Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 13 May 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                                                                                                 13 May 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, 13 May 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 - 8 April 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.

D42/14      2 St Marks Road, Randwick (DA/98/2010/D) - Deferred.............................. 1

D43/14      369 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/371/2013) - Deferred........................... 7

D44/14      15 Bond Street, Maroubra (DA/566/2013) - Deferred............................... 13

D45/14      149 Perouse Road, Randwick (DA/694/2013) - Deferred........................... 23

D46/14      323 Malabar Road, Maroubra (DA/490/2012/A)........................................ 25

D47/14      230A Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/632/2013)...................................... 29

D48/14      10-16 Bream Street, Coogee (DA/656/2011/C)........................................ 47

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil   

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                 13 May 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D42/14

 

 

Subject:                  2 St Marks Road, Randwick (DA/98/2010/D) - Deferred

Folder No:                   DA/98/2010/D

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Introduction:

 

The subject S96 (2) application to Council (DA/98/2010/D) was for the installation of four (4) external kitchen exhaust fans on the southern elevation of the roof of the Duke of Gloucester Hotel. 

 

The subject Section 96 application was considered at Council’s Planning Committee Meeting on 10 September 2013. At the meeting, it was resolved:

 

“(Stavrinos/Matson) that this matter be deferred for mediation to allow the applicant, objectors and neighbouring residents to meet to discuss the potential relocation of the mechanical ventilation system and ducts to the northern side of the roof.”

 

Mediation took place on 13 November 2013 between the owner of the Duke of Gloucester Hotel and the owners of neighbouring dwellings.

 

Subsequent to the mediation, amended plans were submitted to Council on 25 February 2014. The amended plans were notified to neighbouring dwellings from 12 March 2014 until 26 March 2014. One submission was received from a neighbouring resident at No. 12 St Marks, Randwick endorsing the new location of the plant and equipment and requesting that the Council ensure that the filters are effective and the applicant implement these works within a given time limit.

 

The amended plans show the relocation of three (3) external kitchen exhaust fans to the northern side of the roof of the Duke of Gloucester Hotel and the installation of one (1) air intake structure on the southern side of the roof of the Hotel.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner noted that the amended plans were insufficient; given that they did not accurately depict the proposed works in elevation.

 

Further amended plans were received on 31 March 2014, however these plans were not required to be re-notified to neighbouring dwellings. It was considered that the scope of the changes was evident from the plans that had been previously notified and that the amended plans did not deviate from the works that had been notified up until that date.

 

Issues:

 

The proposal to relocate the exhaust plant and equipment to the northern elevation of the roof is generally supported on heritage and environmental grounds.

 

Heritage:

Council’s Heritage Planner advised the assessing officer on 3 April 2014 that the existing parapet wall on the northern side of the hotel will provide an adequate level of screening for the proposed works and that no further objection is raised to the amended proposal on heritage grounds.

 

It is further noted that amended plans submitted to Council on 31 March 2014 show that the proposed plant and equipment on the northern elevation of the hotel will express a relatively low profile to the roof form; and that the plant and equipment will be painted to colour match the existing roof of the heritage listed hotel.

 

Environmental Health:

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that no further objection is raised to the amended proposal on environmental health grounds.

 

However, Council’s Environmental Health Officer also requested that an amended condition be recommended to Council. The amended condition (Condition Number 127) is in relation to the submission of further acoustic reports to Council, prior to the operation of the plant and equipment (or prior to the issue of an occupation certificate for the works), as well as six months after the plant and equipment has been in operation. Suitable conditions are also included in the recommendation requiring certification that the relocated mechanical ventilation equipment and emission control system has been installed and will operate in accordance with the relevant Australia Standard.

 

The proposal (as amended) satisfies the requirements of Section 96 and the relevant heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The modified plans submitted to Council on 31 March 2014 are a suitable compromise in that they provide a suitable balance between the proposed use of the mechanical plant and equipment and the impacts of the proposal in relation to heritage and environmental health issues.

 

The proposal (as amended), satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development as that which was approved by Council. It is considered that the proposed modifications will not result in any significant impacts on the subject heritage site, on neighbouring dwellings or on the streetscape; and they are considered to be acceptable in this regard.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the responsible Consent Authority, grant consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/98/2010 by removing and relocating three (3) existing exhaust fans on the roof and relocating new fans and alterations within the roof void area at No. 2 St Marks Road, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

A.      Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01 to DA05, stamped received by Council 18 February 2010, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the following: -

 

·       Section 96 ‘A’ plans numbered DA01, DA02, DA04, DA05, stamped and received by Council on the 24th of December 2010 and DA03 Rev A stamped and received by Council on the 27th of January 2011

·       Section 96 ‘B’ plans numbered DA2.20, DA3.10, and DA3.20 all dated 7/08/2012, drawn by Philip Leamon and Associates, stamped and received by Council on 27 August 2012, and

·       Section 96 ‘C’ plans numbered DA2.10C, DA2.20C and DA3.20C, all dated 5 November 2012, prepared by Philip Leamon and Associates and received by Council in 30 November 2012, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, and

·        Section 96 ‘D’ plans numbered 1 of 2 (Revision B), prepared by Speedy Ventilation Pty Ltd. And received by Council on 31 March 2014; and plans numbered DA3.10 (Revision G), DA3.20 (Revision G), DA2.10 (Revision G) and DA2.20 (Revision G), all dated 28 March 2014, prepared by Philip Leamon and Associates and received by Council in 31 March 2014, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96’D’ plans and detailed in the Section 96’D’ application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

B.      Amend number of conditions:

115.    Architectural details are to be submitted of the metal balustrade of the reinstated corner balcony.  Heritage advice should be sought to ensure accurate reconstruction of the open balcony.  Drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

116.    Architectural details are to be submitted of any required modification of existing metal balustrades to the northern balcony for BCA compliance.  Modifications are to be carried out to avoid damage to original balustrades.  Drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

117.    Details of the proposed paint scheme to the underside of the new ground level awning are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

118.    Any false ceiling should be installed to ensure the plaster cornices are not damaged and so that these ceilings can be removed in future. 

 

119.    Stone cladding to columns should be installed so that surfaces are not damaged and so that this cladding can be removed in future. 

 

         Plant and Equipment

120.    The proposed operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

121.    The existing windows which will be affected by the lift installation must be retained (including interior joinery details including architraves and sills) and blanked off to obscure the view of the lift shaft from the exterior.

 

122.    Hydraulic details are to be submitted of the proposed lift installation indicating the extent of the required over-run above the proposed lift to confirm that there is no penetration of the existing roof.  Details are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

123.    Any additional false ceilings and cladding to walls and columns must be installed to ensure that original surfaces such as plaster cornices are not damaged and so that these elements can be removed in future. 

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003 and to ensure public health and safety:

124.    The store room must be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2010, Australia & New Zealand Food Standards Cods and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004, Design, construction and fit-out of food premises.

 

C.         Add the following conditions:

125.    Prior to commencing any works or before a Construction Certificate is issued in relation to the works the subject of the S96 Modification DA/98/2010/D (which ever comes first), a statement is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant (and a copy is to be forwarded to Council), verifying that the proposed works, as contained within the section 96’D’ application, when undertaken will be sufficient to ensure that the noise from all mechanical plant and equipment associated with the premise will comply with the intrusive  and amenity criteria requirements, as detailed in the NSW EPA Industrial Noise Policy and also the condition No. 15 of DA/98/2010/A as issued in the Land and Environment Court (proceedings No 11047 of 2011) when measured at the most affected residential property.

 

126.    Emission control equipment shall be provided in the mechanical exhaust system serving the cooking appliances, to effectively minimise the emission of odours, vapours and oils. 

 

Details of the proposed emission control equipment must be provided in the documentation for the construction certificate relating to the 96’D’ application and be approved by Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, prior to issuing of a construction certificate for the 96’D’ application.

 

127.    Following the completion of works the subject of this amended application, an acoustic compliance report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council:

 

a)     In relation to the mechanical plant, prior to commencement of use or prior to an occupation certificate being issued (whichever comes first); and

b)     6 months after commencement of use of the mechanical exhaust plant and equipment; and

c)     From time to time as requested by Council

 

which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997; NSW Environment Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance); and relevant conditions of consent, specifically condition 15 of DA/98/2010/A to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

The assessment must include (but not be limited to):

 

i)      Monitoring from the nearest affected residential premises

ii)     Monitoring and assessment during the use and operation of the premises

iii)    Compliance monitoring shall be carried out during the times when the nearby residential and public domain areas are likely to be most affected.

iv)    The report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

 

128.    Prior to an occupation certificate being issued or prior to the use of the mechanical ventilation equipment commencing, certification is to be prepared by a competent person and submitted to Council confirming that the mechanical ventilation exhaust and emission control system installed under the s.96’D’ approval has been installed and operates in accordance with AS 1668 parts 1 and 2.

 

129.    The use and operation of the kitchen/cooking mechanical exhausts and ventilation systems must only occur between 7:00am – 10:00pm only.

 

130.    The installation of proposed fans and attenuators within the space between the roof and the ceiling is to be carefully carried out to avoid damage to any original upper level ceilings. 

 

D.      Add the following advisory notes:

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and requirements.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

A1

As referred to in Condition No. 1 above, please find below the referenced condition copied for ease and reference:

 

Condition 15 of DA/98/2010/A

Land & Environment court Proceedings no. 11047 of 2011

 

“Noise from all mechanical plant and equipment associated with the premises shall comply with the intrusive and amenity requirements (for suburban area) of the NSW EPA Industrial noise Policy (INP). This requires noise levels to not exceed background + 5 dBA and 55 dBA daytime, 45 dBA evening and 40 dBA night time, when measured inside the boundary or outside a bedroom window of any affected residence. Modifying factors should be applied if the plant has any annoying tonal or other characteristics as per the INP requirements.”

 

A2

The most stringent (lowest) of either the intrusive or amenity criterion should be used.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Report 2 St Marks Road, Randwick - 10 September 2013

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 13 May 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D43/14

 

 

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

Folder No:                   DA/371/2013

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Introduction

 

The application was referred to the Planning Committee Meeting of the 11 March 2014 as proposal involved a request for an exception to the floor space ratio and height of buildings development standard by greater than 10%.

 

At the Council’s Planning Committee Meeting on 11 March 2014, when it was resolved:

 

“(Andrews/Stavrinos) that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to address the issues raised by Council’s development assessment staff.”

 

Issues

 

The applicant has amended the proposal to reduce the floor space ratio to comply with the LEP standard reduced the extent of the upper level rear terrace and deleted the new storage area behind the garage.

 

The development as amended still exceeds the maximum height of building standard and the request to vary that standard is assessed below.

 

Request to vary development standard

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

 

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 satisfactory and strict compliance with the building height is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

·      The non complying height of the building primarily results from the fall of the site towards the rear and reflects that the addition to the building maintains the existing floor level of the building and the overall height of the building is not because of an inappropriate design.

 

·      The height of the building will remain consistent with some surrounding buildings which also due to the topography of the site are higher towards the rear of the site. Also, the resultant height will not result in any significant adverse impacts to the amenity of the adjoining properties with respect to overshadowing, loss of privacy and view impacts.

 

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 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 consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and will not have any unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary, in this case, for maintaining the low density housing forms envisaged under the LEP for 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

 

It is recommended that the application to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy at 369 Maroubra Road, Maroubra be approved.

 

 

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. 371/2013 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at  369 Maroubra Road, Maroubra subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 369 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.

Executive Report 11 March 2014 - 369 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

3.

DA Compliance Report 11 March 2014 - 369 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 13 May 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D44/14

 

 

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

Folder No:                   DA/566/2013

Author:                   Frank Ko, Coordinator Fast Track     

 


Introduction

 

The application was considered at the Planning Committee Meeting on 11 March 2014 as the proposal involves a request for an exception to the building height standard by more than 10%. At the meeting, it was resolved:

 

“(Matson/Shurey) that the application be deferred to allow for mediation between the applicant and objectors in relation to view sharing issues associated with the rear of the development.”

 

Issues

 

A) Mediation Session

Mediation was held on 9 April 2014 between the applicant and objectors. The following comments were provided by the Mediator:

 

a)     The applicant agrees that the height of the pergola will be no higher than the 2008 approved pergola.

 

b)     The objector from No.11 is prepared to accept the reduction as per above if they can be assured that the headland and ocean horizon views will be retained and require a new view loss analysis showing total extent of the roof of the pergola.

 

c)     The objectors claim that there were errors in the view analysis.

 

d)     Objector’s position is that the applicant has had a considerable concession with the height of the development and reduced western side setbacks.

 

e)     The extent of the raised terrace for which development control plans and LEP have been relaxed and consider the loss of the pergola to be a minor concern to the applicant.

 

The following comments are provided in response to the items above:

 

·      A condition of consent is recommended which requires the overall height of the proposed pergola to be reduced by 300mm to the same height as the pergola approved under the previous DA (DA/682/2008).      

 

·      The reduction in the height of the pergola to that of the previously approved pergola will maintain the view to Malabar Headland, as illustrated by the original and revised view loss analysis. The original view loss analysis included the installation of height poles confirmed by surveyor which demonstrated the extent of the previously approved and proposed pergola.

 

·      The original view loss analysis included photos of the view and the installed height poles. However, the red line shown on the photo was only intended to indicate the additional length of the new pergola rather than the new height.  In order to clarify the extent of view loss impact, a revised view loss analysis is provided in Part C of this report.

 

B)     Further submission

After the mediation session, the adjoining owners of 11 Bond Street, Maroubra provided a further submission for Council consideration. The issues and Council officer’s comments are provided in the table below:

 

Issue

Comment

 

-Despite the possible reduction in height of the proposed pergola so that it matches the 2008 approved pergola the new proposed pergola will still obstruct views from the vertical studs supporting the pergola which could be filled in at a later date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The pergola almost completely destroys their view while providing a relatively minor amenity to the applicants and should be rejected or be no greater than the previous approved pergola, the setback be no less than the previous approval and not in contravention of the DCP requirement of 1200mm and the same construction methods be used at both sides of the pergola so that some glimpses of the view may be retained.

 

-The new garage setback of 930mm from the western side boundary does not comply with the DCP setback of 1200mm, and should be amended to comply with the DCP setback and provide a recess or side courtyard between the house and garage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The vertical extension of the solid western wall of the garage to form the balustrade for the rooftop terrace be rejected in favour of a lighter structure setback to comply with the 1200mm requirement which permits some view sharing and decreases visual bulk as recommended by the DCP and as implemented in neighbouring terraces and currently exists at 15 Bond Street.

 

-The planter box surrounding the second storey balcony impacts upon the view from the living areas of their dwelling and also contravenes controls that relate to visual bulk and setback and the setback should comply with the 1800mm setback in the DCP and not the 1500mm setback referred to in the Council Officer’s report. The balcony should be surrounded by a light balustrade rather than the proposed solid planter box.

 

 

 

 

-The proposed upper level addition contravenes the floor to ceiling height of the DCP of 2700mm from living areas by about 300mm as does the room immediately beneath it.

 

 

 

-The proposed wall height of the building at 10.7m exceeds the DCP of 7m or 8m for steeply sloping sites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Permitting a four level dwelling in a Low Density Residential Zone is an unwarranted precedent that does not meet the objectives of the LEP and DCP to ensure that development does not cause unreasonable impacts upon neighbouring dwellings in terms of view loss or amenity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Consequences of building height excess could include progressive attempts by neighbours to the west to extend the height of houses also beyond controls in order to recover views.

 

-A new independent view analysis should be performed to accurately determine the true view impact of the proposed pergola and other components of the proposed DA.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the vertical posts on the north-western and south-western sides of the pergola are necessary for the structural support of the pergola roof. The applicant has indicated that the number of vertical supports may be limited to a maximum of 5 posts subject to structural engineer’s certification. As a result, an appropriate condition is included in the report which requires the reduction of the timber pergola supports to a maximum of 5 posts subject to structural engineer’s requirements. 

 

As part of the mediation agreement the applicant has agreed to reduce the height of the pergola to match the previously approved pergola to retain more view. In addition, the applicant has also agreed to reduce the number of pergola supports on the western and southern sides of the pergola to further reduce the impact on objector’s property. 

 

 

 

Whilst the proposal does not comply with the side setback control, it should be noted that the applicant has agreed to provide a randomised pattern of timber battens of various size fixed to the external face of the cladding wall to create visual interest to the cladding wall and to minimise the visual bulk when viewed from the objector’s property. An appropriate condition is included in the recommendation of this report which requires the details of compliance to be submitted to and approved by Manager Development Assessment prior to the issue of Construction Certificate. Further, a standard boundary fence up to 2.2m in height could be built as an exempt development under the State policy, which will provide screening for the lower portion of the wall and further reduces the visual bulk of the wall.  It should be also noted that whilst the garage/terrace wall is closer to the side boundary than the approved DA in 2008, the current proposal retains the same wall height and incorporates an open design pergola structure that would be less bulkier than the structure approved in 2008 which includes a portion of solid wall and 1.8m high privacy screen along the north-western side of the terrace above the garage (see comparison in Figure 1 below).

 

The solid wall on the north-western side of the terrace above the garage serves as a balustrade and provides support and visual screening for the BBQ facilities behind. As noted above, the applicant has agreed to provide a change to the external finishes of the wall, which will reduce the visual bulk of the wall. 

 

It is acknowledged that the required setback under the DCP at this level is 1800mm. The impact from the planter box is discussed in the revised view analysis in Part C of this report. In relation to the non-complying side setback, it should be noted that the applicant has indicated that the planter box could be deleted and replaced with an open balustrade provided the area of the balcony can be extended to the outer edge of the planter box. This amendment can be implemented provided the adjoining neighbours are notified and any concerns are appropriately addressed.

 

The proposed ceiling height is below the DCP control of 2700mm, however the height would satisfy the Building Code of Australia which has a minimum ceiling height of 2400mm, and also assists in lowering the overall height of the building.

 

The proposed external wall height of the building has been assessed in the compliance report. It was noted that the highest point of the building was at the middle of the building rather than the rear and would consequently not result in any significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.

The new habitable level of the building projects from the existing rear roof form of the dwelling maintaining its maximum height and whilst providing a new level to the building the overall bulk and scale of the building remains consistent with the scale of surrounding development. The upper level extension is also well setback from the side boundaries and generously complies with the setback controls. As considered in the original report to Council and the accompanying compliance report, the impact of the development to the amenity of the adjoining properties and the locality overall are not considered to be unreasonable.

 

Any subsequent applications for alterations to other dwellings will be assessed under the same criteria as the subject application, which would include view loss analysis.

 

A revised view loss assessment which included photographs taken from the adjoining properties is included in Section C of this report.

 

1.8m high privacy screen

 

Part of western elevation of Approved 2008 DA

Part of western elevation of the Current DA

The red circles above shows the comparison of the two Development Applications. The 2008 approval shows a solid wall which forms part of the living area and a 1.8m high privacy screen. However, the current DA shows an open design structure supporting the pergola.

Figure 1: Part of western elevation of the approved 2008 DA and current DA

 

C)     Revised View Loss Assessment

As noted above, a detailed view loss assessment was provided in the original planning report. However, concern was raised by the adjoining owners of 11 Bond Street that the view loss assessment in the original planning report did not adequately represent the view loss due to the indicative line shown on the photo in the report. In order to clarify the situation, a revised view loss assessment is provided below with additional photos depicting the extent of potential view loss impact from the neighbouring properties.

 

The following photos show the views currently available from the rear ground floor balcony of No. 11 Bond Street:

 

Approximate height of the original proposed pergola

 

Approximate height of the revised pergola (i.e. reduced by 300mm) and is the same height as the approved pergola in 2008

 

Approximate outline of the planter box at first floor level

 

Photo 1: View from the south-eastern portion of the rear ground floor balcony of No. 11 Bond Street taken from a standing position across the subject property.

 

Approximate height of the original proposed pergola

 

Approximate outline of the planter box at first floor level

 

Approximate height of the revised pergola (i.e. reduced by 300mm) and is the same height as the approved pergola in 2008

 

Photo 2: View from the south-western portion of the rear ground floor balcony of No. 11 Bond Street taken from a standing position across the subject property.

 

Approximate height of the original proposed pergola

 

Approximate outline of the planter box at first floor level

 

Approximate height of the revised pergola (i.e. reduced by 300mm) and is the same height as the approved pergola in 2008

 

Photo 3: View from the rear kitchen window of No. 11 Bond Street taken from a standing position across the subject property.

 

The following photos show the views currently available from the rear of the existing dwelling at No. 9 Bond Street:

 

Approximate height of the revised pergola (i.e. reduced by 300mm) and is the same height as the approved pergola in 2008

 

Approximate height of the original proposed pergola

 

Approximate outline of the planter box at first floor level

 

Photo 4: View from rear upper level deck of 9 Bond Street taken from a standing position across the subject and adjoining properties. (NB. Existing panels in the privacy screen have been removed by the occupier to improve the view from that point).

Section 5.6 of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 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 i.e. 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 the planning principles above, the impact on view loss from the neighbouring properties at 9 & 11 Bond Street are assessed and summarised as follows:

 

a)   The views are towards South Pacific Ocean and include partial views of Maroubra beach and 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.

 

b)   The views are obtained from the rear of these properties and are towards south and south-eastern direction across the side/rear boundaries of the adjoining and nearby properties. 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 southeast 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 southeast have in some instances been renovated which have progressively impacted upon the view aspect towards the southeast. The view towards the southeast is primarily from standing and sitting positions.

 

c)   As shown in photos above, the existing ocean view across the subject property from No. 9 Bond Street will be fully retained and the impact would be considered as negligible. However, part of the ocean views from No. 11 Bond Street including the view to the headland will be affected by the proposed development and the extent of the impact would vary depends on the standing/sitting location on the balcony or within the dwelling. For these reasons, it is considered that the impact on No. 11 Bond Street is minor/moderate.

 

      As noted previously, Senior Commissioner Roseth stated that the expectation to retain side and sitting views is often unrealistic. As such, the difficulty of maintaining all the views to No. 11 Bond Street due to its single storey height from Bond Street, the position of its balcony and windows behind the predominant rear building setback and its view across a side boundary should also be taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of the view loss.

 

d)   It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in minor/moderate view loss to No. 11 Bond Street. However, it should be noted that the rear portion of the proposed development generally complies in height and the breach in side setback control of approximately 270mm does not significantly add to the view loss. Notwithstanding, the applicant has agreed to reduce the overall height of the pergola structure by 300mm to match the height of the approved pergola in 2008. The applicant has also indicated that the number of supporting posts on the western and southern sides of the pergola can be reduced to further improve view sharing from the neighbouring properties.

 

      Whilst the above amendments will reduce the extent of view loss from 11 Bond Street, it should be noted that a portion of the planter box on the south-western corner of the rear first floor balcony has the potential to block a significant portion of the headland view from the eastern end of the balcony and the kitchen window to No. 11 Bond Street as shown in Photos 1 & 3 above. The applicant has indicated that the planter box could be deleted and replaced with an open balustrade provided the area of the balcony can be extended to the outer edge of the planter box. This amendment can be implemented provided the adjoining neighbours are notified and any concerns are appropriately addressed. However, should Council consider that a portion of the planter box at its south-west corner above be removed, then a suitable condition could be included in the recommendation.

 

On balance, it is considered that the revised proposal provides a reasonable sharing of views having regard to the totality of the views impacted and the difficulty of maintaining all the views to No. 11 Bond Street due to its single storey height from Bond Street, the position of its balcony and windows behind the predominant rear building setback and its view across a side boundary.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the application to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 15 Bond Street be approved subject to the inclusion of recommended non-standard conditions.

 

 

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 relevant 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. 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.

 

Non standard conditions

1(a)  The overall height of the pergola structure above the rear garage terrace shall be reduced to a maximum of RL39.90.

 

1(b)  The number of vertical posts on the north-western and south-western sides of the pergola shall be reduced to a maximum of 5 posts.

 

1(c)  The wall on the north-western side of the garage and terrace above shall be provided with a variation in the external finishes to minimise the visual bulk when viewed from 11 Bond Street. Details of the colour, material and external finishes of the garage wall are to be submitted to and approved by the Manager Development Assessment prior to the issue of Construction Certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Executive Report - 11 March 2014

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.

Compliance Report - 11 March 2014

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 13 May 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D45/14

 

 

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

Folder No:                   DA/694/2013

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

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

 

The application was considered at Council’s Planning Committee Meeting on 11 March 2014. At the meeting, it was resolved:

 

(Matson/Shurey) that the application be deferred for mediation.”

 

Issues

 

A mediation session was held between the applicant and objector on 17 April 2014. Whilst no agreement was reached between the parties, the applicant indicated that they would be prepared to make amendments that:

 

·        delete a bedroom to the rear of the proposed dwelling,

·        reduce the ceiling height of the first floor, and

·        obscurely glaze the window to bedroom No. 3.

 

However, the objector was not satisfied with the proposed amendments and no agreement was reached. The objector indicated that in addition to the amendments offered by the applicant, they are seeking an increase set back of 2m at the front of the building, the ceiling height being reduced to 2.4m, a restriction on plants not to exceed 2m on the southern boundary, painting of the southern wall in a light colour and bedroom No. 3 window to be a highlight. Should Council consider it appropriate that the proposal be amended in the substantive manner suggested by either the applicant or the objector amended plans would be required.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

As there was no agreement to settle of the issues in dispute between the parties, the application is referred back to Council for determination.

 

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.

Executive Report 11 March 2014 - 149 Perouse Road, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.

DA Compliance Report - 149 Perouse Road, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 13 May 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D46/14

 

 

Subject:                  323 Malabar Road, Maroubra (DA/490/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/490/2012/A

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of the approved development by the addition of a lift in the central courtyard, a new wall to Unit 1 at ground floor level and additional floor area to Unit 2 at first and second floor levels

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Rodney Yannakis & Associates

Owner:                         Peter Sakley

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 original consent was determined at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 27 November 2012. The original proposal involved non-compliances with Council’s development standards for floor space ratio and maximum building height (of more than 10%). Consequently, the application was required to be considered at a Council meeting rather than under delegated authority.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the Section 96(2) modification of the approved development by the addition of a lift in the central courtyard, a new wall to Unit 1 at ground floor level and additional floor areas to Unit 2 at first and second floor levels.

 

The original proposal was for the construction of a 3 level plus basement addition to the rear of the existing building containing an additional dwelling with carparking, laundry, bin storage, and water tank in basement.

 

Site

 

The subject site, Lot 1 DP 224181, is located at No 323 Malabar Road, Maroubra, within a small grouping of neighbourhood shops just north of Torrington Road. The site has a frontage (west) of 5.165m to Malabar Road and a depth of 41.053m. The site is irregular in shape and has an area of 211m2. The site slopes moderately away from the front boundary of the site.

 

The site contains an existing two storey mixed use (commercial and residential) building that fronts Malabar Road with a pizza shop at ground floor level and a residential dwelling at ground and first floor level.

 

A right of way is located adjacent to the rear (east) boundary of the site, which enables vehicular access to the rear of properties located to the north of the site.

 

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

 

Figure 2: The subject site as viewed from the right of way at the rear of the site.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Internal Amenity impacts

The proposed lift shaft will significantly impinge upon the approved private open space for Unit 2 at ground floor level, which consists of a courtyard and planter box. The lift shaft will effectively reduce the area of private open space by 3.74m2 and restrict the width of the courtyard to 2.5m. This courtyard also serves as a central void between the two building blocks providing for necessary spatial separation to mitigate the impacts of visual bulk and scale, privacy, and loss of daylight. The new lift is situated on the north western elevation of unit 2 and would significantly restrict solar access to this unit due to the reduction in size of openings to this elevation. The new lift would also be an intrusive element within the courtyard space creating an oppressive sense of enclosure. Should the applicant wish to pursue the introduction of a new lift in the development it should be incorporated within the current floor plate rather than being situated in the courtyard.

 

Visual Privacy:

Unit 2 will be provided with an additional small balcony at the north-western end of the unit; to provide access to the unit via the proposed lift. The balcony is not overly large however will be in regular use due to it being a primary access point to Unit 2.

 

The balcony has the capacity to impose significant privacy impacts on the neighbouring dwelling at 321 Malabar Road, given that the floor level of the balcony (RL 64.4) is 1.2m above the sill height of the window (RL 63.2) and that the balcony is separated from the windows by only 6.5m. The introduction of a privacy screen would not be appropriate as it would need to cover a significant portion of the balcony space hence significantly reducing any amenity that would derive from having a balcony space at this location.

 

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. Whilst the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same development as that previously approved, the proposed lift is not suitably located and will adversely affect the internal amenity of development.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority refuses development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No DA/490/2012 by the addition of a lift in the central courtyard, a new wall to Unit 1 at ground floor level and additional floor areas to Unit 2 at first and second floor levels at 323 Malabar Road, Maroubra, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed lift and alterations to the openings of Unit 2 will adversely impact on the internal amenity of Unit 2 and compromise the enjoyment of the courtyard space.

 

2.       The proposed modification is inconsistent with objectives of the Neighbourhood Centres section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 as it does not ensure that the development provides for the amenity of residents living in the centre.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 323 Malabar Road, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 13 May 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D47/14

 

 

Subject:                  230A Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/632/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/632/2013

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Senior Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                     Construction and strata subdivision of a detached building containing a two (2) bedroom dwelling with one (1) car space and an open subfloor area to the  rear of the existing residential flat building

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                John Spiteri

Owner:                         Ms M McGrath

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 at the request of Councillors Matson, Roberts and Neilson.

 

1.        Proposal

 

The application seeks consent for a new part two (2), part three (3) storey detached building at the rear of the existing residential flat building on the site. The proposed building comprises a two (2) bedroom dwelling. The site presently contains a residential flat building.

 

The proposal also includes landscaping and amendment to the existing strata plan to incorporate the proposed building.

 

Ground floor (Dolphin Street level)

At ground floor level, the proposal comprises open plan kitchen, living and dining area. A small east- facing balcony with privacy screen is provided ancillary to these areas. A single car garage is also provided, accessed via Dolphin Street. 

 

The area below ground floor is proposed as open an open under croft, becoming apparent to the north as the land falls away from the southern boundary.

 

First floor level

The proposed first floor level is contained within the roof form of the building, within an attic style addition. The floor plate comprises two (2) bedrooms and two (2) bathrooms.

 

A site inspection was undertaken on 13 March 2014.

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: The site, as viewed from the intersection of Dolphin Street and Carrington Road. Existing flat building centre of frame.

Figure 2: The location of the proposal, looking toward the western boundary of the site.

 

2.        History

 

DA/181/2012 – 230A Carrington Road, Randwick

A near identical application to that the subject of this assessment was lodged under DA/181/2012.

 

The application was reported to Council’s Planning Committee of 9 April 2013, with a recommendation for approval, subject to conditions. Council resolved to refuse the application, for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

 

1        The SEPP 1 objection to the FSR standard pursuant to RLEP 1998 is not well founded as the proposal is unsuitable for the steeply sloping site and will adversely impact on the visual amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties.

 

It should be noted that a key change of the current application (DA/632/2013), from the previous scheme (DA/181/2012), includes compliance with the FSR standard. Therefore the application does not require the equivalent of a SEPP 1 variation that was previously necessary.

 

Other changes from the previous scheme to the present scheme (DA/632/2013):

 

·      Increase northern side setback from one (1) metre to 1.5 metres;

·      Reduction in north facing window size;

·      Internal reconfiguration at first floor level, addition of west facing windows and changes to previously proposed window locations.

 

Figure 3: Montage of the previous scheme of DA/181/2012, which is largely similar to that presently proposed.

 

3.        Site context

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Carrington Road, at the intersection with Dolphin Street. The site has primary frontage to Carrington Road and secondary frontage to Dolphin Street.

 

The site has primary address of 230A Carrington Road, Randwick, however is also known as 43 Dolphin Street. The parcel is identified as Lot A in DP 341674. Four (4) lots in SP 12279 also apply to the site.

 

The site is of rectangular shape, with a splayed south- east corner fronting the intersection of Carrington and Dolphin Streets.

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Southern, Dolphin Street frontage

7 metres, w/ 3.45 metre splay

436.2m2

Eastern, Carrington Road frontage

44.05 metres

Northern side boundary

46.48 metres

Western, side boundary

9.45 metres

 

The site is presently occupied by a two (2) storey residential flat building fronting Carrington Road, with rear open space area to the west. The building comprises four (4) units.

 

The surrounding area is of mixed low and medium density character. The northern side of Dolphin Street is made up of multi- unit buildings of between two (2) and four (4) stories. The southern side of Dolphin Street is made up predominantly of single dwellings. Commercial uses are present to the north and east along Carrington Road.

 

4.        Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the originally proposed development between 9 October and 23 October 2013, in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

13/39 Dolphin Street, Randwick;

46 Dolphin Street, Randwick;

48 Dolphin Street, Randwick;

3/48 Dolphin Street, Randwick (Head of petition of 6 signatures)

3/230 Carrington Rd, Randwick (3);

4/230 Carrington road, Randwick;

2/230 Carrington Road, Randwick (3);

5/230 Carrington Road, Randwick;

11/52 Coogee Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Legislative:

·    The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

The site and it’s surrounds are zoned R3 –Medium density.

 

The proposal will provides additional housing to the community, consistent with the prevailing character of the immediate visual catchment. As is discussed in the sections below, no significant or unreasonable detrimental impacts are expected to eventuate as a result of the proposal.

 

As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

Built form:

·    Question why the floor space ratio control has changed from 0.65:1 previously to 0.9:1;

·    Regardless of compliance, the design fails to satisfy the objectives of the floor space standard and is an overdevelopment of the site;

·    The development is inconsistent with surrounding character, causing shadowing, privacy and crowding;

·    The visual bulk of the development has not changed for the previous application;

·    External wall height at the rear does not comply;

·    The bulk of the building will negatively impact upon surrounding sites;

·    North elevation height will be extreme- a 3.5 storey building will result to the length of 230 Carrington Street’s side boundary.

 

The built form is discussed in the key issues section below.

RLEP 2012 identifies the site is subject to a 0.9:1 FSR control, where RLEP 1998 allowed 0.65:1.

The block containing the subject site was the specific subject of Council’s Residential Discussion Paper, which was exhibited in October 2011. Appendix E of the discussion paper identifies the “majority of the residential flat buildings [in the subject block] have a built form that is of a higher scale than provided for under the [previous] 2B zone. The proposed change [to an FSR of 0.9:1] is to reflect the existing built form and medium density character of these lots.” Based on this discussion, the floor space control applicable to the whole block was increased to 0.9:1 within the gazetted RLEP 2012.

The definition of ‘gross floor area’ has also changed between LEP’s, in accordance with the Standard Instrument, allowing that the proposed numerical FSR has changed from that previous.

The built form of the proposal is consistent with both the numerical planning controls and the scale of surrounding development, which in a number of cases is significantly larger than the proposal. This indicates the proposal does not comprise an overdevelopment.

The proposal is compliant with the wall height control, providing 8.6 metres where the controls allow for 10.5 metres.

The proposal does not unreasonably impose upon surrounding sites, as discussed in further detail below in respect of bulk and scale, shadow and privacy.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with that envisioned by the planning controls in the medium density zone and imposes reasonable impacts upon the streetscape and surrounds.

Setbacks:

·    Disagree with compliance of front setback. Other buildings are not this close to Dolphin Street;

·    The development sits too close to all three (3) boundaries.

·    Setbacks to both sides do not comply.

Setbacks are discussed in further detail below.

The current scheme is considered to present an appropriate address to Dolphin Street through minimal setback to a secondary frontage on a corner site.

The proposed setbacks afforded to either side elevation do not eventuate in any unreasonable impacts of bulk and scale, particularly given compliance is also achieved to the proposal in respect of floor area, building height and wall height.  Further, the design of the building reduces bulk and scale evident to adjoining sites, with the upper floor contained within the roof form and landscaping provided within each side setback.

 

The scheme allows that minimal environmental impacts are imposed as a result of the proposed setbacks and consequently is supported.

Privacy:

·    The proposal will look directly into units at 230 Carrington Road;

·    The proposal will prevent privacy to 52 Coogee Street;

·    Noise from the site will increase.

 

Privacy is discussed in the key issues section below.

The scheme generally incorporates privacy measures to openings and balconies to address privacy concerns.

Windows facing 52 Coogee Street are all provided with obscuring measures and have sufficient separation. A condition is recommended in obscuring an additional kitchen window that may pose privacy issue to 230 Carrington Road.

Subject to this condition being imposed, the proposal provides a privacy outcome consistent with that required by the DCP to all surrounding sites.

The acoustic privacy implications presented by the proposal are not unreasonable and are considered to be entirely consistent with that of a medium density residential environment.

Solar Access:

·    Concern over daylight and shadow access being retained to adjoining properties;

·    The proposal will reduce solar access to 230 Carrington Road.

 

Solar access is discussed in the key issues section below.

 

As a result of the site orientation and siting of the building, the resulting shadow will be cast predominantly upon Dolphin Street and the adjacent footpath. A marginal amount of morning shadow will reach the eastern landscaped setback of 39- 41 Dolphin Street, in the morning hours only. No shadow is evident to this site beyond roughly 12 noon.

 

Adequate separation between the neighbouring sites is provided to allow for acceptable levels of sunlight.

 

As such, both living and landscaped areas of the adjoining buildings will not see any notable shadow impact as a result of the proposed development.

Drainage and flooding:

·    The Coogee Bay Flood Study  identified the site as being subject to flooding and within a creek line;

·    Question flood levels being implemented in design;

·    Question the ability to construct the building while ensuring stability of the creek slope and avoiding movement to adjoining buildings;

·    Concern flood water may damage the adjoining building as a result;

·    Flooding has previously occurred to 230 Carrington Road and the development will increase the likelihood of this repeating.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal in respect of flooding drainage and landscaping. Their advice identifies that the proposal can be accommodated reasonably on the site without any significant flooding or stability implication, subject to the imposition of appropriate drainage and BCA conditions.

 

Adequate soft landscaped area is provided on the site to facilitate infiltration of stormwater.

Traffic and parking:

·    The proposal will eventuate in additional vehicles being parked on the street;

·    The proposed driveway will reduce on street parking;

·    The proposal will compound the parking issue in Dolphin Street which has several multi unit developments without parking and is used for beach parking;

·    Suggest an analysis of resident parking be undertaken to alleviate parking issues.

 

The site does not presently benefit from any off-street parking. The proposed additional unit, being a two (2) bedroom dwelling within a residential flat building, requires 1.2 spaces be provided. The proposal provides for one (1) space. Council cannot require the existing parking deficiency on the site be resolved through this application.

 

The scheme allows that the garage and crossing generally comply with the controls. The width of the crossing enables minimal on street parking to be compromised as a result.  The garage generally satisfies the parking rate necessary for the proposed new two (2) bedroom dwelling.

 

Council Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal and considered the proposed parking situation to be acceptable, in respect of safety.

Landscaping and tree removal:

·    The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Section B5 of the DCP – Preservation of trees and vegetation;

·    The removal of the existing tree at the rear of 230A Carrington Road will:

Have stability implications

Remove the consistent green line occurring from Coogee Bowling Club to Fred Hollows reserve;

Remove an unusual green area and outlook that should be retained;

Adverse impact on the neighbourhood;

Remove the present natural absorption of traffic noise;

Remove the natural habitat of a significant population of wildlife.

·    This location provides green outlook to several units;

·    Request prevention measures to avoid removal of Council Street trees on Dolphin Street. Its removal is unnecessary and it contributes to the streetscape;

·    The proposal will reduce absorption and increase flooding issues;

·    The landscape plan is inconsistent with the actual plans – construction note 11 refers to landscaping in the front setback.

 

Landscaping and tree removal is discussed in the key issues section below.

 

Section B5 of the DCP identifies aims to protect those trees of particular significance and encourage retention of others where possible. The proposed tree removal has been reviewed by Council’s Landscape Development Engineer, who has provided further discussion of trees in the Compliance Report, attached. The subject trees have not been deemed to be of an importance that their presence should prevent the proposed development and as such, their removal is not opposed. The tree located on the subject site is supported for removal on the grounds of safety, even irrespective of the proposed works. Recommended conditions require the addition of a tree in the central open space.

 

Landscaping and deep soil area is provided in compliance with the requirements of the DCP, thus allowing drainage and absorption to the level expected by Council. Landscaping and planting are provided around the new building, including within the front setback, consistent with Note 11.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have also reviewed the proposal in respect of drainage, flooding and landscaping It was advised the proposal can be reasonably accommodated with these site constraints, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. Stability issues will be suitably addressed via necessary compliance with the BCA.

 

It is not considered the presence of tree on the site is sufficient grounds to prohibit the proposed development. The landscaping and deep soil outcome proposed is considered to be consistent that expected in a medium density residential environment and responds satisfactorily to site constraints.

Other:

·      Question whether the applicant’s assertion of low risk of contamination at the site is accurate given a petrol station not far to the north;

·      Property value;

·      Excavation for footings will be too close to boundaries;

·      The slope of the site is totally unsuitable for development;

·      The proposal will exacerbate damp issues to 230 Carrington Road;

·      The application has not materially changed from that previous.

 

Council has no record of the site being subject to any contamination issues and given a history of residential use predating 1942, the risk of contamination is considered low.

Property value is not a matter that can be considered within the scope of a planning assessment, under S79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

The footings must be wholly contained within the boundaries of the site, as reinforced by conditions.

The proposal is considered to have responded appropriately to the landform and be reasonably constructed on the slope, subject to structural conditions.

The building at 230 Carrington Road is the northern neighbour,. The proposal has no shadow implication for this building and as such should pose no impact upon dampness.

The application has been lodged as a new DA and therefore is not required to materially change. The proposal is considered consistent with the planning controls applicable to the site.

 

5.        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.

 

5.1      Landscaping

Objectives

·      To provide landscaped open space of sufficient size to enable the space to be used for recreational activities, or be capable of growing substantial vegetation.

 

·      To reduce impermeable surface cover including hard paving.

 

·      To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity.

 

·      To improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design. 

 

Controls

5.1.1   Landscaped open space

i)    A minimum of 50% of the site area is to be landscaped open space (see clause (iii) below).

 

ii)    For multi dwelling housing and attached dwellings, a minimum of 50% of the site area is to be landscaped open space. A minimum width of 2m of landscaped open space is to be provided. For attached dwellings, this refers to each allotment individually.

 


5.1.2   Deep soil area

i)    A minimum of 25% of the site area should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

 

The proposal allows for 224.64 square metres or 51% of the site to be retained as landscaped area. Deep soil of 141 square metres or 32.4% of the site, is also retained, both components being compliant with that identified in the above controls.

 

The scheme has been designed with consideration of availability for communal outdoor recreation space, planting and permeable surfaces for drainage. An area of lawn of sufficient size is provided centrally within the site, with perimeter planting located around the proposed building to soften the bulk of the building. The proposed site coverage does not facilitate an unreasonable building footprint or bulk and scale, making effective use of the site.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal in respect of drainage, flooding, landscaping and tree removal. No objections have been raised in respect of these issues. Recommended conditions require a replacement tree be provided in the central open space.

 

The landscaping and deep soil outcome proposed is considered to be consistent with that expected in a medium density residential environment and responds satisfactorily to site constraints.

 

5.2      Setbacks

Objectives

·      To define the street edge and establish or maintain consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the local character.

 

·      To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views. 

 

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

 

The proposal occupies a corner site at the intersection of Carrington and Dolphin Streets. For the purpose of the DCP, the site has been assessed as having two (2) front boundaries.

 

5.2.1   Front Setback

Controls

i)    The front setback on the primary and secondary property frontages must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street.

 

ii)    Notwithstanding the above, the front setback generally must be no less than 3m in all circumstances to allow for suitable landscaped areas to building entries.

 

iii)   Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.

 

iv)   The entire front setback must incorporate landscape planting, with the exception of driveways and pathways.

 

The scheme provides one (1) metre in setback to the bulk of the building, relative to the secondary frontage of Dolphin Street. A planter box is provided within this setback, up to 1100mm in height.

 

The setback provided to the proposed building bulk is consistent with the prevailing setback established to the Dolphin Street elevation of the existing building at 230 A Carrington Road. This approach helps provide a consistent definition of the corner lot, enforcing it’s secondary frontage.

 

The setback provided allows that the building is set off the front boundary and provides a planter box within the front setback to add visual interest and soften the building as it appears from Dolphin Street. The building bulk appears of single storey scale, with the first floor located within the roof form to further articulate the building and significantly reduce potential bulk and scale impact.

 

The imposition of a full three (3) metre setback of the DCP in this instance would have unreasonable effect of prohibiting any viable structure on the corner site. Given the absence of any significant environmental impacts upon neighboring sites or the street as a result, it is considered unreasonable to strictly apply the front setback control in these circumstances.

 

The scheme is considered to present an appropriate address to Dolphin Street through minimal setback to a secondary frontage on a corner site. The Dolphin Street setback is supported in respect of the DCP.

 

5.2.2   Side & rear setbacks

Side setback controls

Residential flat buildings and Multi dwelling housing

i)       Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below for residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing:

 

Site Frontage Width

Minimum Side Setbacks

 

Less than 12m

Merit assessment

 

ii)      Incorporate additional side setbacks to the building over and above the above minimum standards, in order to:

 

-   Create articulations to the building facades.

-   Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

-   Provide building separation.

-   Improve visual amenity and outlook from the development and adjoining residences.

-   Provide visual and acoustic privacy for the development and the adjoining residences.

-   Ensure solar access and natural ventilation for the development and the adjoining residences.

 

Rear setback controls

i)       For residential flat buildings and multi-dwelling housing, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

 

ii)      For attached dwellings, provide a minimum rear setback of 25% of the allotment depth or 8m, whichever is the lesser. Any garages fronting rear lanes may encroach upon the rear setback areas.

 

iii)     The required rear setback may be varied in the following scenarios:

 

-   Allotments with an irregular shape.

-   Allotments with the longest boundary abutting the street or the rear adjoining neighbour (that is, the frontage width being longer than the site depth).

-   Allotments with the rear boundary abutting a laneway. 

-   A central courtyard is provided in the development.

 

The scheme provides 1500mm and 1000mm setback to northern and western shared boundaries, respectively. Being a corner lot, aach boundary could be feasibly interpreted as either a rear or side setback and is consequently discussed in the context of each, below.

 

The lot has a width of 9.45 metres and is therefore subject to a merit assessment where side setbacks are concerned under the DCP. A rear setback would impose a more onerous seven (7) metre setback, if the controls are to be interpreted as such in the corner lot context. Imposing the rear setback control would have effect of prohibiting the proposal in this instance.

 

The setbacks provided to both northern and western boundaries, regardless of rear or side interpretation, are considered sufficient in achieving adequate building separation. The location of the proposed building at the western end of the lot allows that the nearest building on an adjoining site occurs at least five (5) metres away. The siting also establishes a two (2) block with courtyard configuration, identified in the site planning guidelines of the DCP.

 

Further, the proposed setbacks afforded to both north and west elevation do not eventuate in any unreasonable impacts of bulk and scale, particularly given compliance is also achieved to the proposal in respect of floor area, building height and wall height.  The design of the building reduces bulk and scale evident to adjoining sites, with the upper floor contained within the roof form and landscaping provided within each side setback.

 

The scheme allows that minimal environmental impacts are imposed as a result of the proposed north and west setbacks. The orientation of the site is such that solar access is reduced only to Dolphin Street itself, not adjoining sites. Privacy measures have been employed to avoid overlooking of habitable rooms and private open spaces to the north and west.

 

Should the controls be interpreted as such, the strict application of the rear setback control on this site is not considered reasonable in the circumstances, given the building provides a logical address to Dolphin Street and is able to minimise resultant environmental impacts to adjoining sites.

 

The setbacks proposed to both the northern and western boundaries are considered on merit to be acceptable, and will not eventuate in any unreasonable impacts upon the streetscape or adjoining sites.

 

5.2.3   Rear setback

The proposal occupies a corner site at the intersection of Carrington and Dolphin Streets. In this circumstance the site could fesiably be intereted to have two (2) rear or two (2) side boundaries.

 

The propsoed northern and western setbacks

 

5.3      External wall height and ceiling height

Objectives

·      To ensure that the building form provides for interesting roof forms and is compatible with the streetscape.

 

·      To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces.

 

·      To control the bulk and scale of development and minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity.      

 

Controls

ii)    Where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies.

                                                                      

iii)   The minimum ceiling height is to be 2.7m for all habitable rooms.

 

The DCP identifies 10.5 metres in wall height may be achieved on the subject site, given it is subject a 12 metre overall height limit. The design proposes a maximum extent of wall height of approximately 8.6 metres, occurring to the north elevation of the building, compliant with the above controls.

 

The proposed extent of wall height occurs as the design compensates for falling topography in a northerly direction. When viewed from Dolphin Street or the western elevation the building achieves less than eight metres in wall height, of which the DCP considers reasonable in the lower density R2 zone.

 

The building has been appropriately articulated to reduce apparent mass and achieve a human scale. Importantly the upper storey being contained within the roof form avoids any dominance of the building and reduces bulk and scale implications.

 

The wall height variation is not expected to have any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts of shadow, privacy or view loss. The bulk and scale of the building will remain well within the bounds of that characterised by existing development in the immediate visual catchment.

 

In respect of ceiling height, the proposal entails 2700mm to living areas at ground floor and 2400mm to bedrooms at upper floor level. Despite the proposed variation, the marginally lower ceiling height at upper floor, where bedrooms are located, allows that building and wall height are minimised. The upper floor is expected to maintain a satisfactory level of internal amenity and is acceptable.

 

The proposal is supported in respect of the provisions of the DCP.

 

5.4      Solar access

Objectives

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

 

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

 

Controls

Solar access for surrounding development

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).

Solar access was raised as a concern during the notification period.

 

The subject site is oriented east- west, with neighbouring sites to the north and west only. The proposed bulk is located at the very western end of the site.

 

As a result of the site orientation and siting of the building, the resulting shadow will be cast predominantly upon Dolphin Street and the adjacent footpath. A marginal amount of morning shadow will reach the eastern landscaped setback of 39- 41 Dolphin Street, in the morning hours only. No shadow is evident to this site beyond roughly 12 noon.

 

As such, both living and landscaped areas of the adjoining buildings will not see any notable shadow impact as a result of the proposed development.

 

5.5      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):

 

a.  Translucent or obscured glazing

b.  Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically

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

d.  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. 

 

In respect of privacy to adjoining sites, the floor levels within the building will provide opportunity for overlooking from north, east and west elevations. South elevation windows allow overlooking of the street and as such do not introduce any significant visual privacy implications.

 

First floor openings

The proposal notes that at first floor level, all windows are obscured to a minimum of 1500mm above finished floor level. This method is consistent with that identified in the above controls and as such, the upper floor openings are acceptable in respect of privacy.

 

Ground floor openings

Ground floor windows have been obscured to the north elevation, where the fall of the land eventuates in a significantly elevated floor level and windows are within 1500mm of the common boundary. The windows are provided privacy in accordance with that required by the DCP and as such, are supported.

 

Windows proposed at ground floor level on the east and west elevations are not provided any privacy measures. Both the ground floor location and orientation of the windows are generally considered to eventuate in reasonable privacy outcome. An exception exists to an east elevation kitchen window, which faces the habitable spaces of 230 Carrington Road. Standard privacy measures up to 1500mm are recommended to be applied to this window.

 

The proposed ground floor balcony faces east, toward the existing building and has aspect to the north and south. The north aspect and a component of the east is provided a 1500mm high privacy screen to prevent overlooking of the open space of 230 Carrington Road, consistent with the requirements of the DCP.

 

The proposal has been provided suitable privacy measures that are expected to eventuate in an acceptable privacy outcome to adjoining sites and occupants of the building. Subject to the above discussed condition, the outcome is consistent with that to be expected in a medium density residential context and as such is supported by this assessment.

 

5.6      Parking

Objectives

·      To ensure the location and configuration of car parking are integrated with the site planning and building design.

 

·      To ensure that car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or adversely detract from the streetscape character.

 

·      To minimise hard paved surfaces occupied by driveways and parking, so as to maximise opportunities for deep soil planting and permeable surfaces.

 

·      To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not pose undue safety risks on building occupants, pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

 

5.6.1   Location

Controls

i)    Car parking facilities must be accessed off rear lanes or secondary street frontages where available.

 

iii)   The location of car parking and access facilities must minimise the length of driveways and extent of impermeable surfaces within the site.

 

iv)   Setback driveways a minimum of 1m from the side boundary. Provide landscape planting within the setback areas.

 

Where the adjoining property has its driveway abutting the common boundary, the new driveway may be built to that boundary. In this scenario, a combined crossing must be created to serve the two neighbouring properties.

 

v)    For residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing, comply with the following:

 

(a) Car parking must be provided underground in a basement or semi-basement for new development.

(b) On grade (surface) car park may be considered for sites potentially affected by flooding. In this scenario, the car park must be located on the side or rear of the allotment away from the primary street frontage.

 

5.6.2   Configuration

i)    For residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing, the maximum width of driveway is 6m. In addition, the width of driveway must be tapered towards the street boundary as much as possible. 

 

ii)    Where on-grade (surface) car park cannot be avoided, incorporate the parking area into the landscape design of the site:

 

(a) Use planting to screen the parking areas from view from the communal and private open space and the public domain.

(b) Provide canopy or shade trees among parking bays.

(c) Use a combination of paving materials to divide the parking surface.

 

The site does not presently benefit from any off-street parking. The proposed additional unit, being a two (2) bedroom dwelling within a multi unit development requires 1.2 spaces be provided. Council cannot require the existing parking deficiency on the site be resolved through this application.

 

The scheme provides for a single car garage to the proposed new dwelling. The garage is accessed via a three (3) metre wide crossing from the secondary Dolphin Street frontage. The garage is recessed one (1) metre from the boundary to minimise dominance and has been effectively integrated within the design of the building.

 

The proposed garage and driveway crossing are of minimal width and as such, the scheme seeks to avoid any dominance of the streetscape. The width of the crossing enables minimal on street parking to be compromised as a result. The garage generally satisfies the parking rate necessary for the proposed new two (2) bedroom dwelling.

 

Council Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal and considered the proposed parking situation to be acceptable, in respect of safety.

 

The proposed driveway and garage situation is considered satisfactory in respect of the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP.

 

5.7      Preservation of Trees and Vegetation

Objectives

·      To effectively protect the urban forest in Randwick City, with particular emphasis on retaining trees with cultural, heritage and natural significance.

 

·      To encourage the preservation of trees and vegetation that contribute to native flora and fauna habitat.

 

·      To establish a clear framework and requirements for the proper management of trees and other vegetation.

 

The issue of biodiversity protection was raised during the notification process. Submissions generally reiterate the importance of the existing tree at 230A Carrington Road in providing privacy, outlook and noise attenuation.

 

Section B5 of the DCP identifies aims to protect those trees of particular significance and encourage retention of others where possible. The proposed tree removal has been reviewed by Council’s Landscape Development Engineer, who has provided further discussion of trees in the Compliance Report, attached.

 

The subject trees have not been deemed to be of an importance that their presence should prevent the proposed development and as such, their removal is not opposed. It should be noted that the tree of most notable size located on the subject site is supported for removal purely on the grounds of safety, even irrespective of the proposed works. Recommended conditions require it’s replacement with a native species in the central open space of the site.

 

Landscaping and deep soil area is provided in compliance with the requirements of the DCP, thus allowing opportunity for planting, drainage and absorption to the level expected by Council.

 

It is not considered the presence of the subject trees on the site presents sufficient grounds to prohibit the proposed development. The landscaping and deep soil outcome proposed is considered to be consistent that expected in a medium density residential environment and responds satisfactorily to site constraints.

 

The proposal is supported in respect of this section of the DCP, subject to the conditions discussed.

 

6.        Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2007, is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$330,000.00

1.0%

$3,300.00

 

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 Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/632/2013 for construction and strata sudivision of a detached building to the rear of the existing flat building, containing a two (2) bedroom dwelling with one (1) car space and an open subfloor area at No. 230A Carrington Road, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non- standard conditions

 

Privacy measures

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

 

a.     On the east elevation, the northern-most kitchen window shown on the approved plans shall be raised or obscured to a minimum of 1500mm above finished floor level;

 

Further to the above privacy measures, obscuring may be achieved through raising sill heights or use of opaque/frosted glass, at the preference of the applicant.

 

3.     The undercroft area on the lower ground floor plan shall not be used for storage below RL 19.7 AHD.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 239A Carrington Road, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 13 May 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D48/14

 

 

Subject:                  10-16 Bream Street, Coogee (DA/656/2011/C)

Folder No:                   DA/656/2011/C

Author:                   Roger Quinton, Coordinator Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Review of trial operating hours at Shop 4 – X74 Cafe

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Mr T Hughes

Owner:                         Mr N Mandic & Mrs A Mandic

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

Introduction

 

This report constitutes a review of the trial operating hours of the café located at shop 4, 10-16 Bream Street which trades as X74 Café. The review is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

Development consent was granted at the Ordinary Council meeting on 26 March 2013 to Section 96 modification DA/656/2011/C for an extension of the operating hours of the café and the outdoor dining area associated with the café.

 

Condition (9) of the development consent reads as follows:

 

The operating hours of the café and the outdoor dining area must be restricted to the following and are subject to a review in accordance with Section 80A (10B) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Division 14 of the Environmental & Assessment Regulation 2000:

 

·      Monday-Sunday: 7:00am – 10:00pm

 

The operating hours will be reviewed by Council within 12 months of the date of commencement of the extended hours of operation. The operator of the premises must advise Council in writing of the date of commencement of the extended hours of operation. Appropriate supporting evidence (including but not limited to, relevant acoustics measurements) must be provided at the end of the review period to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of this consent as part of this review.

 

The hours of operation for the café and the footpath dining prior to the approval of Section 96 modification DA/656/2011/C were detailed in condition (9) which read as follows:

 

The hours of operation of the premises are restricted to:

 

Internal Seating:

Sunday to Thursday:                  7:00am – 9:00pm

Friday and Saturday                   7:00am – 10:00pm

 

Footpath Dining:

Monday – Sunday                      7:00am – 5:00pm

 

All food services to customers in footway dining area shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the area and all outdoor furniture is to be removed within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

The above hours form the “base” hours of permitted operation of the café. If consent was to be refused to continue the extended hours of operation of the café, the opening hours would then have to revert to the base hours of operation.  The café has been operating under the extended hours since 10 April 2013.

 

Council informed the applicant by letter on 5 March 2014 that a review of the trial operating period was being commenced and that an acoustic report and details of any complaints received during the extended hours of operation were required.  The applicant submitted this information on 26 March 2014. The operator of the café did not receive any complaints during the period of extended hours of operation, although one complaint was received by Council.


Site

The subject site is located on the southern side of Bream Street, between Carrington Road and Melody Street. The subject site is rectangular in shape with a width of approximately 21.35 metres and a depth of 50.29 metres with an overall site area of 1073 square metres.

 

Neighbouring the property to the east is an existing residential flat building, to the west is a mixed use development with commercial tenancy on the ground floor and to the north are single residential dwellings. The surrounding locality contains a mixture of low to high density residential dwellings and mixed use ground floor commercial developments with residential above.

 

Application History

DA/656/2011:

A Development Application for the fit-out of an existing cafe including new bi-fold doors, servery and associated works, with internal seating for 20 persons, footpath dining for 10 persons and rear courtyard seating for 10 persons was approved under delegated authority on 15 November 2011.

 

DA/656/2011/A

A Section 96 modification for the deletion of deferred commencement condition 3 relating to the deletion of the bi-fold doors at the front of the premises and to amend condition 63 which relates to the siting and location of the outdoor dining was approved under delegated authority on 10 January 2012.

 

DA/656/2011/B

A Section 96 modification to consolidate footpath dining area and increase seats within footpath dining area to 14 was approved under delegated authority on the 13 September 2012.

 

DA/656/2011/C

A Section 96 modification to amend Condition (9) to allow trading to 10.00 pm seven days, including outdoor dining area and deletion of Condition (75) to allow bi-fold doors and windows to remain open during full trading hours was approved at the Ordinary Council meeting on 26 March 2013 with the extension of the trading hours being subject to a twelve month trial period.  

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed by letter dated 2 April 2014, as were any submitters to DA/656/2011/C. The following submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

Issue

Comment

No address supplied:

 

The operation of the café in this location adds to an existing parking problem in the area. Council’s parking restrictions in the area do not work and parking rangers do not adequately police the locality.

Randwick DCP 2013 requires the provision of carpark if the proposal involves an increase in floor space or change of use. This did not involve either of the above circumstances. Council’s Manager Integrated Traffic has been advised of concerns regarding on-street parking restrictions as has the Coordinator of Council’s Rangers concerning their policing of the area.  

 


Technical Officers Comments

Reference is made to Council's review of the trial operating hours for the subject premises.

 

Council's Environmental Health Team had received a complaint in relation to the noise from the use of the outdoor dining area in July 2013 and subsequently an acoustic assessment was conducted in the evening periods from the nearest affected resident upstairs and across the road. The acoustic assessment concluded that the premises was operating in a manner that complied with the acoustic criteria. No further complaints in relation to noise from the operation of this premises were received by Council following this incident.

 

For the purposes of this review an acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Dynamics Pty Ltd (Project 3278) dated 20 March 2014 was provided to Council. This acoustic assessment was conducted at a time representative of the busiest period of use of the outdoor area which was at full capacity with 14 patrons. Measurements were taken from the nearest affected residents upstairs and across the road and the acoustic consultants conclude that noise emission resulting from the operation of the subject premises achieves compliance with the applicable acoustic criteria and requirements.

 

No additional conditions have been recommended as part of this review.

 

Key Issues

Noise and anti-social behaviour   

As detailed above, the acoustic report submitted by the applicant as part of this review stated that noise generated by the café was within acceptable levels. Council’s Environmental Health Officer concurs with the conclusions of the report.

 

One complaint was received by Council approximately three months after the commencement of the extended hours of operation of the café. The complaint coincided with the applicant providing a further acoustic report to meet Condition (77) of the consent, which was for the provision of an acoustic report with 3 months of the commencement of use of the outdoor dining area. Council’s Environmental Health Officers were satisfied with the conclusions of the acoustic report that the business was operating satisfactorily and that noise levels were acceptable. 

 

No instances of anti-social behaviour have been reported to Council since the commencement of the extended hours of operation.

 

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 operation of Café X74 for extended hours during the trial period has not resulted in adverse noise or other impacts. It is recommended that Café X74 be permitted to operate for the extended hours on a permanent basis.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, under section 80A (10B) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 amends Condition (9) of development consent DA/656/2011/C as follows:

 

(9)      The operating hours of the café and outdoor dining area must be restricted to the following:

 

·           Monday – Sunday: 7:00am – 10:00pm

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil