Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 11 March 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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 on Tuesday, 11 March 2014 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 - 11 February 2014

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)

Planning Matters

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.

D23/14      15 Abbotford Street, Kensington (DA/676/2013)........................................ 1

D24/14      220 Franklin Street, Matraville (DA/27/2014)............................................ 9

D25/14      21-23 Paine Street, Maroubra (DA/823/2013).......................................... 17

D26/14      369 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/371/2013)......................................... 23

D27/14      15 Bond Street, Maroubra (DA/566/2013)............................................... 35

D28/14      20-22 Bishops Avenue, Randwick (DA/764/2013)..................................... 49

D29/14      14-14A Houston Road, Kensington (DA/866/2013).................................... 63

D30/14      5/64-66 Bream Street, Coogee (DA/362/2013)........................................ 73

D31/14      7/495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/824/2013).............................. 89

D32/14      21 Houston Road Kensington (DA/44/2014)............................................. 93

D33/14      44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/872/2013)...................................... 105

D34/14      201-207 Barker Street, Randwick (DA/526/2010/C)................................. 113

D35/14      80 Boyce Road, Maroubra (DA/297/2011/A)........................................... 117

D36/14      150 - 156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington (DA/656/2012/C)........................... 123

D37/14      149 Perouse Road, Randwick (DA/694/2013).......................................... 131

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil   

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D23/14

 

 

Subject:                  15 Abbotford Street, Kensington (DA/676/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/676/2013

Author:                   GAT & Associates , Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of 4 level attached dual occupancy residential development with tandem garages, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Mr M Sgammotta

Owner:                         Mr W Wong & Mrs M C 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 and assessed by an external planning Consultant as a neighbouring property owner is a friend of a Council Officer.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks approval for the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling, construction of a 4 level attached dual occupancy residential development each consisting of 3 bedrooms and a study, tandem garages, torrens title subdivision into 2 lots, landscaping and associated works.

 

N.B. The proposal has since been amended to delete the torrens title subdivison of the attached dual occupancy.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the north-western corner of Abbotford Street and Abbotford Lane, Kensington. The site is known as 15 Abbotford Street, and currently contains a single storey brick dwelling with tile roof. Vehicular access is provided at the rear of the site from Abbotford Lane.

 

The overall site area is approximately 278.2m2.

 

The site adjoins four storey residential flat buildings to the west and north. To the east, on the opposite side of the lane, are single storey semi-detached dwellings. Located to the south, on the opposite side of Abbotford Street, is a 12 storey residential flat building.

 

The immediate area consists of a mix of single and two storey dwellings, and multi level flat buildings.

 

To the west of the site is Anzac Parade. The site is located close to Centennial Park, Randwick Racecourse and the University of NSW.

 

Photos of the site and surrounding development are provided below.

 

The existing single storey dwelling on site as viewed from Abbotford St, proposed to be demolished.

The rear of the existing dwelling, as viewed from Abbotford Lane. Note the scale of development to the south (to the rear of photo).

Another photo showing the rear of the existing dwelling.

The 12 storey residential flat building located to the south, on the opposite side of Abbotford Street.

 

Abbotford Lane, looking south towards Abbotford St.

 

 

The western elevation of the existing dwelling, as viewed from the driveway of 17-19 Abbotford St.

The four storey flat building to the west, at 17-19 Abbotford St.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development between 22 October to 5 November 2013 in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

-   5/17-19 Abbotford Street, Kensington.

 


 

Issue

Comment

Privacy: The units on the eastern side of the building at 17-19 Abbotford St have bedroom windows facing the site which will have their privacy affected by the proposed development.

The proposed development will be setback from the western boundary by at least 900mm at ground level, 1.8m at Levels 1 & 2, and 3.65m at Level 3.

 

At Level 1 there is a west facing balcony which will be 1.8m off the boundary. This balcony will be offset from the bedroom windows at 17-19. The bedroom windows at Level 2 and 3 to Unit 2 will be opposite the windows of 17-19 Abbotford St, and these windows will be provided with privacy screens or obscure glass. These measures are shown on the plans prepared by Sgammotta Architects and are appropriate to address the privacy issues of the neighbour.

Location of wet areas: Council’s controls state that there are to be no wet areas on the western side of the proposed building.

This control relates to avoiding locating wet areas adjacent to the bedrooms of the adjoining dwelling. This control applies to dwellings that are joined (e.g. attached dual occupancies or semi-detached dwellings) rather than relating to dwellings or units which are next to each other but physically separated. The adjoining property will not be affected by the location of the wet areas.

View loss: views from the east facing bedrooms at 17-19 Abbotford St will be affected.

The views available to the east from 17-19 Abbotford St are of vegetation and the broader built form, rather than being of any iconic views.

 

Refer to the photos provided at the end of this table.

Sunlight: 17-19 Abbotford St receives sunlight in the early morning. the plans shows that that 8am, the proposed building will shadow the building at 17-19 Abbotford St.

The revised shadow plans submitted by the applicant on 19 February 2014 show that the proposed building will cast shadow on the eastern façade of 17-19 Abbotford St, but will not shadow the east facing bedroom windows.

Noise: the proposed building will act as a barrier, or sound trap, boxing in and reflecting the noise of the northbound traffic along Anzac Pde back into the bedrooms of 17-19 Abbotford St.

 

Also noise from the residents using the balconies of the proposed development.

The building will be setback from all boundaries. It is not believed that the built form proposed will create a noise barrier, reflecting traffic noise back towards the bedrooms of 17-19 Abbotford St.

 

The west facing balcony of Unit 1 will be 2.76m long x 1.8m deep. The balcony will be located off the kitchen, and is of a size which will allow a small table and chairs to be provided. The main balcony to Unit 1 is on the southern side, facing Abbotford St. Given the size of this southern balcony, it is realistic to expect that this balcony will be the primary entertaining area, rather than the smaller balcony located off the kitchen. 

Parking: parking is already hard to come by. The increase in the number of people living on the site will make this worse. The building is most likely to be inhabited by university students.

Each dwelling is provided with 2 on-site car spaces, as required by Council’s controls.

 

The future occupants of the dwellings cannot be limited by council, in terms of prohibiting students, provided that the use remains a dwelling and does not become a boarding house or the like.

Overdevelopment: 2 x 3 bed units is the most this site could accommodate. The applicant acknowledges they are over the height limit, which shows they are trying to fit too much on this site.

 Please refer to the “key issues” section of this report below.

 

The photos below show the views currently available from the east facing bedroom window of Unit 5, 17-19 Abbotford St, Kensington.

 

View to the north-east of vegetation and the adjoining four storey RFB to the north of the subject site.

View to the east of vegetation and buildings, and the roof of the existing dwelling (in foreground).

 

 

 

 

 

View to the south-east of vegetation, buildings, and the new main building at Randwick Racecourse in the distance.

 

While the views currently available are relatively open in nature and allow for views of distant buildings, there are no iconic views available (such as views to water or headland, or to landmark structures like the Harbour Bridge or Opera House).

 

The planning controls for the site allow 12m high or four storey development. The site is within the R3 Medium Density Zone, and therefore the built form proposed is consistent with what is allowable in the area.

 

Some views of vegetation will be lost, however the existing bamboo screen along the eastern boundary of 17-19 Abbotford St will remain, and new landscaping is proposed on the subject site.

 

It is not considered that the proposed development will result in the unacceptable loss of views for the resident at Unit 5, 17-19 Abbotford St.

 

Key Issues

 

The original proposed for 2 x 4 bedroom dwellings was submitted to Council on 16 October 2013. An assessment of the original proposal found there were several issues with the proposal, being as follows:

 

-    The design of the garages did not meet AS2890.1:2004;

-    Clarification of compliance with the 12m height limit was required;

-    Clarification of site coverage, landscaping, FSR and fencing details was required;

-    Private open space and solar access appeared insufficient; and

-    Privacy measures were required to be provided.

 

A letter was sent to the applicant on 5 February 2014 advising of these issues.

 

Revised plans were then received from the applicant on 19 February 2014. The amendments as stated within the submission from Sgammotta Architects which have been made to the plans are as follows:

 

1.     Private Open Space: Courtyard shows minimum private open space of 4m x 3m to each dwelling ground floor landscaped area.

2.     Private Open Space Balcony: Balcony on level 1 to dwelling facing Abbotsford Street has been increased to ensure that it has a space 2.5 x 5.1m.

3.     Parking : Garage has been modified to comply with AS2890.1:2004. Minimum internal space for each garage becomes 3 x 10.8m.

4.     Adjustment: Changes to garage required lifts, staircases and bedrooms to be modified

5.     Height: The overall roof height has been lowered by 150mm to RL42.25

6.     Privacy Screens: Privacy screens have been added to west facing bedroom windows on Level 2.

7.     Privacy : Obscure glass confirmed to be used on west facing bedroom windows on Level 3.

8.     Fences: Height of fences along Abbotford Street and Abbotford Lane have been clarified with dimensions and general compliance with council’s requirements.

9.     Adjustment: As a result of changes to car parking and balcony sizes a bedroom has been deleted from the planning and a small sitting room has been added to the second floor.

10.   Adjustment: Bedroom 3 on level 3 has been reduced in depth.

11.   Height: Confirmation of the compliance within the 12 meter height line has been shown in Section BB of the architectural plans.

12.   Information: All floor plans now show the adjoining property to the west, 17 -19 Abbotford Street, and the positioning of the bedroom window. A dimension has also been provided showing the distance between buildings.

13.   Shadow Diagrams: Opening to 17 -19 Abbotford Street have been shown on the shadow diagrams DA100

14.   Shadow Diagrams Two additional detailed elevations Shadow diagrams of the eastern façade of 17 -19 Abbotford Street during the winter solstice to drawing DA001. Theses elevations reflects the non-impacting effect of the proposed development. Solar access diagrams for living spaces and courtyards of each unit have been added to drawing DA100.

15.   Floor Space; Floor area calculation diagrams have been added to new drawing DA110. There has been an overall reduction in the floor space.

16.   Site Coverage & Landscape Calculations: Site coverage and Landscape diagrams have been added to new drawing DA110

17.   Information: The positioning of the property of 17 -19 Abbotford Street has been shown on DA100 (Level G & 1) & DA101 (Level 2, 3 & roof).

18.   Schedule of Finishes: A schedule of finishes is prepared as new drawing DA800.

 

While the proposal has been amended to 2 x 3 bedroom dwellings.this has been done by converting the former fourth bedroom on Level 2 to a sitting room. The change does not affect floor area, FSR, car parking or site coverage.

 

An assessment of these amended plans finds that the proposal is acceptable. While the information does not fully confirm that all of the ground level private open space (POS) of Units 1 & 2 will receive 3 hrs solar access, it is considered that the solar access achieved will provide some level of amenity for the occupants. The level of solar access is improved by increasing the size of the main south facing balcony located off the living area to Unit 1, and the provision of other balconies to both units.

 

It is noted that Council’s control refers to achieving solar access to the north facing living room windows, so technically this control is not applicable to Unit 1 as their living room windows face east. However, solar access to the living area still needs to be considered in terms of amenity for the occupants.

 

Given that the proposal complies with the controls relating to site coverage, FSR, landscape area and height, it would be unreasonable to refuse the Development Application on the basis that it has not been properly demonstrated that the POS of Units 1 and 2 do receive the full 3 hours of solar access. The assessment finds that the amount of solar access provided to the POS of both units does provide an acceptable level of amenity. The site is constrained by its size and the height of adjoining flat buildings, and this must be a consideration in the overall assessment.

 

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 generally complies with the objectives and controls of Council’s Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan. It is considered that, subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal will not result in unreasonable adverse impacts upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy, view loss, and visual bulk and scale. On balance, the proposed development is considered suitable for the site and locality. The proposed development is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/676/2013 for Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of 4 attached dual occupancy dwellings with tandem garages, landscaping and associated works, at No. 15 Abbotford Street, Kensington, subject to the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 15 Abbotford Street, Kensington (DA/676/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D24/14

 

 

Subject:                  220 Franklin Street, Matraville (DA/27/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/27/2014

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Amendment to approved development consent DA/508/2013 by alterations to layout, roof form materials, window and door location of secondary dwelling at rear of site

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Mr J Spiteri

Owner:                         Mrs C M Maybury &  Mr J A Maybury

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The development application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee as a Council employee resides in the adjoining property.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations to an existing outbuilding to convert the structure to a secondary dwelling, the construction of a new detached garage, in ground swimming pool, new front boundary fence and new deck to the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

Development Consent DA/508/2013 was issued on 22 October 2013 for “construction of new detached garage, new secondary dwelling and in ground swimming pool, new front boundary fence and associated site works”.

 

Development Consent DA/508/2013 was amended on 11 December 2013 to delete condition 13 which required a minimum setback from side and rear boundaries of 900mm.

 

This current Development Application DA/27/2014 seeks development consent for the construction of a secondary dwelling by alterations to an existing shed.  The plans submitted with the development application also indicate a new detached garage, in ground swimming pool, new front boundary fence, new deck to the rear of the existing dwelling and associated site works which are the same as those approved with Development Consent DA/508/2013 with the exception of a minor extension to the proposed deck.

 

This assessment report and recommended conditions of consent deal with all aspects of the development as shown on the plans submitted with Development Application DA/27/2014 and as described in the ‘Proposal’ section above.

 

2.         Site and Surrounds

 

The site is located on the northern side of Franklin Street between Oxley Street and Anzac Parade.  The site is shown labeled in Figure 1.

 

The site is an irregular shape with a frontage of 19.56m tapering to a rear boundary 9.385m wide.  The western side boundary is 40.47m long and the eastern side boundary is 40.17m in length.  The total area of the site is 578.2m2.

 

The site has a slight slope from the north east corner down to the south west corner.  There is a single storey dwelling on the site with a detached shed and detached granny flat in the rear.  Photos of these buildings are included in Figures 2 and 3.

 

A detached garage was located on the south east corner of the site but has mostly been removed with the exception of the concrete slab.  This is shown in Figure 4.

 

Figure 1:  Aerial photo of 220 Franklin Street

 

Figure 2:  Photo of the street frontage of 220 Franklin Street

 

Figure 3:  Photo of the existing granny flat at 220 Franklin Street

 

Figure 4:  Photo of the remains of the garage at 220 Franklin Street

 

The adjoining property to the east contains a single storey dwelling with a garage built to the shared boundary and sheds adjacent to the rear boundary.  This property is elevated slightly in comparison to the subject site.  This property has two driveway crossings within the front setback as shown in Figure 5.

 

The neighbouring property to the west contains two x two-storey dwellings as shown in Figure 6.  These two storey dwellings are set back between 1.5m and 2m from the shared boundary.  The private open space for the front dwelling is located within the front setback to Franklin Street and the private courtyard for the rear dwelling is within the rear setback area.

 

Figure 5:  Photo of eastern neighbour No.222 Franklin Street

 

 

Figure 6:  Photo of the western neighbour No.218 Franklin Street

 

The adjoining property to the rear (north) is a battle-axe allotment and contains several attached single storey villas which provide housing for seniors or people with a disability.

 

Opposite the site in Franklin Street is a small triangular shape public reserve and further south is Matraville Sports High School.

 

The locality is dominated by single and two storey detached low density dwellings with scattered dual occupancy and medium density developments.

 

3.         Submissions

 

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

 

4.         Key Issues

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 commenced on 31 July 2009 and aims, inter alia, to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives such as expanded zoning permissibility and floor space ratio bonuses.  The provisions of this Policy override those of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 2012 where there are any inconsistencies.

 

Division 2 of the SEPP relates to secondary dwellings and applies to Zone R2 Low Density Residential.  Clause 19 provides the following definitions related to a secondary dwelling:

 

“development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling includes the following:

(a) the erection of, or alterations or additions to, a secondary dwelling,

(b) alterations or additions to a principal dwelling for the purposes of a secondary dwelling.

Note.

The standard instrument defines secondary dwelling as follows:

secondary dwelling means a self-contained dwelling that:

(a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and

(b) is on the same lot of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme) as the principal dwelling, and

(c) is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling.”

 

The proposal fits the definitions in the SEPP.

 

Clause 22 sets out the circumstances under which a secondary dwelling may be permitted with consent.  The proposal complies with these requirements in that the combined floor area of the secondary and principal dwelling does not exceed the maximum permissible floor space ratio of 0.5:1 required by Randwick LEP 2012 for a single dwelling on the site and the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is less than 60m2.

 

The site area is 578.2m2 and therefore of suitable size to support a secondary dwelling.  Council cannot refuse consent for a secondary dwelling if no additional parking is provided for the secondary dwelling.  No additional on-site parking is proposed.

 

Clause 23 sets out the requirements of the Policy for secondary dwellings and these are:

 

·      the lot must be at least 450m2;

·      there is no basement; and

·      there is no roof terrace.

 

The proposal complies with these requirements.

 

Clause 24 to the Policy prevents subdivision of a site containing a secondary dwelling.  The proposal does not include subdivision.

 

Therefore the secondary dwelling complies with the relevant requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and is permissible under this Policy.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4(a):   Improve design and sustainability across all development.

Direction 4(b):   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 complies with the standards and objectives for development in Zone R2 Low Density Residential and the controls for height of buildings, floor space ratio and the maximum floor area for secondary dwellings.  The secondary dwelling is permissible with consent in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2007.  The works are consistent with the relevant guidelines set out in Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2012.

 

 


 

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/27/2014 for Construction of a secondary dwelling (by alterations to an existing shed), new detached garage, new driveway, in ground swimming pol, new front boundary fence and new deck to the rear of the existing dwelling and associated site works at No. 220 Franklin Street, 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.     a)     The bathroom window in the western façade of the secondary dwelling is to be opaque/frosted glass in order to protect the amenity of the western neighbour.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 220 Franklin Street, Matraville (DA/27/2014)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D25/14

 

 

Subject:                  21-23 Paine Street, Maroubra (DA/823/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/823/2013

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to an approved dwelling house under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes) 2008 including extension to the garage space, installation of new garage doors and new window on western elevation of the garage

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr R Belleli

Owner:                         Mrs N Belleli & Mr R Belleli

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The development application has been assessed by an external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee as the owner of the subject site is a Randwick City Councillor.

 

Proposal

 

The development application has been assessed by an external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee as the owner of the subject site is a Randwick City Councillor.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks approval for alterations and additions to an approved dwelling house currently under construction. The dwelling house was approved as a complying development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes) 2008 by Peter Boyce & Associates on 28 October 2013. The approval included a double open carport at the front of the dwelling house with adjoining storage space.

 

The proposed development involves alterations and additions to the approved carport including:

-     an extension to the garage space by 600mm to the west;

-     installation of new garage doors fronting the street; and

-     a new window on the western elevation of the garage.

 

Site

The site is located on the southern side of Paine Street approximately 20m east of its intersection with Hinkler Street, Maroubra.

 

The site is rectangular in shape (except for a splayed south-eastern corner) and has an area of 731sqm and a frontage of 20m.

 

The approved dwelling house is currently under construction and the ground floor concrete slab and timber frame including part of the approved double width carport has been constructed (see Figure 1).

 

Figure 1The subject site and the approved double width carport space

Surrounds

The surrounding area comprises a mix of one and two storey semi-detached and detached dwelling houses. The on-site parking arrangements in the street vary with garages located in the rear yard accessed by a driveway along the side of the house, and garages located at the side of the existing dwelling houses visible from the street.

 

Submissions

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

 

Key Issues

 

Amenity Impacts

The approved garage space will be extended by moving the western wall 600mm closer to boundary adjoining No.19 Paine Street resulting in a 900mm setback (refer to Figure 2).

 

The site has a frontage in excess of 12m and therefore a minimum side setback of 1200mm applies in accordance with the setback controls in the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed extension represents a non-compliance of 300mm with the side setback control. The objectives of the setback controls seek to maintain adequate building separation consistent with the character of the street and to provide for access, landscaping, privacy, natural lighting and amenity.

 

The built form pattern of residential properties in the vicinity of the site varies depending on whether the garage is located in the rear yard or at the side of the dwelling house. Currently, there are several properties with garages located on the side boundary (nil setback) at the front of the dwelling house. The properties with a garage in the rear yard generally have a 3m setback afforded by a driveway along the side of the house. In this circumstance the proposed 900mm setback is acceptable given the varied pattern of development found in the street.

 

The subject site has a north-south orientation and therefore any additional shadow cast by the proposed garage extension will primarily affect the subject site. In any event the additional shadow cast is likely to be negligible given the wall will be extended by only 600mm to the west.

 

Furthermore, there will be no adverse visual privacy impacts as the new window in the western elevation will be opposite the blank garage wall on the common boundary with the adjoining property at No. 19 Paine Street. The potential acoustic impacts will improve as the originally approved open carport will now be enclosed thereby reducing noise from vehicles to the adjoining property at No. 19 Paine Street.

 

It is considered that the proposed changes will not compromise the amenity for future occupants of the dwelling house in terms of daylight and ventilation.

 

The non-compliance with the side setback control is considered to be acceptable in terms of amenity impacts.

 

Figure 2 – Plan showing the proposed wall extension in red hatching

 

Streetscape

There are several existing dwelling houses in the street with single garages located at the side or slightly forward of the dwelling house, including Nos. 3, 5, 13, 17, 19 and 25. It is noted that most of these properties have a street frontage of between 8-10m. The subject site has a street frontage of 20m. It is considered that the subject site is suitable for a double garage given its generous street frontage.

 

However, the proposed garage extension will result in a triple garage facing the street with a total width of 8.6m (incl. columns) which exceeds Council garage width control of 6m for a double garage. A comparison between the approved carport and the proposed garage extension is shown in Figures 3 and 4. It is considered that the extension of 600mm to the west will result in only a minor additional visual impact when viewed from the street.  

 

It is also considered that the proposed enclosure of the garage space with new garage doors will tie in with the building form and improve its appearance from the street. The garage extension is therefore acceptable in terms of the impact on the streetscape.

 

 

Figure 2 – North elevation (street) showing the approved carport arrangement

 

 

 

Figure 3 – North elevation (street) showing the proposed garage doors and extension to the wall (in red hatching)

 

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 extension to the approved carport will not result in any adverse amenity impact to the adjoining property on its western boundary in terms of overshadowing or privacy. The additional impact of the 600mm of wall extension compared to the approved carport arrangement is considered minor. The installation of garage doors will tie into the approved built form and improve the building’s appearance from the street. Furthermore, the proposed alterations and additions to the approved garage space will not result in any significant additional adverse impact on the streetscape when viewed from the street.

 

The proposal is therefore suitable for approval.

 

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. 823/2013 for 21-23 Paine Street, Maroubra, subject to the the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 21-23 Paine Street, Maroubra (DA/823/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D26/14

 

 

Subject:                  369 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/371/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/371/2013

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to existing dual occupancy including new garage with access off Nicol Lane (Variation to Floor Space Ratio and Building Height Control)

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Archivision

Owner:                         J Vaneris

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the application includes variations to the Floor Space Ratio of greater than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The application details additions to the existing two storey attached dual occupancy to provide for two additional bedrooms and an additional bathroom to both levels of the building and a new garage to the lower level of the building with access to Nicol Lane at the rear of the site.

 

Site

 

The site is on the corner of Maroubra Road and Nicol Lane and is an irregular shaped allotment with a frontage of 30.295m to Maroubra Road a rear width of 21.845m and a site area of 360.4m². The site at present contains a two storey attached dual occupancy which fronts Maroubra Road and has a garage and parking spaces to the rear off Nicol Lane.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

1.      Request to vary development standard

The proposal contravenes the maximum FSR and height of buildings development standards contained in clause 4.3 and 4.4 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) Floor Space ratio

The site area is 360.4m2. Clause 4.4 of the LEP and the Floor Space Ratio Map stipulates that for the purpose of development other than a dwelling that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies. The proposal details a total floor space ratio of 0.6:1.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Proposal

0.6:1 (218m2 )

LEP Development Standard

0.5:1 (180m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP Standard

21% excess (38m2)

 

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 FSR standard are set out in clause 4.4 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 buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

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

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

 

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

 

a)     The degree of non compliance is minimal and contained over two levels.

b)     The existing basement area is non habitable.

c)     There are numerous two storey dwellings in this street and the surrounding streets that are of the same or even greater scale, height, shape and bulk.

d)     The proposal will easily fit in with the streetscape and in fact improve it.

e)     The proposal does not compromise outdoor recreational and private open space.

f)     The proposal ensures the height and scale relates to the topography of the site with minimal cut and fill.

g)     The proposal ensures it’s size, form and bulk is suitable for the lot size it will eb sited on.

h)     The proposal ensures it will be compatible with the character of the suburb, neighbourhood and street it will be located in.

i)      The proposal preserves the privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents and allows a sharing of views.

 

In relation to a comparison with a compliant development the applicant states that;

 

a)     72.61m of the proposed floor area is at ground floor level including the rear terrace over the proposed garage. The 36.18m new floor area at the front of the dwelling will not be visible from the street, given the elevation of the existing footpath along Maroubra Road and sloping nature of the verge area to the subject dwelling. Note the degree of non compliance 69.55m

 

b)     At first floor level, the shadow created by the additional floor area will not adversely affect the amenity of 367 Maroubra Road. The curvature of the road and subsequent alignment of the properties ensure solar access is maintained in accordance with clause 5.1 of the DCP.

 

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

 

The applicant has not demonstrated or successfully argued that the additional floor area to the building in the context of the established character of the locality and when considered against a complying floor space ratio will not result in any adverse impact to the amenity of the surrounding development or locality. There is no evidence provided to justify that the development will not be excessive and would not result in a building that would detract from any desirable elements in the existing local streetscape. The additional floor area will result in the building appearing much bulkier from both Nicol Avenue and Maroubra Road due to the decreased setback to these frontages. As viewed from the north-east, the proposed additions significantly increased height of the existing building approximately doubles its size. The proposal also results in significant additional overshadowing to adjoining properties.

 

Therefore, it is argued that concurrence to this is in conflict with the objectives of the R2 zone as the increase of the floor area of the building will have an impact to the amenity of the local residents because the resultant bulk and scale of the building will detract from any desirable elements within the existing streetscape.

 

Based on the above assessment the controls of the LEP are not unreasonable or unnecessary and therefore the application must fail.

 

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

The proposal has not 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 not 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 inconsistent with the objectives of the FSR 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 provides 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 inconsistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is unsympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest because it is inconsistent 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 FSR standard will be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is a 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. However, the strict adherence to the numerical standard will be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low density housing forms envisaged under the LEP in the locality.

 

(ii) Building Height

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Building Height

Proposal

10m

LEP Development Standard

9.5m

Excess above or less than the LEP Standard

5.3% in excess of control

 

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:

 

(a)    The non compliance occurs to the rear south western elevation where the building is extended and the new hip roof created.

(b)    The additional roof ridge height is well below the level of the existing main roof.

(c)    The use of a hip roof design allows a better integration of the proposal with the existing building form.

(d)    The proposal does not create any additional adverse effects to the adjoining neighbours.

(e)    The additional height is at the rear and the degree of non compliances occurs for only a very small length of wall.

 

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

 

The non complying height of the building in combination with the non complying floor space ratio demonstrates that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.  The proposed development do not recognise the desirable elements of the existing built form and will result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining and nearby residents. As discussed previously the proposed departure from the FSR and height controls will lead to a building of excessive bulk and scale that also has a significant additional overshadowing.

 

The proposal will not be in the public interest as it will be inconsistent with the building height standard and the zoning objectives.

 

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 not 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 not 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 inconsistent with the objectives of the FSR 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 provides 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 inconsistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is unsympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest because it is inconsistent 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 be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is a 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. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low density housing forms envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

 

2.      Randwick Comprehensive DCP

 

Side and rear boundary setbacks

The proposed addition to the front of the building has a side boundary setback of 1000mm which does not comply with the control of the DCP. Whilst the degree of non compliance on its own would not warrant refusal of the application, in combination with the excess floor space the proposal will result in a significant restriction of light to the adjoining building.

 

There are no objections to the garage to the rear of the site being sited up to the side boundary as this abuts an existing garage at the adjoining property and will therefore not have any impact to that property.

 

However, the proposed store room behind the garage extends past the end of the adjoining garage, and will have an unreasonable impact to the amenity of the adjoining property by placing added visual bulk in close proximity to the adjoining property.

 

Excavation

The excavation of the new garage will necessitate excavation in excess of 1m however this is as a result of the site circumstances and the fall of the site. A condition of consent could be included to require that appropriate controls are in place to ensure the stability of the subject and adjoining sites during and after excavation and building works.

 

Solar access to neighbouring development

The application does not demonstrate that the proposal will satisfy the DCP control of a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am to 4pm on 21 June to north facing living rooms and private open space.

 

Due to the adjoining property at No. 367 Maroubra Road being to the south of the subject site, it is quite vulnerable to additional overshadowing. Due to the excessive floor space and height of the proposal which significantly increases the length of the building across the site, the adjoining property will be adversely impacted by additional overshadowing throughout the day on the winter solstice.

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The proposal includes a large terrace above the new garage and balcony directly above the terrace of the same dimensions off the rear upper level of the building.

 

The topography and difference in levels of the subject site and those behind in Malabar Road will result in overlooking being across those properties in Malabar Road which are significantly lower than this property, and not directly into the private living areas of those properties.

 

In relation to the actual use of the terraces there is potential for noise nuisance being generated to the adjoining properties due to the elevated and open nature and area of the terraces. A condition of consent could be included to recommend that the terrace off the rear first floor level be restricted in depth to a maximum of 3.9m which is in line with the rear face of the dwelling (bedroom 1).

 

Garaging and vehicular access

The proposed position and dimension of the garage area is not unreasonable as several other properties have garages similarly sited to the rear of the properties which adjoin Nicol Lane. The actual width of the garage is necessary to provide for adequate off street parking for two vehicles to each of the dwellings. It is also noted that the garage will not result in any significant impact to the amenity 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

 

That the application to carryout alterations and additions to the dwelling be refused for the reasons as detailed below.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not support the request for exceptions to the development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 & 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to height of buildings and floor space ratio on the grounds that the proposed development does not complies with the objectives of the above clauses and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 371/2013 for alterations and additions to the dwelling at 369 Maroubra Road for the following reasons;

 

1.    The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the development does not recognize the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form and will not protect the amenity of residents.

 

2.    The proposal does not satisfy the objections of Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the size and scale of the development will not be compatible with the desired future character of the locality and does not ensure that the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk and overshadowing.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 369 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/371/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D27/14

 

 

Subject:                  15 Bond Street, Maroubra (DA/566/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/566/2013

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to dwelling (Variation to maximum height standard)

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                F Morton

Owner:                         F Morton

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

1.         Proposal

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposal involves a request for an exception to the height of buildings development standard by greater than 10%.

 

The application details alterations and additions to the dwelling including a new garage with trafficable roof at the rear of the dwelling, an upper level rear addition, upper level terrace and internal alterations and renovations.

 

The main issues are impacts to the existing views from adjoining properties and the non complying building height.

 

2.        Application history

 

The property has been the subject of a previous development consent, DA/682/2008, which detailed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including a new enclosed verandah to the front of the dwelling, an enlarged bedroom and living area, new garage to the rear of the dwelling with terrace above and new upper level balcony at the rear of the dwelling. A Construction Certificate has been issued for this development and the consent has been activated.

 

The main differences between the existing approval and the proposed application are as follows;

 

a)       The original approval detailed an addition to the front of the dwelling to enlarge the existing bedroom and living room at ground level. This is not proposed under the new scheme.

 

b)       The original approval included a pergola above the garage roof terrace 4.9m in length which also included a 1800mmm solid wall from the rear of the building and a privacy screen to the western side to a total height of 1800mm, including the balustrade to the terrace. The new scheme includes an open pergola to the whole terrace without a solid wall portion or privacy screen.

 

c)       The original approval included a rear upper level balcony 6.6m in width, under the new scheme this has been increased to 9.2m and includes a planter to the perimeter.

 

d)       The new proposal includes an upper level mezzanine style addition above bedroom 1, which extends 1100mm past the end of the building.

 

3.        Site

 

The subject site is on the southern side of Bond Street between Bona Vista Avenue and Duncan Street. The site is a rectangular allotment with a frontage of 15.24m and depth of 54.255m with a site area of 827m. The site has a cross fall of 2m from west to east and a fall of up to 7.74m from the front to rear. On site at present there is an existing two storey dwelling and in ground swimming pool.

 


4.        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:

 

Issue

Comment

5 Bond Street Maroubra

-There are concerns that the proposed building height which exceeds the control has the potential to impact upon their residence.

 

 

 

 

 

-The applicant should establish a good technical reason for the height not complying before evaluating the impact of the non compliance.

 

-The assessment of the height of the building by Council should have regard to the impact and precedence that may be set for other Development Applications in the locality.

 

-The new roof structure does appear to be above the existing roof on the front elevation and should be shown on the elevation.

 

-The pergola appears to suggest very light/shallow timbers however over a span of 7.2m the timber will need to be deep beams.

 

-The proposed extensions do not appear to further develop the character of the original building design.

 

9 Bond Street Maroubra

-The proposal will have a significant impact upon their property with respect to view loss.

 

11 Bond Street Maroubra

-The proposal will have an impact upon the views from the rear of their dwelling to Maroubra Beach and headland which are enjoyed from their lounge/dining room, kitchen, rear bedroom and balcony, downstairs study and backyard which arises because of the bulk of the development to the rear of the dwelling and the height which exceeds the LEP.

 

-The proposed garages are excessive which combined with the additional garaging will be in excess of 80m². The garaging could reasonably be accommodated within the existing building envelope.

 

 

 

-The side boundary setback is incorrectly nominated on the plans as being 1690mm whereas it is between 800mm and less than 700mm.

 

The subject property is three properties from the objector’s premises. The separation between the properties and the nature of the development, including the non complying roof height will not result in any adverse impact to their property by way of view loss or overshadowing.

 

The nature of the proposed development necessitates the proposed height to provide adequate floor to ceiling height for the habitable floor space.

 

See discussion in the assessment of the applicant’s request for exemption to the development standard.

 

 

 

The proposed addition is to the rear of the dwelling and maintains the existing ridge line of the front of the dwelling.

 

 

Whilst the specific construction details of the pergola is not specified its structural design would not have any implications for any increased impacts.

 

The proposal will effectively integrate with the existing building.

 

 

 

See view loss assessment in Key Issues Section.

 

 

 

See view loss assessment in Key Issues Section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed new garage to the rear of the dwelling satisfies the relevant controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP and it is also noted that this garage is in the same location at the rear of the dwelling as the garage previously approved under development consent, DA/682/2008.

 

The setback has been clarified by survey at 930mm from the side boundary.

 

 

 

5.        Key Issues

 

Exception to Development Standard

Clause 4.6 of the Randwick LEP 2012 details exceptions to development standards and includes objectives which seek to;

 

(a)      Provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development.

(b)      Achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

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.

 

Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a)      The consent authority is 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

 

(b)      the concurrence of the Director General has been obtained.

 

In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director General must consider:

(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, and

(c)      any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director General before granting concurrence.

 

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.

 

5.1      Building height

The existing building is a large two storey dwelling and has an existing building height of 10.2m.

 

Clause 4.3 of the LEP nominates that the height of a building is not to exceed the maximum height on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum building height as shown on the map is 9.5m.

 

The application details that the new portion of the building has a building height of 10.6m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Building Height

Proposal

10.6m

Existing

10.2m

LEP development standard

9.5

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

10.15% excess (1100mm)

 

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:

 

The objectives of the height of building 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,

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

 

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

 

a)     The existing dwelling is already higher that the 9.5m height control. The proposal maintains the existing roof height of the dwelling and is generally in keeping with the bulk, scale and character of the existing building given the context of the sloping site.

b)     The roof form of the existing dwelling is very unusual in that there is a roof ridge along 3 sides of the roof, in effect forming a large valley. The roof design is in contrary to the principles of good roof design in that is causes water to be trapped in the middle of the roof within only one exit at one end. In periods of heavy rain, the roof design causes water to overflow into the interior of the dwelling causing damage to the fabric of the dwelling. Part of the proposal includes changing the roof form to fix the flawed roof design and allowing water to overflow to the outside of the building.

c)     The proposed new roof is not visible from the street and therefore does not

affect the streetscape.

d)     There is only a relatively small proportion of the proposed new roof that is actually outside the existing building envelope and due to the location, has no adverse impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings in respect to solar access, privacy and views.

e)     The proposed mezzanine would result in better amenity for the dwelling by providing additional usable space on the first floor as well as providing cross ventilation and additional natural light to the bed 1 space. All this occurs within the first floor footprint with no significant added bulk or mass. The proposed mezzanine therefore results in an overall reduction in the first floor bulk and footprint by avoiding extending the dwelling at the first floor level.

f)     By allowing the proposed mezzanine to slightly exceed the building height control (which is already exceeded by the existing dwelling) will result in an overall outcome for both the owner and the adjacent neighbours as also stated above.

 

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 existing building already exceeds the building height and the continuation of the roof form to accommodate the rear upper level addition results in that portion of the building also exceeding the building height, which is increased to the rear portion of the building due to the fall of the site from the front to rear.

 

The building height non compliance will also not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining properties with respect to overshadowing.

 

The non complying building height at the rear of the building is not at the whole width of the building, rather the addition is centrally located at the rear of the building and the apparent building height is not at the edges of the building which significantly reduces the potential impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

The non complying height is at the rear of the building and that portion of the building will not be prominent from the frontage and will therefore not detract from the established streetscape.

 

It therefore cannot be argued that concurrence to this variation is in conflict with the objectives of the R2 zone as the resultant building height will not result in any unreasonable impact to the amenity of the local residents because the building height remains consistent with the surrounding and adjoining buildings and will not detract from any desirable elements within the existing streetscape.

 

The proposal will also continue to provide for the housing needs of the community. 

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that allowing for a departure from the building height would not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties. The proposal in its current form will be in the public interest as it will remain consistent with the objectives of the building height standard and the zoning objectives.

 

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 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 have an acceptable 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.

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 be  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.

 

The proposed development satisfies the provisions of Clauses 4.6(3) and (4) of the RLEP 2012. Therefore, the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the height standard is considered to be well founded and is supported.

 

5.2      View loss

Section 5.6 of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP Low Density Residential recognises that many dwellings within the Randwick City area enjoy views to the ocean, coastline, parks and distant CBD skyline, with some elements being recognized as prominent natural features, significant man made artefacts which carry scenic and iconic values.

 

The objectives of this section of the DCP seek to ensure that views from the public domain are protected and enhanced and that development is sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

This concept of view loss has been defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

The Commissioner in deciding whether or not view sharing was reasonable adopted a four step assessment as follows.

 

a)    The value of the subject view ie water views are more valued than land views with iconic view such as the Opera House of North Head being more valued than views without icons and whole views are more valuable than partial views.

 

b)    From what part of the property are views obtained, for example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult to maintain than views from front and rear boundaries, and in addition whether or not the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position is also relevant, with sitting views being more difficult to protect. The expectation to retain side and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

c)    Assess the extent of the impact from the property as a whole rather than just for the view affected, the impact on views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas, then it is useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

d)    The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact and compliance with planning controls, with a development which satisfies planning controls being considered more reasonable than one that does not. 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 upon 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.

 

Having regard to principles and controls above, the impact on view loss the neighboring properties at 9 & 11 Bond Street are assessed as follows.

 

a)       The views are towards the Ocean and include partial views of the beach and a major part of Malabar Headland. It is noted that the views to the beach are already partially obscured by existing buildings and vegetation on the surrounding properties.

View from the rear balcony of No.11 Bond Street taken from a standing position across the subject property directly to the east. Note the four height poles. The highest pole represents the top of the rear terrace balustrade and the other three poles represent the height of the previously approved pergola above the garage terrace, and the pergola above the garage roof terrace proposed by this development. The middle two poles are the extent of the previously approved pergola, the further pole is the extent of the pergola roof proposed by this development.

 

View from rear upper level deck of 9 Bond Street taken from a standing position across the subject and adjoining property directly to the east. Note existing panels in the privacy screen have been removed by the occupier to improve the view from that point.

 

View from kitchen window within the eastern elevation of 9 Bond Street, note height poles installed to indicate position of top of the pergola above the garage terrace and as described above.

 

b)       The views from the properties on this side of Bond Street are obtained from the rear of the properties and are towards the east and south. The existing views especially to the south are partially blocked by vegetation to the rear of the subject and adjoining properties. The views to the east as detailed in the photos above are directly across the subject and adjoining properties towards the ocean and Malabar headland. It is noted that the properties towards the east have in some instances been renovated which have progressively impacted upon the view aspect towards the east. The view towards the east is primarily from a standing position, there is an existing view from sitting that is significantly improved from a standing position.

 

The existing view across the subject property from a standing position will be maintained. As can be seen from the installed height poles it will remain possible to look above and through the proposed pergola towards to ocean and Malabar headland. The extent of ocean view maintained will be improved by this proposal as the previously approved and current development consent included a 1800mmm solid wall from the rear of the building and a privacy screen to the western side of the terrace to a total height of 1800mm. The new scheme detailed in this application includes an open pergola to the whole terrace without a solid wall portion or privacy screen.

 

c)       The main view from the adjoining properties at 9 & 11 Bond Street is from the rear of the properties and as noted above the view is to the east and south. To maintain the whole view as currently exists would only be possible by restricting entirely any development to the rear of the subject site which would not be a reasonable expectation. The views are primarily obtained from outdoor living spaces and as noted above are across the adjoining properties towards the east and south and the proposed development will maintain view sharing across the subject property from the rear terrace outdoor living areas of the adjoining properties.

 

e)       The proposed development consists of alterations and additions to the rear of the site and is not a new development upon an existing allotment and therefore there are existing constraints of the site such as the height of the building and side boundary setback which are relevant and are discussed above in the key issues section. The proposal other that the building height and setbacks satisfies the relevant controls of the LEP and DCP. The non complying building height does not impact the existing views from the adjoining properties as that portion of the building is not within the aspect which provides the view.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 15 Bond Street be approved.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of Buildings on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 566/2013 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at No. 15 Bond Street Maroubra subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 15 Bond Street , Maroubra (DA/566/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D28/14

 

 

Subject:                  20-22 Bishops Avenue, Randwick (DA/764/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/764/2013

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Boundary adjustment between 20 and 22 Bishops Avenue, construction of carport for 22 Bishops Avenue adjacent to southern boundary, ground and first floor alterations and additions to 22 Bishops Avenue, use of an existing outbuilding as a secondary dwelling on 20 Bishops Avenue (Variation to lot size control)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Mrs Y A Allen

Owner:                         Mr N K M Allen & Mrs Y A Allen

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

This application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposal involves a departure of greater than 10% from the minimum allotment size requirement under clause 4.1 (3) of the RLEP.

 

1.   Proposal

 

The proposal includes the following components:

 

·      A proposed boundary adjustment between 20 and 22 Bishops Avenue to create 1 allotment of 322m2 (No. 22) and a residual “L” shaped allotment of 797m2 (No. 20).

 

·      Construction of a carport, ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 22 Bishops Avenue and

 

·      Use of an existing outbuilding (currently on 22 Bishops Avenue) as a secondary dwelling on the proposed lot at 20 Bishops Avenue.

 

The proposal involves a variation of 19.5% from the minimum allotment size resulting from a subdivision of 400m2 in a R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

 

2.   The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is identified as lots 1 and 2 DP 300749 and known as 20 – 22 Bishops Avenue.

 

The site comprises 2 rectangular shaped lots as follows:

 

·      No. 20 – An 11.25m frontage to Bishops Avenue, a 12.55m rear frontage to Douglas Lane, side boundary depths of 45.138m and a site area of 543.6m2.

 

·      A 13.13m frontage to Bishops Avenue, a 12.295m rear frontage to Douglas Lane, side boundary depths of 45.235m and a site area of 543.6m2.

 

The land has a gentle gradient downwards from north to south and east to west.

 

Existing on the site at No. 20 is a substantial 2 storey “Victorian” dwelling house with a swimming pool in the rear yard area.

 

At number 20 is an existing building originally constructed as a grocery store in the early 1880s and currently used as a dwelling house. At the rear of this site is an existing outbuilding used for residential purposes which has historically been used as servants’ accommodation. A three car garage fronts Douglas Lane on this property.

 

The locality consists of a range of low density residential development including stately homes, heritage items, semi-detached dwelling houses and residential flat buildings.

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview48516.png

Figure 1. Aerial view of existing buildings on sites

 

Figure 2. Bishops Avenue view of No. 20 Bishops Avenue

Figure 3. Bishops Avenue view of No. 22 Bishops Avenue

 

Figure 4. Existing outbuilding at rear of No. 22 Bishops Avenue

 

3.   Relevant Site History

 

The following previous applications are relevant to the current proposal:

 

DA 531/2011

Proposed boundary adjustment between 20 and 22 Bishops Avenue. Application withdrawn.

DA 244/2013

Application for ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house at 22 and boundary adjustment between 20 and 22 Bishops Avenue. Application withdrawn.

 

4.   Submissions

 

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

 

5.   Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to vary development standard

 

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

 

The proposal contravenes the standard for a minimum lot size of 400m2 for subdivision in a R2 zone as contained in clause 4.1 (3) of RLEP 2012. The proposed lot to contain the dwelling at 22 Bishops Avenue is 322m2. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

Minimum allotment Size

Clause 4.1 (3) of the RLEP states:

(3)  The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

 

The corresponding lot size is 400m2. The proposed departure is summarized in the table below:

 

Requirement

Proposal

% of departure

400m2

322m2

19.5%

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

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 sub clause (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 minimum lot size standard are set out in clause 4.1(3) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(a)     to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

(b)     to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

(c)     to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

 

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of Minimum Subdivision Lot size standard, it is considered that the submitted justification does not substantiate that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, for the following reasons:

 

·           The proposed subdivision creates a lot with an area of substantially less than that required by the standard at odds with the prevailing size and configuration of allotments in this section of Bishops Avenue and immediate locality.

 

·           The smaller lot does not allow for a future dwelling house development commensurate with the size and scale of dwellings on other lots in the locality. Further due to reduced lot size of No. 22 Bishops, it will become particularly vulnerable to overshadowing with its rear yard area experiencing minimal solar access.

 

·           The resultant configuration of lots creates a large portion of land at the rear of the smaller lot which if redeveloped in the future could adversely impact the amenity of surrounding properties, particularly given the east west orientation of the lots and the capacity for significant overshadowing and overlooking of the rear yards of surrounding residential properties.

 

Council’s DCP which complements the RLEP in terms of providing more detailed guidelines stipulates the following objectives in respect of subdivision in the R2 zone:

·           To ensure land subdivision respects the predominant subdivision and development pattern in the locality.

·           To ensure land subdivision creates allotments that have adequate width and configuration, to deliver suitable building design and to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

The existing subdivision pattern maintains the longstanding orientation and configuration of the rectangular lots with rear lane access (excepting the lower section of Bishops Avenue due to the curvature of Clovelly Road). The general absence of L shaped allotments is also evident.

 

Figure 4: Layout of the lots in the context of their parent block. Proposed lot separation highlighted in red.

 

The proposed subdivision does not respect the predominant subdivision pattern in the immediate locality of larger allotments with rear lane access or the prevailing rectangular configuration allotments.

 

In terms of future development opportunities, the proposed lot sizes and configuration are inconsistent with the immediate subdivision pattern. Whilst the smaller lot will be able to accommodate some form of residential development, it is not likely that the lot will permit the scale of development commensurate with other generously sized residential dwellings in the locality. It also renders this lot vulnerable to significant overshadowing as it would be concentrated over a smaller area. Furthermore, whilst the proposed L shaped lot may not constitute a hatchet shaped or battle-axe lot as commonly known (specifically precluded in the DCP), the resultant effects of creating potential for new development in what is traditionally a substantially sized rear yard area and the potential for adverse amenity impacts is undesirable. This is heightened by the east west orientation of the lots and potential for a scheme which might cause significant overshadowing and visual privacy impacts.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has not 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 applicant puts forward the following key argument in this regard:

 

Notwithstanding the argument, the inconsistency with the established subdivision pattern and potentially adverse impacts in relation to the future development of the land is evident.

 

The applicant’s written request has not 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 not consistent with the objectives of the minimum lot size 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.

 

In respect of the above mentioned objectives, the proposal is considered inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·      The proposal represents a substantial departure from the minimum lot size standard of 400m2 applicable in the R2 zone.

·      The proposed lot sizes and configuration are inconsistent with the prevailing subdivision pattern in the locality and will not contribute to the desired future character of the locality.

·      In terms of future development opportunities, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed lots will adequately protect the amenity of residents. 

 

Therefore the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

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 minimum lot size standard on this occasion is considered detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is 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.

 

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 involves a boundary adjustment between 20 and 22 Bishops Avenue and the carrying out of ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house at No. 22.

 

Whilst no objections are raised to the proposed alterations and additions or the continued use of the existing outbuilding at No. 22 Bishops Avenue as a secondary dwelling, these are considered ancillary to the proposed subdivision which, for the reasons outlined, is considered unacceptable.

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council does not support the request for an exception to the development standard under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect of non-compliance with Clause 4.1(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating the minimum size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land, on the grounds that the proposed subdivision does not substantiate that the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances, nor provides sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the request.

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 764/2013 for a boundary adjustment between 20 and 22 Bishops Avenue, construction of carport for 22 Bishops Avenue adjacent to southern boundary, ground and first floor alterations and additions to 22 Bishops Avenue, use of an existing outbuilding as secondary dwelling on 20 Bishops Avenue (Variation to lot size control) at No. No 20-22 Bishops Avenue, Randwick for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposed subdivision departs substantially from the minimum allotment size of 400m2 as required under clause 4.1 (3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan and the request for an exception to the standard is not well founded.

 

2.   The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the prevailing subdivision pattern in the locality and will result in likely adverse amenity impacts on surrounding properties.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 20-22 Bishops Avenue, Randwick (DA/764/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D29/14

 

 

Subject:                  14-14A Houston Road, Kensington (DA/866/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/866/2013

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Convert existing strata lots into two (2) torrens lots (land subdivision)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Mr H Zhang

Owner:                         Mr Y Tjhin & Mr T I Tanubrata and Ms I Tan

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed lots have a shortfall greater than 10% to the 325sqm minimum lot size standard under Clause 4.1B of the RLEP 2012 - Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size in Zone R3.

 

1.        Proposal

 

The proposal involves converting the existing two lot strata into two Torrens lots. The proposed subdivision contains Lot 1 measuring 260sqm fronting Houston Road and Lot 2 measuring 248sqm fronting Houston Lane. Each lot contains a single dwelling.

 

2.        Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Houston Road and the western side of Houston Lane between Barker Street to the south and Day Ave to the north. The site has a frontage to Houston Road of 10.49m and Houston Lane of 10.06m.

 

The site is adjoined to the south (No. 16 Houston Road) by a two lot Torrens titled development also containing two single dwellings with one fronting Houston Road and the other fronting Houston Lane (DA/518/2011). Adjoining the site to the north is No. 12 Houston Road, containing a two lot strata titled lot with the same configuration to the subject site. The opposite side of the street at No. 21 Houston Road, also contains a similar strata configuration and Council is currently in receipt of a Development application (DA/44/2014) seeking conversion from two lot strata to two lot torrens title subdivision of a similarly configured development at No. 21 Houston Road opposite the subject site.

 

The surrounding locality is generally characterised by a mixture of multi unit residential developments, detached and semi-detached dwellings and retail and the Kensington commercial centre is located east of Houston Lane. The aerial photo below shows the subject site and surrounding area (those sites bounded by blue are strata titled developments).

 

Aerial view of subject site and surrounding area.

 

3.        Submissions

 

Public exhibition of the proposal is not required in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 as the change in title is considered to be minor, ancillary and unlikely to adversely impact on the amenity of the locality.

 

4.        Key Issues

 

Clause 4.1B Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size in Zone R3

The proposed development seeks to convert from strata title to torrens title subdivision for each dwelling house as follows:

 

·      Lot 1: 260sqm

·      Lot 2: 248sqm

 

The proposed lots sizes fall short of the 325sqm minimum lot size standard under Clause 4.1B Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size in zone R3 by 20% for Lot 1 and 23.6% for Lot 2.

 

When the subject site was subdivided by strata, as the previous Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998 (Consolidation) contained no minimum allotment size standard due to the fact the development on site was defined as a multi unit housing. However, the 325sqm minimum standard now applies due to the changed definition of multi unit housing to include only three or more dwellings (under the RLEP 1998) and the current provisions requiring a minimum of 325sqm for R3 zoned sites containing single dwellings under Clause 4.1B of the current RLEP 2012.

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention/shortfalls to the minimum lot size standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 “Exceptions to development standards”.

 

The objectives of Clause 4.6(1) of the RLEP 2012 are:

 

a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

Pursuant to sub-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.

 

Essentially, the consent authority must be satisfied as required by sub clause 4.6(4) that:

 

i)        the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by sub clause (3), (that it is unreasonable and unnecessary and there are sufficient environmental grounds for the contravention) 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.

 

Sub clause 4.6(5) also requires concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to be obtained for development contravening a development standard unless it is otherwise assumed by the consent authority. In this respect, reference is made to the discussion by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of 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 identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, there are sufficient environmental grounds for the contravention and therefore assumed concurrence.

 

An assessment of the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the development standard and whether they have demonstrated that compliance with the minimum allotment size development standard satisfies clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 is carried out against four main questions raised in the case of Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 as follows:

 

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 minimum subdivision lot size standard are set out in clause 4.1 and 4.1B of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(a)    to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

(b)    to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

(c)    to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose

 

(Clause 4.1, RLEP 2012)

 

(1)     to enable medium density housing on a range of lot sizes enabling development to respond to the site and surrounding locality

 

(Clause 4.1B, RLEP 2012)

 

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

 

 

The submitted “Exception” to the development standard has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the stated planning objectives of the R3 zone and the objectives for minimum subdivision lot size objectives. In this respect it is considered that the applicant has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

In respect to the relevant objectives the following comments are made:

 

(a)     to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

 

The main objective for applying the minimum allotment size standard for single dwellings is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The adjoining properties are similarly configured and it is not considered that the existing two single storey developments will result in any appreciable increase in any adverse impacts as a result of the change in title. Moreover the existing development on site complies with the vast majority of controls and objectives for low density development under the RDCP 2013 (see Compliance report under separate cover).

 

(b)     to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

The proposed development will not affect any adjacent natural or cultural or special features associated with the site.

 

(c)     to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose

 

(1)     to enable medium density housing on a range of lot sizes enabling development to respond to the site and surrounding locality

 

The abovementioned objectives are addressed together in so far as they relate to each other. The subject site has already been strata subdivided and the proposed change in title will not alter the suitability of the site for detached dwellings. In particular reference to the suitability of the site, it is considered that despite the proposals sizable shortfall to the minimum allotment size standard, the proposed development represents the most appropriate and suitable form of development for the site for the following reasons:

 

·           The existing development layout and strata tenure type is similar to other sites in the immediate vicinity at No. 12 and No. 21 Houston Road. The proposal is similar to the approved development of a two lot Torrens title subdivided development at No. 16 Houston Road (DA/518/2011) (all of the above are identified by yellow spots in aerial photo below). In relation to minimum standards, the minimum allotment size standard applies to strata as well as Torrens title subdivision and there is no appreciable difference between the ownership regime  in the context of this proposal.

 

·           The proposed subdivision will not set a precedent for other R3 zoned land in the vicinity of the subject site. Specifically, the majority of other sites in the vicinity (shown marked by green dots in the aerial photo below), contain higher density multi-unit housing developments and in the context of the R3 zone objectives, the use of these sites is both permissible and suitable for this purpose.

 

Aerial view of subject site and nearby sites.

 

·      The aerial photo above also shows sites hatched green, which represent single dwellings houses on lots within the R3 zone whose lot sizes measures less than the subject sites.

 

Overall, the applicants arguments in this instance are sustainable and well founded. The proposed change in title will not set a precedent for a redirection in lot sizes for the wider LGA and in the immediate area as it represents the most orderly and economic use of the site and does not change the spatial relationship of the dwellings on the site. Consequently, 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?

 

As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality and fits in with the subdivision layout and character of development in the immediate context, and at the same time will not set a precedent for similar contraventions of the development standard.

 

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 lot size standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential) are:

 

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

·      To provide a variety of housing types within a medium 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.

 

The proposed development is consistent and will not contravene further the abovementioned objectives 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 represents the most orderly use of the site, it does not contravene the underlying purpose of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential.

 

Council delegation exercising concurrence function for development that contravenes a development standard is subject to:

 

(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 assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4), it is considered that the:

 

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 medium density housing forms in the locality, including dwelling houses, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the character of neighbouring development.

 

The variation from the adherence to the numerical lot size 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 objectives of the minimum allotment size standard would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in so far as the proposal will be compatible with the character for the existing development and nearby development and will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbours or set a poor precedent for the cumulative transformation of the subdivision pattern into inappropriate small sized lots.

 

Overall, the applicant’s written justification for contravening the lot size standard are considered to be well founded and supportable, the resultant layout are suitable to the site and the proposed development does not exacerbate the contravention of the underlying purpose of Clauses 4.1B of the RLEP.

 

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 subdivision is considered to meet the assessment criteria and will not contravene the objectives of the R3 zone Medium Density residential. Specifically, it will not result in an undesirable precedent given that the proposed subdivision mirrors the current strata layout and those similar layouts on other similarly configured developments which exist in the vicinity; and the resultant lots will not result in any adverse impact on the visual aesthetics of the buildings, streetscape or the amenity of the locality.

 

The proposal is, therefore, considered acceptable and is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.1B of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size in Zone R3, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/866/2013 for Torrens title subdivision, at No. 14-14A Houston Road, Kensington NSW 2033, subject to the  development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14-14A Houston Road, Kensington  (DA/866/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D30/14

 

 

Subject:                  5/64-66 Bream Street, Coogee (DA/362/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/362/2013

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to unit 5 in existing residential flat building including additional level containing a bedroom, bathroom, sitting room and alterations to existing balcony

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Design Bubble

Owner:                         Mr N J Dyer & Ms J R Eckhold

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as it involves a variation to the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard greater than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building.  The proposal involves the following works:

 

§ Internal alterations to the existing 2 bedroom apartment;

§ Addition of a floor to cater for one extra master bedroom, bathroom, walk-in-wardrobe and sitting room;

§ Refurbishment to the existing balcony; and

§ Refurbishment to the exterior of the building.

 

Amended plans were received on 14 January 2014 to address a number of issues raised from the Design Review Panel.  The changes incorporated into the plans and written documentation in comparison to the previous resubmission in response to the DRP comments dated 07th July 2013 are listed below:

 

§ Addition of the information from the Registered Architect to the plans;

§ Addition of an Existing Roof Plan & Elevations with RL’s;

§ Change of slope direction for the proposed new roof;

§ Reduction of proposed new balcony to a 1 (one) metre depth;

§ Previous proposed new gutter in front of new balcony has been deleted;

§ New direction of balcony fall and floor waste in order to facilitate waterproofing and connection to the existing rainwater system;

§ Proposed new balcony balustrade matches existing balconies;

§ Relocation of proposed walls at second floor in order to facilitate structural matters;

§ Extension of existing kitchen wall in order to help with structural matters;

§ Addition of a bulkhead on the existing kitchen to accommodate new plumbing for bathroom upstairs;

§ Modification of walls representation in plans;

§ Proposed second floor has been setback on south side in order to create an eave and reduce solar impacts;

§ Privacy shutters have been introduced to the master bedroom windows and doors;

§ Proposed downpipes are now being represented in plans;

§ External finish has been changed to shingles to match existing building appearance;

§ Elevations and sections have more information in regards to RLs;

§ W01 & W05 have been deleted;

§ W04 dimensions has been changed;

§ Addition of a window panel to the external left side of the master bedroom door has been added to create symmetry;

§ New sections have been added;

§ Proposed Shadow Diagrams indicate the existing shadow lines;

§ BCA Report, Structural and Hydraulic drawings have been completed;

§ Basix Certificate and Statement of Environmental Effects have been amended;

§ A Clause 4.6 variation report has been written by a Town Planner and it is to be read in conjunction to the Statement of Environmental Effects as stated and;

§ A Design Statement and a response to DRP comments have been written by the Registered Architect.

 

The assessment is based on these amended plans.

 

Site

 

The subject site under the Randwick LEP 2012 is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Bream Street and is occupied by an existing two storey residential flat building containing 5 units with basement parking and storage spaces, (lots 1 to 3 contained on ground level and lots 4 & 5 containing on first floor level). 

 

The site has a street frontage of 20.6m, a depth of 28m and site area of 569.1m².

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of strata titled residential flat buildings.  The site has a slope from north to south that varies from 1112mm to 1990mm and from west to east that varies from 170mm to 700mm.

 

To the east of the site at no. 68 Bream Street and to the west of the site at no. 60 Bream Street are two storey residential flat buildings.  To the rear of the subject site is a four storey residential flat building.

 

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 one submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

5/68-70 Bream Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy

The proposed new balcony area will look directly into their unit and, most worryingly, through their bathroom window. 

 

Similarly with respect to the 2 proposed east facing windows, which will enable people to look though at least 2 of 3 of their west facing window.

See comments in Key Issues section below.

Noise & pollution

The development will take months to be completed. Concerned about the noise and pollution impacts during construction as noise levels will impact on the privacy, enjoyment and value of their unit and surrounding strata complex.

 

Appropriate conditions have been included to ensure reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity are met during construction.  This includes restricting the working hours during construction.

 

In relation to devaluation of property this issue is not a planning related matter, which can be addressed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

Shadowing and sun

The increased height of the proposed development on its southern side will affect the late afternoon sunlight they currently enjoy to their unit.

See comments in Key Issues section below.

Architecturally inconsistent

The design of the proposed development is not consistent with the surrounding properties in the area and will set an unfavourable precedent for developers to use,

 

The additional second floor level is of a scale that relates to the existing building and surrounding properties. It is considered that the architectural language of the building is in character with the area. The additional building bulk is mainly within the roof form and the materials and form of the proposed development is consistent in character with the built form of the area.

 

The additional second floor level is not visible from the street level and will not detract from the established attributes of the residential area.

Increased traffic & parking issues

Bream Street presently suffers significant congestion and is very difficult to find parking during most parts of the day.  The proposed development will add to the burden of already overused parking area and in their option will lead to material problems in the neighbouring during construction.

 

When assessed against the parking rates provided in Part B7 of Council's DCP 2013 the parking demand on the site will increase by 0.3 spaces due to the proposed additional bedroom in Unit 5 (new strata lot 9). This minor increase is not expected to have any impact on the availability of on-street parking in the locality or cause additional congestion in the street. To efficiently manage on-street parking during the construction phase, a work zone will be required on Bream Street.  Conditions have been included which requires the following:

 

§ a detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan; and

‘Works Zone’ and Construction Traffic Management Plan.

 

Request to vary Development Standard

Clause 4.6 - 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:

 

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio Control

Clause 4.4 (2) states that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.  The FSR indicated on the map for the land is 0.9:1.

 

The proposed FSR is 0.99:1 (or 568.7m²). The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Site area

569.1m²

Existing FSR

0.93:1 (530m²)

Proposal

FSR of 0.99:1 (gross floor area of 568.7m²). 

LEP development standard

0.9:1 (or 512.19m²)

% variation to development standard

11.03% (56.51m²)

 

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 floor space ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4(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 buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

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

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

 

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

 

(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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

Despite the proposal exceeding the relevant development standard, the proposed floor space of the development is considered to be generally acceptable for the following reasons:

 

§ A significant portion of the bulk of the proposed second floor level is located within the roof space of the existing building and is not visible from street level nor does it contribute to any amenity impacts. The development will continue to present as a 2 storey form to Bream Street, consistent with the existing character of the street.

 

·      The proposed FSR is compatible with the size and scale of other similar residential flat buildings within the immediate area and will not detract from the established attributes of the residential area.

 

·      The development incorporates a flat roof, which also aids in reducing the visual bulk of the proposal.  The proposed development also complies with the height control standard in the LEP 2012.

 

·      Other environmental impacts resulting from the development are considered to be acceptable and comply with the controls and objectives of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 as discussed in following sections of this report.

 

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 Floor Space Ratio standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

·      To enable other land uses that provides 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 R3 - Medium 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 Floor Space Ratio in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical Floor Space Ratio 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 medium density housing forms, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Key Issues

Comprehensive DCP 2103

Part C2      Medium Density Residential                               

 

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for surrounding development

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.

 

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 (mid winter).

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

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

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring property at no. 5/68-70 Bream Street, Coogee concerned that the additional height on the southern elevation will reduce solar access to their unit in the afternoon.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application demonstrates that the level of additional overshadowing in the afternoon at 3pm is negligible and will not create additional overshadowing impacts to the objector’s west facing windows.  The additional overshadowing mainly falls within the common area of the subject site and a very small part of the common area to no. 91-97 Dolphin Street at 3pm.  At 9am the additional overshadowing is also negligible and falls on the common areas at no.’s 79-81 Dolphin Street and 83-89 Dolphin Street.  At 12pm the additional shadows are minor and fall within the common area of the subject site and a very small part of the common area to no. 83-89 Dolphin Street.

 

The shadow diagrams indicate that the new second floor addition will not result in any additional unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties with regard to overshadowing, north-facing living areas or potential solar collection areas. The maximum ridge height is essentially the same as the existing ridge height.  Also, as indicated above any additional overshadowing is very minor and will fall on strata common properties that are not used as private open space.  The objectives of the above control are met.

 

5.3

Visual privacy

 

Objectives

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

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

 

Controls

i)    Locate windows and balconies of habitable rooms to minimise overlooking of windows or glassed doors in adjoining dwellings (whether part of the development or on adjoining properties). Refer to the figure above on techniques to protect privacy.

ii)   Orient balconies to the front and rear boundaries or courtyards as much as possible. Avoid orienting balconies to any habitable room windows on the side elevations of the adjoining residences.

iii)   Orient buildings on narrow sites to the front and rear of the lot, utilising the street width and rear garden depth to increase the separation distance.

iv)  Locate and design areas of private open to ensure a high level of user privacy. Landscaping, screen planting, fences, shading devices and screens are used to prevent overlooking and improve privacy.

v)   Incorporate materials and design of privacy screens including (but not limited to):

 

§  Translucent or obscured glazing

§  Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically

§  Fixed vertical louvers with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings

§  Screen planting and planter boxes may be used as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection. However, they must not be used as the sole privacy protection measure.

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring property at no. 5/68-70 Bream Street, Coogee objecting to the proposed balcony and two east facing windows as they will create overlooking impacts to their unit.

 

It is not anticipated that the proposed east facing windows and rear balcony off the master bedroom on the new second floor level will result in significant overlooking impacts to the objector’s property.  The windows and balcony are relatively small and are setback approximately 17m from the objector’s nearest window.  Also, these windows and balcony are off a master bedroom which is considered to be a low use room and it is not anticipated to be used frequently.  Further, the applicant has indicated within the documentation that internal louvers are proposed to the master bedroom windows and doors.  This level of privacy to a bedroom is considered to be adequate and will meet the objectives of the control. 

 

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 other residential flat buildings in the neighbourhood. The proposed development complies with the maximum height control in RLEP.  Relevant controls and objectives within Randwick DCP 2013 are satisfied and environmental impacts have been assessed as being acceptable, subject to proposed conditions of consent. The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and compatible with the existing streetscape of Bream Street and surrounding streets.

 

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. The application is accordingly recommended for approval subject to proposed conditions of consent.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/362/2013 for alterations and additions to unit 5 in existing residential flat building including additional level containing a bedroom, bathroom, sitting room and alterations to the existing balcony, at No. 5/64-66 Bream Street Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5/64-66 Bream Street, Coogee (DA/362/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D31/14

 

 

Subject:                  7/495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/824/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/824/2013

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Unit 7 - Internal fit out and use of the premises as a natural health massage and beauty shop including new signage

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Merci Natural Health Centre Pty Ltd.

Owner:                         La Chapelle Pty Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal:

 

The proposal involves the internal fit out and use of a commercial tenancy within a newly constructed shopping centre known as ‘Peninsula’. It is proposed to use Unit 7 fronting Bunnerong Road for the provision of remedial massage therapy and beauty services. New signage is proposed to the Bunnerong Road frontage.

 

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 that the premises are not intended to be used for the purposes of providing sexual services. The proposed use of the tenancy for the provision of remedial massage therapy and beauty services is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Site:

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Bunnerong Road, Matraville. There is a newly constructed shopping centre on the site. The shopping centre was approved under DA/67/2009, for a part 4 to part 7 storey mixed use development comprising a commercial/retail component at the ground and mezzanine floor levels with 13 retail tenancies and a supermarket; a residential component on floors above with 111 dwellings including adaptable and affordable housing; 3 levels of basement car parking for 304 vehicles; associated landscaping and upgrade of adjoining public reserve.

 

To the south of the subject site is a four storey mixed use development. The locality is primarily commercial in nature and is in a state of transition. There are numerous medium density residential dwellings with shops to the ground floor in the immediate vicinity of the subject site.

 

Figure 1:  The subject site as viewed from Bunnerong Road.

 

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 and beauty services will be carried out within the five treatment rooms. The massage treatment rooms are fitted with curtains rather than solid doors however conditions are recommended to ensure that no services of a sexual nature are to be provided within the premises.

 

A copy of the massage therapy qualifications held by one of the practitioners was provided with the application however the applicant indicated that there will be a maximum of three (3) employees working within 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 Council prior to the commencement of the use. Council will then keep a record of the employees and their relevant qualifications.

 

Hours of Operation:

The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Sunday: 9:00am - 8:30pm. 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.

 

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/824/2013 for the internal fit out and use of Unit 7 of the premises a natural health massage and beauty shop including new signage, at Unit 7/495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - Unit 7/495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/824/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D32/14

 

 

Subject:                  21 Houston Road Kensington (DA/44/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/44/2014

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Convert existing strata lots into two (2) torrens lots (land subdivision)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Mr H Zhang

Owner:                         Ms E D Chandra and Mr E Then; Mr M Ngadiman

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed lots have a shortfall greater than 10% to the 325sqm minimum lot size standard under Clause 4.1B of the RLEP 2012 - Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size in Zone R3.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves converting the existing two lot strata subdivided properties into two torrens title (land subdivision) lots. The proposed subdivision contains Lot 1 measuring 241sqm fronting Day Lane and Lot 2 measuring 270sqm fronting Houston Road. Each lot contains a single dwelling.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Houston Road and the eastern side of Day Lane between Barker Street to the south and Day Ave to the north. The site has a site total land size of 509sqm with a 10.305m frontage to Houston Road and a 13.72m frontage to Houston Lane. The site is already strata subdivided into two lots with each lot containing a single detached dwelling.

 

The site is adjoined to the south (No. 23-25 Houston Road) by a two storey multi unit housing development on a site measuring 1109sqm and adjoining to the north (No. 19 Houston Road) is a single detached dwelling on a site area measuring 479sqm. The opposite side of the street at No’s. 12, 14 and 16 Houston Road, contain two  detached dwellings on similarly sized lots (titled by either strata or torrens title). It is noted that a similar application is being considered by Council for the conversion from strata to land subdivision at No. 14 Houston Road (DA/866/2013).

 

The surrounding locality is generally characterized by a mixture of multi unit residential developments, detached and semi-detached dwellings and retail/commercial premises within the Kensington commercial centre to the east of Houston Lane. The aerial photo below shows the subject site and surrounding area (those sites bounded by blue are strata titled developments).

Aerial of the subject site and surrounding. Lots bounded by blue are strata titled developments.

 

Submissions

 

Public exhibition of the proposal is not required in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 as the change in title is considered to be minor, ancillary and unlikely to adversely impact on the amenity of the locality.

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.1B Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size in Zone R3

The proposed development seeks to convert from strata title to Torrens title subdivision for each dwelling house as follows:

 

·      Lot 1: 241sqm

·      Lot 2: 270sqm

 

The proposed lots sizes fall short of the 325sqm minimum lot size standard under Clause 4.1B Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size in zone R3 by 25.8% for Lot 1 and 16.9% for Lot 2.

 

When the subject site was strata subdivided no minimum allotment size standard applied to the development due to it being defined as multi unit housing under the previous Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998 (Consolidation). However, due to the change in multi unit housing definition, to only include three or more dwellings, the 325sqm minimum subdivision lot size standard became applicable and is currently applied in the current provisions of Clause 4.1B of RLEP 2012. Specifically, Clause 4.1B applies this minimum size to single detached dwellings on R3 zoned land.

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention/shortfalls to the minimum lot size standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 “Exceptions to development standards”.

 

The objectives of Clause 4.6(1) of the RLEP 2012 are:

 

a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

Pursuant to sub-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.

 

Essentially, the consent authority must be satisfied as required by sub clause 4.6(4) that:

 

i)        the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by sub clause (3), (that it is unreasonable and unnecessary and there are sufficient environmental grounds for the contravention) 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.

 

Sub clause 4.6(5) also requires concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to be obtained for development contravening a development standard unless it is otherwise assumed by the consent authority. In this respect, reference is made to the discussion by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of 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 identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, there are sufficient environmental grounds for the contravention and therefore assumed concurrence.

 

An assessment of the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the development standard and whether they have demonstrated that compliance with the minimum allotment size development standard satisfies clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 is carried out against four main questions raised in the case of Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 as follows:

 

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 minimum subdivision lot size standard are set out in clause 4.1 and 4.1B of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(a)    to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

(b)    to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

(c)    to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose

 

(Clause 4.1, RLEP 2012)

 

(1)     to enable medium density housing on a range of lot sizes enabling development to respond to the site and surrounding locality

 

(Clause 4.1B, RLEP 2012)

 

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

 

 

 

 

The submitted “Exception” to the development standard has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the stated planning objectives of the R3 zone and the objectives for minimum subdivision lot size objectives. In this respect it is considered that the applicant has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

In respect to the relevant objectives the following comments are made:

 

(a)     to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

The main objective for applying the minimum allotment size standard for single dwellings in the R3 zone is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The properties opposite the subject site are similarly configured and contain separate dwellings in separate ownership. It is not considered that the existing two single dwellings will result in any increase in any adverse impacts as a result of the change in title. Moreover the existing development on site complies with the vast majority of controls and objectives for low density development under the RDCP 2013 (see Compliance report under separate cover).

 

(b)     to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

The proposed development will not affect any adjacent natural or cultural or special features associated with the site.

 

(c)     to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose

 

(1)     to enable medium density housing on a range of lot sizes enabling development to respond to the site and surrounding locality

The abovementioned objectives are addressed together in so far as they relate to each other. The subject site has already been strata subdivided and the proposed change in title will not alter the suitability of the dwelling on their respective sites. In particular reference to the suitability of the site, despite the shortfall to the minimum allotment size standard, the proposed development represents the most appropriate and suitable form of development for the site for the following reasons:

 

·           The existing development layout and strata title is similar to other sites in the immediate vicinity at No. 12 and No. 14 Houston Road. The proposal is similar to the approved development of a two lot torrens title development at No. 16 Houston Road (DA/518/2011) and that being sought for No. 14 Houston Road (all of the above are identified by yellow spots in aerial photo below). In relation to subdivision, the minimum allotment size standard applies to strata as well as torrens title subdivision and there is no appreciable difference between the two in the context of this proposal.

 

·      The proposed subdivision will not set a precedent for other R3 zoned land in the vicinity of the subject site. Specifically, the majority of other sites in the vicinity (shown marked by green dots in the aerial photo below), already contain higher density multi-unit housing developments and in the context of the R3 zone objectives, the use of these sites is both permissible and suitable for this purpose. Also shown in the aerial photo below are sites containing single dwelling houses (hatched green), whose average size is 426sqm which is substantially less than that of the subject site or those sites at No. 12, 14 or 16 Houston Road.

 

Aerial view of subject site (bounded in red) and nearby sites.

 

Overall, the applicant’s arguments in this instance are sustainable and well founded. The proposed development represents the most orderly and economic use of the site and will not set a precedent. Consequently, 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?

As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality and fits in with the subdivision layout and character of development in the immediate context, and at the same time will not set a precedent for similar contraventions of the development standard.

 

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 lot size standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential) are:

 

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

·      To provide a variety of housing types within a medium 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.

 

The proposed development is consistent and will not contravene further the abovementioned objectives 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 represents the most orderly use of the site, it does not contravene the underlying purpose of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential.

 

Council delegation exercising concurrence function for development that contravenes a development standard is subject to:

 

(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 assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4), it is considered that the:

 

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 medium density housing forms in the locality, including dwelling houses, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the character of neighbouring development.

 

The variation from the adherence to the numerical lot size 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 objectives of the minimum allotment size standard would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in so far as the proposal will be compatible with the character for the existing development and nearby development and will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbours or set a poor precedent for the cumulative transformation of the subdivision pattern into inappropriate small sized lots.

 

Overall, the applicant’s written justification for contravening the lot size standard are considered to be well founded and supportable, the resultant layout are suitable to the site and the proposed development does not exacerbate the contravention of the underlying purpose of Clauses 4.1B of the RLEP.

 


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 subdivision is considered to meet the assessment criteria and will not contravene the objectives of the R3 zone Medium Density residential. Specifically, it will not result in an undesirable precedent given that the proposed subdivision mirrors the current strata layout and those similar layouts on other similarly configured developments which exist in the vicinity; and the resultant lots will not result in any adverse impact on the visual aesthetics of the buildings, streetscape or the amenity of the locality.

 

The proposal is, therefore, considered acceptable and is recommended for approval

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.1B of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size in Zone R3, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/44/2014 for Torrens title subdivision, at No. 21 Houston Road, Kensington NSW 2033, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 21 Houston Road, Kensington (DA/44/2014)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D33/14

 

 

Subject:                  44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/872/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/872/2013

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Change the use of Unit 19 from a residential dwelling to a serviced apartment

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Kevin Mason C/o. Insite Planning Services

Owner:                         Kevin Mason (owner of Unit 19, 44-48 Marine Parade, MAROUBRA)

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal:

 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Stavrinos, Nash (Mayor) Andrews, Stevenson, Shurey and Matson.

 

The proposal involves the change of use of Unit 19 within the residential flat building complex from a residential dwelling to a serviced apartment.

 

Council received a complaint from the secretary of the owner’s corporation of the subject site on 14 August 2013, alleging that the subject site is being used for holiday/short term accommodation without authorisation. A notice of intention to serve an order was sent to the owner of the subject unit and to the owner’s corporation, stating that the subject premises are being used for the purposes of a serviced apartment which requires development consent. The subject development application was lodged with Council on 30 December 2013.

 

Council has accepted the Development Application without owner’s corporation consent given that there are no material changes to the physical fabric that is common property in the Strata Plan and that the proposal involves the change of use of the subject unit only. This report forms the basis of the assessment of the proposal on its merits and against all relevant policies.

 

Site Description:

 

The subject site is located on the south-western side of Marine Parade between Wilson Street and Torrington Road Maroubra. The site has an arced frontage to Marine Parade and is currently occupied by a residential flat building with parking at street level and to the rear of the site. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of a mixture of dwelling houses and multi unit housing. The adjoining site to the south is a two storey multi unit housing development and the adjoining site to the west contains a two storey detached dwelling.  The site enjoys expansive ocean views and is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

Figure 1:  The subject site as viewed from the eastern side of Marine Parade.

 

Submissions:

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

Twenty three (23) submissions were received from the owners of neighbouring properties as a result of the notification process. The submissions state that residents have been subjected to noise and anti-social behaviour; and that additional rubbish and maintenance problems have resulted from the unauthorised use of the premises. The owner’s corporation states that it cannot effectively manage noise complaints due to their inability to enforce notices that are served on the short term residents of the subject unit.

 

Concerns are raised within submissions relating to a loss of amenity for the existing residents of the subject site and neighbouring sites; and increased pressures on street parking in the locality. Concerns are raised that there has been no community consultation regarding the proposal and that the owner’s corporation has not granted consent for the proposed development.

 

Submissions were received from:

 

Unit 1, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 2, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 3, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 4, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 6, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 7, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 10, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 11, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 12, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 14, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 16, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 17, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 18, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 19, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 20, 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 4, 50 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 6, 50 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Unit 8, 50 Marine Parade, Maroubra

40 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Address withheld

 

Issues Raised within Submissions:

 

Incidents which are alleged to have taken place since the commencement of the use of the apartment as an unauthorised serviced apartment (approximately April 2013) include:

 

§   Holiday renters loitering and obstructing the entrance whilst they waited to be let into the apartment;

§   Security doors being blocked open to allow visitor access;

§   Fire exits being blocked by luggage;

§   Excessive noise late at night including doors slamming, screaming from balconies;

§   Tenants seen on CCTV attempting to damage entrance doors by kicking them after midnight;

§   Tenants buzzing all units attempting to be let into the building;

§   Rubbish left on common property including bags of rubbish, cigarette butts and bottles;

§   Drug use;

§   Verbal abuse of residents;

§   Vehicles including cars and boats being parked on common property;

§   Children playing unsupervised near balconies on common property in breach of a by-law. A child was also found playing on the balcony of the adjoining unit;

§   Residents drying laundry on balconies in breach of a by-law;

§   Excessive garbage which leads to rubbish bins being full by mid week in the collection cycle;

§   A dog has been observed entering the unit with occupants in breach of a by-law;

§   The unit being rented out to groups of 6-8 people which is beyond the capacity of the 2 bedroom unit;

§   The unit being advertised as sleeping 6 people with a 7th person in the lounge room ‘by request’.

 

Further Issues Raised within Submissions:

 

§   The proposal sets an undesirable precedent for other units/residential flat buildings in the locality. There is sufficient short stay accommodation in Coogee and Bondi. The proposed use is out of context with the quiet residential nature of the subject building;

 

§   The unit is being let as to holiday renters which is not consistent with Council’s zoning controls for the subject site and breaches the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended);

 

§   Randwick City Council advised the owner’s corporation that the use of the unit for short stay accommodation is contrary to its zoning controls; and served a notice on the owner of the subject unit and on the owner’s corporation. The owner is now attempting to ‘change the zoning’ for the proposed use;

 

§   No consent for the proposal has been granted by the owner’s corporation;

 

§   The apartment has been let to tenants for short stays including one night. The apartment is being advertised for ‘bachelor and bachelorette’ parties which is contrary to the generally quiet nature of the building. Residents do not want ‘backpacker/hotel style accommodation in the area;

 

§   The Statement of Environmental Effects states that the unit will be available for 3 days – 3 months, that there will be a maximum of four tenants at any one time, that there will be a strict requirement that there are no parties and that an information brochure will be provided with a set of ‘house rules’ including the need to be mindful of neighbours. However this is contrary to advertisements which are online;

 

§   There is a security risk to tenants and rate payers as there is no manager or supervisor on duty to supervise the behavior of short term residents. The owner of the subject unit asks that residents call his mobile phone if there are any issues however this is seen as unacceptable.

 

§   The use of the subject unit as a serviced apartment affects the ability of the owner’s corporation to effectively manage the building. The owner’s corporation manages breaches in the by-laws by issuing notices to offending residents. However, short term residents are not affected by this process. They have typically vacated the building before the notices can be enforced. Whilst the owner’s corporation has voted to serve all notices on the owner of the subject apartment, the breaches have continued;

 

§   The proposal affects the amenity of the occupants of the residential apartments. The claim that the subject unit is ‘completely private’ from neighbouring dwellings is disputed as all balconies for units are separated by a piece of glass only;

 

§   The proposal affects the investment placed in the building by the residents and increases the maintenance costs due to damage caused by the short term tenants of the proposed service apartment;

 

Comment:

Serviced apartments are a permissible land use within the Residential R3 zone. No consent is required by the owner’s corporation for the lodgment of a development application with Council if there are no material changes to the physical fabric of the common property in the Strata Plan.

 

The applicant lists a number of management strategies in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects. These include minimum lengths of time for short stay accommodation, a requirement that tenants are not permitted to hold parties within the premises, a maximum of 4 tenants, the provision of ‘house rules’ to new tenants on arrival and that all other residents within the premises are to be provided with the phone number of the owner of Unit 19 so that they may be contacted in the event of a disturbance.

 

It is considered that the management strategies which are listed within the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects do not sufficiently guarantee that the conflict between the proposed use and existing residential units can be suitably managed. The list of proposed management strategies does not constitute a comprehensive Plan of Management; and particular difficulty exists in terms of moderating the behavior of the tenants given there is no on-site manager for the site. These issues are sufficient to render the proposal unsuitable for the subject premises.

 

§   Increased pressure for on-street parking in the locality.

 

Comment:

Council’s Development Engineer has advised that the change of use of the premises to a serviced apartment does not increase the parking demand generated by the site.

 

§   There has been no community consultation regarding the proposal.

 

Comment:

The subject application was notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 – Notification.

 

§   Concern that neighbour objections are taken seriously and that a site visit is undertaken with the assessing officer.

 

Comment:

Council’s assessing officer met the secretary of the owner’s corporation on site on 20 February 2014 and conducted a site visit.

 

Key Issues:

 

Owner’s consent:

The proposal relates only to the proposed change of use of Unit 19 from a residential unit to a serviced apartment. There are no proposed building or fire safety upgrade works which would affect the physical fabric of the subject building. Consequently, there is no requirement that the owner’s corporation provide concurrence for the lodgment of the development application.

 


Conflict of Use:

The Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 is silent on serviced apartment development however the City of Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 includes Part 4.4.8 - Visitor Accommodation relating to serviced apartments. The City of Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 has been used as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

The City of Sydney DCP acknowledges that conflict may arise between the use of an apartment as a serviced apartment and existing residences and seeks to resolve this conflict by stating that serviced apartments and residential apartments must not to co-exist on the same floor of any building.

 

The DCP states further, that the two uses may only co-exist in the same building only if:

 

§   each use is wholly located on separate floors;

§   they are serviced from the street by separate foyers, lift access and circulation; and

§   it can be demonstrated, through an approved Plan of Management, that the visitor accommodation will not reduce the quiet enjoyment of uses by implementing appropriate measures. Where no approved Plan of Management for the visitor accommodation exists, then the introduction of residential uses into that building, either through additional floor area or change of use, is not permitted unless it is for the entire building.

 

There are 21 residential units within the subject site and the proposal relates to the piecemeal conversion of one of those residential units into a serviced apartment. The subject unit is not accessed from the street via a separate foyer, lift access or cat walk and residents of nearby dwellings have raised concerns that there is significant conflict between the proposed use and existing residential units within the complex. The conflict relates to the observed behaviour of short term occupants and the impact that this has on the amenity of existing residential units.

 

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects details methods that are proposed to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the residents of the subject building and those nearby. These include imposing a minimum length of stay within the premises (3 days in peak periods and 7 days in off-peak periods); and vetting by the owner of the subject unit of prospective occupants. The owner proposes a strict ‘no parties’ policy and the loss of $400 bond for contravention of this policy; and proposes to cap the number of number of occupants within the service apartment to a maximum of 4. The owner proposes to prepare a brochure of ‘house rules’ which would be provided to all new occupants; and suggests that all tenants within the subject building be provided with the contact details of the owner of the subject unit so that they may be contacted with any complaints.

 

It is considered that the list of proposed management strategies does not constitute a comprehensive Plan of Management; and that particular difficulty exists in terms of moderating the behaviour of the occupants, particularly late at night. The owner of the subject unit does not live within the subject building and is, in practical terms, unable to moderate the behaviour of the short term occupants (other than by contacting them by phone and threatening to withhold a monetary bond). The perceived vulnerabilities in the security of the building and the inability of the owner’s corporation to effectively influence the behaviour of the short term occupants was a key concern raised within submissions to Council.

 

Overall, the significant conflict between the proposed use and existing residential units within the complex would suggest that the proposed use is not a suitable use for the subject premises. It is considered that the impacts that have been expressed by the owners of neighbouring dwellings are not insignificant; and that the proposed use has the potential to extend these impacts on existing residents indefinitely.

 

Relationship to City Plan:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and 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:

 

It is considered that the conflict between the proposed use and existing residential units is unmanageable; and that the list of proposed management strategies does not constitute an effective plan of management. Of particular concern is the difficulty in moderating the behavior of the occupants (particularly late at night), given that there is no on-site security or manager. These issues are sufficient to render the proposal unsuitable for the subject premises.

 

The proposed change of use is inconsistent with the objectives and relevant assessment criteria outlined in the RLEP 2012. It is considered that the proposed use will result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality and that the proposal is unsuitable for the subject site. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No. DA/872/2013 for the change the use of Unit 19 from a residential dwelling to a serviced apartment for No. 44-48 Marine Parade, Maroubra for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed use of the subject premises as a serviced apartment is not consistent with the relevant aims under Clause 1.2 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012; in that the proposal does not promote an appropriate mix of land uses and that the proposal will not protect, enhance or promote the environmental qualities of Randwick.

 

2.       The proposed use of the subject premises as a serviced apartment is not consistent with objectives for the Residential R3 zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposed use would impose significant impacts on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.

 

3.       The proposed development is considered to be unsuitable for the subject site in that the proposal relates to the piecemeal conversion of only one of 21 existing residential units into a serviced apartment. The proposal has the capacity to impose significant impacts on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with regard to noise, security and anti social behaviour.

 

4.       There is no on-site manager for the premises and no effective way to monitor or temper the behaviour of the short term occupants of the proposed serviced apartment.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 44 - 48 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/872/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D34/14

 

 

Subject:                  201-207 Barker Street, Randwick (DA/526/2010/C)

Folder No:                   DA/526/2010/C

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development by changing Condition No. 127 to allow for aerial bundling of power lines rather than undergrounding of power

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Tizzone Developments Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Tizzone Developments Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The subject Section 96 (1A) modification application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as it seeks the modification of a condition requiring the undergrounding of power cables, which is contrary to Council policy. In addition, the original application was determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel on 25 November 2011.

 

The original application proposed the demolition of all structures on site and the construction of a part four, part five storey multi unit housing development comprising 117 dwellings with two levels of basement car parking for 146 Vehicles.

 

The application seeks consent to modify condition 127 of Development Consent to allow for aerial bundling the cables instead of placing them underground.

 

Site

 

The subject site is bounded by Barker, Avoca and Dine Streets and has an overall area of 4910m. The development which is the subject of the original development consent is currently in the course of construction.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

The policy for replacing overhead wires with underground cables was adopted at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on the 8th November 2005. The policy requires that applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million.

 

Condition No. 127 currently reads:

 

The applicant shall meet the full cost of the overhead power lines and telecommunication cables located in the vicinity of the development site to be relocated underground and all redundant power poles to be removed. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the wires/cables to be relocated. All wires and cables must be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

In support of their application the applicant has provided a total costing of these works at $ 1 086 800 and that this is an onerous cost in relation to the overall development for no benefit.  

 

The cost for undergrounding of the power lines based on the quotations received by the applicant represents approximately 6.8% of the total development cost, which is an additional cost that significantly exceeds the applicable 1% Section 94A contribution of $ 163 300. 

 

The indicative costing supplied was considered to be relatively accurate based on other projects.

 

It should be noted that the requirement in Condition No 127 to remove redundant power poles along the site frontages (Avoca St/Barker St/Dine St), once undergrounding of power lines has been completed, may in fact require the installation of additional power poles on the other site of the subject streets so as to carry power lines to those houses serviced by power lines from the development sites frontages, so this may provide no net gain in removing power poles in this vicinity. The property owners at 208, 210 & 212 Barker St also 19, 21 & 23 Dine Street are required to provide their agreement to an underground feed for there to be no poles placed outside their properties.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Consequently, in this instance it would be unreasonable for Council to request that the applicant underground existing power lines and it is recommended that Council support the amendment to condition 127 to provide aerial bundled cables.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

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

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not alter the form and nature of the approved development. Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modification of condition No. 72 is considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, modify the development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, for Development Application No. DA/526/2010/C for 201-207 Barker Street Randwick in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 127 to read:

The applicant shall meet the full cost of the overhead power lines and telecommunication cables located in the vicinity of the development site to be Aerial Bundled. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organize for the wires/cables to be Aerial Bundled. All wire cables must be Aerial Bundled to the satisfaction of the relevant service authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 201-207 Barker Street, Randwick (DA/526/2010/C)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D35/14

 

 

Subject:                  80 Boyce Road, Maroubra (DA/297/2011/A)

Folder No:                   DA/297/2011/A

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of the approved development by internal reconfiguration, changes to skylights and some windows. Original consent: Alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling house including new first floor addition

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Bradley Roberts

Owner:                         Adam Smith and Amanda Smith

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal:

 

On 9 August 2011, Development Consent was granted by Council’s Planning Committee for alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling house including a new first floor addition. 

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed development included SEPP 1 Objections of greater than 10%; relating to a shortfall in the required provision of landscaped area and an excessive floor space ratio.

 

The subject Section 96 modification seeks Council’s approval for the following amendments to the approved design scheme:

 

§  A highlight window on the southern elevation fronting Boyce Road is to be increased in size;

§  Window dimensions are to be altered on the western elevation at first and ground floor levels;

§  Alterations are proposed to the position and sizes of skylights on roof. Two skylights are to be deleted; and

§  Minor changes are proposed to the configuration of the internal living spaces at ground and first floor levels.

 

Site:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Boyce Road within the Residential R3 Zone. The site has a frontage of 7.5m, a depth of 33.7m and a total area of approximately 252.8m2. The site has a southerly aspect and slopes towards the west. A single storey semi-detached dwelling exists on the site with a detached shed within the rear yard.

 

Two x 2-storey multi-unit dwellings are located to the west of the subject site and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 80A Boyce Road is located to the east of the site. Two storey detached dwellings are located to the north of the subject site. The locality is residential in character, consisting primarily of single and two storey dwellings with multi-unit dwellings to the west of the site.

 

Figure 1:  The existing dwelling on the site as viewed from the streetscape and from the rear.

 


Submissions:

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Two (2) submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

82 Boyce Road, Maroubra:

§   Objection is raised regarding solar access to our property. The development would block the little sun our property receives.

During the assessment of the original application (DA/297/2011) it was noted that the proposal largely complied with the provisions of the DCP with regard to solar access and overshadowing.

 

The subject application will not alter the approved roof line for the dwelling and will not further increase the footprint or height of the approved first floor addition. No additional overshadowing will result from the proposed amendments to approved plans.

 

80a Boyce Road, Maroubra:

§   Assurance is sought to guarantee that a similar first floor addition may be constructed to our dwelling in the future, with regard to the proposed skylights on the subject dwelling.

Any future development on the adjacent site will be assessed on its merits. The proposed amendments to approved plans would not affect the viability of a similar first floor addition to the neighbouring semi-detached dwelling. 

 

§   Access is not granted for trades people to enter our property to construct the proposed works.

The consent of the owners of adjoining land is required prior to work being undertaken therein; however it is considered that the approved works can be wholly undertaken from within the subject site.

 

§   The design of the box gutter should be provided to us prior to the commencement of works; to ensure that it is constructed wholly within the subject site and that it drains away from our property.

A condition of consent was included within the original approval granted by Council, that a box gutter must be constructed along the common boundary (roof line) with the adjoining semi detached dwelling at 80A Boyce Road. The box gutter must be constructed so that it is located wholly within the subject site. Plans are required to be amended to reflect this requirement, prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

This condition was recommended to ensure that stormwater originating from the proposed first floor addition does not discharge onto the roof of the adjoining semi detached dwelling at 80A Boyce Road.  Concurrence is not required from the owner of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling in relation to the design of the box gutter; given that it will be constructed wholly within the subject site.


Key Issues:

 

A.      SECTION 96 ASSESSMENT:

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. Two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification process (see above). 

 

B.      RLEP 2012 and RCDCP 2013 Compliance:

The proposal will not alter the approved floor area or floor space ratio for the approved development. The bulk of the dwelling is considered to be commensurate with the locality and will not impose any significant impacts on neighbouring dwellings or the streetscape. The proposed works will not further increase the approved maximum building height for the semi-detached dwelling (8.1m).

 

The amended development will generally be consistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan in that the proposal will not further decrease the approved permeable landscaped area; and that the proposed fenestration changes to the dwelling are minor and will not impose any additional impacts on the neighbouring dwelling with regard to visual or acoustic privacy. It is considered that the proposal will not impact negatively on the visual qualities of the streetscape.

 

Relationship to City Plan:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council's 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/297/2011 for the modification of the approved development by making changes to the approved internal configuration of the dwelling, changes to skylights and some windows for 80 Boyce Road, Maroubra  in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

B00 (Issue B)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

28 June 2011

29 June 2011

B01 (Issue B)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

28 June 2011

29 June 2011

B02 (Issue B)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

28 June 2011

29 June 2011

B03 (Issue B)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

28 June 2011

29 June 2011

 

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

A110653

18 April 2011

28 April 2011

 

as amended by the following Section 96’A’ plans and information:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

C00 (Issue C)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

4 November 2013

7 November 2013

C01 (Issue C)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

4 November 2013

7 November 2013

C02 (Issue C)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

4 November 2013

7 November 2013

C03 (Issue C)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

4 November 2013

7 November 2013

CO4 (Issue C)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

4 November 2013

7 November 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

A110653_02

5 November 2013

7 November 2013

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 80 Boyce Road, Maroubra (DA/297/2011/A)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D36/14

 

 

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

Folder No:                   DA/656/2012/C

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Senior Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                     Application to modify the approved development through reducing the number of car park spaces to 38 including the provision of parking in a single basement level with 2 vertical car stackers, raising of the basement floor level to RL23.93 and deletion of Condition 105 relating to the installation of underground cables

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Fox Johnston

Owner:                         Arrowfield Farms Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

1.        Proposal

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Amendment location

Proposed amendment

General

 

 

·      Delete Condition 105, requiring the undergrounding of power lines.

Basement

 

·      Reduce the amount of parking provided to the development through deletion of car stackers, providing for 38 vehicle spaces.

·      Reduce bicycle parking to 16 spaces.

·      Raise basement floor level to avoid protrusion of the watertable.

 

Ground floor

 

 

·      Raise the finished level of a component of the front setback, in order to locate a detention tank below.

 

2.        Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the originally proposed development between 6 November and 20 November 2013, in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

803E/103-105 Doncaster Ave, Kensington;

3/95 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington;

424/14- 18 Darling Street, Kensington.

 

Issue

Comment

Parking:

Object to the level of parking being provided to both visitors and tenants;

Congestion likely to occur on Doncaster Ave as a result of parking rate is likely to be dangerous to surrounds;

Council should consider requiring the applicant provide more car stackers;

Public parking is at it’s limits in the Doncaster Ave and Anzac Parade area;

The traffic impact assessment is misleading and  fails to take into account the significance of race days, peak school times;

The site is in close proximity to a number of high traffic generating developments.

 

The initial development was approved with parking in excess of the DCP requirement. The proposed removal of car stackers stands to introduce a shortfall of three (3) spaces across the development.

Concerns with the traffic assessment are noted. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the report and made appropriate recommendations.

A suitable condition has been recommended to retain additional car stackers, such that a shortfall of only one (1) visitor space occurs. The accessible nature of the site and proximity to services is considered to indicate this rate is acceptable.

 

Undergrounding of cables:

Object to the deletion of condition 105 given likely improvements to the streetscape.

 

Both the cost burden of undergrounding cables and the precedent set by the Land and Environment Court make this condition difficult for Council to retain. Requirement for bundling of cables has been recommended and is considered a feasible alternative.

Other:

Submission raises issue with the height of the approved development of DA/656/2012.

 

 

The height of the development is not presently proposed for amendment. Building height was considered within the assessment of the original application and was considered to be satisfactory.

 

 

 

 

3.        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.

 

3.1    Reduced onsite parking through deletion of car stackers

The development was originally approved with basement parking for 43 vehicles, achieved partially through inclusion of car stackers. The present application seeks to delete a majority of the car stackers, allowing for parking for 38 vehicles in the basement.

 

Section B7 of the Randwick DCP identifies a minimum of 41 spaces are necessary for the amount and mix of residential accommodation approved as part of this development.

 

The applicant identifies the deletion of car stackers is aimed at raising the basement out of the water table as far as possible. The accessible nature of the site is provided as justification for the parking shortfall.

 

Further to the advice of the Development Engineer, the parking provision seeking to be accommodated within the development is unacceptable in respect of the planning controls, particularly with regard to surrounding land uses and the lack of on street parking available. Given this, it is recommended that the applicant be permitted to delete car stackers, however only to the extent to which the development will achieve within one (1) space of compliance with the rate identified by the DCP, or 40 spaces.

 

A condition has been recommended requiring the retention of at least two (2) additional car spaces within the previously approved stackers. Based upon the above and subject to the application of the condition discussed, the proposal is considered to be generally acceptable in relation to the parking requirements of the DCP.

 

3.2      Reduction in bicycle parking

The development was originally approved with parking for 26 bicycles in various spaces in the south- eastern corner of the basement. The present amendment application seeks to reduce bicycle parking to 16 spaces.

 

The reduction in bicycle parking arises through reconfiguration of the basement allowing less space for bicycles than the approved layout.

 

The amount of bicycle parking provided is considered reasonable, given the accessible nature of the site and general compliance with the former DCP rate of one (1) space per four (4) units, under which the development was initially approved.

 

3.3      Raise level in front setback for a detention tank

The application seeks to raise the approved finished level of a component of the front setback, in order to accommodate a detention tank. The tank was originally approved beneath the building, however this causes the basement car park to pushed lower into the water table. As such, the applicant advises this amendment is necessary to avoid any further protrusion of the water table.

 

Fencing arrangements adjacent and fronting Doncaster Ave will require amendment as a result. The relocation of the tank will also introduce reduction in deep soil provision on the site, given the tank was previously located below the building.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has advised the amended fencing plan is acceptable in the context of the Racecourse Conservation Area. It is considered that given the amendment occupies a minimal length of the frontage, the arrangement is acceptable.

 

The proposed reduction in deep soil across the site comprises a 17.5 square metre area above the tank. Approximately 566.5 square metres, or 28.7% of the site will remain deep soil, which remains compliant with the provisions of the DCP. This area is considered to allow for sufficient drainage and planting.

 

The amended level of the detention tank is considered to be generally acceptable, resulting in minor amendments to streetscape fencing and deep soil provision on the site.

 

3.4      Under grounding of power lines

The policy for replacing overhead wires with underground cables was adopted at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on the 8th November 2005. The policy requires that applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million.

 

Condition 105 of DA/656/2012 currently reads:

 

105.    The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines and any telecommunication cables located along the Doncaster Avenue site frontage to be relocated underground. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be relocated. All cables most be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

The applicant has noted that the installation of sub terrain cables and wires is an extremely costly exercise that poses an unreasonable financial burden upon the development. A cost breakdown was provided from EMF Griffiths Consulting Engineers, detailing that the associated cost of works to comply with Condition 105 would be in excess of $ 565,670 for this site. This figure reflects the need for removal of two (2) power poles and replacement of a feed across Doncaster Ave, supplying a multi unit development.

 

This amount represents approximately 6.7% of the total development cost, which is an additional cost that significantly exceeds the applicable 1% Section 94A contribution of $82,187.00.

 

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

 

Having regard to the applicant’s arguments and the intent of Council’s policy it is considered unreasonable for Council to require the undergrounding of existing power lines in this instance.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the application and advised a feasible alternative may involve bundling of cables. The condition has been suitably amended by the Development Engineer, as follows:

 

105.    The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located along the Doncaster Avenue site frontage to be bundled  The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be bundled. All cables must be bundled to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

It is considered the requirement for bundling of cables is a reasonable alternative that should pose far lesser cost upon the applicant. The aerial bundling of cables will provide a more practical measure than undergrounding of power given the cost of insulating wires are significantly less, will improve the visual appearance by reducing the number of overhead wires and reduces the potential safety hazard of overhead uninsulated wires.

 

Consequently, in this instance it would be unreasonable for Council to enforce requirement to underground existing power lines and it is recommended that Council support the amendment to condition 105 to provide aerial bundled cables.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal entails a number of modifications that when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts, eventuate in a generally positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

In view of the issues discussed above, the proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to the intent of the planning controls and the specific context of the site. The application is recommended for approval, subject to the below recommended conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/656/2012/C through reduction in the number of car parking spaces to 38, raising of the basement floor level to RL23.93 and amendment of condition 105 relating to the installation of underground cables at No. 150 – 156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington, subject to the following conditions:

 

§   Amend Condition No.1 as follows:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA0.02

B

Fox Johnston

14 January 2013

15 January 2013

DA1.01

DA1.02

DA1.03

DA1.04

DA1.05

DA1.06

DA2.01

DA2.02

DA2.03

DA2.04

2140-01

D

Peter Glass & Assoc.

2140-02

Sample Board:

(150-156 Doncaster Ave, Kensington)

Fox Johnston

Not dated

12 October 2012

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Multi Dwelling

449156M_03

14 January 2013

Alterations and Additions

A148587_02

 

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

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA1.02

C

Fox Johnston

10 May 2013

8 July 2013

DA1.03

DA1.04

DA1.05

DA1.06

DA2.01

D

DA2.02

C

DA2.03

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received by Council

Multi Dwelling

449156M_04

3 July 2013

8 July 2013

 

Alterations & Additions

A148587_03

4 July 2013

Alterations & Additions

A148571_03

4 July 2012

 

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

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA1.01

D

Fox Johnston

18 October 2013

23 October 2013

DA1.02

DA2.01

E

DA2.03

D

16 January 2014

16 January 2014

 

§   Add the following detail to Condition 1):

 

Additional car stackers

1a)     The basement shall provide for a total of 40 vehicle spaces. To facilitate this, an additional two (2) mechanical vehicle stackers will be required to be provided.

 

§   Amend Condition 105:

 

Service authorities

106.    The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located along the Doncaster Avenue site frontage to be bundled. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be bundled. All cables must be bundled to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 150-156 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington (DA/656/2012/C)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              11 March 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D37/14

 

 

Subject:                  149 Perouse Road, Randwick (DA/694/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/694/2013

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                     Substantial alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, alterations to existing garage at front with new mezzanine storage, exterior stairs, front wall planter above garage, landscaping at front, rear and associated works

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Mr C Papadolias & Mrs R Papadolias

Owner:                         Mr C Papadolias & Mrs R Papadolias

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee and assessed by an external planning Consultant as the applicant indicated that they have a business relationship with a Councillor.

 

Proposal

 

The development application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, as described by level below:

 

Basement (garage street level)

 

·      alterations to the existing garage to increase its size from a single garage to a double garage;

·      construction of internal stairs providing access to a storage mezzanine above;

·      installation of a mechanical lift providing direct access from the garage to the ground floor; and

·      construction of external stairs and a new front wall.

 

Mezzanine (storage)

·      construction of a mezzanine above the garage to be used for storage purposes.

 

Ground Floor

·      replacement of the existing southwestern (street facing) window with a sliding door providing access to a terrace;

·      conversion of an existing bedroom to a stairwell providing access to the first floor;

·      renovation of the existing bathroom, laundry and bedroom to create a new dining room; and

·      replacement of the sliding door at the living room with bi-fold doors providing access to the existing terrace.

 

First Floor

·      construction of a first floor within the footprint of the ground floor below, including master bedroom and ensuite, three bedrooms, balcony/terrace at the front and rear and a new bathroom.

 

The proposal also includes a new landscaping regime at the front and rear of the site.

 

Additional Information

 

A site inspection was undertaken by Plandev on the 9 December 2013. It was noted that there were discrepancies in the shadow diagrams submitted with the development application and some of the windows at the northern elevation of the adjoining property to the south (No. 151 Perouse Road) were either not shown or incorrectly located. An email was sent to the applicant’s town planning consultant on 9 December 2013 requesting a revised survey plan and updated shadow analysis including elevation shadow diagrams at hourly intervals. No response was provided and a follow up request was emailed to the applicant’s town planner on 15 January 2014. The additional information was submitted by the applicant’s town planning consultant on 24 February 2014.


Site

 

The site is located on the northern side of Perouse Road, approximately 50m east of its intersection with Howard Street.

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot B in DP 330847. It is rectangular in shape except for a chamfer in the northern corner. The site has a frontage of 12.19m to Perouse Road and a depth of 38.8m with a total area of 448.9 sqm.

 

The site contains a single storey dwelling house with a detached garage fronting the street. The site has a steep gradient with the garage at street level and the dwelling house approximately 7m above the finished floor level of the garage. Refer to Figure 1.

 

The immediate locality is residential development characterized by a mix of single and attached dwellings and residential flat buildings.

 

The land adjoining to the south-east contains a pair of attached terraces (Nos. 151 & 151a Perouse Road) with the terrace immediately adjoining comprising two storeys (No. 151).

 

The land adjoining to the north-west contains the rear yards of four residential properties fronting Howard Street (Nos. 44, 46, 48 & 50) No. 44 Howard Street is a corner allotment and contains a detached two storey dwelling house. No. 46 Howard Street contains a 2 storey residential flat building. No. 48 contains a two storey detached dwelling house. No. 50 contains a single storey detached dwelling house.

 

149 Perouse Road

 

151A Perouse Rd

 
C:\Users\Tom\Documents\Plandev Jobs 2007 - 2013\149 Perouse rd\photos\IMG_1749.JPG

Figure 1 – View showing the existing dwelling house on the subject site

 


Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP 2013). One submission objecting to the proposed development was received from the adjoining property to the south at No. 151 Perouse Road as a result of the notification process. The concerns raised are summarised as follows:

 

Overshadowing/loss of light

·         For daylight along the north-west facing lower level of our house, we rely on the aperture of sky above.

·         The close proximity of a building extended higher above us will significantly close that aperture of available light. 

·         The Shadow Diagram Analysis provided by PRINCIPLE Planning + Design is contentious and not true to life. It is therefore misleading.

·         There is not one window on either level on the north-west facing side of our house that will not be affected by overshadowing and loss of light.

 

Loss of privacy

·         The extended first floor will overlook our property; this will lead to loss of privacy and substantial loss of natural light.

·         The proposed height of 9.07 meters will be more like 10 meters in relation to the ground level of our property, 151 Perouse  Road, which sits about one meter lower.

 

Loss of views  

·         The proposed new development will impact on our views, effectively blocking our views from three upstairs windows.

·         The views from our living room and balcony will be seriously affected.

·         We object to the solid wall that will replace these views.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency 

·         The extra height of the upper level rooftop will restrict our options for future placement of solar panels due to overshadowing.

·         As regards energy efficiency, the proposed scheme will render our home energy inefficient.

·         The loss of natural daylight will force us to depend upon artificial lighting in lower level rooms resulting from this development. 

 

Comment

The main concerns raised by the neighbour at No. 151 Perouse Road are addressed in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Key Issues

The key issues are discussed below:

 

Overshadowing

The adjoining neighbour to the south at 151 Perouse Road objects to the proposed development due to overshadowing and loss of daylight to windows along the northern elevation of their dwelling house.

The subject site has an east-west orientation and therefore any increase in height or bulk to the existing dwelling house is likely to result in additional overshadowing of the adjoining property to the south at No. 151 Perouse Road

 

The existing dwelling house is elevated 7m above the street due to the steep topography and is elevated above the adjoining property to the south at No. 151 Perouse Road by approximately 500mm.  

The updated shadow analysis submitted by the applicant’s town planning consultant on 24 February 2014 rectifies the inaccuracies in the originally lodged shadow analysis and is considered to be accurate. The updated shadow analysis indicates the following shadow effects at the winter solstice to windows along the northern elevation at No. 151 Perouse Road:

 

·      Between 8:00am and 9:00am, the proposed development will not cast any shadows over the windows along the northern elevation at No. 151 Perous e Road. The building overshadows itself resulting in no sunlight access to the northern elevation at No. 151 Perouse Road in the existing situation. 

 

·      At 10:00am, the proposed development will result in some minor additional overshadowing of the lower half of the ground floor bedroom windows towards the front of the dwelling house.

 

·      At 11:00am, the shadow cast by the proposed development moves further east and overshadows the two ground floor bedroom windows and a living room window.

 

·      At 12 noon, the additional shadow cast by the proposed development moves further east and overshadows two ground floor bedroom windows and two ground floor living room window.

 

·      At 1:00pm, the shadow cast by the existing building begins to overshadow two bedroom windows and two ground floor living room windows and a kitchen window. The additional shadow cast by the proposed development overshadows the first floor bedroom, bathroom and living room window.

 

·      Between 2:00pm and 4:00pm, the ground floor bedroom, living and kitchen windows are overshadowed by the existing building. The additional shadow cast by the proposed development overshadows the first floor bedroom, bathroom and living room window.

 

Council’s solar access controls in DCP 2013 require a portion of the north-facing living room windows of neighbouring development to receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8:00am and 4:00pm on 21 June.

 

The current level of solar access received by the living room windows at No. 151 Perouse Road during the winter solstice is limited due to the location of the adjoining dwelling house and the orientation and topography of the subject site. In the existing situation the living room windows at 151 Perouse Road receive approximately 1 hour of solar access between 11:00am and midday during the winter solstice. The proposed development will result in additional overshadowing which will remove the solar access currently available between 11:00am and midday. The proposed development therefore does not comply with Council’s solar access controls as the ground floor living room windows will not receive 3 hours of sunlight during the winter solstice.

 

However, Council’s solar controls allow for variations subject to compliance with development controls such as FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage and consideration of the site constraints due to orientation, the subdivision pattern and topography.

 

The proposed development complies with the FSR and site coverage controls. The maximum external wall height control is 7m. The proposed building will have a wall height of 6.1m. The maximum overall building height control is 9.5m. The proposed development will have a maximum height of 9.01m. The side setback to the boundary is required to be a minimum 1500mm. The proposed development will be setback 1848mm to the common boundary with No. 151 Perouse Road.

 

The subject site is consistent with the prevailing east-west subdivision pattern to the south. Also, the site is constrained by topography and is elevated above its No. 151 Perouse Road.

 

The objectives of the solar access controls seek to ensure alterations and additions are designed to maximize solar access to living areas and private open space. Given the proposed development complies with the built form controls (FSR, height and setbacks along the south-eastern boundary), the design and siting of the first floor addition is considered to be acceptable.

 

Council’s solar access controls also require a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 8:00am and 4:00pm during the winter solstice for private open space on adjoining properties. The rear private open space at No. 151 Perouse Road which forms an extension to the ground floor living areas continues to receive approximately 3 hours of direct solar access at the winter solstice. The proposed development complies with Councils solar access controls in relation to the private open space at No. 151 Perouse Road.

 

It is noted that the first floor provides an alternative living space which has an adjoining balcony to take advantage of views to the west across the front boundary. Between 10:00am and midday the first floor living space and its adjoining balcony will receive approximately 2 hours of solar access to its northern window providing an alternative source of amenity for the occupants.

 

The submission received from the neighbour at No. 151 Perouse Road also objected to the loss of daylight to their ground floor living room windows. Currently, the amount of daylight received through the ground floor living room windows is limited given the orientation, topography and location of the existing dwelling house on the subject site. The objectives for solar access and overshadowing in DCP 2013 refer to the loss of ambient daylight to dwellings and the need to minimize the need for artificial lighting. It is considered there is scope to modify the design by reducing the roof pitch from 30 degrees to 25 degrees and the first floor ceiling clearance from 2.7m to 2.55m. These changes will not result in any increase in direct sunlight to the living room windows but will result in a minor improvement in the level of daylight available to the ground floor living room windows without compromising the integrity of the design. A condition requiring a reduction to the roof pitch and ceiling height is recommended on the development consent.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the solar access controls in  DCP 2013 however, on balance, the overshadowing impacts are reasonable given the existing site constraints and the compliance with the building and wall height controls and the south-eastern side boundary setback.

 

Privacy

The proposed first floor addition will result in potential overlooking to adjoining properties.

 

Adjoining properties to the northwest (Nos. 44, 46, 48 & 50 Howard Street)

Bedrooms 4 and 5 along the north-western elevation will result in potential overlooking of the rear yards of Nos. 46 and 48 Howard Street. The proposed windows are to bedrooms and therefore considered low usage and not high activity areas compared to a living area. Also, the windows are vertical with a width of 600mm which will restrict the view. It is therefore considered that these windows will not result in any significant adverse privacy impact to the adjoining properties.

 

The large first floor window in the middle of the northwestern elevation is to a stairwell and therefore will not result in any adverse privacy impacts as it only provides a point of access for the future occupants.

 

The balcony off bedroom 4 will result in a potential privacy impact to the rear yard of the adjoining dwelling house at No. 46 Howard Street. It is recommended that a condition is imposed on any approval requiring a fixed privacy screen along its northwestern edge to mitigate any privacy impact.

 

The rear terrace off bedrooms 5 and 6 will result in a potential privacy impact to the rear yard of Nos. 48 and 50 Howard Street. It is recommended that a condition is imposed on any approval requiring a fixed privacy screen along its northwestern edge to mitigate any privacy impact.

 

Adjoining property to the southeast (No. 151A Perouse Road)

Bedroom 3 along the south-eastern elevation will overlook the adjoining property at No. 151 Perouse Road.  The proposed window is to a bedroom and therefore considered low usage. Similar to the other bedroom windows it is vertical with a width of 600mm which will restrict the view. It is therefore considered that this window will not result in any significant adverse privacy impact to No. 151 Perouse Road.

 

Bedroom 6 will also have a window which will overlook the adjoining property at No. 151 Perouse Road. However, given it is a highlight window with a sill above standard eye level it is not considered to result in any adverse privacy impact.

 

The remaining two first floor windows along the south-eastern elevation are to bathrooms and are likely to be obscure glazing resulting in no adverse overlooking impacts.

 

The front balcony off bedroom 3 will result in a potential privacy impact to the adjoining property at No. 151 Perouse Road. It is recommended that a condition is imposed on any approval requiring a fixed privacy screen along its south-eastern edge to mitigate any privacy impact.

 

Subject to the implementation of privacy screens as recommended above, the proposal is acceptable in regard to visual privacy impacts to adjoining properties.

 

View Loss

The neighbours at No. 151 raised concerns regarding the loss of views from their first floor study/living space and its adjoining balcony at the front of the dwelling house and the first floor bedroom windows along the north-western elevation of the dwelling house. The proposed development is for a first floor addition generally within the footprint of the existing ground floor which will potentially reduce some of the views from No. 151 Perouse Road across the north-western side boundary.

The general principle relating to view sharing identified in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council (2004) established a four-step process for considering the impact of a development on views.

1.  An assessment of the value of views to be affected by reference to their nature, extent and completeness.

2.  A consideration of how views are obtained and what part of the property the views are obtained from.

3.  A qualitative assessment of the extent of the impact in terms of severity particularly as to whether that impact is negligible minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

4.  An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact particularly in terms of compliance with applicable planning controls and whether a different or complying design must produce a better result. 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.

These view sharing principles are referred to for assessing the potential view impacts associated with the proposal.

 

Front Balcony and adjoining study/living space

The existing view from the first floor front balcony overlooking the street includes distant ocean glimpses with vegetation and dwellings in the foreground. The proposed first floor addition generally fits within the footprint of the existing dwelling house on the site. The south-eastern corner of the dwelling house on the site is aligns with the location of the proposed first floor addition above. As shown in Figure 2 there will be a reduction of about 20% of the distant ocean and horizon view.  The view impact is considered minor.

 

When viewed from the inside the living room, the view is narrowed by the door frames. When standing 1m from the glass doors the view impact equates to about a 30% reduction. The view impact is considered minor. When sitting there is no view impact as the privacy screen along the northern edge of the balcony which obscures the existing dwelling house cuts out the view resulting in no additional view loss from a seated position.

 

Existing view removed

 
C:\Users\Tom\Documents\Plandev Jobs 2007 - 2013\149 Perouse rd\photos\IMG_1710.JPG

Figure 2 – View when standing at the front first floor balcony of No. 149 Perouse Road. The extent of view loss is shown to the right of the dashed red line.

 

Bedroom windows

The view from the northernmost bedroom is dominated by the existing roof of the dwelling house on the subject site. There is a glimpse of Sydney University buildings in the distance and some CBD buildings where the roof dips. The views will be removed as a result of the proposed first floor addition.  The existing views are considered to be low value and the expectation for their retention is low as it is across a side boundary.

 

The view from the southernmost bedroom is dominated by the existing roof of the dwelling house on the subject site and dwelling houses beyond. There are distant views of the elevated buildings at Sydney University. The extent of view is greater compared to the northernmost bedroom as it is opposite the where the roof dips on the existing dwelling house on the subject site. The views will be largely removed as a result of the proposed first floor addition.  The existing views are considered to be low value and the expectation for their retention is low as it is across a side boundary.

 

The proposed development will result in only a minor view loss to the adjoining property to the south at No. 151 Perouse Road and is therefore acceptable.

 

Garage/Streetscape

The existing site contains a single garage at street level with a width of 4m. The garage is proposed to be extended to create a double garage with a width of 6.72, including the columns. A maximum garage width of 6m applies to the site under DCP 2013. The proposed garage exceeds the maximum width control by 720mm.  A maximum parapet height of 600mm applies to the proposed garage.

The garage will have an overall height of 3.938m with a parapet height of 1.55m which exceeds the maximum parapet height by 950mm.

 

The locality is characterised by a variety of garage types and sizes along the street frontage. The proposed garage is consistent with the adjoining double garage to the north-west in terms of height and width (refer to Figure 1).

 

Notwithstanding the non-compliance with the garage controls, it is considered the proposed garage will not result in a significant adverse visual impact on the street given it is consistent with the adjoining garage and other large garages in the locality.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development is generally consistent with the residential objectives and controls in Council’s LEP 2012 and DCP 2013.

 

In terms of solar access, the subject site has an east-west orientation and any substantial floor addition will result in overshadowing of the adjoining property to the south given the existing site constraints. The proposed development complies with the built form controls such as FSR, height and setbacks to the southwestern boundary and the shadow impacts are therefore considered to be reasonable.

 

Subject to the inclusion of privacy measures to the first floor balconies/terraces at the front and rear of the dwelling house, the potential for overlooking of adjoining properties will be minimal.

 

The view loss from the adjoining property at No. 151 Perouse Road is considered to be minor in the context of views retained to the south across the front boundary of the dwelling house. Furthermore, the proposed development has been assessed against the Tenacity principles established by the Land and Environment Court and is considered acceptable in terms of view loss.   

 

The subject site is elevated above the adjoining properties due to topography. The site also has a steep gradient to the street boundary and the only opportunity for parking is at street level. The impacts on the streetscape are considered to be reasonable given the variety of dwelling types and garages in the locality.

 

The development application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 694/2013 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a new first floor, alterations to the existing garage at the front with new mezzanine storage, external stairs, front wall and associated landscaping and site works, at No. 149 Perouse Road, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and 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:

 

a.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.5m above floor level must be provided to the north-western edge of the balcony to bedroom 4, the north-western edge of the terrace to bedrooms 5 and 6 and the south-eastern edge of the balcony to proposed bedroom 3.  The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.     The floor to ceiling height of the first floor addition is to be a maximum of 2.55m and the roof pitch is to be a maximum of 25 degrees to reduce the overall height of the building and the impact on daylight access to the ground floor living areas of the adjoining dwelling house at No. 151 Perouse Road.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 149 Perouse Road, Randwick (DA/694/2013)

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER