Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 8 April 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                                                                                                  8 April 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, 8 April 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 March 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)

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.

D38/14      62 Market Street, Randwick (DA/147/2010/B)........................................... 1

D39/14      2/90-96 Beach Street, Coogee (DA/96/2014).......................................... 11

D40/14      146A Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/95/2014)......................................... 23

D41/14      14 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly (DA/469/2011)....................................... 27

 

 

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil   

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                  8 April 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D38/14

 

 

Subject:                  62 Market Street, Randwick (DA/147/2010/B)

Folder No:                   DA/147/2010/B

Author:                   Tahlia Alexander, Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of the approved development by deletion of condition 4 relating to screen planting adjacent to southern boundary

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Mrs E J K Allen

Owner:                         Mrs E J K Allen

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Neilson, Shurey and Stevenson.

 

Proposal

 

Development consent was granted on 11 June 2010 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a new attic storage area, new upper level balcony at rear and front of dwelling, new enclosed upper level, elevated patio at rear with covered pergola over, changes to openings,  new pool, cabana and decking in rear yard, carport to front of dwelling, new front and side boundary fencing and landscaping works.

 

A section 96 application (DA/147/2010/A) was approved on 28 February 2011 to modify the consent by increasing the size of the rear deck with pergola, increasing the length of the swimming pool, removal of approved cabana, new bifold doors at rear of dwellings, alter landscaping, new pool pump and storage area.

 

The subject section 96(2) application seeks approval to modify the consent by deleting condition 4 which states:

 

4.  The proposed screen planting directly adjacent to the southern side boundary at the rear of the dwelling shall be clipped and maintained to a maximum height of 2.8m. Species used must be capable of attaining this height. This condition is imposed to maintain reasonable levels of sunlight into the north facing windows of the adjoining property at no. 64 Market Street and reasonable levels of privacy between the properties. Details of compliance are to be provided on the construction certificate plans.

 

Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot A in DP 341651, No. 62 Market Street, Randwick and is located on the western side of Market Street.  The site is irregular in shape and has a frontage width of 13.4m, depth of 45.65m and a site area of 447.67m.

 

The site currently contains a two storey detached dwelling. Immediately to the south of the subject property (No. 64-64A Market Street) is a two storey attached dual occupancy. The site to the north (No. 60 Market Street) contains a two storey detached dwelling. A drainage reserve is situated to the west behind the subject site. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by detached houses and older residential flat buildings.

 

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:

 


64 Market Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

Statement of Environmental Effects

Statements made by the applicant in the documentation submitted with the application are incorrect, irrelevant and misleading to the consideration of the application.

An assessment of this application has been undertaken against the necessary planning considerations under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and any personal comments made by the applicant about the objector have not been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application.

Overshadowing

Concerns that if condition 4 was deleted, the trees could grow higher than 2.8m which will result in less than 3 hours of sun and natural light to both levels of the dual occupancy.

It has been demonstrated that a portion of the screen planting can be increased in height and still allow a sufficient level of solar access to the objector’s property. This is discussed in detailed in the ‘Key Issues’ section of this report.

Condition No. 4

Council should retain condition 4 as it was lawfully imposed and development was approved on this condition. The new owners purchased the property on the basis that there was a development consent to the land which imposed this condition.

Pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, a development consent can be lawfully modified and this includes deletion or modification of conditions of consent.

 

The application was amended and renotified on 25th February 2014 and as a result a further submission was received from No. 64 Market Street which raised the following additional issues:

 

64 Market Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

Tree Species

By allowing the deletion or modification of condition 4, this will give the owners of No. 62 the opportunity to plant whatever they choose.

The approved landscape plan does not currently stipulate which tree species is required to be planted. Therefore the proposed modification of the condition in relation to the height of the trees does not affect the type of trees that can or cannot be planted.

Sewer Pipe Blockage

There was a recent blockage in their sewer pipe as a result of the tree roots growing into their sewer pipe.

Noted, however, the trees have already been approved and planted. It is difficult to ascertain whether the recent blockage of the sewer pipe on the objector’s property was caused by the tree roots without any evidence provided to Council.

Damage from Trees

The overhanging branches in a strong wind will smash into their windows and rear security door.

It is the responsibility of the owner of the subject property to maintain the trees. It is difficult to speculate about damage that may occur as a result of the increased tree height and refuse the application on this basis.

Dampness & Health

Inside the lower level of the building, the rooms and carpet are damp from the moisture coming from the row of trees being so close to their building which is causing the objector and their family health and breathing problems.

Shadow diagrams submitted for approved tree height of 2.8m shows that north facing habitable windows of the adjoining dwelling at 64 Market Street receive in excess of 3 hours of direct sunlight on the winter solstice.

Approved Balcony & Deck

The approved first floor rear balcony and rear ground level deck of No. 62 Market Street impacts their acoustic and visual privacy.

Not applicable to this application.

Compliance

The trees have grown beyond their approved height and the owners of No. 62 Market Street are not complying with condition No. 4 of the consent.

Council’s Building Regulation and Compliance Unit are currently investigating the matter.

 

Key Issues

 

Solar Access

The landscape plan submitted with the original development application showed screen planting along the southern boundary at the rear of the property (refer to figure 1). During the assessment of the original development application concerns were raised by the assessing officer in regards to the potential overshadowing impact that the proposed screen planting would have on the adjoining property to the south (No. 64 Market St). An extract from the delegated report is provided below:

 

It is agreed that proposed planting on the northern side boundary towards the rear may restrict sunlight into the objectors north facing windows.  The windows on the ground level that will be impacted are to a bedroom and under croft area and the windows and balcony on the first floor level which will be affected are to a bedroom and lounge room.  Whilst it is acknowledged that the planting may restrict direct sunlight into the objectors north facing windows, given that there is a major privacy concern to the subject site whereby the objector’s property directly overlooks the private rear yard area a compromise solution would be that the screen planting be restricted to a maximum height of 2.8m. This was discussed with the applicant and objector and it was agreed to be a fair compromise. A condition is included to the above effect.

 

(Note: the above statement ‘planting on the northern side boundary’ is an error and should refer to the planting on the southern side boundary.)

 

 

Figure 1: Approved landscape plan showing screen planting

 

Figure 2: Minor approved modifications to the landscape plan under DA/147/2010/A

 

Figures 3 & 4: Subject screen planting

 

 

The applicant has submitted an Arborist report which identifies the trees as Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pillys) and states that the trees are likely to reach a height of 8m. The Arborist report states that the trees are unlikely to reach a mature height due to poor soil, water and nutrient conditions and the inability of the trees being able to access light and soil due to the trees being densely planted.

 

As the row of trees are located along the southern side boundary for a length of approximately 11.5m, allowing the trees to reach their mature height could significantly impact on the level of solar access to habitable windows of the dual occupancy at No. 64 Market Street. The windows of main concern that will be impacted by overshadowing are the bedroom and living room windows located on the ground and first floor levels (refer to figure 5).

 

As such, Council requested the submission of shadow diagrams which showed the extent of overshadowing from the trees to the neighbouring property. Shadow diagrams were submitted to Council on 12th December 2013 which show the level of overshadowing to the adjoining property from the current approved height of the trees at 2.8m. The shadow diagrams indicate that north facing habitable windows of the adjoining dwelling at 64 Market Street receive in excess of 3 hours of direct sunlight on the winter solstice (refer to Figure 6).

 

 

Figure 5: Elevation plan indicating habitable windows of adjoining property at No. 64 Market Street

 

Figure 6: Shadow Diagrams of Trees at Approved Height of 2.8m at 8am, 12pm and 4pm (top to bottom)

 

The shadow diagrams submitted also depict overshadowing from the trees at 9m in height. The shadow diagrams indicate that an unreasonable degree of overshadowing to the adjoining property’s habitable windows from the trees at 9m in height would occur, particularly to the two bedroom windows located on the first and second level.

Alternative Solution

In light of the proposed 9m tree height not allowing sufficient solar access to the neighbouring property’s habitable windows, Council could not support the deletion of condition 4 and subsequently an alternative solution was proposed by the applicant. Rather than deleting condition 4, the condition could be modified to implement a height restriction of approximately 4m to the initial 5.3m row of trees as measured from the eastern end of the row of trees. The remaining section of trees is proposed to be 8m in height to provide screening from the second floor balcony of the adjoining dwelling.

 

Shadow diagrams submitted to Council showing the stepped tree height proposal indicates that the ground floor bedroom of the adjoining dwelling would receive less than 3 hours of sunlight and therefore the proposed alternative solution does not comply with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 (the DCP). Council therefore suggested that the applicant submit amended shadow diagrams for consideration showing a reduced stepped tree height of 4m to the initial 5.3m row of trees and a height of 5m for the remaining section.  Amended shadow diagrams were submitted to Council on 21st February 2014 which show four different scenarios. All scenarios propose a tree height of 4m for the initial 5.3m row of trees and for the section of trees in front of the subject balcony, heights of 5m, 6m, 7m and 8m. 

 

The shadow diagram detailing the 4m/5m stepped tree height demonstrates that an adequate level of solar access can be maintained to the adjoining neighbour’s habitable windows (refer to figure 7 below).

 

 

 

 

Figure 7: Shadow Diagrams for 4m/5m Stepped Tree Height Proposal at 9am, 10am, 11am and 12pm (top to bottom).

 

Part C1, Section 5.1 ‘Solar Access and Overshadowing’ of the DCP stipulates that a portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. A minimum of 3 hours sunlight will be retained to a portion of all habitable north-facing windows of the adjoining dwelling to the south if the initial 5.3m row of trees were clipped and maintained to a maximum height of 4m with the remaining section of trees being 5m in height. In addition, it is noted that as the trees are not a solid structure, additional light will penetrate through the screen planting.

 

The 4m/5m stepped height alternative solution demonstrates compliance with the objective and controls of the DCP and retains a reasonable level of solar access to habitable windows of the neighbouring dwelling and provides the occupants of No. 62 Market Street with more privacy then the present situation.

 

Privacy

The applicant stated the following in the statement submitted with the amended proposal:

 

 


In response to the applicants concerns regarding privacy, it is acknowledged that there will still be some views available from the balcony located at No. 64 Market Street into the yard of No. 62 Market Street as a result of the proposed 5m height restriction to the western end of the trees, however this is not uncommon in an urban environment where complete privacy is often not achievable or practical. Furthermore, Council is not assessing the impact of the neighbour’s balcony in terms of visual privacy and compliance with the DCP given it has already been approved under DA/316/1990 on 21st December 1990. Primarily, Council’s role is to assess the

In response to the applicants concerns regarding privacy, it is acknowledged that there will still be some views available from the balcony located at No. 64 Market Street into the yard of No. 62 Market Street as a result of the proposed 5m height restriction to the western end of the trees, however this is not uncommon in an urban environment where complete privacy is often not achievable or practical. Furthermore, Council is not assessing the impact of the neighbour’s balcony in terms of visual privacy and compliance with the DCP given it has already been approved under DA/316/1990 on 21st December 1990. Primarily, Council’s role is to assess the impact of the subject section 96 application, that being the overshadowing impact of the increased tree height to the adjoining property’s habitable windows.

 

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

 

Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed as being satisfactory with respect to the relevant provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

Deletion of condition 4 is not recommended for approval as it would result in an unreasonable level of overshadowing to the adjoining property (No. 64 Market Street) and would not comply with Council’s DCP. Modification of condition 4 to allow a stepped height of 4m for the initial 5.3m row of trees and 5m for the remaining section of the trees (as measured from east to west) is recommended for approval as the level of solar access to the adjoining dwellings habitable windows complies with the DCP. The proposed modification will not result in any unreasonable environmental, social or economic impacts on neighbouring properties and therefore is recommended for approval, subject to amended condition 4.

 

Recommendation

 

        That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/147/2010 for modification of the approved development by modifying Condition No.4 to allow the screen planting adjacent to southern boundary to grow to 4m – 5m in height at No. 62 Market Street, Randwick, subject to the following condition:

 

Amend Condition No. 4 to read:

 

4.     The proposed screen planting directly adjacent to the southern side boundary at  the rear of the dwelling shall be clipped and maintained to an approximate height of:

 

a)  4m for the initial 5.3m section of the screen planting (as measured from the eastern edge of the screen planting); and

 

b)  5m for the remaining section of the screen planting.

 

The trees shall be clipped and maintained in accordance with above specified heights at all times.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance report - 62 Market Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  8 April 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D39/14

 

 

Subject:                  2/90-96 Beach Street, Coogee (DA/96/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/96/2014

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to Unit 2 including removal of internal walls and extension to the living area

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Greg Tamsett

Owner:                         Owners Corporation - Strata Plan No. 70357

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to Unit 2 within the existing residential flat building, including the removal of internal walls and an extension to the living area at the southern end of the unit onto a portion of the outdoor terrace. The proposal involves the demolition of existing planter boxes at the southern end of the private open space associated with Unit 2 however it is recommended that the planter boxes are retained.

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed development exceeds the floor space ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%. The applicant submitted an objection to Clause 4.4 under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012.

 

No submissions were received regarding the application. 

 

The main issues are the impact of the proposal on the visual bulk and external design of the residential flat building and any cumulative impact if further similar applications are received for other units within the building.

 

Subject to conditions, the application is recommended for approval.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the western side of Beach Street, Coogee however the subject Unit 2 is on the southern side of the site on Arcadia Street. The subject residential complex was approved under DA/825/2000, for 17 units and basement level parking.

 

To the south of the subject site are two storey dwellings including a heritage item. The locality is primarily residential, consisting of a mixture of detached dwellings and multi-unit development.

 

Figure 1:  The subject site as viewed from Beach Street.

 

Figure 2:  The subject site as viewed from Arcadia 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 regarding the application. 

 

RLEP 2012 Clause 4.6 - Development standard for maximum floor space:

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention to the development standard for maximum floor space, as specified by RLEP 2012 and pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 “Exceptions to development standards”.

 

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone is 0.75:1. Given that the overall site area is 2,739m2, the proposal will not result in any measurable increase in the existing floor space ratio (1.36:1); however the proposal will increase the gross floor area of the development by 10.5m2.

 

Clause 4.6:

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 floor space ratio 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 relevant development standard relating to floor space ratio is set out in Clause 4.4 – Floor Space ratio as follows:

 

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

(2)      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 applicant’s written justifications relate to Part 2 of Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012 in that a floor space ratio of 1.36:1 is proposed, noting that the Floor Space Ratio Map specifies a maximum floor space ratio for the site of 0.75:1. The justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

 

 

 

Assessing Officer Comment:

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 development standards specified by the RLEP 2012. With respect to the planning objectives of the R3 zone, 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 planning objectives of the R3 zone the following comments are made:

 

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

 

Comment:  The proposal will add functional internal space to the subject residential dwelling whilst retaining adequate private open space to the south of the dwelling. The proposal will not impose any significant impacts on the amenity of the occupants of the subject dwelling or those nearby.

 

§    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.

 

Comment:  The existing residential flat building as a whole relates to and has been integrated with the sloping topography of the subject site. The perceived bulk of the development has been minimised by stepping the levels of the multi-unit dwellings progressively towards the rear of the site and by the inclusion of balconies, terraces and planter boxes which serve to break up the visual bulk of a building as viewed from Arcadia Street, Beach Street and from neighbouring dwellings.

 

Whilst the subject proposal involves the enclosure of a balcony at the southern edge of the development, it should be noted that the subject balcony is currently not readily visible from the streetscape. Enclosing the balcony will not result in the removal of a primary architectural element for the building as a whole; and it is noted that the balcony does not serve any important role in providing visual articulation for the multi-unit dwelling development as viewed from Arcadia Street. Consequently, the proposed works will be consistent with the relevant planning objectives of the R3 zone; in that they will not delete any existing desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form. It is also noted that the proposed works will not constitute an undesirable precedent for other units within the complex in this regard.

 

Whilst the proposed extension of Unit 2 towards the southern end of the site is broadly supported, it is recommended that the proposal to demolish the existing planter boxes from the southern edge of the private open space provided to Unit 2 should be deleted from any approval. The existing planter boxes and the vegetative screening that they provide serve a number of important functions. The planter boxes unify the residential units as viewed from Arcadia Street; and serve to soften the visual appearance of Unit 2 (including the proposed works) as viewed from Arcadia Street (yellow arrow, Figure 3 below).

 

Should approval be granted to remove the planter boxes, an effective visual barrier between the subject unit and Arcadia Street would be deleted. The planter boxes also serve a necessary function for the overall site in that they soften the appearance of the complex as a whole, as viewed from nearby dwellings and streetscapes. Approving the removal of the planter boxes would set an undesirable precedent for other units within the complex; and a condition is therefore recommended that the planter boxes are to be retained with plans being amended accordingly. It should be noted that retaining the planter boxes will result in a useful private open space for the occupants of the subject dwelling, with dimensions of 3.3m x 12m.

 

Figure 3:  The existing multi-unit dwellings on the site as viewed from Arcadia Street. Yellow arrow shows existing planter boxes which serve to screen the proposed works and to unify and soften the site as viewed from Arcadia Street and neighbouring dwellings.

 

§   To protect the amenity of residents.

 

Comment:  The proposal (as conditioned), will not be readily visible from the streetscape or from neighbouring residential units; and will provide for useful internal area whilst not imposing any significant impacts on neighbouring dwellings.

 

The proposal relates to alterations to an existing residential unit and will not alter the suitability of the site for residential dwelling development. In particular reference to the suitability of the site, it is considered that despite the proposed departure from to the maximum floor space standard, the proposed development represents an appropriate and suitable form of development for the site for the following reasons:

 

§   The proposed extension to the subject residential unit occupies a small area of what is currently private open space and represents an extension to the overall development of 10.5m2;

 

§   The development as a whole occupies a large site and the proposal involves an increase in the gross floor area for the site of only 0.38% or 10.5m2. Consequently,  the proposal will not materially increase the existing floor space ratio (1.36:1);

 

§   The proposal  (as conditioned), will not impose any significant impacts on neighbouring dwellings with regard to  visual bulk, overshadowing or privacy;

 

§   The proposal retains adequate private open space for  the occupants of the subject dwelling which is accessed directly and at grade from habitable living areas;

 

§   The proposal (as conditioned), will not set an undesirable precedent for similar development within the subject site. The proposed balcony enclosure will not be readily visible from neighbouring dwellings or from the streetscape and the works will not delete any primary architectural elements (ie, balconies and planer boxes) that were included in the original design of the overall multi-unit dwelling development; and

 

§   The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives for the R3 Residential area in which the site is located.

 

Overall, the arguments provided by the applicant are sustainable and well founded. The proposed secondary dwelling will not set an undesirable precedent for the locality and will not impose any significant impacts on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings. 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 sits comfortably within the residential character of Arcadia Street (the primary frontage for Unit 2). At the same time, it is considered that the proposal will not set an undesirable precedent for similar contraventions of the development standard.

 

In summary, 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 aims of the RLEP 2012 in that additional floor space will be provided on the subject site; whilst not significantly affecting the amenity of the occupants of the subject unit or neighbouring dwellings.

 

The proposed development is also considered to be consistent with, and will not contravene the zone objectives of the R3 Residential Area in which the site is located, in that the proposed development 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 an orderly use of the site. The development 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 low and 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 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 objectives of the floor space ratio 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 similar development in the locality.

 

Overall, the applicant’s written justification for contravening the floor space ratio standard is considered to be well founded and supportable; and the resultant layout is considered to be suitable for the site.

 

Key Issues

 

Visual Bulk and Likely Cumulative Impact:

The subject multi-unit development as a whole relates to and has been integrated with the sloping topography of the subject site. The perceived bulk of the development has been effectively reduced by stepping the higher storeys of the multi-unit dwellings progressively towards the rear of the site and by the inclusion of balconies, terraces and planter boxes which serve to break up the visual bulk of a building as viewed from Arcadia Street, Beach Street and from neighbouring dwellings (Figure 3 above).

 

The subject proposal effectively involves the enclosure of a portion of the ground floor balcony of one unit at the southern edge of the development. However, it should be noted that the area that is proposed to be enclosed is not readily visible from street level on Arcadia Street. It is therefore considered that the works will not result in the removal of any primary architectural elements of the building which provide articulation and reduce the overall bulk of the building.

 

Consequently, the proposed works will be consistent with the relevant planning objectives of the R3 zone in that they will not delete any existing desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form. It is also noted that the proposed works will not constitute an undesirable precedent for other units within the complex in this regard; as the development (as conditioned), will not result in any significant visible alteration to the exterior of the building from a public space.

 

Whilst the proposed extension of Unit 2 towards the southern end of the site is broadly supported, it is recommended that the proposal to demolish the existing planter boxes from the southern edge of the private open space provided to Unit 2 is not supported. The existing planter boxes and the vegetative screening that they provide serve a number of important functions. The planter boxes unify the residential units as viewed from Arcadia Street; and serve to soften the visual appearance of Unit 2 (including the proposed works) as viewed from Arcadia Street (yellow arrow, Figure 3 below).

 

Should approval be granted to remove the planter boxes, an effective visual barrier between the subject unit and Arcadia Street would be deleted. The planter boxes also serve a necessary function for the overall site in that they soften the appearance of the complex as a whole, as viewed from nearby dwellings and from surrounding streetscapes.

 

The removal of existing planter boxes from within the site would set an undesirable precedent for other units within the complex; and a condition is therefore recommended that the planter boxes are to be retained with plans required to be amended accordingly. It should be noted that retaining the planter boxes will still result in a functional private open space for the occupants of the subject dwelling, with dimensions of 3.3m x 12m.

 

Figure 3:  The existing residential flat building on the site as viewed from Arcadia Street. Yellow arrow shows existing planter boxes which serve to screen the proposed works and to unify and soften the site as viewed from Arcadia Street and neighbouring dwellings.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications to the existing development have been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012 and Council’s Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan, as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.   The proposed development (as conditioned), will not impose any significant impacts on the subject site or neighbouring dwellings with regard to  visual bulk and amenity and is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exception to a development standard under Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & 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/96/2014 for Alterations and additions to Unit 2 including removal of internal walls and extension to the living area, at No. 2/90-96 Beach Street, Cooge, 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.     The existing planter boxes on the southern and south-eastern edges of the private open space for Unit 2 are to be retained. Plans are to be amended to reflect this requirement, prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report for 2/90 - 96 Beach Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  8 April 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D40/14

 

 

Subject:                  146A Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/95/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/95/2014

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Change of use and fit out as a Traditional Thai Massage premises

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Wirat Wangsupradilog

Owner:                         Mr A C Elliot

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the change of use and fit out of the premises as a Traditional Thai Massage premises. Existing signage is proposed to be replaced to reflect the name of the new business.

 

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 Traditional Thai Massage is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Anzac Parade, Kensington and consists of a commercial tenancy at ground floor level with shop top housing above. Business premises are located to the north and south of the subject site and shop top housing is common throughout the locality. The area is primarily commercial in nature.

 

Figure 1:  The subject site as viewed from Anzac Parade. Existing business identification signage is proposed to be replaced with the name of the new business.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

Nature of the Use:

Massage will be carried out in the four treatment rooms by a maximum of 3 staff. The 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.

 

Hours of Operation:

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

 

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, 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/95/2014 for the change of use and fit out as a Traditional Thai Massage premises, at No. 146A Anzac Parade, Kensington, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 146A Anzac Parade, Kensington

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  8 April 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D41/14

 

 

Subject:                  14 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly (DA/469/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/469/2011/B

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of the approved development by extension of ground and first floors to rear, internal changes, alteration to roof line, alteration to front first floor balcony, increase in width of garage door, increase in level of front patio and deletion of pool

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Mrs J Gordon & Mr R A Gordon

Owner:                         Mrs J Gordon & Mr R A Gordon

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ů

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Summary

 

This application to modify the consent is referred to the Planning Committee meeting for consideration, as the original development application was determined at the Planning Committee Meeting of the 6 December 2011.

 

The original application detailed alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including construction of a first floor level with elevated front balcony, extension of garage, raising level of the podium terrace above the garage, internal reconfiguration, installation of swimming pool at rear and associated basement and landscape works.

 

A previous Section 96(2) application considered and approved at a Council meeting involved the extension of the first floor level towards the rear, alteration to windows, an increase in height of the rear ground level extension, relocation of air conditioning unit and conversion of additional sub floor area to rumpus room.

 

The current application is made pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 detailing an extension of ground and first floors to the rear, internal changes, alteration to roof line providing a clerestory roof, increase in size of front first floor balcony, increase in width of garage door, change in level of front patio over garage and deletion of pool in rear yard.

 

Two submissions have been received in response to the current Section 96 application. Their primary concerns with this application are that the application is not substantially the same as originally approved as required under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the proposed first floor extension and associated balcony will result in adverse privacy impact on their enjoyment and use of their rear balconies.

 

In relation to whether the current application can be considered under Section 96 of the Act, it is considered that the modifications sought remain substantially the same as the original approval. In particular, despite the added floor area sought, the application remains materially the same being a first floor addition to an existing-semi detached dwelling. The additions in at the rear of the site will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties subject to the rear balcony being deleted from the application.

 

In relation to rear first floor balcony, it is acknowledged that there will be added privacy impacts; however on balance it is considered that these are acceptable. As detailed in this report, privacy impacts can be mitigated by screening or conditioning the amendment and deletion of certain components and any view loss is considered to be acceptable.

 

Therefore subject to the deletion of the balcony and other minor modifications, the application is recommended for approval.

 

Proposal

 

The section 96 application seeks to modify the original consent as follows:

 

·      Extend the ground floor at the rear

·      Extend the first floor inclusive of an additional bedroom, bathroom and balcony at the rear

·      Reconfigure basement level to allow internal access from the garage

·      Extend width of garage entrance

·      Delete approved swimming pool

 

Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 1 in DP 217686, No. 14 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly NSW 2031. The site is located on the northern side of Eastbourne Avenue, between Bruce Avenue and Ocean Street. The site slopes from the rear to the street with a fall of approximately 5.9m. The site has a frontage of 6.985m and a rear width of 6.555m and an overall area of 242.3sqm (by survey).

 

 

At present, the site accommodates a single-storey semi-detached dwelling, with garage with terrace fronting Eastbourne Avenue.

 

The site is adjoined to the east by a similarly configured single-storey semi-detached house that shares a common wall with the subject building. To the west is a single-storey detached dwelling. To the north are dwelling houses fronting Shackel Avenue sited on higher ground. To the south is the Clovelly Beach reserve. The locality is predominantly characterised by lower density residential developments on sites with similar topographies.

 


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:

 

18 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly NSW 2031

20 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly NSW 2031

 

Issue: Reduction of privacy

Comment: The proposed rear balcony has been deleted from the application as a condition of consent and the rear doors are conditioned to be reduced in size so that they become windows with a sill height of 1200mm above the internal floor level. The rear setback is considered to provide adequate separation between the rear of the proposed modification and the rear elevated balconies of the neighbouring sites to the rear. With specific reference to the neighbour’s site directly opposite at 20 Shackel Avenue, the proposed first floor level sits 1.92m below the neighbour’s rear terrace floor level and 17.7m separates the proposed rear elevation of the subject dwelling and the neighbour’s terrace. Moreover, the proposal is for a bedroom which is a traditionally low use room that would contain its own privacy measures.

 

View towards the subject site from living room (bathroom behind) at 20 Shackel Avenue

 

View towards subject site from end of elevated rear balcony of 20 Shackel Avenue. Note: deletion of the balcony means the first floor rear elevation is 1255mm further beyond the end of the existing awning.

 

View towards the subject site from ground level elevated balcony at 18 Shackel Avenue showing also the neighbours deck level relative to the subject site.

 

Issue: Greater than allowable floor space ratio

Comment: There is no maximum floor space ratio applicable to the site. A merit assessment against the relevant objectives indicates the proposal satisfies the objectives.

 

Issue: Error in calculation of the FSR

Comment: The definition of gross floor area has changed since the assessment of the original and previous section 96 applications. The floor space ratio for the current development measures 0.93:1 based on the current definition of gross floor area under the RLEP 2012, but as detailed above, there is no maximum floor space ratio applicable to the site.

 

Issue: Non-complying height

Comment: The proposal does not seek to increase the height of the development above that which has been originally approved.

 

Issue: Increase in ridge line and view loss

Comment: The ridge line is being maintained as originally approved and despite the development moving slightly forward it is considered that based on the analysis carried out in the original application that there will continue to be a fair sharing of views from the rear neighbours properties namely that at no. 18 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly.

 

Issue: The proposed modifications are significant and therefore do not comply with the definition of substantially the same development.

Comment: the proposal remains within the scope of the original approved development that is for a first floor addition to the existing semi detached dwelling. In so far as the design is concerned, the modification to the roof form is neither significant having regard to scale nor massing and it does not result in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties amenity.

Issue: The development is now classified as a three storey development and has important implications with regard to the actual FSR achieved by the previously approved development.

Comment: Despite the classification of the building as a part-two/part-three storey development, the overall bulk, massing and scale associated with the modifications to the rear largely relates to the two storey component of the development which are not considered to have any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Issue: Total cost of development has not varied based on the original estimate

Comment: An assessment against Cordells has been carried out based on the nature of the modifications carried out –see compliance report.

 

Site history

Original: Approval granted at the Planning Committee Meeting held on 6 December 2011 to carry out alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling including construction of a first floor level with elevated front balcony, extension of garage, raising level of the podium terrace above the garage, internal reconfiguration, installation of swimming pool at rear, new basement laundry/storage area and associated works.

 

Section 96 “A”: Approval granted at the Planning Committee Meeting held on 12 June 2012 to modify the original consent by increasing the first floor addition at the rear, alter and add new windows, excavate additional basement area for rumpus room and other minor modifications. It is noted that condition 60 relating to the treatment of a previously approved first floor west facing window imposed on the previous consent is not longer required and it is therefore recommended for deletion as part of the recommendation made in this report.

 

Section 96 Assessment

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act), as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria have been complied with:-

 

a)  it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

 

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

 

c)  it has notified the application

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

In accordance with Section 96 of the Act, the proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter the originally approved development for basement, ground and first floor alterations and additions. The essence of the development will be substantially the same development as the originally approved development and therefore for the purposes of legislative requirements it is eligible for assessment under Section 96(2) of the Act.

 

As discussed in the relevant Key issues sections of this report, the proposed modifications will not introduce any significant additional environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality and it is in the public interest to consider the assessment and recommendations made in this report.

 

Key Issues

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Approved

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

4.3 Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

9.5m

9.5m

Yes

4.4 (2B) Floor Space Ratio

No maximum

0.74:1*

Section 96 A: 0.95:1*

0.93:1 (226.15sqm)

 

Merit assessment against objectives.

*Calculations based on the previous RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) definition of gross floor area.

 

Floor Space Ratio

The RDCP 2013 identifies floor space ratio (FSR) as a measure that assists in controlling the mass and bulk of a development. The FSR operates in conjunction with building height, wall height and setback controls to define the 3D space within which a development may occur. The RLEP 2012 does not provide maximum numerical provisions for sites that are less than 300sqm and requires a merit assessment of the floor space ratio. It is noted that the underlying purpose of requiring a merit assessment relates to the understanding that sites measuring less than 300sqm were part of pre-car era of small lot subdivision and that these sites have been the subject of numerous varying scales of developments.

 

The floor space ratio of the modified development as defined under the current RLEP is 0.93:1. Certain elements are excluded from the calculations including: stairs, basement storage areas and car parking. Included in the calculations is the basement rumpus room. It is noted that if the basement was excluded from the calculations the proposed modifications would have a floor space ratio of 0.807:1 which is only marginally higher than the maximum floor space ratio allowed for larger sites between 300 and 450sqm.

 

Nonetheless, a merit/qualitative assessment of the application is required and whether the proposal satisfies the floor space ratio objectives under Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012.

 

The relevant objectives for FSR in the RLEP 2012 seek to:

 

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

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

c)  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.

 

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

 

The additional building bulk is proposed to the rear ground and first floor level of the originally approved development. It is located furthest away from the streetscape and public domain and it will not affect the amenity or character of the locality. In addition, the proposed modifications are also considered to be consistent with the scale of other developments in the locality, of which there are several examples, showing similar scales at the front elevations. In relation to the rear the closest example resembling the scale of the proposed modifications is that located at No. 10 Eastbourne Avenue and shown at right in the photos below.

 

Photo taken from top level balcony at rear of 18 Shackel Avenue showing the subject site at left (grey blue roof) and No. 10 Eastbourne Avenue - a two storey semi-detached dwelling two blocks down to the right. The arrow in the photo points to the rear awning of the existing dwelling, the proposed rear extent of the first floor level balcony is at the end of this awning.

 

Photo taken from the rear of the subject site looking west towards No. 10 Eastbourne Avenue: It shows the existing rear awning at left (being the rear extent of the proposed development) and its relationship with the bulk and scale of the two storey dwelling at No. 10 Eastbourne Avenue.

 

Whilst the rear setback of No 10 Eastbourne is greater than that being sought by this application, the rear setback sought readily complies with the minimum rear setback control under the Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013. Further, the rear setback is not dissimilar to the prevailing rear setbacks of other properties along this side of Eastbourne Avenue and those in the vicinity as shown in the aerial photo below.

Aerial photo: showing the subject site, its first floor level rear alignment (balcony deleted) signified by the red line and surrounding developments.

 

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

 

The application continues to be well articulated as well as maintaining visual interest by utilising stepped elevations and use of a mixture of materials breaking up the bulk and scale of the development. The proposal also responds to environmental and energy needs by replacing the originally approved roof with a clerestory roof, both maximizing sunlight and solar access to the floor level below without altering its profile and therefore maintaining a fair sharing of views.

 

c)  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 key aspects of the proposed modifications relate to the degree to which neighbouring properties’ amenity is compromised having regard to privacy protection. The proposed additions at first floor level (28.09sqm) reduces the northern rear setback down from the originally approved minimum of 17m to 10m and locates the additions further to the rear, adjacent to neighbouring properties rear yard areas. The proposed windows and rear balcony will now be closer to the rear yards of neighbouring sites. The proposed rear-most west facing window (w26) and the rear balcony will directly overlook the neighbouring properties rear yard areas. Certain ameliorating conditions can be applied to modify and treat this window; however in relation to the balcony, it is not considered that any additional measures – that is privacy screens - could be applied to suitably ameliorate the privacy intrusion from the balcony and thus it is conditioned to be deleted. Due to the balcony’s deletion, the air conditioning unit is required to be relocated to ground floor or basement level in order to reduce the potential for adverse amenity impacts on the eastern neighbour’s rear yard area. In a similar vein, the first floor rear facing glass doors are conditioned to be replaced with windows that have a minimum sill height of 1200mm above the internal floor level (see further below: visual and acoustic privacy section).

 

Overall, the proposed development is appropriately located within the site and contains a 3D envelope that will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties or streetscape character subject to conditions being adopted.

 

Rear Setback

The minimum setback control under the RDCP 2013 is 8m for the site. The table below shows the variation in the rear setbacks between the original and those proposed under this application:

 

 

Ground

First floor

Original rear ground setback

Between 10.5m and 13.15m

Between 17.1m and 18.8m

Proposed rear setback

Between 8.9m and 11m

Between 10m and 11m

 

The RDCP makes provisions for balconies and the like under its measurement rules which states as follows:

 

Setback distances are measured from the boundary to the outer face of the building elevation, excluding minor projecting features, such as awnings, sun hoods, screening devices and the like.

 

As a whole, the proposal is moving closer to the rear boundary and continues to comply with the minimum rear setback controls; however the proposed balcony is not considered to satisfy the associated privacy objectives under the RDCP 2013. In addition, the proposed balcony is not considered to be a reasonable development expectation in so far as the privacy impacts are considered to far outweigh the minor added benefits of it attached to a low use room with a secondary aspect to the rear.

 

The balcony is therefore recommended for deletion from the application.

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

Windows

The RDCP 2013 requires direct viewing into habitable room windows be minimised through one or more of the following relevant measures:

 

·      Windows are offset or staggered

·      Minimum 1600mm window sills

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

·      Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

·      Creating a recessed courtyard (minimum 3m x 2m) with windows facing courtyard and not opposite neighbours dwellings.

·      Orientate living and dining windows away from similar opposite (that is front or rear or side courtyard    

 

The following aspects of the development will have a direct view into the rear yard of the neighbour’s site at No. 12 Eastbourne Avenue:

 

·      First floor west facing rear most bedroom window (W26).

 

To address this impact, a condition is included restricting this window to either be fixed to or be increased to a minimum sill of 1600mm and for it to be treated with obscured glazing below this height.

 


Balcony

The RDCP 2013 requires that upper floor balconies are oriented to the street or rear yard of the site and that where there is the potential for intrusion, that privacy screens (1600mm high and 70% opaqueness) be used to minimise overlooking of POS.

 

The rear first floor balcony will allow for direct overlooking across to the rear yards of neighbouring properties. The position of the balcony towards the rear most section of the dwelling means that the provision of privacy screens will not suitably ameliorate overlooking and cross viewing into neighbouring sites and therefore recommended for deletion. The deletion of the balcony will require the relocation of the AC unit and replacement of rear glass doors with windows.

 

Air conditioning unit

The AC unit is located adjacent to the eastern neighbour’s rear yard and may have the potential for adverse acoustic privacy impacts. Hence, a condition is included requiring the AC unit to be relocated to either ground or basement level.

 

Rear first floor doors

The rear first floor doors are required to be replaced with windows with a minimum sill height of 1200mm above floor level with no increase in width – similar to the dimensions originally approved. It is considered that an opening of this size attached to a traditional low use room, represents distinctly less privacy impact than that associated with the balcony thus ensuring only minor levels of cross viewing and as indicated previously the rear setback is considered sufficient.

 

Overall, subject to appropriate conditions being added, the proposed modifications will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

View Sharing 

The proposal will result in additional building bulk towards the rear of the dwelling however there is no increase in height or width of the development in this part of the site.

 

As such, the proposed development should not result in the loss of any high quality views from neighbouring sites and the public domain. The proposal will therefore satisfy the relevant objectives of the RDCP with regard to view sharing.

 

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 salient points of the above assessment are that the proposal meets the criteria for it to be considered under Section 96(2) of the Act in so far as the essence of the application is not changing. The proposal also complies with the RDCP 2013 controls for rear setbacks and as discussed in the key issues section above, it has a bulk ands scale that is not inconsistent compared with other developments in the vicinity and is not likely to be inconsistent with future development in the area. Where the proposal is identified as resulting in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, proposed conditions suitably address these aspects of the development either by treatment, relocation or deletion.

 

Overall, the proposal modifications, as conditioned, are suitable for the site, they satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/469/2011 for modification of the approved development by extension of ground and first floors to rear, internal changes, alteration to roof line, alteration to front first floor balcony, increase in width of garage door, increase in level of front patio and deletion of pool at No. 14 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly, 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

 

·              Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

DA01a

2/11/11

4 November 2011

Michael Folk Architects and Interiors Pty. Ltd.

DA02a

2/11/11

DA05a

2/11/11

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

A115876

23 June 2011

27 June 2011

 

as amended by the following Section 96 details:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

DA01b

1/03/12

18 April 2012

Michael Folk Architects and Interiors Pty. Ltd.

DA02b

1/03/12

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

A115876_03

1 March 2012

18 April 2012

 

As amended by the following Section 96 details:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

S9601[C]

10/02/14

12 February 2014

Michael Folk Architects and Interiors Pty. Ltd.

S9602[C]

10/02/14

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

A115876_04

11 February 2014

12 February 2014

 

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:

 

·           Add the following Conditions to Condition No. 3:

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

iv)    The rear balcony shall be deleted from the development. The rear first floor glass doors shall be replaced with windows with a minimum sill height of 1.2m above the internal floor level.

 

v)      The following window must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

 

·          West facing first floor window to the master bedroom (W26)

 

Details demonstrating compliance with the conditions above shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to a (amended) Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

Note: An amended BASIX certificate is required to be submitted to Council and the PCA in accordance with the amendments required above.

 

·           Amend Condition No. 11 to read:

Section 94A Development Contributions

11.   In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 12 July 2012, based on an added development cost of $85,017.60 to a total of $563,517.60,the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $5,635.17

       

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

 

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

 

·           Delete Conditions 45, 46, 47, & 48

 

·           Add the following Condition:

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

51a) The applicant must meet the full cost for a Council approved contractor to:

 

·      Reconstruct/extend the concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site, to council’s requirements. This condition must be satisfied prior to the must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’. Note: For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated

 

·              Delete Condition No. 60.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER