Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 12 November 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                                                                                        12 November 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, 12 November 2013 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

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 - 8 October 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.

D90/13      35 Denning Street, South Coogee (DA/585/2013)...................................... 1

D91/13      47 Denning Street, Coogee (DA/253/2006/A)............................................ 9

D92/13      1 Fleming Street & 30-36 Harvey Street,  Little Bay (DA/1113/2010/E)........ 17

D93/13      10 Frenchmans Road, Randwick (DA/740/2006/A).................................... 23

D94/13      32-34 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/725/2012) ............................................. 27

D95/13      211-213 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/744/2012/C)................................ 63

D96/13      3 Park Avenue, Randwick (DA/472/2013)................................................ 67

D97/13      123-129 Dolphin Street, Coogee (DA/169/2011/A)................................... 71

D98/13      150 -156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington (DA/656/2012/B)............................. 81

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil   

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                        12 November 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D90/13

 

 

Subject:                  35 Denning Street, South Coogee (DA/585/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/585/2013

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                     Reconstruct a portion of the existing southern retaining wall and construct a new timber paling fence above

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                L Ozog

Owner:                         Mrs C Wang & Mr X P Shi

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 and assessed by an external planning Consultant as the applicant indicated that they have a close personal relationship with a Council Officer.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed works involve:

 

·      demolition and re-building of the top 1m portion of the existing southern retaining wall and timber fence atop;

·      removal of tree stumps, soil and pathway adjacent to the retaining wall on the site; and

·      backfilling and construction of a new entry pathway.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Denning Street, between Wisdom Street to the south and Bloomfield Street to the north.

 

The site contains an existing part 1 and 2 storey brick dwelling house with a double garage at the front. The site slopes down from the front street boundary to the rear boundary (west to east) and from its northern side to the southern boundary resulting in a significant level change to the adjoining property to the south at No. 37 Denning Street.

 

The brick retaining wall the subject of this application is located within the boundary of No. 35 along the southern side of the dwelling house. The retaining wall is setback about 6m from the front (street) boundary and extends for about 14m (Refer to Figure 1).

 

Figure 1 – Aerial View showing the location of the subject retaining wall in yellow

There is a pathway and landscape strip on the site which adjoins the retaining wall.

 

The landscape strip contains the stumps of large trees which over time have applied pressure to the retaining wall resulting in bowing and compromised its structural integrity.

 

When viewed from the adjoining property at No. 37 Denning Street the retaining wall is up to 2.6m and forms the southern wall of a storage room on the subject site (refer to Figure 2 below).

 

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 two submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

37 Denning Street, South Coogee

The adjoining landowner at No. 37 Denning Street is directly affected by the proposal and has lodged a submission in response to the application. The submission supports the reconstruction of the wall in accordance with sound structural engineering methods and subject to specific requirements being met as follows:

 

·      Request that Council impose appropriate structural conditions.

·      At least half the height of the wall (i.e. 1.3m) should be re-constructed and not 1m as recommended by the applicant’s engineer.

·      The length of the wall to be rebuilt should be identified.

·      The re-construction of the wall should be supervised by a structural engineer and not a builder.

·      The wall should not encroach the property at No. 37 as originally built.

·      A detailed specification for repair work should be imposed as a condition.

·      The existing bricks should not be reused in the re-construction of the wall.

·      Question is raised as to whether the reconstruction complies with current building codes and there may be a need for piling or reinforced concrete or brick piers.

·      The reconstructed wall should be structurally tied to the new pathway.

·      The structural report should consider the structural integrity and waterproofing measures for the adjoining sidewall of the storage room on the site.

·      Details in relation to the form of support required during excavation should be provided.

·      The re-construction should be accompanied by a detailed structural engineering design and specification prepared by a suitably qualified structural engineer and not a building certifier or builder employed by the owner at No. 35.

 

39 Denning Street, South Coogee

The adjoining landowner at No. 39 Denning Street also supports the re-construction of the wall and raised the following points:

 

·      The proposal to repair the wall by qualified builders and engineers is supported; and

·      The proposal should be dealt with quickly by Council and well considered by Council engineers.

 

Key Issues

 

The condition of the retaining wall has resulted in a potentially unsafe environment particularly for the occupants of the adjoining property to the south at No. 37 Denning Street.  The landowner at No. 37 Denning Street has undertaken temporary reinforcement works at their own expense to protect their property and its occupants (refer to Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Subject retaining wall and temporary reinforcement works

 

The applicant submitted an engineering report, prepared by a qualified structural engineer with the development application. The adjoining landowner at No. 37 Denning Street also submitted their own engineering advice with their submission to Council.

 

The engineering advice obtained by the landowner at No. 37 is at odds with the applicant’s engineering advice in relation to the existing condition of the wall and the extent of wall to be re-constructed. The applicant’s engineer recommends 1m of the wall be re-constructed whereas the neighbour’s engineer recommends at least half the height of the wall be re-constructed being 1.3m.

 

The applicant’s engineer has reviewed their recommendation in light of the neighbour’s engineering advice and modified the extent of re-construction to 1.3m. A revised engineering report dated 14 October 2013 has now been submitted to Council.

 

A key concern also raised by the adjoining neighbour is whether the re-construction of the wall will be undertaken under the supervision of a qualified structural engineer. The applicant has agreed to the imposition of a condition to that effect. A condition is therefore recommended which requires a suitably qualified engineer to oversee and certify the building works to ensure they are completed in a professional manner. The other specific requirements raised by the adjoining landowner have also been addressed in the recommended conditions of consent.

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 to re-construct the wall is supported by the adjoining landowner at No. 37 Denning Street, subject to the details of the re-construction being provided and the works being overseen and certified by a suitably qualified structural engineer.

 

It is considered that the specific requirements requested by the adjoining landowner at No. 37 Denning Street are reasonable. The applicant also reviewed the concerns raised by the adjoining landowner and agreed with the extent of re-construction of the wall and the requirement for the building works to be supervised and certified by a suitably qualified structural engineer.  These requirements have been included in the recommended conditions of consent.

 

The proposal is, therefore, suitable for approval subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 585/2013 for reconstruction of a portion of the existing southern retaining wall and construct a new timber paling fence above at No. 35 Denning Street, South Coogee, subject to the  standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

a.        The key conditions relating to the retaining wall are provided below:

8.       A report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer/s, which includes the following details, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority for the development:

 

a)     Detailed structural specifications including plans and sections showing the methodology of the repair work including methods of excavation and support for the adjoining land and buildings, demolition, the location of the adjoining storage room and pathway above and the method of support of existing structures.

 

b)     The re-constructed part of the wall is to be a minimum of 1.3m or half the height of the wall and undertaken using new bricks and not the existing bricks. The length of the wall to be re-constructed should be a minimum of 6m and indicated on the methodology plan.

 

c)     Details to demonstrate that the proposed methods of excavation, support and construction are suitable for the site and should not result in any damage to the adjoining property as a result of the works and any associated vibration.

 

d)     Details confirming a suitably qualified structural engineer will oversee the building works and certify the works at their completion.

 

e)     The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times throughout demolition, excavation and building work, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

f)     Written approval must be obtained from the owners of the adjoining land to install any ground or rock anchors underneath the adjoining premises (including any public roadway or public place) and details must be provided to the Certifying Authority.

 

h)     Details in relation to notification of the adjoining property regarding access and the insurance and licence requirements of the builder undertaking the physical works.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·          as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

Building Encroachments (public domain)

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

 

Retaining Wall Encroachments (adjoining property)

25.     The reconstructed wall must not encroach the adjoining property boundary at No. 37 Denning Street.

 

26.     Supervision of Works

A suitably qualified structural engineer must oversee the re-construction works and certify the works upon their completion.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Compliance Report - 35 Denning Street, South Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        12 November 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D91/13

 

 

Subject:                  47 Denning Street, South Coogee (DA/253/2006/A)

Folder No:                   DA/253/2006/A

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) application to modify development consent to raise the garage floor level, provide a subfloor storage area beneath the garage, increase the internal width of the driveway, a new entrance to the dwelling and additional landscaping

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Edifice Design Pty Ltd

Owner:                         A & A Cogan

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application to modify the approved development consent is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original development application was determined at the Planning Committee meeting of the 8 August 2006.

 

Proposal

 

The original application detailed a new garage and access driveway from the adjoining unformed road reserve to the building.

 

This application seeks to modify the development consent in the following manner;

 

a)     Raise the garage floor level by 330mm to suit the alignment levels.

b)     Changes to the levels and design of the driveway to suit the nominated alignment level.

c)     The provision of new steps to the entry of the building from the driveway as required by the change in levels of the driveway and garage floor as noted above.

d)     The provision of a new patio off the previously approved garage with a set of folding doors to provide natural light.

e)     Additional planting and turfed area between the front of the building and the new driveway.

f)     The provision of an additional subfloor storage area beneath the new garage including two external windows and an internal access door from the adjoining subfloor storage area.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Denning Street Coogee and has a site area of 597m² and currently contains a three storey multi unit housing development which because of the steep fall of the site from Denning Street appears as a single storey building from the street frontage.

 

The building currently has three separate habitable dwellings on each level of the building and the building has not been strata subdivided. Two garages are currently provided within the building one with direct access of Denning Street and the other from Wisdom Street.

 

Figure 1: Wisdom Street road reserve directly to the north of the subject property

 

Figure 2: Street frontage of 47 Denning Street Coogee

 

The site is surrounded by residential properties and to the north adjoins a vacant portion of land which is an unformed portion of Wisdom Street.

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:

 

Submission

Comment

6/58 Denning Street Coogee

 

-There are concerns that driveway access from the road reserve will result in the removal of existing grass and installation of more concrete.

 

 

Driveway access was provided across the unformed part of Wisdom Street under the original development application, this application seeks consent to vary the position of the driveway entrance to the northern side of the building.

An original condition of Development Consent required the provision of landscaping to the road reserve between Wisdom Street and Denning Street and this condition remains in force.

 

Key Issues

 

1.1    Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council, 2005

Assessment under Sections 106 and 108 of the Act identifies that the provisions (controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument (such as the RLEP 1998) that would restrict the redevelopment of the site, do not apply.

 

In the absence of such provisions, the Land and Environment Court has established a planning principle for urban development (Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council, 2005) which identifies criteria for the assessment of proposals on land with existing use rights. The principles are addressed as follows:

 

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

 

The R2 zoning of RLEP 2012 contemplate the development of dwelling houses and dual occupancies on this site and those surrounding. Residential Flat Buildings are a prohibited use.

 

The proposed modification to the approved development will not significantly add to the bulk and scale of the building and in the context of the relationship of the existing development surrounding which includes predominantly large two and three storey dwellings with a number of multi unit housing the proposal, as amended, maintains the commensurate scale to the surrounding development.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposal will suitably relate to and have minimal impact on permissible development on surrounding sites and as such, this question posed within the principle is considered satisfied.

 

·      What is the relevance of the building in which the existing use takes place? Where the change of use is proposed within an existing building, the bulk and scale of that building are likely to be deemed acceptable, even if the building is out of scale with its surroundings, because it already exists. 

 

The modifications to the approved development remain consistent with the use of existing building and will remain in character and scale with the surrounding uses and buildings and the approved development.

 

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

 

The assessment of the original application determined that the proposed works will not result in a building that would be out of character with the existing streetscape and locality or result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. The proposed modifications to the approved development do not alter that original assessment.

 

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

 

The original development would not have any significant impact upon the internal amenity of the building as the provision of the garage to the front of the building in that position would not compromise the internal amenity of the upper level dwelling and the proposed modification does not alter that assessment.

 

1.2    Landscaping

The extent of landscaping within the Wisdom Street road reserve was considered during the assessment of the original Development Application and at the Planning Committee meeting the following condition was imposed;

 

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

 

               Provide landscaping within the Wisdom Street road reserve between Denning Street and the top of the embankment (either side of the new driveway) to the satisfaction of Council. The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer regarding this matter.

 

The modifications to the approved development do not alter the relevance or necessity to comply with this condition and as intended landscaping will be installed within this area as part of the approved development works.      

 

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

 

It is recommended that the application to modify the Development Consent be approved.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify the Development consent No. DA/253/2006/A for raise the garage floor level, provide a subfloor storage area beneath the garage, increase the internal width of the driveway, a new entrance to the dwelling and additional landscaping at No. 47 Denning Street, Coogee, in the following manner:

 

Amend Conditions Nos.1 and 39 to read:

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA1, DA2, DA3, DA4 and DA5, dated March 2006 and received by Council on 10 February 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered A01c, A02c, A03c & A04c, dated 07.06.13 and received by Council on the 13th June 2013, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

39.    In order to ensure the retention of the stand of Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s) growing on the sloped embankment within Council’s reserve, on the unformed portion of Wisdom Street, to the north of the site in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.     All detailed documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application shall show the retention of the existing trees adjoining the proposed works, with the position of their trunks and full diameter of their canopies clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.     There is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble within 2.5 metres of the trunks of any of these trees within Council’s reserve.

 

c.     Prior to the commencement of any works associated with the sub-floor/storage area, an initial trench is to be dug by hand along the northern wall of the works, where it falls within a radius of 3.5 metres of their trunks (measured off the outside edge at ground level), with the trench to be a minimum depth of 600mm and a minimum width of 200mm, and must be careful not to damage any roots during this process.

 

d.     Prior to proceeding with any further works, Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613) must be contacted, giving at least 2 working days notice, to inspect the trench and any roots encountered.

 

e.     Where roots are in direct conflict with the works and approval is given for their pruning, they must be cut cleanly by hand using hand held tools, with the affected area to be backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

f.     The PCA must ensure that a construction method such as contiguous piling or a similar approved alternative is used for the wall that is shown on the common boundary on dwg A01c for the new sub-floor/storage area 03, as well as for the northern wall of sub-floor/storage area 02.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 47 Denning Street Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        12 November 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D92/13

 

 

Subject:                  1 Fleming Street & 30-36 Harvey Street,  Little Bay (DA/1113/2010/E)

Folder No:                   DA/1113/2010/E

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of the approved development by conversion of plant/storage space in Building B to two one bedroom units, addition of balconies to 2 units in Delaney Building and 2 units in Heffron Building, alter apartment mix and number to give a total of 165 units and addition of 1 basement carpark space

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Little Bay South 1 Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Little Bay South 2 Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is a Section 96 modification of the approved development by conversion of plant/storage space in Building B to two one bedroom units, addition of balconies to 2 units in Delaney Building and 2 units in Heffron Building, alter apartment mix and number to give a total of 165 units and addition of 1 basement car park space.

 

The proposal will create two new residential units within the existing lower ground floor area and an additional car space in the basement area.  The proposal will also create new balconies to the level three (3) units on either side of the central north facing entrance and stairway element with the existing windows being converted to sliding doors.  The balconies will be created by removing a further section of original pitched roof, providing new glass balcony railing and slightly enlarging the new dormer roofs. 

 

Site

 

The subject site is located within the Prince Henry Hospital Heritage Conservation Area and is listed on the State Heritage Register for Aboriginal, natural, landscape and built heritage values.  The subject site is located within the southern part of the development area.  The site has a northern boundary to Fleming Street, and an eastern boundary to Darwin Avenue and Ewing Avenue, a southern boundary to Harvey Street and a western boundary to Brodie Street.  The subject site is located within the ‘Historic Precinct’.  The buildings on the subject site are identified as built elements of significance. 

 

Existing Structures

 

The Heffron Building (Medical Ward A Block) occupies the northern part of the subject site, while the Delaney Building (Medical Ward B Block) occupies the southern part of the site.  The buildings date from the 1930s.  Each of the buildings is 3 storeys high (over basement service areas) and originally comprised a main north facing wing with three perpendicular rear wings projecting southwards.  The Delaney Building retains its main wing only.  Each of the buildings has a central north facing entrance with associated steps, retaining walls and planter boxes. 

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. As a result, only one (1) submission was received. The matter raised in the submission is addressed below.

 

Submission 1:

 

Issue

Comment

The development is already grossly overdeveloped and should not be allowed to continue to increase.

Amended architectural plans indicate the proposal will not result in a change of the building footprint or height. The increased gross floor area is accommodated within the existing building footprint. The increase is minor in total floor space ratio, from 0.83:1 to 0.85:1.

Key Issues

 

The subject Section 96(2) application proposes to further modify the development consent of DA No. 1113/2010 to include two ground floor units in space previously identified as a plant room, provide four top floor balconies to apartments in the Heffron and Delaney buildings and one additional basement car space.  The proposed modifications will utilise otherwise redundant floor space and improve the amenity for future residents.  The key changes are as follows:

 

·      Change existing windows to sliding doors and add Juliet-style balconies in two units at Level 3 of the Delaney building (Seaview) and two units at Level 3 of the Heffron building (Bayview).

·      Convert floor area previously approved as plant/storage space in Building B (Greenview) to two one-bedroom units.

·      Provide landscaped courtyards for the two additonal one-bedrooms units.

·      Change to apartment mix and number, resulting in an increase of two one-bedroom units to create a total of 165 units.

·      Addition of one basement car park, increasing the total number of car parks to 201.

 

The key issues arising from the subject Section 96(2) application is the increase in gross floor area (GFA) and the resultant increase in floor space ratio (FSR). The proposed increase in GFA is accommodated within the existing building footprint. The increase in FSR is considered minor of less than 1%, from 0.83:1 to 0.85:1. The proposed FSR is in compliance with the prescribed FSR of 1.2:1 under the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

The additional 2 x 1 bedroom units will generate parking demand for an additional 2 car spaces yet only 1 car space has been provided thereby increasing the parking deficiency further by 1 space. Condition 5 in the current modified consent required that every unit be allocated a car space.  There will therefore have to be a reallocation of 1 car space within the development if this Section 96 is approved.  Condition 5 was included after approval of the Section 96 application DA/1113/2010A and amended again after approval of Section 96 application DA/113/2010B.  Condition 5 will ensure that the car spaces are allocated appropriately.  The inclusion of the additional car space will require a slight amendment to condition 5. 

 

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 subject Section 96(2) applications proposal to further modify the development consent of DA No. 1113/2010 to include two ground floor units in space previously identified as a plant room, provide four top floor balconies to apartments in the Heffron and Delaney buildings and one additional basement car space is recommended for approval. 

 


 

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 No. DA/1113/2010/E at 1 Fleming Street and 30-36 Harvey Street, Little Bay, in the following manner:

 

A.        Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following plans:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

A0.001 (2)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

Bates Smart Pty Limited

 

 

A0.002 (3)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A1.001 (2)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A1.002 (6)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.00 (6)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.01 (7)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.02 (6)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.03 (6)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.04 (7)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.05 (7)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.06 (6)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.07 (6)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.08 (6)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A2.000 (6)

24-05-12

13 June 2012

A2.002 (7)

24-05-2012

13 June 2012

A2.003 (7)

24-05-2012

13 June 2012

A2.004 (7)

24-05-2012

13 June 2012

A2.005 (6)

24-05-2012

13 June 2012            

A2.008 (6)

24-05-2012

13 June 2012

A2.009 (6)

24-05-2012

13 June 2012

A5.001 (1)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A5.002 (1)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A7.003 (4)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

A8.001 (4)

24-05-2013

13 June 2012

A8.002 (4)

24-05-2013

13 June 2012

A8.003 (4)

24-05-2013

13 June 2012

A8.004 (1)

17-12-10

17 December 2010

Draft subdivision plans

dated 14 Dec 2010 and 17 December 2010

17 December 2010

Denny Linker and Co.

Screen Details (Heritage Presentation – 11 February 2011)

 

17 March 2011

Bates Smart Pty Limited

 

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 following Section 96 plans “E”:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A2.001 (E)

BATESSMART

2 July 2013

18 July 2013

A2.003 (F)

BATESSMART

2 July 2013

18 July 2013

A2.006 (F)

BATESSMART

2 July 2013

18 July 2013

A2.007 (F)

BATESSMART

2 July 2013

18 July 2013

A3.107 (L)

BATESSMART

2 July 2013

18 July 2013

A7.001 (G)

BATESSMART

1 July 2013

18 July 2013

A7.002 (H)

BATESSMART

28 June 2013

18 July 2013

A7.003 (G)

BATESSMART

28 June 2013

18 July 2013

SK-127 (B)

BATESSMART

1 July 2013

18 July 2013

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

350830M_6

22 August 2013

 

 

B.        Amend Condition No. 5 to read:

5.      Public access to the visitor’s car parking spaces is to be maintained at all times and an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the car park together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use.

 

A total of 201 car parking spaces (including 11 disabled spaces and no more than 12 visitor spaces) are to be provided and maintained within the basement car park of Buildings ‘A’ and ‘B’.

 

Each unit must be allocated at least one (1) car space.  The remaining spaces (25) must be allocated according to the following:

 

-    Nil (0) to two (2) EXTRA spaces per three (3) bedroom unit.

-    Nil (0) to one (1) extra car space per two (2) bedroom unit.

 

Details of compliance are to be indicated on the Construction Certificate plans and final strata subdivision plans

 

C.        Amend Condition No. 10 to read:

10.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the General Terms of Approval issued by the Heritage Council of NSW as detailed in the letter from the Council dated 23 October 2013.

 

A section 65A application will be required to modify the original consent (2011/s60/84) for the redevelopment, issued on the 13 January 2012.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Compliance Report - DA/1113/2010/E, 1 Fleming Street & 30-36 Harvey Street ,  Little Bay

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        12 November 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D93/13

 

 

Subject:                  10 Frenchmans Road, Randwick (DA/740/2006/A)

Folder No:                   DA/740/2006/A

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of the approved development by adding an internal staircase to the attic level within the caretaker's room and new bathroom and skylights at attic level

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Branko Subota

Owner:                         Mr B Subota & Ms M A Pausi

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal:

 

The Section 96(2) is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

The proposal involves a Section 96(2) modification of the approved development by adding an internal staircase to the attic level within the caretaker's room and a new bathroom and skylights at attic level.

It is noted that the works have already been completed; and that they have effectively doubled the size of the caretaker’s room. The caretaker’s room now consists of a lounge room at the first floor of the premises and a bedroom within the attic. The works are wholly within the attic space of the boarding house and aside from three skylights which are located on the rear portion of the roof form, are not readily visible from nearby dwellings.

 

Site:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Frenchmans Road between Chapel Street and Avoca Street in Randwick. There is an existing boarding house on the site containing 12 rooms.

The original application to Council (DA/740/2006) included an increase in the number of rooms within the boarding house from 7 to 12 and the construction of new kitchens, laundries and bathrooms. There is a landscaped recreational area and 2-parking spaces within the rear yard.

 

Submissions:

 

The subject application was notified to surrounding property owners by way of a letter dated 18 September 2013. The notification period ended on 2 October 2013. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification process. 

 

Key Issues:

 

There are three (3) key issues relating to the proposal. These are:

 

1.        That the modified development is considered to be substantially the same development as that for which the consent was originally granted (thereby meeting the provisions of section 96 of the Act);

2.        That the works have already been completed as unauthorised works; and

3.        That the works have resulted in an increase in the gross floor area of the premises.

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The proposal does not involve any significant changes to the approved built form of the boarding house and has resulted in internal changes and skylights to the rear of the roof form only. Therefore, the modified development is considered to be substantially the same development as that for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Unauthorised works:

Council’s Building Projects Officer has indicated that Council is considering an application for a building certificate relating to the unauthorised works. It is noted that the applicant has submitted supporting information for the unauthorised works; in the form of certification for structural elements, electrical services, staircase construction and waterproofing.

Council’s Building Projects Officer has advised that the expansion of the manager’s quarters into the attic space may result in more than one occupant residing therein. If more than one person were to reside within the manager’s quarters, then this would change the building classification of the boarding house. Consequently, a suitable condition is recommended to restrict the use of the occupancy of the manager’s quarters to one (1) person ordinarily residing therein.

 

Council’s Building Projects Officer has advised that there are no further objections to the assessment of the subject application; and that appropriate regulatory action is to be finalised in regard to the unauthorised attic conversion upon determination of the application.

 

Gross Floor Area Increase:

The original proposal was assessed against the development standards for the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) [repealed]. That development resulted in a building which did not comply with the development standard for floor space ratio as specified by the RLEP 1998 (0.77:1 rather than 0.65:1).

 

The proposal relied on a SEPP 1 objection to floor space ratio and landscaped area requirements. It was noted by the previous assessing officer that the objections contained within the SEPP 1 objection were acceptable; given that the proposed development was within the context of the zone and that it would not unreasonably impact on the nearby residents and local character.

 

The current proposal has resulted in the creation of an additional floor area of approximately 35.6m2 and has resulted in revised floor space ratio of 0.87:1. It is noted that the development standard for floor space ratio is 0.75:1 under the RLEP 2012. The additional floor area has been created within what was formerly the attic space for the boarding house.

 

The current application is assessed on its merits with regard to floor space ratio, given that the floor space ratio for the original proposal was considered to be reasonable.  The additional floor space is wholly within the attic roof space for the dwelling and will not impose any significant impacts on neighbouring dwellings with regard to visual bulk, privacy or overshadowing. Furthermore, the proposal does not create any additional rooms within the approved boarding house (noting that the proposal has resulted in a lounge room and bedroom for the caretaker’s room only). A condition has been recommended by Council’s Building Projects Officer that the caretaker’s quarters are to be restricted to one (1) person ordinarily residing therein.

 

The proposed changes to the approved boarding house will result in a development which is substantially the same as that which was previously approved, and which will not impose any significant impacts on neighbouring dwellings. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the RLEP 2013 and the planning controls for the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan; and will result in a development which is comparable in terms of bulk to existing development within the locality. 

 

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 modifications to the existing development have been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012 and Council’s Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan, as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.   The proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same development as that previously approved, and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

Recommendation:

 

That, Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/740/2006 for the modification of the approved development by adding an internal staircase to the attic level within the caretaker's room and new bathroom and skylights at attic level for 10 Frenchmans Road, Randwick in the following manner:

 

A.        Amend Condition 1 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the architectural plans numbered A03. A04, A05 and A09 dated December 2006 and received by Council on 19 December 2006, and Landscape Plan numbered 06.111 dated 26 July 2006 and received by Council 12 September 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, and as amended by the Section 96’A’ plans numbered 01 through to 03, prepared by M&O Drafting Pty Ltd., dated 9 September 2013 and received by Council on 13 September 2013, except as may be amended by the following conditions.

 

B.        Include new Conditions 68 and 69 to read:

68.     No approval is granted for the construction of the staircase, bedroom and bathroom which are associated with the caretaker’s room within the attic of the existing boarding house. Consent is only granted for the use of the staircase, bedroom and bathroom which are associated with the caretaker’s room.

 

69.     The caretaker’s quarters are restricted to no more than one (1) person who ordinarily resides therein.

 

C.        Include the following advisory note:

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

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Report - Compliance Report - DA/740/2006/A - 10 Frenchmans Road, RANDWICK 

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

  


Planning Committee                                                                                        12 November 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D94/13

 

 

Subject:                  32-34 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/725/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/725/2012

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Senior Environmental Planner; Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwellings, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey multi unit development with 10 units, basement car parking for 19 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (SEPP1 objection to floor space ratio and building height controls)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Marchese Partners

Owner:                         RPG South Sydney Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as it is valued at $4,100,000.00

 

The subject proposal also contains variations to the maximum floor space ratio (FSR), overall building height and maximum external wall height development standards stipulated in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) by more than 10%.

 

The applicant has submitted SEPP 1 objections to development standards to address these non-compliances.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The development proposes to demolish two existing single storey free standing dwelling houses located on Nos. 32 and 34 Carr Street (Lot 1 DP 937437 and Lot 14 Sec 1 DP 976802, respectively).

 

The application also seeks consent for the construction of a new part 3 part 4 storey residential flat building containing 7x3 bedroom and 3x 2 bedroom plus study units with basement parking for 19 vehicles (accessed from Carr Street), landscaping and associated site works, and strata subdivision.

 

The proposed built form is broken up into two distinct sections to address Carr and Waltham Streets, respectively. A central courtyard is also proposed.

 

Figure 1 – Photomontage provided by the applicant of the proposed building viewed from Carr Street. 

2.         The site

 

The site is located in Carr Street, which runs from Carrington Road down to the foreshore area at Coogee beach. The subject site is located at Nos. 32 and 34 Carr Street in Coogee and identified as Lot 1 DP 937437 and Lot 14 DP 976802, respectively.

 

The site has a northern frontage of 21.335m to Carr Street, site depth of 44.195m, southern (rear) side width of 21.335m to Waltham Street and an overall site area of 945.03sqm.

 

The subject site has a complex topography with a difference of up to 4m in levels from the existing rear yard to the Waltham Street frontage.

 

Specifically, No 32 Carr Street slopes south (Waltham Street) to north (Carr Street) with a difference in levels of up to 2.27m (RL 28.74 – RL 26.47) and a cross fall from west to east from RL 27.45 – RL 26.71 and a difference in level of 0.74m.

 

No. 34 Carr Street also slopes from south to north with a difference in level of 4.16m (RL 28.78 – 24.62). The cross fall (also west to east) of No. 34 is approximately 0.51m (RL 25.27 – RL 24.76).

 

RLs across the two sites range significantly, with varying differences in cross fall along the length of both properties.   

 

The site is currently occupied by 2 existing single storey detached dwelling houses of brick construction. There is an existing timber deck and BBQ area to the rear of No. 32 and an existing concrete garage to the rear of No. 34.

 

Figure 2: Locality Plan

 

The adjoining sites to the east and west are presently occupied by single storey detached dwelling houses. It is noted that No. 30 Carr Street to the west of the site has recently obtained development approval under DA/236/2013 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey dwelling house with associated double garage

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and comprises of a variety of development ranging from single storey detached dwellings, double storey dwellings and dual occupancies, non-residential uses (such as Crowne Plaza Hotel on the corner of Carr and Arden Streets to the east, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart to the south and Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney to the north west), two, three and five storey residential flat buildings, mixed use development and townhouses.

 

The surrounding area is also inconsistent in terms of allotment size and general subdivision pattern resulting in varied setbacks and building orientation (see locality plan above, subject site denoted in pink). Of particular relevance to the subject application are the immediate adjoining sites to the west at No. 30 Carr Street and No. 4A Waltham Street, which each lie on their own Torrens title lots addressing Carr Street and Waltham Street, respectively. The length of the two properties lies along the western side boundary of the subject site. 

 

The existing dwelling (approved in 2000) at 4A Waltham Street is has the majority of its private open space, decks and major window openings facing its side boundary, shared with the subject site as obtains side views over the rear yard.

 

Photo1 : Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. View of existing buildings at (left to right) Nos. 36, 34 and 32 Carr Street. Middle and far right to be demolished.

2. View of the subject site and adjoining sites access to rear garages off Waltham Street with Crowne Plaza in background

3. No. 4A Waltham Street taken from Waltham Street frontage showing east facing decks looking over subject site. 

4. Rear yard of the subject site.

 

5. Existing development to the north across Carr Street (Nos. 55-57 and 59 Carr Street) 

6. View east down Carr Street toward Coogee Beach .

 

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted with the development application. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objection, the following matters are addressed:

 

(i)       Floor space ratio

Pursuant to Clause 20F(1) of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation), the maximum floor space ratio for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C is 0.9:1, where the site area is more than 700m2.

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.99:1 and does not comply with the requirement of Clause 20F(2) of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

(ii)      Maximum building height and external wall height

Clauses 20G(2) and 20G(4) of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) stipulate a maximum building height of 12m and a maximum external wall height of 10m for building located within Residential 2C zones.

 

The proposal has a maximum building height and a maximum external wall height of 13.29m and therefore does not comply with Clauses 20G(2) and (4) of the RLEP.

 

3.1      Development standards

 

The proposal seeks variation to the following controls contained in RLEP 1998:

 

·      Clause 20F(1) 0.9:1 maximum floor space ratio

·      Clause 20G(2) 12m maximum building height 

·      Clause 20G(4) 10m maximum external wall height

 

The above provisions are numerical development standards contained in the statutory plan.

 

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

 

3.2      The purpose of the standards

The stated purposes of the standards as outlined in the RLEP are: 

 

Maximum floor space ratio:

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

 

Maximum building and external wall height:

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

 

3.3      Consistency of the development with the aims of SEPP 1, the local planning objectives for the locality and objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

 

Matter 1

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

 

The applicant has submitted written SEPP 1 Objections, which outline the following key justifications for the variations to the relevant development standards:

 

Floor space ratio

·      The site, which is to be redeveloped, is a long narrow site, which makes it difficult to achieve design and planning objectives relating to apartment layout and sustainability. As a result, the internal planning of the apartments has been difficult because of the need to concentrate the layout in a linear form. This has been further complicated the narrow boundary of the site also provides the northern aspect. There are also privacy issues in relation to the side boundaries of the properties. This has meant that in order to achieve layouts, which meet modern requirements on the site, a slightly larger floor space is required than if the site were a more rectangular shape. A unit building across the road has been constructed to a similar FSR to that proposed.

 

·      The apartments have been designed to achieve a high level of energy conservation and this has required a slightly larger floor plate. The long side boundaries mean that the major light and sunlight penetration to the building has to come from the narrowest frontages and this has meant that the development needs to be carefully laid out to prevent long dark rooms occurring. The dwellings have complied with BASIX requirements and this has required a slightly larger floor plate to achieve this.

 

·      The development proposal is for 7x3 and 3x2 bedroom dwellings. Research ahs shown that there is a shortage in the provision of larger medium density dwellings in the Sydney Metropolitan Area. As a result the provision of these larger dwellings will help provide a greater range of housing choice as required in the draft East Sub Regional Strategy. The slight excedence of the FSR control has enabled the provision of these larger dwellings. It should be noted however, that the dwellings are not oversized and are within the range for 2 and 3 bedroom medium density dwelling specified in SEPP65.

 

·      This is a site in an area, which is undergoing change. There is a mixture of single dwellings and residential flat buildings in the area. The DCP provides that the bulk and scale of new development should be similar to that of these existing buildings. Although this proposal exceeds the FSR it only marginally exceeds the height controls for the site and is not out of scale with the existing streetscape in the area. It is of a similar size to other flat buildings approved in the area

 

·      The building has been designed to provide a building of excellence, which will enhance the streetscape in the area and the built form and open spaces in the area. The building has been designed to implement the rules of thumb of SEPP65 and the controls and provisions in the relevant DCP. In order to meet all these requirements it has been necessary to slightly exceed the FSR, which applies to the site. However, it is considered that the appearance of the building is of a high standard and as a result there are no adverse impacts from this. Extensive consultation has been held with the Council and the Council Design Review Committee in relation to the development and significant changes made to the development as a result of these. These have reduced the FSR over that originally proposed and now lead to a much more appropriate and sympathetic development.

 

·      The impact of the building on the neighbouring properties has been assessed and these are considered to be minor and not resulting from the minimal increase in the floor space.

 

·      The proposed dwellings will have high residential amenity. All will be cross-ventilated and all will receive sunlight for the prescribed period to the major living areas in mid winter. All are provided with storage areas.

 

·      It can be seen from the above that the new building meets most of the current planning controls relating to the site, especially those contained in SEPP 65 and in the DCP. However this has meant that the resulting floor space in the building exceeds that provided for in the LEP. However, it is considered that the impact of the building in its environment has been considerably improved and that the building does not appear visually to be out of scale with existing buildings in the area. Further, there are immense public benefits from the development and it will produce apartments which have high amenity and which will have sustainability benefits.

 

·      The development was presented to the Randwick Design Review Committee on 2 occasions. Considerable changes were made to the development as a result of these meetings and subsequently the committee considered that the design was well considered and the intensification of the use on this site appropriate. Some concerns were expressed in relation to shadows and amenity of neighbours and changes have been made to the design to accommodate these concerns.

 

·      It is considered that the bulk and scale of this development is in sympathy with the development surrounding it and development in the streetscape. The proposal has been deigned to meet the aims and objectives of the DCP and as a result reflects the desired future character of the area. This has been defined as respecting the existing elements in the built form and streetscape, which are considered to be attractive in the area. The assessment of the design of the proposed building against these matters shows that they have all been implemented in the design and as a result it does reflect the desired future character of the area.

·      The planning outcome from the approval of this objection will be of significance for the area. This building will provide a high standard of accommodation and will improve considerably the Carr Street streetscape. It will also provide much need accommodation and will help meet the sub regional strategy objectives in relation to housing provision in the area.

 

·      The building reflects its context and complements the existing buildings in the area.

 

·      There will be social and economic benefits to the community due to:- 

 

The provision of residential accommodation of a high design standard

The provision of a range of housing types

-   Introduction of additional housing in an area with existing infrastructure and excellent public transport

Renewal of site for a residential use

Provision of housing close to jobs and transport

Jobs in the construction of the building

Implementation of ESD principles in the development

 

Assessment Officer Comments:

It is considered that the proposal will meet the purpose of the development standard and numerical compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary based on the following reasons:

 

·           The development will be consistent with the building envelope envisaged for the site having regard to the suite of relevant development standards and controls for FSR, height, landscaping and setbacks. These controls operate together to define the siting, size and scale of a building.

 

·           In terms of height, the numerical non compliances are localised and eventuate largely due to the site conditions and not as a result of poor design. The height of the proposal will still be compatible with the dominant character of the locality. Whilst the immediately adjoining buildings are of a lower scale and density, the locality is certainly characterised by a mixture of dwelling houses and residential flat buildings that have varying forms, heights and architectural styles. It is also reasonable to assume that the area is in transition and has an emerging character reflecting increased residential flat building development. As the planning controls allow a mix of housing types and sizes of buildings, it must be acknowledged that a variety of built form types are required to coexist and hence there must be an acceptance of a difference in scale between the respective housing types of residential flat building, multi dwelling housing (townhouses) dwelling houses and the like.

 

·           The size and scale of the proposed building will make a positive contribution to the streetscape whilst minimising amenity impacts to adjoining properties. The setbacks at the habitable floor levels vary between 3.5 to 5m for most parts of the elevations. The mass of the building has been further broken down by providing a setback of 9m towards the middle of the site effectively reducing its bulk and providing visual relief for the adjoining properties.  The upper level of the building is also significantly setback from Carr St and only occupies a limited floor plate compared to the lower levels of the building. This results in the building reading as only 3 storeys to Carr St. Similarly, the Waltham St façade will only appear as 3 storeys above street level due to the sloping nature of the site.

 

·           The front setback to Carr St is between 2.2m and 4m, which matches the predominant setback in the street and the rear setback is appropriate for a site with two street frontages.

 

·           The proposal meets the landscape requirements of the RLEP 1998. Fifty four percent (54%) of the site is to be landscaped, which meets the requirements of the relevant standard. The purpose of the standard is to operate with FSR and height controls by limiting site coverage having regard to the aesthetic character of an area and environmental amenity. Compliance with this standard is indicative of a development that will be in keeping with the desired future character of the area as envisaged by the RLEP 1998.

 

·           Shadow impacts on the adjacent properties are acceptable in the context of a medium density zone and result in reasonable levels of solar access to neighbouring properties. The degree of overshadowing would not be significantly greater than that of a complying development in terms of height and FSR. In this regard, a proportion of the floor area is situated below the existing ground level of the site and does not contribute to overshadowing whilst the height variations are largely confined to the upper level at the south east section of the building that is setback between 5.35m and 9m in excess of the minimum requirements.

 

·           Privacy impacts resulting from the proposal are acceptable due to the generous setbacks, location of rooms, screening and proposed planting.

 

·           The proposal will not cause any unreasonable view loss impacts on the surrounding properties. The views obtained are across a side boundary and would be obstructed by any two storey development on the subject site. Hence a complying height on the subject site would not provide any benefit in terms of view loss.

 

·           As detailed in this report, the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives of Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 and exhibits a high level of internal and external design quality as required under State Environmental Planning Policy 65.

 

Maximum building and external wall heights

Building height

·      The site of this development proposal is long and narrow and this has required careful planning to maximise the layout of the apartments and to protect the privacy and views of neighbours on both sides of the development. Further the site slopes to the south and as a result the levels change over the length of the development.

 

·      This is a site in an area, which is undergoing change. There is a mixture of single dwellings and residential flat buildings in the area. However, the long-term objectives in the zoning of the area are for a more intense form of development.

 

·      The building has been designed to provide a building of excellence, which will enhance the streetscape in the area and the built form and open spaces in the area. The building has been designed to implement the rules of thumb of SEPP 65 and the controls and provisions in the relevant DCP. In order to meet all these requirements it has been necessary to slightly exceed the height control, which applies to the site. However, it is considered that the appearance of the building is of a high standard and as a result there are no adverse impacts from this. The small increase in wall height has not in any way impacted on the relationship of the building to its environment or to its near neighbours.

 

·      It can be seen from the above that the new building meets most of the current planning controls relating to the site, especially those contained in SEPP 65 and in the DCP. However this has meant that in one small area the wall height exceeds that permitted in the LEP. It can be seen that the area where the wall is higher than permitted is very small and is not visible from the neighbouring streets.

 

·      The increase in height of the building will not impact on any of the neighbours.

 

·      The development was presented to the Randwick Design Review Committee. They considered that the design was well considered and the intensification of the use on this site appropriate.

 

·      In the circumstances of this case, the proposed height does not cause any impacts on the surrounding area. It does not impact on the size or scale of the building or its footprint and therefore does not impact on the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area where it is situated.

 

External wall height

·      The site of this development proposal is long and narrow and this has required careful planning to maximise the layout of the apartments and to protect the privacy and views of neighbours on both sides of the development. Further the site slopes to the south and as a result the levels change over the length of the development.

 

·      This is a site in an area, which is undergoing change. There is a mixture of single dwellings and residential flat buildings in the area. However, the long term objectives in the zoning of the area are for a more intense form of development.

 

·      The building has been designed to provide a building of excellence, which will enhance the streetscape in the area and the built form and open spaces in the area. The building has been designed to implement the rules of thumb of SEPP 65 and the controls and provisions in the relevant DCP. In order to meet all these requirements it has been necessary to slightly exceed the wall height control, which applies to the site. However, it is considered that the appearance of the building is of a high standard and as a result there are no adverse impacts from this. The small increase in wall height has not in any way impacted on the relationship of the building to its environment or to its near neighbours.

 

·      It can be seen from the above that the new building meets most of the current planning controls relating to the site, especially those contained in SEPP 65 and in the DCP. However this has meant that in one small area the wall height exceeds that permitted in the LEP. It can be seen that the area where the wall is higher than permitted is very small and is not visible from the neighbouring streets.

 

·      The slight increase in wall height in this area will not impact on any of the neighbours.

 

·      The main aim of the wall height policy is to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area. It is considered that the size and scale of this development has not been impacted on by the excess wall height as the difference is imperceptible.

 

Assessment Officer Comments:

It is considered that the proposal will meet the purpose of the development standard and numerical compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary based on the following reasons:

 

·           The topography of the site has a significant cross fall from west to east. Localised variations of the height controls eventuate largely due to the site conditions and are not a result of poor design.

·           The architectural character and form of the proposed building has considerable design merit, and is endorsed by Council’s Design Review Panel.

·           The proposed site strategy is well considered in the way it responds to the opportunities and constraints of the site and will minimise environmental impacts upon adjoining properties while enhancing amenity on the site through the effective distribution in the massing of the building. The upper level of the building is significantly setback from Carr St and only occupies a limited floor plate compared to the lower levels of the building so that the building will only present as 3 storeys to Carr St. Similarly, the Waltham St façade will only appear as 3 storeys above street level due to the sloping nature of the site. It is considered that the site strategy effectively compensates for numerical departures and meets the combined objectives of the overall height and wall height controls.

 

·           The area of the upper level that breaches the height controls does not present as a clear vertical extension of the building façade. As the controls contemplate the provision of a pitched roof form, which would result in the perception of mass at the upper level of a building, the incorporation of a sensitively designed upper level would not be dissimilar to the bulk associated with a pitched roof form. The recessive nature of the upper level serves to minimise the apparent bulk of the building’s upper floor and provides for an improved visual relationship with the lower scale development to the east and west. Whilst the proposal is not strictly in accordance with the habitable roof space provisions of the DCP, the maximum floor area of the upper level is less than 65% of the floor area of the level below, thereby achieving the relative building proportions sought under the DCP for any habitable space above the maximum external wall height.

·           The scheme is appropriately articulated and modulated and the material quality of the external appearance of the building in conjunction with the proposed landscaping will minimise the bulk and scale to the streetscape and adjoining properties.

·           The proposal meets the landscape requirements of the RLEP 1998. Fifty four percent (54%) of the site is to be landscaped, which meets the requirements of the relevant standard. The purpose of the standard is to operate with FSR and height controls by limiting site coverage having regard to the aesthetic character of an area and environmental amenity. Compliance with this standard is indicative of a development that will be in keeping with the desired future character of the area as envisaged by the RLEP 1998.

 

·           Shadow impacts on the adjacent properties are acceptable in the context of a medium density zone and result in reasonable levels of solar access to neighbouring properties. The degree of overshadowing would not be significantly greater than that of a complying development in terms of height and FSR. In this regard, a proportion of the floor area is situated below the existing ground level of the site and does not contribute to overshadowing whilst the height variations are largely confined to the upper level at the south east section of the building that is setback between 5.35m and 9m in excess of the minimum requirements.

 

·           Privacy impacts resulting from the proposal are considered to be acceptable due to the generous setbacks, location of rooms, screening and proposed planting.

 

·           The proposal will not cause any unreasonable view loss impacts on the surrounding properties. The views obtained are across a side boundary and would be obstructed by any two storey development on the subject site. Hence a complying height on the subject site would not provide any benefit in term of view loss.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objections have addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standards, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. Moreover, the applicant has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standards of Clauses 20F(1), 20G(2) and 20G(4) is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objections have addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standards, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objections have been appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of each case. As such, it is considered that the objections are well founded.

 

Matter 2

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

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

 

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

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

 

The variations from the standards for floor space ratio, building and wall heights are not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as they would not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2C Zone in that it will allow for suitable development which is both commensurate with the surrounding bulk and scale of buildings, as well as the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

·      Comments:

The proposed development and variations from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standards will not allow the best economic use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the control in this instance.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standards in question is unreasonable and unnecessary as the design scheme will achieve the underlying purposes of the standards.

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development. As discussed above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the underlying purposes of the floor space ratio, building and wall height standards. 

 

Third

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

 

Comments:

The underlying purpose of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is unreasonable. The proposed floor space ratio, building and wall height provisions will not result in detrimental streetscape or amenity impacts on the locality. The resultant built form and scale is compatible with the surrounding residential buildings and represents a suitable development for the zone.

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The floor space ratio, building and wall height development standards have not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Each development application received by Council is assessed with regard to its merits. There has been no precedent established by Council’s assessment decisions, which in effect would abandon the development standards prescribed in the LEP.

 

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

The existing Residential 2C Zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

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 from 21 November 2012 – 5 December 2012. In response, the following submissions were received from the owners/residents of the following properties: -

 

·      4/131-133 Brook Street, Coogee

·      4A Waltham Street, Coogee

·      Nexus Environmental Planning on behalf of 4A Waltham Street, Coogee

·      1A Waltham Street, Coogee

·      1/28 Carr Street, Coogee

·      4/28 Carr Street, Coogee

·      JBA Urban Planning on behalf of 4/28 Carr Street, Coogee

·      2/63 Carr Street, Coogee

·      30 Carr Street, Coogee

·      Momentum Architects on behalf of 30 Carr Street, Coogee

·      36 Carr Street, Coogee

·      Coogee Precinct Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

The submissions raised the following issues: -

 

Issues

Comments

The proposed development is non-conforming with Randwick Council’s LEP 2012 and DCP.

 

The SEPP 1 to the development standards in relation to FSR and height are not well founded as the stated objectives of the development standards are not achieved.

 

The design and scale of the building does not conform to the character of the area.

The application has been assessed against the provisions of LEP 1998 as it was lodged prior to LEP 2012 becoming operative and relevant provisions of LEP 1998 and the DCP are satisfied as detailed in this assessment.

 

The SEPP 1 objections provided in relation to FSR and Building height are well founded and are discussed in detail above.

 

The proposal is compatible with the dominant character of the locality.

Having regard to the Planning Principles of the Land and Environment Court relating to the impact of development on neighboring properties, a more skillful deign could be achieved for the site which would meet the relevant planning controls while at the same time providing for the development needs of the applicant.

The proposal has been suitably designed and meets the objectives of Council’s planning policies. The areas of numerical non compliance have been assessed and do not contribute to any significant impacts on the streetscape or on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring residents.

The Planning Principle of Land and Environment Court relating to compatibility of a proposal with adjoining development, the proposed development does not sit in harmony with the adjoining development.

 

The proposal is consistent with the desired future character of the locality and the size and scale of buildings envisaged by the building envelope controls. It should also be noted that the planning principle clearly states that “Buildings do not have to be the same height to be compatible.””

The development is over the allowable FSR and the increased bulk and scale of the development will impact on the amenity of the surrounding neighbors and cause over shadowing and restrict solar access.   The excessive FSR will also increase the volume of people living on the site and car traffic generated.  Further, the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and will set a poor precedent in the area. 

 

The proposed FSR and density are appropriate for the subject site. Refer to SEPP 1 Objections for FSR and building height development standards section of this report for details.

 

The proposed development will meet Council’s requirements in relation to car parking. Based on RMS guidelines the development will generate a peak traffic generation of 3 to 5 vehicle trips per hour (vtph). This amount of traffic generation is of a minor nature and will not result in any perceptible impacts on the surrounding road network

 

The number of storeys and heights are excessive and do not comply with the maximum height control standards.  This creates additional overshadowing impacts.

 

Refer to SEPP 1 Objection in relation to height, which demonstrates that the height of the development is not inconsistent with desired future character of the locality and will not impact significantly on the solar access to neighbouring dwellings.

 

Loss of privacy, overshadowing and solar access impacts.

 

It is considered that the proposal has incorporated suitable design measures to minimise privacy and solar access impacts on the surrounding properties.

 

View loss impacts and the proposed development do not have sufficient regard to the Planning Principles relating to view sharing.

 

The assessing officer visited the objector’s property and a view loss assessment has been conducted, detailed below. The proposed development is consistent with envelope envisaged for the site providing a reasonable response to view sharing.

 

Parking impacts, increase of traffic and congestion.

 

The proposed development will meet Council’s requirements in relation to car parking. Based on RMS guidelines the development will generate a peak traffic generation of 3 to 5 vehicle trips per hour (vtph). This amount of traffic generation is minor and will not result in any perceptible impacts on the surrounding road network

Concerns in relation to public amenity and the potential loss of 2 palm trees.

 

Council landscape officer has assessed the significance of the palms and concludes that “while there is no doubt that these palms are visually prominent at the site and in the immediate area, other than their visual contribution, this species is not seen to offer any meaningful contribution to the local environment or native fauna in any way, and combined with an absence of any other alternative that would allow them to be successfully retained, consent has reluctantly been granted for their removal, subject to specific replacement feature plantings being provided as part of the landscape scheme.”

Use of open space and access from public streets are inadequately addressed. Suitable pedestrian access for the residents and visitors of the unit should be provided from the Carr Street frontage not via Waltham Street.

The plans have been amended and the main public and pedestrian access into the building is now off the Carr Street frontage.

Hazardous car park entrance

 

Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed an amended driveway design and are satisfied that it meets the relevant standard and will allow for safe and straightforward maneuvering.

Impacts to stormwater and sewage line

 

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended standard conditions to meet Council’s requirements for stormwater management and for relocation of the sewer line.

Lack of structural details and potential damage to adjoining property due to excavation.

 

The detailed structural design of a building is a matter that is dealt with at the construction certificate stage. Standard conditions are included in the recommendation requiring a dilapidation report and that any excavation and construction of retaining walls meet the relevant standards.

Noise, vibration and air pollution from driveway

 

The proposed vehicle movements along the driveway are not significant and would not result in significant impacts in terms of noise or odour due to the height of the retaining wall along the edge of the driveway.

Location of bins and waste management

The proposal provides for 12 bins in accordance with Council’s requirements. An amended waste management plan is also  required to be submitted to Council top address any operational issues.

 

Re-notification

Following the receipt of amended plans and supporting documentation on 9 April 2013, the application was renotified to surrounding residents from 26 April 2013 – 10 May 2013. In response to the second notification, four (4) submissions were again received from the owners of the following properties reiterating their previous concerns. The concerns have been addressed in the section above to avoid repetition.

 

·      4/131-133 Brook Street, Coogee

·      4A Waltham Street, Coogee

·      36 Carr Street, Coogee (5 additional parties added their names to this objection)

·      30 Carr Street, Coogee

 

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

 

Clause 5.5 – View Sharing

The concept of view sharing relates to the equitable distribution of views between developments and neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. View sharing control aims to achieve a balance between facilitating quality development and preserving an equitable amount of views for the surrounding properties as far as is practicable and reasonable.

 

View sharing does not prescribe the total retention of all significant views and vistas. In established inner metropolitan areas like Randwick City, developments would inevitably cause varying degree of view loss. The intent of the DCP is to ensure developments are sensitively and skilfully designed, so that a reasonable level of views is retained for the surrounding areas.

 

Where view loss impact is likely to occur, development proposals must address this section of the DCP as well as the Planning Principle established by the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

The relevant objectives with regard to view sharing as outlined by the DCP are as follows: -

 

·      To acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements, such as ocean, bays, coastlines, watercourses, bushland and parks; as well as recognised icons, such as city skylines, landmark buildings / structures and special natural features.

 

·      To protect and enhance views from the public domain, including streets, parks and reserves.

 

·      To ensure developments are sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

Following the initial public consultation process, due to the potential impacts on scenic views currently enjoyed by the adjoining and nearby properties as well as the concerns raised in the submissions, Council requested the owners to install timber poles on the site to depict the form and height of the building by email on 8 April 2013.

 

The height poles were installed on 22 July 2013. The accuracy of the poles in terms of their locations and height levels has been checked by a registered surveyor from Higgins Surveyors Pty Ltd – Property and development Consultants dated and received by Council on 24 July 2013 certifying the accuracy of the poles. Detailed view impact inspections were carried out on 21 June 2013 and 25 July 2013.

 

Location and RL of height poles indicated as dot points, dotted line denotes proposed building footprint

 

The proposed development has implications on the views currently obtained from the following properties and submissions from the owners have been received:

 

·      4/131-133 Brook Street, Coogee

·      4A Waltham Street, Coogee

·      1A Waltham Street, Coogee

·      4/28 Carr Street, Coogee

 

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.”

No. 4/131-133 Brook Street, Coogee – ground floor apartment entry at street level and elevated toward the rear as the street falls to the east. 

Street map showing context of No. 131 Brook Street in relation to the subject site.

 

 

 

1.   Views captured at standing height toward the east from north facing lounge room balcony

 

2.   View captured at standing and sitting height from south facing lounge room terrace looking east where height pole is shown

 

 

3.   View captured at standing height from the eastern most edge of the south facing lounge room terrace looking east where height pole is shown

 

4.   View captured at standing height from inside the lounge room facing east.

 

Current views

At present, the apartment has partial horizon and water views to the east from its north and south facing terraces. These views are already somewhat constrained and are obtained over other properties’ side boundaries (such as No. 28 Carr Street which is a two storey RFB shown in figure 3 above with red roof). There is also existing and established vegetation on surrounding sites further obstructing distant views. All views obtained are non-iconic and do not contain land/sea interface or headland views.

 

Anticipated view loss

The height poles shown in figures 1, 2 and 3 are representative of the expected impacts. It is anticipated that up to approximately 60% of the views currently obtained from the smaller north facing balcony will be retained and the majority of the water view from the south facing larger terrace will be obscured by the proposed development. 

 

Where a person deliberately leans out toward the eastern section of the larger terrace, the view loss would be reduced and additional glimpses of water can be seen toward the south east (also shown in figure 3 above), depending on the height of the person.

 



No. 4/28 Carr Street one property over to the west of the subject site.

1. Photo provided by the objector from the east facing first floor window with No. 30 Carr Street shown closest with tile and green corrugated iron roof.

 

Current views

As shown in the photo above, the view from the living room is directly over the eastern side boundary and comprises a highly restricted non-iconic view of the horizon with partial water views which are punctuated by existing buildings and vegetation. The building at No. 30 Carr Street will be occupied by a proposed double storey dwelling house which will block this view.

 

Anticipated view loss

The view is expected to be completely obstructed by developments to the east. It is

It is noted that the objector did not provide a further submission when the proposal was renotified due to the expected impact from the dwelling at No. 30 Carr Street. This has also been confirmed by the planning consultant (JBA Planning) acting on behalf of the objector via telephone on 17 June 2013. As such, no further detailed assessment of this property will be made in the sections below.

 


 



No. 1A Waltham Street – Missionaries of the Sacred Heart across Waltham Street to the south.

Street map showing context of No. 1A Waltham Street in relation to the subject site.

 

1. View north from front yard of 1A Waltham Street – standing view only

 

2. Front (north facing) corridor/circulation area – standing view only

 

3. First floor office/lounge room north facing – standing view only.

 

Current views

The property currently does not have any ocean or iconic views available to any of its windows. Distant and interrupted district views are available toward the general direction of Coogee Bay. Any district views are also heavily punctuated by vegetation and comprise of open vistas between established buildings to the north of No. 1A Waltham Street.

 

Anticipated view loss

The view is expected to be obstructed by the development.

 

1A Waltham Street has frontages to both Waltham and Asher Streets and has been designed with facades addressing both streets. Balconies and verandahs on these main south and east elevations once enjoyed expansive views across Coogee Bay and have been compromised by development and the now established plantings on the site, a number of which are now listed on the Significant Trees Register. 

 

As shown above, height poles indicate that there are no views from 1A Waltham Street which will be impacted by the proposed development. Council’s Heritage Planner also concurs that there would appear to be no benefit in any redesign of the proposed development such as reducing its height or altering the building envelope. As there are no significant views obtained from 1A Waltham Street, no further detailed assessment of this property will be made in the sections below.

 



No. 4A Waltham Street

Of particular relevance to the view impact assessment are the immediate adjoining sites to the west at No. 30 Carr Street and No. 4A Waltham Street, which each lie on their own Torrens title lots addressing Carr Street and Waltham Street, respectively. The length of the two properties lies along the western side boundary of the subject site. 

 

The existing dwelling (approved in 2000) at 4A Waltham Street is has the majority of its private open space, decks and major window openings facing its side boundary, shared with the subject site as obtains side views over the rear yard (refer to section 2 of this report for photos and site maps showing context of adjoining sites).

1. Eastern elevation of No. 4A seen from the rear yard of No. 32 Carr Street

 

2. View over subject site from the front footpath of No. 4A Waltham Street – standing. It is noted that the subject site is substantial lower in level than the Waltham Street footpath level (with a difference in RL of approximately 4m in some sections).

 

3. Entry landing area of No. 4A Waltham Street looking east – standing only

 

 

4. Entry landing area of No. 4A looking north – standing only

 

5. View east from entry level lounge room of No 4A Waltham – obtained from both standing and sitting positions

 

6. View east from entry level lounge room of No 4A Waltham – obtained from both standing and sitting positions

 

7. View east from entry level lounge room of No 4A Waltham – obtained from both standing and sitting positions

 

8. East facing upper level deck – obtained from both standing and sitting positions

 

Left Arrow: Wedding Cake Island

9. East facing upper level deck – obtained from both standing and sitting positions – views on right, toward south east to remain unimpinged.  The lower height pole represents the slightly recessed lower floor as per the elevation shown below: -

 

 

Current views

At present, 4A Waltham Street enjoys direct easterly views the water at Coogee Beach and Wedding Cake Island over the subject site and other dwellings to the east across the street. Wedding cake Island can only be seen from the top floor of No. 4A Waltham Street. As shown in figure 9 above, the right hand side (all views to the right, being south of the highest of the poles will remain undisturbed, including that of Wedding Cake Island). The left hand side of the poles will be occupied by the proposed building.

 

Anticipated view loss

The partial water views from the lower ground and entry level openings are expected to be lost due to their levels in relation to the proposed development. However, as stated above, the upper most floor iconic views will be retained as this section of the proposed multi unit development is recessed and given a greater setback from Waltham Street to maintain a view corridor. The upper level deck has a finished deck level of RL 35.71, while the 3rd level of the proposed development has an RL of 34.7 (which is 1.01m lower than the deck level) and a top floor RL of 37.7.

 

It is noted that No. 30 Carr Street briefly refers to potential loss of general westerly views to properties east of the subject site if an encroachment occurs within the established front setback of Carr Street properties. The proposed development maintains a reasonable and consistent front setback with that of the buildings on this side of Carr Street and will not result in any significant impact to westerly views toward Coogee Beach.

 

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.”

 

Property address

Area where view is obtained 

Is the view obtained from standing/sitting position 

View to be affected

4/131-133 Brook Street 

Entry level living room balcony (north facing)

Standing over the front boundary

Partial water views

Entry level living room terrace (south facing)

Standing and sitting over the side boundary

Partial water views

4A Waltham Street

 

Entry landing area

Standing over the side boundary

Partial ocean views

Entry level lounge room

Standing and sitting over the side boundary

Partial ocean views

East facing upper level deck

Standing and sitting toward the east over the side boundary of the subject site

Partial views of the ocean and the whole Wedding Cake Island.

 

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.”

 

Property address

Area where view is obtained 

Is the view obtained from standing/sitting position 

View to be affected

4/131-133 Brook Street 

Entry level living room balcony (north facing)

Standing over the front boundary

Partial water views

Entry level living room terrace (south facing)

Standing and sitting over the side boundary

Partial water views

4A Waltham Street

 

 

Entry landing area

Standing over the side boundary

Partial ocean views

Entry level lounge room

Standing and sitting over the side boundary

Partial ocean views

East facing upper level deck

Standing and sitting toward the east over the side boundary of the subject site

Partial views of the ocean and the whole Wedding Cake Island.

 

4/131-133 Brook Street 

Entry level living room balcony (north facing)

It is anticipated that up to approximately 60% of the views currently obtained from the smaller north facing balcony will be retained and the majority of the water view from the south facing larger terrace will be obscured by the proposed development. 

 

Degree of impact: Moderate to severe

Entry level living room terrace (south facing)

4A Waltham Street

Entry landing area

The partial water views from the lower ground and entry level openings are expected to be lost due to their levels in relation to the proposed development. The due east views from the entry and lower levels cannot be retained as they are obtained directly over a side boundary.

 

However, as started above, the upper most floor iconic views will be retained as this section of the proposed multi unit development is recessed and given a greater setback from Waltham Street to maintain a view corridor to the water. The upper level deck has a finished deck level of RL 35.71, while the 3rd level of the proposed development has an RL of 34.7 and a top floor RL of 37.7. Further, this level of 4A Waltham Street is significantly elevated when compared to the finished lower ground level of the proposed development, which presents at 2 and a half storeys on Waltham Street (adjacent to No. 4A).

Degree of impact: Severe at entry and lower levels, moderate at top floor.

Entry level lounge room

East facing upper level deck

 

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.”

 

·      4/131-133 Brook Street 

By virtue of the orientation of the allotments, the views are all obtained over side boundaries. This property currently obtains restricted views of the horizon with partial water views which are punctuated by existing buildings and vegetation. The restricted view (which does not include any iconic elements) over a side boundary, by virtue of the heads of consideration under the planning principle, is considered difficult to protect.

 

·      4A Waltham Street

By virtue of the orientation of the allotments, the views are all obtained over side boundaries. This property currently obtains restricted views of the horizon with partial water views which are punctuated by existing buildings and vegetation. The restricted view (which does not include any iconic elements) over a side boundary, by virtue of the heads of consideration under the planning principle, is considered difficult to protect.

 

The partial water/horizon views at the lower levels (lower and entry) over the side boundary of the subject site do not constitute “whole” views as defined in the planning principle, as the majority of the views to Coogee Beach are already obscured by the existing buildings to the east. The views do not present panoramic or wide outline of the natural landform.

 

However, as discussed above, the upper deck, which more sweeping and open views to the water and Wedding Cake Island will be partially obscured with the view of the whole of Wedding Cake Island remaining intact. Therefore, the proposal is considered to have achieved adequate view sharing.

 

It should be noted that the existing dwellings to be demolished are single-storey in height and is not considered to have realised the full development potential having regard to the medium density 2C zoning of the surrounding area. Any reductions in height and floor area is not expected to have any significant benefits to view retention as a two storey scale at street level is still anticipated to cause view loss over the side boundaries to properties to the west of the subject site.

 

Visual privacy

The Objectives of the DCP relating to visual privacy are:

 

·      To ensure a high level of amenity by providing for reasonable level of visual privacy for dwellings and neighboring properties.

·      To ensure new development is designed so that its occupants enjoy visual and acoustic privacy, whilst maintaining the existing level of privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

 

The side setbacks of the proposal meet and exceed the numerical requirements of the DCP. In relation to the property to neighbour to the southwest, the proposed living areas and balconies are oriented to the rear towards Waltham St. Any side windows are recessed behind an alcove in order to prevent overlooking. At ground level, the pedestrian boundary entry around the south and west boundary is below the existing ground level and will be 1 level below the windows of the existing house.

 

In relation the adjoining property to the east the proposed building contains screening to the larger windows and for the property to the northwest there are limited windows thereby mitigating any significant privacy impacts. At the upper level planter boxes are provided which increase the setback from the edge of the balcony to ensure that direct views down to the neighbour’s property will not be possible. As such, the proposal satisfies the objectives of the DCP in relation to privacy.

 

Retention of solar access to the adjoining properties

 

The Objectives and Controls of the DCP relating to solar access to the adjoining properties are extracted below:

 

Objectives

·      To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

·      To provide adequate ambient lighting and minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

 

Controls

(i)   Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

(ii)  At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

(iii) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

Shadow diagrams provided with the application indicate that adjacent properties to the east and west of the site retain at least 3 hours of sunlight over 50% of their open space areas in midwinter. However, the shadow diagram do not take into account the cumulative impact of existing shadows from existing development on neighbouring properties which would reduce the amount of solar access provided. This is largely due to the existing adjoining buildings overshadowing their own open space due to the north-south orientation of the subdivision pattern. Overall, it is considered that an adequate level of sunlight will be retained and the proposed overshadowing will not detract form the enjoyment of outdoor living for the neighbouring properties. 

 

The adjoining buildings fronting Carr St are situated in close proximity to the side boundaries which makes any windows in the side elevations particularly vulnerable to overshadowing. Due to the siting of the existing buildings on the subject site, these windows would currently receive limited solar access on the winter solstice. Whilst the is no significant benefit from the increased setback of the proposed building in terms of solar access, there is an improved spatial relationship with the adjoining dwellings in terms of physical separation. Further, the adjoining dwellings also have a northern aspect and therefore good access to northern light at the front of their buildings. In terms of solar access to the side windows of the adjoining buildings that face the subject site, including No 4A Waltham St, they are only affected either in the morning or afternoon due to the north-south orientation of the subject site and would receive a reasonable level of solar access given the medium density zoning of the locality. The subject site and the adjoining properties that will be affected by overshadowing from the proposed development are zoned Residential 2C under the LEP. The objective of the 2C zone aims at enabling medium density housing. As is discussed in the “SEPP 1” section of this report, the proposed building height and density are considered to be compatible with the surrounding built environment. Further, the proposed variations from the floor space ratio and height development standards do not result in any significant additional shading on the windows and open space areas of the adjoining properties than would result from a development which complied with the development standards and setbacks. In this regard, a proportion of the floor area is situated below the existing ground level of the site and does not contribute to overshadowing whilst the height variations are largely confined to the upper level at the south east section of the building that is setback between 5.35m and 9m in excess of the minimum requirements. As such, the proposal meets the objective of the DCP controls in relation to solar access.

 

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 accords with the relevant aims and objectives contained in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The development proposes a building envelope, height and façade treatment that generally meets the relevant criteria and fulfils these objectives.

 

The SEPP No. 1 Objections lodged with respect to non-compliance with the floor space ratio, building, and external wall height standard are considered to be well founded.

 

The proposal adequately addresses the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the 2C medium density residential zone and objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP 2013 – Part C2 Medium Density Residential and Part B7 Parking and will not result in any unacceptable 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 acceptable for the site and in the context of the surrounding area. 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 2C medium density zone 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

 

A.     That Council supports the objections to development standards under SEPP 1 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20F(1), 20G(2) and 20G(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to maximum floor space ratio, maximum building height and maximum external wall height, respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 725/2012 for the demolition of existing dwellings, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey multi unit development with 10 units, basement car parking for 19 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (SEPP1 objection to floor space ratio and wall height controls) at No. 32-34 Carr Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

2.1     Drawings must be prepared at 1:50 sections showing the major elements that will affect the aesthetics of the proposed building such as balconies and balustrade details, planter boxes etc. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

2.2     Ceiling fans must be provided in all habitable rooms and clearly marked on the plans.

 

2.3     Window and door operation must be designed to optimise natural ventilation and clearly marked on the elevations.  Weather protection must be provided to exposed openings and particularly to the top floor where no overhangs have been indicated. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

2.4     The surplus in carparking spaces must be allocated for motorcycles. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval      prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

2.5     The proposed alcoves adjacent to the bedroom/study to units: 1.03, 1.02, 2.02 and 2.03 must be non trafficable. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 32 -34 Carr Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        12 November 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D95/13

 

 

Subject:                  211-213 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/744/2012/C)

Folder No:                   DA/744/2012/C

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development by changing Condition No. 72 to allow for aerial bundling of power lines rather than undergrounding of power

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd - Sydney

Owner:                         Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd - Sydney

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 undergrounding of power cables, which is contrary to Council policy. In addition, the original application was determined at the Planning Committee meeting on 14 May 2013.

 

The original application proposed the demolition of all structures on site, removal of existing underground fuel tanks and construction of a new service station, including parking, service yard, waste storage, acoustic fence, landscaping and associated site works.

 

The application seeks consent to modify condition 72 of Development Consent to allow for aerial bundling the cables instead of placing them underground.

 

Site

 

The site is on the western side of Anzac Parade Kensington and is a triangular shaped allotment which at present contains a service station, convenience store and car wash. The site adjoins the NIDA complex to the south and residences to the west.

 

Submissions

 

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 No. 72 currently reads:

 

72    The applicant shall meet the full cost of the overhead power lines located along the Anzac Parade 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 provided a quotation for the works to comply with this condition from Australian High Voltage being $ 450 000 excluding GST which is a considerable cost impost to the development. The applicant also notes that they are willing to accept the overhead bundling of power lines as a reasonable compromise.

 

The cost for undergrounding of the power lines represents 12.3% of the total development cost, which is an additional cost that significantly exceeds the applicable 1% Section 94A contribution of $ 40 324.24. 

 

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/744/2012/C for 211 Anzac Parade 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 Anzac Parade site frontage to be aerially bundled  The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the wires to be bundled. All cables/wires 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 - 211 - 213 Anzac Parade Kensington (DA/744/2012/C)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        12 November 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D96/13

 

 

Subject:                  3 Park Avenue, Randwick (DA/472/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/472/2013

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Installation of hard stand car space

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                L Hillier

Owner:                         L Hillier and L McGeachie

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councilors Seng, Smith and Roberts.

 

Proposal

 

The application details the construction of a hard stand car space to the front of the existing semi detached dwelling including alteration and excavation beneath the existing dwelling façade to accommodate the car space.

 

Site

 

The site is on the eastern side of Park Avenue and has a street frontage of 6.825m and depth of 31.39m with a site area of 206m². The site contains an existing single storey semi detached dwelling amongst a group of semi detached dwellings. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings and multi unit housing development.

 

Existing premises as viewed from Park Avenue.

 

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 have been received in response to the notification of the application.

 

 

 

 

Key Issues

 

The proposed car space satisfies the controls of Part 6 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan with respect to the siting and minimum dimensions.

 

The main issue relating to the installation of the car space is the excavation through the footpath to provide the driveway crossing at the maximum driveway gradient will result in a driveway level between 350mm and 400mm below the existing footpath level. The gap between the driveway and footpath level will therefore require steps to both sides of the driveway and the width of the site is insufficient to provide a graded ramp from the driveway. The lower driveway level will also require the installation of a step between the driveway and the existing entrance path of the dwelling which is also at a higher level approximately 200mm above the existing footpath level.

 

The alteration of the footpath to accommodate the driveway crossing will not maintain safe pedestrian access along the footpath as the provision of steps within the footpath to the front of this dwelling will result in a potential hazard for pedestrians using the footpath, especially pedestrians who may be mobility or vision impaired or using perambulators.

 

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

 

That the application to install a hard stand car space be refused.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No. 472/2013 for permission to install a car space and front fence to the property at 3 Park Avenue Randwick for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP, Low Density Residential, Part 6 Car Parking and Access in that requires the location and design of parking and access facilities do not pose undue safety risks on building occupants and pedestrians.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3 Park Avenue, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        12 November 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D97/13

 

 

Subject:                  123-129 Dolphin Street, Coogee (DA/169/2011/A)

Folder No:                   DA/169/2011/A

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development by alteration to carpark slab, increase in lift size, internal changes to Unit 2.04, alteration to Arden Street building fire stair with new walls at ground level, alteration to units 301, 401 and 501, extension in floor slab at second floor of Dolphin street building on north side, addition of operable pergolas and planters for units 502 and 503 facing Dolphin Street

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Mr C Charalambous

Owner:                         The Owners - Strata Plan No. 21213

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 a matter of public interest as a submission has been received from an objector claiming that a submission to the original approved DA had not been considered in the assessment and determination of the original DA and that they did not have the opportunity to address Council. Council has investigated the claim and there is no record of receiving the objector’s submission.

 

The original application was determined at the Planning Committee meeting of 6 December 2011 and comprises the substantial alterations to the existing residential dwelling flat building including alterations to ground floor parking, construction of a first floor podium level, addition of a fourth floor level and the construction of a five level infill building off Arden Street.

 

Proposal

 

The subject proposal is made pursuant to Section 96 1A 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: 

 

 

The applicant has made a subsequent request that the proposal to raise the basement/lower ground level car park slab to 600mm (ie to the existing level) be deleted from the subject Section 96 application. Accordingly, the proposed changes to the basement car park do not form part of the Section 96 proposal.

 

The SEE advises that the proposed modifications do not result in any additional floor space or increase in height of the approved buildings. Additionally, the approved landscaped arrangement will remain unchanged. 

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Dolphin Street, in close proximity to its intersection with Arden Street. Coogee Oval is located to the south of the site and the residential development in the form of residential flat buildings are located to the north, east and west of the site.

 

The site is rectangular in shape with a total area of 744.5m2. The site has a depth of 35.05 metres, a 19.81 metre frontage to Dolphin Street and a 4.57 metre frontage to Arden Street.

 

The site generally slopes from north to south with the highest RL being 10.73 at the north-eastern corner of the site and the lowest RL being 7.32 at the south-eastern corner, fronting Dolphin Street. This gives the site a total fall of 3.41 metres.

The site is currently under construction. Vehicular access to the site is via the Dolphin Street frontage and the driveway is positioned on the eastern side of the existing building. An access way to the rear of the site stems from Arden Street, running adjacent to the neighbouring building, No. 184 Arden Street. This provides pedestrian access only into the site.

 

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:

 

8/182 Arden Street, Coogee

8/80 Bream Street, Coogee

 

The issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

 

No notification of the approval of the original DA

The objector in the adjoining northern property at 8/182 Arden Street has raised an objection that she had not been informed of the approval of the original DA and that, in effect, her submission to the DA had been disregarded. The objector provided to Council a copy of her submission to the original DA which she claims was e-mailed to Council. A meeting was held with the objector on 26 August 2013 where the objector was advised that Council had no record of any submission to the original DA being received from the objector. The objector advised that she would check her e-mail record to confirm the date and time the submission was sent. Accordingly, on 26 August 2013, the objector forwarded a copy of the e-mail she claims to have sent to Council’s General Manager on 13 April 2011 in response to the original DA notification. That e-mail indicated that it was incorrectly sent to “general” instead of the correct e-mail address of Council’s General Manager. The objector was subsequently advised of this error. Notwithstanding this advice, the objector has requested in an e-mail dated 2 September 2013 that the subject Section 96 application not be determined until the objector obtains legal advice on this matter. After more than a month no further advice has been received from the objector. In view of this, and especially given that Council has undertaken all appropriate and necessary action in relation to the notification, assessment and determination of the original DA, particularly in addressing all issues raised in submissions received by Council, it is not considered reasonable to further delay the assessment and determination of the subject Section 96 application.

  

·      The development will inappropriately fill the normal required separation/gap  between two established buildings.

·      Detrimental increase in density in an already dense urban setting

The objector in the adjoining northern property at 8/182 Arden Street has raised an objection to the increased density of the proposed development and in particular that of the adjoining infill building on Arden Street. The proposed modifications to the Arden Street building (between Nos. 182 and 184 Arden Street) will not alter the approved envelope of this building and seeks only to replace the curved walls of the rear stairwell extension with an angular square configuration. The bulk and scale of this approved infill building was assessed intensively in the original DA process, including the following SEPP 65 assessment by the Design Review Panel:

 

·      “This proposal has merit and is an intelligent reworking of a poor quality building. The general principles of adding some density to finance improvements to design and increasing density are supported both by the Panel and Council.  The Arden Street building has the potential to be a very positive infill building in a distinguished streetscape.

 

·      “The additional storey and broader balconies of Building A (the Dolphin Street Building) significantly improve the scale and presentation to Dolphin Street. The infill building to Arden Street is an intelligent urban response, and well-scaled.

 

Additionally, the assessment of the original DA proposal adequately addressed the issue of the “infilling” of the space between Nos. 182 and 184 Arden Street which noted that the DA proposal satisfied the objectives and Performance Requirements of the then DCP – Multi-unit Housing in relation to setbacks and, in particular, the integration with the established setbacks of adjoining sites in the streetscape. Specifically, in relation to buildings fronting Arden Street, it was noted that these buildings are generally built at a zero setback to side boundaries.  Accordingly, the proposed Arden Street building is built to a zero setback to both side boundaries in accordance with development in proximity to the subject site fronting Arden Street. In summary, the density, bulk and scale of the overall development, and in particular the Arden Street infill building, remains unchanged in the Section 96 application to that approved under the original DA.

 

·      Increased noise impacts

The objector in the adjoining northern property at 8/182 Arden Street has raised an objection to the increased noise from the proposed development. The acoustic privacy impacts of the proposed development was addressed in the approved DA proposal for which the following assessment was made and remains valid for the subject Section 96 proposal:

 

“Overall, the acoustic privacy of adjoining residential development is not expected to be compromised.

 

Building A:

First floor units have access to enlarged podium areas which will be built at a zero setback to the eastern boundary and 2173mm of the western boundary. A planter box 1300mm in width is proposed to provide separation between the trafficable area of the terrace and the eastern side boundary and it is recommended that a planter box of similar design is required of a condition of consent in relation to the western podium terrace. These areas will be used in accordance with normal residential activities associated with individual units and will not form part of common areas associated with the building. The width of the side balconies at second and third floor level have been reduced.

 

The width of the side balconies at second and third floor level have been reduced from that originally proposed. Proposed enlarged balconies associated with the second and third floors now generally align with the placement of existing balconies, and the main congregational areas associated with the terraces are orientated south to the streetscape, not adjoining properties. 

 

Building B:

Small terraces (5.8sqm) are provided to all levels of the building, distanced approximately 900mm from windows of the adjoining building. Given the size of the terraces and the size of the associated residential units, these areas are not expected to be areas where large amounts of people will congregate. The use of these terraces is will be in accordance with normal residential activities associated with individual units and acoustic privacy is not expected to be compromised.

 

The acoustic impacts of the approved proposal are not considered to increase under the subject Section 96 proposal for the following reasons:

 

§ no new window openings are proposed with openings to living areas and habitable rooms remaining the same as those originally approved.

 

§ the proposed “squared” wall section of the rear stairwell in the Arden Street building will be retained as a solid glass block construction which will maintain acoustic privacy in this stairwell.

 

§ the front upper floor terraces to Units in the Dolphin Street building will be reduced in size from the approved 5m x 6m to a proposed 3m x 5m to accommodate new planter beds so that noise impacts from these outdoor recreational areas will be further mitigated.  All other private terraces and balconies remain the same as those approved under the DA.

 

·      Amenity issues arising from the blocking of ventilation vents in the existing building 182 Arden Street

The objector in the adjoining northern property at 8/182 Arden Street has raised an objection to the blocking of existing wall vents in the adjoining wall of No. 182 Arden Street. This issue was addressed in the assessment of the approved DA proposal and the Section 96 modifications do not propose any changes to the approved development in this regard. Notwithstanding this, the assessment of the original DA in relation to wall vents is reiterated below and this assessment is considered also valid and pertinent to the Section 96 proposal:

 

The southern elevation of No. 182 Arden Street is built to the boundary of the site. Vents have been installed in the brickwork of the southern façade to provide ventilation to units within the building. These vents will be blocked by the Building B and objections have been raised in relation to this issue…it is acknowledged that No. 182 sits hard against the side boundary of the site, as does development on surrounding sites. The established side setbacks of buildings fronting Arden Street within proximity to Building B (the proposed Arden Street building) is zero metres. Given the width of the site at this point, the ongoing protection of these vents would be likely to prohibit any form of development fronting Arden Street in the future and is considered to be unreasonable.

 

·      Loss of sunlight

The objector on the adjoining rear site at No 80 Bream Street raises a concern regarding overshadowing. The proposed modifications will not result in any increase in overshadowing beyond that already assessed under the approved DA proposal as there will be no increase in height and density of the approved development. The approved building envelope remains essentially the same as that originally approved. In any event, the objector’s property is located to the north of the subject site such that no overshadowing will occur onto the objector’s property.

 

·      Loss of privacy

The objector on the adjoining rear site to the north at No 80 Bream Street raises a concern regarding loss of privacy. The proposed modifications do not entail any changes to approved window and door openings so that there will not be any additional privacy impacts on adjoining properties beyond that already assessed under the original approved DA. Notwithstanding this, the assessment of the original DA in relation to privacy impacts on the objector’s property is reiterated below and this assessment is considered also valid and pertinent to the Section 96 proposal:

 

“Privacy screening is proposed and required by condition of consent to be provided to all the windows shown on the northern elevation of the building facing No. 80 Bream Street. It is also noted that there are terraces associated with the existing dwelling facing this property; proposed alterations and additions to Building A are not expected to worsen the current levels of privacy between the subject site and No. 80 Bream Street.

 

The new balcony areas are orientated to the front (south) of the building and not expected to cause any adverse impacts in relation to privacy.”

 

Key Issues

 

·      Built form design and heritage

The modification includes the installation of planter beds and operable pergolas on the front terrace of the upper floor units (Units 502 and 503) in the Dolphin Street Building. In the original DA assessment, this upper floor section was required to be setback to reduce the visual bulk and scale of the proposed building to Dolphin Street. The installation of planter beds and operable pergolas is not considered to increase the visual bulk and scale of the building in that:

 

·      the operable pergola screens are light and open weather protection elements

·      the planter beds will contain plantings that will be required to include spill-over type groundcovers that can cascade over the edge of this planter which will contribute towards softening the overall built form of the Dolphin Street building.

 

The modification also includes the erection of a new concrete block boundary wall to the Arden Street building. This wall is not considered to increase visual bulk and scale of the Arden Street building as it will be constructed flush against the exposed existing wall of No 184 Arden Street.

 

Additionally, Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the design changes to both the Dolphin Street and Arden Street buildings and essentially finds that these changes will not result in any adverse impact on the heritage significance of the adjoining heritage items at Nos. 182 and 184 Arden Street subject to relevant conditions. These conditions will require reduction in the scale of partition walls between the upper floor terraces on Dolphin Street and minimising inconsistency in façade material and finish in the new concrete block wall in the Arden Street building.

 

The other changes to building including the reconfiguration of the rear stairwell of the Arden Street Building and the installation of a new concrete spandrel for fire separation on the second floor are considered minor and will not be visually intrusive in terms of the overall bulk and scale of the development.

 

The Section 96 proposal has been assessed against Clause 6.7 (Foreshore Scenic Protection area) of the RLEP 2012 in the Compliance Report and is considered to satisfy this clause. The subject site is not located on the immediate foreshore and the modification works external to the proposed building will result in a development which will improve its visual amenity in the surrounding natural environment and built form and therefore will not detract from the scenic qualities of this foreshore location.

 

Amenity impacts

The potential amenity impacts of the Section 96 modifications have been assessed in the relevant section above that addressed objector’s concerns. This assessment essentially finds that the proposed Section 96 modifications will not result in any increased in overshadowing, privacy or visual bulk and scale impacts as no increase in height and FSR is proposed and the approved building envelope remains unchanged.

 

In relation to view loss impacts, the proposed new planters and pergola screens on the upper floor balcony to Dolphin Street are not considered to give rise to any additional view loss for the following reasons:

 

·          the proposed operable pergola screens will be light and open in character unlike a solid wall

·          the pergola screening will have dimensions of 2.7m height and 3m width which are considered reasonable moderate in nature

·          Any potential views that may be loss to adjoining properties will be mainly distant district and filtered water views looking from the west towards the east across side boundaries of adjoining properties on the same side of Dolphin Street and in an oblique angle. Any potential views impacted will be less likely to be iconic views gained across front or rear boundaries. Accordingly, the Section 96 proposal will not result in view loss beyond that already assessed and determined under the original DA.  

·          A condition to reduce the extent of the party wall between the terraces to units 502 and 503 will further mitigate any potential view loss impacts.

 

It is noted that no objections have been received in relation to view loss.

 

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 modifications have been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and do not result in any further variations to these standards and controls beyond that already assessed under the approved DA proposal. These changes are also considered acceptable as they 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 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/169/2011 by increasing  lift size, internal changes to Unit 2.04, alteration to Arden Street building fire stair with new walls at ground level, alteration to units 301, 401 and 501, extension in floor slab at second floor of Dolphin street building on north side, addition of operable pergolas and planters for units 502 and 503 facing Dolphin Street at 123-129 Dolphin Street, Coogee, 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

Revision

Drawn by

Stamped

DA01

G

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan Architects

14 November 2011

DA02

G

DA03

G

DA04

G

DA05

G

DA06

G

DA07

G

DA08

G

DA09

G

DA12

G

 

Landscape Plan

Revision

Drawn by

Stamped

LP 01/B

B

Narelle Sonter Botanica

14 March 2011

 

Basix Certificate

Number

Date

123 Dolphin Street

348606M

13 December 2010

 

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

Revision

Drawn by

Stamped

S96 202

 

Arkivis

16 July 2013

S96 203

 

S96 204

 

S96 205

 

S96 206

 

S96 301

 

S96 302

 

S96 303

 

S96 304

 

S96 401

 

 

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

 

B       Add Condition No. 133 as follows:

133.  All references to alterations to the lower ground car park level to match the existing level shall be deleted from the Section 96 “A” drawings referred to in Condition No. 1.

 

C       Add Condition No. 134 as follows:

134.  The extent of the masonry privacy screen to the third floor level of the Dolphin Street building is to be reduced by setting it back to the front edge of the terraces and reducing its height to 1.8m, in order to minimise the streetscape prominence of the additional level.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

D       Add Condition No. 135 as follows:

135.  The proposed concrete block boundary wall to the Arden Street building shall be rendered and painted in a recessive colour compatible with the paint finish to the heritage item on the corner of Dolphin Street and Arden Street, in order to improve its consistency with the adjacent rendered façade.  Amended drawings and details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

 

E        Amend Condition No. 62 to read as follows:

62.   Landscaping at this site must be installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan by Narelle Sonter Botanica, job no. 100708, sheet 1 of 1, issue B, dated 02.11.10, subject to the following changes being shown on an amended plan, which must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, prior to the commencement of works;

 

a.     So as to ensure the line of sight of approaching vehicles and pedestrians is not obscured when exiting the site, the row of 6 x SRD (Strelitzie reginae) shown along the western edge of the internal driveway shall be replaced with an alternative species that will not exceed 600mm in height at maturity;

 

b.     An informal access path such as stepping stones or similar must be incorporated into the densely planted deep soil zone at the rear to facilitate future maintenance;

 

c.     All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm, with a construction detail to be submitted;

 

d.     In order to reduce the amount of storm-water generated by the site, as well as to recharge groundwater supplies, porous/permeable paving shall be used in all hard surfacing not over slab;

 

e.     To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic drip irrigation system shall be installed throughout all planted areas. Details shall be provided showing that the system will be connected to the sites rainwater tanks, with back-up connection to the mains supply, in accordance with all current Sydney Water requirements;

 

f.      All detention tanks and below ground stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth for the establishment of planting;

 

g.     Details of the species proposed for the raised planter shown on the amended Third Floor Plan by Arkivis, sheet no. S96 205, job no 00213S96, issue A dated 12.07.13, along the southern sides of Units 502-503, must be provided, and is to be consistent with the style of treatment that is shown for the ground floor landscaped areas, while also including spill-over type groundcovers that can cascade over the edge of this planter.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 123 - 129 Dolphin Street, Coogee 

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        12 November 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D98/13

 

 

Subject:                  150 -156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington (DA/656/2012/B)

Folder No:                   DA/656/2012/B

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Senior Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                     Modification of the approved development including deletion of rooftop decks, extend slabs of rear block by 300mm to north and south boundaries, increase balcony return widths, amendment to approved opening sizes, add floor space to bedrooms at level three (3), provide habitable roof space within the existing terrace building, add dormer windows to new terraces fronting Doncaster Ave, and various internal reconfigurations across the development

Ward:                      West ward

Applicant:                Fox Johnston Architects

Owner:                         Arrowfield Farms Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee given the original application (DA/656/2012) was approved at the Planning Committee Meeting of 9 April 2013.

 

1.        Proposal

 

The original application of DA/656/2012 was approved for demolition of a majority of existing structures and construction of multi-unit housing in three (3) building forms. The approved development comprises 37 apartments, basement parking for 43 vehicles, along with associated landscaping and site works. The layout of the approved development is shown in Figure 1, below.

 

Figure 1: Approved site layout, with each building form component highlighted.

 

The subject application seeks to make miscellaneous modifications to the original development consent of DA/656/2012, in the following manner:

 

Amendment location

Proposed amendment

Building 1

·      Internal reconfigurations;

·      Add a rear roof extension to each terrace;

·      Provide for bedroom and bathroom spaces within the existing roof form and proposed extension.

Building 2

 

·      Internal reconfigurations;

·      Increase size of rear roof extension over apartments 101 and 105;

·      Add a bedroom to the loft area of apartment 101;

·      Add five (5) dormers to roof form fronting Doncaster Ave ;

·      Additional detail of screening devices to Doncaster Ave façade;

·      Amend north elevation openings, including deletion of two (2) bedroom windows and addition of two (2) bathroom slot windows.

 

Building 3

 

 

·      Delete approved roof top decks, planters and spiral staircases;

·      Increase in parapet height of 300mm, to accommodate new roof;

·      Internal reconfigurations;

·      Delete conditions restricting balconies associated with apartments 301 and 304 to 300mm; increase width from 750mm to up to maximum of 1200 mm;

·      Additional floor space to west elevation of apartments 301 and 304, corresponding to bedrooms;

·      Extend slabs at each level by 300mm toward the north and south side boundaries to meet fire separation requirements.

General

·      Remove secondary roof over hallways.

 

The application was amended on 8 July 2013. Amendments related to reduction in the size of dormers fronting Doncaster Ave, extension of slabs 300mm toward north and south boundaries and reduction in the amount of addition floor space sought to apartments 301 and 304 of Building 3.

 

The revised design of 8 July 2013 forms the subject of this assessment.

 

2.        Site context

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Doncaster Ave, close to the intersection of Doncaster Ave and Darling Street. The site is presently made up of four (4) Torrens Title allotments described as follows:

 

Address

Lot & DP

150 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

Lot 91, DP 1094670

152 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

Lot 92, DP 2905

154 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

Lot 93, DP 2905

156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

Lot A, DP 108587

 

The northern-most allotment at 150 Doncaster Ave is a slender parcel running east–west that allows vehicular access to the Racecourse from Doncaster Ave. The adjoining lot at 152 Doncaster Ave is made up of a stable complex, used in association with the Racecourse at the rear. This building fronts a single storey brick wall immediately to Doncaster Ave. Occupying the two (2) southern lots 154 and 156 Doncaster Ave, is a two (2) storey semi-detached terrace style building with a dwelling on each lot and party wall on the boundary. Both sites have associated outbuildings at the rear.

 

The amalgamated parcel of the approved development (DA/656/2012) is of regular shape, with site area of approximately 1969 square metres. The topography of the site rises gradually in an easterly direction, such that the street generally sits one (1) to two (2) metres below the rear boundary. The amalgamated site is of the following dimensions:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern side boundary

40.2m

1969m2

Western, Doncaster Ave boundary

48.9m

Southern side boundary

40.3m

Eastern rear boundary (fronting Randwick Racecourse)

49m

The eastern side of Doncaster Ave is zoned Residential 2C under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and R3 – Medium Density Residential under RLEP 2012. This side of Doncaster Ave also exists within the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area. The eastern side of Doncaster Ave contains a mixture of single storey federation style dwellings and stable development, with interspersed multi-unit development. Larger development occurs as Doncaster Ave intersects Anzac Parade, within the Kensington Town Centre zone.

 

Figure 2: Aerial view of the subject site and surrounds. 

 

The western side of Doncaster Ave is also zoned 2C- Medium Density Residential. It is characterised by three (3) and four (4) storey multi-unit buildings.

Figure 3: The southern aspect of the Doncaster Ave frontage. The terraces to be retained are visible right of frame.

Figure 4: Looking south, the stable building of the subject site, left of frame. The Capella building, right of frame.

Figure 5: Existing Doncaster Ave frontage of the subject site.

Figure 6: The nursery within the Racecourse, beyond the rear boundary of the subject site.

 

Approximately 30 metres to the south-west of the subject site exists the ‘Cappella’ development at 101- 107 Doncaster Ave. This site is subject to the Kensington Town Centre controls. The building form comprises five (5) storey podium of minimal setback to the street, with tower above.

 

To the east of the subject site and immediately beyond the rear boundary is Randwick Racecourse, zoned Special Uses 5. A vehicular access track is located on the rear boundary. Beyond this a nursery operates, providing plants for the use throughout the racecourse site.

 

As outlined above, the eastern side of Doncaster Ave is contained within the Racecourse Precinct Conservation Area. The subject site does not have any individual heritage significance within the provisions of RLEP 1998.

 

3.        Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the originally proposed development between 29 May 2013 and 13 June 2013, in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, two (2) submissions were received.

 

148 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

803E/103– 105 Doncaster Ave, Kensington.

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy:

Concern over proposed 750mm wide decks to north and south elevations of block B (301 and 304). Urge Council to uphold initial recommendation.

 

The initial requirement for 300mm wide balcony returns at level three (3) was intended to allow trafficability, while discouraging congregation on the side elevations. The proposed 750mm width to balcony returns are considered to remain consistent with this intention, being too slender to facilitate concentrated use and instead encourage use of the rear elevation balcony.

Conversely, the components of 1200mm width balcony return are not consistent with this intention and have been recommended for amendment to provide 750mm in width only.

Where side elevation view lines are achievable from this level, a planter of substantial width directs views above the immediately adjoining properties and to the distance.

It is considered the design remains consistent with the intention of the original assessment with a 750mm width balcony return to north and south elevations.

Rooftop treatment:

Submission indicates support for deletion of rooftop decks;

Urge Council to ensure the roof will not be converted to a shared deck.

Many residents will look above the building. Request the roof be consistent with aesthetic of the area and blocks view of machinery and noise from plant on the roof.

 

The removal of the rooftop decks has been supported by this assessment and as a result the roof of Building 3 will be accessible only for maintenance.

Remaining structures on the roof comprise plant equipment only. The original approval was inclusive of a one (1) metre high screen to this equipment, which is proposed to remain. The approved screen will reasonably conceal the equipment when viewed from the Capella Building.

 

Amendments made on 8 July 2013 brought the slabs of Building 3, 300mm closer to the north and south adjoining sites. These sites only were re-notified between 17 July 2013 and 31 July 2013. No further submissions were received as a result of the re-notification.

 

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.

 

4.1      RLEP 2012 - Floor space ratio controls

RLEP 2012 adopts an FSR of 0.9:1 to the subject site. The original approval endorsed a floor space of 1.075:1.

 

The proposed amendments are inclusive of a number of localised floor space additions, increasing the gross floor area within the development to approximately 1.12:1. An objection under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 is not necessary in respect of Section 96 of the Act.

 

The additions comprise an additional 91 square metres of floor area. The additional floor area is distributed across the site as follows:

 

An additional 61 square metres  of floor area within the existing roof form and a proposed roof extension to Building 1, associated with dwellings labeled TRC 01 and 02;

An additional 10 square metres of floor area within the loft space of Building 2;

An additional 20 square metres of floor area at level three (3) within Building 3, associated with apartments 301 and 304.

 

The additional floor space is located arbitrarily across the development, providing minor increases to individual apartments in the interest of internal amenity. Importantly, the additional bulk has been designed to remain largely out of sight of the streetscape, within the existing and approved roof forms of Buildings 1 and 2.

 

The proposed built form will continue to support an intensity of use that is reasonable in the context of this site and considers adjoining amenity. The proposed amendments are not considered to shift or fundamentally alter the building form and it’s relationship to adjoining sites.

 

The proposed additional floor space is not considered to eventuate in any significant additional impact from that assessed under the original application.

 

4.2      RLEP 2012 – Height controls

RLEP 2012 adopts a height of 12 metres to the subject site.

 

The approved maximum height of 13.3 metres is not proposed to change under the proposed development. Despite amendments to roof decks and the parapet of the building, the approved maximum height is achieved to plant and equipment enclosures on the roof of Building 3, of which is not proposed to change under the present application.

 

4.3      Side setback reductions

Section 3.4.2 of the DCP identifies objectives for side setbacks within medium density development. An adequate side setback and consequent building separation will allow for access, landscaping, privacy and natural light and ventilation.

 

Side setback reductions from the original approval occur in the following instances:

 

Where additional floor space is proposed to the third floor of Building 3, resulting in a one (1) metre reduction in the approved side setbacks of level three (3);

Where additional floor space is proposed within the roof form of Building 2, bringing the rear roof extension 300 mm closer to the northern side boundary;

Where the slabs of Building 3 require extension of 300mm to achieve vertical fire separation under the BCA.

 

The most notable amendment in setbacks occurs to the third floor of Building 3 where a localised one (1) metre reduction in approved setbacks is proposed to north and south elevations, to accommodate additional floor space. This eventuates in a minimum separation of five (5) metres from third floor level to each side boundary. This distance is considered sufficient for building separation and is reasonable in a medium density development context.

 

The remaining setback amendments proposed are minor, of roughly 300mm in extent and do not pose significant additional impact upon adjoining sites or the streetscape.

 

The additional floor space and subsequent reduction in setbacks to both north and south boundaries is not considered to be excessive and will not have substantial impact upon the adjoining sites or the external appearance of the development. While some additional bulk will be apparent to neighbouring sites, the approved minimum setbacks of the approved development are maintained. It is considered the design effectively compensates for those setback amendments through means of articulation, modulation and landscaping.

 

The proposed miscellaneous setback reductions proposed within the application are considered acceptable in respect of the planning controls.

 

4.4      Solar access

Section 5.1 of the DCP promotes retention of solar access to the subject and adjoining sites. The controls identify that where possible, three (3) hours of solar access to the adjoining site should be retained between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The additional bulk proposed to the southern component of the third floor of Building 3, has potential to reduce solar access to the southern and eastern neighbours. The applicant has submitted solar access detail of the proposed amendments, confirming this to be the case.

Based on the submitted shadow diagrams, the proposal will continue to allow for the sole north facing window of the southern neighbour to receive in excess of three (3) hours solar access, as did the original approval (DA/656/2012). The rear open space of the southern neighbour will continue to achieve less than three (3) hours solar access, however the proposed amendments do not substantially change this, introducing a small amount of additional shadow between approximately 12pm and 2pm. As the afternoon progresses, the additional shadow falls upon the Racecourse, to the east. The Racecourse and it’s nursery at the rear of the subject site, is not prevented form achieving the necessary three (3) hours due to the amendments.

 

The subject shadow impact comes about largely as a result of the site orientation, coupled with the medium density context of these sites and interspersion of single storey buildings. In this instance, the shadow impact imposed is largely unavoidable and does not result out of bad design.

 

The amendments do not substantially change the shadow impact upon both adjoining sites, of which was previously considered to be acceptable. The development as proposed to be amended, is considered remain acceptable in relation to solar access to adjoining sites.

 

4.5      Privacy

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.

 

4.5.1   Amended balcony returns

Conditions applied to DA/656/2012 restricted balcony returns at level three (3), along both north and south elevations to a width of 300mm. The current amendment application seeks to increase this width to a minimum of 750mm and maximum of 1200mm of trafficable width along the balcony returns.

 

The 300mm requirement was intended to protect the privacy of both the north and south adjoining sites from occupants of the upper floors of Building 3. The width was considered encouraging for use as an access-way only, therefore discouraging any congregation at elevated levels along the sides of the building.

 

In reviewing the possibility of 750mm being accommodated on the balcony returns, this width is considered to similarly allow access along the side of each apartment, however remains of insufficient width to facilitate congregation or furniture placement. In this respect a 750mm width to the returns is considered reasonable and, given the width of the planters provided to either side, will be consistent with the intention of the original assessment to discourage views down over side boundaries.

 

Further to the above, the amended balcony design splays out to a maximum of 1200mm centrally along each balcony return in proximity to the rear elevation. This width is considered encouraging of congregation, being wide enough to accommodate furniture items for instance. The proposed 1200mm width is considered to directly eventuate in privacy issues to the adjoining sites and as such, the level three (3) balcony returns are recommended to be restricted to 750mm in width. Planters along the side of the balcony will provide sufficient privacy and separation to discourage view lines to the adjoining sites.

 

The amendments to the balcony returns of level three (3) are considered acceptable subject to the above discussed conditions.

 

 

 

4.5.2   North elevation windows

To the north elevation of Building 2, the application proposes to delete a ground and first floor window, corresponding to bedrooms. It is further proposed to add a window at ground and first floor, both corresponding to bathrooms. The proposed windows are not identified as being obscured.

 

The first floor window proposed has potential implications for privacy to the northern neighbour. As such, it is recommended obscuring to a minimum height of 1600mm be required by condition of consent, in accordance with the DCP.

 

4.6      New dormers to Doncaster Ave

Five (5) new dormer windows are proposed on the roof form of Building 2 fronting Doncaster Ave, associated with living areas of apartments at first floor level. The dormers have been included in attempt to improve internal amenity within the subject apartments.

 

Further to the advice of Council’s Heritage Planner and amendments made on 8 July 2013, the dormers are considered to be consistent with the streetscape and will contribute positively to the built form aesthetic of the development. No substantial amenity related impacts are considered to arise as a result of the dormers to the street or surrounding sites.

 

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 that when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts, eventuate in a generally 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(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/656/2012/B through deletion of roof top decks and structures, extend slabs of rear block by 300mm to north and south boundaries, amendment to approved opening sizes, add floor space to bedrooms at level three (3), provide habitable roof space within the existing terrace building, add dormer windows to new terraces fronting Doncaster Ave, and various internal reconfigurations across the development at No. 150–156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington, in the following manner:

 

·                     Amend Condition No. 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

14 January 2013

15 January 2013

DA1.01

DA1.02

DA1.03

DA1.04

DA1.05

DA1.06

DA2.01

DA2.02

DA2.03

DA2.04

2140-01

D

Peter Glass & Assoc.

2140-02

Sample Board:

(150-156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington)

Fox Johnston

Not dated

12 October 2012

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Multi Dwelling

449156M_03

14 January 2013

Alterations and Additions

A148587_02

 

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 and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA1.02

C

Fox Johnston

10 May 2013

8 July 2013

DA1.03

DA1.04

DA1.05

DA1.06

DA2.01

D

DA2.02

C

DA2.03

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received by Council

Multi Dwelling

449156M_04

3 July 2013

8 July 2013

 

Alterations & Additions

A148587_03

4 July 2013

Alterations & Additions

A148571_03

4 July 2012

 

 

Non standard conditions

 

§     Amend Condition No. 2 as follows:

Privacy measures

2.       Privacy measures shall be provided in accordance with the commitments detailed on the approved plans and the following additions;

 

c)      Units numbered 301 and 304:

 

·      The side elevation balcony returns shall be trafficable to a maximum 750mm in width. The approved planters should be increased to cover the remaining non trafficable area;

 

·        A minimum of two (2) full height sliding screens shall be installed to those kitchen and living windows with north or south aspects.

 

d)       The north elevation bathroom window corresponding to unit number 105 shall be obscured to a minimum height of 1600mm above finished floor level.

 

Details demonstrating compliance shall be incorporated in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

§     Delete Condition No. 3:

Rooftop terraces:

3.       Privacy measures shall be implemented in accordance with the following;

 

a)   The roof top terraces associated with units 301 and 304 shall be reduced to be no greater than 16 square metres in trafficable area each. The terraces shall not be trafficable within 12 metres of the northern or southern side boundaries;

 

b)   The erection of any structure on the roof top terraces, whether temporary or permanent is prohibited. The terraces are to remain open and remain for the private use of the associated dwelling. After-market privacy screens that exceed the approved height of the building are prohibited;

 

c)   Planting shall be maintained in the planter boxes of the terraces in accordance with the landscape plan.

 

§     Amend Condition No. 8 as follows:

8.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the development must be consistent with the relevant approved plans, documentation and colour schedules including the submitted ‘Sample Board’, referenced ‘150-156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington’, prepared by Fox Johnston and received by Council on 12 October 2012.

 

Further detail is required of the design, materials and finishes of the proposed screens/shading to front terraces of new building at the front of the site.  Details are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

External surfaces to the development are to be compatible with the existing building, surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area and consistent with the architectural style of the building. 

 

All materials used within the development shall be treated so as to minimise the impact of reflectivity upon neighbouring sites. This may be achieved through powder coating or anodizing treatments.

 

§     Amend Condition No. 112 as follows:

Landscaping

112.    Prior to issuing a Final (or any type of interim) Occupation Certificate, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming the date that the completed landscaping was inspected, and must state that landscaping at the site has been installed substantially in accordance with the Ground Floor + Level Three & Roof Level Landscape Plans by Peter Glass & Associates, dwg no’s 2140-01 - 02, issue D, dated 14/01/13, including the treatment provided to the raised planters along the northern, western and southern edges of apartment 301, and the southern edge of Apt 304 (part of S96B) as well as the 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 - 150 - 156 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington (DA/656/2012/B)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER