19/2 Harbour Street, Wollongong

·      9 Villiers Street, Kensington

·      22/17-21A Villiers Street, Kensington

·      4/23 Villiers Street, Kensington

·      1 x petition with 15 signatures

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

7 Addison Street, Kensington (3 properties), and

Kensington Precinct Committee

Issues

Comments

The proposal involves the construction of continuous walling along the southern property boundary.

 

There are concerns that the excavation and building works would affect the structural stability of the existing retaining wall supporting No. 7 Addison Street.

 

Excavation and de-watering works would cause subsidence to No. 7 Addison Street and result in significant structural damage.

The foundation piling for the new 8-storey extension would involve penetration of the underground aquifer. The footings underneath the walls and columns supporting the new ground floor car park would also require excavation.

 

The application has not included a detailed geotechnical report. Based on the available information, it cannot be established that potential damage to the adjoining properties has been minimized.

 

Furthermore, the proposal has not clearly described the extent of building works at the interface with the adjoining properties.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The owners of No. 7 Addison Street will hold the Council liable for any damage sustained as a result of construction upon or immediately adjacent to the existing retaining wall supporting No. 7 Addison Street.

As discussed above, the application has not demonstrated that any settlement risk to the adjoining properties from excavation of the site has been satisfactorily addressed.

 

Any works at the rear of the site should be setback at least 3m from the common boundary with No. 7 Addison Street. No new structures should occur over the existing southern driveway on the site.

Any structures in the rear portion of the site at the interface with the adjoining properties should be carefully designed, to minimise blank walling facing the rear yards of the neighbours.

 

The current application contains insufficient information to assess the visual impacts of the boundary walls on the adjoining properties.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The proposal is not consistent with the desired future character for the locality as described in the DCP.

 

The proposed development has a depth of 33m and exceeds the 22m Building Zone for Parcel B within Block 8 as prescribed in the DCP.

 

The DCP stipulates that the maximum GFA must not exceed 85% of the allowable building envelope. The proposal will significantly breach the above control.

 

The DCP states that the maximum building height for the site is 6 storeys. A total of 8 storeys are proposed. The top level should be deleted. 

 

The proposal substantially exceeds the permissible building envelope and represents an over-development. The development will result in significant impacts on the streetscape.

 

Noted. The proposal contains significant breaches against the Block 08 controls stipulated in the DCP and is not supported.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

 

 

 

 

 

The design does not present a slim building with clear base, middle and top differentiation to break the scale. The proposed building has an excessive bulk.

Noted. The proposed building has an excessive height that deviates from the DCP control by 2 full storeys (the ceiling height to the topmost storey exceeds the control by 3m). The façade articulation is poorly executed and does not present a skilful design.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The extensive use of glazing in the front facade is inadequate and is not conducive to energy efficiency.

Agreed.

The proposal is not compatible with the character and scale of the heritage items at 14 and 16 Villiers Street.

The heritage items at 14 and 16 Villiers Street are well separated from the site and their curtilage will not be affected by the proposed development.

The proposal has not incorporated a 4m front setback above the first 4 storeys, and does not comply with the DCP.

Agreed.

 

The DCP stipulates a setback requirement of 12m from the habitable rooms of adjacent buildings. The proposal does not comply with this control. 

The northern and southern side windows are setback approximately 5.8m from the common boundaries. However, these windows are not considered to result in detrimental privacy impacts.

 

The western windows will enable direct cross viewing to the rear adjoining neighbours and are not considered to be adequate unless privacy protection measures (such as screens) are installed.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The existing building is separated from the southern property boundary by a driveway. This level of setback should be maintained to protect solar access, ventilation and structural stability of the adjoining building at No. 7 Addison Street.

The Block 08 control of the DCP allows future development on Parcel B to be built to the side boundaries in the front portion of the site.

 

However, the layout and envelope of the proposal are not considered to be satisfactory having regard to the streetscape presentation and potential amenity impacts on the neighbours.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The proposal does not contain sufficient off-street car parking to support the increased number of rooms.

 

The proposal should have provided 88 car spaces.

 

There is a shortfall in parking for the employees and conference / function room.

 

The argument in the parking assessment that the hotel is subject to a low occupancy rate, and that only 29 spaces are required, is flawed. The existing parking spaces on the site are fully occupied every night.

 

The assumption that only 2 employees are required to operate the premises is unconvincing.

The car parking design and provision are not considered to be satisfactory. The assumptions and justifications provided in the application are considered to be unsubstantiated.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

It is unclear as to how the valet parking arrangement operates. 

Agreed.

The width of a number of car spaces (including the disabled bays) does not meet the Australian Standard.

 

The configuration of the car park does not allow adequate turning circles and will constrain vehicle movements.

 

Delivery trucks may not be able to manoeuvre around the car park.

The car parking design and provision are not considered to be satisfactory.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The floor slab within the existing underground car park is not flat but inclined. The drawings do not describe the true levels of the existing car park. The construction of a new floor slab above would not allow adequate headroom for the existing car park. The finished floor level for the new ground floor car park would need to be raised beyond the extent as described in the drawings.

Noted. Based on site inspection, the floor slab of the existing sunken car park is not flat but inclined towards the rear. There are concerns that the headroom of the lower ground car park may not achieve the Australian Standard requirement.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The drawings contain no details on the plant and equipment for the car lift.

Noted. A brief brochure for the car lift has been forwarded to Council. However, additional information is still required in order to enable a full assessment of the adequacy of the plant and equipment.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The proposal has not reserved any right of way for future access to the adjoining properties to the north and breaches the requirement of the DCP.

 

The absence of a right of way will further disrupt traffic flow in the area.

Agreed.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The width of the northern driveway is insufficient to accommodate two-way traffic.

 

Delivery vans and larger sized vehicles will be forced to park on the street and further exacerbate parking problems.

The application has not confirmed the type of loading vehicles required for the hotel operation. Larger trucks may need to be parked outside the site and may have adverse implications on the local streets.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The driveway is situated in close proximity to the electricity substation and has adverse safety implications.

No submission has been received from Ausgrid objecting to the proposed access arrangement.

There are concerns that the new ground floor car park would overshadow the rear garden areas of No. 7 Addison Street.

 

No shadow diagrams have been submitted to describe the expected impacts from the new parking structures.

The shadow diagrams indicate that part of the rear garden will receive sunlight at 12 noon. Given that the property boundaries and the existing outbuilding within No. 7 Addison Street have not been modeled, the degree of retained solar access to the garden area cannot be determined accurately.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The shadow diagrams do not accurately show the impact on the rear garden.

Refer to comments above.

The proposal will overshadow the property at No. 7 Addison Street.

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

The windows and balconies to the guest rooms will overlook the neighbouring properties and result in noise impacts.

The northern and southern side windows are setback approximately 5.8m from the common boundaries. However, these windows are not considered to result in detrimental privacy impacts.

 

The western windows will enable direct cross viewing to the rear adjoining neighbours and are not considered to be adequate unless privacy protection measures (such as screens) are installed.

 

The existing balconies on the northern and southern elevations will be demolished. However, there are still concerns for potential noise emission from the proposed balconies facing the street.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The existing balconies on the rear and side elevations will be enclosed. It is unclear as to whether the balcony enclosure would be constructed with sound proof glass.

The existing balconies on the northern and southern elevations will be demolished.

 

It is not considered necessary for the enclosed balconies on the rear elevation to be constructed with sound proof glass.

In order to avoid noise and overlooking issues, the rooftop garden on level 4 should be enclosed with sound proof glass and incorporate indoor screen planting.

An appropriate condition could be imposed to stipulate a curfew for the use of the rooftop terrace at night times, so as to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining residences.

The rooftop garden on level 4 should be covered over or deleted.

This is not considered to be necessary. Refer to comments above.

The upper level car park will overlook the bedrooms of No. 7 Addison Street.

Noted. The amount of landscaping proposed is not sufficient to minimise privacy and amenity impacts.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The upper level car park will be built to the boundary and cause significant noise impacts.

Noted. The amount of landscaping proposed is not sufficient to minimise noise and amenity impacts.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

Where the upper level car park is used for outdoor dining purposes, there would be unacceptable level of noise and privacy impacts.

The upper level car park is not an outdoor dining terrace.

The 8-storey extension at the front will be built to the side boundaries and obstruct breezes and ventilation. 

The Block 08 controls in the DCP envisage future development on Parcel B (subject site) to be built to the side boundaries in the front portion of the site. This nil side setback arrangement for the front extension is considered to be satisfactory.

Although the current application has deleted the restaurant component, it would still be possible for a café to be proposed later.

A condition could be imposed to require a separate development application to be submitted to, and approved by Council for the use and occupation of the retail and commercial suites. This would allow Council to impose relevant conditions to control the operational characteristics of the premises in question.

 

However, based on the current information, the proposal has not provided adequate parking and loading facilities to support the retail and office components and the application is recommended for refusal.

 

It should be noted that under the current SEPP: Exempt & Complying Development Codes 2008, it is possible for a commercial premise (including food and drinks premises) to be changed to another commercial premise via a Complying Development Certificate.

The retail / commercial tenancies on the ground level are capable of being used as a restaurant.

Refer to comments above.

There have been blockages of the grease trap for the existing restaurant on the site.

Sydney Water is the control body over grease trap and sewage matters.

The existing building is out of date and is difficult to retrofit.

Noted.

The proposal will establish a poor planning precedent for similar developments in the future.

The proposed development, if approved, would be the first in Block 08. The breaches against the DCP controls and the design issues would detract from Council’s vision for the town centre and establish a poor precedent for the street block in question.

 

1/153-155 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Issues

Comments

The motel guests will generate a significant level of noise.

Noted. The front balconies and the rooftop garden on level 4 are capable of generating a significant amount of noise.

 

In relation to the rooftop garden, a condition could be imposed to stipulate a time curfew for its use.

 

It is considered appropriate to enclose the proposed front balconies to minimise noise emission to the surrounding residences.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The proposed rooftop garden on level 4 could be used for parties. Sound proof glass and plants should be provided to screen the garden area.

Refer to comments above.

The proposed development will overshadow the adjoining properties.

Noted.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The car parking provision is insufficient to support the increased number of rooms.

Agreed.

The configuration and dimensions of the car park are inadequate.

Agreed.

The proposal involves construction work at the side property boundary and would result in significant structural damage to the adjoining building at No. 153-155 Anzac Parade.

Appropriate conditions could be imposed to ensure proper site management and to require soil retention measures to be installed during the construction phase.

 

However, the proposal involves significant foundation piling works, and the application should have been made as an Integrated Development and should also include a detailed geotechnical report.

 

Based on the available information, it cannot be established that potential damage to the adjoining properties has been minimized.

The proposal does not comply with the LEP and is an over development.

The proposal does not satisfy a number of key zoning objectives stipulated in the LEP.

 

604/14-18 Darling Street

Issues

Comments

The height and breadth of the building will obstruct existing view corridors to Zetland and the Blue Mountains from the top floor apartment (Unit 604) at 14-18 Darling Street.

The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable view loss impacts.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The proposal will affect the privacy of the apartment and other units within the building.

The development is separated from the mixed-use building at 14-18 Darling Street by Anzac Parade, which is a 6-lane arterial road. The proposal is not considered to intrude into the visual privacy of the dwelling units within the aforementioned building.

Intoxicated guests would create noise from the balconies.

Noted. It is considered that enclosed balconies on the front elevation would be more appropriate.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The proposal will increase overshadowing across Anzac Parade and affect the building at No. 14-18 Darling Street.

The proposal will cast shadows on the mixed-use building at 14-18 Darling Street at 3pm. Due to the separation distance between the proposed development and the building in question, the shadows will only affect a small number of units on the lower storeys for a brief period. The above building will continue to receive adequate sunlight in mid winter.

The proposal will reduce the value of the property.

Variations in property values are not considered to be a valid objection on town planning grounds.

The applicant has not answered Question 12 of the DA Form relating to reportable political donations. 

Noted. This matter has been raised with the applicant and no written response has been given to date.

 

19/2 Harbour Street, Wollongong

(Submission from “owner of properties in the area” – the potentially affected property/s within the Kensington area cannot be located)

 

Issues

Comments

The proposal will generate a significant level of vehicular traffic and result in congestion in the surrounding streets.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections on the grounds of traffic generation.

The proposal does not provide adequate off-street car parking.

 

The parking demand from the retail / office tenancies and patrons to the restaurant has not been addressed.

 

The proposal will reduce the supply of kerb side parking in the area.

Noted.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section of this report.

The rooftop garden on level 4 could be used for parties and events involving consumption of alcohol and emit significant noise.

Refer to previous comments above.

The presentation of garbage bins on Anzac Parade would exacerbate parking problems for the nearby residents and create odour impacts.

A condition could be imposed to require a suitable waste management plan to be prepared to be satisfaction of Council.

 

9 Villiers Street, Kensington

Issues

Comments

The proposed development will result in detrimental impacts on the streetscape.

Agreed.

The building height and the number of storeys are excessive and do not comply with Council’s planning controls.

Agreed.

The proposal has not reserved a 4m front setback above the first 4 storeys in accordance with the DCP requirement.

Agreed.

The proposal does not comply with the building envelope stipulated in the DCP.

Agreed.

The proposal has not provided adequate off-street car parking.

 

No retail parking has been provided.

 

The occupancy rate assumption used in the parking assessment is not convincing.

Agreed. Refer to previous comments above.

The accuracy of the levels in the basement car park is questionable. The ceiling height of the basement car park is inadequate.

Noted. Refer to previous comments above.

There is insufficient room for the manoeuvring of vehicles within the car park.

Noted. Refer to previous comments above.

The rooftop garden on level 4 should be enclosed with sound proof glass to limit noise emission.

 

Plants should be provided within the garden to prevent overlooking.

Refer to previous comments above.

The roof over the basement car park should not be used for outdoor dining or recreation purposes to avoid potential noise problems.

The ground floor car park is not designed for use as an outdoor dining terrace. Nevertheless, the car park is considered to result in significant noise impacts on the adjoining neighbours and is not supported.

Where the proposed retail / commercial tenancies are converted to a large restaurant, there would be increased noise generation and further reduction in on-street parking.

 

Any new restaurant would require an improved grease trap and regular cleaning.

Refer to previous comments above.

 

Sydney Water is the controlling body over grease trap issue.

The existing grease trap within No. 9 Villiers Street which serves the restaurant in the motel is illegal.

Refer to comments above.

 

22/17-21A Villiers Street, Kensington

Issues

Comments

The proposed development will reduce solar access and views to the eastern aspect of the building at No. 17-21A Villiers Street.

The residential building at 17-21A Villiers Street is lower than the existing hotel building. There are no significant views from the eastern windows of the above building.

 

Solar access issues are addressed under the “Key Issues” section of this report.

The proposal will increase noise generation.

 

The proposed retail / commercial tenancies on the ground level will increase noise emission.

The retail units are oriented towards the street. The commercial suite is well separated from the property boundaries.

 

A condition could be imposed to require a separate development approval from Council for the use and occupation of the retail / commercial suites. Any potential noise issues could be addressed in detail as part of that application.

The proposal will adversely affect the privacy of the dwellings within the building at No. 17-21A Villiers Street.

Noted. The western windows will enable direct cross viewing to the residential building at 17-21A Villiers Street, and are not considered to be adequate unless privacy protection measures (such as screens) are installed.

 

Refer to the “Key Issues” section for details.

The proposed development will increase traffic congestion and traffic noise.

The use of the ground floor car park is likely to generate a significant amount of noise. It is considered that the podium area at the rear is not suitable for use as a car park.

 


4/23 Villiers Street, Kensington

Issues

Comments

The proposed car parking spaces cannot realistically be used.

Agreed.

The drawings do not clearly show the provision of a car lift for vehicular access to the ground floor car park.

The car lift has been shown on the drawings.

The new car park at the rear of the ground storey is 80cam above the neighbouring property at No. 23 Villiers Street. There is only a 1m high fence at the perimeter of the above parking area, and will not mitigate against overlooking and restrict unauthorized access to the neighbour’s property.

Agreed.

 

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

A 2m high wall should be constructed at the rear boundary, with the basement foundation lowered.

Without a detailed geotechnical report, it is not considered desirable or feasible to lower the floor slab and associated foundation for the lower ground car park. 

The application does not contain sufficient information on landscaping. It appears that 5m high trees would be planted within the new ground floor car park. 

Noted. The landscape drawings are not considered to contain sufficient details for assessment purposes.

 

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

Privacy and noise attenuation measures (such as barriers and planting) should be installed within the rooftop garden on level 4.

Refer to previous comments above.

It is not clear if the proposal complies with the building height, depth, privacy and noise restriction requirements in Council’s planning controls.

The compliance and non-compliance of the proposal with the DCP controls have been addressed within the body of this report and the Compliance Report.

 

Petition

Issues

Comments

The proposal has an excessive height.

Agreed.

The proposal does not comply with the building envelope control and the desired future character stipulated in the DCP.

Agreed.

The extensive glazing in the front façade is “ugly” and does not comply with relevant environmental standards.

The façade articulation and the extensive use of full-height glazing are not supported.

The rooftop garden on level 4 will result in significant noise and privacy intrusion.

Refer to previous comments above.

Where the new ground floor car park is used for outdoor dining purposes, there would be significant overlooking and noise issues.

Refer to previous comments above. 

The proposal contains insufficient off-street car parking. The configuration of the car park is inadequate.

Agreed.

The proposal will establish a poor precedent for similar developments in the future.

Agreed.

 

4.      Key Issues

 

4.1    Potential impacts on water table

The application and the drawings do not mention any excavation. The applicant’s letter dated 22 May 2013 does not indicate any works below the existing basement floor slab.

 

A geotechnical report, prepared by Crozier Geotechnical Consultants, relating to the previous development application for the site (DA/1115/2010) has been forwarded to Council. Section 4.1 of the report states that:

 

The water table is located approximately 1.0m depth below the car parking level which places it 3.0m depth below the surrounding un-excavated ground surface level.” 

 

The current proposal has ignored the very obvious fact that the construction of an 8-storey extension at the front will require piling driven deep into the subsoil as the new columns necessitate foundation support. The plans show that a new retaining wall will be installed along the front boundary of the site, which is likely to be constructed with continuous piling. Additionally, the construction of a slab over the existing sunken car park will also require new columns and footings to support the new loads.

 

The proposal will require disturbance of the subsoil underneath the site and would also penetrate and interfere with the aquifer due to its shallow depth. The effects on the water table cannot be determined with certainty based on the available information. A detailed geotechnical report specifically addressing the proposed works involved should have been prepared.

 

4.2    Building envelope, form and articulation

The Block 08 controls under Chapter D1 Kensington Centre of the Randwick DCP stipulate specific requirements for the massing and layout of future development within Defined Parcel B, that is, the subject site. The DCP requirements are listed below:

 

-    22m building zone extended over the Anzac Parade footpath and parallel to the road alignment

-    4 storeys addressing Anzac Parade, and then 2 additional storeys above behind a 4m front setback

-    5 storeys at the rear above a double-height colonnade

-    Maximum 21.6m to the ceiling of the topmost floor

 

Under the LEP, a maximum building height of 25m applies to the site. Pursuant to Sections 4.2.4 and 4.6.9(a) of the DCP, the space in between the 21.6m topmost ceiling and the 25m LEP height limit is to be reserved for roof design, plant and equipment and possible habitable roof space.

 

The above controls are illustrated in the following diagrams extracted from the DCP.

 

 

 

Building zone and footprints:

The DCP envisions future buildings on the subject site and the adjoining land parcels to the south to be developed over the Anzac Parade road reserve, so that a continuous street wall parallel to the road alignment will eventuate. However, there is no current arrangement in place that allows the sale of the road reserve for private developments. Additionally, the public footpaths outside the subject site has been upgraded with new street trees, furniture and paving in recent years. The reservation of a wider footpath is considered to enhance the pedestrian environment and should be maintained. Therefore, the restriction of the development within the confines of the property boundaries as proposed is supported.

 

The building zone as prescribed in the Block 08 controls is 22m. The depth of the development amounts to approximately 33.8m, and exceeds the DCP requirement by 11.8m. The departure is attributed to the retention of the existing hotel building.

 

The DCP provides that: “In order to achieve a better built form than currently exists in these Parcels, Council may consider development proposals incorporating portions of the existing buildings, subject to suitable design resolution of that incorporation.”

 

The proposal has not demonstrated the difference in shadow impacts between the current design and a scheme with a compliant 22m building zone and a 6-storey height. The development scheme has not incorporated adequate measures to minimise cross viewing from the rear facing windows to the adjoining dwellings to the west. Accordingly, the proposal has not successfully justified that the incorporation of the existing building and the new extensions will maintain a reasonable level of amenity to the adjoining residences. Furthermore, the car parking design is highly problematic and the need to increase parking numbers has negated appropriate landscape treatment at the rear of the site.

 

Based on the available evidence, the proposal is not considered to have formulated a suitable resolution for incorporating the existing building into the development. The proposal merely intends to maximize the developable area by retaining the existing building and also providing a front extension that significantly breaches the height controls.

 

Refer to the following paragraphs for further details.

 

Building height:

The proposal significantly deviates from the DCP in the following areas:

 

-        A total of 8 full storeys have been provided, instead of 6.

-        The height as measured to the ceiling of the topmost floor is approximately 24.6m, and exceeds the DCP requirement by 3m.

 

The proposal should have provided 6 standard storeys only. Any space above the ceiling of the 6th storey should have been contained within the roof form as per the requirements of Section 4.6.9(a).

 

It is also noted that the design intends to match levels 1 to 3 of the new extension with the ceiling height of the existing building, which is only approximately 2.6m. This is to provide level access between the new extension and the existing building. However, the ceiling height of levels 4 to 7 is also restricted at 2.6m. It appears that the ceiling height has been deliberately minimized in order to maximize the number of storeys while still being within the 25m height limit.

 

The height as measured from the existing ground line to the ceiling at level 5 (i.e. 6th storey) is approximately 18.8m. Section 4.2.4 of the DCP provides that the minimum and maximum ceiling heights to the 6th storey are 19.4m and 21.6m respectively. Accordingly, the ceiling height to levels 4 and 5 of the extension could be increased to improve internal amenity. 

 

Furthermore, the lift overrun and the reference level to its topmost point have not been shown in the drawings. The overrun is likely to significantly protrude the roof slab and not concealed within the roof form as required by the DCP.

 

The development scheme substantially deviates from the building height and the intended built form outcome prescribed in the DCP and is not supported.

 

Upper storey setback:

The DCP envisions the future development within Parcel B to be extended over the public footpath in Anzac Parade. As discussed above, this arrangement is not achievable. Therefore, the desirable setback to the uppermost 2 storeys needs to be established by analyzing the future development pattern within the subject urban block.

 

The Block 08 controls prescribe a consistent front setback of 4m above the first 4 storeys for all adjoining sites to the north. These properties have their front boundaries parallel to the alignment of Anzac Parade. As the DCP envisages continuous street walls along both sides of Anzac Parade, the front setback at the northern end of the subject site (Parcel B) should be established at 4m above the first 4 storeys.

 

The DCP control for Parcel A, which is located directly to the south of the site, again describes a building zone that extends into the public domain, including the footpath in Anzac Parade and the public car park accessed from Addison Street. The extension of the developable area over the public domain is not achievable. Future developments within Parcel A would be subject to considerable constraints as it has a shorter depth than the rest of the allotments within Block 08, and an appropriate level of setback from the adjoining residential buildings needs to be reserved. Given its corner location, it is anticipated that the future building would have a stronger presence to reinforce the spatial definition of the block.

 

In the light of the above, the subject proposal needs to include a detailed urban design analysis to determine an appropriate setback for the rest of the upper storeys, by taking into account the likely form of development to the south of the site.

 

The proposed front setbacks are as follows:

 

From G/F to level 4, the front façade aligns with the Anzac Parade boundary except for a slight indentation (approximately 500mm) to the windows of Rooms 1.11, 1.12, 2.11, 2.12, 3.11, 3.12, 4.02, 4.03 and 4.04.

From levels 5 to 7, the front façade is splayed with a setback of approximately 800mm to 1800mm from the Anzac Parade boundary.

 

The proposed setbacks are considered to be tokenistic. The application contains no proper site and contextual analysis to support the proposed setbacks. In fact, the current proposal has reduced the front setback as compared to the refused development scheme (DA/1115/2010).

 

Section drawing of the subject proposal. 

 

Section drawing of the previously refused development proposal; note that a wider front setback is provided above the first 4 storeys.

 

Substation:

The substation is outside the development site but falls within Defined Parcel B in the DCP. As a result, an alcove is created around the substation. The treatment around the substation is rudimentary and would result in a very poor streetscape outcome. The left-over space around the substation would create an entrapment niche which has adverse safety and security implications for the public. The awning is also discontinued outside the substation and undermines the pedestrian amenity.

 

Negotiation with the service authority should have been undertaken to incorporate the substation site and relocate the facility to a chamber within the development. Alternatively, a barrier should be installed between the substation and the footpath, with green walls suspended above as suggested in the drawings. In either case, owner’s consent from the service authority must be obtained, and the service station (Lot 1, DP 573636) must form part of the development site.

 

Façade articulation: 

The front façade is approximately 32m wide and is prominently visible due to the bend in Anzac Parade and the site’s location as the terminating vista to Darling Street. The rear façade would also be highly visible from the adjoining properties.

 

The elevation drawings are diagrammatic. No external colour scheme and finishes palette have been prepared. There are no details relating to the materials of the window and door frames, glazing type, balcony balustrades, texture coated masonry, awning, roofing and etc.

 

The spacing and treatment of bays, proportion of solid and void and fenestration pattern do not demonstrate any coherent design logic or functional requirements. The façade compositions appear to be random and uncoordinated. The design review panel also recommends refinement and simplification of the façade composition (refer to discussions below).

 

The full height glazing on the front and rear elevations will be exposed to significant summer sun. The provision of shading devices appropriate to the orientation would assist in creating a finer grain appearance to the facades.

 

The street awning should be revised to provide an emphasis on the main pedestrian entry to the hotel.

 

The parapet feature wall does not contribute to the architectural character and is ad hoc in appearance.

 

The proposed development would be the first in Block 08 and the aforementioned breaches and design issues would detract from the DCP master plan vision and establish a poor precedent for the street block in question.

 

4.3    Landscape

 

Vertical gardens / green walls:

The landscape plans contain no information relating to the vertical gardens / green walls on the external facades.

 

Firstly, it is unclear as to how a vertical garden could be provided above the sub-station on the adjoining land, which is under separate ownership and does not form part of the development site. The owner of the substation site (Ausgrid) has not granted approval for the above works.

 

There is no definitive information throughout the whole application relating to the vertical gardens, except for the diagrammatic illustration on the elevation drawings. It appears that these elements are only indicative in nature. Despite the design and environmental merits of the green walls, there is no evidence to suggest their implementation as part of the development.

 

Secondly, vertical gardens require highly skilful selection of species, anchoring, irrigation and maintenance. In particular, the western elevation is exposed to significant summer sun, and the southern elevation experiences minimal sunlight throughout the year. The application should provide design details relating to the above matters and demonstrate that the planting is likely to succeed. Specialist advice from a qualified landscape architect with experience in vertical gardens should also be obtained.

 

Based on the current information, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the vertical gardens as shown on the drawings could be realized.

 

Landscape buffer for the car park:

Section 4.5.2, Chapter D1 of the DCP stipulates the following:

(ix) Where a semi-basement car park is built to the boundary of an adjoining property outside the Centre boundary, or built to the boundary of a strata title building unlikely to change, provide advanced planting in a 3m setback from that boundary, to achieve visual privacy, as shown in the following diagram.”

 

The site is adjoined to the south by two Strata-titled residential flat buildings, being No. 153-155 Anzac Parade and No. 7 Addison Street. The latter is outside the boundary of the town centre. The rear of the site adjoins another Strata-titled flat building in the residential zone (No. 17-21A Villiers Street). The proposal includes an open-air car park at the rear of the ground level. The finished level of the car park is above the existing ground line at the rear of No. 17-21A Villiers Street. Accordingly, the aforementioned landscaping control should apply to this podium car park.

 

The average width of the planter box along the western (rear) boundary is less than 1m, except for the corners. It is also discontinued adjacent to car spaces 7, 8 and 9. The returns to the northern and southern boundaries are approximately 800mm and 2300mm in width respectively. The proposal significantly deviates from the 3m landscaped setback requirement of the DCP. There is insufficient landscape buffer along the perimeter of the podium car park to mitigate the visual, noise and headlight glare impacts on the adjoining properties. It is considered that mass shrubbery and canopy tree planting extending to a minimum depth of 3m is necessary to meaningfully ameliorate the amenity impacts created by the car park. The adequacy of the ground floor car park is further discussed below.

 

The proposal also does not include any fencing to restrict access between the site and the adjoining properties, and is not considered to promote safety and security.

 

On the other hand, in order to appropriately relate to the scale of the development, visually soften the building structures and effectively protect the privacy and visual amenity of the neighbours, canopy trees reaching a minimum height of 8m to 10m at maturity should be planted on the podium level. However, the landscape plans only show the planting of dwarf sized trees (Grafted Brachychiton) with a restricted mature height and spread of 6m (H) x 3.5m (S). The proposed shrubbery is no higher than 3m. The planting scheme is considered to be tokenistic and will not effectively contribute to a suitable visual and amenity outcome.

 

 

 

Level 4 rooftop garden:

The shrubbery along the perimeter of the rooftop garden is discontinued. It is possible for persons to overlook the adjoining apartment building at 17-21A Villiers Street from end of the timber deck. The planting scheme for this area is not satisfactory.

 

Refer to further comments relating to noise below.

 

Small planters on levels 1 to 3:

There are small planters adjacent to rooms numbered 2 and 8 on levels 1 to 3, which are under-covered. These planters do not appear to be practical and no details have been shown on the landscape plans.

 

Landscape documentation:

The information presented on the landscape drawings is rudimentary and diagrammatic. Scaled sections for the planters and pond showing water depth, soil depth and volume, drainage and other relevant construction details should be provided. A tabulated planting schedule clearly listing the common and botanical names of all selected species, mature height and spread and estimated planting quantities should also accompany the landscape plans.

 

4.4    Car parking, access and loading

 

Car parking provision and design:

The Parking Assessment report (page 4) indicates that a total of 37 parking bays are currently provided on the site. However, the existing floor plan shows that only 32 spaces currently exist.

 

Chapter B7 of the DCP stipulates the following parking rates for hotel / motel accommodation and business / retail / office premises:

 

Hotel / motel accommodation:

1 space per 4 units and 1 space per 2 staff

 

Business / retail / office premises:

1 space per 40m2 GFA

 

The car parking requirement and provision are summarized below:

 

Component

Requirement

Proposal

Hotel / motel accommodation

22 spaces for guests

6 spaces for staff members

Sub-total: 28 spaces

44 spaces shown on plans

(L/G: 26 spaces, G/F 18 spaces)

 

The plans do not nominate allocation of parking between the hotel, retail and office components

Business / retail / office premises

5 spaces

 

Grand total 33 spaces

 

The application does not address the parking demand from the ground floor conference room. It is presumed that it would be used by the guests of the hotel. However, it is also likely that the conference room could be used for meetings or training sessions for customers not related to the hotel. There is no parking rate for conference rooms as such in the DCP. By using the business premises rate as a proxy, the conference room would generate a parking demand of 1.3 or 1 space based on a GFA of 52m2.

 

The allocation of parking spaces between the hotel and retail / commercial components is not stated in the application.

 

Notwithstanding the suggested parking provision as shown on the plans, a number of areas within the car park do not comply with Australian Standard 2890 series and are dysfunctional. The submitted Parking Assessment report, prepared by Better Transport Futures, has not assessed the adequacy of the parking design. Some of the parking spaces only theoretically exist and are not practical to use. The key problematic areas are outlined below:

 

Floor

Issues

Lower ground / basement level

·    There is no blind aisle extension on the southern end of the car park.

 

·    It is problematic to manoeuvre into the following areas: car spaces number 12, 13, 14, 15 and 28.

 

·    The parallel parking space number 28 has obstructions on both ends and the aisle is only 3m wide. The length of this space should have been 6.6m under AS 2890.1 and not 6.2m as proposed.

 

·    Car space number 17 is located adjacent to wall obstruction and no additional width allowance (300mm) has been reserved.

 

·    Disabled spaces number 19 and 20 do not incorporate a shared zone and are not compliant with AS 2890.6.

 

·    The existing car park slab on the lower ground floor is not flat as suggested in the drawings. Based on site inspection, the slab slopes upwards towards the western boundary. There are concerns that the headroom of the lower ground car park would not satisfy the requirements of the Australian Standard once it is built over.

 

Ground floor

·    Car spaces 1, 10 to 14 and 15 to 18 are not functional or acceptably accessible.

 

 

The manoeuvrability of the parking bays, aisles and car lift has not been tested by B85 vehicle swept path templates. The proposal has not satisfactorily demonstrated efficient and safe turning circles for the car park. Furthermore, the dimensions of the car spaces are scantly shown. The dimensions of each and every car space on both parking levels should have been annotated on the drawings.

 

The effective parking provision, based on those car spaces that are more likely to comply with the Australian Standard for standard parking bays (and not disabled parking bays), are in the order of approximately 28 spaces:

 

-        Lower ground / basement level: car spaces 1-11, 16, 18-25 = 20 spaces

-        Ground level: car spaces 2-9 = 8 spaces

 

The parking provision falls short of the DCP requirement by 5 spaces (or 6 spaces if the parking demand from the conference room is counted). No proper disabled parking has been included. The proposal also fails to achieve the bicycle parking requirements, being a total of 8 bicycle spaces and 1 shower facility.

The Statement of Environmental Effects and Parking Assessment report have attempted to justify the proposed parking provision. The arguments put forward by the applicant are considered to be unsubstantiated and lack credibility for the following reasons:

 

·      The Statement of Environmental Effects (page 31) and the Parking Assessment (page 16) suggest that a total of 4 staff members will be employed in the 88-room hotel, which is highly implausible, if not deceptive. In fact, the above claim contradicts with item 8 of the Development Application Form, which states that 12 employees are required. The number of employees, including receptionists, valets, cleaners, building managers and etc (both full time and part time) should be detailed in the application. The implications of overlapping shifts should also be factored into the parking assessment.

 

·      The application proposes a valet-operated parking system (pages 44 and 58 of the Statement of Environmental Effects).

 

Consistent with Council’s pre-lodgement advice (PL/24/2012), dated 19 September 2012, the use of a valet-coordinated system to address deficiencies in car parking numbers is not supported. This is because there is no assurance that such an operation would be actively implemented and enforced. The up-take of this system is also dependent upon market forces and the service charges involved, which cannot be predicted at this stage. In any case, the application contains nil information on how the valet system would operate.

 

·      The parking beat survey of the surrounding streets as mentioned in the Parking Assessment (pages 8-9) was undertaken on a Tuesday week (9 October 2012). The report indicates that over the monitoring period from 9:30am to 5:30pm, there is a high utilization rate for on-street parking of between 72% and 90%. The assessment did not include any surveys for the Thursday evening and Saturday morning peak periods, when the surrounding on-street parking is likely to be more intensively used. It is likely that the availability of kerb side parking would be even lower than what the report suggests.

 

·      The Parking Assessment includes a night time survey of the occupancy of the hotel car park, which was conducted at 11pm between 19 and 25 November 2012. The survey indicates that between 11 and 19 vehicles were parked on site during the study period.

 

The parking consultant also undertook a customer questionnaire, which suggests that 33% of the existing guests utilized his own private vehicle to access the hotel. 2% of the existing guests accessed the hotel as a passenger.

 

Page 14 of the Parking Assessment mentions the following:

 

-    The hotel has an occupancy rate of between 70-92% throughout the year.

-    Allocating car parking to the 33% of car drivers based on their length of stay requires a peak provision of parking of 11 spaces or 28% of the rooms.

-    Applying a peak occupancy of 92% to the 40 rooms and a car rate of 33% requires a peak parking supply of 12 spaces or 30%. 

 

Page 16 proceeds with the following conclusion:

 

-    The detailed assessment of the current parking requirements for the existing motel shows that a parking provision of 30% is more appropriate at this location than the current DCP requirement of 100%.

-    As such the recommended parking supply for the proposed development is 34 spaces.

 

Proposed Land Use

Parking Requirement

Parking Demand

Motel Units x 88

1 space per 30% of units

26

Employees x 4

1 space per 2 employees

2

Retail (Business) 203m2

1 per 40m2

6

 

The fundamental issue of the applicant’s analysis is the sole reliance on the status quo as a basis to project the future parking demand of the development.

 

With the proposed upgrade and development, it is highly likely that the dynamics for the room vacancy and car park occupancy rates would change. In particular, page 8 of the Statement of Environmental Effects also mentions that the hotel owner seeks to upgrade the hotelier rating from 3 stars to 5 stars. The logic of the analysis that relies on the current statistics and their application to the proposed development is highly questionable if not flawed. To obtain empirical statistics on the likely parking demand, a comprehensive survey examining the parking provision and occupancy rate for other hotels of comparable scale and in comparable location should be undertaken.

 

Regardless, the realistic parking provision in the proposal would only be around 28 spaces, and would still be below the 34 spaces as recommended in the applicant’s Parking Assessment.

 

Location of car parking:

Section 4.5.2, Chapter D1 of the DCP stipulates the following:

 

(iv) Incorporate parking within and/or beneath the building. No on-site parking is to be provided on a street frontage nor as surface parking eternal to the building.

 

The provision of open air, podium parking at the rear of the site breaches the DCP control and is not supported. The car movements are likely to cause significant noise intrusion to the adjoining dwellings. Given the close proximity to residential uses, this area should be reserved for mass planting and landscaping to improve mutual privacy protection and visual amenity between the hotel and the adjoining properties, instead of providing a car park. The provision of car stackers to assist in achieving the required parking provision on the basement level should have been investigated. It is considered that the substantial retention of the existing building has imposed a significant constraint on parking design.

 

The construction of a podium car park and associated planters will also create continuous blank walls at the interface with the adjoining properties to the west and south.

 

The existing ground levels of the adjoining properties immediately adjacent to the common boundaries are summarized below:

 

 

 

 

Location

Reference level

Estimated height of boundary walls, as viewed from adjoining land

Proposed podium car park at the rear of the G/F

FFL RL25.98

N/A

Side walk area of 153-155 Anzac Parade

RL24.96 - RL25.03 (survey plan data)

Approx. 2m

Rear yard of No. 7 Addison Street

RL25.14 – RL25.20 (survey plan data)

Approx. 1.8m

Rear yard of 17-21A Villiers Street

Survey data not available.

Section shows the backyard level at RL25.13

Approx. 1.85m (according to section)

 

 

 

Residential flat building and boundary fencing at No. 17-21A Villiers Street as viewed from the existing hotel car park

 

Existing outbuilding and boundary wall at the rear of No. 7 Addison Street as viewed from the hotel car park

 

The accurate extent, profile and height of the structures at the common boundaries are omitted from the drawings. The existing boundary fence / wall within No. 17-21A Villiers Street does not appear to be accurately represented in Section 1.

 

The proposed structures at the common boundaries should be clearly described in the drawings, as they have implications on the visual amenity and solar access of the adjoining residences. Any exposed walling should be minimized with the surfaces facing the neighbours appropriately treated or screened by landscaping. Detailed sections showing the existing boundary walls to be retained and any additional walls to be added above should have been shown.

 

The current level of information is insufficient to enable a proper assessment.

 

Loading facilities:

The loading requirements, including the type of vehicles used and frequencies of visits, of the hotel and retail / commercial suites have not been explained in application. It is unclear as to whether the height clearance of the car park and driveway is capable of accommodating the required loading vehicles. In this case, it appears that larger sized trucks would be needed to collect laundry materials for an 88-room hotel.

 

Porte cochere:

The applicant’s traffic consultant has not addressed the suitability of the porte cochere for taxi and shuttle bus pick up / drop-off. In particular, it is unclear as to whether vehicles need to reverse out of the site, or enter the basement car park in order to turn around and exit in a forward direction. Furthermore, the design details, including finishes, paving and lighting, should have been included.

 

Mechanical device:

The proposal involves the use of a car lift for access from the lower ground / basement to the ground floor car park. In order to enable technical assessment, the following information is required:

 

·      Manufacturer’s specifications and instructions for operation;

·      Details of manual operation in the event of power/mechanical failure;

·      Maintenance schedules;

·      Waiting and working times for the car lift; and

·      Safety and training requirements.

 

4.5    Provision for Future Rights of Access as Shown in DCP

The Block 08 controls contained in Chapter D1 of the DCP require the facilitation of a future 6m wide reciprocal right of way along the southern boundary, which then swings northward in an L-shape arrangement. This is to allow future vehicular access to the adjoining allotments to the north via the driveway within the subject site. The intention is to avoid the creation of new driveway crossings on Anzac Parade to any new developments within Block 08.

 

The proposal does not accommodate any provision for future rights of access and will jeopardize the realization of the DCP vision.

 

The proposal should have made provision for future rights of access connecting to the adjoining sites in the basement car park.

 

4.6    Solar access

The DCP stipulates the following requirements for the retention of solar access to the neighbouring properties:

 

(i) Maintain sunlight access to private and public open spaces and habitable rooms of adjoining development for at least 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. If existing sunlight access to adjoining development is already below this level, maintain whatever exists.

 

The expected impacts as described in the shadow diagrams are as follows:

 

9 am, 21 June

 

12 noon, 21 June

 

3 pm, 21 June

 

Impacts on 153-155 Anzac Parade:

The existing 3-storey residential flat building occupies the majority of the property with limited open areas. Although this property situates within the Kensington Town Centre, it is unlikely to be redeveloped within the foreseeable future as it has been Strata-subdivided.

 

The application does not provide any elevational or axonometric shadow diagrams, and the accurate extent of impacts on the north-facing windows cannot be ascertained. Based on the available information, it is anticipated that the majority of the north-facing windows will be overshadowed.

 

Impacts on 5 Addison Street:

The existing dwelling house on this property has not been modeled in the diagrams. It appears that a significant portion of the north-facing windows and rear garden will be overshadowed at 9am, 21 June.

 

Impacts on 7 Addison Street:

A 3-storey residential flat building occupies this property with a garden and outbuilding at the rear that adjoin the subject site. The shadow diagrams indicate that part of the rear garden will receive sunlight at 12 noon. Given that the property boundaries and the existing outbuilding have not been modeled, the degree of retained solar access cannot be determined accurately. Based on the available information, the existing north-facing windows appear to retain at least 3 hours of sunlight on 21 June.

 

Impacts on 17-21A Villiers Street:

A residential flat building occupies this property with a garden at the rear that adjoins the subject site. The shadow diagrams indicate that part of the rear garden will be overshadowed at 9am, 21 June. However, the survey plan does not show the reference levels of the garden area in question. The accuracy of the impacts depicted in the 9am diagram is disputable.

 

Impacts on 23 Villiers Street:

The existing townhouse building on this property has not been modeled in the diagrams. It appears that the rear garden will be substantially overshadowed at 9am, 21 June.

 


Comments:

The submitted shadow diagrams do not clearly and fully describe the expected impacts on the adjoining properties and are not suitable for assessment purposes.  The key problems include:

 

·      The accurate lot boundaries of the affected properties are not shown.

·      The levels of the private open space of a number of affected properties have not been established. They include 17-21A Villiers Street, 23 Villiers Street and 5 Addison Street. 

·      The accurate building footprints of the affected properties have not been modeled. They include 23 Villiers Street and 5 Addison Street.

·      It is not clear if the structures at the western and southern boundaries have been accurately modeled, as their relationship to the existing ground lines are not established on the elevations.

·      The modeling of the expected hourly impacts is necessary in this instance to ascertain the full impact.

·      Axonometric or elevational shadow diagrams are necessary in this instance to ascertain the impact on the windows of the affected properties. The window locations and sill and head height levels should be based on a survey plan.


The proposal and the documentation fail to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that a reasonable level of sunlight will be retained for the adjoining residential properties. The proposal substantially deviates from the DCP building envelope by not only retaining the existing hotel building, but also creating a new extension that significantly exceeds the height control. The non-compliant height and building zone are considered to unreasonably diminish the amenity of the adjoining sites. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory in this regard.

 

4.7    Privacy and noise

 

Western windows:

The existing building has west-facing balconies on levels 1 to 3 oriented to the adjoining residential flat building at 17-21A Villiers Street. The current proposal involves the enclosure of these balconies with glazing, which would significantly improve the acoustic privacy of the neighbours. However, the enclosed balconies will continue to have direct sightlines to the adjoining dwelling units. It is considered that screening devices is required to minimise privacy impacts. 

 

The west-facing windows on levels 5 to 7 are setback approximately 26m to 27m from the common boundary and are not considered to cause detrimental privacy impacts. 

 

Northern windows:

The adjoining property to the north could be redeveloped in the future as per the DCP controls. The north-facing windows in the existing hotel building are setback 5800mm from the boundary. It is considered that the installation of full-height screening devices would compromise daylight access to these side windows. Given that there are only two guest room windows per floor on levels 1 to 3, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

 

Southern windows:

The adjoining 3-storey residential flat building to the south contains a number of north-facing windows on all levels. The existing south-facing windows of the hotel building are setback 5890mm from the common boundary, and are oriented away from the majority of the neighbour’s windows. It is considered that the installation of screening devices would further compromise daylight access to these windows. As the landscape plan includes 3 x 6m high trees near the boundary, these windows are considered to be acceptable.

Eastern balconies:

The proposal includes balconies attached to the guest rooms on levels 1 to 7. Submissions from 604/14-18 Darling Street and 4/7 Addison Street specifically raise concerns relating to noise emission from the existing balconies. It is acknowledged that the eastern balconies will be oriented towards Anzac Parade, which already contains high volumes of traffic. However, it is also a valid concern that the use of the balconies by guests at night times would cause a degree of impact on the nearby residents depending on their behaviour.

 

In order to protect the amenity of the adjoining and nearby residences, and to reinforce acoustic insulation for the guest rooms against external traffic noise, it is considered appropriate that only enclosed balconies be provided on the front elevation.

 

Rooftop garden on level 4

As previously discussed, more continuous shrubbery planting should be provided along the perimeter of the rooftop garden to minimise cross viewing to the adjoining properties.

 

The use of the rooftop garden is capable of emitting significant noise, especially at night times. It is considered that a curfew could be imposed to require the garden to be closed off at night. This requirement could be easily implemented by the hotel staff via a condition of consent.

 

4.8    Energy efficiency

The proposed design is not considered to be energy efficient, and does not satisfy the key objectives stipulated under Section 3 Energy and Water Efficiency, Chapter B3 Ecologically Sustainable Development of the DCP, which reads:

 

-     To promote energy and water efficiency in the design and operation of buildings.

-     To minimise greenhouse gas emissions.

-     To reduce the reliance on mechanical heating and cooling.

 

The main issues are discussed below:

 

·      The elevations do not show window operations. It appears that the vast majority of the windows consist of fixed glazing. The proposal should provide an appropriate number of operable windows to the rooms, so that the guests could choose between air-conditioning or natural ventilation.

 

·      The common circulation hallways should be designed to allow natural ventilation. In this regard, the slot windows on either end of the hallway within the existing building (levels 1 to 3) should be widened.

 

·      The design does not provide external sun protection measures for the windows that are suitable to the orientation. In particular, the majority of the east- and west-facing windows are constructed with unprotected, full-height glazing, which will be exposed to the low angle summer sun. The design does not offer an adequate level of thermal comfort and energy efficiency.

 

·      The design does not provide adequate weather protection measures for the windows, such as hoods or overhangs.

 

·      The proposal does not provide skylights to illuminate the internalized parts of the circulation corridor and the bathrooms on the top floor.

 

·      The proposal does not allow for roof-mounted solar panels to improve the environmental performance of the development.

 

·      The floor to ceiling height is approximately 2.6m for all storeys. The effective headroom would be reduced where false ceilings are installed to conceal the air conditioning and building services. Based on the available information, the restricted ceiling height is not considered to contribute to thermal comfort.

 

4.9    View sharing

A submission has been received from 604/14-18 Darling Street, which is located on the opposite side of Anzac Parade. The following paragraphs provide a four-step analysis of view loss established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

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

 

The existing views are obtained from the living room windows and balcony on the 6th floor, and the bedroom windows and balcony on the 7th floor. The views consist of district views of land based elements only, including the distant high-rise buildings in Green Square and Raleigh Park and other residential buildings in Kensington. An oblique view towards the heritage listed Our Lady of the Sacred Heart convent is available towards the south-west.

 

Following the proposed development, it is anticipated that a number of distant buildings in Green Square will be completely obscured from both the living room and bedroom windows and balconies.

 

The estimated impact on the views captured from the living room balcony is illustrated in the following photograph. The red lines represent the approximate envelope of the development and describe the floor slab of levels 4 to 7. 

Existing views captured from the living room balcony on the 6th floor (lower level) of Unit 604.

(Note: the red lines represent the approximate envelope of the development and describe the floor slab of levels 4 to 7. The green line represents the approximate height of a 6-storey building, excluding roof form.)

 

Existing views captured from the bedroom balcony on the 7th floor (upper level) of Unit 604.

 

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 front boundary of the subject site. The views are captured at both standing and sitting positions.

 

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.”

 

Following the proposed development, it is anticipated that a number of distant buildings in Green Square will be completely obscured from both the living room and bedroom windows and balconies. However, there are no iconic elements in the affected views. It is also noted that the second bedroom on the 7th floor captures district views of the Randwick Racecourse. Given the lack of iconic or scenic elements in the affected views, the degree of impact is rated as 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 subject site and the adjoining allotments on the western side of Anzac Parade fall within Block 08 of the Kensington Town Centre. The DCP envisages developments to be 6 storeys high plus roof form within this block reaching a maximum height of 25m. It is expected that where developments are realized in accordance with the controls, the existing district views from the apartment in question will be substantially, if not fully, obstructed. It should be emphasized that the current views are a direct result of the development at 14-18 Darling Street being implemented as per the DCP control parameters, and the fact that the subject and adjoining sites have not fully achieved the permissible height. In this respect, the view loss as a result of a compliant development is considered to be reasonable.

 

In this case, the proposal includes 8 full storeys and breaches the envelope controls in the DCP. Notwithstanding, the additional impacts associated with the non-compliant portion are primarily sky views, which are not considered to be significant. Although the district views carry a degree of value for the owners, the view loss impacts are not considered to be unreasonable.

 

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 does not satisfy the objectives for the B2 Local Centre Zone under the Randwick LEP 2012, and the key building envelope controls in the Randwick DCP.

 

The site has a relatively wide frontage and is highly visible from a number of vantage points. The design scheme does not demonstrate a skilful solution and carries low architectural merits. The proposal, if implemented, would result in a detrimental visual and streetscape outcome for Anzac Parade and establish a very poor planning precedent for the subject urban block and the locality.

 

The proposal has not resolved the fundamental issues relating to the potential impacts on the ground water table, urban design outcome, feasibility of the landscape scheme, car parking arrangement, energy efficiency and amenity implications on the adjoining properties.

 

In particular, the proposal has not presented any suitable resolution for retaining and incorporating the existing building in the development as required in the DCP.

 

The applicant has not responded to Council’s detailed comments on the current proposal with any additional information and revised drawings. Furthermore, the application has not appropriately addressed the reasons for refusal in the previous development application for a similar proposal for the site, and Council’s advice on the pre-lodgement scheme subsequently submitted for review. The current application is underprepared, contains unrealistic and self-contradictory assumptions, and is at best speculative.

 

For the above reasons, it is recommended that the application be REFUSED.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 298/2013 for alterations and additions to an existing hotel, including construction of an 8-storey extension at the front and reconfiguration of the internal floor layout, and provision of a total of 88 guest rooms, 44 car parking spaces, 3 retails units, 1 commercial suite, 1 conference room and ancillary facilities, at No. 147-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives for Zone B2 Local Centre stipulated under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, in that the building height, form and articulation will not contribute to an appropriate architectural and urban design outcome, and will result in detrimental visual and amenity impacts on the adjoining properties and the street.

 

2.       The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 6.2 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as it fails to address the likely disruption of the underground water table, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality. The proposal will require disturbance of the subsoil underneath the site and is highly likely to penetrate and interfere with the water table. The proposal has not demonstrated that any subsidence risk to the adjoining properties as a result of the earthworks has been addressed.

 

3.       The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 6.11 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as it fails to demonstrate design excellence.

 

4.       The proposal does not satisfy the control provisions for Block 08 under Chapter D1 Kensington Centre of Randwick Development Control Plan, in that the design scheme fails to comply with the building envelope, layout, upper storey setback and access requirements for Defined Parcel B.

 

5.       The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Chapter B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access of Randwick Development Control Plan, in that the design scheme fails to demonstrate the provision of adequate and functional car and bicycle parking and loading facilities to support the land uses.

 

6.       The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 4.6.10, Chapter D1 Kensington Centre of Randwick Development Control Plan, in that the development scheme fails to present adequate information to demonstrate that a suitable level of solar access will be retained for the adjoining and nearby residential properties.

 

7.       The proposal fails to protect the visual and acoustic privacy of the adjoining and nearby residential properties, and does not satisfy the provisions of Section 4.6.12, Chapter D1 Kensington Centre of Randwick Development Control Plan and Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

8.       The proposed design is not energy efficient and does not satisfy the objectives stipulated under Section 3, Chapter B3 Ecologically Sustainable Development of Randwick Development Control Plan.

 

9.       The proposal fails to present adequate information to demonstrate that suitable and feasible landscaping will be incorporated to improve the visual presentation of the development and to protect the privacy and amenity of the adjoining residential properties. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

10.     The proposal has not satisfactorily addressed the problem with the substation being directly in front of the site and the consequential impacts on the visual amenity and safety of the public footpaths in Anzac Parade. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

11.     The proposal is not within public interest and does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report 147-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 October 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D75/13

 

 

Subject:                  7 Darley Road, Randwick (DA/632/2010/A)

Folder No:                   DA/632/2010/A

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of the approved development by adding a new self contained carer's room at mezzanine level above the accessible room, and new skylight

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Crackneil & Lonergan Architects

Owner:                         Gary Breasley

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT

 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original application was approved by Council. 

 

The Proposal

 

The original consent involved partial demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new 9 room boarding house to the rear including retention of part of the existing dwelling as a Manager’s residence. The consent also required a management plan for the operation of the premises.

 

The current Section 96 application is seeking consent to modify the approved development by adding a new self contained carer's room at the mezzanine level above the approved accessible room, and provide a new roof skylight to allow for ventilation and light well into the accessible bathroom below.

 

The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is on the southern side of Darley Rd west of the Grand Dr entrance to Centennial Park, North Randwick. It is 763m2 with a frontage of 20.115m. The land is approximately level. There is a single storey federation building on the site with a garage in the back yard. Free-standing federation homes are east and west. The Randwick TAFE campus adjoins the southern boundary and Centennial Park is across Darley Rd to the north. The site is within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation area which is significant, in part, for the prevalence of federation streetscapes.

 

Community Consultation

 

The application was notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 14 January 2013 to 29 January 2013. One (1) submission was received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

Objections

 

5 Darley Road, Randwick

Issue

Comment

The proposed FSR is over the allowable maximum by 17m².  Concerned that the additional boarding room will increase the intensity of use on the site.

 

Whilst it is noted that under the previous consent the approved Floor Space Ratio (FSR) was 0.52:1 and did not comply with the standard, non-compliance with floor space ratio was addressed in the SEPP 1 Objection and was found to be acceptable.

 

Moreover, under the new definition of Gross Floor Area (GFA) the proposed FSR for this Section 96 Application is 0.48:1, which is under the permissible 0.5:1 allowed in the zone. 

 

The proposed floor space variation does not result in a significant residential intensification of the use. The additional carer’s room will only be utilised where a disabled person requires the support of a carer. Should the accessible room not be occupied by a disabled person, a condition is included preventing the use of the carer’s room for separate occupation.

 

A condition is also included to delete the separate access to the carer’s room so that it is integrated with the accessible room and can’t be let out separately.

The proposed modification is inconsistent with the objectives of the Residential A zone under Clause 9 of the Randwick LEP 1998 Consolidation.

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Residential 2A Zone under the former RLEP 1998 and the objectives of the R2 Zone under RLEP 2012. The proposed development will provide new affordable housing opportunities within a highly accessible area to existing services, public transport, TAFE and the Randwick Town Centre. In addition, the proposal has been assessed in relation to potential impacts, as detailed within the body of this report, and would not unreasonably impact on any adjoining or nearby residential properties.

 

Appropriate operational management conditions have been imposed in the original consent to ensure the boarding house will be operated in a proper manner with minimal amenity impacts on the neighbouring residential premises. The proposal does not result in an unreasonable intensity of use for the location and therefore, is considered to meet the objectives of this clause.

The objector believes that the statement made by the applicant that the additional room accommodation if a disabled person were to live in the boarding house lacks merit as not every person with a disability requires a full-time carer, the EPI’s and DCP’s do not require that there be a self contained ‘carer’ quarter adjacent to disabled accessible rooms in a boarding house and there is already 8 other rooms available that could be used for the carer’s room. Therefore, believes an additional Carer’s apartment is not necessary.

 

The amended proposal an adds to housing needs of the community and the variety of residential accommodation options available in an accessible area. Conditions has been included in the recommendation preventing the separate occupancy of the carer’s room should it not be required.

The proposed addition of a ‘carer’ room, resulting in the addition of two additional lodgers, would further decrease the already compromised visual and acoustic privacy.  The windows to this room will look directly into the living and study areas of their property.

 

Refer to Key Issues under Privacy, which demonstrates that the proposed dormer windows to the Carer’s Apartment will not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the objector’s property.

 

Two existing dormer hopper windows to the Carer’s Apartment will be of translucent glass and open downwards to prevent any overlooking impacts to the neighbouring properties.

 

Currently, the development will entail 23 occupants (noting the owner’s statement about the caretaker’s dwelling).  Permitting the current application will mean a total 25 occupants, exacerbating the already unreasonable intensity of use on the site.

The Statement provided for the amended Section 96 application indicates that the boarding house will accommodate a maximum of twenty (20) lodgers with a caretaker’s room. The plans indicate that there is only one bedroom for the caretaker.  It is anticipated that there will be no more than 2 people in this room.

 

A Plan of Management will address the manner in which the boarding house will be operated, in consideration of adjoining properties.

The electrical meter boxes to the side of the dwelling with large metal doors facing the street are not very attractive.

The electrical meters are a requirement of Energy Australia. It is not considered that the meter box and metal doors will detract from the overall design of the building nor will it greatly impact on the character of the street.

The framing for the attic dormer windows for the Carer’s Apartment has already been completed without consent of this Section 96 application.

The dormer windows formed part of the original consent.

 

KEY ISSUES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

Parking

Clause 29 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

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

 

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

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

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

 

The original development includes 9 boarding rooms, a care taker/manager room and within this application it is proposed to provide a new carer’s apartment resulting in the number of boarding rooms to be increased to 10 boarding rooms.

 

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

 

The parking requirement under the original application was calculated at a rate of:

 

Boarding Houses = 1 space per 10 bedrooms + 1 space for caretaker

 

Total provided = 2 spaces + 3 motorbike spaces + 3 bicycle spaces

 

The Requirement under the SEPP is as follows:

Boarding Houses = 0.2 parking space for each boarding room + 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site.

 

Parking required for Boarding House) = 10 boarding rooms x 0.2 results in a total requirement of 2 spaces.

 

Parking required for Care taker/managers room = 1 space

 

Parking provided = 2 tandem spaces

 

Parking Shortfall     = 1 space

 

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

 

As the number of boarding rooms is 10 this will require the provision of 2 bicycle and 2 motorcycle spaces.

 

The proposed development is over-compliant with these requirements and has provided 3 motorcycle spaces and 3 bicycle spaces.

 

The submitted plans indicate the provision of 2 tandem carspaces, which were approved in the original consent.

 

When calculated under the current SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 the parking rate for the proposed development will require an additional parking space making the on site parking requirement 3 car spaces.

 

The deficiency of one car space is considered acceptable on the following grounds:

 

§ The site is located within a highly accessible area being in close proximity to regular public transport route.

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

§ There is sufficient on-street parking in the surrounding streets to cater for the deficiency.

 

The proposed modification to allow for a carer’s room is not likely to generate a significant demand for car parking. This would be even less so, subject to a condition that the deletes access to the carer’s room and prohibiting the separate occupancy of the carer’s room when the accessible room is not being used by a disabled person.

 

Privacy

The proposed development would not result in unreasonable privacy impacts on any adjoining properties in that the amended plans show that the two existing dormer hopper windows to the Carer’s room will be of translucent glass and open downwards to prevent any overlooking impacts to the neighbouring properties.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:   A liveable city;

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal will provide for increased housing choice in a highly accessible location where there is convenient access to public transport and local services. 

 

The modified development will continue to satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

  

The modified development remains within the bounds of the objectives of the zone and satisfies the requirements set out by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure within State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed as being satisfactory with respect to the relevant provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Comprehensive DCP 2013. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the below additional recommended conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, modify the development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, for Development Application No. DA/632/2010/A at No. 7 Darley Road, Randwick, in the following manner:

 

A.      Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 03 stamped received by Council 4 November 2010 and 04a stamped received by Council 28 October 2010, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ amended plans numbered dwg no 03 and dwg no. 04, dated 8th October 2012 and received by Council on 23 July 2013 only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted in the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 applications except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

B.      Condition No. 5 is amended to read as follows:

Maximum occupancy

5.     The following maximums apply to the use of the premises:

 

a)     A maximum of nineteen (19) lodgers may be accommodated within the premises at any one time;

 

b)     No more than two (2) occupants shall be accommodated within each approved bedroom at any one time.

 

The above occupancy rates shall be enforced by the appointed Manager at all times. Any variation of the above occupancy rates shall be subject to Council approval.

 

C.      The following conditions are added:

The following conditions are applied to ensure proper operation and management of the premises:

83.     The separate stair access to the carer’s room must be deleted from the proposed development so that there is a shared access between the two levels of the accessible unit. The carer’s room must not be used as a separate occupancy if the accessible room is not occupied by a person with a disability.

 

84.     A manager / caretaker for the boarding house must be available at all times (i.e. 24 hours; seven (7) days per week) and must be a person over the age of 18 years.

 

85.     The manager shall ensure the following identification signage/notices are provided and maintained on the premises:

 

a)  A notice shall be placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public, advising of the manager’s name and 24 hour, seven (7) day contact number;

 

b)  Individual identification numbers shall be provided to each boarding room;

 

c)  Internal signage identifying house rules, rental terms, occupancy maximums, emergency contacts, fire safety/ emergency egress routes shall be provided to the internal common area.

 

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

 

87.     All residents in the boarding house accommodation are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to comply with the Plan of Management (PoM) for the boarding house, with the length of the lease to be determined by the management. 

 

Parking

88.     One of the approved off-street carspaces shall be dedicated for use by the carer’s/disabled room.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report for 7 Darley Street, Randwick (DA/632/2010/A)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 October 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D76/13

 

 

Subject:                  53 Rainbow Street, Kingsford (DA/43/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/43/2012/A

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 (AA) application to modify the Court approval by adding new loft areas to the building, relocating bicycle storage shed to the rear of the site, construction of new front boundary fence, removal of Jacaranda tree to the front of the building and changes to the waste bin storage area

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Day Bukh Architects

Owner:                         Mr P J Herald

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The Section 96 application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original application was determined by Council at its meeting of 14 August 2012. The development was approved by the Land and Environment Court on 8 March 2013 and comprises the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey 10 bed boarding house and associated works.

 

Proposal

 

The subject proposal is made pursuant to Section 96 AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify the Development Consent. The applicant’s SEE lists the proposed Section 96 modification as follows: 

 

 

Additionally, the proposed modification will provide for an office space at ground floor level to comply with Condition No 4A of the consent.

 

The proposed pop up loft areas will create an create an additional 9 sqm of floor area (each 4.5 sqm) making the proposed GFA of the development 270 sqm as compared to the 265 sqm in the existing approval (as calculated by the assessing officer in the original DA assessment report). Accordingly, the FSR will increase from the original 0.6:1 to 0.61:1.

 

In terms of building height, there will be an increase in building height of 0.825m (RL55.195) above the approved structure (max RL54.37), giving a maximum building height of approximately 8.3m over the structure enclosing the proposed loft spaces.

 

 

Figure 1: Elevation of proposed “pop-up” loft space.

 

Site

The site is described as Lot A in DP 325610, known as 53 Rainbow Street, Kingsford. The site is located on the southern side of Rainbow Street, roughly opposite Kennedy Street. The site slopes from the rear down to the Rainbow Street frontage, falling approximately three (3) metres from highest to lowest point. 

 

The site sits atop a ridge, elevated above the level of Rainbow Street and separated by a large retaining wall immediately on Rainbow Street. The subject site has frontage to the western periphery of the retaining wall, such that the western neighbour at 51 Rainbow Street has level access and a vehicular crossing to the street.  The retaining wall spans the frontage of the subject site and several neighbouring sites to the east.

 

Figure 1: Front of the subject site, as viewed from within the front setback.

Figure 2: Front setback of the subject site, looking toward Rainbow Street.

Figure 3: Retaining wall on the southern side of Rainbow Street.

Figure 4: Location of the subject site and western extent of the retaining wall fronting Rainbow Street.

Figure 5: Neighbouring development to the west of the subject site, along Rainbow Street. 

Figure 6: Neighbouring development to the west of the subject site, along Rainbow Street.

Figure 7: Development on the northern side of Rainbow Street within the Residential 2C zone.

Figure 8: Frontage of Rainbow Street, adjacent 51 Rainbow Street and location proposed for motorcycles to access the pedestrian path.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

51 Rainbow Street, Kingsford

55 Rainbow Street, Kingsford

38 Wallace Street, Kingsford (2 separate individual submissions)

110 Arden Street, Coogee

 

The issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

 

·      Installation of kitchenettes in units 6 and 9 makes the approved development no longer a boarding house

The objector on the adjoining rear site at No 38 Wallace Street raises a concern that the installation of “kitchenettes” in rooms 6 and 9 makes these rooms self contained apartments such that the proposal will not be substantially the same development as that approved. “Kitchenettes” in individual boarding rooms, such as that proposed for rooms 6 and 9, are not prohibited in boarding houses and does not automatically make boarding rooms self-contained apartments. Furthermore, the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 defines the gross floor area of each boarding room as “excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen (emphasis added) or bathroom facilities” so that the provision of private kitchens in boarding rooms is not  prohibited. In any event, the provision of kitchenettes in the manner proposed in the subject application (that is, as part of a bunk bed and loft configuration) is not supported.

 

·      Loss of sunlight

The objectors on the neighbouring rear properties at No 38 Wallace Street and 55 Rainbow Street have raised concerns regarding overshadowing. The objector at No 38 Wallace Street is located to the south east of the proposed development. While the proposed loft roof projections will result in increase overshadowing in the winter afternoon, this additional shadow will fall largely within the shadow of the approved development which will not fall on the objector’s property. As such, there will be no shadow impact on the objector’s property from the proposed roof loft. The shadow diagrams show a slight increase in overshadowing arising from the proposed new relocated bicycle shed at the rear in the winter afternoon. This additional shadow impact is considered reasonable and acceptable as it will fall over a small corner area (approx. 4 sqm) of No 38 Wallace Street relative to the larger rear yard of this property.

 

The objector at No 55 Rainbow Street is located on the southern adjoining site and this property comprises a single storey dwelling house. The objector’s property will be overshadowed by the proposed development in the winter afternoon. While the majority of the additional shadow generated by the proposed roof top addition will over lap the existing shadow of the approved development, there will be a section of increased overshadowing on the rear yard arising from the roof top addition to room 6. This additional overshadowing appears minor (approx 4 sqm) but the overall cumulative impact of overshadowing on the rear yard is considered unreasonable. that is, it adds further to the overshadowing already experienced from the approved development.

 


·      Loss of privacy

The objectors at No 38 Wallace Street (the neighbouring property to the south east) and No 51 Rainbow Street (the adjoining property to the west) have raised concerns regarding loss of privacy. The proposed loft space projections will not have any window openings facing external adjoining properties and, therefore, will not give rise to any additional privacy impacts on these properties.

 

The relocated bicycle shed is not expected to give rise to loss of privacy as it is a single storey structure for storage purposes with no windows and is not a habitable living area that would be conducive for overlooking.

 

·      Usage of building for boarding house raises concerns

All objectors have objected specifically to the use of the subject site for a boarding house and the perceived incompatibility of a boarding house development in their residential neighbourhood. Specifically, an objector in 110 Arden Street has objected to the perceived threat posed by transient boarders to children and other perceived anti-social behaviour. The construction and use of the subject site for a boarding was approved by the Land and Environment Court on 8 March 2013 following a Section 34 Conference on site. As such the specific use of the subject site for a boarding house is no longer a contention in the subject Section 96 application given also that the use is permissible in the applicable Residential R2 zone.

 

·      Visual bulk and scale

The objector at No 51 Rainbow Street has raised concerns regarding the height of the proposed development. The proposed loft levels will be higher than the 7m wall height applicable to dwelling houses and dual occupancies in the surrounding R2 residential zone under the Randwick DCP 2013. This exceedance results in a bulkier and higher building than the approved building. It will appear as visually intrusive and dominant when viewed from Rainbow Street. When viewed from the rear yards and living areas of the abutting south, western and eastern properties fronting Wallace Street and Rainbow Street, the visual bulk will be particularly exacerbated by the poor design and articulation of the loft roof forms.

 

·      Lack of car parking increases demand on street and results in increase traffic

All objectors have raised concerns regarding parking and traffic impacts. The proposal does not result in any increase in the size and/or number of boarding rooms to that approved. As such, the subject Section 96 proposal does not result in any additional increase in parking or traffic movements beyond those already assessed and approved under the original application. Accordingly, no further variation in parking or traffic is proposed under the Section 96 application. 

 

·      Area has a myriad of backpacker and boarding house developments

Boarding houses are a permissible use in the Residential R2 zone subject to development consent. The subject site has been approved for the construction and use of a boarding house by the Land and Environment Court on 8 March 2013 following a Section 34 Conference on site.

 

·      The removal of tree will not be replaced by a tree of similar maturity.

Following assessment of the arborist report submitted by the applicant in support of the removal of the existing Jacaranda tree at the front of the subject site, Council’s Landscape Officer advises that removal of the tree is warranted. A condition will be applied requiring the tree to be replaced with a suitable tree of comparable size.     

 


Key Issues

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009  

The proposed changes fail to satisfy the following clauses of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009: 

 

Clause 29 (1) (a) - the proposal will have an increase FSR of 0.61:1 representing a further increase over the non-compliant approved FSR of 0.6:1 compared with the maximum permissible 0.5:1 FSR in the Residential R2 zone. This additional FSR will be housed in pop-up loft roof structures that exacerbate the already bulky built form of the approved development resulting in an overall visually intrusive and dominant built form in the streetscape and locality.

 

Clause 30A - the proposal will be inconsistent with the character of the local area as required to be assessed under Clause 30A of the SEPP in that the proposed development will result in a visually intrusive and dominant built form in the locality especially considering that the southern side of Rainbow Street in which the subject site is located is predominantly single storey. The proposal to provide pop-up roofs to accommodate bunk beds in the proposed development will exacerbate the already dominant and intrusive built form of the approved development especially considering that the southern side of Rainbow Street in which the subject site is located is predominantly single occupancy dwellings of 1 and 2 storey scale. The proposed loft structures will be poorly integrated with the approved development and poorly designed such that the development will not be consistent with the character of development in the local area.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

C1     Low Density Residential

The provisions of the DCP in Part C1 for Low Density Residential development do not strictly apply to boarding house developments. However, as the proposal is located in a Residential R2 zone, it is considered reasonable and appropriate to use the provisions of Part C1 (Low Density Residential) to establish if the proposal meets the objectives and controls applicable to the predominant form of development in the zone.

 

Section 2.2 – Landscaping and Permeable surfaces

Section 2.2 of the Randwick DCP stipulates the following relevant control relating to landscaping:

 

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

 

The applicant has provided an arborist report prepared by Earthscape Horticultural Services, that indicates that the existing non-native tree (Jacaranda) at the front of the subject site will be detrimentally affected by the proposed development including a high level of encroachment into the existing tree zone from a number of approved structures (pedestrian pathways, bin enclosure and new stairs). Accordingly, retention of the tree is not considered feasible. Council’s landscape officer has assessed the arborist report and raises no objections to the removal of the tree subject to a condition requiring a suitable replacement native tree of equivalent size to be provided. As such, this control of the DCP condition will be met.

 

§ New development must incorporate a minimum of 1 canopy tree per allotment capable of reaching a mature height of at least 6m. For allotments with constrained dimensions or site conditions, a smaller tree with minimum mature height of 4m may be accepted. The above requirement may not apply if the existing mature tree/s of similar or larger size is proposed or required to be retained. Suitable soil depth and volume must be provided on the site to support the healthy, sustained growth of trees.

 

The arborist report contains a list of recommended trees for the replacement of the existing Jacaranda tree. Council’s landscape officer will include a condition recommending the installation of a suitable tree with a comparable canopy and commensurate with the soil depth and volume of the front landscape area to replace the existing tree. The installation of a suitable replacement tree will ensure that this control of the DCP is satisfied.

 

Section 3.2 - Building Height

Section 3.2 of the Randwick DCP stipulates a maximum external wall height control of 7m for dwelling houses. The proposal will have a maximum wall height of 8.3m which exceeds the control by 1.3m.

 

The objectives of the building height control provide the framework for assessment of the proposal especially as to whether it achieves the key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve in relation to this control. The proposal is assessed against the objectives of the building height controls (shown in bold below) as follows:

 

§ To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

The proposal will create an intrusive roof element that will be visible and prominent when viewed the Rainbow Street. Specifically, the subject site is located on an elevated location (see Figure 4 above) that exposes the overall built form to the street front.  Furthermore, the proposed height, combined with the overall design of the pop-up loft roof structures will not contribute to the character of the street because it will be incongruous in the existing streetscape.  

 

§ To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

The proposed loft roof structures will cause unreasonable impacts on neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, visual bulk and scale and visual amenity. Additionally, the pop-up loft roof appears as an arbitrary addition that fails to respect the architectural expression of the overall building and, in doing so, appears visually incongruous and intrusive in the streetscape.

 

§ To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.

The approved building does not contain any stepped element over the sloping site such that it can accommodate the increase in bulk and scale created by the pop-up loft roofs. Accordingly, the resultant form and massing of the proposed pop-up roof structures will be unsuited to the topography of the subject site.

 

Section 4.4 – Roof Design and Features

Section 4.4 of the DCP stipulates the following relevant control for roof design and features:

 

§ To ensure roof design integrates with the form, proportions and façade composition of the building.

The pop-up loft roofs appear as arbitrary additions that fail to respect the architectural expression of the overall building and, in doing so, appear visually incongruous and intrusive in the streetscape. The proposed pop-up roof potentially presents as half sized metal shed wedged into the existing roof in an ad hoc fashion.

 

Section 4.5 – Colours, Materials and Finishes

Section 4.5 of the DCP stipulates the following relevant control for colours, material and finishes:

 

§ To ensure colour and material schemes contribute to the articulation of the building and enhance the streetscape character.

The architectural drawings indicate that the proposed pop-up roof will comprise a “metal roof” with no details of the colours and finishes provided. The proposed loft structure will add further to the extensive metal roof finish in the approved built form to the extent that there will be a predominance of industrial-looking metal roofing contrary to the overall predominant pitched tiled roof or hidden flat roof character of existing residential development in the locality, especially on the southern side of Rainbow Street.

 

Section 5.1 – Solar access and Overshadowing

Section 5.1 of the Randwick DCP states the following relevant objective for solar access:

 

§ To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

The shadow diagrams lodged with the modification proposal indicates that there will be increased overshadowing of the rear yard of the adjoining eastern property at No 55 Rainbow Street. While the majority of the additional shadow generated by the proposed roof top addition will over lap the existing shadow of the approved development, there will be a section of increased overshadowing on the rear yard arising from the roof top addition to room 6. The overall cumulative impact of overshadowing on the rear yard is considered unreasonable in that it adds further to the overshadowing already generated by the approved development.

 

Figure 7: Shadow diagram for mid-winter afternoon indicating increased overshadowing of rear yard of 55 Rainbow Street arising from the proposed loft roof over room 6.

 

C4     Boarding Houses

 

Section 2. Building Design

Section 2 of the Part C4 (Boarding Houses) of the Randwick DCP states the following relevant objective for boarding rooms and communal spaces:

 

§ ensure boarding rooms and communal spaces are appropriately sized, located and equipped with suitable facilities

 

The loft spaces essentially comprise a high bunk bed accessible by a ladder and contained within a pop-up roof space with the only outlook available via a window looking into an adjoining roof. In this format, the proposal is not considered to be a habitable loft in the proper sense and is more akin to a bunk bed with a head room created by a protruding roof form. This bed arrangement is considered unacceptable and unreasonable and does not accord with the objective for the following reasons:

 

§ The proposal does not create an appropriately sized and proportioned boarding room because it utilises an unnecessarily, and excessively, high bunk bed that forces an equally excessive pop-up roof to solve a head room issue.

 

§ The proposal creates two boarding rooms with poor amenity in that it involves a poorly equipped boarding room by forcing future boarders to climb a 2.3m high ladder to access and get down from the bed.

 

§ The proposal creates potentially unsafe boarding rooms because access to and from the bunk beds by climbing a 2.3m high ladder creates trip hazards for future boarders especially considering that access during odd hours of the night will potentially require all-night lighting. In this regard, the applicant has provided a 3-D depiction of the space internally with an outlook during the day (Figure 8 below). This depiction is considered misleading and inappropriate in that the use of the bed will be predominantly for sleeping at night when the safety of occupants in climbing in and out of bed will be more challenging and demanding.

 

Figure 8: 3-D depiction of daytime use of an excessively high bunk bed

provided by the applicant.

 

The provision of an office adjacent to the ground floor communal room (as required by Condition No. 4A of the consent) will meet the relevant objective for boarding rooms and communal spaces

 

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 modification fails to satisfy the provisions of Clause 29(1)(a) and Clause 30A of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposed modification involving the creation of loft roofs to accommodate bunk beds fails to achieve a reasonable and acceptable design outcome as it will introduce a pop-up roof elements that do not integrate with the approved built form as required in the Randwick DCP; it would result in a dominant and visually intrusive built form when viewed from Rainbow Street and adjoining properties; it will not create safe and appropriately sized and equipped boarding rooms as required under the Randwick DCP; and it will result in detrimental loss of sunlight to the adjoining eastern property. This loft roof component of the application is not supported. However, the proposal to remove one existing tree at the street front is considered reasonable and acceptable and will not result in unacceptable impacts to the adjoining properties subject to a condition to require a suitable replacement tree. The proposal to relocate the bicycle storage; provide a bin enclosure and new front fence; and provide an office space in the ground floor are also considered acceptable and will not result in unacceptable impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

The proposed modification to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/43/2012 by relocating bicycle storage shed to the rear of the site, construction of new front boundary fence, removal of Jacaranda tree to the front of the building, provision of office space and changes to the waste bin storage area at 53 Rainbow Street, Kingsford, in the following manner:

 

A       Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Received

201C – Ground Floor Plan

C

Day Bukh Architects

8 February 2013

14 February 2013

202C -First Floor Plan

C

Day Bukh Architects

8 February 2013

14 February 2013

203C – Roof Plan

C

Day Bukh Architects

8 February 2013

14 February 2013

205C – Streetscape elevation

C

Day Bukh Architects

8 February 2013

14 February 2013

350C – North & South elevation

C

Day Bukh Architects

8 February 2013

14 February 2013

351C – West elevation

C

Day Bukh Architects

8 February 2013

14 February 2013

352C – East elevation

C

Day Bukh Architects

8 February 2013

14 February 2013

400C – Section A:A

C

Day Bukh Architects

8 February 2013

14 February 2013

401C – Section B:B & Section C:C

C

Day Bukh Architects

8 February 2013

14 February 2013

 

only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, and as amended by the Section 96 “A” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Received

201D – Ground Floor Plan

D

Day Bukh Architects

24 June 2013

17 July 2013

202D -First Floor Plan

D

Day Bukh Architects

24 June 2013

17 July 2013

351D – West elevation

D

Day Bukh Architects

24 June 2013

17 July 2013

352D – East elevation

D

Day Bukh Architects

24 June 2013

17 July 2013

 

except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

B       Add Condition No. 98 as follows:

98.    All loft structures shall be deleted from the Section 96 “A” plans referred to in Condition No. 1

 

C       Delete Conditions Nos.  9, 10, 11 and 61  

 

D        Amend Condition No. 40 d) to read as follows:

d)  1 x 100 litre (pot/bag size at the time of planting) feature tree (not a palm) in deep soil within the front setback, a minimum distance of 2.5m from any part of the proposed building, selecting a species from the list shown at point 11.1.3, Recommendations, of the Development Impact Assessment Report by Earthscape Horticultural Services dated June 2013.

       

E        Amend Condition No. 62 to read as follows:

Tree Removal

62.    No objections are raised to removing the smaller vegetation throughout the site, including the Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) in the front yard, along the eastern boundary, the Plumeria acutifolia (Frangipani) on the western side, those shrubs in the rear yard, as well as the more established Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) located centrally in the front setback, all so as to accommodate the works as shown.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 53 Rainbow Street, Kingsford

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 October 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D77/13

 

 

Subject:                  2-6 Goodwood Street, Kensington  (DA/195/2012/B)

Folder No:                   DA/195/2012/B

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Senior Environmental Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification to the approved development by alteration to condition 101 which required undergrounding of power to allow for aerial bundling of power lines

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Goodwood Street Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Kensington RSL Sub Branch

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary report

 

Proposal

 

The subject Section 96(1A) modification application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as it seeks the modification of a condition requiring the removal of power poles and undergrounding of power cables contrary to Council policy.

 

The original application detailed the demolition of the existing structures on the site including 2 x semi-detached dwellings at Nos. 4 and 6 Goodwood Street and the Kensington War Memorial Club and adjoining car parking area fronting Ascot Street at No. 2 Goodwood Street and construction of a part 3, part 5 level mixed use development comprising of 3 separate buildings in the form of 3 distinct building forms. The original application was approved at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2012.

 

The application seeks consent to modify condition 101 of Development Consent 195/2012 which required overhead power lines and telecommunication cables being relocated under ground. It is proposed to aerial bundle the cables adjacent to the relevant frontages instead of relocating them underground.

 

Therefore, it is necessary to amend Condition No. 101 to read as follows: -

 

101          The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located along the Goodwood Street and Ascot Street site frontages to be bundled  The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be bundled. All cables must be bundled to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

The Subject Site

 

The site, known as 2 Goodwood Street, has a frontage to Goodwood Street (north) and Ascot Street (south). The site is located between Anzac Parade to the west and Doncaster Road to the east. Kokoda Park is immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary.

 

The applicant’s consultant engineer has confirmed that six power poles would be required for removal from the Goodwood and Ascot Street frontages. Their locations are shown in the figure below, with each power pole denoted by a white dot.

 

 

Community Consultation

 

Given that the application is made under Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which relates to modifications which have minimal environmental impact, formal notification of the proposal is not necessary under Council’s Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals.  

Key Issues

 

In support of their application the applicant has noted that the installation of sub terrain cables and wires is an extremely costly exercise which may prevent the development from proceeding. The applicant also notes that they are willing to bundle the overhead power lines in order to tidy up the appearance of the power lines improving the overall appearance.

 

The applicant has provided an assessment from Wilken Service Pty Ltd, Electrical Engineering and Contracting, that the associated cost of works to comply with Condition 101 would be in excess of $ 450, 000, excluding GST, and not including costs associated with the relocation of the Optus Network cabling. The cost for undergrounding of the power lines represents 4.24% of the total development cost, which is an additional cost that significantly exceeds the applicable 1% Section 94A contribution of $116,729. 

 

It is also noted that the policy for undergrounding cables was constrained by the judgement of Commissioner C Brown of the case of Kain Projects Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council (2009) NSWLEC 1407 which identified a number of inadequacies in the policy and the questionable benefits of placing cables underground where existing overhead cabling in the surrounding area is likely to remain. Therefore the Court has held that this policy is not a satisfactory basis to impose such a condition.

 

Having regard to the applicant’s arguments and the intent of Council’s policy it is considered unreasonable for Council to require the undergrounding of existing power lines when a reasonable alternative can be provided by aerial bundling of the relevant frontages of the site.

 

The aerial bundling of cables will provide a more practical measure than undergrounding of power given the cost of insulating wires are significantly less, will improve the visual appearance by reducing the number of overhead wires and reduces the potential safety hazard of overhead uninsulated wires.

 

Consequently, in this instance it would be unreasonable for Council to request that the applicant underground existing power lines and it is recommended that Council support the amendment to condition 101 to provide aerial bundled cables.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 12:     Excellence in urban design and development – The proposal has a good architectural quality in that it maximises the potential of the subject site whilst minimising impacts on adjoining and nearby residential properties.

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development – The proposal will achieve a good design in conjunction with a significant sustainable outcome for the proposed development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not alter the form and nature of the approved development. Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modification of condition No. 101 is considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Approval of the modification will not result in any significant environmental impact and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development. It is therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, modify the development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/195/2012/B for 2-6 Goodwood Street, Kensington as follows:

 

Amend Condition No. 101 to read: 

101   The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located along the Goodwood Street and Ascot Street site frontages to be bundled  The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be bundled. All cables must be bundled to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report  2 - 6 Goodwood Street, Kensington

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 October 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D78/13

 

 

Subject:                  49- 59 Boronia Street, Kensington (DA/673/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/673/2012/A

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Senior Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                     Modification of the approved development including addition of roof top terraces, air conditioning units & planter beds to units 003 & 004, external alterations including alteration to approved terraces & decks, alter north & western fire stairs, alter roof parapets, extend blade walls, increase lift core, alter exterior walls resulting in alteration to internal floor space, internal alterations to basement and internal re-planning of various units

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                C Johnston

Owner:                         William Street Developments Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval, subject to conditions

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

1.         Proposal

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application (DA/673/2012) was approved at the Planning Committee Meeting of 9 April 2013.

 

The original application was approved for demolition of existing buildings and construction of part four (4), part five (5) storey multi-unit residential building with 44 units and one and a half levels of basement car parking for 53 vehicles and associated work (SEPP1 Objection to floor space ratio, wall height and maximum height controls)(Heritage Item).

 

The subject application now seeks to make miscellaneous modifications to the original development consent of DA/673/2012, in the following manner:

 

Amendment location

Proposed amendment

General

 

 

·      Relocate approved northern fire stair externally along the northern boundary, reducing northern setback.

 

Basement

 

 

·      Reallocate four (4) of 11 approved visitor parking spaces  for exclusive use of individual apartments;

·      Increase lift core size to accommodate a basement exhaust;

 

Lower ground

 

 

·      Internal replanning of apartments 001 and 006;

·      Addition of raised garden beds to apartments 003 and 004, toward the eastern boundary;

·      Increase in size of east facing terraces to all lower ground floor apartments.

 

Ground floor

 

 

·      Increase in area of apartments 006 and 007, removing splayed elements and rationalising glass line, reducing northern setback and increasing area of apartments;

·      Increase in area of balcony to apartments 016 and 017;

·      Increase size of balconies to apartments 010 through 014 and provide BBQ facility, decreasing planter size;

·      Decrease southern setback approximately 200mm, increasing internal size of apartment 015;

·      Extend blade wall separating apartments 016 and 017 for privacy;

·      Increase height of central courtyard by 200mm to accommodate green roof.

 

First floor

 

 

·      Increase area of apartments 018, 021 and 028;

·      Increase size of balconies to apartments 018 and 028;

·      Decrease southern setback approximately 200mm, increasing internal size of apartment 027.

·      Extend blade wall separating apartments 028 and 029 for privacy.

 

Second floor

 

 

·      Increase area of apartments 030, 031 and 039;

·      Increase size of balconies to apartments 030 and 039;

·      Internal replanning of apartment 038;

·      Increase in size of southern deck associated with apartment 038 over approved non-trafficable roof and add pergola above;

·      Extend blade wall separating apartments 039 and 040 for privacy.

 

Third floor

 

 

·      Increase area of apartments 041 and 044;

·      Increase size of balcony to apartment 041;

·      Internal replanning of apartment 038 and increase size of southern deck over approved non-trafficable roof;

·      Addition of an AC enclosure to the southern roof component;

·      Add 300mm in height to roof to accommodate green roof.

 

Roof level

 

 

·      Add five (5) roof terraces associated with apartments 034 to 038 and including fireplaces, BBQ facilities, planter, bathroom and privacy screens;

·      Addition of AC enclosures to the northern and central roof components;

·      Increase in roof height of 200mm to accommodate services and rooftop planting.

 

 

The application was amended on 23 September 2013. Amendments related to rooftop structures, inclusive of increased setback from Boronia Street and reduction in bulk.

 

The revised design of 23 September 2013 forms the subject of this assessment.

 

2.         Site context

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Boronia Street, close to the intersection of Boronia Street and Balfour Lane. The parcel is of regular shape and the following dimensions:

 

Boundary

Length

Site area

Western, Boronia Street boundary

60.96m

1913m2

Northern, side boundary

31.75m

Eastern, rear boundary

60.96m

Southern, side boundary

30.48m

 

Topographically, the site falls sharply in both easterly and south-easterly directions. An 8.5 metre level difference occurs between the north-west and south-east corners of the site. A 4.5 metre level difference occurs from the north to south ends of the Boronia Street frontage.

 

The subject site is presently made up of six (6) Torrens Title allotments of east –west orientation and described as follows:

 

 

Address

Lot & DP

49 Boronia Street, Kensington

Lot 1, DP 538834

51 Boronia Street, Kensington

Lot 2, DP 538834

53 Boronia Street, Kensington

Lot A, DP 178079

55 Boronia Street, Kensington

Lot 15, DP 658559

57 Boronia Street, Kensington

Lot 1, DP 179158

59 Boronia Street, Kensington

Lot D, DP 103635

 

Four (4) vacant buildings are currently accommodated within the site. All those structures existing on the site are vacant and appear in an advanced state of dilapidation.

 

Both the eastern and western sides of Boronia Street are characterised by medium density multi-unit development, generally of between three (3) and four (4) stories in scale. Adjoining the site to the north and south are flat buildings of part three (3), part four (4) stories.

 

Figure 1: The subject site on the eastern side of Boronia Street.

Figure 2: Existing development opposite the subject site, on the western side of Boronia Street.

 

The rear, eastern boundary of the subject site is shared with the commercial development ‘Peter’s of Kensington’ and a vacant block, both with frontage to Anzac Parade. Peter’s of Kensington presents a three (3) storey blank elevation to the subject site, with no openings. To the south-east exists two (2) storey commercial development, also with frontage to Anzac Parade.

 

Figure 3: Peter’s of Kensington, as viewed from the east on Anzac Parade. The site is visible left of frame.

Figure 4: The rear elevation of Peter’s of Kensington and the rear boundary of the subject site.

 

The subject site is zoned Residential 2C under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and R3 Medium Density Residential, under RLEP 2012. Adjoining to the east, in the present location of ‘Peter’s of Kensington’, is the Kensington Town Centre zone which allows for high density development with frontage to anzac Parade.

 

The existing building on the site at 49-51 Boronia Street is recognised as a locally significant heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The remainder of the site is not recognised as having any heritage significance within the provisions within RLEP 1998 or RLEP 2012.

 

3.         Community consultation

 

The application was notified from 17 July and 31 July 2013 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

The revised scheme of 23 September 2013 was not required to be re-notified, given a reduction in impact from that originally notified.

 

4.         Assessment against key criteria of RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013

 

The subject site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is permissible with consent of Council.

 

RLEP 2012 - Floor space ratio controls

RLEP 2012 adopts an FSR of 0.9:1 to the subject site. The subject application proposes to increase the approved floor space of 1.23: 1, to approximately 1.31:1. An objection under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 is not necessary in respect of Section 96 of the Act.

 

The additional floor space is located arbitrarily across the site providing small increases in floor space to individual apartments and amenities at roof level in the interest of internal amenity. The additional floor space has been appropriately designed to be compatible with the approved scheme, the streetscape and minimises any resulting environmental impacts upon surrounds. The proposed building bulk supports an intensity of use that is reasonable in the context of this site and considers adjoining amenity.

 

Despite the variation proposed, the scheme is consistent with the objectives of the floor space standard.

 

RLEP 2012 – Height controls

RLEP 2012 adopts a height of 12 metres to the subject site. The subject application proposes to increase the approved maximum height of 16.2 metres, to 17.5 metres. An objection under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 is not necessary in respect of Section 96 of the Act.

 

The height variations proposed occur to the top of the proposed rooftop terraces and associated structures. These structures are proposed with substantial setback from both the streetscape and shared boundaries, avoiding implications of bulk and scale, shadow and privacy.

 

The maximum extent of height occurs as a result of the fall of the land and as such variations are localised. The maximum extent of height occurs centrally within the site and is not visible from the streetscape or adjoining sites.

 

Despite the variation proposed the scheme is consistent with the objectives of the height standard. The proposed height is acceptable with regard to adjoining sites, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

Figure 1: Approved Boronia Street streetscape elevation.

Figure 2: Proposed Boronia Street streetscape elevation.

Figure 3: A montage of the proposed building as viewed from Boronia Street, with roof terraces above, as originally lodged.

 

Rooftop terraces and structures

Section 4.2 of the DCP provides guidance where roof decks are being integrated into roof design. This section of the DCP identifies decks should only be considered where:

 

-   There are no direct sightlines to adjoining residences.

-   The size and location of decks will not result in unreasonable noise impacts.

-   Stairways and associated roofs do not detract from the architectural character of the building, and are positioned to minimise any views from the street.

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

 

The application proposes the addition of five (5) rooftop terraces for the private use of apartments directly below. The terraces have trafficable area of roughly 15 square metres and are inclusive of toilet and barbeque facilities, fireplace, privacy screening and a stair overrun providing access from associated apartments below. A planter is included along the western extent in effort to screen the structures from the west.

 

A preliminary assessment of the application raised concern in relation to the roof terraces, specifically the likelihood of increased bulk and scale eventuating in the perception of an additional storey when viewed from Boronia Street. Associated implications of privacy and shadow were also raised.

 

In response to these issues, the amended scheme of 23 September 2013 concentrates the majority of additional bulk and height centrally within the roof plan, allowing substantial setback from Boronia Street and adjoining properties.

 

 

 

Figure 4: The amended roof top plan submitted 23 September 2013. The five (5) private terraces proposed are highlighted red, with landscaped planters highlighted green.

 

The proposed rooftop terraces and associated structures are acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      Substantial setback afforded to structures on the roof allows that any perceived bulk is significantly recessed and will not be discernable from within the streetscape or adjoining sites to the north and south;

·      Planter boxes line the western extent of the terraces, softening the rooftop structures from any bulk that may be perceived to the west. Planters will not support vegetation that can achieve substantial height, given minimal available soil depth;

·      Generous setbacks will prevent view lines to private spaces to the north and south. Sites to the west are separated by the width of Boronia Street, indicating minimal visual privacy issues eventuate;

·      The modest trafficable extent and private nature of the terraces indicates use as an intensive entertainment deck is remote and risk of unreasonable acoustic issues is minimal;

·      Additional shadow impact upon the southern neighbour is avoided with minimal height of rooftop structures and southern setback of over 13 metres;

·      The proposed rooftop spaces will be of substantial internal amenity benefit to occupants, delivering additional open space with unrestricted solar access.

 

The design of proposed structures at roof level has been appropriately considered in respect of likely implications of bulk, shadow and privacy upon adjoining sites and the streetscape. The proposed terraces are considered to eventuate in minimal detrimental impact to surrounds and satisfy the provisions of Section 4.2 of the DCP. The terraces carry satisfactory design merit and as such, this component of the proposal is considered acceptable.

 

Amendment of balcony sizes and glass lines

Section 5.3 of the DCP provides guidance for visual privacy. This section of the DCP identifies orientation of windows and balconies should minimise overlooking of adjoining dwellings, particularly on side elevations.

 

Various amendments are proposed across the approved building that will see changes to the circumstances of north and south facing openings and balconies.

 

Of the amendments sought, the majority are relatively minor, involving straightening of glass lines and balcony edges. Most will not substantially change the privacy relationship internally within the building or to adjoining sites.

 

The following elements require further discussion in respect of the amendments:

 

Changes to glass lines and balconies at ground floor level, associated with apartments 007 and 008:

 

Both glass lines and balconies associated with apartments 007 and 008 are shown to be squared off in order to simplify façade detail, thereby increasing the trafficable extent of the balcony toward the northern boundary.

 

The subject balconies are separated from the northern neighbour by a 2500mm wide strip of landscaping under the original approval, running the length of the northern side boundary and accommodating plantings that will achieve up to eight (8) metres in height at maturity. The amendments to apartments 007 and 008 are considered to eventuate in an acceptable privacy outcome given sufficient screening and separation distance.

 

Amendments to south elevation balconies associated with apartment 038 at both second and third floor level:

 

Two (2) south facing balconies associated with apartment 038, located at both second and third floor level, are proposed to be increased in size above an approved non-trafficable roof.

 

The increase in balcony size at second floor level poses privacy implication to the windows of the southern neighbour at 59A Boronia Street. A pergola structure above the second floor balcony is also proposed that has some solar access implications for the southern neighbour.

 

It is noted the original approval of DA/673/2012 featured a balcony in this location. The approved balcony was setback roughly 7.5 metres from the side boundary with 4.6 metres trafficable area and benefitted from a blade wall lining it’s southern aspect for privacy.

 

The amended balcony is proposed with setback of 4.5 metres to the southern boundary and trafficable area of roughly 18 square metres. The introduction of privacy screening on the southern aspect would have direct shadow implications for the southern neighbour and as such the elevation is unscreened, allowing view lines to habitable spaces of 59A Boronia Street.

The subject second floor balcony is of sufficient privacy concern to the windows of 59A Boronia Street to warrant deletion. Apartment 038 is provided with four (4) private balconies aside from that concerned. As such, the deletion of the proposed balcony extension, retaining a smaller structure as approved previously, is not of significant implication to internal amenity of the dwelling. In the absence of the proposed balcony, the pergola above is unnecessary and poses shadow impact to the south. A suitable condition has been recommended to delete both balcony and pergola extensions at second floor level.

 

The third floor balcony is sited 8.5 metres off the shared boundary and has a separation distance of 11 metres from the windows of 59A Boronia Street. Given substantial separation distance, this deck is not considered to eventuate in unreasonable privacy impacts and as such is supported in its amended form.

 

The amendments have been considered in respect of the planning controls and likely privacy implications. Most modifications are minor and do not necessitate further privacy measures. Subject to conditions, the proposal satisfies the provisions of Section 5.3 of the DCP, in respect of visual privacy.

 

Landscaping amendments

Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the DCP provide guidance for provision of landscaping, deep soil and communal open space in medium density development. Accordingly, 50% of site area should be landscaped, 25% of site area available for deep soil planting and sufficient communal space provided for residents.

 

Miscellaneous amendments are proposed to the approved landscaped area across the site. Amendments include increases in the size of landscaped courtyards at lower ground floor level and reallocating former communal open space along the eastern boundary for the use of individual units.

 

The proposed landscaping arrangements do not significantly reduce the extent of landscaped area or deep soil on the site, generally satisfying the minimum requirements of the DCP. The amendments are considered to eventuate in a preferable landscaping and open space outcome through making more effective use of the approved landscaped spaces. Sufficient communal space is retained in the central courtyard of the site.

 

Council’s Landscape Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and advised the amendments to the landscape plan are acceptable. The Engineer’s comments are detailed within the Compliance Report, provided in attachment.

 

Parking allocation amendments

Section B7 of the DCP provides minimum parking rates for residential development. A visitor parking rate of 1 space per 4 units applies to the development, as reflected in the original approval, providing 11 visitor spaces.

 

The current proposal is inclusive of reallocating four (4) approved visitor parking spaces within the basement, for the private use of individual apartments. Seven (7) approved visitor spaces are proposed to remain as allocated to visitor parking.

 

In this respect, the application seeks endorsement for a four (4) space shortfall in necessary visitor parking defined within the DCP. It is noted the application does not seek to reduce the number of parking spaces provided to the development from the 53 approved spaces, only amending their means of allocation.

 

The subject site is highly accessible, being located metres from Anzac Parade, a well serviced transport corridor providing regular south and city-bound bus services. Light rail is also mooted for Anzac Parade, likely inclusive of a station in close proximity to the subject site.

 

Given the subject spaces are proposed to remain for the exclusive use of occupants of the building and in light of the high level of accessibility afforded to the site, the proposed parking reallocation is considered acceptable in this instance.

 

Council’s Development Engineer’s have also commented on the proposed parking arrangement, raising no objections. The Development Engineer’s comments are detailed in the Compliance Report provided in attachment.

 

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 proposal entails a number of modifications and when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts, eventuates in a positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

In view of the issues discussed above, the proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to the intent of the planning controls and the specific context of the site. The application is recommended for approval, subject to the below recommended conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

        That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development consent No. DA/673/2012/A for including addition of roof top terraces, air conditioning units & planter beds to units 003 & 004, external alterations including alteration to approved terraces & decks, alter north & western fire stairs, alter roof parapets, extend blade walls, increase lift core, alter exterior walls resulting in alteration to internal floor space, internal alterations to basement and internal replanning of various units, at No. 49-59 Boronia Street, Kensington, in the following manner:

 

§   Amend Condition 1 as follows:

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA0.02

B

Fox Johnston

16 January 2013

17 January 2013

DA1.00

DA1.01

DA1.02

DA1.03

DA1.04

DA1.05

DA1.06

DA2.01

DA2.02

DA2.03

C

5 February 2013

5 February 2013

DA2.04

B

16 January 2013

17 January 2013

DA2.05

A

5 February 2013

5 February 2013

DA2.06

LAN-DA-01

D

360’

16 January 2013

17 January 2013

LAN-DA-02

LAN-DA-03

C

LAN-DA-04

Sample Board:

(49-59 Boronia Street, Kensington)

Fox Johnston

Not dated

18 October 2012

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Multi Dwelling

451781M

17 October 2012

 

and as amended by the Section 96 plans only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions:

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA0.02

D

Fox Johnston

16 September 2013

23 September 2013

DA1.00

DA1.01

DA1.02

DA1.03

DA1.04

DA1.05

DA1.06

DA1.07

B

DA2.01

D

DA2.02

DA2.03

E

DA2.04

D

DA2.05

DA2.06

LAN-S96-01

B

360’

12 June 2013

2 July 2013

LAN-S96-02

LAN-S96-03

LAN-S96-04

 

Non standard conditions

 

§   Add the following detail to condition 1

1a)     In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a relevant BASIX Certificate and associated documentation must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application for the application, as amended.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate are to be included on the plans, specifications and associated documentation for the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

§   Add the following detail to Condition No. 2

2c)     The south elevation balcony and pergola at second floor level, associated with apartment 038 and shown on Plan DA04 Rev D, shall be deleted. The balcony shall not exceed the approved trafficable footprint of DA/673/2012, as identified in red on the approved plans.

 

A fixed privacy screen of minimum 1600mm in height above finished floor level shall be provided to the south aspect.

 

Where louvres are being used for obscuring treatment, a minimum of 75% of the required obscured area shall remain obstructed at all times through spacing and fixing of the louvres.

 

§   Delete condition 48.

Landscaping

48.     Landscaping at this site shall be installed in accordance with the Lower Ground Floor, Ground Floor, Rooftop, Plant Images & Schedule Plans by 360 Degrees Landscape Architects, dwg LAN-DAN-01 – 04, sheets 1-4, issue D, dated 16/01/13.

 

§   Amend Condition 69 as follows:

69.     Prior to issuing a Final (or any type of interim) Occupation Certificate, written certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry (must be a registered member of AILDM or AILA) shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming that landscaping at this site has been installed substantially in accordance with the Amended Landscape Plans by 360 Degrees, dwg LAN-S96-01 – 05, revision B, dated 12/06/13, and relevant conditions of consent, with the owner/s to implement strategies to ensure that it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 49-59 Boronia Street, Kensington (DA/673/2012/A)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 October 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D79/13

 

 

Subject:                  49-59 Boronia Street, Kensington (DA/673/2012/C)

Folder No:                   DA/673/2012/C

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 application seeking the modification of a condition requiring the undergrounding of power cables

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                William Street Developments Pty Ltd

Owner:                         William Street Developments Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

Proposal

 

The subject Section 96 (1A) modification application is referred to Council for determination as it seeks the modification of a condition requiring the undergrounding of power cables, which is contrary to Council policy. In addition, the original application was determined at the Planning Committee meeting on the 9th April 2013.

 

The original application comprise the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey multi unit residential building with 44 dwellings and on and a half levels of basement parking for 53 vehicles and associated works.

 

The application seeks consent to modify condition 72 of Development Consent to allow for aerial bundling the cables instead of placing them underground.

 

Community Consultation

 

Given that the application is made under Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which relates to modifications which have minimal environmental impact, formal notification of the proposal is not necessary under Council’s Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals.  

Key Issues

 

The policy for replacing overhead wires with underground cables was adopted at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on the 8th November 2005. The policy requires that 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.

 

Condition 72 currently reads:

 

72    The applicant shall meet the full cost of the overhead power lines located along the Boronia Street site frontage to be relocated underground. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organize for the wires to be relocated. All wires and cables must be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

In support of their application the applicant has noted that the installation of sub terrain cables and wires is an extremely costly exercise which may prevent the development from proceeding. The applicant also notes that they are willing to bundle the overhead power lines in order to tidy up the appearance of the power lines improving the overall appearance.

 

The applicant has provided an assessment from Wilken Service Pty Ltd, Electrical Engineering and Contracting, that the associated cost of works to comply with Condition 72 would be in excess of $ 315 500, excluding GST, and not including costs associated with the relocation of the Optus Network cabling.

 

The cost for undergrounding of the power lines represents 4.19% of the total development cost, which is an additional cost that significantly exceeds the applicable 1% Section 94A contribution of $75 229.77. 

It is also noted that the policy for undergrounding cables was constrained by the judgement of Commissioner C Brown of the case of Kain Projects Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council (2009) NSWLEC 1407 which identified a number of inadequacies in the policy and the questionable benefits of placing cables underground where existing overhead cabling in the surrounding area is likely to remain. Therefore the Court has held that this policy is not a satisfactory basis to impose such a condition.

 

Having regard to the applicant’s arguments and the intent of Council’s policy it is considered unreasonable for Council to require the undergrounding of existing power lines when a reasonable alternative can be provided by aerial bundling of the relevant frontages of the site.

 

The aerial bundling of cables will provide a more practical measure than undergrounding of power given the cost of insulating wires are significantly less, will improve the visual appearance by reducing the number of overhead wires and reduces the potential safety hazard of overhead uninsulated wires.

 

Consequently, in this instance it would be unreasonable for Council to request that the applicant underground existing power lines and it is recommended that Council support the amendment to condition 72 to provide aerial bundled cables.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 12:     Excellence in urban design and development – The proposal has a good architectural quality in that it maximises the potential of the subject site whilst minimising impacts on adjoining and nearby residential properties.

 

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development – The proposal will achieve a good design in conjunction with a significant sustainable outcome for the proposed development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not alter the form and nature of the approved development. Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modification of condition No. 72 is considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Approval of the modification will not result in any significant environmental impact and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development. It is therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, modify the development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, for Development Application No. DA/673/2012/C for 49-59 Boronia Street, Kensington in the following manner:

Amend Condition No. 72 to read: 

72    The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located along the Boronia Street site frontage to be bundled  The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be bundled. All cables must be bundled to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report 49 - 59 Boronia Street, Kensington

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER