Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 3 December 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                                                                                          3 December 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, 3 December 2013 at 6:00pm.

 

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

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 12 November 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.

D100/13    1/484 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/666/2013)...................................... 1

D101/13    9 Seaside Parade South Coogee (DA/303/2013)........................................ 5

D102/13    3 Minneapolis Cresent, Maroubra (DA/486/2012/A)................................... 27

D103/13    205 Oberon Street, Coogee - DA/500/2010/B.......................................... 35

D104/13    33 Harvey Street, Little Bay (DA/628/2013)............................................ 39

D105/13    697-699 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/107/2013)..................................... 57

D106/13    15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/529/2013).................................... 79

D107/13    87 Storey Street, Maroubra - DA/570/2013........................................... 103

D108/13    4 Holkham Avenue, Randwick (DA/392/2013)......................................... 113

D109/13    23 Hunter Avenue, Matraville (DA/703/2012/B)...................................... 133

Miscellaneous Reports (Record of Voting NOT required)

M17/13     CBD and South East Light Rail - Environmental Impact Statement Submission 137

M18/13     Seeking Council approval to apply to IPART for continuation of the environmental levy, 2014-2019...................................................................................... 147

M19/13     Malabar Headland Remediation Update.................................................. 225    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D100/13

 

 

Subject:                  1/484 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/666/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/666/2013

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Change use of an existing physiotherapy clinic to remedial Thai massage clinic including signage, with hours of operation from 10am to 9pm Monday to Sunday

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Sunan and David Mitchell

Owner:                         The Owners - Strata Plan No. 76009

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal:

 

The proposal involves the change use of an existing physiotherapy clinic to a remedial Thai massage clinic including signage, with hours of operation from 10am to 9pm Monday to Sunday.

 

The proposed use involves massage and in accordance with Council’s Resolution on 27 June 2006, the application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

 

It is considered that the proposed use is legitimate and the premises are not intended to be used for the purposes of providing sexual services. The proposed use as a traditional Thai Massage business is considered to be legitimate and the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Site:

 

The subject site is on the western side of Bunnerong Road, Matraville. There is a mixed use development on the site consisting of a retail tenancy at ground floor level and residential units above. There is a car park beneath the subject site which is accessed from Baird Lane and there are three (3) heritage items to the rear at 27 – 31 Baird Avenue, consisting of three bungalows - circa 1935.

 

To the south of the subject site is a mixed use development and a single storey residential dwelling is located to the north of the subject site. The locality is primarily commercial in nature and is in a state of transition; numerous medium density residential dwellings with shops to the ground floor are currently under construction.

 

 


Submissions:

 

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

 

Key Issues:

 

Nature of the Use:

Massage will be carried out in the two treatment rooms by a maximum of 3 staff. The treatment rooms are fitted with existing solid doors however conditions are recommended to ensure that no services of a sexual nature are to be provided.

 

A copy of the Thai massage qualifications held by the applicant were provided with the application however it is stated that there will be three (3) employees working at the premises. A condition of consent has therefore been included that the relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications of all staff are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to the commencement of the use. Council will then keep a record of the employees and their relevant qualifications. The applicant has provided details of signage indicate that its purpose is for “Thai Massage”. A condition is included that requires details of signage to the shop front windows that would display the legitimate types of massage services being offered.

 

Hours of Operation:

The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Sunday: 10:00am - 9:00pm. It is considered that the scale of the proposal and the proposed hours of operation will not impose any significant impacts on nearby dwellings with regard to noise generation. The proposed trading hours will be consistent with other nearby commercial/retail uses within the locality, including a restaurant.

 

Relationship to City Plan:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8:       A strong local economy.

Direction 8a:      The proposal, in providing for a commercial use will facilitate the provision of services to the community as well as the growth of local businesses.

 

Financial impact statement:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion:

 

The proposed change of use including fitout and signage will comply with the relevant assessment criteria outlined in the RLEP 2012 and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan. The proposed use is considered to be consistent with surrounding small business uses and subject to conditions to restrict the type of massage service provided, the inoffensive nature of the use will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact 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 Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/666/2013 for the change of use of an existing physiotherapy clinic to a remedial Thai massage clinic including signage, with hours of operation from 10am to 9pm Monday to Sunday, at No. 1/484 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, 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:

 

2.        Details of signage to the shop front windows must be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to the commencement of the use.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1/484 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/666/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D101/13

 

 

Subject:                  9 Seaside Parade South Coogee (DA/303/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/303/2013

Author:                   Roger Quinton, Coordinator Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of part 2, part 4 storey dwelling with garage, swimming pool and associated works

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                MPR Design Group

Owner:                         N and P Kotzohambos

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the cost of works is over $2 million.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The proposed development includes the following:

 

·      Demolition of the existing dwelling on the site and retention of part of the unapproved outbuilding at the rear of the site.

·      Construction of a new  4 level dwelling with the following floor space elements:

Level 1: garden, existing undercroft and pool plant.

Level 2:  laundry, bathroom, plant room, games area, home theatre, kitchenette(to be deleted by proposed condition), outdoor bbq area and swimming pool.

Level 3: car garage (accessed by car hoist from Level 4), gym, guest bedroom/bathroom and entertainment deck.

Level 4: living, dining, family area, study, deck and carhoist/vehicle access to driveway.

Level 5: 4 bedroom, bathrooms and decks at front and rear.

 

A request was made by letter on 21 August 2013 for the submission of amended plans and information addressing the following issues:

 

·      Floor space ratio(FSR). The application as submitted proposed an FSR of 0.81:1 and the standard under RLEP limits FSR on this site to 0.6:1.

·      Increased side and rear setbacks were required.

·      Detail of privacy measures for side openings and balconies at the rear.

·      Further detail on fill and levels adjacent to boundaries. 

 

Amended plans and information were received on 4 October 2013 which addressed the following:

 

·      Decrease in FSR from 0.81:1 to 0.65:1.

·      Increase in southern side setbacks and part of rear setback.

·      Setback of the uppermost bedroom level, construction of a small balcony and incorporation of pergola structure at lowest level to give a stepped appearance to eastern façade.

·      Incorporation of privacy measures.

·      Deletion of external stairs and ground level adjustments along side boundaries.

 

2.         Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 4 in DP 9452 and Lot A in DP 366853, No. 9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee. The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, opposite the intersection with Edgecliffe Avenue. It has an area of 660 sqm.

 

The site has a significant fall from the street to the rear with a cross-fall of approximately 9.5m. The rear boundary of the property is defined by the mean high water mark.

 

A part one, part two storey dwelling constructed with rendered brick and tile roof exterior finishes. There is a partially constructed concrete pool house to the rear of the dwelling which abuts the southern site boundary. The proposed pool house is to be demolished as part of this proposed development.

 

Immediately to the north of the subject property (No. 7 Seaside Parade) is a part two, part three storey detached dwelling with two balconies at the rear. The site to the south (No. 11 Seaside Parade) contains a part one, part two storey dwelling with a rear deck on the upper level.

 

The surrounding area is predominantly characterized by detached houses. The locality is currently experiencing gradual transition from older housing stock to redeveloped modern residences.  

 

3.         Site History

 

Issue of unauthorised building works from 2004 to present

Unauthorised building works have been undertaken by previous owners on the outbuilding to rear of site. The outbuilding forms part of subject application, with a terrace to be constructed above it.  Council’s Manager Health, Building and Regulatory Services advised the owner of no. 11 Seaside Parade on 5/8/13 that any further regulatory action would be held in abeyance until the subject application is determined as the structure has been incorporated into this DA. 

 

DA/648/2005

On 25 November 2005, development approval was granted by Council for demolition of the existing dwelling on site, excavation and construction of a dwelling house over 5 levels. This consent was not activated.

 

DA/456/2008

On 25 November 2008, development approval was granted for the demolition of existing structures on the site and construction of a detached dwelling over 5 levels with double garage, decks and landscaping. The approved development had an FSR of 0.67:1.

 

 

4.         Exceptions to development standards

 

Clause 4.6 of RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances.

 

Then proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio, contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

4.1      Floor Space Ratio Control

Clause 4.4 (2A) (c) states that the maximum FSR of a site over 600 sm in area (the subject site is 663 sqm) is 0.6:1.

 

The FSR resulting from the amended plans submitted on 4 October 2013 is 0.65:1. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Proposal

FSR of 0.65:1 (gross floor area of 433 sqm)

LEP development standard

0.6:1

% variation to development standard

8.3%

 

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

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

 

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

 

Comments:

The objectives of the floor space ratio development standard are as follows:

 

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

 

(b)    to ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Explain how the proposal, notwithstanding the non-compliance with the development standard, will achieve the objective of the development standard.

 

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

The underlying purpose of FSR is to contain bulk and scale and ensure that the proposed development is generally consistent with the development in the locality. The site is located within an R2 – Low Density Residential zone under the Randwick LEP which permits dwelling houses with development consent. The site is also located within an area characterised by 2, 3 and 4 storey dwelling houses of various architectural styles on sloping sites. The eastern side of Seaside Parade is typically characterised by large contemporary dwellings with garage structures Prepared by GSA Planning Job No. 13012: Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards for FSR at No. 9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee Page 3 close to the street boundary, a single or 2 storey appearance from the street, and up to 4 storeys in height with a staggered appearance at the rear. There are a number of single and 2 storey dwelling houses in the locality that have compliant FSRs, however these are older dwellings that are underdeveloped. The majority of larger dwelling houses appear to have exceeded the standard under the LEP. .

 

 

(b) To ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs

The proposed dwelling design is well articulated on all facades through varied setbacks, materials and finishes. From Seaside Parade, the proposal appears as a 2 storey dwelling house with double garage fronting the street, similar to nearby development. The existing high masonry wall at the street edge is replaced by a lower masonry and timber fence which provides a more legible entrance. From the rear, the proposal appears as a 4 storey dwelling house, which is articulated by a varied selection of materials and finishes which break down the façades and create visual interest (see Figure 2 on the following page).

 

The proposal has also been designed to respond to environmental and energy needs that are suited to its orientation. The proposal includes areas of soft landscaping that appear to be greater than the newer developments in the locality and includes measures to promote sustainability within the built form. This is reflected in a BASIX assessment, submitted separately, which meets the water usage and energy reduction targets. Accordingly, Objective (b) is satisfied by the proposal. Prepared by GSA Planning

 

Job No. 13012: Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards for FSR at No. 9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee Page 4

 

 Figure 2: Photomontage of proposed development, showing well-articulated facades

 

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

The proposal is not located near heritage items or contributory buildings. Accordingly, in our opinion, this objective has less relevance in the circumstances of the case.


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

The proposed built form has incorporated design measures to minimise perceived scale and bulk of the development. These include the provision of balconies, varied setbacks and a combination of materials and finishes to appropriately articulate the building facades, break down the proportions and create visual interest, in addition to the provision of a flat roof. The floor areas of the lower levels are partially below natural ground level and therefore do not contribute to the visual bulk. This is particularly evident from the streetscape, where the proposal appears as a 2 storey dwelling house, similar to existing development on the eastern side of Seaside Parade.

 

As important, while the approved dwelling had a compliant FSR, the proposal has been designed to have a similar built form (see Figure 3). The Statement of Environmental Effects that accompanies this report assesses the proposal’s relationship with the surrounding built environment and states that the proposed development is unlikely to have an adverse impact on respect of privacy, solar access and views, when compared with the approved development.Prepared by GSA Planning

 

Job No. 13012: Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards for FSR at No. 9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee Page 5

 

Proposed Street Elevation

 

Approved Street Elevation

 

Proposed Building Section (approved building line shown red dotted)

 

Figure 3: 2D images, indicating similarity between overall built form of approved and proposed development

 

5. Will non-compliance with the development standard be inconsistent with any planning objectives for the locality? State why?

No. The non-compliance with the FSR development standard will not be inconsistent with the planning objectives of the locality. The site is located within an R2 – Low Density Residential zone under the LEP. The most relevant objective state, inter alia:

 

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents

 

The proposal is consistent with the above objectives for the locality in that it continues to provide residential accommodation in the form of a dwelling house within the low density environment. The proposal has also been designed to maintain compatibility with the streetscape and built form of surrounding development, which contributes to the desired future character of the area. In addition, the proposal is unlikely to result in adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding development and this is discussed in Section 5 of this report. As important the proposal has been designed to have a similar overall built envelope to the approved development, which also satisfied the objectives of the zone. Accordingly, in our opinion, the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives of the R2 Zone.

 

There are no specific desired future character objectives for the South Coogee, the approval and construction of numerous 2-4 storey developments in Seaside Parade indicates that this type of built form is acceptable in the locality. Prepared by GSA Planning

 

Job No. 13012: Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards for FSR at No. 9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee  

 

6.  In the circumstances of the proposal, would strict compliance with the development standard:

(i) be unnecessary and unreasonable?

(ii) tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives under Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979?

(i)      In our opinion, the proposed development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable. As indicated, the site is located in an area characterised by dwelling houses of that range in height from 2-4 storeys, some of which exceed the development standards in the Randwick LEP.

 

From a merit point of view, the proposal complies with the height standard and presents an appropriate visual transition between the dwelling houses on the northern side at No. 7 Seaside Parade and the dwelling house on the southern side at No. 11 Seaside Parade (see Figure 4).

 

Figure 4: Proposed Street Elevation

 

The proposal also improves the visual presentation to the street, compared to the existing development. It is compliant with the overall height standard in the LEP, and many planning controls in the DCP which has ensured reasonable levels of amenity for surrounding residences. The proposal is compatible with new and emerging dwelling house development in the surrounding area in terms of height, bulk and scale.

 

While the proposal has a total GFA of 433m2 and an FSR of 0.65:1, approximately 79m2 of the GFA occurs below natural ground level and as such, does not contribute to the visible bulk above ground level. This is supported in Edgar Allan Planning Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2006) NSWLEC 790, where areas in breach of FSR below ground do not add to the visible bulk of the development. If the above ground GFA was considered only, the proposal would have a GFA of 354m2 and a contributing ‘above ground’ FSR of 0.53:1, which would comply with the standard.

 

As important, the proposal has been designed to enhance the streetscape appearance through the use of sympathetic proportions and high quality materials and finishes.

Accordingly, it is considered that strict compliance with the height control would unnecessarily and unreasonably restrict the evolution of the subject site in the circumstances of the case. Prepared by GSA Planning

 

Job No. 13012: Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards for FSR at No. 9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee Page 7

Yes. In our opinion, the development standard would hinder the orderly and economic use of the land by the proposed development. If the proposed variation to the standard is allowed, it would enable the construction of a dwelling house within an improved amenity that is compatible with other contemporary development in the locality. The proposal satisfies the zone objectives and enhances the visual qualities and presentation of the site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts. Strict compliance with the standard would unnecessarily complicate orderly and economic development of the land in accordance with the intentions of the zoning and the objectives of the Act.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

 In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of FSR standard, it is considered that the development achieves a high level of consistency with the objectives and will provide a positive planning outcome.

 

The proposed development is also consistent with the underlying intention of the standard as the proposed new dwelling is well articulated and is compatible with the desired future character of the area.

 

Despite the proposal exceeding the relevant development standard, the proposed floor space of the development is considered to be generally acceptable when a merit assessment is undertaken, including for the following reasons:

 

·      A significant portion of the bulk of the dwelling is located below street level due to the slope of the site. The development will present a 2 storey form to Seaside Parade, consistent with the existing character of the street and is stepped to some extent at the rear.

·      The proposed FSR is compatible with the size and scale of recent developments approved in the street, including the dwelling approved on the subject site under DA/456/2008 with an FSR of 0.67:1.

·      The building façade is well articulated and has a combination of exterior finishes which create visual interest and reduce perceived bulk. The development incorporates a flat roof, which also aids in reducing the visual bulk of the proposal.

·      The application includes proposed landscaping to the rear and the front of the site which also aids in reducing perceived bulk and will visually soften the appearance of the dwelling.

·      Other environmental impacts resulting from the development are considered to be acceptable, as discussed in following sections of this report.

 

It is considered that approval of this development would not compromise the integrity of LEP 2012 despite the fact that the floor space ratio standard is yet to be varied.

 

The proposed variation of Clause 4.4 is in this case considered to be well founded and proposed development is considered to have merit.

 

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

 


Comments:

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for state or regional environmental planning. It is considered that strict adherence to the floor space ratio development standard in this particular case would not contribute to the public benefit.

 

5.         Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

 

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

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, it is considered that strict compliance with the development standards in question is unreasonable and unnecessary. The development will meet the objectives of the standard in that size and scale of the development is compatible with existing development in the locality, the building is well articulated and impacts on neighbours are either acceptable or able to be mitigated by conditions placed on any consent.

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standard would be not be defeated or thwarted if approval was granted as full compliance in this instance is unreasonable and necessary.

 

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 FSR development standard in RLEP 2012 has not been abandoned or discarded by any decisions of Council. RLEP 2012 was recently gazetted on 15 February 2013 and the provisions of the LEP are the result of comprehensive analysis of the development patterns in the Randwick LGA.

 

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

RLEP 2012 was gazetted on 15 February 2013. The current R2 - Low Density Zoning has a sound basis and is not considered to be unreasonable or inappropriate.

 

6.         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:

 

·           7 Seaside Parade:

Issue

Comment

Loss of openness in front setback

 

See comment in sections below.

Over-looking from terrace over front garage

 

See comment in section below.

Implications for future development on 7 Seaside Parade from reduction in side setbacks

 Any further increase in setbacks adjacent to this common boundary would have little benefit as the development is oriented to the east and views of the ocean. In any case, it is impossible to assess the application against a hypothetical future development on the adjacent site.  

 

Inconsistent rear alignment and implications for view sharing

The amended plans detail a rear alignment which is generally consistent with adjacent development and conditions that should be placed on any approval would require further setback. See comments below on view sharing.

 

Landscaping adjacent to side boundaries needs to be limited in height to protect views

Proposed landscaping adjacent to the swimming pool and common side boundary is to be limited to 1.5m in height to limit impacts in this regard and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

 

·           11 Seaside Parade

Greater shadow impacts on north-facing windows of 11 Seaside Parade than under development approved in DA/456/2008

Shadows elevations submitted with the application indicate minimal additional shading on 11 Seaside compared to the approved development. See comments below. 

 

The development should comply with the wall height control. Exceeding the control results in view loss and shadow impacts.

The development is considered to have acceptable view loss and shadow impacts, subject to conditions that should be placed on any approval, see comments below. Consequently the infringement of the wall height control is considered to be acceptable.  

 

The proposal has excessive bulk and scale. It should comply with the floor space ratio control (FSR).

 

See comments previously discussing the Clause 4.6 variation to the FSR control. 

If this DA is approved will it legitimize the illegal, half-built structure in the rear yard? 

This DA proposes to retain the existing unfinished pool house structure and construct a terrace on the existing roof of the building. Any approval would legitimize the use of the structure but would not give retrospective approval to any works carried out illegally. In any case, a proposed condition for any approval requires removal of the structure in order to limit privacy impacts from the proposed terrace above to the rear yard of No. 11 Seaside Parade and resolve adverse impacts resulting from the bulk of the structure.  

 

Fencing details have not been provided.

Details of fencing on side boundaries should be required by conditions on any approval.

 

 

7.         Key Issues

 

External wall height

The Objectives contained in the DCP relating to wall height are that development has a suitable scale to the street, that impacts to adjacent dwellings are acceptable and that the form of the development respects the topography of the site.

 

The proposal has an external wall height of 9.5m, which is the same as the wall height of the dwelling approved for the site under DA/456/2008. Despite exceeding the control of 8m by 1.5m, the development is considered to be acceptable in this regard because:

 

·      The steeply sloping topography of the site renders strict compliance with the DCP control difficult to very achieve. The proposal steps from the front to the rear, following the contours of the site and will not result in significant adverse visual impacts.

·      The dwelling will present as two storey to the street and is compatible with existing development in the neighbourhood.

·      The proposed dwelling incorporates varying setbacks, materials and designs on each facade which creates visual interest and breaks up the perceived bulk of the building. The proposal has a flat roof design which will also reduce visual bulk.

·      The bulk of the upper level is set back 1.8m from the southern boundary 600mm further than levels below, which will further reduce the visual bulk of the development.

·      Other environmental impacts resulting from the development are considered to be acceptable, as detailed in further sections of this report.

 

Front setback/garage forward of the building line

The Objectives in the DCP for this control include: to maintain a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contribute to the character of neighbourhood and to ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.

 

The proposal includes a garage forward of the building line, which is to be constructed up to the front boundary of the site. The face of the dwelling is to be set back between 3 and 3.7m from the front boundary, matching the set back of the adjacent dwelling at No. 7 Seaside Parade.

 

The proposed setback of the garage is considered to be acceptable when the setbacks of adjacent properties are examined and it is seen that the eastern side of Seaside Parade does not exhibit any distinctive pattern:

 

No.1:                0.7m to 3.7m

No.5:                0m to 0.7m

No.7:                3m to 6.5m

No.11:              0m to 4.7m

No.13:              0.7m to 3.2m

No.15:              0m to 2.9m

 

Sites within Seaside Parade with garages forward of the building line include: No.s 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 Seaside Parade. The development provides an area of deep soil planting adjacent to front boundary with a width of over 5m. The proposal is therefore compatible with the existing streetscape and is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

 

Side setbacks

The Objectives in the DCP for this control include ensuring adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual/acoustic privacy and to maintain adequate solar access. The DCP requires a 1.2m setback for ground and first floors for sites with a frontage over 12m. Levels above this should be setback 1.5m from the boundary.

 

The proposal has southern side setbacks of 1.2m at levels 2,3, and 4 and 1.8m for the bulk of level 5 with the rest of that level being set back 1.2m from the boundary.

Setbacks to the northern side boundary are to be 0.9m.

 

The proposed setbacks are considered to be acceptable because:

 

·      Shadow impacts are not significantly different to the development approved under DA/456/2008, as discussed in a following section of this report.

·      Privacy impacts could be adequately mitigated through conditions imposed on any approval. In addition, the dwelling is designed to face east, with few significant windows facing north and south; as stated, these windows could be treated to limit any privacy impacts.

·      The reduced setbacks do not create any view-loss issues from adjacent properties.   

 

Shadow impacts

The Objectives of this control in the DCP include the requirement that new dwellings are sited and designed to maximize solar access to living areas and private open space, that reasonable levels of solar access to neighbouring dwellings and their private open space is maintained and to ensure new development allows for adequate ambient daylight access and minimizes the need for artificial lighting. 

 

The control requires that a portion of the north-facing living area windows of adjacent dwellings receives a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. Similarly, the private open space of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.   

 

Shadow diagrams, including shadow elevations, have been provided which compare impacts from the subject application and those from the approved development under DA/456/2008. These show:

 

·      In elevation there will be minimal difference to shadow impacts on north -facing windows of the adjacent dwelling to the south (No. 11 Seaside Parade) in midwinter. North-facing windows are shaded under both DA/456/2008 and the subject application. East-facing windows in No. 11 Seaside Parade receive almost full sun at 9am under both the previously approved development and the current proposal. By noon, east-facing windows are shaded under both development schemes because of the orientation of the site. It should be noted that the east-facing windows are the main windows to living areas for all dwellings on the eastern side of Seaside Parade.

·      Shadow diagrams in plan form show that the open space area to rear of the dwelling at No. 9 Seaside Parade will receive sunlight over at least 50% of the space between 9am and 12 noon. 

 

Shadow impacts of the proposal are considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

·           The subject development complies with rear setback controls and generally maintains the established rear alignment. Conditions on any approval would require further setback at the rear (detailed in next section) to limit view loss on the adjacent dwelling at No. 11 Seaside Parade.

 

·           It is acknowledged that the external wall heights do not comply with the controls in the DCP. However, a fully compliant wall height is not anticipated to significantly improve solar access to the side windows of No. 11 Seaside Parade, given the layout of the proposed building and the orientation of subject and adjoining sites.

 

·           The east-facing living room windows of No. 11 seaside Parade will continue to receive direct solar access in the morning on 21 June. The amenity of this room will not be significantly altered by the proposed development.

 

·           The proposal allows for the retention of 3 hours of direct sunlight to the majority of the rear open space of No. 11 Seaside Parade on 21 June.

 

·           The site at No. 11 Seaside Parade is relatively underdeveloped. There is a reasonable likelihood that the site would redeveloped in the future and that solar access conditions would be improved as a result.          

 

View Sharing

The potential impact of the proposed development on views obtained from adjacent sites has been considered. The assessment has included a comparison with the comprehensive view loss analysis undertaken for DA/456/2008, site inspections and desk top analysis. Ocean and headland views are available to the east, north-east and south-east of the subject and adjoining sites.

 

The following is a four-step analysis of view loss impacts established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case Tenacity v Warringah (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.”   

 

As detailed previously in the assessment of the approved dwelling under DA/456/2008, This proposal can potentially obstruct views to Wedding Cake Island north-east of the site (an iconic view).

 

The views below are the current views obtained from upper level east-facing deck at No. 11 Seaside Parade, in order from top to bottom being: facing south to Mistral Point headland; unobstructed ocean views to the east; view of Wedding Cake Island from southern portion of deck; partially obstructed view of Wedding Cake Island from northern end of deck.

 

Anticipated view loss from No. 11 Seaside Parade:

 

·           No impact to south-east and east.

·           Slight loss of view from a sitting or standing position of Wedding Cake Island from southern portion of the rear deck. The yellow line in the third photo below indicated the rear alignment of the development approved under DA/456/2008. The current application includes a deck and privacy screens at level 4 protruding 2m beyond the rear alignment of the development in DA/456/2008 and a pergola at the level below (level 3) protruding a further 700mm beyond this. It is therefore considered that the western end of Wedding Cake Island would therefore be obscured by the deck and privacy screens at level 4 of subject development from this position.

·           As with the development approved under DA/456/2008, it is anticipated that views of Wedding Cake Island from the northern part of the deck will be obstructed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below are views from the lounge room window of No. 11 Seaside Parade towards Wedding Cake Island. As detailed above, the yellow pole visible in the first photo below indicates the extent of the rear alignment of the approved development under DA/456/2008 and the current development extends 2m beyond this at level 4 and an additional 700mm beyond this for the pergola at level 3.   

 

It is anticipated that these views would be lost as a result of the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

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

 

The views that would be impacted, as detailed above, would be obtained across the side boundary between No.s 11 and 9 Sideside Parade.

 

Views of Wedding Cake Island that would be lost from the lounge room a standing position.

 

Views obtained from the rear deck are also from sitting and standing positions.

 

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

 

In summary, the following views from No. 11 Seaside Parade would be lost:

 

·      Upper level east-facing deck

 

Broken sea and headland views to the north through existing foliage on 11 Seaside Parade from the northern portion of this deck will be lost. A view of the western end of Wedding Cake Island would be lost from the southern portion of the deck, whether sitting or standing.

 

·      North-facing lounge room windows

 

These views would be lost completely as a result of the proposed development.

 

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.

 

In assessing whether the anticipated view loss is reasonable, the following has been taken into consideration.

 

·      The major portion of the views obtained from the rear deck will be retained. However, it is considered that a condition on any consent should be imposed to increase the rear setback of the proposed dwelling so that it matched the rear alignment of the lower two levels of the development approved under DA/456/2008. This will allow for retention of complete views of Wedding Cake Island from the rear deck of No. 11 Seaside Parade as this is considered to be a view of high significance for this dwelling.  Such a condition would result in a reduction in the size of decks at levels 4 and 5 and deletion of a pergola at level 3.

·      Partial views of Wedding Cake Island through foliage would be lost completely from the lounge room. Alteration to the design of the development to retain this view is considered to be unreasonable as the views are obtained across the side boundary and unobstructed views of Wedding Cake Island would be maintained with an increase in the rear setback of the development, as detailed above. 

·      It is acknowledged that the proposed development does not comply with the FSR development standard and the wall height control contained in the DCP. As previously discussed however, it is considered that floor space and proposed bulk of the development are acceptable and will be commensurate with that of surrounding dwellings. The proposal adequately acknowledges the topography of the site and presents as two storey to the street, thereby matching the existing streetscape character.

 

The potential view loss caused by the proposed development is considered to be acceptable, subject to an increase in rear setback as previously stated, for the reasons detailed above.

 

Privacy Impacts

The DCP requires privacy screens to the sides of balconies where oblique overlooking of adjacent properties is possible. The application includes privacy screens for the deck on level 5, screens for half the depth of the deck on level 4 and no screening, apart for  clear glazing is proposed for the terrace on level 3. Conditions on any approval should require the reduction in the depth of the decks on levels 4 and 5 to limit view loss impacts to the property to the south, as detailed previously, and this will also limit any potential for overlooking from these levels. A further condition on any approval would require details of fencing on side boundaries to be submitted for Council approval. These would limit any overlooking potential from levels 3, 4 and 5. 

 

Further conditions on any approval should require the deletion of the terrace above the garage to the front of the dwelling because of potential privacy impacts on adjacent sites. Also, conditions on any consent should require obscure glazing or increased sill heights to 1600mm above floor level for the side-facing windows of the following rooms: bedrooms 3 and 4, study and living room. In addition, it is proposed to remove the illegally built existing out building at the rear of the site indicated on the plans for levels one and two. The application proposes a terrace on the roof of the structure which would allow significant over-looking to the rear of No. 11 Seaside Parade. The bulk of this structure is also considered to be excessive.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development seeks to vary the floor space ratio development standard of Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012. The proposed development has merit and is considered to match the bulk and scale of recent developments in the neighbourhood, with the bulk of the proposed dwelling being below street level. Potential impacts and concerns of objectors to such issues as view loss and privacy impacts can be mitigated by conditions placed on any approval.  The proposal is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

A.        That Council supports the application to vary a development standard under clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 (2a)(c) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to maximum floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality and that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be advised accordingly.   

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/303/2013 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new part 2 and part 4 storey dwelling with garage, swimming pool and associated works, at No. 9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions conatined in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

1.             The trafficable terrace above the garage to the front of the dwelling is to be deleted; this area is to be non-tafficable. Details must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

2.       The deck at the rear of level 4 must be reduced in depth by 2m. Details must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

3.       The deck at the rear of level 5 must be reduced in depth by 600mm. Details must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

4.       The pergola structure above the deck at the rear of level 3 is to be deleted. Details must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

5.       Details of fencing on northern and southern side boundaries must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

6.       The existing outbuilding structure with proposed terrace above, indicated for retention on the plans of level one and two in the development application, is to be demolished and removed from the site. This area is to be landscaped with low-level vegetation and  ground levels are to match existing levels adajacent to the common boundary between No.s 9 and 11 Seaside Parade. Details are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the issue of a construction certificate.       

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/303/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D102/13

 

 

Subject:                  3 Minneapolis Cresent, Maroubra (DA/486/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/486/2012/A

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development including changes to meet conditions of consent, deletion of conditions, alterations to facade, internal alterations, alterations and relocation of window openings, an additional window to attic bathroom, reduction in building wall length, alteration to basement parking arrangement, increase in height of roof parapet, lowering of basement level, alteration to landscape walls, planter boxes and basement stair

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Gabeti Pty Ltd

Owner:                         John and Milly Wong

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

 

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 


Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

Original consent was for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a 3 storey multi-unit residential development with 4 units, basement carparking for 6 vehicles and associated works.

 

The proposal is a Section 96(2) application seeking consents to modify the approved development consent DA/486/2012 in the following manner:

 

§ Minor window and balustrade changes to meet conditions of consent;

§ deletion of condition no. 2d requiring vertical sun shading devices to the west facing windows;

§ deletion of condition no. 2E requiring highlight windows on the eastern side facade;

§ Minor alterations to the built form by slightly straighten the façade and interiors;

§ Internal alterations;

§ Additional window to attic bathroom;

§ Replacement of metal deck roof with crushed stone and new metal balustrade;

§ Relocation of some windows on the eastern side and alteration to other windows, reduction in building wall length;

§ Alteration to basement parking arrangement and lowering of basement level to address structural design;

§ Increase in height of the roof parapet;

§ Alteration to landscape walls, planter boxes and basement stair.

 

Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 174 in DP 36764, No. 3 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra and is located on the southern side of Minneapolis Crescent between Chester Avenue and Anzac Parade.  The site is irregular in shape and is presently occupied by an existing single storey detached dwelling house. The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, Minneapolis Crescent boundary

17.08m (ARC)

 

Eastern, side boundary

35.625m

 

Western, side boundary

31.7m

 

Southern, rear boundary

12.19m

 

 

 

481.5m²

 

The site slopes from the north to the south with a cross fall from RL 21.87m to RL 22.61m.

 

The site is adjoined to the east at no. 5 Minneapolis Crescent by a two storey multi unit housing development over basement car parking with a hipped tiled roof, to the west of the site at no. 1 Minneapolis Crescent by a single storey brick dwelling with a hipped tiled roof and to the rear is a two storey multi unit housing development which has frontage to Anzac Parade. To the north, on the opposite side of Minneapolis Crescent are double storey dwelling houses.  The locality is characterised by a mixture of single and two storey residential dwellings, multi unit housing development and duplexes as well as town houses.

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

Section 96 Amendment

 

Section 96(2)of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

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

 

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

 

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)   the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)  a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

 

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.”

 

The proposal does not involve a change to the categorisation of the development as approved and it is considered that the proposed would result in a development that would remain substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Key Issues

 

Assessment against key criteria of RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013

The subject site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is permissible with consent of Council.

 

RLEP 2012 - Floor space ratio controls

RLEP 2012 adopts an FSR of 0.75:1 to the subject site. Under the original consent the FSR adopted for the site was 0.65:1.  The original approval endorsed a floor space of 0.798:1 (or 384m²) and was supported under the SEPP 1 Objection.

 

The proposed amendments will increase the floor area by 3.5m² resulting in an FSR of 0.805:1 (or 387.5m²) to the site. An objection under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 is not necessary in respect of Section 96 of the Act.

 

The additional floor space is localised to the front of the building and provides a minor increase to the living area to the first floor level apartment in the interest of improving the internal amenity. 

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 its relationship to adjoining sites.

 

The proposed additional floor space is not considered to eventuate in any significant additional amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties and the streetscape character from that assessed under the original application.  Reasonable level of privacy is maintained to neighbouring properties satisfying the objectives and control requirements of Visual Privacy in the Randwick DCP 2013. The degree of additional overshadowing on the neighbouring properties is minor and the neighbouring properties will continue to receive the required solar access requirement satisfying the objectives of the Solar Access and Overshadowing control in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

RLEP 2012 – Height controls

RLEP 2012 adopts a height of 9.5 metres to the subject site.

 

The approved maximum building height of 9.4 metres from the natural ground level is not proposed to change under this amended development application. However, the external wall height is proposed to be increased to a maximum of 500mm on tapered angle to the rear section of the building. The top of the external wall height varies from its lowest point being 6.5m at the south east corner to its highest point being 9.4m from the natural ground level. The portion of the wall that will be increased is to the rear section of the building.  It is for the extension of the parapet walls to the south eastern and north western sides of the façade.

 

Listed below are the top of wall heights measured from natural ground for the parapets:

 

South East 6.5m

South West: 7.15m

North East: 7.95m

North West: 7.25m

Top of overall building wall height: 9.4m

 

The additional wall height will not significantly affect the visual mass of the development and the degree of overshadowing on the neighbouring properties.  The additional wall height is to the rear section of the building and is not visible from the streetscape.  The height is also consistent with other residential flat buildings within the streetscape.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted indicate that there will be additional overshadowing to the neighbouring property’s (at no. 5 Minneapolis Crescent) first floor window.  However, the degree of additional overshadowing is not unreasonable in that only a quarter of the window will be overshadowed in the afternoon. The additional overshadowing is minor and between 8am to midday the neighbouring dwelling will receive the required solar access.

 

The shadow diagram also shows some additional overshadowing impact to the neighbouring properties rear yards. However, the additional impact is minor and at least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbouring properties will receive the required 3 hours of sunlight.


B7    Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

The proposed reorientation of the basement has resulted in the loss of 1 off-street carspace. Six carspaces were provided in the original application while only 5 are now proposed for this Section 96 application.  This will result in a non-compliance with the parking rates provided in Council’s DCP 2013 Part B7. The shortfall of 1 space has now been created.

 

Councils Development Engineers have argued that the site is located in an area where on-street parking is relatively plentiful and surrounding dwellings have access to off-street parking. The non-compliance is therefore not considered to be critical in this instance. The shortfall also relates to the visitor parking component only. All parking requirements for the dwellings have been catered for.

 

In consideration of the circumstances of the site, the shortfall of one car space will not unreasonably increase the parking pressures and volume within the area and Council’s Development Engineers has not objected to the reduction in the parking provision.

 

The amended parking layout generally complies with AS 2890.1:2004.

 

Conditions requested to be deleted

The applicant wishes to delete Condition No. 2d requiring vertical sun shading devices to the west facing windows and Condition No. 2e requiring highlight windows on the eastern side façade.

 

Condition 2d reads as follows:

 

§ Vertical sun shading devices must be provided to the west facing windows.

 

The applicant has argued the following reasons to delete the above condition:

 

§ The windows along the western façade are for bedroom and bathroom areas only and are not to living areas.  The living room windows are located to the northern and southern elevations.

§ The windows are recessed 1m within the building façade for sun shading and privacy.

§ Internal blinds are provided within a concealed pelmet.

§ The building complies with the BASIX certificate for environmental performance.

 

The applicant’s arguments above are valid and for this reason Condition 2d is to be deleted.

 

Condition 2e reads as follows:

 

§ Highlight windows to a minimum sill height of 1.5m from the finished floor level must be provided to the eastern façade of the living room areas to Apartments 1, 2 & 4 to allow for appropriate ventilation for the living rooms and to improve the aesthetics of the building.  The window must be centrally located in the room and must be operable.

 

The applicant has argued the following reasons to delete the above condition:

 

§ Windows cannot be located along the eastern façade as they would be 2m from the boundary.  Any windows closer than 3m from the boundary will require fire engineered solution which mitigates the purpose of adding these windows.  If the windows were to be setback a further metre then it would severely compromise the living areas.

 

The argument made by the applicant is not valid.  The windows can either be fitted with fire shutters or be subject to a fire engineered solution to comply with the BCA requirements.  The windows are required to allow for appropriate ventilation for the living rooms and to improve the aesthetics of the building along the eastern side of the façade.  Therefore, it is recommended that this condition be retained.

 

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.

Direction 4b: New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not significantly 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 modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and the variation to the FSR standards was considered to be acceptable.  Approval of the modifications are considered acceptable as they will not result in any significant environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy and overshadowing; and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development.

 

It is therefore considered that the modifications to the original development consent are reasonable, subject to the recommended conditions below.

 

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/486/2012 at 3 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra, 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

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A1010

ALE X

31/07/2012

1 August 2012

A2003 , 2204 & A2205

31/07/2012

1 August 2012

A2201 & A2202

23/08/2012

30 August 2012

A3001 & A3002

31/07/2012

1 August 2012

A3101 to A3103

31/07/2012

1 August 2012

A3104

31/07/2012

30 August 2012

A9001

31/07/2012

1 August 2012

L01

Habitation

18/07/2012

1 August 2012

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

421673M

31 July 2012

1 August 2012

 

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 “A”:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A2201

ALE X

31/07/2012

5 August 2013

A2202

31/07/2012

5 August 2013

A2003

31/07/2012

5 August 2013

A2204

31/07/2012

5 August 2013

A2005

31/07/2012

5 August 2013

A3001

31/07/2012

5 August 2013

A3002

31/07/2012

5 August 2013

A3103

31/07/2012

5 August 2013

A3104

31/07/2012

5 August 2013

 

B.        Amend Condition No. 20 to read:

20.     The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004. The Construction Certificate plans must demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

C.        Condition 2e is to be retained.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3 Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D103/13

 

 

Subject:                  205 Oberon Street, Coogee - DA/500/2010/B

Folder No:                   DA/500/2010/B

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification of the approved development by replacement of garage to Unit 1 with open carport, decrease front set back of Unit 2 garage and construction of storage area adjacent to Unit 1 carport

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Graeme Lay

Owner:                         Graeme Lay

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

This section 96 modification application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original development application was determined by Council at the Planning Committee meeting on 8 March 2011.

 

The original Development Application is for alterations and additions to convert the existing dwelling into two dwelling units including an extension of the ground and lower ground floor levels, new first floor level and associated strata subdivision into two lots.

 

The proposed modifications involve replacement of garage to Unit 1 with open carport, decrease front set back of Unit 2 garage and construction of storage area adjacent to Unit 1 carport.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Oberon Street. It is presently occupied by an existing part one part two multi-unit development and attached carport and car space located to the front of the dwelling. The site has a frontage of 9.3 metres, a side boundary depth of 28.8 metres with an total site area of 270.8m2. The site has a significant fall of 4.23 metres from South to North of the site.

 

Neighbouring the property to the south, east and west of the site are existing residential flat buildings and is located within a R3: Medium Density Residential zone. The locality is residential in nature and consists predominately of detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and residential flat buildings.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Section 3.3: Setbacks

The proposal involves the construction of a new storage room and will reduce the front setback of the associated garage to 2.046 metres from the front boundary. In accordance with the Comprehensive Development Control Plan the front setback must be the average setback of the adjoining dwellings along Oberon street and if there are no adjoining dwellings, the setback must not be less than 6 metres. Nos. 203 and 208 Oberon Street have front setbacks of 0 metres and 5 metres, respectively. Therefore the average setback is 2.5 metres from the front boundary alignment. Variation from the control is considered acceptable and will continue to demonstrate compliance with the objectives for front setbacks. The decrease of the front setback of the existing garage will be located mostly on a driveway which by definition is not considered to be landscaped area and will not impact the building entries to the premises. Furthermore, only a portion of the eastern and western external wall of the front garage will reduce permeable landscaping by 1.4 square metres.

 

In terms of streetscape character the adjoining dwellings at nos. 201 and 203 Oberon Street occupy similar sited and sized garage structures which encroach within the front setback and located up to the front boundary. Nos. 211-213 and 215 Oberon Street also have reduced front setbacks which share a front building alignment similar to that of the subject site. Therefore, it is reasonable in this instance to argue that the proposal is consistent with the rhythm of the front setbacks of the immediately adjoining dwellings and is consistent with the prevailing setback line along Oberon Street.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the existing development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012 and Council policies and plans 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 which is substantially the same as that previously approved. The modified development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.  

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, modifying the development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/500/2010/B to allow the replacement of garage to Unit 1 with open carport, decrease front set back of Unit 2 garage and construction of storage area adjacent to Unit 1 carport, at No. 205 Oberon 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 numbered DA01 to DA14 and stamped received by Council on 11 February 2011, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the

 

·       Section 96 ‘A’ plans numbered S9601 – S9614, Issue S96, dated 23/10/12 and received by Council on 24 October 2012

 

·       Section 96 ‘B’ plans numbered S9601 – S9614, Issue A, dated 26/09/13 and received by Council on 27 September 2013

 

only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 205 Oberon Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D104/13

 

 

Subject:                  33 Harvey Street, Little Bay (DA/628/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/628/2013

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of a 5-storey residential flat building containing 55 apartments, basement car parking for 72 vehicles, landscaping and associated works and Strata subdivision

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Little Bay South 4 Pty. Ltd.

Owner:                         Urban Growth NSW

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

1.      Proposal

 

The proposed development is for the construction of a 5-storey residential flat building containing 55 apartments, basement car parking for 72 vehicles, landscaping and associated works and Strata subdivision.

 

The proposed dwelling mix is as follows:

 

·      1-bedroom units: 20 (including 3 adaptable units)

·      2-bedroom units: 35 (including 3 adaptable units)

 

The proposal has also reserved three (3) x two-bedroom apartments to be dedicated for affordable housing as required under the Developer’s Agreement between Landcom (the predecessor of Urban Growth NSW) and Council dated 4 March 2004. This dedication will meet the remaining obligation to provide a total of 4 affordable dwelling units within the Prince Henry Site as stipulated under the Deed of Agreement.

 

Photomontage of the proposed development as viewed from Harvey Street looking south-west. (Source: Turner Architects)

 

Photomontage of the proposed development as viewed from Harvey Street looking south-east. (Source: Turner Architects)

 

Photograph of a physical model of the proposed development (in white).

 

2.      Site

 

The site is described as Lot 65 in DP 270427, No. 33 Harvey Street, Little Bay (it is also known as Lot 33b under the Randwick DCP). The site is located on the southern side of Harvey Street and forms the terminating point of Ewing Avenue. The site has a gentle slope from the south-west to the north-east with a fall of approximately 4m. The dimensions and land area of the site are summarized in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land Area

Northern, Harvey Street boundary

42.27m

2931m2

Southern, rear boundary

43.995m

Eastern, side boundary

63.245m

Western, side boundary

75.445m

 

The site is presently vacant.

 

To the east of the site is a 3-storey contemporary building occupied by the Aboriginal Health College. To the south is a surface car park associated with the St. Michael’s Golf Course.

 

Adjoining the western boundary and part of the southern boundary of the site is a remnant bushland reserve covering an area of approximately 31,500m2. The reserve extends to Jennifer Street to the west and the northern border of the golf course. There is a group of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) located towards the western side of the reserve. Future development on the subject site would need to consider potential impacts on the health and condition of the remnant bushland.

 

The Historical Precinct of the Prince Henry Site as defined in the DCP, which encompass the Delaney Building, Heffron Building and Flowers Ward, are located to the north of the site. A key consideration for the subject proposal is therefore its likely impact on these built heritage elements within the immediate curtilage.

 

The subject site as viewed from the junction between Harvey Street and Ewing Avenue, looking south-west. The adjoining remnant bushland is seen in the background.

The adjoining 3-storey Aboriginal Health College as viewed from Harvey Street.

 

Aerial view of the subject site and the surrounding environment. 

 

3.      Submissions

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 2 October to 4 November 2013 in accordance with the Randwick DCP. A total of one (1) submission supporting the proposal was received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

·      Little Bay South 2 Pty. Ltd.

 

4.      Key Issues

 

4.1    Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard – Height

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

 

(i) Building height

Clause 4.3 and the map of the LEP specify a maximum building height of 18m for the subject site. The proposed maximum building heights are:

 

Parapet:

Maximum 18m

Lift overrun – front

Maximum 20.5m (14% deviation)

Lift overrun – rear

Maximum 17.5m

Other rooftop structures:

Maximum 19m (6% deviation)

 

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

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

 

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

 

Comments:

The objectives of the building height standard are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

·      The proposed rooftop structures, including the lift overrun, staircase roof, toilet and pergola, are setback at least 8m and 14.8m from the parapet wall and front boundary respectively. As are demonstrated in the photomontage images, these facilities are not readily visible at standing height in Harvey Street.

 

The planter boxes at the perimeter of the terrace are setback at a shorter distance of approximately 3.1m from the parapet. However, they have a height of only 1m and would also not be readily visible at street level.

 

The rooftop structures would only be visible at a distance at street level and from the upper levels of the surrounding residential developments. However, when viewed at a distance, the visual bulk and scale of the facilities in question would be diminished and reduced.

 

Photograph of a model of the proposed development. Note the setback of the rooftop installations from the front of the building.

 

·      The DCP provides that lift overruns be contained within the roof structures. The proposal does not meet this requirement.

 

The subject building contains two access cores. The rear lift overrun will protrude the roof slab by only 1400mm and will not be visible from the surrounding public and private domain. To strictly comply with the DCP control would necessitate the creation of an architectural feature roof to conceal the front lift overrun and cover the northern section of the building. Although this is technically feasible, such a solution would result in an incongruent built form.

 

On the other hand, the creation of a purely decorative, non-functional roof form over the entire building footprint would detract from the rectilinear and strongly geometrical expression of the development. This would also be unreasonable as the rear part of the building does not contain any visible rooftop installations.

 

·      Although the rooftop facilities in the front part of the building have varying heights, they are visually united by a horizontal pergola feature. Additionally, the finishing materials for the facilities are consistent with the rest of the building. Therefore, the rooftop structures would not form a significantly distracting element that undermines the architectural quality of the building.

 

Horizontal pergola feature visually unites the individual rooftop elements

 

Front elevation of the proposed development. Note that the rooftop structures would not be as visually prominent as depicted in this drawing due to the foreshortening effects of perspective.

 

·      Based on the above reasons, the rooftop terrace and structures are not considered to result in any material impacts on the curtilage of the heritage buildings to the north of the site, despite their deviation from the height standard.

 

The proposal in its current form will still be consistent with the desired future character for the locality as described in the DCP.

 

·      The proposed rooftop structures will not affect any existing view corridors or vistas towards the ocean and the heritage items within the Prince Henry Site, due to their height and location.

 

These structures would only cast shadows that coincide with those created by the rest of the building, or simply fall upon the building itself.

 

The nearest residential development is located to the north of the site on the opposite side of Harvey Street. The recessed position of the rooftop terrace from the perimeter of the building, in conjunction with the spatial separation of the street, means that no significant privacy impacts on the nearby residences would occur.

 

Therefore, the deviation from the height control will not result in any significant amenity impacts on the surrounding residences.

 

·      An alternative would be to eliminate the rooftop terrace and facilities altogether in order to substantially reduce the lift overrun.

 

However, such a solution would only deliver minimal planning or urban design benefits, in return for a much reduced level of amenity for the occupants, in particular the provision of disabled access to the rooftop.

 

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

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the upholding of the building height standard would not fully capture the advantages of the site. The proposal will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts upon the nearby residential properties and is within the public interest.

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable and unnecessary. The design scheme will achieve the purposes of the height standard.

Second

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

 

Comments:

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

Third

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

 

Comments:

The objectives of the height standard would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is unreasonable and unnecessary. The proposal will be compatible with the desired future character for the locality and will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbours. The resultant built form, height and scale are suitable to the locality.

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The development standard contained in RLEP 2012 has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council. RLEP 2012 was recently gazetted on 15 February 2013 and the control provisions of the LEP are the result of comprehensive analysis of the development patterns in the Randwick LGA. There has been no precedent established by Council’s assessment decisions, which in effect would abandon the development standards prescribed in the LEP.

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

RLEP 2012 was recently gazetted on 15 February 2013 and the zoning provisions of the LEP are the result of comprehensive analysis of the development patterns in the Randwick LGA. RLEP 2012 has zoned the site to R1 General Residential, where the key objectives are to allow comprehensive redevelopment of land primarily for residential and open space purposes. The current zoning has a sound basis and is not considered to be unreasonable and inappropriate.

 

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

 

4.2    Endangered ecological communities - ESBS

The subject site is adjoined to the west by a bushland reserve, which is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation under the LEP. The key purpose of the zone is to protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values. The reserve contains contiguous areas of indigenous vegetation, which are presently fenced off from the street and adjoining properties.

 

An area of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) is located in the western part of the reserve. Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) is listed in Part 3, Schedule 1 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as an endangered ecological community.

 

The location and extent of the reserve and ESBS are shown in the aerial photograph below:

 

ESBS

 

Bushland reserve

 

Subject site

 

Location and extent of bushland reserve and ESBS to the west of the subject site

 

Due to the presence of ESBS in the reserve adjoining the development site, a 7-part test under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is provided below:

 

Seven Factor Test (Section 5A of EP&A Act)

(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

 

Comments:

According to the Definition of the Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act, “threatened species” means a species specified in Part 1 or 4 of Schedule 1, Part 1 of Schedule 1A or Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Act.

 

ESBS is not listed in the above sections and hence is not a threatened species as such.

(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

 

Comments:

According to the Definition of the TSC Act, “endangered population” means a population specified in Part 2 of Schedule 1.

 

ESBS is not listed in the above section and hence is not an endangered population as such.

 

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

 

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

 

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

 

Comments:

The western part of the adjoining bushland reserve is identified to contain Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub. However, the ESBS community is more than 130m from the western boundary of the subject site.

 

Physical impact:

The proposal does not involve any removal or disturbance to the ESBS within the adjoining bushland reserve. There is no proposed clearing or construction works within the bushland reserve, which may indirectly affect the ESBS.

 

Overshadowing:

Given the significant separation distance of over 130m, the proposal will not cast any shadows on the ESBS.

 

Soil erosion and siltation

As the local topography falls gradually from west to east, the bushland reserve is situated on higher ground than the subject site. Therefore, stormwater runoff and sedimentation in the reserve, and indirect impacts on the ESBS, are unlikely.

 

It is recommended that appropriate conditions relating to the control of silt, sediments and dust articles be imposed to minimise adverse impacts on the bushland reserve during the construction phase.

 

(ii) Weed and exotic species

The submitted planting palette proposes a range of native or indigenous species that are suitable to the local environment. Council’s Landscape Officer has identified that the species Seaside Daisy and Gazania as listed on the planting schedule are not suitable as they may invade the adjoining bushland. A condition is recommended to require their deletion from the palette. Subject to the above condition, the proposed landscaping will not intrude into the ecological environment of the bushland reserve and the ESBS.

 

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

 

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

 

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

 

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

 

Officer’s comments:

The proposal does not involve construction works or clearing of the remnant ESBS community, which is located at least 130m to the west of the site. The proposal would not result in fragmentation or isolation of the local ESBS.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

 

Officer’s comments:

The proposal does not involve removal or modification of the ESBS within the adjoining bushland reserve.

 

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

 

Officer’s comments:

The proposal does not involve removal or modification of the ESBS in question, and does not contradict the “ESBS Endangered Ecological Community Recovery Plan”.

 

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

 

Officer’s comments:

The proposed development does not involve any key threatening processes.

 

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is relevant to the consideration of the subject proposal. The EPBC Act is a Commonwealth legislation aiming at protecting and managing nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places.

 

No ESBS will be removed as part of the development proposal. Subject to the recommended construction management and protection measures contained in the draft conditions, the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact upon the ESBS in question. Accordingly, no Species Impact Statement or referral to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage is required.  No further consideration of the EPBC Act is required.

 

4.3    Deep Soil Landscaping

The DCP requires that a minimum of 25% of the site (732.75m2) is to be reserved as deep soil landscaping.

 

The proposed deep soil landscaping is as follows:

Permeable paving on deep soil:

173.65m2

Planting on deep soil:

547.6m2

Total:

721.25m2 or 24.61%

Shortfall:

11.5m2 or 0.39% of site area

 

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·      The degree of departure from the DCP control (being less than 1% of the site area) is very minor in nature.

·      The proposal fully meets the landscaped open space requirement of the DCP. The shortfall in deep soil areas is compensated by on-slab planting.

·      The proposal has included a detailed and elaborated landscape design incorporating a variety of canopy trees, shrubs and under storey planting, which would offer high amenity to the occupants and enhance the presentation of the development to the street.

 


4.4    Car Parking

The proposal entails a shortfall in visitor parking provision by 4 spaces having regard to the DCP control. The proposal includes a total of 72 car spaces (62 x resident spaces and 10 x visitor spaces) within the basement, which fully meets the resident parking requirement. The above deviation from the control is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The shortfall of 4 spaces is minor in nature. It is considered that any overflowed visitor parking demand could be readily accommodated by the public parking in the surrounding local streets.

 

·      This minor degree of shortfall is unlikely to cause any material cumulative impacts on kerb side parking supply. This is because the adjoining site to the west is a substantial bushland reserve which would not generate any parking demand.

 

The site is located near the end of Harvey Street which consists of a cul-de-sac. The immediate vicinity is unlikely to be a desirable location for visitor parking by other developments within the Prince Henry area.

 

Bob-A-Day Park is a local pocket park and residents would access it by walking. The Park is not considered to form a significant traffic generator.

 

·      The floor plate of the basement level has already been maximized and cannot be further expanded without detrimentally affecting deep soil planting provision. The creation of an additional level of basement would have significant technical and cost implications which are considered unnecessary in the circumstances of the case where the shortfall is minor.

 

·      The site is within reasonable walking distance from regular bus services along Anzac Parade. Specifically, it is approximately 398m and 424m from the south-bound and north-bound bus stops respectively.

 

4.5    Entry Awning

The Precinct 4 controls in the Randwick DCP stipulate a minimum setback of 8m from remnant bushland. This setback standard is based on the advice from NSW Fire Brigades (i.e. the current Fire and Rescue NSW) in 2001 when the then Prince Henry Site DCP was being prepared. It is understood that the 8m setback is to function as an asset protection zone.

 

The proposal complies with the 8m western setback requirement, except for the entry awnings, which is only setback 4.7m from the boundary. The application does not include any information relating to discussions with Fire and Rescue NSW.

 

The Randwick LGA does not contain any bushfire prone land as defined in the EP&A Act. However, given that the 8m control relates to fire safety for new development, it is considered prudent to uphold this control for more significant building structures. Therefore, a condition is recommended to require the awnings to be redesigned to fully meet the 8m setback. The condition will also require any new fencing structures within the 8m area to be constructed with non-combustible materials.

 

4.6    Adaptable Housing Units

Chapter C3 of the DCP requires a total of 20% of the proposed dwellings to be configured as adaptable housing units. The proposal only includes 6 adaptable dwellings and entails a shortfall of 5 units. Notwithstanding, the proposal is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The Prince Henry Site already has a good supply of aged care housing. They include:

 

-  Mark Moran at Little Bay (1420 Anzac Parade, Little Bay): 142 beds

-  St Luke’s Little Bay Apartments Retirement Village (12-40 Pine Avenue, Little Bay): 70 self-care apartments (with 166 beds)

 

The above amount to 308 aged care beds, and are in addition to those adaptable units provided within other developments on the Prince Henry Site.

 

Given the good supply of aged care accommodation within the locality, the provision of a lower level of adaptable housing within the subject development is considered to be acceptable, and would not result in detrimental social impacts.

 

·      The provision of additional adaptable housing units within the development will necessitate the construction of an extra level of basement parking. This is because the additional adaptable units will require accessible parking spaces compliant with AS 2890.6. This would have significant engineering and cost implications.

 

4.7    Solar Access to Dwelling Units

Chapter E4 Prince Henry Site of the DCP stipulates the following control:

 

(iii) The principal living room/s of a new dwelling must be designed to achieve not less than 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

The applicant has submitted detailed information relating to solar access to the proposed dwelling units. A total of 16 units will receive less than 3 hours of direct sunlight to their living rooms on 21 June. They are:

 

Level

Unit Number

G/F

G.04

G.05

G.08

G.09

1/F

1.04

1.08

1.09

2/F

2.04

2.08

2.09

3/F

3.04

3.08

3.09

4/F

4.04

4.08

4.09

Total

16 (29% of all units)

 

The proposal is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      A total of 71% of all dwellings (39 units in total) will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid winter. This fully meets the recommendation of the Residential Flat Design Code which requires 70%.

 

·      The east-facing living areas of the ground floor units will be overshadowed by the adjoining Aboriginal Health College in the morning. However, the east-facing living rooms of the units on the upper levels would receive a degree of direct sunlight albeit less than 3 hours as stipulated.

 

·      The application has included detailed analysis of alternative site layout options (contained in the Appendix to the Statement of Environmental Effects). The analysis demonstrates that alternative site planning options, such as two-block or U-shape design, would not result in a better solar access outcome.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls.

 

The Exception to Development Standard submitted by the applicant with respect to the non-compliance with the height control is considered to be well founded.

 

The development scheme will not generate any significant adverse impacts upon the heritage significance of the Prince Henry Site, the amenity of the adjoining and nearby premises, or the health and condition of the remnant bushland in the vicinity, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council supports the Exception to Development Standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012, in respect to the non-compliance with Clause 4.3 of the same LEP relating to building height, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause, and will not unreasonably affect the amenity of the adjoining premises and the locality, and that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/628/2013 for construction of a 5-storey residential flat building containing 55 apartments, basement car parking for 72 vehicles, landscaping and associated works and Strata subdivision, at No. 33 Harvey Street, Little Bay, subject to the conditions of consent attached to the “Compliance Report”.

 

Non standard conditions

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

 

(a)     The awnings above the main pedestrian entries on the western elevation of the building shall be re-designed so that they are setback a minimum of 8m from the western boundary.

 

In addition, any new fencing structures within 8m from the western boundary shall be constructed with non-combustible materials.

 

(b)     The full-height screens at the ends of the common hallways on all storeys (on both the eastern and western elevations of the building) shall be replaced with balustrades of not more than 1200mm in height above finished floor levels.

 

(c)      Suitable security lighting must be installed along the pedestrian pathways adjacent to the eastern and western boundaries of the site. The lighting devices must have the light source positioned not higher than 1.2m above the finished ground level, and must be directed towards the ground.

 

3.       The following apartments as shown on the approved drawings shall be dedicated to Randwick City Council in accordance with the terms set out in the Deed of Agreement between Landcom (i.e. Urban Growth NSW) and Randwick City Council dated 4 March 2004: 

 

Ground level

G.01

Two-bedroom unit

Level 1

G.04

Two-bedroom unit

Level 2

1.04

Two-bedroom unit

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 33 Harvey Street, Little Bay (DA/628/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D105/13

 

 

Subject:                  697-699 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/107/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/107/2013

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of 7 storey mixed use development comprising 6 commercial/retail tenancies, 50 residential units, 3 basement levels with car parking for 55 vehicles, landscaping and associated works

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Fox Johnston Architects

Owner:                         Hungay Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of 7 storey mixed use development comprising 6 commercial/retail tenancies, 50 residential units, 3 basement levels with car parking for 55 vehicles, landscaping and associated works. Vehicular access to the basement levels is proposed from Mason Street whilst at the ground floor a number of commercial spaces is proposed along Anzac Parade and Mason Street. The residential floors above contain a mix of apartment sizes that predominantly address Anzac Parade and Mason Street.

 

Site

 

The site is presently occupied by one and two storey buildings and is situated within the Maroubra Junction Business Centre. The surrounding development is comprised of multi storey buildings varying in height between 6 -10 storeys. 

 

The site is has a slight fall in topography from Anzac Parade to the rear. It has a frontage of 25.5m to Anzac parade and a maximum depth of 56.9m being the frontage to Mason Street. The two allotments that make up the development site have a combined site area of 1104m². The subject site and surrounding development is shown in the figures below.

 

Figure 1. Subject site with 701 Anzac, 112 Boyce Rd, and 108 Boyce Rd in the background

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. View of subject site from Mason St, with pool of 108 Boyce Rd (red facebrick) in foreground

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. A petition and individual submissions from the following property owners were received as a result of the original public exhibition:

 

27/108-110 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA

25/108-110 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA

14/108-110 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA

7/108-110 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA

31/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

25/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

2/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

37/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

32/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

8/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

18/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

4/701-705 Anzac Pde, MAROUBRA

8/701-705 Anzac Pde, MAROUBRA

11/701-705 Anzac Pde, MAROUBRA

31/701-705 Anzac Pde, MAROUBRA

16/701-705 Anzac Pde, MAROUBRA

32/701-705 Anzac Pde, MAROUBRA

12/701-705 Anzac Pde, MAROUBRA

 


SbH Planning submitted a petition on behalf of:

- Strata Plan No. 62515 - 701-705 Anzac Parade,

- Strata Plan No. 51742 - 108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra and

- Strata Plan No. 56347 - 112-114 Boyce Road Maroubra

 

As a result of the re-exhibition of amended plans, submissions were received from the following property owners:

 

7/108-110 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA

25/108-110 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA

27/108-110 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA

2/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

8/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

18/112-114 Boyce Rd, MAROUBRA 

31/701-705 Anzac Pde, MAROUBRA

11/701-705 Anzac Pde, MAROUBRA,

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed below.

 

Issues

Comments

Loss of views

 

 

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

Overshadowing

 

 

 

 

 

It is considered that the proposal has redistributed the building envelope in a manner that minimises overshadowing impacts on the surrounding properties. It should be noted that the DCP does not requires a minimum level of  solar access to the adjoining properties in recognition that the density of development provided in the Business zone significantly restricts the extent of solar access that is available in such an urban context. Further, the local subdivision pattern and orientation of the allotments also renders the adjoining properties quite vulnerable to overshadowing as they are located to the south of the subject site.  Refer to the key issues section (below) of this report for details.

Visual bulk and scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The design scheme has incorporated appropriate measures to minimise the visual scale and bulk of the building and meets the envelope control in the DCP. The facades are appropriately articulated with angled balconies and walls, screening devices and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which serve to create visual interest.

Acoustic & visual privacy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

In terms of visual privacy the proposal is acceptable due to the location of rooms and degree of separation from neighbouring development and the incorporation of louvers, planter boxes and screening.

Excessive height

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal meets the overall height standard under Council’s LEP and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the size and scale of buildings envisaged by the building envelope controls.

Increased Traffic and Parking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the application and no objections have been raised on safety, parking or traffic grounds. Whilst the proposed parking provision does not achieves compliance with the numerical requirements under Council’s Comprehensive DCP 2013 – Part B7, Transport, Traffic, parking and access its is considered that the parking provided will meet the demand generated by the development. Refer to detailed discussion in key issues section.

 

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

Devaluation of properties

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Excessive floor to ceiling heights

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed floor to ceiling heights meet Council’s minimum requirements for the commercial and residential levels. However, the minimum floor to ceiling height requirement at the first floor level of 3.3m should be varied in this instance so that the overall building height is reduced and amenity impacts in terms of views and solar access are lessened. A condition is included in the recommendation requiring a 2.7m floor to ceiling height at the first floor level.

Damage to adjoining properties during construction

 

 

Standard conditions are included in the recommendation requiring a dilapidation report and that any excavation and construction meet the relevant standards.

Flooding

 

 

 

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended standard conditions to meet Council’s requirements for flooding and stormwater management

Close proximity to pools of adjoining properties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed building has been amended to increase its separation distance to the pool at 108 Boyce Rd. The proposal will abut the podium of this pool at its podium level and then progressively increases its setback achieving a suitable degree of separation consistent with the objectives of the envelope control of the DCP.

In regards to the pool at 112 Boyce Rd, the siting of this pool is quite vulnerable to overshadowing being hard up against the boundary of the subject site and centrally located within the building zone of any new development.

Lack of daylight and ventilation

 

 

 

 

 

 

As discussed above the proposal has redistributed the required building envelope to achieve a better planning outcome in term of the spatial separation with adjoining properties resulting in reasonable levels of fresh air and daylight to the adjoining properties.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Height and Envelope

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

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

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

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

 

In terms of building envelope the relevant objectives are as follows:

 

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

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

 

The RLEP applies maximum height controls to Maroubra Junction. Pursuant to clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of the building on the subject site is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the corresponding Heights of Buildings Map. The maximum building height control for the subject site as stipulated in the RLEP 2012 is 25m.

 

The RLEP 2012 height standard for the subject site is read in conjunction with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 (Part D4 – Maroubra Junction Centre), which allows for a block-perimeter envelope with a maximum height of 3-6 storeys along Anzac Parade and 6 storeys along Mason Street corresponding with a maximum height control of 12-21m, respectively.

 

The proposed development has 3- 7 storeys with a height of 10.5m to Anzac parade for the 3 storey base of the building and 24m for the upper levels along Anzac Parade and Mason St as measured to the underside of the ceiling of the topmost floors. The proposal will exceed the DCP height control by 1 storey and by 4m. The development does however; readily achieve compliance with the relevant RLEP development standard as discussed above, despite not strictly meeting the DCP building height controls.

 

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

 

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

The development scheme adopts a height and scale which is compatible with the emerging character of the Maroubra Junction Centre. The proposed design has adequately addressed the objectives of the DCP in providing for a clear separation between a lower building volume that defines the street edge and has a human scale. The building then transitions to a higher element that reinforces the street corner and will be of high architectural quality in terms of its proportions and façade composition. The facades have depth with a solid to void ratio that is effective in reducing the bulk associated with a higher building. They exhibit a balance between vertical and horizontal sections whilst still maintaining a coherent architectural language. The use of angled balconies and walls, screening devices and a combination of external treatments to all elevations also serves to create visual interest.

 

The continuity of the streetscape of Anzac Parade is interrupted by lower scale of the existing development on the site which is an underdeveloped eyesore and makes no positive contribution to the quality of the built environment. The proposed building will provide a suitable infill development and adopts a height and scale which is compatible with the desired future character of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre. In relation to the brick screen at levels 1 and 2 that would infill the gap between the proposed building and 701 Anzac Pde, it is considered that it is not effective in providing continuity in the street wall of Anzac Pde and should be deleted from the plans. Maintaining a vista between the buildings will provide for a transition and integrate better with the design of the 701 Anzac Pde building that addresses its side boundary.

 

Although the Maroubra Junction Centre DCP does not include a provision for the inclusion of habitable roof spaces, the RLEP and DCP contemplates the provision of a roof form, which would result in the perception of mass at the upper level of a building. The incorporation of an additional level would not be dissimilar to the bulk associated with a roof form. Whilst the proposal incorporates an additional storey, the proposal will occupy 69% of building envelope specified under the DCP and complies with the 70% maximum. However, the envelope has been redistributed to provide for a better planning outcome in terms of the spatial relationship with adjoining properties. It has allowed for a greater proportion of north facing apartments within the proposal whilst removing a portion of potential building bulk immediately adjacent to the courtyards of the adjoining properties which provide amenity to the surrounding buildings. There is also no net increase of overshadowing onto the surrounding buildings whilst transfering overshadowing from the living spaces of the adjoining buildings to bedroom areas and blank walls. The proposed envelope also opens an increased vista to the north west, providing increased amenity to the surrounding buildings. Overall Council’s Design Review Panel endorses the proposal and considers it to be a well-considered response to a very difficult site. Whilst the 7 storey element is appropriate in terms of the context of the site, it is considered that the building should step down to 6 storeys at its western end to improve the amenity impacts on the neighbouring development in terms of view loss and solar access.

 

Setbacks and Separation

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

 

Side setback Control

The DCP requires a setback of 6m from existing strata building and 0m from Mason Street. The proposed ground floor setback to Mason St varies between 1-4m, whereas the upper floors have a nil setback and comply with the DCP. In relation to the side setback of 6m to an existing strata building, the proposed building will be setback between 3-3.5m from the adjoining building at 701 Anzac Parade for the first 3 levels and then increases the setback to 6m for the upper levels in compliance with the DCP control.  Along the boundaries of 108 and 112 Boyce Road the proposed setback varies from 0-5.5m. As a corner site the building envelope control provides for a street edge form wrapping around Anzac Parade and Mason St that severely limits the opportunity to provide the setback stipulated above and even more so when a separation distance of 18m is required under Section 3.1.6 of the DCP. The proposal however has adequately responded to these requirements by redistributing envelope to parts of the site where less impact arise from overshadowing and visual bulk. The building has also been designed to include the offsetting of windows and balconies, blade walls and the use of screening to ensure that the final development will provide more than ample visual and acoustic privacy levels. The above measures are effective in compensating for the non-compliance with the building separation requirements. It should also be noted that whilst the separation distances between the existing neighbouring buildings (as seen in the following figures) are consistent with the separation distances in the proposal, they are less effective in mitigating the impacts of overlooking due the orientation of their living spaces and the dominance of large open balconies that lack screening.

 

Figure 3. View from 701 Anzac Pde to 112 Boyce Rd and 108 Boyce Rd

 

Figure 4. View of 701 Anzac Pde to the left of 112 Boyce Rd

       Figure 5. View between 112 and 108 Boyce Rd

 

In view of the constraints of the site and the context of the neighbouring development that has not been designed to respect the spatial relationship between buildings, the proposal has adequately responded to these circumstances by providing a clever design that minimises impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms privacy and daylight.  

 

Rear setback Control

The DCP requires a rear setback of 6m from the rear boundary. The applicant has redesigned the two apartments at the western perimeter of the site, at level 1 and 2 which sit above the ground level retail, to achieve a 3m setback from the adjoining property and in particular the pool area of 108 Boyce Rd. The rear setback of the proposed building then increases to 7m for the upper four levels. Although the proposed rear setback does not strictly achieve numerical compliance with the DCP control, the proposed setback is considered to be acceptable given the context of the site that sees large footprint buildings dominating the ground plane. The angled design of the building in this location opens up a vista to the north west reducing the sense of enclosure created by the DCP footprint whilst minimising shadowing to adjoining properties. The setbacks of the building will provide a cohesive built form when seen in conjunction with the existing neighbouring development. Further, quality landscaped areas have been provided resulting in screening and softening of the lower levels of the building and the proposal will not result in unacceptable shadow impacts on the surrounding courtyard spaces. Therefore, the proposed rear setback is considered acceptable.

 

View Loss Assessment:

Loss of outlook and city view was raised by several objectors from the existing buildings at 701 Anzac Parade, 112 Boyce Rd and 108 Boyce Rd.

 

To assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 

1.   Quality of Views:

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The view from the affected buildings consists primarily of foreground and district views of the low density residential buildings and vegetation of Maroubra and the eastern suburbs and contains no water elements. These district views are not remarkable or of great scenic value but are clearly valued by the residents. In the far distance can be seen the CBD skyline including Centrepoint Tower. Although this view contains some iconic elements it is distant and difficult to perceive in detail. There is no view of important iconic elements such as the Opera House or the Harbour Bridge.

 

Figure 6. View from upper level terrace of 31/702 Anzac Pde

 

                 Figure7. Terrace 32/701 Anzac Pde

 

Figure 8. Balcony of 37/112 Boyce Rd

 


2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The view is obtained across the side boundary which is generally considered difficult to preserve.

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The maximum height of the proposed building would appear to be below the eye height of a person standing on the upper level terrace of 31/701 Anzac Pde and hence view of the CBD skyline would be preserved. For all the upper level north facing units of 112 Boyce Rd view of the CBD skyline would be lost. Pleasant district views would remain towards the north east and west from the primary balconies and living areas of 701 Anzac Pde and to the north west for 112 Boyce Rd. In relation to 108 Boyce Rd, the units in this building will retain views to the north and north west as it sits mostly to the west of the proposed building except for the north east facing units that will lose this aspect. For 701 Anzac Pde, the view loss is considered moderate and for 112 Boyce Rd it is severe.

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

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 neighbors. 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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The application complies with the applicable planning controls in respect of maximum % of building envelope and maximum height. Although it does not comply with the number of storeys, this non-compliance benefits both the streetscape and minimises impacts of visual bulk and scale upon neighboring properties due to the redistribution of the building envelope and is supported by the Design Review Panel. A lower height would not only be at odds with the applicable maximum height limit, but would also result in a less appropriate built form given the context of surrounding development. The fundamental question is whether a complying building in terms of storeys should be insisted upon given the value and quality of the view retained, the extent of the view and the context of the view. One must also have regard to the extent and distance to the view and the visibility or prominence of the view and from where it is obtained. Although the CBD skyline view is of value and interest and experienced from the primary internal and external living spaces, it is very distant and perceived across a broad expanse of district views and is considered to be of limited scenic importance. The proposal is compliant with the maximum height control and is a reasonable design response that is consistent with the planning objectives for the site. Furthermore, it is a skillful design which has minimised impacts upon adjacent properties by the careful distribution of its massing within the permitted building envelope. Notwithstanding the above, as the area of the proposed building that is causing a severe impact on the views of the CBD skyline for the upper level units of 112 Boyce Rd is non compliant with the storey height control, it is considered appropriate to delete unit 605 and the associated fire stairs so that the building transitions down to 6 storeys and preserves the view. The resultant view loss would then be appropriate and acceptable in the circumstances.

 

Solar access and overshadowing

The subject site and the adjoining properties that will be affected by overshadowing from the proposed development are zoned Local Business B2 under the LEP. The multi storey development type envisaged in the Maroubra Junction Town Centre renders adjoining and neighbouring buildings particularly vulnerable to overshadowing. Also, as the site is situated to the north of the subdivision block and has its long axis running east west, a significant amount of overshadowing will occur on the adjoining properties to the south.

 

The applicant has prepared shadow diagrams that provide a comparison of shadow impacts between the proposed building envelope and that of the DCP volume. As discussed above, the proposal complies with the % of the volume control in the DCP and has distributed the envelope to provide for a better panning outcome in terms of the spatial relationship with adjoining properties, mostly by removing a portion of potential building bulk immediately adjacent to the courtyards of the adjoining properties which provide amenity to the surrounding buildings. There is also no net increase on overshadowing of the surrounding buildings and transfers overshadowing from the living spaces of the adjoining buildings to bedroom areas and blank walls as demonstrated in the diagrams below.

Figure 9.  Shadow diagrams: June 21 at 9:00am

 

Figure 10. Shadow diagrams: June 21 at 12:00 noon

 

 

Figure 11 Shadow diagrams: June 21 at 3:00pm

 

The proposed envelope also opens up an increased vista to the north west, providing increased amenity to the surrounding buildings. In terms of the overshadowing of the courtyard and pool areas of the adjoining properties the impact is largely due to the envelope allowed for under the DCP and not as a result of the overall height of the building. The proximity of these spaces to the building zone allowed for under the DCP results in these spaces being primarily overshadowed by the lower levels of any new building that sits to the north. Nothwithstanding, the applicant has redesigned the two apartments at levels 1 & 2 at the western perimeter of the site to achieve a 3m setback from pool area of the adjoining property at 108 Boyce Rd. The rear setback of the proposed building then increases to 7m for the upper four levels, thereby improving the solar impacts. The reduction in the number of storeys at the western end of the building and further lowering in the floor to ceiling height of level 1 by 600mm will also improve the solar access to the neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed built form and its resultant shadow impacts are not a result of poor design but due primarily to the orientation of the site in relation to the adjoining development. The properties to the south would still receive an acceptable level of solar access given the density and height that is applicable with the zone. In this regard, the proposed building height and density are considered to be compatible with the surrounding built environment and the overshadowing that occurs would not be dissimilar to a development which complied with the maximum storey height control. 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. 

 

Privacy Impacts

The proposed layout for the building ensures that living areas are concentrated mainly to the north, the east and west and not to the buildings to the south. Any proposed balconies are also oriented away from adjoining living spaces. A suitable distance of separation is provided between the neighbouring development that also provides for landscaping to the side and rear boundaries. The proposed building also incorporates louvers, planter boxes and blade walls that are effective in mitigating any privacy impacts.  

The balconies to the north west section of the building are not screened to the south but have an average separation distance of 9m to the courtyard of 108 Boyce Rd and 13m to the balcony areas above which is adequate in the context of neighbouring development where overlooking from multiple balcony areas is a common characteristic of the locality. Similarly, mutual overlooking of the courtyards and pools of the developments at 108 and 112 Boyce Rd and the courtyard of 701 Anzac Parade is also a direct and natural consequence of the density of development allowed for in the B2 zone.

In relation to the balcony area of 7/108 Boyce Rd, a suitable condition is included requiring a privacy screen to southern edge of the amended courtyard of unit 106 that was introduced due to the increased western setback to ensure any cross viewing is mitigated. 

 

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 


Residential component

·      Studio Unit (<40m2) = 0.5 spaces

·      1 bedroom unit = 1 space

·      2 bedroom unit = 1.2 spaces

·      3 bedroom units = 1.5 spaces

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

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

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

 

Commercial component

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

 

The applicant has stated that the subject development has the following commercial and unit mix:

 

18 studio apartments:          18x0.5 = 9 spaces

14x1 bedroom apartments:    14x1.0 = 14 spaces

15x2 bedroom apartments:    15x1.2 = 18 spaces

3x3 bedroom apartments:      3x1.5 = 4.5 spaces.

Visitor Spaces:                    50/4 = 12.5 spaces    

 

Commercial spaces:            630sqm / 40 = 15.8 spaces

 

Total:                              74 spaces

 

The proposal provides for 55 spaces and is deficient in the numerical parking requirements. The residential component of the parking demand equates to 46 spaces, (excluding visitor parking). Council’s Development Engineer has advised that “If the residential component was to be provided in total this would lead to 9 spaces for commercial and visitor parking. Given the location of the development, (in close proximity to public transport and public carparks), and the likely nature of the commercial units this provision could be supported.

 

However, of the proposed “studio” apartments only 10 are less than the minimum of 40sqm. Under Council’s DCP, Part B7 units of greater than 40sqm are deemed to be 1 bedroom units for the purpose of calculating parking demand which would increase the requirement by 4 spaces. However, the deletion of a 3 bedroom dwelling and reduction in size of 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings reduces that additional demand to 2 spaces.  The parking deficiency, whilst not desirable, is supportable in this instance based on the following:

 

·           The proposed development is located within an area well served by public transport.

·           The existing commercial floor space on the site is being reduced by approximately 380sqm.

·           The proposed development is the last development to occur in this block between Boyce and Mason Street and as such no consolidation options are available. Further, requiring another basement level would have significant engineering and dewatering implications.

·             The proposed development has a high number of smaller apartments and the occupiers of these units tend to have a lower car ownership rate.

·             The peak time for visitor parking is generally outside of business hours and the area is well served by carparks/on-street parking during these hours.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the RDCP 2013 anticipates that car share facilities are a viable option in certain locations and accepts that in some circumstances, it may not be possible to provide all the on-site parking required for a development. The DCP notes the following;

Car share schemes are effective on sites or in areas with higher density and ready access to good public transport and services. To operate successfully care share vehicles need to be highly visible, easily and safely accessed at any time (whether on or off the street) by residents and business operators on the site, as well as those in the surrounding precinct.

 

Care share spaces can also be dedicated for the exclusive use of building occupiers, if desired. In this case, the cost of the car share can be met by strata levies and must be organised by the developer.

 

The applicant has indicated that the proposed development is of a suitable size in terms of the number of residents for a car share space to be viable. A car share provider has provided in principle support for the allocation of one dedicated car share bay (called a “pod”) to park a vehicle in the (secure) carpark of the development. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring the provision of a car share space within the development that must be funded by the developer for a period of 5 years, upon which the owners corporation will then become responsible.

 

On balance, it is considered that the proposed parking provision with the incorporation of a car share space will be adequate to meets the needs of the development and will not adversely impact on the parking capacity of the locality.

 

Adaptable Housing Units

Chapter C3 of the DCP requires a total of 20% of the proposed dwellings to be configured as adaptable housing units. The proposal only includes 4 adaptable dwellings and entails a shortfall of 6 units. It should be noted that the proposal was prepared and submitted well before the introduction of Randwick DCP 2013. As such, it is considered unreasonable to place such an onerous requirement on the applicant as it would necessitate the construction of an extra level of basement parking that would have significant engineering implications. This is because the additional adaptable units will require accessible parking spaces that are effectively double the size of a standard car space to be compliant with AS 2890.6.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/107/2013 for demolition of existing building and construction of 7 storey mixed use development comprising 6 commercial/retail tenancies, 50 residential units, 3 basement levels with car parking for 55 vehicles, landscaping and associated works at No 697-699 Anzac Parade, Maroubra, 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:

 

2a.   Apartments 106 and 206 at the western perimeter of the site adjacent to the pool area of No 108 Boyce Rd, Maroubra must be redesigned in accordance with plans DA01.05 & DA01.06 both version dwg No. C dated 29/10/2013 so that the setback of the building is increased to a minimum of 3m at levels 1 & 2.

 

2b.   A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m must be provided to the southern edge of the courtyard of Unit 106. The privacy screens must be permanently fixed and constructed with either obscure glass, metal or timber slats, horizontally or vertically positioned, with any openings not exceeding 25% of the surface areas of the screens.

 

2c.   The proposed brick screen to Anzac Pde at levels 1 & 2 must be deleted from   the plans.

 

2d.   Unit 605 and the associated fire stairs at the upper level shall be deleted from the plans. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

2e.   The floor to ceiling height at level 1 shall be reduced to 2.7m so that the overall height of the building is lowered by 600mm. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

2f.    A care share space must be provided within the basement of the development. The applicant/developer must enter into an agreement with a car share provider and pay the costs associated with the provision of the car share vehicle including the membership fees for residents of the building for a period of 10 years. The applicant/developer must provide details to Council of the agreement with the car share provider and the payments made to ensure the provision of the car share space prior to an occupation certificate being issued.

 

2g.   A positive covenant must be placed on the title of the subject land requiring the owners corporation to continue to provide in perpetuity a car share space in the development. Details are to be provided to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 697-699 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D106/13

 

 

Subject:                  15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/529/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/529/2013

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of a timber deck over pool to rear of existing dwelling, access stairs from deck to foreshore and timber cladding around sides of remnant of pool

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Alan Sandilands

Owner:                         Alan & Wallis Sandilands

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the development involves a variation to the building height standard that exceeds 10%.

 

1.      Proposal

 

The subject application proposes the following:

 

·      Construction of a timber deck over an existing dilapidated swimming pool to the rear of the subject site. The proposed timber deck will rest directly above the existing swimming pool walls. It will be approximately 16.5m and 17m long on the southern and northern sides respectively, and 6.7m and 9m wide on the eastern and western sides respectively. The level of the new deck will match the level of the existing rear yard at RL 19.52. The proposed deck will have frameless glass balustrades. It is also proposed to clad the exposed concrete walls of the existing swimming pool so as to improve its visual presentation to neighbouring properties, the locality and foreshore.

 

·      Construction of concrete deck as an extension to an existing rear garden concrete slab which will abut, and be at the same level as, the proposed timber deck so as to allow access to and from the existing rear garden and the proposed deck. The new concrete deck will be approximately 5m long on its northern edge and 10.5m long on its eastern edge above the existing ravine on site.

 

·      Construction of a new stairway linking the proposed timber deck to the foreshore rock shelf below setback by approximately minimum 4m from the northern common boundary. 

 

2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 7 in DP 9452, No. 15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee. The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, between its intersection with Edgecliffe Avenue and Liguria Street. The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

40.540m

 

Southern, side boundary

43.596m

 

Western, Seaside Parade boundary

15.655m

 

Eastern, rear boundary (Irregular)

Approx 14.755m

 

Land area

 

Approximately 654m2

 

The site falls significantly from the street to the rear with a cross fall of approximately 10m (from RL24.03 to RL14.14). The rear property boundary is defined by the mean high water mark and the rear portion of the site towards the ocean is an open ravine.

 

The site is identified as being within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“RLEP 2012”) and a Coastal Zone under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection.

 

At present, the site is occupied by a part two/part 3 detached residence of rendered brick and tiled roof construction. Vehicular access is obtained from Seaside Parade via a stone paved driveway. There is a partially constructed concrete pool house within the rear portion of the site, which abuts the southern boundary.

 

Immediately adjoining the site to the north (No. 13 Seaside Parade) is a relatively new part three/part 4 storey detached dwelling featuring rear decks and a swimming pool. The site is adjoined to the south (No. 17-19 Seaside Parade) by a part three/part 4 storey dwelling with an existing pool and deck to the rear.

 

The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by detached style houses. The locality is currently experiencing gradual transition where the older housing stock is being renovated or redeveloped into modern residences.

 

Figure 1 : Aerial view of subject site and locality

 

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The existing dilapidated pool to the rear of No. 15 Seaside adjacent to the ravine viewed from No. 13 Seaside Parade 

2. Rear of the existing dwelling viewed from the lower deck of No. 13 Seaside Parade. It is noted the proposed deck will be at the same height as level of the rear yard shown below the wooden deck at the upper floor (approximately where the brickwork is shown in the photo).


 

4. Existing part three/part four level dwelling located at No. 13 Seaside Parade viewed from the subject site.

4. Existing upper floor deck at the subject site viewed from the entry level lounge/dining areas

 

3.    Relevant Site History

 

DA/441/2008 was lodged 23 June 2008 for the construction of a new swimming pool and deck to the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

This development application was recommended for refusal in a delegated report on 12 September 2008. The application was subsequently called up to Council at the written request of three Councillors and ultimately approved contrary to the officer’s recommendation by Council at its meeting on 11 November 2008.

 

Following the approval, a third party appeal was lodged with the Land & Environment Court on 18 May 2011 against the validity of DA/441/2008.

 

The Chief Judge of the Land & Environment Court delivered his decision on this appeal on 14 September 2011. The Chief Judge upheld the appeal and invalidated the consent primarily on the grounds that that Council did not have the power to reconsider an application where the application was originally determined under delegated authority and refused.

 

DA/441/2008/A was lodged on 1 March 2011 for section 96 modifications to the consent by deleting the proposed pool and replacement with a deck. The application was determined to be invalid and withdrawn on 9 February 2012 as the original consent was invalidated.

 

DA/465/2012 was lodged on 24 July 2012 for the construction of a deck at the rear of the existing dwelling. The application was refused at the Planning committee Meeting on 9 April 2013.

 

The current DA proposal differs from the previously refused DA (DA/465/2012) as follows:

 

·      The current DA proposes to cover only the existing swimming pool with a timber deck whereas the refused DA proposed a significantly larger deck covering both the pool and the adjacent ravine with a 900mm setback from the adjoining northern property as well as an additional encroachment further into the foreshore area.

 

·      The current DA proposes to improve the aesthetics of the existing dilapidated pool by applying timber cladding to its façade whereas the refused DA façade retained the existing exposed concrete facade of the pool.

 

The drawings for the current DA were amended to delete certain references that were incorrect. These amended plans were not required to be renotified as the changes were for deletion of wordings in the drawings and not to any substantive redesign of the proposal.

 

4.      Request to vary development standard

 

The proposal contravenes the height of buildings development standard contained in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

(i) Building height

The Height of Buildings Map referred to in clause 4.3(2) of RLEP 2012 shows a maximum building height of 9.5m for the subject land. The proposed staircase has maximum height amounting to 22.5m, and exceeds the standard by 13m.

 

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

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of RLEP 2012 development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 

(a)  that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

 

(b)  that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

(i)  the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

 

(ii)  the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the height of buildings standard are set out in clause 4.3(1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

“The proposed rear deck development results in no change to the maximum building height of the existing residence, nor is it considered to result in excess bulk and scale. Notwithstanding, the variation to the development standard is associated with an access stair from the timber deck to the foreshore below. In our opinion, the proposed access stair is considered an open landscaped ancillary structure. Accordingly strict application of the 9.5m building height control is considered unreasonable given that the proposed structure is lightweight, and located below all other existing structures on the site including the existing dilapidated swimming pool. The non-complying height of the proposed access stair will not result in any overshadowing of the north adjoining allotment. Additionally, the access stair is unlikely to diminish solar access opportunities towards the allotment adjoining the southern boundary as a result of the stair location. Moreover, the proposed access stair is unlikely to result in any adverse overlooking, or the invasion of aural privacy of neighbouring properties. The access stair is to be of a non-solid appearance, and similarly to the deck is to implement light earthy tones to compliment the natural environment. Accordingly, the height of the proposed structure should not be visually dominant when viewed from the coastal foreshore. Furthermore, the proposed development is considered unlikely to adversely impact the functioning of the principal forms of architecture within the precinct. In view of the above, the proposal is considered to relate well to the existing built environment, the scale of development in the immediate context of the site and the emerging character of the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the “Height of Buildings” development standard.

 

The site is zoned “R2 Low Density Residential” in accordance with Randwick City Council’s LEP Zoning Map, thus the proposed works are permissible with Development Consent. The proposal has been carefully documented to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and to fit in with the scale and character of development in the immediate context, whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties. The proposal is considered to be compatible with the scale and bulk of development within the surrounding area and its impact on adjoining properties and the coastal foreshore is considered satisfactory. In addition, the proposed development respects the amenity of surrounding properties, this being a specific objective of the residential zone and the “Height of Buildings” development standard. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard, and the objectives of the zone.”

 

It is considered that:

 

·      In relation to objective (a) the breach in the height standard relates to an external staircase which will be an open, light frame structure and not enclosed within solid walls or incorporated within a main building. As such, the structure is not anticipated to result in any intrusive built form or visual bulk and scale and will not be incongruent nor out of character with the multiple decks and terraces and their associated pathways and outdoor stairs in adjoining and surrounding properties. Accordingly, the staircase will have a  size and scale of development that will be compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

 

·      Objective (b) is not relevant because the proposed development is not near contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item.

 

·      In relation to objective (c) the proposed staircase will rise above the ground level at the bottom of the existing ravine such that any potential visual bulk and scale occurs largely in a “sunken” position in the subject site. In other words, the whole portion of the proposed staircase will be below street level and, therefore, would not contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the existing development as viewed from the street.  

 

·      The proposal will not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas in terms of privacy, solar access, views and bulk and scale impacts as indicated in the relevant sections of this report.

 

·      The proposed stairway will be constructed in timber with an unobtrusive concrete landing at the base and, therefore, will be complementary to the natural qualities of the ravine and the overall foreshore. The proposed staircase provides an access facility from the proposed deck to the foreshore and, not being a solid building structure, is considered to be consistent and in character with the many outdoor integrated decks, pathways/steps in the adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

 

The proposal has been carefully designed to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and to fit in with the scale and character of development in the immediate context, whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

 

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Will the proposed development be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out?

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

•    To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

 

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

 

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

 

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

 

•    To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

(a)  whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

 

(b)  the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

 

Comments:

 

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of  development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical height standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low density housing forms in the locality, including dwelling houses and semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

5.      Community Consultation

 

The application was notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 26 August 2013 to 9 September 2013. Two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process from the residents at Nos. 13 and 17-19 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, which were written by their respective planning consultants, raising the following issues:

 

Objections

 

·      Proposed concrete deck and timber stairway does not comply with maximum 9.5m building height standard under RLEP 2012

The applicant has lodged a request for variation to the maximum building height standard which has been assessed (see relevant assessment section above) and found to be reasonable and acceptable.

 

·      Loss of natural light to the south facing windows of No. 13 Seaside Parade

The objector in the adjoining northern property at No 13 Seaside Parade raises concerns that the concrete extension of the concrete deck will result in the loss of light on a south facing window to the lower ground floor ensuite bathroom. The solar and natural light impacts of the proposal on adjoining properties have been addressed in the key issues assessment section below. Essentially, the proposal will not result in loss of solar access to the objector’s property in winter because of its northern aspect, and the loss of natural light will essentially be mitigated the setback of the deck from the northern boundary. Accordingly, the proposal is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the objector’s property in relation to access to solar and natural light.

 

·      Loss of view and adverse impact on visual outlook

 

The objector in the adjoining northern property at No 13 Seaside Parade raises concerns that the concrete extension of the rear yard and the proposed staircase will have an adverse impact upon the visual outlook into the natural ravine from the adjacent master bedroom and ensuite bathroom windows on the lower ground floor. These concerns have been assessed in the key issues assessment section below. Essentially, the assessment finds that the view loss impact will be minor and, having regard to the view sharing controls in the Randwick DCP 2013 and principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council, reasonable and acceptable.

 

·      Loss of Privacy

The adjoining northern property at No 13 Seaside Parade raises concerns that the loss privacy will occur from the

 

·      The northern edge of the proposed concrete deck and the northern edge of the proposed timber deck.

·      The proposed staircase.

 

Additionally, the objector in the adjoining southern property at No 17 Seaside Parade raises concerns regarding loss of privacy from the timber deck over the existing pool.

 

These concerns have been assessed in the key issues section below, which essentially finds that the overlooking impact from the proposed timber and concrete decks upon No 13 Seaside Parade will be reduced under the proposed development compared to the existing situation. The overlooking impact from staircase will be mitigated by the nature of its use as a circulation and access facility and not a recreation or look-out facility like a deck.

 

In relation to No 17 Seaside Parade, the key issues section below finds that the overlooking impact from the proposed timber deck will be acceptable as the proposed deck is not considered to contribute to any significant additional privacy impacts on adjoining properties beyond that already experienced between adjoining and neighbouring dwellings from their respective existing decks and terraces, a number of which project further than the proposed deck.

 

·      Proposed deck exceeds DCP controls for size of private open space

The objector in the adjoining southern property at No 17 Seaside Parade raises concerns regarding the size of the proposed timber deck contending that it exceeds the Randwick DCP 2013 controls. The objector’s contention is incorrect as this specific control is a minimum dimension of 8m x 8m, so that the provision of private open space beyond the prescribed dimension is generally a positive outcome for developments provided there are no adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties. As indicated above, the proposed timber deck is not considered to contribute to any significant additional privacy impacts on adjoining properties beyond that existing between adjoining and neighbouring dwellings.

 

·      The proposal should not seek to build over the natural ravine as it is a natural feature of the coastline and should be preserved

·      The overbearing height of the proposal will have an unacceptable visual impact on the coastal environment

The proposed works are considered to result in significant visual improvements to the applicant’s rear yard and private open space which is currently in a dilapidated and run-down state adjacent to an existing ravine within the subject site. More importantly, the proposal will have minimum physical intrusion into the existing ravine being confined primarily to the concrete deck extension and the staircase.

 

In the case of the concrete deck, a partially cantilevered slab supported by a single column is proposed over a small portion of the ravine at its western end. The ravine area underneath the deck will essentially remain in its current state.

 

In regard to the stairway, it will be constructed in timber with a minor concrete landing at the base and is therefore, considered to be complementary to the natural qualities of the ravine and the overall foreshore. The staircase and decks are outdoor access and recreational elements (and not solid building structures) that are considered to be consistent and in character with the many outdoor decks, terraces and pathways/steps in the adjoining and surrounding properties. Accordingly, the objector’s concerns regarding overbearing bulk and scale and adverse visual impacts on the surrounding natural environment are not supported.

 

·      Noise impacts from use of the deck

The objector in the adjoining northern property at No 13 Seaside Parade raises concerns that the use of the timber deck would result in adverse noise impacts. These concerns have been assessed in the key issues section below which essentially finds that the acoustic impacts of the proposed timber deck on top of the existing swimming pool will be reasonable and acceptable in the context of multiple decks, terraces and balconies in adjoining and surrounding properties on this side of Seaside Parade.

 

·      Purpose of the proposed timber stair accessing the base of the ravine:

The objector in the adjoining northern property at No 13 Seaside Parade raises a question as to the need for and purpose of the proposed timber stair providing access to the base of the natural ravine. The objector questions the claim made in the Statement of Environment Effects that the timber stair is proposed to provide maintenance access to the sewer pipe traversing the site. The objector adds that the provision of the stair encourages potentially dangerous access to the base of the ravine during high seas.    

 

The purpose of the staircase, whether to provide maintenance access to the sewer pipe or access to the foreshore, is considered reasonable and acceptable. A condition will be applied requiring appropriate certification for structural adequacy of the proposed decks and staircase. Safety for people on the foreshore at all times including during high seas is matter for the applicant to provide just as it is for all adjoining and surrounding  properties where access to the foreshore is more readily available.

 

·      The cost of works have been incorrectly estimated as it does not include engineering costs

 

The estimated cost of the building indicated in the development application is accepted as a genuine estimate of:

 

(a)  the costs associated with the construction of the building, and

 

(b)  the costs associated with the preparation of the building for the purpose for which it is to be used.

 

6.      Key Issues

 

Foreshore Building Line and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

For properties along the eastern side of Seaside Parade, Clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012 prescribes the Foreshore Building Line that defines the boundary to the foreshore area within which development consent must not be granted for development other than that identified in sub-clause (2). The proposed deck over the existing swimming pool is considered a permissible development in the foreshore area as it essentially comprises an extension to the existing building on-site consistent with sub-clause (2) (a). Additionally, as detailed in the Compliance Report, the proposed timber deck satisfies all the matters for consideration under sub-clause (3) for it to be acceptable in the foreshore area. 

 

The site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area pursuant to Clause 6.7 of the RLEP 2012. Under this clause, Council must be satisfied that the development:

(a)  is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas, and

(b) contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

The proposed staircase and decks will maintain the visual quality of the foreshore in that the proposed deck over the swimming pool and access staircase will be constructed in timber which will complement and protect the natural elements of the coastal area. Additionally, the proposal will retain the natural rock face elements of the subject site which will still form an important part of the subject sites natural landscaped environment. Furthermore, the proposal will apply light-toned timber cladding to the unsightly, exposed wall of the dilapidated swimming pool. This will significantly improve the aesthetic appearance of the proposal in relation to the foreshore. It is therefore considered that the development meets the requirements specified in (a) and (b) above.

 

Rear and side setback

The objectives of the controls of Randwick DCP 2013 relating to setbacks to adjoining properties are extracted below:

 

Objectives

·      To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.

·      To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.

·      To ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.

·      To reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting.

·      To enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

Rear setback

Apart from the Foreshore Building Line, the Randwick DCP 2013 also stipulates a minimum rear setback of 25% of the allotment depth which amounts to 10.8m. As assessed in the Compliance Report, the existing swimming pool is setback by 10m from the rear boundary falling short of the minimum rear setback control by 800mm. This shortfall is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The shortfall is minor and will not be perceptible especially in the context of the numerous decks and terraces in the adjoining and surrounding rear yards of properties on this side of Seaside Parade some of which have sections of ground level decks that extend eastward beyond the rear building line of the existing swimming pool. 

 

·      The proposed timber deck over the pool will retain the existing rear setback of the pool so that there will be no further encroachment into this existing setback.  

 

·      The proposed concrete deck will be setback approximately 21m from the rear boundary which readily complies with the minimum 10.8m control. This deck will be elevated minimally over the existing ravine at its western end so as to preserve much of its natural rock face while keeping well away from the rear boundary and foreshore area.

 

·      Both the proposed concrete and timber deck will be generally aligned with the rear setback of adjoining structures.

 

Side Setback

 

The Randwick DCP 2013 also stipulates a minimum side setback of 1200mm for allotment with frontage over 12m. The proposal will not comply with the side setback controls in the following areas:

 

·      The existing swimming pool is already built to the southern side boundary and therefore does not comply with the minimum 1200mm side setback control. The proposed timber deck will retain the existing footprint and maintain the existing non-compliant side setback of the swimming pool.

 

·      The proposed concrete deck will be setback 900mm from the northern side boundary so that concrete deck encroaches by 300mm.

 

In relation to the timber deck, its construction to the southern side boundary is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The existing swimming pool is already built to the southern side boundary and therefore does not comply with the minimum 1200mm side setback control. The proposed timber deck will retain the existing footprint and side setback of the swimming pool. Notwithstanding this, the construction of a timber deck to the southern side boundary is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      There will be no visual bulk and scale associated with the deck as it essentially comprises only a flat timber floor over the existing pool. The balustrades for the deck will comprise frameless glass which will be open and light in nature.  As such, the form and massing of the timber deck over the existing pool will not be detrimental to streetscape.

 

·      The encroachment of the timber deck and remnant swimming pool into the southern side setback will have minimal, if no, impact on the rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood as these structures will be located to the rear of the subject site.

·      While the proposed timber deck will encroach the southern side setback it will still have adequate separation of min 9m and max 20m to the adjoining southern building at No 17 Seaside Parade which will be adequate to maintain visual and acoustic privacy and solar access between the two properties. As assessed in this report and the Compliance Report, the proposed deck will not give rise to any adverse loss of privacy given the multiple decks, terraces and balconies in adjoining and surrounding properties, generally unscreened and located to take advantage of panoramic ocean views to the east where a certain level of mutual overlooking is evident and expected in the area.

 

·      The proposed timber deck will sit on top of an existing pool structure and therefore results in no loss of landscaped area contributes towards the retention/creation of private open space for the existing property.

 

·      As assessed in the next section on view impacts, the proposed deck will not result in any significant view loss to adjoining properties given the open and light character of the timber deck.

 

The encroachment of the concrete deck into the northern side setback is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The encroachment amounts to 300mm which is considered minor and is confined to a length of 5m. The 900mm setback which, combined with the setback of the subject ensuite window from the common boundary allows for an approximately 2m wide gap through which unobstructed natural light can be made available to the subject ensuite window.

 

·      The proposed concrete deck will be semi-cantilevered from the existing back yard of the subject property (and will not be a heavy, solid structure) with a slab approximately 250mm thick below which the existing ravine will remain largely unobstructed such that light will still penetrate and disperse in the ravine below albeit at a slightly more limited intensity. In addition, the northern and eastern edge of this slab will remain open to allow light into the semi-enclosed section of the ravine under the concrete deck.

 

·      Given the height and location of the proposal to the south of the objector’s property, there will be no overshadowing impacts to north and east-facing living room windows of the objector’s property.  Additionally, the concrete deck will have no impact to north facing windows of surrounding dwellings and each property will continue to enjoy reasonable levels of solar access to their private open spaces.

 

·      There will be no visual bulk and scale associated with the concrete deck as it essentially comprises only a concrete slab such that there will be no built form or massing that would be detrimental to streetscape.

 

·      The encroachment of the concrete into the northern side setback will have minimal, if no, impact on the rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood as the these structures will be located to the rear of the subject site.

 

·      The proposed concrete deck will be an extension of the existing rear concrete deck and therefore results in no loss of landscaped area and contributes towards the retention/creation of private open space for the existing property.

 

Overall, in view of the above considerations, the proposal satisfies the objectives of the setback controls in the Randwick DCP in relation to rear and side setbacks.

 

View loss

The objectives of the controls of the DCP relating to view sharing are extracted below:

 

Objectives

 

§ 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 ensure development is sensitively and skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

§ Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

13 Seaside Parade

The objector in the adjoining northern property at No 13 Seaside Parade raises concerns that the concrete extension of the rear yard and the proposed staircase will have an adverse impact upon the visual outlook into the natural ravine from the adjacent ensuite bathroom (Photo A1) and master bedroom (Photo A2) windows on the lower ground floor.

 

Photo A1: Photo taken from the ensuite bathroom window of No. 13 Seaside Parade. The proposed concrete deck will be partially cantilevered across from the opposite pool to a column slightly to the right of the picture window.

 

Photo A2: Photo taken from the master bedroom window of No. 13 Seaside Parade. The proposed staircase will partially obstruct views to the rock face.

 

The proposed concrete deck will be largely cantilevered from the existing back yard of the subject property (and will not be a heavy, solid structure) with a slab approximately 250mm thick below which the existing ravine will remain largely unobstructed and unenclosed. The proposed slab will be at a height significantly above the head of the ensuite window, and apart from a proposed single supporting column, there will be minimal physical intrusion and obstruction to the ravine below such that the outlook from the bathroom ensuite window is considered reasonable and acceptable. In addition, the northern and eastern edge of this slab will remain open to allow light into the semi-enclosed section of the ravine under the concrete deck so that the outlook will still be illuminated.

 

The proposed staircase will be visible in the immediate view corridor of the master bedroom. However, the staircase will be an open structure such that the view of the rock face wall will still be available from the master bedroom window.

 

When assessed against the controls and planning principles for view sharing in Tenacity vs Warringah Council, the expectation to retain the view from the ensuite and master bedroom windows fully intact is considered unreasonable as the outlook is largely to a ravine rock wall (a moderately significant but non-iconic view) gained through an ensuite window (not a living room or kitchen window) and across a side boundary (not across a front or rear boundary), with both views afforded by an excavated sunken position into an existing ravine. Furthermore, the proposed development generally will not obstruct views of the ocean available looking further east from the ensuite window (see Photo B1) and from the master bedroom window (Photo B2).

 

Photo B1: Photo taken from the ensuite bathroom window of No. 13 Seaside Parade looking south east to the ocean. This view will not be obstructed by the proposed concrete deck but will be minimally obstructed by the open staircase with the open ocean views further to the east remaining intact.

Photo B1: Photo taken from the master bedroom window of No. 13 Seaside Parade looking south east to the ocean. This view will not be obstructed by the proposed concrete deck but will be minimally obstructed by the open staircase with the open ocean views further to the east remaining intact.

 

The objector in the adjoining northern property at No 13 Seaside Parade also raises concerns that the proposed timber deck would result in loss of lower level ocean views across Lurline Bay to the south-east from the ground floor (Level 3) dining room and rear terrace (Photo C).

 

Photo C: View across the existing dilapidated pool towards Lurline Bay looking south and south east.

 

An inspection of the objector’s property indicates that the view from the objector’s Level 3 rear terrace across the proposed timber deck and existing pool comprises the land and sea interface of Lurline Bay. The proposed timber deck on top of the existing pool will be essentially a flat horizontal timber floor with no upright vertical elements other than transparent frameless glass balustrades to all sides. As no solid wall structure is proposed, there will be minimal, if no, obstruction of existing views of Lurline Bay. Accordingly, the view of Lurline Bay largely will remain intact. Furthermore, the expansive view of the Pacific Ocean from the same terrace looking north-west and west will remain unobstructed by the proposed development (Photo D). In summary, the view loss impact of the proposal to Lurline Bay and the ocean will be negligible.

 

Photo D: the expansive view of the Pacific Ocean from the Level 3 rear terrace looking north-west and west will remain unobstructed by the proposed development.

 

Overall, the proposal will meet the objectives of the view sharing controls in the Randwick DCP 2013. In particular, the proposal has successfully considered how to minimise overlooking and cross viewing to neighbouring dwellings while providing for a deck for recreation and ocean viewing that also maintains views to adjoining properties. In this regard, the proposed deck and associated stairs are considered to be sensitively and skilfully designed in relation to maintaining views from neighbouring dwellings and accord with the view sharing objectives of the Randwick DCP.

 

Visual privacy

The objective for visual privacy under the Randwick DCP is as follows:

 

 

§ To ensure development minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

The potential visual privacy impacts on the adjoining properties at No 13 and No 17 Seaside Parade are assessed as follows:

 

No 13 Seaside Parade

 

·      Overlooking from the northern edge of the proposed concrete deck and the northern edge of the proposed timber deck :

The existing ensuite window is already significantly overlooked from the existing rear yard and dilapidated pool area of the subject property (see Photo E).

 

Photo E: existing overlooking into the adjoining northern property from the existing rear yard.

 

It is considered that construction of proposed concrete slab will reduce the existing opportunities for overlooking from the whole splayed eastern edge of the existing rear yard as the concrete slab will straighten and confine overlooking to the new northern edge above the ensuite window. In other words, overlooking will be limited to northern edge of the proposed new concrete slab which will be located overhead.

 

In relation to the overlooking from the northern edge of the proposed timber deck into the south-facing windows of the adjoining northern property, similar overlooking is already possible from the northern edge of the dilapidated swimming pool (Photo F). Notwithstanding this, the proposed new concrete slab will act as a barrier to overlooking especially into the lower ground ensuite window. Given the overall reduction in overlooking compared to the current situation, the degree of overlooking is considered reasonable and acceptable.

 

Photo F: existing overlooking into the adjoining northern property from the existing swimming pool.

 

·           Overlooking from the proposed staircase

The proposed stair-case is an open outdoor structure to provide access from the timber deck to the rock shelf below and allow for access to the foreshore and shore line. This access structure, in effect, will be different to an internal living area or a deck or balcony in that its primary purpose is for pedestrian passage and not for congregating or recreating, activities that would otherwise give rise to overlooking. Any overlooking generated by the staircase will be incidental and casual and therefore not considered unreasonable or unacceptable.

 

No 17 Seaside Parade

The objector in the adjoining southern property at No 17 Seaside Parade raises concerns regarding loss of privacy. Specifically, the objector’s consultant states that the proposed deck will be excessively large as it does not conform to the 8m x 8m dimensions, and exceeds the minimum area, for private open space under the Randwick DCP 2013. Additionally, the objector states that the location of the proposed deck above the existing swimming pool “…will allow for direct sightlines into the habitable space of the adjoining property to the south”. The objector claims that the proposed deck protrudes atypically further into the subject site’s rear yard than those of other adjoining and surrounding properties along Seaside Parade so that it allows users of the proposed deck to “look back” into the internal habitable spaces of the objector’s property (Photos G and H).

 

Photo G: View of existing swimming pool and proposed timber deck from the rear terrace on Level 3 of No 17 Seaside Parade.

 

Photo H: View of existing swimming pool and proposed timber deck from the internal living area on Level 2 of No 17 Seaside Parade.

 

An inspection of the objector’s property in relation to the location and size of the proposed deck (Photo G) indicates that while overlooking into the objector’s habitable space is possible, this overlooking is not considered unreasonable and unacceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      Decks, terraces and balconies are evident to nearly all of the properties located along this side of Seaside Parade. These decks, terraces and balconies are generally unscreened and are located to take advantage of panoramic ocean views to the east. As such, a certain level of mutual overlooking is evident and expected in the area (see Photos I and J below). In this context, the objector’s property will also overlook the proposed deck and rear yard. Accordingly, when assessed against the relevant considerations for visual privacy, the proposed development adopts a similar arrangement that already characterises the area.

 

Photo I: Existing overlooking opportunities from the rear decks/swimming pool terrace of No 21 Seaside Parade towards the objector’s property at No 17 Seaside Parade.

 

Photo J: Existing overlooking opportunities from the rear decks/terraces of No 13 Seaside Parade towards  the objector’s property at No 17 Seaside Parade.

 

·      Any view into the internal habitable space of the objector’s property will be a view oriented back towards the objector’s property (that is, against the expected east-looking view corridors to the ocean) and at a separation distance of approximately 20m from the furthest, and 8m from the closest, viewable point of the proposed deck. In the case of the objector’s master bedroom on Level 4, the overlooking is further mitigated by the significant elevated position of the objector’s master bedroom relative to the proposed rear deck. This combination of the contra-view lines and separation distances mitigates any overlooking of the objector’s habitable spaces from the proposed deck. 

 

Accordingly, the proposed deck is not considered to contribute to any significant additional privacy impacts on adjoining properties beyond that existing between adjoining and neighbouring dwellings.

 

 

Overall, the proposal will meet the objectives of the visual privacy controls in the Randwick DCP 2013. In particular, it has successfully considered how to minimise overlooking or cross viewing to neighbouring dwellings and proposes a deck that is open and exposed on all sides to capture views while maintaining relative privacy to adjoining and surrounding properties. 

 

Acoustic privacy

The relevant objectives of the controls relating to acoustic privacy to adjoining properties are extracted below:

 

Objectives

 

§ To ensure a high level of amenity by providing for reasonable level of acoustic privacy for dwellings and neighbouring properties

 

§ To ensure dwellings are designed so that its occupants enjoy acoustic privacy, whilst maintaining the existing level of privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

 

§ To design buildings with adequate separation within the development and from adjoining properties

 

The objector in the adjoining northern property at No 13 Seaside Parade raises concerns that the use of the timber deck would result in adverse noise impacts. Decks, terraces and balconies are evident to nearly all of the properties located along this side of Seaside Parade. These decks, etc, are generally unscreened and are located to take advantage of panoramic ocean views to the east. In this context, it is reasonable to expect a certain level of mutual loss of acoustic privacy. As such, when assessed against the relevant considerations for acoustic privacy, the proposed development adopts a similar arrangement that already characterises the area. It should be noted the size of the proposed deck is not dissimilar to that of the existing deck at No. 13 Seaside generally in terms of its protrusion towards the shore line. In relation to concerns regarding noise reverberating in the hollow of the swimming pool from the use of the proposed timber deck above, it should be noted that the  construction of the timber deck will be undertaken in accordance with BCA standards and any co-incidental noise that would be generated by the use of the deck will be confined within the existing walls of the swimming pool. It is considered that the noise generated by the proposed deck over the existing swimming pool will not be discernibly different, if not less, than that generated by existing decks in adjoining properties suspended/sitting above equally acoustically-reflective hard rock surfaces.

 

Overall, the proposal will meet the objectives of the acoustic privacy controls in the Randwick DCP 2013. In particular, the proposal will have adequate separation distances to mitigate noise effects in an area where decks and terraces are common in the rear yard of adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

Solar access and natural light

The relevant objectives of the controls relating to solar access to adjoining properties are extracted below:

Objectives

 

§ To ensure the design, orientation and siting of development maximises solar access to the living areas of dwellings and open spaces, and is encouraged to all other areas of the development.

 

§ 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

 

Concern has been raised that the proposed concrete deck in the extended rear yard will result in the loss of some natural light on a south facing window to the lower ground floor ensuite bathroom. Following assessment, the  proposal is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the subject adjoining window for the following reasons:

 

·      The concrete deck will be setback 900mm from the common boundary which, combined with the setback of the subject ensuite window from the common boundary allows for an approximately 2m wide gap through which unobstructed natural light can be made available to the subject ensuite window.

 

·      The proposed concrete deck will be semi-cantilevered from the existing back yard of the subject property (and will not be a heavy, solid structure) with a slab approximately 250mm thick below which the existing ravine will remain largely unobstructed such that light will still penetrate and disperse in the ravine below albeit at a slightly more limited intensity. In addition, the northern and eastern edge of this slab will remain open to allow light into the semi-enclosed section of the ravine under the concrete deck.

 

·      Given the height and location of the proposal to the south of the objector’s property, there will be no overshadowing impacts to north and east-facing living room windows of the objector’s property.  Additionally, the concrete deck will have no impact to north facing windows of surrounding dwellings and each property will continue to enjoy reasonable levels of solar access to their private open spaces.

 

Accordingly,  the proposal will meet the objectives of the solar access controls in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 


 

Recommendation

 

1.   That the Council is satisfied:

 

(i)       the applicant’s written request under clause 4.6(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“RLEP 2012”) in respect of the development proposed in Development Application No. 529/2013 seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard for height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6(3); and

 

(ii)      the development proposed in Development Application No. 529/2013 will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard for height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

(iii)     the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of  development consent to Development Application No. 529/2013 that contravenes the development standard for height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

2.   That Development Application No. 529/2013 for construction of a timber deck over pool to rear of existing dwelling, access stairs from deck to foreshore and timber cladding around sides of remnant of pool at No.15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee is determined by granting consent to the application subject to the conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report 15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/529/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D107/13

 

 

Subject:                  87 Storey Street, Maroubra - DA/570/2013

Folder No:                   DA/570/2013

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Legitimise the use of an existing secondary dwelling at the rear of the site (variation to maximum floor area of secondary dwellings)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Mr J Haralambous

Owner:                         Mr J Haralambous

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The subject application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as it contains variations to the maximum floor area standard for secondary dwellings as stipulated within Clause 22(3)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy for Affordable Rental Housing 2009 by more than 10%. The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant of Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

The application seeks consent to use an existing 90 outbuilding in the rear yard as a secondary dwelling. It is noted that this outbuilding has been expanded and fitted out as a dwelling without Council consent and was only previously approved as a billard room, storeroom, toilet and laundry area. Council’s Regulatory Building Section is aware of this matter and has served a notice of intention to serve an order.

 

Site

 

The subject site a corner site and located on the intersection of Storey Street and Hannan Street and is currently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling and garage structure located at the rear of the site. The site has a frontage width of 14.55m, a side boundary depth of 36.575m and an overall site area of 532.3m².   Directly to the east of the subject site is an existing detached single storey dwelling and to the north is one half of a single storey semi-detached dwelling.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The proposal was also advertised as nominated integrated development from 6 September 2013 to 20 September 2013. In response, one submission was received from the owners/residents of the following properties: -

 

29 Hannan Street, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

The submitted plans, statement of environmental effects and the SEPP 1 Objection to the development standards is inaccurate and a misrepresentation to the unauthorised building works.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

The existing outbuilding is located up to the rear boundary which does not comply with Comprehensive DCP.

Development consent was granted for the construction of an outbuilding located up to the rear boundary as per BA/236/1983. The proposal will not change the rear setback from the previous consent.

The objector would like to view previous development consents that have been issued to the subject site.

The objector was advised that they may wish to lodge an Access to Information request to obtain previous development consents on the subject site in accordance with the Government Information Public Access Act (GIPA).

 


Key Issues

 

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Clause 4.6: Exceptions to development standards – Secondary Dwellings 

 

The existing secondary dwelling contravenes the maximum permissible floor space for secondary dwellings contained within the Clause 22(3)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for Affordable Rental Housing (ARH) 2009. The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the standards pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

 

Secondary Dwellings

Clause 22(3)(b) of the SEPP ARH 2009 allows development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling with a maximum permissible floor area of 60. The unauthorized secondary dwelling has a floor area of 90 and exceeds the floor area by 30m². This represents a variation to the development standard of 50%. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Gross Floor Area (GFA)

Existing development

90m2

Permissible FSR / GFA

60m2

GFA in excess of SEEP standard

30m2

Variation from the permissible GFA for secondary dwellings

50%

 

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

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

 

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

 

Comments:

The SEPP ARH 2009 does not include any relevant objectives for Clause 22(3)(b) and simply advises that the floor area must not exceed 60 square metres or 10% of the total floor area of the principle dwelling. Subsequently, the aims of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 are assessed accordingly:

 

(a)   To provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

(b)   To facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

(c)   To facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

(d)   To employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,

(e)   To facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

(f)    To support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work,

(g)   To facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

Whilst there are no specified objectives for Clause 22(3), a Secondary dwelling as defined under the SEPP provides that these types of developments are largely aimed at providing accommodation of inter-family arrangements or local workers on low to moderate incomes where the secondary dwelling remains subservient to the primary dwelling, secondary dwellings are likely to be able to be accommodated on a site with a minimum 450sqm site area, that parking need not be provided for the secondary dwelling and the Consent Authority to undertake an environmental assessment having regard to the suitability of the site to occupy a Primary and Secondary dwelling within relevant building design guidelines and the specific local conditions. In this respect see assessment under the Section: Comprehensive Development Control Plans. A merits based assessment has also been carried out in assessing the reasonableness of the proposal.

 

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

 

In assessing the proposed variations and the applicant’s ‘Exceptions to Development Standards’ reasoning, it is considered that the secondary dwelling does not achieve a high level of consistency with the aims of the standards in question and would not lead to a positive urban planning and design outcome for the following reasons:

 

·      The structure does not provide any building separation from the existing dwelling to the unauthorized secondary dwelling and contributes to an increase in the level of bulk and scale and adversely impacts the appearance of the dwelling within the streetscape as viewed from Hannan Street.

 

·      The proposal exceeds the site coverage required and does not provide adequate private open space to accommodate the passive outdoor recreational needs of the occupants given the structure encroaches within the principle outdoor recreation space of the primary dwelling.

 

·      The proposal does not provide adequate site coverage, landscaping and permeable surfaces to accommodate surface water and stormwater infiltration from the subject site.

 

·      The unauthorized secondary dwelling structure is setback only 110mm from the eastern side boundary and compromises the visual amenity of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 89 Storey Street.

 

·      The unauthorized secondary dwelling structure will result in an undesirable precedent on the location, siting and size of secondary dwellings within the existing streetscape.

 

·      It is considered that the excessive size of the secondary dwelling will compete in size with the primary dwelling. As such, rather than remaining ancillary and subservient. The unauthorized extension does not achieve the intent of the floor area control for secondary dwellings.

 

Comments:

The variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical maximum floor area standards for secondary dwellings will be of greater contribution to the public benefit in this instance. 

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standards in question is reasonable and necessary.

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:

There are no stated objectives to Clause 22(3)(b) and the proposal has been assessed on the aims of the SEPP ARH 2009. As discussed, compliance with the standards is considered necessary in this particular instance.

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:

Whilst there are no stated objectives to Clause 22(3)(b) the proposal has been assessed on the aims of the SEPP ARH 2009 in this particular instance is reasonable and necessary. The proposed floor area is significantly over those controls for secondary dwellings introduced by SEPP ARH 2009.

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The development standards contained in SEPP ARH 2009 have not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council. There has been no precedent established by Council’s assessment decisions within the immediate locality, 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:

Zoning is permissible for secondary dwellings within R2: Low Density Residential in accordance with the SEPP ARH 2009. However, compliance with the development standard is considered to be necessary.

 

·      Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Section 2.3: Site Coverage

The Comprehensive Development Control Plan requires a maximum 50% of site coverage for unbuilt upon areas to ensure the mass and scale from existing developments will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling within the streetscape. The existing structures on site do not comply with Council’s controls and will result in a site coverage of 52% and exceeds the control by 2%. Whilst the departure from Council’s control is considered numerically small the proposal is not in keeping with the objectives for site coverage as the proposal does not provide; contiguous private open space to accommodate the recreational needs of the occupants, adequate permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration and the secondary dwelling is excessive in bulk and scale as addressed within the relevant sections of this report. Consequently, given the proposal does not meet numerical controls or demonstrate compliance with the objectives it is considered that an adequate level of site coverage cannot be achieved on site.

 

Section 2.4: Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

The existing dwelling and unauthorised secondary dwelling will reduce the permeable landscaping to 14% which does not comply with Council’s control. A minimum of 30% of the site area is required for permeable landscaping to provide a reasonable level of useable outdoor area and to achieve a visual balance between open space areas and building structures. The proposal provides a small strip of soft landscaping forward of the building line and west of the existing development. The area is considered insufficient in size to provide an even distribution between permeable surfaces and built areas, in particular, there is no visual separation between the dwelling house and unauthorized secondary dwelling. The situation is exacerbated given the prominence of the site as a corner allotment and visually detracts from the appearance of the dwelling within the streetscape. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is deficient in providing suitable areas for stormwater infiltration and the permeability of surface water. The proposal does not comply in providing adequate landscaping and permeable surfaces to the site.  

 

Section 2.5: Private Open Space

In order to accommodate the passive recreational needs for the occupants a minimum dimension of 7m x 7m of contiguous private open space is required for a site area between 461 – 600sqm. The subject premise does not provide the required area for private open space which is restricted to a small section located west of the secondary dwelling. Furthermore, the usability and accessibility of this section is restricted given the private yard area has changes in the gradient level between the soft landscaping area, the footpath and the patio area. The change in level of approximately 360mm restricts passive recreational activities and does not provide a functional private open space which can appropriately be utilized by the occupants. It is considered that the availability of private open space is greatly reduced given the unauthorized building works encroach within the principle outdoor recreation space located at the rear of the existing dwelling. Consequently, given the proposal does not adequately provide a useable contiguous private open space to service the outdoor recreational needs of the occupants the application is recommended for refusal. 

 

Section 3.3: Side and Rear Setbacks

The unauthorised secondary dwelling located at the rear does not comply with side and rear setback requirements. The Comprehensive DCP advises that a minimum setback of 1200mm and 8 metres is required from the side and rear boundaries, respectively. The secondary dwelling is setback 110mm from the eastern side boundary and 260mm from the rear boundary and does not comply with the Council controls. The setback to the rear is existing and has previous development consent (BA/236/1983), however, the side setback from the unauthorized addition will have an additional impact given no consent has been granted for these works. The structure contributes to an unreasonable level of visual bulk and scale as viewed from the neighbouring premises as the secondary dwelling extends across the full length of the neighbours rear yard. Given the lack of building separation the existing structure will compromise amenity with respect to the visual bulk of the building as viewed from the private open space of the adjoining properties.

 

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 seeks to legitimize the use of an existing 90 outbuilding in the rear yard as a secondary dwelling which has been expanded and fitted out without Council consent.

 

The subject application has been recommended for refusal given the existing secondary dwelling structure does not comply with the relevant controls of the Comprehensive Development Control Plan in providing adequate areas for private open space to service the recreational needs of the occupants, provide sufficient areas for deep soil permeable surfaces, exceeds the maximum site coverage requirements and the non-compliant side setback compromises the visual amenity of the neighbouring dwelling. The structure is also inconsistent with Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the development detracts from the environmental and aesthetic qualities given the secondary dwelling is considered excessive in bulk and scale and compromises the amenity of the adjacent dwellings. The applicant has submitted a request to justify the contravention of the standards pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 which is not considered to be well-justified and its importance as a development standard is reasonable and necessary in this instance.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 570/2013 to legitimise the use of an existing secondary dwelling at the rear of the site at No. 87 Storey Street, Maroubra, for the following reasons:

 

·           The proposal does not satisfy Clause 22(3)(b) within the State Environmental Planning Policy for Affordable Rental Housing 2009 in that the proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor area for secondary dwellings.

 

·          The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives and controls for site coverage as detailed in Clause 2.3 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan in that the subject site does not provide adequate areas for private open space, deep soil permeable surfaces in accommodating the existing dwelling house and unauthorised structures.

 

·          The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives and controls for landscaping and permeable surfaces as detailed in Clause 2.4 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan in that the subject premises is deficient in providing suitable areas to allow for stormwater infiltration from the subject site.

 

·          The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives and controls for private open space as detailed in Clause 2.5 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan in that the subject premises does not provide for contiguous private open space to accommodate the recreational needs of the occupants.

 

·          The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives and controls for side setback requirements as detailed within Clause 3.3 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan in that the unauthorised building works will adversely impact the amenity with respect to the visual bulk of the building as viewed from the private open space of the adjoining properties.

 

·          The proposal is not in the public interest and does not satisfy Section 79C(i)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 87 Storey Street, Maroubra (DA/570/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D108/13

 

 

Subject:                  4 Holkham Avenue, Randwick (DA/392/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/392/2013

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building with 9 units, basement car parking for 15 vehicles and associated works (variation to floor space ratio)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Mr B Matta

Owner:                         Mrs P P Koussa

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 at the request of Councillors Matson, Smith, Neilson and Shurey.

 

1.      Proposal

 

The original proposal comprised the demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building with 9 units, basement carparking for 15 vehicles and associated works at No 4 Holkham Street. The proposal was subsequently amended to address issues raised by Council and the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel, primarily as follows:

 

·      reduction in floor area by setting back the top floor by approximately 1m from both the northern and southern building sides and reduction in floor area of Unit No. 2 at ground level.

·      increase in front setback of building from min 2.4m to min 3.02m and max 4m to 4.6m resulting in increased front landscape area

·      reduction and reconfiguration of carpark basement area to provide more deep soil landscaped areas

·      revise streetfront facade presentation by provision of additional wrap-around opening at Level 2 so as to articulate the front of the proposed building.

·      provision of screened glazed openings to stairwell access to improve natural light

·      provision of a more open lobby and with open staircase to improve light and air flow.

·      provision of more communal area by conversion of the southern half of originally designated private open space for Unit 1 

·      changes to internal layout on each level by relocating some service spaces to reduce bulkhead impacts on units below

 

The amended proposal now comprises the following:

 

Basement

14 car parking spaces (4 in tandem arrangement)

14 bicycle storage spaces

Storage compartments

Lift and stairs

 

Ground Floor

1 x 1bed room unit

1 x 3 bedroom unit

 

Level 1

4 x 1 bedroom units

 

Level 2

1 x 3 bedroom units

2 x 3 bedroom units (dual level)

 

Level 3

Upper floor (containing kitchen, dining and living area) of 3 bedroom units below.

 

2.      The site

 

The subject site is located on the south-western side of Holkham Street close to the intersection of Holkham Street and Prince Street.

The site has an irregular shape with an eastern frontage of 17.095m to Holkham Avenue; site depths of 32.13m on the southern side and 34.995 on the northern side boundaries; and a splayed western rear boundary of 21.505m. The subject site is generally level with an overall site area of 724sqm.

 

The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house.

 

Figure 2: Locality Plan

 

The site is adjoined to the north by a 2 storey rendered brick and tiled roof dwelling house at No 6 Holkham Street; to the west by a large 4 storey residential flat building at No.98-100 Alison Road which is located on a lower level; to the south by a 4 storey residential flat building at No 2 Holkham Avenue; and to the east on the opposite side of Holkham Avenue by a 3 storey residential flat building at No 36a Prince Street.

 

The surrounding area is characterised predominantly by a mix of multi-unit development ranging between 2 and 5 storeys in scale, and displaying a range of architectural styles and external finishes interspersed with dwelling houses and dual occupancies further towards the north and east.


 


Photo1 : Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. View of existing dwelling house at the subject site at No 4 Holkham Avenue.

2. View of the adjoining southern residential flat building at No 2 Holkham Avenue.

3. Adjoining two-storey dwelling at No 6 Holkham Street to the north. 

4. No 8 Holkham Avenue at the end of this street.

 

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick DCP 2013. The proposal was also advertised from 10 July 2013 – 24 July 2013. In response, the following submissions were received from the owners/residents of the following properties: -

 

·      2 Holkham Avenue, Randwick (from Strata Managers SP1511)

·      2 Holkham Avenue, Randwick – Chairperson – Executive Committee

·      1/ 2 Holkham Avenue. Randwick

·      3/2 Holkham Avenue, Randwick

·      6/2 Holkham Avenue, Randwick

·      6 Holkham Avenue, Randwick

·      11/8 Holkham Avenue, Randwick

·      8/8 Holkham Avenue, Randwick

·      10/8 Holkham Avenue, Randwick

·      9/27 Prince Street, Randwick

·      3/29 Prince Street, Randwick

·      9/36a Prince Street, Randwick

·      13/36a Prince Street, Randwick

·      38 Prince Street, Randwick

·      40 Prince Street, Randwick

 

The amended plans and supporting documentation received on 11 October 2013 were not required to be renotified as the proposal generally contained improvements primarily in terms of the increased landscaped and deep soil area; reduction in floor area and increased front setback.

 

The submissions to the original proposal raised the following issues:  

 

Non-compliance with FSR control

The amended proposal now has a fully compliant FSR of 0.9:1 (650 sqm) primarily through the deletion of floor area at the top floor level by setting this level back from the northern and southern sides and reducing the size of one ground floor apartment. This in effect reduces the visual bulk and scale of the proposal such that it is not considered to be out of character with the immediate adjoining residential flat buildings along Holkham Avenue.

 

Non-compliance with eternal wall height controls

The proposal has a maximum external wall height of 12m which exceeds the maximum 10.5m external wall height control by 1.5m. The non-compliance in the external wall height control has been assessed in the key issues section below and the Compliance Report where essentially it is considered that the variation is reasonable and acceptable as it will not result in a visually intrusive and bulky building in the context of the existing residential flat buildings in the locality and it does not give rise to any adverse amenity impacts in terms of privacy, overshadowing, views and visual bulk and scale. In particular, the upper floor has been setback on all four sides from the main building line below which visually breaks any potential visual bulk and scale and reduces amenity impacts on adjoining properties. .

 

Rear building line exceeds that of adjoining properties

The objector in the adjoining northern property at No 6 Holkham Avenue objects to the extent of the proposal’s rear building which goes beyond that of the objector’s property. As indicated in the Compliance Report, the proposal has a rear setback of between min 5.2m and max 6.5m which complies with the DCP control of minimum 5.2m. The objector’s property is an existing dwelling house with a generous rear yard given its wider rear setback which was approved historically under an earlier planning regime in an area that is now zoned R3. It is considered unreasonable to require the compliant proposal to have a rear setback in line with the objector’s property. More importantly, as assessed in the Compliance Report and relevant sections of this report, the proposed development will not be overbearing or visually intrusive to the objector’s property and other adjoining properties. Additionally, the proposal will not give rise to any adverse amenity impacts in terms of privacy, overshadowing and view loss.

 

Front setback not in line with adjoining properties

Objectors in adjoining properties have objected to the front setback claiming that it would be inconsistent with the predominant setback in Holkham Avenue. As indicated in the Compliance Report, the amended front setback will be between min 3.02mm and 4.6m which will align with the existing front setbacks of adjoining properties to the north and south, and generally will be consistent with predominant setbacks in the streetscape.

 

 

 

Basement built to boundary

Concern has been raised by objectors in adjoining properties in relation to the basement walls that are proposed to be built to the boundary especially in relation to potential structural damage. As assessed in the Compliance Report, the basement encroachment into the required 900mm side setback will be confined to a length of 9.5m on the northern boundary and 12m on the southern boundary. Appropriate standard conditions to ensure structural adequacy and prevent damage to adjoining properties will be applied. Furthermore, the retaining walls will be largely underground such that any potential bulk and scale impact will be minimised.

 

Proposal should be all 3 bedroom units

The proposal is considered to provide for a good mix of large (4 x 3 bedrooms) and small (5 x 1 bedroom) units consistent with the Randwick DCP 2013. The SEPP 65 Design Review Panel has raised no objections to the proposed apartment mix.

 

No setback of driveway from southern boundary

The objectors at No 2 Holkham Avenue object to the absence of any setback of the proposed driveway from the common southern boundary. The configuration of the driveway has been assessed in the key issues assessment section of this report and the Compliance Report and found to be adequate. Specifically, the requirement for a 1m setback between the driveway and No 2 Holkham Avenue is not warranted as driveway safety, side boundary landscaping and maintenance of on-street parking is satisfactorily provided by the proposal.

 

Lack of landscaping along the southern common boundary to No 2 Holkham Avenue

A condition will be applied requiring raised planter beds to be provided along the southern edge of the proposed southern footpath to provide a corridor of landscaping for softening the proposed development to the adjoining and surrounding properties. The proposed footpath is approximately 2m wide and can accommodate a 600mm wide planter bed.

 

Loss of privacy

Objections relating to loss of privacy have been raised especially by owners/residents in the following properties:

 

·      adjoining northern property at No 6 Holkham Avenue

·      adjoining southern property at No 2 Holkham Avenue

·      neighbouring eastern property at No 36a Prince Street

 

The objectors concerns have been assessed in the key issues section below and in the Compliance Report. The assessment essentially indicates that the proposal complies with the DCP controls relating to privacy and has been designed to minimise overlooking impacts upon these adjoining properties.

 

Loss of sunlight

Objectors in the adjoining southern property at No 2 Holkham Avenue raise concerns that proposed development will result in overshadowing of their property. The solar access and natural light impacts of the proposal on adjoining properties have been addressed in the key issues assessment section below. Essentially, the proposal will result in reasonable and acceptable overshadowing to the north elevation of objectors’ property with most units receiving the minimum 3 hour solar access in the winter solstice required under the Randwick DCP 2013 because of its generous side setback and the positioning of the proposed built form upon the site. Only one ground floor unit (unit 2) does not receive the full 3 hour minimum solar access in the winter solstice and this shortfall has been assessed and found reasonable essentially as the shortfall amounts to half an hour and is considered minor and will be alleviated by an existing west facing projecting balcony which will receive adequate natural light. Furthermore, the loss in solar access does not arise as a result of the non-complying external wall height as the proposal satisfies the minimum side setback and has a compliant maximum building and FSR.

 

Loss of existing trees

The proposal will involve removal of a number of existing trees on-site. The subject trees have been assessed by Council’s landscape officer who has found that removal of the trees are warranted having considered the existing health, size and significance of each tree and the application of relevant landscape conditions for replacement trees.

 

Loss of views

Objections relating to loss of outlook have been raised by owners/residents in the following properties:

 

·      adjoining southern property at No 2 Holkham Avenue

·      local property on the opposite side of Prince Street approximately 80m away at No 27 Prince Street

 

It should be noted that a view loss concern was raised by an objector on behalf of the body corporate at 29 Prince Street but, despite request, access to the top-floor unit was not made available. Notwithstanding this, the assessment of the view loss impacts for the adjoining property at No 27 Prince Street in the key issues section below provides a satisfactory indication of the view loss impacts for 29 Prince Street.

 

The objectors’ view loss concerns have been assessed in the key issues section below and in the Compliance Report. The assessment essentially indicates that the proposal will not result in loss of any significant/iconic views and the impact is one that is reasonably expected from a building that complies with the maximum building height, FSR and setback controls.

 

Non-compliance with maximum 10.5m external wall height control of the Randwick DCP 2012

Objectors in the southern adjoining property at No 2 Holkham Avenue object to the breach in wall height at the upper level and its visual bulk and scale and amenity impacts. This concern has been assessed in the key issues section below, which essentially finds that that the non-compliance will not be perceptible from street level as the variation is minor occurring on the top floor which will be well setback from the street front and side boundaries. Furthermore, the variation will not give rise to any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining and surrounding properties in terms of solar access, privacy and view loss

 

Proposal should be restricted to 3 floors

There are no storey height controls applicable under the Randwick LEP 2012 or the Randwick DCP 2013. The proposal complies with the maximum 12m building height standard under the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

Use of roof level terraces for noisy activities including parties

The upper floor elevated terraces, strictly speaking, are not roof terraces. Rather, they are typically upper floor terraces linked to living areas of two stacked apartments (Units 8 and 9). As such, these terraces will not be subjected to intensive communal use but rather the private use of individual units, not unlike that of numerous individual unit terraces and balconies of adjoining and surrounding residential flat buildings in the locality. The use of such terraces and balconies can and should be managed/regulated by individual owner occupants/tenants and body corporates in accordance with relevant residential noise guidelines/criteria.  

 

 

Inadequate parking

The proposal complies with the required number of car parking spaces. Accordingly, the development is not expected to have a detrimental impact on parking supply on Holkham Street.

 

Use of stacked parking spaces

Objectors have raised a concern that the proposed stacked car parks will not be used effectively and will result in on-street car parking. The stacked car parking spaces will be allocated to the three-bedroom units given the larger occupancy rate. The use of these stack car spaces can be managed effectively by the larger apartment households and to pre-empt otherwise would be unwarranted and unreasonable. Accordingly, the use of stacked car parking is acceptable.

 

No traffic study lodged with DA

The proposal involves the construction of 9 new dwelling units with 14 car spaces. This is considered a moderately scaled medium density residential development which is not expected to give rise to high traffic movements nor major disruption to existing levels of service in surrounding residential roads. 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. As such a traffic study is typically not required for residential development of this moderate scale. Whilst it is noted that Holkham Avenue is a small and short thoroughfare, Council’s development engineers have raised no objections to the traffic impact of the proposal in Holkham Avenue given the moderate scale of the proposed development.

 

Design of proposal

The amended proposal has provided further articulation to the building in the form of additional openings and screening devices while maintaining the essential original modern/contemporary design intent. The SEPP 65 Design Review Panel has also provided recommendations regarding external treatment. The roof form and walls to the building are adequately articulated and modulated under the amended proposal to minimise visual bulk and scale and allow for a better relation to existing residential flat buildings in the streetscape.

 

Damage/disruption due to construction

Standard conditions to minimise noise, traffic and disruption during demolition, construction and excavation will be applied should approval be granted.

 

Issues

 

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 satisfy and exceed the numerical requirements of the DCP. In relation to the adjoining property to the south at No 2 Holkham Avenue, no proposed living room openings will face this neighbouring property. Operable sun-shading screens will be provided on all window openings on the ground level to Level 2 in the south elevation. These openings are linked to bathroom and bedrooms (and not living or terrace areas) which are less conducive for overlooking. However, given the extent of glazed openings to bedrooms in this elevation, a condition requiring fixed screens on half of each bedroom window opening is considered reasonable. Full fixed screens to all bedroom and bathroom window openings as requested by objectors in No 2 Holkham Avenue is considered unreasonable as this would be detrimental to the amenity of these bedrooms and bathrooms in terms of access to natural light and ventilation particularly given the southern aspect of these openings. Additionally, a condition for fixed screens to be installed to the south-facing living room and kitchen windows on the upper floor will be applied should approval be granted. Overall, adequate privacy will be maintained to the dwelling units in the adjoining residential flat building at No 2 Holkham Avenue especially given that the proposal meets the side setback requirements of the DCP.

 

Similarly in relation to the adjoining property to the north at No 6 Holkham Avenue, given the extent of glazed openings to bedrooms in the proposed north elevation, a condition requiring fixed screens on half of each bedroom window opening in this elevation is considered reasonable. Additionally, a condition for fixed screens to be installed to the north-facing living room and kitchen windows on the upper floor will be applied should approval be granted. In relation to the north-facing living room and kitchen balcony opening of Unit 07 on Level 2, a condition requiring fixed screens to be installed on the edge of the balcony for the length of the first two window bays measured from the north-western corner of the building will be applied should approval be granted. Overlooking from the remaining unscreened portions of the subject balcony can be adequately mitigated by the 9m separation distance from the terrace to the rear yard of No 6 Holkham Avenue and the existing substantial landscaping along the southern perimeter of the objector’s rear yard and the proposed landscaping in the generous north-western planter beds of the proposed development. 

 

In relation the neighbouring properties to the east on the opposite side of Holkham Avenue at 36a Prince Street, loss of privacy will be mitigated by the following considerations:

 

·      the 15m separation distance between the two buildings straddling Holkham Avenue

·      orientation of balconies to the street front at an off-setting angle away from the living areas of No 36a Prince Street

 

Overall, in view of the above considerations, the proposal satisfies the objectives of the DCP in relation to privacy.

 

Solar access

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 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, at 8:00am to 12 midday the proposal will overshadow the rear yard of the adjoining property at No  98-100 Alison Road. From 12:00 midday onwards this overshadowing will shift to the rear yard of No 2 Holkham Avenue such that the rear yard of No 98-100 Alison Road will be free of overshadowing from the proposed development. Accordingly, a substantial part of the rear yard of No 98-100 Alison Road will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight during the winter solstice day. Overall, it is considered that an adequate level of sunlight will be retained consistent with the Randwick DCP 2013, and the proposed overshadowing will not detract form the enjoyment of outdoor living for the neighbouring properties. 

 

The shadow diagrams also show that the north elevation of the adjoining southern property, a residential flat building, at No 2 Holkham Avenue will be overshadowed during the winter solstice day. However this overshadowing is considered reasonable and acceptable in relation to the Randwick DCP control for the following reasons:

 

·      The shadow diagrams show that from 8:00am to 12 midday, all units with north-facing windows in No 2 Holkham Avenue, with the exception of the ground floor unit No. 2, will receive the minimum Randwick DCP control requirement of 3 hours solar access when assessed against the solar access principles established in the case of The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082. In that case, adequate solar access is considered to be achieved in the built space behind any exposed glazed area by the sun falling on the comparatively modest portion of the glazed area of the subject window. Specifically, applying this principle, the elevational shadow diagrams show that in the winter morning solar access will still be available to upper portion of all north-facing windows of Unit 4.

 

·      A number of units in No. 2 Holkham Avenue also have a eastern aspect and therefore good access to morning sunlight in the winter morning and natural light in the afternoon at the front of this building. This will significantly alleviate overshadowing impact from the proposed development.

 

·      The north-facing living room window of Unit 2 will receive a minimum of approximately 2.5 hours of solar access. This represents a shortfall of 30 minutes of solar access to the north-facing living room window of unit No 2 which is considered reasonable given that the proposal has sought to maximise solar access to this adjoining property by providing a substantial 3.7m side setback to the common southern boundary well in excess of the 3m side setback requirement for sites with 17m wide frontages. It should be noted that the living room of Unit No 2 is linked to a projecting balcony that has an exposed façade on the north, west and southern sides that will allow for natural light into the living area.

 

·      The SEPP 65 Design Review Panel commends and supports the generous setback provision from the southern boundary and has commented as follows in relation to the  overshadowing impact upon No 2 Holkham Street:

 

“The Panel considers that the erection of a three storey development (with partial fourth storey) is appropriate. The design is precisely sited, with generous setbacks on all sides. The overshadowing on the flat building to the south needs to be closely studied by Council planners, though the Panel notes that the side setback is generous, and any overshadowing is exacerbated by the minimal setback on the neighbour (that is No 2Holkham Avenue) – this proposal should not be unduly penalised by the poor siting of (this) neighbour.

 

Overall, the proposal meets the objective of the DCP controls in relation to solar access especially having regard to its compliant FSR and building height combined with a generous southern side setback of 3.7m that exceeds the standard 3m requirement normally applied for allotments of this frontage width.

 

Loss of views

The relevant Objectives and Controls of the DCP relating to view sharing are extracted below:

 

Objectives

 

·      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 skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

Controls

 

i)      The location and design of buildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas to significant elements from the streets, public open spaces and neighbouring dwellings.

ii)     In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas (such as living room, dining room, lounge and kitchen) should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non4habitable rooms.

v)     Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the development application.

 

No 2 Holkham Avenue:

An objector on the top floor unit at No 2 Holkham Avenue raises concerns in relation to view loss. Applying the Randwick DCP controls and view sharing planning principles under Tenacity vs Warringah Council, the following assessment of the view loss impact is made:

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

Following site inspections of the residential building at No. 2 Holkham Avenue, the upper level unit, Unit No 6, of this building has views of the city skyline (Photo A) which having regard to Step 1 would be iconic but for the heavily filtered and obstructed nature of this view occurring at a distance and being extensively obstructed by existing buildings including an RFB at No 8 Holkham Avenue.

 

Photo A: view of CBD sky-line (red arrow) taken from living room window looking north across the subject site. This view is also available from the Kitchen and front balcony.

 

Step 2:      “The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries.”

The views of the city skyline are direct views across the northern side boundary. As such, Step 2 places less significance on the retention of these views than if they were gained across front or rear boundaries. Accordingly, the existing affected view does not meet the second step assessment for retention established in the Planning Principle. 

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

The degree of view loss is considered to be significant as the proposed building will completely obstruct this view and considering the valuable visual amenity that these views offer Unit No 2. However, as discussed under Step 4 below. The view loss is reasonable and acceptable as the building complies with the maximum building height and FSR development standards under the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

Step 4 :     “The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of noncompliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours.”

The proposal complies with the maximum FSR and maximum building height standards of the Randwick LEP 2012 and, as such, the proposal has a height, bulk and scale that is commensurate with what is desired under the statutory controls especially in the context of even larger and higher existing residential flat buildings that predominantly characterise the locality.

The proposal has a wall height that exceeds the 10.5m wall height control of the Randwick DCP 2013. Having regard to Step 4, the impact on views in this case is not considered to arise as a result of non-compliance with the wall height control for the following reasons:

 

1.    Even if the proposal was designed with a compliant wall height, the installation of a roof form, especially a pitched roof, would have a similar if not greater view loss impact as the proposed development.  

 

2.    The breach in the wall height control amounts to 1.5m which is considered minor such that requiring the proposal to achieve the maximum wall height would not result in significant view retention having regard to point 1 above and considering that such a requirement would be detrimental to achieving a reasonable potential for the subject site to provide medium density housing in a locality that is significantly suitable for such housing (that is, the proposal complies with the maximum FSR and building height standards of the Randwick LEP 2012 notwithstanding the variation from the external wall height).

 

Therefore, notwithstanding the variation from the external wall height, the proposal overall has been skilfully designed to have a compacted upper floor; a reasonable footprint and envelope; generous setbacks and compliant building height and FSR, so that the impact of visual bulk and scale on the views and outlook from No. 2 Holkham Street will be reasonable and acceptable.

 

Furthermore, the expansive 180 degree district view of Randwick, UNSW, the Randwick Racecourse and Kensington (Photo B to D) currently available from the rear projection balcony will remain unobstructed by the proposed development. These are valuable, if not, more significant views than those of the CBD skyline, because of their intact, panoramic quality.

 

Photo B: View of Randwick from the objector’s rear projecting balcony which will remain intact.

 

Photo C: View of UNSW and Kensington from the objector’s rear projecting balcony which will remain intact.

 

Photo D: View of Randwick Racecourse from the objector’s rear projecting balcony which will remain intact.

 

27 Prince Street

An objector on the top floor unit at No 27 Prince Street raises concerns in relation to view loss. Following a view loss assessment at No 27 Prince Street, and having regard to the principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council, it is considered that the proposed development will not have an unreasonable view loss impact for the following reasons:

 

§ The view comprises a distant and filtered district view containing some limited vistas of the Randwick Racecourse and therefore is not an iconic view as define in Step 1 of the planning principles under Tenacity vs Warringah Council (Photo E).

§ The view is obtained form a bedroom window and therefore is rated as less valuable than views obtained from a living room or kitchen under Tenacity vs Warringah Council.

§ The view is obtained across a front boundary but at an oblique angle across a rear boundary. While some significance may be given to the view as it is gained across a front boundary, it comprises a typical street and district view gained over the roof of the existing dwelling house and considerably filtered by existing development in Prince Street and Holkham Avenue. It is a view of moderate significance and is not an iconic view in terms of the planning principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council such that refusal of the proposal to accommodate such a view would be unreasonable. 

 

Photo E: Non-iconic street and district view looking west over the front boundary towards the subject site, obtained from the bedroom window of the objector’s property at No 27 Prince Street.

 

§ The proposal is a residential flat building with a compliant maximum building height and maximum FSR, in an area zoned R3 Medium Density. As such, the proposal has been skillfully designed to minimise view loss consistent with the view sharing principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council.

§ There are more significant CBD skyline views available to the objector that will be unaffected by the proposed development (see Photo F). 

Photo F: Existing CBD skyline views that will not be affected by the proposed development.

 

Overall, the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives and controls for view sharing in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

External wall height

The Objectives and Controls of the DCP relating to external wall height are extracted below:

 

Objectives:

·      To ensure that the building form provides for interesting roof forms and is compatible with the streetscape

·      To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces.

·      To control the bulk and scale of development and minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity.

 

Controls

i)        Where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies.

 

The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height standard by 1.5m. The variation from the wall height control is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      the variation in wall height is confined to the upper floor of the proposed development which will have a flat roof form and will be significantly setback from all sides of the main building line such that the upper level and the built form as a whole will not be visually intrusive.

·      The breach in wall height will not be perceptible from the street as it occurs in the upper floor structure that will be setback 10.5m from the street front boundary.

·      The variation will not give rise to any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining and surrounding properties in terms of solar access, privacy and view loss.

·      The proposal provides for adequate ceiling heights of min 2.9m and max 3.1m which will allow adequate internal amenity for dwelling units.

 

Parking and Driveway Configuration

The relevant objectives of the car parking and access control are as follows:

 

·      To ensure the location and configuration of car parking are integrated with the site planning and building design.

 

·      To ensure that car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or adversely detract from the streetscape character.

 

·      To minimise hard paved surfaces occupied by driveways and parking, so as to maximise opportunities for deep soil planting and permeable surfaces.

 

·      To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not pose undue safety risks on building occupants, pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

 

The proposed development has a well-considered modern design in which the proposed driveway will not visually dominate the property being only 21% of the width of the site at the streetfront. In particular, the intensive and substantial landscaping elements in the generous front setback area will screen the driveway. Additionally, the driveway will provide adequate sight distances at the entrance to allow for safe visibility to on-coming traffic and pedestrians along Holkham Avenue, which is a small non-arterial local residential street. In this regard the proposed driveway leads to a car park containing 14 car spaces which is not considered to be an excessive number in terms of traffic generation along the proposed driveway. It should be noted that Council’s development engineer does not support the provision of a 1m setback along the southern boundary as required by the Randwick DCP 2013 as it would create a space at the streetfront between the driveways of the two properties that could be used informally as a car park and would obstruct access to and from the two properties.

 

Overall, the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives of the parking and access control. Accordingly, the absence of a 1m setback of the driveway is considered reasonable and acceptable.

 

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 Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal has been amended to comply with statutory provisions of the Randwick LEP 2012 particularly in relation of FSR and building height.

 

The proposal adequately addresses the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the R3 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 variation from the external wall height control of the DCP has been addressed in the key issues section above and the Compliance Report. 

 

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 in terms of visual bulk and scale, views, solar access and privacy. Visually, the proposal will have a design that contributes to the existing streetscape whilst being consistent with the desired future character of the area having regard to the transitional nature of development in the area.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 392/2013 for the demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building with 9 units, basement carparking for 14 vehicles, landscape and associated works at No. 4 Holkham Avenue, Randwick, 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 sun-shading devices 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 east elevation facing the street. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

2.4     Fixed privacy screens shall be installed on half of each bedroom window opening in the south and north elevation of the proposed building to screen overlooking of the adjoining southern and northern properties.

 

2.5     Fixed privacy screens shall be installed all along the north-facing and south-facing glazed wall of Units 8 and 9 respectively on Level 3 to screen overlooking of the adjoining southern property.

 

2.6     Fixed privacy screens shall be installed on the edge of the north-facing living/dining room balcony of Unit 7 for the length of the first two window bays measured from the north-western corner of the building to screen overlooking of the adjoining northern property.

 

2.7     Raised planter beds at 600mm wide and 1m deep shall be provided along the southern edge of the proposed southern footpath adjacent to Unit 1 to provide a corridor of landscaping for softening the proposed development to the adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

2.8     The surplus in bicycle spaces must be allocated for 1 motorcycle. 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 4 Holkham Avenue, Randwick (DA/392/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Development Application Report No. D109/13

 

 

Subject:                  23 Hunter Avenue, Matraville (DA/703/2012/B)

Folder No:                   DA/703/2012/B

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of the approved development by alteration to the roof form and increase in the wall height. Original consent: Demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy including a new front fence and associated site and landscaped works  (SEPP1 Objection floor space ratio)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Archispectrum

Owner:                         23 Hunter Avenue Matraville Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Details of current approval

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

 

A Development Application No DA/703/2012 was approved at an Ordinary Council meeting on 26 March 2013 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy development including a new front fence, associated site and landscaped works.

 

Details of proposed modification

The subject s.96(2) application relates to modifications to the approved plans; to alter the approved roof form and increase the approved external wall height of the dual occupancy dwellings. The amended roof design directs storm water towards the edges of the dwellings rather than towards an approved box gutter which was to be located in the centre of the dwellings.

 

 

 

Figures 1 & 2:  Comparison of the approved dual occupancy dwellings as viewed from Hunter Avenue.

 

Key Issues

 

Building Envelope – Floor Space Ratio and Building  and Wall Height:

The proposed amendments to plans will result in an increase in the maximum height of the dual occupancy dwellings from 8.5m to 9.2m. Despite this, the development complies with the development standard for building height and is consistent with the aims of the RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone. The proposal will not increase the approved footprint or gross floor area for the dual occupancy dwellings. Consequently, an assessment against the development standard for floor space ratio is not required in this case.

 

It is considered that the resultant development will not impose any significant impacts on neighbouring dwellings or on the streetscape with regard to perceived visual bulk and scale and overshadowing. The gutters at the edges of the roof will increase only marginally (100mm); with the additional bulk being added at the centre of the dual occupancy development as viewed from Hunter Avenue and from neighbouring dwellings.

 

It is considered that the minor changes which are proposed to the approved dual occupancy dwelling will result in a development which is consistent with existing residential development which is within the immediate locality of the site.

 


Referrals

 

No referrals are required.

 

Section 96 assessment

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with:-

 

Substantially the Same Development

The proposal does not involve any significant changes to the approved built form, floor space or landscaped area provision on site. Therefore, the modified development is considered to be substantially the same development as that for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Notification and Consideration of Submissions

The subject application was notified to surrounding property owners by letter dated 24 October 2013. The notification period ended on 7 November 2013. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification process.

 

Amended plans were submitted to Council on 20 November 2013, given that the roof plan submitted with the application showed the direction for the slope of the roof sections incorrectly. However, the plans which were originally notified to neighbouring dwellings showed the proposed changes to elevations. Consequently, the amended roof plan was not required to be re-notified to neighbouring dwellings.

 

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 Sections 96 and 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, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/703/2012 to modify the approved development by making alterations to the roof form and to increase the wall height for 23 Hunter Avenue, Matraville in the following manner:

 

·            Amend Condition 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA01 (Revision D)

Archispectrum

7 March 2013

12 March 2013

DA02 (Revision C)

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

453683M

30 October 2012

 

as amended by the following Section 96’B’ plans:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA01 (Revision E)

Archispectrum

14 October 2013

20 November 2013

DA02 (Revision D)

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 23 Hunter Avenue, Matraville (DA/703/2012/B)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

  


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M17/13

 

 

Subject:                  CBD and South East Light Rail - Environmental Impact Statement Submission

Folder No:                   F2013/00263

Author:                   Joanna Hole, Co-ordinator-Strategic Planning; Gigi Lombardi, Special Project Officer; Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

Executive summary

 

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) has placed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project on public exhibition. The EIS has been prepared by Transport for New South Wales, and describes the project, assesses the potential impact, and outlines mitigation measures. The Public Exhibition period is from 14 November until 16 December 2013. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is the consent authority for the project.

 

The EIS is a product of a consistent long term integrated planning process undertaken by the State Government, including the Long Term Transport Master Plan (2012), Sydney’s Light Rail Future (2012) and the draft Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (2013). The project is also consistent with the key direction in the Randwick City Plan to advocate and/or plan for integrated local and regional transport improvements, including high capacity transport such as light rail and standard rail.

 

Randwick City Council has a long history of planning and advocacy for public transport improvements, identifying the need for rail based mass transit in the 2003 Citywide Transport Study and the 20 year City Plan. More recently Council has actively engaged with the community, local businesses and landowners, conducting an award-winning consultation program through its www.lightrailtorandwick.com.au website, and partnering with the University of NSW and Australian Turf Club.

 

On 4 July 2013 Council, the University of NSW and the Australian Turf Club (ATC) signed an MOU with Transport for NSW to support the delivery of the project.

 

Council officers have worked collaboratively with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) with the aim of achieving the best outcomes for our community. It is envisaged that this working relationship will continue through the EIS assessment process with both the DP&I and TfNSW to bring the issues of concern to a satisfactory resolution.

 

Prior to the EIS, Transport for NSW provided a range of opportunities for community and stakeholder input, including establishment of a regular light rail round table meeting process and stakeholder working groups, and conducted a broad community pre-EIS consultation program in September 2013.

 

During the current EIS exhibition period consultation activities include public drop-in information sessions, stakeholder briefings, and broad advertising and notification. Summary documents and the detailed EIS information are available in hard copy in Council libraries and Administration building, and in electronic format on the Department of Planning and Infrastructure website.

 

This report and the draft submission in Attachment 1 outlines the light rail proposal, the key issues and impacts for Randwick City, and makes recommendations for consideration in the assessment and determination process. In summary the submission supports the delivery of a world class transport system within our City, the proposed improvements to the public transport system’s capacity, reliability, and service level, and the general route including the proposal for two branches within Randwick City to Randwick and Kingsford. At the outset, Council also likes to ensure that the system not only responds to current needs, but also provides for future demands and increased use of public transport.

 

The submission addresses in detail each aspect of the proposal (and summarised in this report) and discusses issues relevant to Randwick City. The submission supports the overall project, its reliability, accessibility, capacity, convenience and safety, and supports an ongoing partnership approach to the refinement and finalisation of the design.

 

Summarised in brief, the major design issues raised in the submission are:

§ Objections to the proposed locations of the Randwick and Kingsford interchanges, the alignment on Wansey Road and the location of the proposed Randwick light rail vehicle stabling facility at 66A Doncaster Avenue.

§ Objection to the loss of substantial on-street parking throughout the route and particularly on Anzac Parade, and objection to any reduction in footpath width or pedestrian safety/capacity as a result of the light rail alignment

§ Concern about traffic impacts both on the route and in surrounding streets, and the lack of certainty about future bus changes

§ Concern about the loss of a large number of trees, including significant trees

 

The submission provides recommendations for refinement and finalisation of the design and operation of the system, identifies need for further investigation and/or information and suggests where specific changes are sought. This report requests Council endorses the attached submission for forwarding to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

 

Background

 

1. Project Background

In December 2012 the NSW State Government announced a new light rail route from Sydney CBD to Randwick and Kingsford, in line with key strategies in its Long Term Transport Master Plan (2012), and as part of a consistent long term integrated planning process including the NSW State Plan 2021, Sydney’s Light Rail Future (2012) and the draft Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (2013). The Light rail proposal is also consistent with the Randwick City plan direction to advocate and/or plan for integrated local and regional transport improvements, including high capacity transport such as light rail and standard rail (Direction 9c).

 

Council has a long history of planning and advocating for rail-based public transport improvements to provide a high capacity, reliable and comfortable service for the community and key destinations.  Council identified the need for rail based mass transit to cater for current and future transport needs in its City Wide Transport Study (2003) and 20 year City Plan, and more recently confirmed in the planning studies supporting the Comprehensive LEP/DCP review. This includes an Economic Activity Study (2008) and Economic Development Strategy (2010), and precinct planning for the Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre (2010).

 

Over the last three years the Council has actively engaged with the community and local businesses to gain feedback on and gauge support for light rail to Randwick, conducting an award-winning consultation program through its interactive on-line forums, the www.lightrailtorandwick.com.au website and surveying local businesses.

Council also established partnerships with key destinations including the University of NSW and Australian Turf Club through establishment of Memoranda of Understanding to work together to investigate and promote rail-based public transport, and co-funded a pre-feasibility study into possible routes from Randwick City to central Sydney.

 

2. Planning Approval Process

The CSLER project is Critical State Significant Infrastructure (SSI), and is covered by the provisions of the SEPP-State and Regional Development (2011), with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure as the consent authority.

 

In July 2013 Transport for NSW formally lodged the SSI Application with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) seeking the Director General’s environmental assessment requirements (DGRs). The Council provided input to the DGRs, as advised to Councillors (via bulletin) on 26 July 2013.  The DGRS were issued on 5 August 2013 to inform the scope of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is now on public exhibition.

 

Following public exhibition of the EIS, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will refer submissions to Transport for NSW for review, comment and possible refinement of the CSELR proposal. Transport for NSW will prepare a Submissions Report which will respond to submissions and identify any changes to the proposal. The EIS plus the Submissions Report will be assessed by DP&I to prepare a Director-General’s report, which is referred to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for a decision. Figure 1 on the following page outlines the planning approval process.

 

It is envisaged that there will be further discussion with Council officers which could lead to assisting the State Government in provision of technical information in drafting the conditions of consent for the project.

 

3. Proposal description

The CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) proposal is a $1.6 billion project which comprises the construction and operation of a new light rail service in Sydney, including approximately 12km of new track running from Circular Quay to Central, Kingsford and Randwick via Surry Hills and Moore Park. The proposal includes 20 stops (with 10 in Randwick City), light rail vehicle stabling facilities in Randwick, a maintenance depot in Rozelle and 12 traction power substations. 

 

The light rail operation will offer a reliable high frequency, high capacity service, able to carry up to 9000 passengers per hour in each direction, with peak services from Randwick and Kingsford every 5 to 6 minutes, and every 2 to 3 minutes within the CBD. The service will also cater for additional special event services from Central to Moore Park and Randwick Racecourse.

 

The stops at Randwick and Kingsford will operate as bus interchanges, with the south-east bus system to be re-designed (separately to the light rail EIS) to integrate with the light rail once it is operational (estimated in 5-6 years).

 

4. Project timing

Subject planning approval, the EIS notes the project is expected to commence construction in mid 2014, and anticipated to take approximately 5-6 years. Construction comprises three main stages: early works (for 1-2 years), main construction works (3-4 years) and commissioning (1 year). Precise staging will be confirmed once contractor(s) are appointed.  

 

The early works program consists of works required to allow the main light rail construction to proceed more smoothly, and includes services and utility relocation/protection works, demolition, and traffic alterations to enable construction on the main alignment. The main construction works include site establishment, civil engineering, rail installation, communications/power installation and construction of associated structures (eg: stations, substations, stabling facility).

Figure 1: Planning approval process

 

 

5. State government consultation on EIS

Prior to the EIS preparation, Transport for NSW provided a range of opportunities for community and stakeholder input to the project, including establishment of a regular light rail round table meeting process and stakeholder working groups, and a broad community pre-EIS consultation program in September 2013. Input from these activities is included in the EIS.

 

During the current EIS exhibition period, the State Government has outlined the following information and consultation and activities:

 

Hard copies of the EIS at Council locations:

·      Randwick City Council Admin building

·      Randwick (Mary Martin) Library

·      Bowen Library, Maroubra

·      Malabar Community Library

 

Other locations in Randwick LGA include:

·      UNSW Kensington Campus - Main Library (Building F21)

·      Prince Of Wales hospital, Barker Street Randwick

·      Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street Randwick

·      Randwick TAFE, Customer service Centre

 

On-line at:

·      www.majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au

 

Community Information Sessions and information stands:

Transport for NSW is holding information sessions where staff from Transport for NSW are available to answer questions and provide information to the community about the proposal.

 

Dates for information sessions in Randwick LGA are:

·      Saturday 23 November - Eastern Suburbs Masonic Centre - Anzac Parade, Kensington (10am - 2pm)

·      Saturday 30 November - Randwick Town Hall - Avoca Street, Randwick (10am - 2pm)

 

In addition, information stands staffed by Transport for NSW are at the following locations in Randwick LGA:

·      Thursday 14 November - POW Hospital (11am - 2pm)

·      Monday 25 November - Royal Randwick Shopping Centre (11am - 2pm)

·      Thursday 28 November - Pacific Square Maroubra (11am - 2pm)

·      Sunday 8 December - Kingsford Rotary Markets (cnr Anzac Parade and Rainbow St: commencing 8am)

 

Project hotline:

The community can contact Transport for NSW with any queries about the project:

·     

·      email: projects@transport.nsw.gov.au

 

6.Relevant Council resolutions

The Council has considered light rail options as noted below leading up to and following the State Government’s decision to proceed with the CSELR project in December 2012. These resolutions have all been actioned and considered in the attached submission. Council has also been regularly updated via Council Bulletins and briefings on the progress of the light rail project since it was announced.

 

Relevant Council resolutions on light rail are included in Attachment 2 (under separate cover) and summarised below.

 

Date

Ref.

Subject of resolution

25/6/13

NM40/13

(Moore/Shurey)

Light rail affecting Wansey Road – endorsement of route through Racecourse land

25/6/13

NM42/13

(Matson/Shurey)

Support for Moore Park tunnel option for CBD and South East Light Rail

23/4/13

NM29/13

(Matson/Stevenson)

Light rail interaction with direct bus services at Kingsford

27/11/12

NM67/12

(Matson/Andrews)

Endorsement of support for feasibility study for extension of light rail to Maroubra Junction

24/07/12

NM39/12

(Matson/Smith)

Light rail expansion and costing issues

26/06/12

NM24/12

(Matson/Hughes)

Light rail and Alison Road cycling and pedestrian shared path

20/9/11

MM73/11

(Mayor, Cr Matson)

Update on progress in Council’s pre-feasibility study into light rail

26/7/11

NM24/11

(Hughes/Smith)

Request for update on pre-feasibility study, and write to Transport Minister regarding light rail procurement and service level

28/6/11

MM47/11

(Mayor, Cr Matson)

Cooperation with City Of Sydney into light rail investigations and Council’s commitment to a pre-feasibility study

 

7. Structure of the EIS

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the light rail project comprises 6 volumes. Volume 1 contains the main EIS, with Volumes 2-6 made up of a series of more detailed technical papers.

 

The main EIS volume (1) describes the background and strategic need for the proposal, the development of the proposal including options considered, and the proposed light rail project design, its construction and operation.

 

Various route alignment and design options are identified and described. Options are compared and a preferred option is identified, which is then described and assessed in further detail as part of the proposed scheme.

 

The EIS describes the impacts of the proposal in terms of impacts affecting the entire light rail route, and local impacts that are relevant to specific precincts, and environmental management and mitigation measures are proposed to address identified impacts. Five precincts are described:

- City Centre

- Surry Hills

- Moore Park

- Randwick

- Kensington and Kingsford

 

The Randwick Precinct extends from the intersection of Alison Road and Anzac Parade, and follows the light rail alignment along Alison Road, Wansey Road and High Street to its proposed termination at High Cross Park.

 

The Kensington-Kingsford precinct follows the proposed light rail alignment along Anzac Parade from the intersection with Alison Road to its termination at Kingsford, near the intersection with Sturt Street (opposite Souths Juniors).

 

8. Structure of Council’s draft Submission

The draft submission is included in Attachment 1. It contains an Executive Summary highlighting major issues, key aspects of the proposal that are supported, those which are not supported, and areas in which additional information, investigation and/or coordination is recommended. Detailed comments are provided, and structured in five sections. Within each issue the submission includes an overview of what is proposed in the EIS, and a discussion of key issues of interest or concern to Randwick City and recommendations.

 

1.  Introduction and general comments

2.  Key location-based issues

3.  Traffic, transport and access issues

4.  Design and operational issues

5.  Consultation

 

Issues

 

Key points and major issues

The attached detailed submission identifies the following key points and major issues:

§ Overall support for the project and its commitment to a more reliable, convenient and comfortable public transport service

§ Support for an ongoing partnership approach to finalising the CSELR design and construction in all phases of the project

§ Support for two light rail branches serving Randwick via Alison Road and Kingsford via Anzac Parade

§ Support for the proposal’s generally high level of accessibility

§ Support for the project sustainability aspirations

§ General support for proposed station locations (with exceptions noted below)

 

Specific objections or concerns are raised in relation to the following aspects of the proposal:

§ Objection to the location of the Randwick Interchange at High Cross Park

§ Objection to the location and operation of the proposed Interchange at Kingsford

§ Objection to the location of the proposed Randwick light rail vehicle stabling facility at 66A Doncaster Avenue

§ Objection to the alignment on Wansey Road

§ Objection to the loss of substantial on-street parking throughout the route and particularly on Anzac Parade

§ Objection to any reduction in footpath width or pedestrian safety/capacity as a result of the light rail alignment

§ Concern about the impact of the project on traffic flows both on the light rail alignment and in the local street network

§ Concern about the lack of certainty about changes to the south-eastern bus network

§ Concern about noise and vibration impacts on sensitive locations

§ Concern that the ticket pricing of the light rail system may not be consistent with existing bus services or other public transport network pricing

 

Matters for further discussion and resolution

The CSELR design is still progressing, and ongoing investigations and discussions are being held regarding some significant design aspects of the proposal. With this in mind, the attached submission supports specific design amendments and further investigation and liaison with the Council and relevant stakeholders on:

§ An alternate location of the Randwick Interchange on High Street opposite Prince of Wales Hospital;

§ An alternate alignment of the light rail route on Wansey Road to retain a higher proportion of significant trees, and one lane of kerbside parking adjacent to residential properties;

§ An alternate solution for Kingsford interchange located further south and/or extension of the route to Maroubra Junction;

§ Options to retain/provide parking to serve commercial centres;

§ An alternate light rail stabling location at the south-eastern corner of Randwick Racecourse;

§ Options for retention of more significant trees; and

§ Traffic modelling and intersection performance in the wider street network.

 

Matters requiring additional information and investigation

A number of aspects of the proposal are still in the early design stages, with the EIS noting that further investigation, coordination and resolution is intended to be undertaken during the detailed design phase of the project. This submission therefore notes the issues of interest and/or concern for Council, and makes recommendations for ongoing consultation, information and coordination.

 

These issues include:

§ The need to investigate the impact of the project on flooding, and adjust the design if necessary to ensure there are no adverse flood impacts on surrounding areas or downstream receiving waters

§ Concern of the project’s impact on existing drainage, utilities services and infrastructure, and future ability for servicing and augmentation

§ Concern on the potential economic impact of the project on local commercial centres during both construction and operation

§ The need to coordinate the public domain and landscape design with the light rail infrastructure

§ More information on the design, visual and amenity impacts of buildings and structures (including light rail stabling facility, interchanges and substations)

§ Addressing the impacts of future population demands, including coordination with Urban Activation Precinct investigations in the LGA

§ The need for ongoing stakeholder input and liaison into the formulation of any management plans related to the project, to ensure agreed and appropriate standards are applied

§ Consultation through future stages of the project

 

While not required as part of the EIS submission, suggested conditions will be prepared consistent with Council’s resolution on the proposal, and discussed with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to assist the assessment process.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:       Integrated and accessible transport.

Direction 9c:      Advocate and/or plan for integrated local and regional transport improvements, including high capacity transport such as light rail and standard rail.

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Specialist consultant advice on traffic, noise and vibration aspects of the EIS has been sought in preparing the attached submission. This advice has been provided through existing Council budget funding. In addition a cross-functional team of staff from various disciplines within Council have been involved in the project, including review of the EIS and input to the submission. This input equates to 2-3 full time positions over 12 months.

 

Conclusion

 

The CSELR proposal represents an opportunity for a major improvement to the public transport service between central Sydney and Randwick City. Light rail will offer a world class, high capacity service, and a more reliable, comfortable, accessible, safe and convenient public transport option. The attached submission acknowledges Council’s overall support for the light rail project and the positive aspects of the proposal, raises key issues of interest to Randwick City and makes specific recommendations to optimise the design and operation of the system to ensure it meets the needs of Randwick City’s community and key destinations. 

 

During the assessment process by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure it is anticipated that further discussions will be undertaken with Council officers. Council officers will provide regular briefings and updates to Councillors to keep Councillors informed of the progress of the project.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     endorse the draft submission in Attachment 1 for forwarding to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure as a submission on the CSELR EIS, and;

 

b)     agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any typographical, numerical or interpretation errors, make minor amendments within the scope of the recommendations, and clarify formatting in finalising the submission.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

CSELR EIS - Draft submission from Randwick City Council

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.

Relevant Council resolutions on Light Rail

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M18/13

 

 

Subject:                  Seeking Council approval to apply to IPART for continuation of the environmental levy, 2014-2019

Folder No:                   F2013/00475

Author:                   Peter Maganov, Manager Sustainability     

 

Introduction

 

At Ordinary Council on 27 August 2013, the proposal and process for continuing Council's Environmental Levy Program was outlined and it was resolved (Moore/Stavrinos) that:

 

·      Council approves the proposed community engagement process for the continuation of the special rates variation for the Sustaining our City environmental levy program;

·      Council endorses the community engagement outline provided; and

·      a report be brought back to Council with recommendations for  resolution in respect of a continuation of a special rate variation for a five year environmental program in November 2013.

 

An extensive community engagement process was conducted between August and November 2013 aimed at enabling the community to provide feedback and views on the proposal to continue Council’s environmental levy program for a further 5 years, from July 2014 to June 2019. 

 

This report aims to provide Council with a broad summary of the outcomes of this consultation and engagement with the community on this proposal.

 

Issues

 

A key outcome adopted by Council in Randwick’s 20-year strategic City Plan is a healthy environment. Over the past decade, Council has been responding to this key outcome and related community expectations through the implementation of our Sustaining our City initiative. Sustaining our City programs and projects are funded by the environment levy which over two five-year periods has been based on 6 per cent of residential and business rates collected.

 

The average ratepayer (with land valued at $589,500) currently pays $84.25 towards the environmental levy. If the levy is continued, the average ratepayer would pay an average of $93.73 per year over the next five years. This equates to an average increase of $9.43 per year over the next five years.

 

The priority areas of the environmental levy programs and projects align closely with the directions set out in Outcome 10, A healthy environment of our City Plan, particularly: fostering sustainable behavioural changes; protecting our bushland, open space and biodiversity; sustainably managing waste to maximise resource recovery; implementing a total water cycle management approach; improving energy conservation and efficiency, and managing environmental risks and their impacts. Over the past decade or so, Sustaining our City initiatives have delivered very positive outcomes and clear benefits to the community.

 

In preparation for a possible continuation of our Sustaining our City initiative, Council staff have prepared a five year environmental program to enable further implementation of a long-term strategy to protect, enhance and improve our natural environment for future generations (see Figure 1).

                                        

Figure 1: Proposed project funding for Sustaining Our City, 2014 to 2019

Proposed

Levy Program Activity

      Project / Program

    Budget / spend

    2014 - 2019

Coastal Protection

Coastal Walkway

Completion of future stages including:

             Malabar Headland sections

             Malabar to La Perouse (adjacent to golf courses)

             South Coogee to North Maroubra (designs and costings)

 

Installation of Gross Pollutant Traps (capturing street litter)

Interpretive signage project for our coastline

 

 

 

$6.85 million

Resource Conservation – Energy Savings

            

          Energy efficiency upgrades including lighting and air conditioning at Bowen Library and Community Centre and Council’s Administration Building.

          Implementation of cogeneration technology at the Des Renford Leisure Centre and Council’s Administration Building.

             Renewable energy / solar panel installations – Council sites including parks

             LED energy efficient streetlight program for Council’s parks

             Implementation of a range of energy efficiency measures at Council sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

$4.6 million

Resource Conservation – Water Savings

Stormwater harvesting and irrigation works:

             Alison Park

             Purcell Park

             Frenchmans Bay

             Randwick Environment Park

 

Building / amenities upgrades at:

             Administration Building

             Bowen Library

             Coogee beach facilities

             Heffron Park sports centre

 

 

 

 

$1.61 million

Resource Conservation – Reducing greenhouse emissions

Cycle way implementation and pedestrian upgrades

             Anzac Parade

             Malabar Road

             Matraville

 

 

$2.5 million

Resource Conservation – Materials

Investigating new recycled materials and sustainable processes for road and footpath upgrades

$0.55 million

 

Biodiversity

Dune protection and restoration at South Maroubra and Yarra Bay

Expanding our ‘Green Corridor’, street and park planting across public and private land and private land habitat planting (including Native Haven advice and support for schools and households)

Native plant and animal monitoring via Bushland programs

$1.8 million

Community Engagement and Education

Community education

             Sustainable workshops for residents

             Schools initiatives and programs

             Marine and coastal programs

             Eco-living Fair

             Council Open Days and events

 

Community engagement

             Community gardens

             School food gardens

 

$2.46 million

Total

$20.37 million

 

Overview of Consultation and Engagement Strategy

As agreed in the above resolution a specially designed consultation and communication strategy was implemented to engage the Randwick community on the proposal to continue our Sustaining our City program and possible funding options. This consultation strategy, provided as Attachment 1, was developed to meet the consultation level of “collaboration” as detailed in the DLG guidelines and to satisfy IPART submission requirements for special rate variation requests.

 

The consultative approach was transparent and well publicised. It sought to engage the wider local community as well as existing community and stakeholder groups. It made available accurate information and provided the opportunity for intensive in- depth discussion of issues and options. It provided a variety of different formats to communicate and collect information on the proposal to continue the environmental levy and gave the whole community the choice of how they could participate and give feedback to the Council.

 

The consultation and engagement strategy:

 

·      acknowledged the diversity of our community by recognising that different people prefer to engage and give feedback in different ways

·      was based on the Randwick City Council’s Community Consultation Principles and Consultation Planning Guide

·      focused on ensuring that the ‘silent majority’ had access to the information and were directly encouraged to provide feedback.

 

Information on the proposal was provided through:

 

·      Council’s website

·      Information at Council’s customer service centre and libraries

·      Mayor’s column, advertising and media coverage

·      Two face-to-face community workshops

·      An information package distribution to all ratepayers

·      Community newsletter distributed to all households

·      Online discussion

·      Stall at our EcoLiving Fair.

(Media coverage and items are provided as Attachments 12 to 17).

 

  The information given to the community outlined:

 

·      the scope of environmental programs and their continuation

·      proposed future projects and programs including costs

·      cost of the special variation showing the cumulative impact

·      financial impact of the preferred option –a range of examples based on different land values showed the varying impacts of the accumulated increase

·      the compounding impact of the total increase shown in several tables.

 

Residents could engage in discussion of the issues and give feedback through:

 

·         comment on HaveYourSay webpage

·           two externally facilitated community workshops with randomly selected participants (see Attachment 11 for the report on these workshops)

·         a survey distributed in hardcopy to all ratepayers and available online

·         online web based discussion forum website

·         letters and submissions

·         face to face discussions or calls to Council staff.

 

A summary of the key consultation activities are outlined in Figure 2 below and  includes a brief description of the technique and when and where it was used. A copy of all information provided during the consultation is provided in Attachments 2 to 10.

While Council provided opportunities to read information, complete the survey and provide feedback online, it was also recognised that not every household has internet access, and that not all members of the public feel comfortable interacting via a computer, so a fact sheet and hard copy of the survey were provided to all ratepayers with a letter from the Mayor and a reply paid envelope to make it easier for responses to be returned to Council (see Attachments 7, 8 and 9).

 

Figure 2: Key elements of consultation and engagement strategy

 

Consultative

Strategy

 

Date

Target group

Features

All Stops to Randwick

August

Council staff

Background provided at an information stall at the 4-day, All Council staff workshops

 

Randwick Community News

August

Randwick Community

55,000 copies of Council’s newsletter were distributed to every household in August. This included a one page insert outlining recent projects and how residents could get more information and have their say. Included a link to Your Say Randwick

Randwick
e-news

September

 

 

Online - Randwick community and other interested

Regular reminders on levy consultation via articles outlining projects, expenditure etc (also see Attachments 12 to 17 for media items distributed)

Information package

August- November

Randwick community and other interested

Provision of five key information documents covering:

1.  Understanding your rates

2.  General income/funding of levy

3.  Efficiencies

4.  Key achievements of the program

5. Future program/budget spending

The package was available online and in all Council facilities such as customer service centre and libraries

Your Say Randwick website

September

Randwick community and other interested

Website with all documents and background material, and online survey

 

Survey

September - November

Randwick ratepayers and residents

·      On Your Say Randwick website

·      Included in letter to ratepayers with reply paid envelope.

·      Available in libraries etc

 

Stall at the Eco-living fair

September

Randwick community and visitors

On-line and print copies available

Posters

September - October

Randwick community

Posters for libraries, customer service centres and bus shelters

 

Mayors letter to all ratepayers

October

Randwick ratepayers

Letter from Mayor addressed to ratepayers which provided a fact sheet and invited people to make comment via survey with a reply paid envelope included.

Community engagement workshops

 

October

Randwick ratepayers- randomly selected

Two workshops held- October 29 and 30

 

Results of Community Consultation

 

1. Survey

A short survey was prepared to ascertain:

 

·        Awareness of  sustainability programs undertaken since 2009

·        Support for continuation of levy

·        Support for continuation of environmental projects and programs.

 

The survey was included in a letter sent by the Mayor to all ratepayers and was also available on YourSay Randwick website.

 

A total of 6,700 surveys were completed and returned by the closing date with the majority being paper surveys.

 

A number of demographic questions were asked to determine that the respondent demographics closely reflected that of the community.

 

Figure 3 shows that the age of the respondents does not correlate with the age distribution across the LGA. According to the 2011 ABS census data 34.4 per cent of the City's population is aged 50 years or older, but 61.6% of the respondents to this survey were in this age group (see Figure 3 below). This is partly due to the fact that the survey went to ratepayers and younger age groups are often renters rather than property owners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Percentage of respondents by age versus ABS 2011 census data

 

 

Survey - Key Findings

 

Support for continuation of the environmental levy

In total, 52% of respondents supported the continuation of the environmental levy, compared with 10.4% who were unsure and 37.6% who did not want the levy to continue (see Figure 4 below).

 

As can be seen in the discussion below regarding the community workshops, the support for the continuation of the environmental levy reached 75% when staff had the ability to explain the projects and programs funded via the environmental levy  and how they have added to better environmental outcomes for the community.

 

Figure 4: Support for continuation of environment levy

 

 

Overall, 22% of the respondents to their survey provided comments or feedback on the answer they provided (i.e. Yes, No or Unsure). Feedback that related to other ways of funding or setting the levy are addressed in a later section of this report. 

Support for continuation of environmental programs

Whether survey respondents indicated ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘unsure’, there was overall support for the continuation of these programs and projects indicating the extent that these programs are highly valued by the community (see Figure 5).

 

Figure 5: Support for continuation of environmental programs

 

 

While Figure 5 indicates the overall support indicated by respondents for the continuation of Council’s environmental programs, the strongest support was for water conservation and water re-use programs. On average, 96% of all respondents responded positively to the questions relating to continuing specific programs and projects, including those not supporting the environmental levy itself as well as those supporting continuation of the levy.

 

Feedback in surveys

An analysis of the comments provided by 22% of the respondents showed that there were many and varying suggestions to fund the levy including:

 

·        existing Council budget

·        savings achieved from environmental initiatives such as water conservation

·        increased support from State and Federal governments

·        Department of Education and/or parents to fund anything to do with schools

·        projects such as the coastal walkway to be funded from infrastructure/capital works budget

·        using Council reserves

·        a flat levy of $75 or $100 per annum.

The responses to these comments are shown in Figure 6 below.

 

Figure 6: Analysis of suggested funding options

 

Other funding options

Commentary

 

Existing budget

The Council's current budget allocations reflect the priorities identified by the community and if they were to be reallocated from the budget it would significantly impact on the services and programs already approved. 

 

For example, if projects such as water re-use and water quality improvements were to continue, then the funding may be taken from budgets intended for street and beach cleaning, park mowing, maintenance of our roads and footpaths and/or library and community programs.

Council Reserves

Randwick City Council did have in excess of $62 million cash and investments at the end of the 2012-13 financial year.

 

However, these funds are restricted funds. This means that there is either legislation, primarily the Local Government Act 1993 or a particular Council resolution restricting what those funds can be used for.

 

The restricted funds also include Section 94 contributions which are governed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Section 94 contributions are payments made by Developers where the development will result in an increase in the demand for public amenities and public services. These funds must be used to satisfy that demand.

Applying a flat levy

A flat levy is not permitted under the legislation.    A flat 'charge' bears no relationship with land value and rates are meant to be tied to value. The average Randwick ratepayer will contribute $93.73 from the rates payable as their component of the environmental levy .

Savings achieved from environmental initiatives such as water conservation

 

It may be possible in the future to identify annual savings achieved and reallocate them to the environment budget. This is an option that needs to be explored in more detail.

Increased support from State and Federal governments

Council is currently feeling the impact of cost shifting from the State and Federal Governments and it is unlikely that there will be additional funding from this area. However whenever possible Council does apply for any grants and/or funding offered from other sources but in many cases this funding is tied and cannot be applied to other projects.

Department of Education and/or parents to fund anything to do with schools

Project support of local school initiatives are aimed at fostering partnerships with local students, their families and community education networks. They tend to relate to local improvements usually outside the level of DET funding or support.

Projects such as the coastal walkway being funded from infrastructure / capital works budget

 

While this may be possible it would take much longer to complete the projects. Moreover, they need to compete with other projects under the annual capital works program, hence much longer lead and completion times are likely. If the $6.85 million funding for the next 5 years for the coastal walkway is to be funded from capital works then this money would need to be taken from the parks and recreation and roads and footpaths capital works program.

 

Many other suggestions were also put forward on alternative ways to spend the levy money e.g constructing more roads and footpaths. However, re-directing environmental levy funds to many of these areas is not an option as this is a levy for a specific purpose. The comments were wide ranging and often provided feedback on other Council services and even on services provided by State and Federal government.

 

It is intended to analyse the full range of feedback provided from the surveys and where comments are relevant to Council's provision of services and programs, the feedback will be provided to relevant Council staff with a focus on improving service provision.

 

2.   Sustaining our City Community Workshops

 

An external independent facilitator ran two community workshops as part of the broader consultation process (see Attachment 11 for the workshop report). Thirty seven people participated in the workshops which were held on Tuesday 29 October and Wednesday 30 October. The participants were randomly selected by Taverner Research and were broadly representative of the demographic profile of Randwick LGA in terms of age, gender and suburb of residence to ensure a cross section of views in terms of environmental awareness, interest and attitude. As mentioned above, younger people were under-represented due largely to the fact that the focus was on ratepayers and younger people tend to be renters rather than owners.

 

Participants were presented with information on the levy and funding implications as well as the environment programs funded by the levy.

 

Across both workshops there was general consensus that the highest priority for future environmental projects related to water savings, energy conservation and community activities and education.

 

As can be seen in Figure 7, 75% of workshop participants supported the continuation of the environment levy, 17% were unsure and 8% did not support the levy.

 

Figure 7: Community workshops- support for continuation of environment levy

 

 

Participants provided strong feedback that Council needed to:

 

·      be more accountable and demonstrate transparency in terms of how levy funds were spent

·      communicate more actively to increase community awareness and promotion of the environmental projects and programs funded through the levy.

 

This reflects feedback provided by respondents to the survey.

 

3. Council website

 

There were 1,432 unique visits to the site with 15,238 page views during the period of consultation (9 September to 15 November). The most significant period for page views occurred after the Mayoral letter was sent out. A total of 264 documents (Information Sheets – see Attachments 2 to 6) were downloaded showing a strong interest in finding out more information.

 

General feedback

Both the survey responses and the community workshop participants raised the need to increase community awareness as well as the promotion of environmental projects and programs funded by the environmental levy. Many commented that they did not know that the Council did all these things and there was a suggestion that a sign be placed at work sites to indicate that the projects were being funded as part of the environment levy.

 

There were also many comments that a paper based survey is a waste of money, however the high response from the printed survey indicated in this case, the importance of this option being provided in conjunction with an online survey.

 

There were a number of comments (2.9% of all respondents) where the respondent expressed concerns about their capacity to pay the levy. In nearly all cases the respondents were on some form of pension or were self funded retirees.  Many of these comments stated that there has been no increase in the maximum rebate of $250 to pensioners since 1993. The total value of these rebates to eligible Randwick ratepayers is just over $1.3 million per annum. The State Government provides 55% and the current cost to Council is approximately $590,000 per annum.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1(a):   Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The financial impact of a continuation of the environmental levy on ratepayers will vary from property to property depending on the land value as determined by the Valuer general. The approval of the environment levy will raise approximately $20 million over the five year period, 2014-2019 for Council to continue to provide the environmental programs and projects that have been established.

 

Conclusion

 

An extensive community consultation was undertaken commencing in August 2013 and concluding in November 2013. Randwick used both qualitative (two community workshops) and quantitative (survey) means to elicit feedback from the community on the proposed continuation of the levy and the programs and projects that it funds.

 

The consultation met the "collaboration level" expected as it used multiple forms of communication for the community to access the information, identify preferred options and provide input on the range of programs and projects to be funded. The community were engaged as demonstrated by the high number of surveys returned and the number of visits to the website. The number of documents downloaded showed that residents were interested and were able to access the information they needed to become more aware of the issues related to a continuation of the environmental levy program for a further 5 years from July 2014.

 

The survey showed majority support, 52 per cent for continuing the levy while 75 per cent of the participants in the community workshops wanted to continue with the levy. The survey results showed strong support for continuing the programs and projects with 72 per cent in agreement or strong agreement to continue to deliver the environmental programs, with 18 per cent undecided and 10 per cent not in favour of continuing with these programs.

 

It is proposed that the five year continuation of this 6% variation to fund Council’s Sustaining our City environmental program will have minimal impact on the ratepayers and residents. Importantly, as the 6% rate variation has been in place for nine years, approving the continuation does not represent an actual increase in rate payments for rate payers.

 

In summary, an average Randwick ratepayer in 2014-15 (land value at $589,500)  will contribute $84.25 per year ($1.62 per week) increasing marginally over future years in keeping with the allowable rate increase. However, there is a broad range of housing types across the City of Randwick and almost half of Randwick’s ratepayers own strata units where the rateable land value is often significantly less than the overall average. As a result these ratepayers will pay a much smaller environmental levy than the average of $1.62 per week. There are also many residents who live in properties along the coastline where the land value is in excess of $1 million. Where the land valuation of a property is $1.1 million, the total environmental levy component will be $157.21 per annum or $3.02 per week.

 

The issue of capacity to pay for pensioners and those on fixed incomes was considered. The impact on pensioners varies depending on the land value of their properties and it is acknowledged that those who live in properties with high land values would fall into the category of asset rich/cash poor. The NSW rating system follows the principles of capacity to pay, implying that owners of properties with higher land values have a higher capacity to pay than owners of properties with lower land values. Council recently made submissions to the Local Government Acts Taskforce and the Independent Local Government Review Panel regarding necessary changes to the rating system.

 

Council recognises that increasing the level of pensioner concessions would be of great assistance to all pensioners.  However any such increase needs to come as a result of change to the legislative provisions contained in the Local Government Act, NSW 1993.  The issue of the pensioner rebates has previously been reported to Council and Council has made representations to the State Government.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)       apply to IPART for a 6% special variation to rates for five years to fund environment programs and projects;

 

b)   endorse the broad list of programs and projects outlined above for the continuation of the environmental levy program for 2014 to 2019; and

 

c)   write to the State Government and continue to lobby for an increase in the maximum pensioner rebate.

 

 


Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Community Consultation Plan

 

2.View

Information Sheet 1 - Understanding your rates

 

3.View

Information Sheet 2 - Funding Options

 

4.View

Information Sheet 3 - Productivity Improvements

 

5.View

Information Sheet 4 - Achievements (current levy program)

 

6.View

Information Sheet 5 - Future Projects (potentially new levy program)

 

7.View

Fact Sheet - Why continue the Environmental Levy

 

8.View

Mayor's letter to residents

 

9.View

Print and Online Survey

 

10.View

Advertising Poster

 

11.View

Community Workshop report

 

12.View

Media Release

 

13.View

Media Item 2 - media coverage

 

14.View

Media Item 3 - facebook report

 

15.View

Media Item 4 - eNews 18 September 2013

 

16.View

Media Item 5 - eNews 30 October 2013

 

17.View

Media Item 6 - eNews 6 November 2013

 

 

 

 


Community Consultation Plan

Attachment 1

 

 





Information Sheet 1 - Understanding your rates

Attachment 2

 

 






Information Sheet 2 - Funding Options

Attachment 3

 

 





Information Sheet 3 - Productivity Improvements

Attachment 4

 

 

 





Information Sheet 4 - Achievements (current levy program)

Attachment 5

 

 


 






Information Sheet 5 - Future Projects (potentially new levy program)

Attachment 6

 

 

 





Fact Sheet - Why continue the Environmental Levy

Attachment 7

 

 


 



Mayor's letter to residents

Attachment 8

 

 


Print and Online Survey

Attachment 9

 

 

 




Advertising Poster

Attachment 10

 

 

 

 

 



Community Workshop report

Attachment 11

 

 











Media Release

Attachment 12

 

 


Media Item 2 - media coverage

Attachment 13

 

 





 



 


 


 







Media Item 3 - facebook report

Attachment 14

 

 



Media Item 4 - eNews 18 September 2013

Attachment 15

 

 


 




Media Item 5 - eNews 30 October 2013

Attachment 16

 

 

 





Media Item 6 - eNews 6 November 2013

Attachment 17

 

 


 




Planning Committee                                                                                          3 December 2013

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M19/13

 

 

Subject:                  Malabar Headland Remediation Update

Folder No:                   F2012/00390

Author:                   Bronwyn Englaro, Senior Sustainability Officer     

 

Executive summary

 

Commonwealth remediation works at the northern end of Malabar Headland are well underway and, as part of these works, improvements to Council’s storm water drain at the southern end of Maroubra beach were completed in March this year. In order to provide Council with information on water quality prior to and following the Commonwealth’s remediation works, Council sought support from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s (OEH) Beachwatch Program to undertake sampling at the South Maroubra Surf Club, rockpool and Council’s drain from late 2012.

 

This report provides an update on the remediation works and water quality testing. The Beachwatch water quality monitoring was undertaken over the summer season on a 6 day sampling cycle. Results over the past 12 months were ‘good’ for South Maroubra and were generally ‘good’ for the rockpool and ‘fair’ for the drain, with both the rockpool and drain showing improved results since the Commonwealth’s works were largely completed in July 2013.

 

Background

The Commonwealth is implementing a program of remediation works for the headland site and this program is being overseen by an independent site auditor accredited under the NSW Contaminated Land Management Act. Based on a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) the Commonwealth has remediated the western part of the site for National Park purposes (now transferred to NSW NPWS) and the eastern portion (pending future transfer to NPWS). It is currently completing the RAP for the central lot.

 

Stormwater works at the end of Council’s drainage line, which drains to the southern end of Maroubra beach, were carried by the Commonwealth from February 2013 and were completed in March 2013 while remediation works were completed by July 2013. This was the first stage of a program of works to address the groundwater and leachate leaving the Malabar Headland site at Maroubra beach.

 

These works are designed to separate stormwater from landfill leachate to reduce the opportunity for mixing with storm water that on occasion flows across the beach. The works also include the installation of a cut-off trench to intercept and capture leachate from discharging to the groundwater. Leachate is stored in the trench or the pond onsite, which is being upgraded and extended shortly as part of these works.

 

Local residents continue to be interested and concerned about the Commonwealth’s remediation process. Recent correspondence from the Maroubra precinct to Council has been forwarded to the Commonwealth seeking their response on details of the remediation process. The Commonwealth undertakes quarterly community meetings and has a dedicated web page to update residents and discuss current issues. It has noted that this is currently under review and updates are expected shortly, along with a community information sheet.

 

Current Northern boundary works

The Commonwealth originally proposed that the captured leachate would be treated on site via an onsite water treatment plant. However, due to the estimated high management and maintenance costs associated with installing and operating a treatment plant, and potential visual impacts, the Commonwealth has been liaising with Sydney Water to divert the leachate through Sydney Water sewer. The leachate would then be treated at the Sydney Water Malabar Waste water treatment plant under a trade waste agreement licence. Sydney Water’s website notes its technical criteria for such agreements. While Council has no role in such trade waste agreements, we understand that a draft trade waste agreement between Sydney Water and the Commonwealth has been drafted and may be signed shortly. In accordance with Sydney Water’s Acceptance Criteria, regular water quality testing will be required.

 

The Malabar treatment plant is EPA licenced and Sydney Water must meet the requirements of this licence in their discharges to the ocean outfall.

 

The independent site auditor is responsible for approving the diversion to sewer process as part of a remediation plan, along with site management and ongoing groundwater/surface water monitoring requirements.

 

The Commonwealth has advised that it is currently finalising pipe connections and, at Council's request, will be under grounding the power cables for a power connection.

 

Commonwealth Water Quality Monitoring

Council understands that the Commonwealth is continuing to monitor the storm water drain as part of their surface water/groundwater monitoring program which was continued throughout the construction phase of these northern boundary works.

 

In August the Commonwealth informed Council that water quality levels have been stable and contaminant levels slightly decreasing, with the exception of rain periods.

 

We understand that the Commonwealth’s monitoring will continue following construction for at least another 12 months to determine the effectiveness of the interception trench and whether it would need to be further extended to the north west. We have sought details from the Commonwealth on these monitoring results.

 

Beachwatch Water Quality Monitoring

In response to a 28 August 2012 Council report (Notley-Smith/Matson), Beachwatch commenced a water quality monitoring program in late 2012 for the southern end of Maroubra beach during the swimming season (December 2012–May 2013) and September 2013 until present (see results at Attachment 1).

 

Since March this year, when the Commonwealth’s stormwater works were completed, water quality in the rockpools has been “good” or “fair” except for periods following heavy rain.

 

This is consistent with the EPA recommendations that swimmers should always avoid swimming during and immediately after heavy rain and near stormwater drains as stormwater runoff can contain a range pollutants and bacteria.

 

While the Beachwatch results were generally “fair” for the drain, this is considered within expected results from urban stormwater drains.

 

It is anticipated that the Beachwatch water quality monitoring will have a sufficiently reliable data set by end of 2014 swimming season, by which time the Commonwealth water quality monitoring should also have 12 months worth of data. It is considered that both these sources should then provide sufficient monitoring data for Council to further review and assess confirm compliance of the water quality in the rock pool area.

 

Signage

In response to Council’s 28 August 2012 resolution (Cr Notley-Smith/Matson) and earlier resolution in October 2012 (Cr Matson), signage was erected noting that water quality in the creek and rock pool is not suitable for swimming. As a precautionary approach this signage should remain in place until Commonwealth and Beachwatch testing over a full swimming season confirms the suitability of the water quality. Pre-existing signage (2004) notes to avoid swimming within the rock pool and locality within a 48 hour period following rain periods.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10: A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10b: Environmental risks and impacts are strategically managed.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Beachwatch water monitoring has confirmed that water quality in the rock pools is safe for swimming except for periods following heavy rain which is consistent with other beach locations in Sydney. Beachwatch is continuing to monitor the water quality through the swimming season according to the Beachwatch sampling criteria. The Commonwealth monitoring results are awaited and will also be important to confirm the suitability of the water quality in this location.

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Summary of Beachwatch monitoring Results for South Maroubra beach

 

 

 

 


Summary of Beachwatch monitoring Results for South Maroubra beach

Attachment 1

 

 

NOVEMBER 2013 RESULTS FOR

MAROUBRA SOUTH BEACHWATCH LOCATIONS

Confirmation of New Sites

Following discussions and a site visit in November 2012, Beachwatch representatives from NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) confirmed three monitoring sites at south Maroubra beach to be monitored during the swimming season.

Beachwatch Sydney Program

Monitoring of these sites has occurred since 7 December 2012. Testing of these sites has been carried out under the Beachwatch Sydney Program sampling routine of a 6 day cycle.

Results to date

Date

South Maroubra

Sth Maroubra Rockpool

Sth Maroubra Drain

#Rainfall 24hrs to 9am mm

#Rainfall 48hrs to 9am mm

2012/2013  SWIMMING SEASON

13-Dec-12

26

96

480

0

2.8

19-Dec-12

0

5

2100

0

0.0

24-Dec-12

11

7

1100

0

0

0

0

02-Jan-13

1

12

1200

0

0

06-Jan-13

0

2

600

0

0

12-Jan-13

33

110

4800

0

0

18-Jan-13

2

13

1300

0

0

24-Jan-13

28

83

630

0

0

30-Jan-13

13

100

1100

0.6

110

05-Feb-13

0

630

780

0.0

1.0

11-Feb-13

30

79

6300

8.0

0

17-Feb-13

1

480

1700

13.6

1.0

23-Feb-13

92

570

2400

7.2

0

1-March-13

450

22

3300

28.6

0

7-March-13

13

69

540

0

0

13-March-13

2

5

330

0

0

19-March-13

21

16

1100

0

0

25-March-13

17

37

80

0

0.0

2-April-13

0

38

5100

0

4.6

6-April-13

16

69

1700

12.6

21.4

12-April-13

2

18

110

0

0

18-April-13

8

13

900

7.8

1.6

24-April -13

6

16

660

0

0.0

1-May -13

0

10

120

0

0

2013/2014  SWIMMING SEASON

16-Sept-13

2

8

85

1.8

1.2

22-Sept-13

4

1

96

0

0

28-Sept-13

3

3

340

0

0

04-Oct-13

1

1

450

3.0

0

12-Oct-13

0

7

57

0

0

20-Oct-13

1

12

87

0

0

28-Oct-13

120

210

190

33.8

0

5-Nov-13

0

25

50

0

0

#Rainfall for Randwick Bowling Club 66052 sourced from Climate Data Online www.bom.nsw.gov.au

* Gordon’s bay East location

Beachwatch Weekly star ratings

STARS

Enterococci (cfu/100ml)

RATING

DESCRIPTION

óóóó

<41

'Good'

Bacterial levels are safe for bathing according to National Health & Medical Research Council guidelines.

óóó

41-200

'Fair'

Bacterial levels indicate an increased risk of illness to bathers, particularly those with lower immune function such as the elderly and young children

óó

201-500

‘Poor’

'Poor' and "Bad' ratings - bacterial levels indicate a substantially increased risk of illness to bathers

ó

>500

‘Bad’